What we measure ultimately shapes what we build — and the future we leave behind.

Governor Maura Healey has made Massachusetts a national leader in climate action and environmental justice. Her administration has pushed for cleaner energy, greener infrastructure, and more equitable investment — while the state’s environmental advocates have kept policymakers on their toes, demanding that progress be both measurable and meaningful.

The following ideas explore how we can take metrics to the next level in policymaking — helping both government officials and advocates make stronger, fairer, and more accountable decisions for our shared future.

Every policymaker faces the same dilemma: how to balance limited budgets, competing priorities, and political realities while still delivering measurable progress. The problem isn’t a lack of good intentions — it’s the lack of consistent, transparent tools for comparing impact across projects. Massachusetts, like other states, already uses performance and environmental metrics to guide investments. But many of these frameworks were designed decades ago, before climate resilience, health equity, and community empowerment were central policy goals.

Updating these tools doesn’t mean discarding what works — it means refining how we measure success so that every dollar moves us closer to a sustainable, just economy.

Imagine if we evaluated energy and environmental investments with the same rigor as financial portfolios — not only in dollars spent, but in lives improved, emissions reduced, and ecosystems restored. That’s the promise of next-generation impact metrics.

Social Impact Rate of Return (SIRR)

SIRR calculates how the social benefits of an investment — such as reduced carbon emissions or improved health outcomes — compare to its costs over time, encouraging policymakers to prioritize initiatives with measurable long-term value. By integrating SIRR into grant scoring systems, projects with high community benefits earn additional weight. For example, a statewide home weatherization program may appear costly upfront, but when SIRR is applied, its benefits — lower energy bills, improved air quality, and reduced asthma rates — reveal a far higher long-term return.

Impact Multiple of Money (IMM)

IMM measures how much social or environmental value is created per dollar invested, identifying which programs deliver the greatest “impact efficiency.” Requiring IMM analysis for major bond-funded or infrastructure projects ensures investments are evaluated on total value, not just cost. Electrifying Massachusetts’s MBTA bus fleet, for instance, could yield $4 –$6 in health and climate benefits for every $1 invested — a clear case for accelerating clean transit.

Total Societal Impact (TSI)

TSI integrates financial, social, and environmental outcomes into one composite score, aligning investments with statewide goals such as resilience, affordability, and equity. States can apply TSI to cross-agency initiatives like coastal restoration or housing resilience programs to evaluate cumulative benefits, helping to ensure decisions serve long-term community well-being.

Triple Bottom Line (TBL)

TBL balances People, Planet, and Profit — ensuring projects benefit communities and ecosystems, not just economies. By building TBL into procurement and contracting, Massachusetts can reward vendors that deliver measurable social and environmental gains, fostering a culture of holistic policymaking that links economic growth with environmental stewardship.

Seeing the Whole Picture

When municipalities applied for solar grants several years ago, proposals were ranked primarily by lowest cost per kilowatt. That approach rewarded scale but overlooked social equity.

Community-based solar projects — often located in low-income neighborhoods — struggled to compete despite providing local jobs, reduced utility costs, and energy independence. If SIRR or TBL metrics had been applied, these community projects would have scored higher for their broader impact, ensuring state investments reached those who need them most. That single shift in measurement could have changed both who benefited and how we define success.

Alongside these frameworks, policymakers and advocates can track more specific indicators such as carbon emissions reduced (tons of CO₂ avoided or captured), renewable energy capacity (megawatt-hours generated from clean sources), water and waste reduction (gallons saved and tons diverted from landfills), environmental justice impact (reductions in racial and geographic disparities), and workforce development (green jobs and apprenticeships created in underrepresented communities). Metrics like these turn values into data — and data into accountability.

No metric can erase the political realities of governing. Compromise, negotiation, and limited budgets are part of the democratic process. But better data can make those trade-offs clearer — and easier to defend. Transparent metrics empower policymakers to show taxpayers and legislators why a certain investment delivers the most impact per dollar. As one Massachusetts official recently noted, “Data doesn’t end the debate — it makes it honest.” That’s the spirit in which smarter metrics can thrive.

Massachusetts has long been a laboratory for progressive policy. Now it can lead again — by pioneering a new era of evidence-based, equity-centered environmental governance.

Environmental activists can continue pushing for justice and accountability; policymakers can respond with data that proves results. Together, they can ensure that progress is not just promised, but measured, visible, and shared.

Ed Gaskin is Executive Director of Greater Grove Hall Main Streets and founder of Sunday Celebrations