Earlier this summer, the Charity Commission announced it would direct part of its £8m funding boost towards improving impact reporting across the sector. At first glance, this is welcome news, as chief executive David Holdsworth rightly noted, tighter public finances make demonstrating impact more important than ever.

And, on face value, it’s hard to argue with that…

The phrase impact reporting often conjures up images of weighty documents, packed with statistics and attention-grabbing graphics designed to prove why that organisation deserves ongoing financial support. With competition high and resources stretched, it’s tempting to throw everything into the report.

Yet more does not always mean better. A louder voice or a larger budget does not automatically translate to greater impact. Sometimes it does, but not always.

What really matters is how well organisations demonstrate the difference that they are making, with evidence that is robust, messages that are authentic, and a narrative that reflects integrity throughout. That does not require length, but clarity, honesty, and a focus on substance over style. It also requires some recognition of the resources applied to deliver the impact.

So, as the Charity Commission shines a spotlight on impact reporting and a desire to improve this throughout the sector, I’d encourage organisations to think less about how they’re reporting and more about what they’re demonstrating. The two are not necessarily the same.

So, what’s the answer? Based on my experience having reviewed countless impact reports for clients and charities, here are three points worth considering:

1. Use data consistently: If one page cites a precise figure and the next a vague estimate, credibility suffers. Readers begin to question not just those numbers, but the report as a whole
2. Avoid oversimplification: Snappy statistics work on social media, but in a report can feel glib. The real test is whether your message has the depth and rigour to stand up not just today but, in the years, ahead.
3. Differentiate outputs from impact: Too often, numbers describe activity, not outcomes. Saying you’ve reached ‘2,000 people’ means little without context. Was that 2,000 food parcels, with impact lasting days, or 2,000 farming kits, with value lasting years? Similarly, bigger isn’t always better. A social care organisation providing in-depth, 24/7 care to a small number of people isn’t having less impact than the large organisation that reaches a much larger number, but possibly only as a one-off, it’s simply different. The ‘so what’ factor is so important in this respect.

Why does any of this matter? Because numbers, charts and infographics can catch attention, but if they do not show progress from where an organisation started, if they do not answer that “so what” question, and if they do not inspire confidence in those funding the work, then reports risk falling flat. In a tighter economy, that can mean donors think twice about their support.

So, let’s not interpret the Charity Commission’s focus as a call for longer, flashier reports. The goal is not more reporting; it is better reporting. The most effective impact reports are not the heaviest, but the most honest. They tell the story of progress with evidence, integrity, and authenticity.