Julia Hoffmann on DO Impact, Data Governance and Social Impact Assessment
Within the DO Impact pathway, focused on the relationship between the social economy, data, digitalisation and artificial intelligence, Julia Hoffmann took part in the broader project journey as an external consultant involved in the KönCeRT experience, while also bringing the perspective of her professional work through RUDI | Risorse Umane Dirette e Indirette.
Her participation covered the wider learning and exchange process developed within DO Impact, which she was able to join thanks to the application and selection process supported by a European contribution. This included the activities connected to the Italian pathway: the meetings hosted by Torino Social Impact, the online sessions, the two days in Milan dedicated to data, AI, bias, collaborative data sharing and governance in the social economy, and the European exchange moments in Brussels.
The Italian DO Impact pathway is part of a wider European network led by Fondazione Piemonte Innova, bringing together partners from Italy, Spain, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden and the European social economy ecosystem. Alongside organisations such as Torino Social Impact, Politecnico di Milano – TIRESIA, Diesis Network and other European partners, the pathway created a space to connect innovation, research, digital transformation, social impact and practical experimentation.
We spoke with Julia about her learning experience throughout the project, made possible through this European-supported pathway, and the insights that emerged from the Italian activities — from the meetings in Turin and the online sessions to the two days in Milan hosted by Politecnico di Milano – TIRESIA and the European exchange in Brussels hosted by Diesis Network. The conversation explored why social economy organisations need not only digital tools, but also stronger capacities to govern data, value and impact.
Julia, from which perspective did you take part in the DO Impact pathway?
I took part in DO Impact from a twofold perspective.
On the one hand, I was there as an external consultant involved in the KönCeRT pathway, a Renewable Energy Community experience that connects energy transition, community governance and social value.
On the other hand, I brought the perspective of my work through RUDI, the consulting practice I founded to support third sector organisations, public administrations, foundations, social enterprises, energy communities and impact-oriented organisations in building strategies, social impact assessment models, reporting systems, stakeholder engagement processes and economic sustainability.
For me, DO Impact was not only a training opportunity on data, digitalisation and AI. It was a space to reflect on how the social economy can approach these tools without losing sight of values, governance, democratic participation and the common good.
What was the main value of the DO Impact experience for you?
The main value was the possibility to hold together two dimensions that are often separated: simplification and complexity.
Social economy organisations need accessible and usable tools. At the same time, the challenges they face are complex: ecological transition, inequalities, digitalisation, economic sustainability, accountability, governance and impact measurement.
DO Impact made this tension very visible. It showed that the issue is not simply whether social economy organisations should use artificial intelligence, data or digital platforms. The deeper question is: what kind of social economy are we strengthening through these tools?
This was one of the strongest learning points for me. The social economy should not be afraid of complexity, but it needs methods, languages and governance frameworks to make complexity understandable and actionable.
Which reflections from the two days stayed with you the most?
One of the strongest reflections came from the discussion introduced by Prof. Mario Calderini on the relationship between social economy, data, platforms and governance.
What I found particularly relevant was the warning against a purely pragmatic approach to innovation. Social economy organisations are often very good at responding to concrete needs. This is one of their strengths. But if they only focus on solving immediate problems, they may lose sight of the structural conditions that generate those problems.
The discussion also raised a crucial question: what happens when the social economy starts using data, infrastructures and platforms that are often built within economic models based on concentration, opacity and extraction?
For me, this is essential. Data can be powerful, but they are not neutral. Platforms can enable collaboration, but they can also centralise power. AI can support analysis, but it can also reproduce existing inequalities.
So the point is not to reject data or technology. The point is to ask: which governance do we need in order to use them coherently with the values of the social economy?
The workshop on AI biases was very practical. What did it add to your understanding?
The workshop on AI biases in the social economy was extremely useful because it moved the discussion from theory to practice.
Through the exercises, we could see how bias can emerge in very concrete ways: in translations, in profiling tasks, in the way different AI tools answer the same prompt, and in the assumptions embedded in apparently simple outputs.
This is particularly relevant for social economy organisations, because they often work with people and communities who may already be underrepresented, marginalised or misrepresented in data systems.
What I learned is that AI literacy cannot only be technical. It must be critical, organisational and ethical. It requires human supervision, verification of sources, awareness of implicit assumptions, and the capacity to question the outputs of the system.
For organisations working for the common good, the question is not only “can this tool help us work faster?”. The question is also “what does this tool make visible, what does it hide, and what kind of decision does it support?”.
And what about the work on collaborative data sharing?
The workshop on collaborative forms of data sharing was another key moment for me.
It helped us ask very concrete questions: which data do we already have within our organisation? Which data would be useful and why? Who owns or controls these data? With whom would we need to collaborate? Which form of data sharing is most appropriate? And, above all, how do we design the governance of data sharing?
This is fundamental because different forms of data sharing respond to different needs. A data cooperative, a data trust, a data commons, a data collaborative or a data space are not the same thing. They imply different forms of ownership, control, governance, sovereignty and participation.
For me, this was one of the clearest connections with impact assessment. Data are useful only if they are connected to purpose, governance and responsibility. Otherwise, we risk producing more information without producing better decisions.
How does this learning connect with your work through RUDI?
RUDI works in the space between methodology and application: between vision and tools, between values and indicators, between social purpose and economic sustainability.
Many organisations generate important value, but they struggle to make it visible, understandable and communicable. They often describe what they do in terms of activities, projects or outputs, while the deeper change they generate remains less visible.
Through RUDI, I support organisations in building models that make this value more readable. This includes Theory of Change, social impact assessment, SDG alignment, stakeholder mapping, indicator systems, reporting models and impact communication.
The DO Impact pathway confirmed something very important for my work: impact assessment is not only a final measurement exercise. It is a strategic and governance tool. It helps organisations understand what kind of change they want to generate, for whom, with which resources, through which processes and with what evidence.
You were involved in DO Impact through the KönCeRT pathway. Why is this experience relevant?
KönCeRT is a meaningful example because a Renewable Energy Community is not only a technical infrastructure. It can also become a social infrastructure.
It produces and shares renewable energy, but it can also generate participation, redistribution, trust, environmental education, community decision-making capacity and territorial value.
Within this pathway, RUDI is responsible for the social impact assessment, including SDG alignment. The aim is to understand and communicate the social, territorial and community value generated by the Energy Community.
This means looking beyond energy production or economic incentives and asking: what changes does the Energy Community generate for people and communities? How does it strengthen participation? How can it contribute to reducing energy poverty? How can it support a more democratic and distributive ecological transition?
How is the work structured between RUDI and the technological partners?
The work is based on complementary competences.
Alpin Vision works on the technological and data-driven dimension, collecting and structuring the data needed to understand the functioning of the Energy Community.
RUDI, instead, focuses on social impact assessment. We integrate the available data, stakeholder engagement and SDG alignment into a broader interpretation of the value generated by the Energy Community.
The value does not lie only in the data itself, but in the ability to interpret it, connect it with social objectives and use it to support better decisions.
In this sense, data can become a bridge between technical performance, social value and community governance.
Why are SDGs relevant in the assessment of a Renewable Energy Community?
The SDGs help place a local project within a broader framework of sustainable development.
A Renewable Energy Community obviously contributes to environmental goals, especially those related to clean energy and climate action. But its potential goes further. It can also connect with poverty reduction, reduced inequalities, sustainable communities, responsible consumption, partnerships and institutional capacity.
This is why RUDI includes SDG alignment in the social impact assessment. The objective is not to use the SDGs as a decorative framework, but to understand how a local experience contributes to systemic change.
A Renewable Energy Community can become a concrete laboratory where ecological transition, social inclusion, economic redistribution and participatory governance meet.
You often speak about the “dimensions” of impact. What do you mean?
A project oriented towards the common good rarely produces only one type of impact. It usually generates change on several levels.
In RUDI’s work, we often analyse impact through different dimensions: social, environmental, economic, democratic, cultural, educational and territorial.
This multidimensional approach is essential because impact cannot always be reduced to a single number. Some changes can be measured quantitatively. Others need qualitative evidence, stakeholder narratives, participatory processes and contextual interpretation.
This is particularly relevant for projects such as Renewable Energy Communities, cultural initiatives or territorial innovation processes, where the value generated is not only technical or economic, but also relational, social and civic.
Can you give examples of other impact assessment pathways developed by RUDI?
Yes. RUDI has worked on different impact assessment pathways, each requiring a method adapted to the nature of the project.
With Officina Acrobatica, the assessment focused on a cultural, artistic and social experience, making visible the value generated by artistic practices, residencies, training activities and stakeholder relationships.
With Sud Sonico and AVANT Festival, the focus was on the impact of a cultural and music project in relation to young people, territory, creative ecosystems, cultural regeneration and local networks.
With KönCeRT, the context is different again: here the assessment is connected to Renewable Energy Communities, ecological transition, SDGs, community governance and the social use of value generated through energy-related mechanisms.
The common thread is the same: how can we make visible the value generated by projects that do not only produce outputs, but contribute to social, cultural, environmental, territorial and relational change?
How does impact assessment connect with fundraising, strategic philanthropy and impact finance?
For RUDI, social impact assessment is not only a way to report on the value already generated. It is also a way to make projects more understandable and credible for actors willing to direct resources towards measurable social and environmental objectives.
In this perspective, impact assessment becomes a bridge between fundraising, strategic philanthropy and impact finance. Fundraising helps mobilise donations, grants and community support. Strategic philanthropy can provide patient, mission-oriented resources to strengthen organisations and test innovative models. Impact investing and impact finance can support the development and scaling of initiatives able to demonstrate both social value and economic sustainability.
The point is not to financialise the common good. On the contrary, it is to prevent social and territorial projects from remaining fragile, undercapitalised or dependent only on episodic funding.
In the case of KönCeRT, one of the directions currently being explored by the working group coordinated by Giulio Pesenti Campagnoni is the possible development of a Solidarity Fund: a mechanism through which part of the value generated by the Energy Community could be oriented towards social and territorial purposes.
This is still a design and reflection area, but it opens up a concrete question: how can the economic value generated by a Renewable Energy Community be governed, redistributed and connected to the real needs of the territory?
What is the main message you take from the DO Impact pathway?
The main message is that the digital transformation of the social economy is not only a matter of tools. It is a matter of governing value.
Data, AI, indicators and digital platforms can strengthen the social economy only if they are embedded in governance models capable of preserving values, guiding decisions and making visible the impact generated for people, communities and territories.
The social economy must not be subordinate to technological change. It should contribute to orienting it.
This requires critical literacy, methodological quality, participatory governance and the ability to connect data with social purpose.
If you had to summarise your contribution in one sentence, what would it be?
RUDI helps common-good-oriented projects make their impact visible by connecting values, data, SDGs, indicators, governance, impact finance and communication.
The goal is to transform complex territorial experiences into readable, assessable and replicable models capable of generating a non-extractive, distributive and regenerative economy.
Short bio
Julia Hoffmann is the Founder of RUDI | Risorse Umane Dirette e Indirette. She supports third sector organisations, public administrations, foundations, social enterprises, energy communities and impact-oriented organisations in developing strategies, social impact assessments, reporting models, stakeholder engagement processes, economic sustainability, impact finance readiness and accountability.
Through RUDI, she works to make visible and communicable the value generated by systemic common-good-oriented projects, integrating SDGs, indicators, governance, impact finance and impact communication. She is involved as an external consultant in the KönCeRT pathway, where RUDI is responsible for the social impact assessment, including SDG alignment, while Alpin Vision supports the technological and data-driven dimension.