Agenda highlights & key themes

Morning working groups (09:00–12:00 | closed‑door):

Interactive, closed-door working group sessions
(for DIMPACT participants and selected partners only).

Deep-dive discussions on:

• End-user devices and the use phase
• Publishers aligning on digital emissions
• Advertising and sustainability principles
• GenAI: member follow-up discussions

Afternoon sessions (14:00–18:00 | open ecosystem):

• Panels and talks explored the latest academic research on ICT and digital emissions, GenAI’s environmental implications, evolving policy and regulation, and practical organisational action.

• Speakers included:
  Policy & research: Elisabeth Sullivan (techUK), Mafalda Dâmaso (StreamSCAPES), Daniel Schien (ICT emissions research)
  GenAI & sustainability: Boris Gamazaychikov, Tom O’Brien (We Are AdGreen)
  Industry journeys: Tim Davis (ITV), Andri Johnston (Cambridge University Press & Assessment)

Networking and walking dinner:

The day concluded with a networking happy hour and walking dinner, using the Informa space to encourage informal, serendipitous conversations.

Regulation is tightening

• Sustainability reporting is clearly moving toward mandatory requirements, with growing interest from policymakers in product- and service‑level digital emissions, not just organisational footprints.

Digital emissions remain hard to report

• Participants highlighted ongoing challenges with Scope 3 categorisation, inconsistent supplier data, and the unresolved treatment of AI and end‑user emissions within current GHG frameworks.

Print vs. digital isn’t black and white

• While digital is generally less carbon‑intensive than print, the gap narrows when user-side emissions are included, and rising digital usage is driving emissions growth across the sector.

Efficiency gaps are a real opportunity

• Cloud inefficiencies, legacy systems and dormant accounts were identified as avoidable sources of emissions where awareness exists but action lags.

AI is a growing focus

• Publisher AI use cases differ significantly from media and broadcast models, with ongoing, user‑driven inference and indirect impacts that are not yet well captured in standard carbon accounting.

Better usage data matters

• Improving how reading time and digital usage are estimated was seen as critical for credible measurement and external reporting.

Momentum for collaboration

• The group agreed on next steps including deeper knowledge‑sharing on supplier data, alignment with emerging software carbon frameworks and a future session focused on user behaviour and sustainability.

These insights will help shape DIMPACT’s ongoing work to support publishers in navigating digital sustainability with greater clarity and impact.

Refining how AI impacts are measured

• The group explored alternatives to token‑based allocation of training emissions, particularly for video generation, and discussed more meaningful functional units such as pixel‑seconds for visual outputs.

Spotlighting underexplored areas

• While much existing research focuses on text‑based models, participants highlighted the need to address video, audio and multi‑modal generation, where model behaviour, output quality and compute intensity vary significantly.

Clarifying scope and boundaries

• Consensus emerged on including full data‑centre energy impacts (including cooling and auxiliary loads) within scope, while noting related issues such as water use, rebound effects and increasing on‑device computation.

Constructive industry engagement

• The importance of balancing transparency about limited public disclosure with a collaborative tone toward model developers was emphasised.

Positioning against existing frameworks

• The group agreed the methodology should clearly state where it aligns with established approaches and where it introduces new thinking, particularly for commercial video generation.

Grounding the work in real use cases

• Members were invited to contribute detailed examples of GenAI workflows across media, including available metrics and counterfactuals, to ensure the methodology reflects real‑world practice rather than theoretical models.

The discussion reinforced the value of shared, practitioner‑led insight in developing credible, decision‑useful guidance on AI sustainability, with further data‑gathering and collaboration planned ahead of the next phase.

A more focused way of working

• The group agreed to organise monthly meetings around a single deep‑dive topic and to develop a shared knowledge repository to capture and reuse insights across the sector.

Progress on supplier engagement

• Early trials of the supplier engagement document are underway, particularly within technology procurement, with a commitment to revisit experiences and outcomes later in the year.

AI emissions under the spotlight

• Participants compared methods for measuring AI‑related energy use, including analysis of cloud usage data and token‑based functional units, highlighting the difficulty of separating AI from non‑AI consumption.

Greater nuance in AI energy intensity

• Discussion explored how different phases of model operation, as well as prompt and output length, can significantly affect energy use, underscoring the limits of single averaged metrics.

Toward practical benchmarks

• There was strong interest in combining real‑world cloud data with token‑based approaches to establish realistic emissions ranges for AI systems operating at scale.

Building the evidence base

• Progress on AI case studies for an industry white paper was reviewed, with a need identified for more publisher‑specific examples to complement existing research.

Improving transparency from AI providers

• The group agreed to collaborate on questions and recommendations to encourage clearer disclosure of energy and emissions data from commercial AI model providers.

Clear priorities confirmed

• Five focus areas were reaffirmed for the year ahead - user behaviour, supply chain engagement, artificial intelligence, regulation and compliance, and print versus digital strategy - with AI remaining a standing agenda item.

The session laid the groundwork for a more structured and collaborative programme of work, beginning with a February deep dive on regulation and compliance.

Project launch and timeline

• The group aligned on objectives and milestones for the generative AI environmental impact white paper, with Phase One focused on mapping the landscape and producing an interim report by mid‑March 2026.

Building the right expertise

• Plans were put in place to assemble an expert working group spanning carbon accounting, AI deployment, video production and green algorithms, with participants contributing suggestions to fill key knowledge gaps.

Prioritising video generation use cases

• The group explored text‑to‑video and image‑to‑video approaches, agreeing that final prioritisation should reflect real commercial practice and focus on applications where AI genuinely substitutes existing production activities.

Defining meaningful counterfactuals

• Participants emphasised the need for realistic comparisons, positioning AI against modern production alternatives such as virtual production and visual effects, rather than simplistic “AI vs traditional” framings.

Data challenges acknowledged

• Significant gaps remain in high‑quality, comparable data for video and audio generation. The group agreed the work should focus on orders of magnitude and relative differences, supported by a mix of primary partnerships and existing research.

Scope beyond video noted

• While video generation will be the primary focus for quantitative analysis in Phase One, other GenAI applications - including text, image and audio use cases - will be captured in the literature review to inform future research.

Strong commitment to collaboration

• Participants volunteered to support expert review, data sourcing and amplification of draft outputs, reinforcing the shared ambition to develop transparent, decision‑useful guidance.

The session set a clear direction for the work ahead, combining methodological rigour with real‑world relevance.

Shaping the AI sustainability narrative

• The group discussed how publisher‑specific AI use cases - such as discovery tools, knowledge management, translation and editorial support - differ from broadcaster and streaming use cases, and the importance of ensuring these are meaningfully represented in forthcoming AI research.

Focusing on relevant AI use cases

• Rather than headline content generation, participants highlighted embedded and operational AI uses within publishing products and workflows as priority areas for deeper analysis.

Counterfactuals and real impact

• Significant discussion centred on how to assess AI’s environmental impact relative to what it replaces, acknowledging that counterfactuals vary widely by use case and introduce challenging boundary and lifecycle questions.

Navigating uncertainty and rebound effects

• The group reflected on the tension between theoretically robust consequential analysis and what is practical, communicable and useful for organisational decision‑making and Scope 3 targets.

Indirect and downstream impacts

• Participants raised challenges around limited transparency when publisher content is used by third‑party AI systems, making indirect use‑phase emissions particularly difficult to estimate.

Supplier data realities

• Feedback on the supplier data request form highlighted mixed experiences between procurement and sustainability teams, with strong interest in the tool but recognition of supplier capacity limits, particularly for large cloud providers.

Product vs corporate footprints

• The session underscored the importance of clearly distinguishing between product carbon footprints and suppliers’ wider corporate emissions when asking for data.

Iterative, collaborative approach agreed

• The group supported refining the supplier data request process over time, including the idea of optional modules for different supplier types, and using the tool as a learning and engagement mechanism rather than a one‑off request.

The session reinforced the need for pragmatic, publisher‑led approaches to AI sustainability, grounded in real use cases, transparent about uncertainty, and focused on informing better design and procurement decisions as the landscape continues to evolve.

A shared framework for action

• The group agreed a five‑point considerations framework for content providers, covering user behaviour insights, device differences, avoidable energy waste, life‑cycle thinking, and external dependencies such as regulation and market trends.

Importance of user behaviour and context

• Participants emphasised that the impact of interventions varies widely by device type, connectivity and usage patterns, and that timing and context (e.g. peak vs off‑peak viewing) can materially affect outcomes.

Focus on avoidable waste

• Reducing unnecessary energy use through default settings and device behaviour (such as preventing unintended device activation) was highlighted as a practical area where providers can have influence.

Need for nuance and realism

• The group stressed the importance of distinguishing between attributional and consequential impacts, and of clearly explaining when interventions make little difference despite common assumptions.

Challenging assumptions

• Several widely cited claims, such as differences between Wi‑Fi and cellular energy use, were flagged for further validation before being treated as settled knowledge.

Clear separation of knowns and unknowns

• Agreement was reached to continue developing a structured view of what is well evidenced versus what remains uncertain, with clear sourcing for all “known” statements.

Preparing for external engagement

• Once internal alignment is complete, the group plans to use the frameworks as a basis for dialogue with external standards bodies and industry groups.

The session established a strong foundation for developing clear, evidence‑based guidance on end‑user devices, with further work planned to build case studies, validate assumptions and extend engagement in early 2026.

Clear project focus agreed

• The group confirmed that the initial scope will concentrate on energy use and related carbon emissions, recognising these as the most material and measurable impacts across media AI workflows.

Media‑specific lens prioritised

• The work will focus on AI used in media and content production, such as video generation and related processes, rather than general enterprise or office AI use.

Key research questions defined

• Participants refined the core questions the project will address, including how best to define functional units, set system boundaries, identify credible counterfactuals and estimate emissions ranges across different use cases.

Structured two‑phase approach

• The project will progress from a literature review and methodological groundwork into primary data collection and detailed use‑case modelling.

Independent and research‑led delivery

• Roles were clarified to ensure independent editorial control alongside academic input, strengthening the credibility and robustness of the outputs.

Flexible participation model

• Members can engage at different levels, from discussion and draft review to contributing anonymised or attributable data and case studies - without any requirement to sponsor the work.

Momentum and next steps

• Early actions include recruiting expert input, sharing relevant research, and identifying primary data partners to support Phase Two analysis.

The session established a strong foundation for collaborative, evidence‑based work on the environmental impacts of generative AI, with a shared ambition to deliver practical, decision‑useful insights for the media sector.

Greater visibility into CDN emissions

• The group explored how customer‑facing dashboards can provide actionable, usage‑based electricity and emissions data, helping organisations better understand and manage their Scope 3 digital emissions.

Clearer allocation methodologies

• Discussion highlighted the importance of transparent approaches to allocating shared infrastructure emissions, and the value of providing electricity consumption data alongside carbon metrics to support technical optimisation.

Decarbonisation priorities across networks

• Energy efficiency, supplier engagement and renewable electricity procurement were identified as the largest levers for reducing network‑related emissions, with growing expectations from customers helping to accelerate progress.

Beyond carbon alone

• While energy and emissions remain central, participants discussed emerging considerations such as water use, cooling technologies and location‑specific biodiversity impacts of data centres.

Understanding what’s known and what isn’t

• The group reviewed a “known vs. unknown” framework to distinguish established evidence from open research questions across networks, CDNs and data centres, helping to guide future collaboration and research priorities.

Mixed transparency across providers

• A review of third‑party sustainability tools showed uneven levels of disclosure across cloud and CDN providers, with progress in some areas but ongoing gaps around embodied and upstream emissions.

Collaboration as a critical enabler

• The session reinforced that meaningful decarbonisation depends on close cooperation between infrastructure providers and their customers, with feedback loops helping shape better tools, data and decisions over time.

The session strengthened shared understanding of how network infrastructure contributes to digital emissions and set a clear direction for further collaboration, evidence‑building and engagement across the value chain.

Finding the right level of data

• Participants discussed the tension between generic emissions data, which is often easier to obtain but less impactful, and highly detailed data, which can be burdensome without clearly improving decisions. The group agreed that guidance should prioritise metrics that genuinely support decarbonisation.

DIMPACT’s role in the advertising ecosystem

• The session explored how DIMPACT can help clarify where generic data is appropriate (such as downstream or aggregated impacts) and where more specific, activity‑based data is needed to identify meaningful reductions.

Improving modelling of advertising emissions

• There was agreement on the need for better modelling of advertising content and delivery, including how factors such as ad duration, format and delivery method influence overall carbon footprint.

Advertising principles development

The group reviewed progress on an advertising principles document and discussed how it could support industry alignment, with reference materials from existing research highlighted as useful inputs.

Internal alignment before external engagement

Consensus was reached that the principles should be reviewed within the working group first, before being shared externally with advertising sustainability initiatives and other relevant industry bodies.

Clarity on data requests

• Participants raised concerns about unproductive or overly complex data requests and emphasised the value of aligning on what constitutes a useful and proportionate ask for advertisers and partners.

The session reinforced the importance of clear, pragmatic guidance to help the advertising industry focus effort where it matters most, with next steps centred on finalising the principles document and supporting wider industry collaboration on implementation and decarbonisation priorities.

Clear need for updated guidance

• With generative AI rapidly expanding across digital media, participants agreed on the urgency of developing more robust, transparent approaches to understanding energy use and carbon emissions.

Focused scope agreed

• The group aligned on prioritising energy consumption and related emissions in the near term, while recognising water use and other impacts as important open questions for future work.

Framework before figures

• Strong consensus emerged that establishing clear boundaries, functional units and assumptions is more important than producing headline numbers, particularly given limited data and fast‑moving technology.

Training vs. inference complexity

• Discussion highlighted challenges in separating model training impacts from ongoing inference, with agreement that limitations should be clearly documented where precise allocation is not possible.

Importance of counterfactuals

• Participants emphasised that AI impacts must be assessed relative to what AI replaces, noting that credible counterfactuals are essential for meaningful interpretation of results.

Media‑specific use cases prioritised

• Interest centred on use cases within the digital media value chain where AI may reduce, or unintentionally increase, overall emissions, rather than generic enterprise AI applications.

Transparency and data gaps acknowledged

• Limited visibility into closed‑source models and supplier infrastructure was identified as a key barrier, reinforcing the need for flexible methodologies that can work with partial data.

Alignment with responsible AI efforts

• The group discussed how environmental impacts could sit alongside existing responsible AI initiatives, helping embed sustainability as a core consideration rather than an afterthought.

Collaborative approach confirmed

• Participants expressed willingness to contribute anonymised data, use cases and expertise, and supported exploring external partnerships to strengthen credibility and relevance.

The session reinforced a shared ambition to develop practical, evidence‑based guidance that helps organisations understand and manage the real environmental impacts of AI.

Clarity on what is known vs. what is emerging

• The group agreed to organise DIMPACT’s policy‑related work around a clear distinction between established evidence and genuine areas of uncertainty - reinforcing well‑supported positions while openly framing open research questions on emerging topics such as AI.

Avoiding headline‑driven responses

• Participants highlighted the risk of reactive policymaking driven by incomplete technical understanding, reinforcing the importance of proactive knowledge‑building rather than responding to the topic of the week.

Accessible communication for decision‑makers

• Strong consensus emerged around developing FAQ‑style resources aimed at non‑technical decision‑makers, including policymakers, sustainability teams and senior leaders, to provide context, nuance and links to credible research.

Prioritising knowledge over lobbying

• The group agreed DIMPACT should focus first on consolidating and structuring its knowledge base, enabling more consistent, fact‑based engagement when policy discussions arise.

Recognising regional policy differences

• Europe and parts of APAC were identified as more active in digital sustainability regulation than the US, with a growing mix of EU‑level and national initiatives shaping expectations for digital services.

DIMPACT as a neutral convenor

• The discussion reinforced DIMPACT’s unique value as a non‑polarised, technically grounded forum capable of cutting through noise and debunking common misconceptions.

Stronger structure and cadence affirmed

• The group confirmed monthly Strategy Working Group meetings and agreed next steps to formalise terms of reference and align content planning across all working groups.

The session strengthened alignment on how DIMPACT can most effectively influence the debate - by grounding discussions in evidence, clearly communicating uncertainty, and supporting better‑informed decisions across industry and policy.

Greater transparency on infrastructure emissions

• Participants noted improving disclosure from cloud and CDN providers, while identifying ongoing gaps around embodied emissions and life‑cycle impacts of servers and data‑centre infrastructure.

Clarifying the relationship between traffic and energy use

• The group reaffirmed evidence showing no direct correlation between data traffic and energy consumption in fixed‑line networks, while identifying mobile networks, peak demand and infrastructure build‑out as key open questions.

Focus on practical decarbonisation levers

• Discussion centred on distinguishing what media companies can influence directly versus where outcomes depend on wider network and provider decisions.

Tools and data consistency challenges

• Participants highlighted limitations in existing cloud sustainability tools, particularly around location‑based data, and supported comparing native and third‑party tools to identify gaps and best practice.

Embodied emissions as an emerging topic

• While downstream use‑phase emissions remain dominant, there was shared interest in better understanding embodied impacts, with agreement to approach this pragmatically using available case studies rather than pursuing perfect data.

Live broadcast to IP transition

• The sustainability implications of moving live linear television from broadcast to internet delivery were flagged as a priority area for further research and shared understanding.

Structured approach to industry engagement

• The group agreed to engage CDNs initially as guest speakers rather than full members, preserving space for open discussion among media and publishing organisations.

Collaboration with external bodies

• Initial exploration was agreed with relevant industry organisations to support knowledge‑sharing and collective advocacy where appropriate.

Shared evidence base

• DIMPACT will compile comparative resources on provider transparency, network emissions research and allocation approaches to support consistent understanding across participants.

The session established a strong foundation for collaborative, evidence‑led work on digital infrastructure emissions, with an emphasis on transparency, realism and collective progress across the value chain.

Clarifying influence and responsibility

• The group aligned on the need to clearly distinguish what content providers can directly influence (such as application design choices) versus areas where engagement with manufacturers, policymakers or industry bodies is required.

From theory to action

• Strong support emerged for developing a clear, high‑level framework outlining actionable decisions content providers can make that may affect device energy use, such as codec choices and default application settings.

Device lifecycle matters

• Participants highlighted the importance of considering full device lifecycles, including software support longevity, compatibility constraints and the emissions trade‑offs involved in extending versus replacing devices.

Nuance over simplification

• The discussion reinforced that widely cited interventions (e.g. eco modes, resolution limits) can have highly variable impacts depending on device type, user behaviour and context, requiring careful interpretation.

Evidence and data quality

• Concerns were raised about inconsistent or poorly sourced industry claims on device efficiency, with agreement on the value of establishing a trusted, centralised evidence base.

Regulation and future trends

• Emerging EU and national regulations were flagged as increasing scrutiny on device efficiency, alongside the need to contextualise policy‑driven efficiency forecasts with transparent assumptions.

Collaboration beyond DIMPACT

• Opportunities were identified to engage with external research bodies and industry groups to deepen understanding and avoid duplicating existing work.

Foundation for future work

• Initial ideas were agreed to develop shared resources, draft guidance for publication, and document open questions and tensions to guide later analysis.

The session set a strong foundation for structured, evidence‑led collaboration on end‑user devices.

Recognising the urgency of AI sustainability

• Participants acknowledged the rapid expansion of generative AI across digital media, alongside increasing pressure from regulators, customers and internal stakeholders to understand its environmental implications.

Energy and emissions as the starting point

• There was broad agreement to prioritise energy use and carbon emissions, with water and other impacts recognised as important but less tractable in the near term.

Transparency gaps remain significant

• Limited disclosure from closed‑source models and upstream providers was identified as a key barrier, reinforcing the need for standardised frameworks and clearer expectations around reporting.

Enterprise leverage through procurement

• The group discussed how customer demand, procurement language and contractual requirements can be powerful levers for driving better disclosure and more sustainable AI practices.

Three layers of AI use clarified

• Participants distinguished between internal productivity tools, customer‑facing AI features, and model training - helping to focus effort on where most organisations have influence and exposure.

Context matters as much as numbers

• There was strong consensus that emissions figures are only meaningful when paired with clear boundaries, assumptions and comparison points, particularly given fast‑evolving technology.

Managing polarised narratives

• The group noted the highly charged public discourse around AI, agreeing that DIMPACT can play a valuable role in providing balanced, evidence‑based insight that avoids extremes.

Foundation for future research

• Participants supported developing a shared framework, collating existing knowledge, and identifying key research questions rather than chasing precise figures prematurely.

Momentum agreed

• To maintain engagement, the group agreed to meet monthly initially and begin scoping a paper to organise, synthesise and share insights relevant to digital media organisations.

The session established a strong foundation for collaborative, evidence‑led work on AI sustainability.

Shared purpose and focus

• The group aligned on advancing decarbonisation strategies for publishers, keeping both print and digital emissions in scope and recognising their complementary roles rather than framing them as competitors.

AI as a priority issue

• Participants highlighted the rapid growth of AI in publishing - from content discovery to internal workflows - and the lack of consistent methods for measuring its environmental impact, particularly when comparing pre‑ and post‑AI scenarios.

Digital and print in context

• Discussion emphasised the importance of contextualising emissions, acknowledging that different formats serve different user needs and should be assessed based on opportunity and use case rather than direct substitution.

User behaviour matters

• There was strong interest in understanding how reader behaviour influences emissions, and what role publishers can realistically play in informing and shaping more sustainable patterns of use.

Supply chain engagement

• Managing Scope 3 emissions was identified as a key challenge, with particular focus on cloud providers, technology suppliers, and production partners such as typesetters and printers. Sharing best‑practice guidance across supplier categories was seen as a valuable group output.

Regulation and compliance

• Participants noted increasingly complex and varied regulatory requirements across regions, identifying a clear need for practical guidance tailored to publisher realities.

Ethics and licensing considerations: The group discussed publishers’ limited visibility and influence over how licensed content is used in AI systems, alongside broader ethical and environmental considerations beyond carbon.

Tool evolution: Strong interest was expressed in reviewing and evolving existing digital emissions tools to ensure they remain fit for purpose in an AI‑enabled publishing landscape.

The session set a clear agenda for future meetings, with agreed focus areas including user behaviour, AI and cloud infrastructure, supply chain engagement, regulation and compliance, and print versus digital strategy. The group will develop shared guidance, best practices and supplier engagement approaches to support publishers navigating a rapidly evolving sustainability landscape.

Clarifying industry collaboration

• Participants discussed how best to engage with existing advertising sustainability initiatives, with strong interest in ensuring alignment, avoiding duplication and complementing rather than competing with existing frameworks.

Measurement with purpose

• The group highlighted concerns about reinventing existing tools and stressed the importance of focusing measurement effort on areas that genuinely drive emissions reductions, rather than low‑impact but complex data points.

Beyond delivery emissions

• There was agreement that advertising sustainability should account not only for distribution but also for the impact of advertising content and formats, which can materially influence overall footprint.

Managing data burden

• Participants emphasised the need for consistent, reasonable data requests across the industry, noting the risk that excessive complexity could distract from the largest emissions drivers.

Commercial realities and misinterpretation risk

• The group acknowledged growing demand from advertisers for quantified emissions data, alongside concern that poorly contextualised results could lead to changes with little or no environmental benefit.

DIMPACT’s enabling role

• There was clear appetite for DIMPACT to act as a light‑touch, coordinating partner - helping set priorities, provide clarity and reduce pressure on individual organisations.

Shared positioning agreed

• The group supported developing a high‑level positioning paper from a media‑owner perspective to establish common principles, set boundaries, and provide a coherent reference point for industry engagement.

The session established a strong foundation for collaborative, pragmatic progress, with next steps focused on developing shared positioning and supporting clearer alignment across the advertising sustainability landscape.

Governance & Structure

• DIMPACT is enhancing its governance model, including onboarding processes, decision-making structures, and the role of an independent chair to support strategic direction while maintaining technical oversight. Updated Terms of Reference will be developed and shared with DIMPACT participants for review.
• There is strong support for increased transparency across working groups, with suggestions for regular updates and summaries to help members stay informed and justify membership value.
• A shared landscape map was proposed to track overlapping initiatives and collaborations, helping DIMPACT position itself and collaborate effectively within an ecosystem of initiatives and activities.

Working Groups & Charters

• Working Groups are being revamped with clearer objectives, increased frequency of meetings, and a renewed focus on the areas where DIMPACT can uniquely contribute.
• Working Groups will also be used to review and capture promising decarbonisation levers for digital media.
• Emerging topics related to digital emissions will be monitored via regular “pulse checks” to identify participants’ interests.
• Working Group kick-off sessions across all workstreams are planned for September.

Editorial & Communications

• There is consensus on publishing meeting summaries and agendas to spotlight issues and elevate DIMPACT’s visibility and show our direction of travel, with more details of day-to-day happenings provided to DIMPACT participants internally.
• It was also agreed that the DIMPACT team will work proactively and collaboratively with DIMPACT participants on developing an editorial calendar to align on DIMPACT’s external communications.

Affiliate Model & DIMPACT participation

• DIMPACT is developing an Affiliate model where organisations working on digital sustainability can participate in specific working groups where their expertise aligns with the ambitions of the Working Groups.
• DIMPACT participants also agreed that the initiative should develop a strategic approach for onboarding new participants that will contribute to and benefit from participation.

Upcoming External Engagements

• DIMPACT will participate in NYC Climate Week in partnership with the Responsible Media Forum.
• The Strategy Working Group will focus their next meeting on External Engagement and Policy to shape this key part of the DIMPACT’s mission.

Tools & Operations

• No objections were raised to using Microsoft Teams for internal collaboration.
• A rolling topic calendar was introduced for the Strategy Working Group meetings for the year.

Strong support for a clearer strategic direction

• The group endorsed a more structured approach to DIMPACT’s work, with defined objectives, clearer outputs and a consistent cadence across working groups.

From strategy to delivery

• Discussion centred on how to translate DIMPACT’s evolving strategy into practical action, balancing ambition with available resources and focusing effort where DIMPACT can add unique value.

Working groups as the engine of impact

• There was broad agreement to strengthen the role of working groups, with clearer scopes, bi‑monthly rhythms and a shared focus on identifying and addressing key decarbonisation levers across the value chain.

Refining the participation model

• The group explored flexible engagement options, recognising that organisations may wish to participate in different ways, from tool‑only use to deep working group involvement or affiliate engagement.

Clarifying DIMPACT’s role

• Participants emphasised the importance of knowing when DIMPACT should lead, when it should convene, and when it should signpost existing research rather than commission new work.

Expanding perspective across the value chain

• Potential gaps were identified around network infrastructure and internet services, with agreement that DIMPACT should remain an unbiased convenor, supported by affiliates where appropriate.

Policy and external engagement

• The Strategy Working Group was confirmed as the right forum for coordinating responses to emerging policy and regulatory developments affecting digital sustainability.

Governance and editorial alignment

• The group agreed that stronger governance and a shared editorial process will help ensure consistency, credibility and clarity as more DIMPACT outputs become external‑facing.

The session marked an important step in strengthening DIMPACT’s strategic foundations, with next steps focused on refining the workplan, confirming participation models, and launching the year’s working groups with clear priorities and shared expectations.