LIBER . Readiness Assessment for your Sustainability Technology Investment 

We know we need to invest in sustainability but haven't quantified specific expected outcomes.

We have a general sense of the value but rely on assumptions rather than data for expected outcomes.

We have a quantified business case with identified financial and non-financial value streams.

We have a comprehensive, stress-tested business case with clear attribution methodology and scenario analysis.

A department or team is generally responsible but no named individual owns the outcome.

A named individual is accountable but their KPIs have not been updated to reflect this.

A named individual is accountable with updated KPIs and performance metrics tied to the investment outcomes.

None quantified — the investment is driven by compliance or general sustainability commitment.

1–2 value streams identified but not rigorously quantified.

3–4 value streams identified and quantified with supporting data.

5+ value streams quantified with clear measurement methodology and baseline data.

No — the case is not developed enough for that level of scrutiny.

Partially — I could present the strategic logic but would struggle with financial specifics.

Yes — I could present and defend most of the financial case but some assumptions would be challenged.

Absolutely — the case has already survived CFO-level scrutiny and key objections have been addressed.

No executive sponsor identified, or the sponsor lacks budget authority.

A sponsor exists but their engagement is passive — they approve budget but don't actively champion.

An active sponsor with budget authority who communicates their support regularly.

A deeply engaged sponsor with budget authority, operational influence, and visible commitment across the organization.

No stakeholder mapping has been performed.

Key stakeholders are informally known but no structured mapping exists.

A stakeholder map exists with positions assessed (advocate / neutral / resistant).

Complete stakeholder map with engagement plans for each group, including strategies for addressing resistance.

These roles have not discussed success criteria together.

There is general agreement on direction but different definitions of what success looks like.

Shared success criteria exist but have not been stress-tested or documented.

Documented, shared success criteria with specific metrics and timelines agreed by all key leaders.

Middle managers are unaware, indifferent, or actively resistant.

Some awareness but no structured engagement — seen as 'another initiative from leadership'.

Middle managers are informed and generally supportive but not yet actively engaged in planning.

Middle managers are actively involved in planning and identified champions exist in key departments.

Manually (spreadsheets, paper records) or not collected at all.

Partially automated but with significant manual steps and gaps.