How to write the Erasmus+ impact section

The impact section is where many Erasmus+ proposals lose points they should not lose. The content is often there — the project idea is solid, the activities are planned — but it is not written in the language evaluators are trained to recognise.

Impact carries real weight in the evaluation: up to 25 points for KA220 (tied with Relevance for second-highest, just behind Quality of Project Design at 30), and up to 20 points for KA210. Yet most applicants spend far less time on it than on the project description. This guide explains exactly what evaluators look for in the impact section, how to structure it, and what separates a weak impact section from a strong one.

1. What the Impact Criterion Actually Covers

The Impact criterion in Erasmus+ is not simply about what your project does — it is about what changes as a result of what your project does, and how that change continues after the project ends.

The Programme Guide’s own wording for this criterion clusters around three themes:

• Outcomes — the measurable changes your project produces for participants, organisations and the wider field
• Dissemination — how you will share results, reach audiences beyond the consortium, and ensure others can benefit from what you produce
• Sustainability — how the project’s results will be maintained, used and built upon after the grant period ends

2. Part 1 — Measurable Outcomes: Outputs vs Outcomes

Evaluators are trained to distinguish between outputs and outcomes. A proposal that only describes outputs in the impact section will score in the low range on this criterion regardless of how strong the rest of the proposal is.

How to write measurable outcomes

Each outcome should name:

• Who benefits — participants, organisations, the wider sector, policymakers
• What specifically changes — skills, practices, policies, attitudes, systems
• How much change is expected — a measurable quantity or percentage
• By when — within the project period or within a defined timeframe after

Describe outcomes at three levels: for individual participants, for participating organisations, and for the wider sector or field. Proposals that address all three levels consistently score higher than those that focus only on direct participants.

3. Part 2 — Dissemination: What a Real Plan Looks Like

Dissemination is consistently one of the weakest sections in unsuccessful Erasmus+ proposals. A project website and a social media page is not a dissemination plan — evaluators see this in hundreds of applications and it signals a lack of strategic thinking.

A strong dissemination plan answers four questions:

1. What are you disseminating? Name specific outputs — the toolkit, the training programme, the research findings — not just “project results.”
2. Who is the audience beyond the consortium? Define secondary target groups — sector professionals, policymakers, other NGOs, schools, national agencies — with estimated reach.
3. Which channels will you use? Go beyond a website: sector conferences, professional networks, policy briefs submitted to relevant bodies, published articles, open-access repositories, dedicated dissemination events.
4. Who is responsible and when? Assign named partner responsibilities and target dates for each dissemination action.

4. Part 3 — Sustainability: What Happens After the Grant Ends

Sustainability is the section where the most points are lost to vague intentions. Saying “the partnership will continue to collaborate after the project” or “results will be maintained on our website” tells evaluators nothing concrete.

What strong sustainability looks like:

• Institutional embedding — a named partner organisation commits to integrating the project’s training programme into its standard curriculum or operational practice
• Financial continuation — describe how results will be maintained without EU funding: through fees, membership models, public funding, or integration into existing budgets
• Policy influence — if relevant, explain how results could inform local, national or European policy — and which specific bodies you will engage
• Open access commitment — all intellectual outputs hosted on accessible, long-term platforms (not just a project website that disappears after the grant)
• Follow-up projects — if you plan to build on this project with a future application, say so explicitly — it demonstrates long-term strategic vision

5. Weak vs Strong: Side-by-Side Examples

Here is what the difference between a low-scoring and high-scoring impact section looks like in practice across all three themes (examples use a KA220 project, where Impact carries up to 25 points).

6. Impact Section Checklist Before You Submit

Run through this before finalising your impact section. Each unchecked item is a potential point deduction.

• ✅ Outcomes described for individual participants, organisations and the wider sector
• ✅ All outcomes are measurable — quantities, percentages or verifiable changes named
• ✅ Dissemination plan names specific channels, audiences, responsible partners and dates
• ✅ At least one dedicated dissemination event planned per partner country (KA220)
• ✅ All intellectual outputs will be hosted on open-access, long-term platforms
• ✅ Sustainability section describes institutional embedding, not just intentions
• ✅ Financial sustainability after the grant is addressed — not left open-ended
• ✅ Impact section is consistent with the objectives and work plan sections
• ✅ Concrete, measurable outcomes included for any participants with fewer opportunities