One of the major mistakes Reviewers see are analyses that cover multiple topics. However, each analysis needs to focus on one single topic (which may have two or three dimensions), and not stray from the chosen subject, given by the Topic Selector.
It can be very easy to interconnect topics and impacts. A classic example is writing about a company’s environmental footprint and including information about its greenhouse gas emissions, waste management, and water and energy consumption.
Each of these impacts should be treated as one topic in one analysis. Doing the opposite makes it impossible to rate the scale and value of the company’s impact.
The example below effectively illustrates the problem of multiple topics :
“Since 1995, the Disney Conservation Fund has directed more than $70 million to reverse the decline of wildlife around the world. For more than 60 years, Disney has been committed to conservation and caring for the planet by- Inspiring Action, Saving Wildlife, Reducing Emissions, Conserving Water, Diverting Waste and now Reducing Single Use Plastic.”
We understand that it can be tempting to assess multiple dimensions of impact but the reality is that treating various complex topics comprehensively with a limit of 2,000 characters is not possible.
Keep it simple: instead of writing a broad analysis covering multiple topics, analysts should write one analysis per topic. For example, one on the company’s absolute emissions, one on its impact on wildlife, one on waste production, etc, provided they are relevant and offered by the Topic Selector.
It is important to keep this in mind when writing your analysis as it will save a lot of time in terms of reviewing and resubmissions. Remember, you have a maximum of three submissions!
For more insight on topic granularity, make sure to check Golden Rule #1: Find the right level of granularity.