Methodology & sources
A score is only useful if the person reading it can check it. Every ZBIIP engine names the methodology it implements, and every piece of evidence on a scorecard carries the source it was derived from — so a reviewer at a bank, a development finance institution or an impact fund can trace a number back to its source and disagree with it on the merits.
Not every number in a scoring model has a published source behind it. Where a standards body has not published a weighting, someone has to choose one — and the honest thing is to say who. Every source in the register carries one of these four tiers, and the tier travels with the number into the methodology annex of every report we generate.
Published standard
External, published methodology: ICVCM Core Carbon Principles, Verra VCS and the AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool, UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting, IFRS S1 and S2, the GHG Protocol, Wallacea Trust.
National policy
Zambian instruments: the Zambia Green Finance Taxonomy published by the Ministry of Green Economy and Environment, and the Zambia Green Growth Index.
Nsembe methodology
Nsembe Technologies' own instruments — the financial modelling methodology, the enterprise types and the document templates. They define what is measured and how; any specific weight or threshold they need is labelled separately as a platform default.
Platform default
No source publishes this number and ZBIIP chose it. Weightings where the underlying body has not published one, and modelling defaults such as a mid-range AFOLU buffer percentage. Labelled so nobody mistakes our judgement for someone else's authority.
Worked example
The financial model tests whether a project’s cash buffer survives the plan and whether it can service its debt. Those tests are cited as Nsembe methodology. The thresholds applied to them — three months of fixed costs, a debt service coverage ratio of 1.20 — are conventional practice that no single standard publishes, so they are labelled a platform default rather than presented as though a standards body had set them.
Each engine is independently versioned and returns the same standard scorecard object. This is what each one implements.
| Engine | What it scores | Grounded in | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial Model | Market sizing, unit economics, break-even, and a reconciling three-statement projection with NPV, IRR and DSCR. | Nsembe Financial Methodology; IAS 1, 7 & 16; CIMA; Brealey–Myers–Allen; Yescombe | live |
| Investment Readiness | Governance, business model and financials, combined with the pillar scores from every other engine that applies. | Composite — ZBIIP weighting | live |
| ESG | Environmental, social, governance and disclosure composite scoring. | Industry-standard E/S/G/Disclosure structure | live |
| Biodiversity | Habitat, species, restoration, connectivity and monitoring capacity. | Habitat/species composite — IUCN NbS alignment in progress | live |
| Carbon | Additionality, permanence, leakage and MRV readiness, with buffer-adjusted credit quantification. | ICVCM Core Carbon Principles; Verra VCS / AFOLU risk tool | live |
| Biodiversity Credits | Habitat units, market eligibility, and uplift measured across a metric basket. | Wallacea Trust biodiversity credit methodology | live |
| Green Finance Taxonomy | Substantial contribution, Do No Significant Harm, and minimum social safeguards. | Zambia Green Finance Taxonomy (MGEE) | live |
| Natural Capital | Extent, condition and ecosystem-service accounts for the natural assets a project depends on. | UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting | live |
| Green Growth | Resource use, natural capital protection, green economic opportunity and social inclusion. | Zambia Green Growth Index (GGGI / MoGEE) | live |
| IFRS S1 | Sustainability-related disclosure across governance, strategy, risk management and metrics. | IFRS S1 (TCFD-derived four pillars) | live |
| IFRS S2 | Climate-related disclosure, scenario analysis and Scope 1/2/3 greenhouse gas metrics. | IFRS S2; GHG Protocol Corporate Standard | live |
Engines marked building are specified against a named source and scheduled, but not yet shipped. We list them here rather than quietly implying the full set is live.
Limitations
A ZBIIP score is a structured readiness assessment, not an audit, a valuation, or investment advice. It tells a project where it stands against a published framework and what to fix — it does not verify that the underlying data is true.
Verification is a separate exercise. Where an engine depends on measured field data — tonnes sequestered, hectares restored, species counts — that data needs independent confirmation through the project’s own MRV arrangements before a funder should rely on it.
Materiality and connectivity judgements under IFRS S1 and S2 are not automatable and remain human calls. Where an engine cannot responsibly compute something, it reports lower confidence rather than a confident wrong answer.
ZBIIP is built and run by Nsembe Technologies.
← Back to the engines