Social and health sector projects usually focus on people: access to services, better support for vulnerable groups, prevention, care, health, and wellbeing. For this reason, environmental impact may at first seem like a secondary issue in these activities. At the same time, these projects still involve people, services, materials, procurements, trainings, events, data, and work processes. The question is not whether social and health sector projects should become “greener” at the expense of their core objectives. Rather, the question is how to make environmentally sustainable choices simple, reasonable, and genuinely feasible.
This was the focus of Haap Consulting’s green evaluation of ESF+ activities for the Ministry of Social Affairs. The aim of the evaluation was to examine how social and health sector projects supported by the European Social Fund Plus take green requirements into account, and how relevant and effective these requirements are in their current form. The evaluation was commissioned by the Ministry of Social Affairs and financed through technical assistance.
The evaluation focused on green requirements in a broad sense: principles, rules, and recommendations aimed at reducing the negative environmental impact of funded activities. This included consideration of the “Do No Significant Harm” or DNSH principle, environmentally sustainable choices in project implementation, and how green issues are understood in project planning, procurement, reporting, and day-to-day management.
The evaluation covered a total of 58 projects in four project groups: projects approved by ministerial decree; projects implemented by community-led local development action groups; projects continuing the implementation of the integrated social and health care coordination model; and local-level projects aimed at improving the accessibility and quality of social services. Data were collected through document analysis, a written evaluation survey sent to all project implementers, and semi-structured in-depth interviews. Good practices from Denmark and the Netherlands were also examined when developing the recommendations.
One of the key starting points of the evaluation was practicality. The direct environmental footprint of social and health sector projects is often smaller than that of, for example, construction, manufacturing, or infrastructure projects. It would therefore not be reasonable to apply the same indicators and requirements to these projects as those designed for activities with a very different type of impact. What is important, however, is to understand where the actual environmental impact arises in these projects and what kinds of interventions could help reduce it without creating a disproportionate administrative burden.
The evaluation showed that environmentally sustainable behaviour is generally considered important in projects, but it usually remains secondary to the main project objectives. Environmentally sustainable choices are often made when they are natural, simple, or cost-effective: online meetings and trainings are preferred, paper use is reduced, travel is planned more efficiently, reusable solutions are used at events, or assistive devices are passed on to new users. The impact is most clearly recognised in relation to transport, especially in sparsely populated areas, where mobility needs and limited public transport affect both implementers and target groups.
At the same time, the evaluation showed that environmentally sustainable practices do not always result directly from green requirements. They are often driven instead by personal values, organisational culture, previous experience, or simply sensible use of resources. In some cases, project implementers only became aware of specific green requirements during the evaluation itself. This does not mean that environmentally sustainable choices are not being made; rather, it shows that the requirements have not always been sufficiently clear, visible, or translated into day-to-day project management.
Another important conclusion was that a strict and uniform indicator-based approach may not produce the best results in these types of projects. When the direct environmental impact of projects is small and the nature of activities varies greatly, detailed quantitative reporting may create more administrative burden than substantive value. In such cases, clearer guidance, practical examples, regular reminders, and the possibility to describe qualitatively how environmentally sustainable choices are made in the project can be more valuable.
The evaluation also identified several practical barriers. For example, environmentally sustainable choices are not always within the implementer’s control: in rural areas, public transport may not meet the needs of target groups; in some cases, paper-based registration is required by other rules; and in procurement, there is often a perception that the lowest price must remain the decisive factor. There is also a need for examples tailored specifically to the social and health sector: general environmental guidance may not help a project manager decide what to do in situations related to a training course, counselling service, community event, or the use of assistive devices.
The recommendations therefore focused primarily on making compliance with green requirements more meaningful and easier. A high-priority recommendation was consistent and practical “nudging” throughout the project lifecycle: not only presenting the requirements at the beginning of the project, but also providing repeated reminders, good examples, short guidance materials, and situation-specific recommendations. The evaluation also recommended compiling a collection of good practices tailored to the social and health sector, clarifying how environmental criteria can be used in procurement, and allowing projects to describe environmentally sustainable activities in monitoring more substantively rather than through rigid indicators.
The environmental impact of artificial intelligence also emerged as an interesting future issue. None of the evaluated projects addressed the energy and resource use associated with AI, although this is a topic of rapidly growing relevance. The recommendations therefore noted that future funding conditions could draw implementers’ attention to the environmental impact of digital solutions and AI, so that green principles evolve alongside new ways of working and emerging technologies.
For Haap Consulting, this evaluation was a good example of how environmental sustainability can be addressed without reducing it to formal compliance checks. The value of a green evaluation does not lie only in whether a project has met or failed to meet a particular requirement. More importantly, it helps us understand what enables people to make better choices in practice: what information reaches them at the right time, which guidelines are concrete enough, which barriers require systemic solutions, and where it is reasonable to leave room for professional judgement.
A green perspective on social and health sector projects does not have to mean adding a complicated extra layer to already demanding activities. Well-designed green requirements can instead serve as a tool that helps avoid unnecessary resource use, supports thoughtful organisation, and makes environmentally sustainable choices a natural part of everyday work.
Read the final report on the website of the Ministry of Social Affairs:
https://www.sm.ee/sites/default/files/documents/2026-04/ESF%2B%20L%C3%B5pparuanne_Haap.pdf
