Home / East & Southeast Asia · China / Environmental NGO (pollution-data transparency) · Private

Institute of Public & Environmental Affairs (IPE)

AI-generated working estimate based on public information / opinion & commentary, not a statement of fact / corrections & rebuttals welcome / Change log / Contact

Institute of Public & Environmental Affairs (IPE)

Publishing pollution data, handing citizens 'which factory'

B
NARRATIVE VALUE
Certainty
●●● high
ABCDEFG

There is no confirmed −; independently verified + decide the position (B). No unreachable strike-through.= non-additive meter

As of: 2026-Q3Status: ActiveCeiling reason: No confirmed −
History2026-Q3BHistory grows each quarter

Institute of Public & Environmental Affairs (IPE): Publishing pollution data, handing citizens 'which factory'. The letter is B; certainty is high. Unconfirmed concerns are placed under “Watching.” (As of 2026-Q3; estimate based on public information.)

Main narrative

IPE (Institute of Public & Environmental Affairs) is a Beijing environmental NGO that has put pollution data into citizens' hands, on the belief that 'information disclosure is the premise of public participation.' Ma Jun, who as a South China Morning Post reporter in the 1990s traveled across China and witnessed water pollution and people's suffering, sounded the alarm in his book 'China's Water Crisis' and founded IPE in 2006. It collects and organizes environmental data held by government and companies and publishes it, first as the 'China Water Pollution Map' and then as the Blue Map app. Integrating monitoring records from 337 cities in 31 provinces, its collected corporate environmental data reaches 4.2 billion entries. It has visualized over 90,000 air and water violations, and for the first time citizens can know at their fingertips 'which factory is violating regulations' and gain the power to seek justice. Through the Green Choice Alliance it pressures supply chains, and Nike, Apple, H&M, Adidas and others now consult the map for self-regulation, with over 19,000 companies moving to address violations or disclose data. PITI, made with the NRDC, evaluates government information disclosure. Founder Ma Jun received the Goldman Environmental Prize, the Ramon Magsaysay Award and the Skoll Award.

One person’s story (N1)

+ A single story

In the 1990s, the reporter Ma Jun witnessed pollution and people's suffering in watersheds across China. He built a means (a public map) for citizens to know 'which factory is violating,' and for the first time ordinary citizens gained 'the power to identify violating companies and seek justice' (in Goldman's words). The benefit appears not as an individual name but as the collective of Chinese citizens who could now stand up to companies and local governments armed with pollution information.

Source nature: Goldman Environmental Prize / P1 Independent (Goldman Environmental Prize). Positive effects are not used to offset negatives.

Positive / negative effects

+ effects

  • Founded in 2006. It integrates government and corporate data (4.2 billion entries) and publishes 337 cities in 31 provinces via the Blue Map. It has visualized over 90,000 violations, pressured supply chains through the Green Choice Alliance → Nike/Apple/H&M and others reference it and self-regulate, and over 19,000 companies have addressed violations or disclosed. PITI (with the NRDC) evaluates government transparency. Ma Jun won the Magsaysay Award (2009), the Skoll Award (2015, a first for a Chinese person), and Time 100.P1 Independent (Asia Society) / Asia Society

− effects (confirmed)

  • No confirmed −.
Watching (unconfirmed; not counted in the assessment)
  • A
  • t
  • t
  • r
  • i
  • b
  • u
  • t
  • i
  • n
  • g
  • t
  • h
  • e
  • f
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • p
  • o
  • l
  • l
  • u
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • -
  • r
  • e
  • d
  • u
  • c
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • o
  • u
  • t
  • c
  • o
  • m
  • e
  • t
  • o
  • I
  • P
  • E
  • a
  • l
  • o
  • n
  • e
  • i
  • s
  • d
  • i
  • f
  • f
  • i
  • c
  • u
  • l
  • t
  • ;
  • u
  • n
  • d
  • e
  • r
  • c
  • i
  • v
  • i
  • l
  • -
  • s
  • o
  • c
  • i
  • e
  • t
  • y
  • c
  • o
  • n
  • s
  • t
  • r
  • a
  • i
  • n
  • t
  • s
  • i
  • t
  • s
  • '
  • c
  • o
  • l
  • l
  • a
  • b
  • o
  • r
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • /
  • t
  • r
  • a
  • n
  • s
  • p
  • a
  • r
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • y
  • '
  • m
  • e
  • t
  • h
  • o
  • d
  • s
  • t
  • r
  • u
  • c
  • t
  • u
  • r
  • a
  • l
  • l
  • y
  • l
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • t
  • s
  • t
  • h
  • e
  • s
  • c
  • o
  • p
  • e
  • i
  • t
  • c
  • a
  • n
  • h
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • l
  • e
  • (
  • s
  • t
  • r
  • u
  • c
  • t
  • u
  • r
  • a
  • l
  • l
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • t
  • s
  • o
  • n
  • i
  • n
  • d
  • e
  • p
  • e
  • n
  • d
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • s
  • c
  • o
  • p
  • e
  • )
  • .
Looking ahead (not included in the assessment)
  • Blue Map for Zero Carbon; provincial/city carbon-peak/neutrality indices; the Supply Chain Climate Action Index (SCTI); use in green finance.

A second look

The plus is improving air and water through pollution-data disclosure and, through it, people's health and public participation (People, Nature), strongly backed by three top independent awards (Goldman/Magsaysay/Skoll), over 19,000 companies' disclosure, and government/brand reference to the Blue Map (high certainty). Caveats: it is hard to attribute the final pollution-reduction outcome to IPE alone, and because in China's constrained civil society it chooses a method of 'collaboration and transparency rather than confrontation,' the scope it can handle (transparency of data the government already collects) is structurally limited.

Sources

+N1Goldman Environmental Prize|Ma Jun — Goldman Environmental Prize|2012-01-01|🔗
+ effectAsia Society|Ma Jun — Asia Game Changer|2022-10-07|🔗
2013|

How to read this assessment

A Independently verified +, with no confirmed −
B Leans +, with independent backing
C Mixed. A confirmed − sets the ceiling, or much is unverified
D A serious confirmed − sets the ceiling
E A serious − reaches the core of the organization
F Serious and systemic, with little redeeming +
G Only extreme cases
Out of scope An entity whose core purpose is illegal
On hold Independent evidence is scarce on both + and −
  • Reachable upper bound (ceiling): a confirmed − sets the ceiling, and independently verified + decide the position within it. + do not cancel out −.
  • The weight of evidence is not symmetric: only confirmed − are counted; the volume of disputes or allegations goes under “Watching.” + are counted from independent evidence, while an organization’s own PR is treated as “reference.”
  • Size is not value: scale is not used in the assessment. Matters that stay within money or competition—investors, shareholders, sanctions, trade secrets—are also excluded.
  • The letter (assessment) and certainty (how reliable the information is) are separate axes.

This is a translation; the Japanese version is authoritative. The assessments here are generated automatically by AI based on published criteria. The operator does not alter individual results. Because they are AI-generated they may contain errors, and they are opinion and commentary, not statements of fact. Where evidence is insufficient, the entry is marked “On hold.” Requests for correction are accepted via the form.

Terms: Narrative Value = an assessment (A–G) of the distance between the story an organization tells and its reality / Ceiling meter = a visualization of the reachable upper bound / Watching = unconfirmed matters not counted / Protected stakeholders = people, animals, nature, and future generations. | Generated by: AI | As of: 2026-Q3 | Back to top