Evaluate Environmental Storyteller candidates across 4 weighted areas: body of work, craft and technique, reliability and process, and presence with an audience. Body of work leads at 35%, so review published pieces: long-form features, documentary shorts, photo essays, or podcast episodes on climate, conservation, or pollution. Ask which outlets ran them. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
For body of work, look for evidence the candidate shows a named portfolio across formats with outlets, publication dates, and evidence of audience reach or policy pickup. For craft and technique, look for evidence the candidate explains concrete narrative choices, cites sources they verified with scientists, and refuses to flatten uncertainty into false drama.
Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Body of work
35% weight
Review published pieces: long-form features, documentary shorts, photo essays, or podcast episodes on climate, conservation, or pollution. Ask which outlets ran them and what reach they got.
Evidence to listen for
Has work that exists publicly and can be checked
States what they made versus what they contributed to
Can talk about range as well as their signature style
Knows how the work was received and by whom
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Nothing finished or public; describes intentions rather than output.
2
Needs Improvement
Small or unverifiable body of work; unclear personal contribution.
3
Satisfactory
Real output with adequate range; reception described vaguely.
4
Very Good
Substantial verifiable work with clear ownership and range.
5
Excellent
Shows a named portfolio across formats with outlets, publication dates, and evidence of audience reach or policy pickup.
02
Evaluation factor
Craft and technique
25% weight
Probe how they turn IPCC reports, species surveys, or emissions data into narrative: scene construction, character choice, handling uncertainty without overstating findings.
Evidence to listen for
Can discuss technique concretely rather than in terms of feel or vibe
Names influences and what they took from each
Explains a deliberate choice and the effect it was for
Knows their own weak areas and what they do about them
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No technical vocabulary; cannot discuss choices behind the work.
2
Needs Improvement
Talks in generalities; choices sound accidental.
3
Satisfactory
Solid craft with some ability to explain decisions.
4
Very Good
Articulate about technique and deliberate about effect.
5
Excellent
Explains concrete narrative choices, cites sources they verified with scientists, and refuses to flatten uncertainty into false drama.
03
Evaluation factor
Reliability and process
25% weight
Ask about field production discipline: permits, remote shoot logistics, fact-check workflows, source consent, deadlines met with editors or grant funders.
Evidence to listen for
Meets deadlines and briefs, with evidence
Handles revisions and direction without ego
Describes how they work when the brief is vague or changes late
Has repeat clients, bookings, or collaborators
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Misses commitments; cannot take direction.
2
Needs Improvement
Inconsistent delivery; defensive about revisions.
3
Satisfactory
Reliable on clear briefs; struggles when direction shifts.
4
Very Good
Consistently delivers and adapts; repeat collaborators.
5
Excellent
Describes repeatable fact-checking and field protocols, plus a project delivered on deadline despite weather, access, or funding disruption.
04
Evaluation factor
Presence with an audience
15% weight
Look for live work: festival Q and As, community screenings in affected areas, school talks, or briefings to councils and NGO boards.
Evidence to listen for
Comfortable performing or presenting on demand, including cold
Reads a room and adjusts
Handles a bad night, a difficult client, or a hostile crowd without unravelling
Represents the employer well in front of others
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot perform or present on request; unravels under pressure.
2
Needs Improvement
Rigid delivery; no read of the room.
3
Satisfactory
Competent in familiar settings; less adaptable in new ones.
4
Very Good
Strong presence and adapts to the room.
5
Excellent
Recounts adapting the same story for a hostile room, a classroom, and a funder, naming the venues and what shifted.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Environmental Storyteller
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
Can you provide examples of your previous storytelling work on these subjects?
02
Can you describe your experience with environmental storytelling?
03
Do you have experience with video, audio or visual production?
04
How do you ensure accuracy and credibility in your stories?
05
How do you gather and verify information for a story?
