Comment on page
Weighting of impacts
This page introduces Upright's approach to weighting impacts.
This page describes how Upright weights impacts. The rationale and principles of net impact are discussed here.
To compare diverse impacts — like the harm caused by an emitted CO2e ton compared to the value of a disability-adjusted life year — they need to be weighted relative to each other.
Many different weighting methods have been proposed in literature, with the most popular ones being monetary weighting, equal weighting, panel-based weighting, and distance-to-target weighting.
Upright uses monetary weighting, similar to the Harvard Impact-Weighted Accounts Framework and the Value Balancing Alliance. In monetary weighting, measured impacts are converted to monetary terms before they are compared.
Upright’s impact monetization follows the general principles of monetary valuation and impact aggregation defined in ISO 14044:2006 (LCA standard), LCA literature, and ISO 14008:2019 (monetary valuation of environmental impacts). In addition, the IOOI (Input, Output, Outcome, Impact) framework is used as part of the monetary valuation process.
As the Upright net impact graph includes both positive and negative impacts, as well as impacts across several different themes, Upright uses three different monetization methods to translate impacts into dollar values:
Interpretation guidance: no nullification of negative impacts
The purpose of monetization is to facilitate understanding the relative size of impacts across different impact categories.
This should not be interpreted as positive impacts nullifying negative impacts. Users of Upright data should remember that positive impacts never make negative impacts disappear: Upright is simply making the trade-off that is being made visible.
No assumption of fixed values
Upright does not assume a fixed set of values. The Upright platform allows users to express their own optimization criteria, instead of assuming one fixed set of values.
Furthermore, Upright always presents net impact such that benefits (positive impacts) are always shown in relation to costs (negative impacts), allowing users to apply their own value judgment.
Negative valence | Impact category | Positive valence |
|---|---|---|
N/A | Jobs | IOOI + literature |
N/A | Taxes | IOOI + literature |
N/A | Societal infrastructure | Market price |
IOOI + literature | Societal stability | IOOI + literature |
IOOI + literature | Equality & human rights | IOOI + literature |
N/A | Knowledge infrastructure | Market price |
N/A | Creating knowledge | Market price |
IOOI + literature | Distributing knowledge | Market price |
Opportunity cost | Scarce human capital | N/A |
IOOI + literature | Physical diseases | IOOI + literature |
IOOI + literature | Mental diseases | IOOI + literature |
N/A | Nutrition | Market price |
IOOI + literature | Relationships | Market price |
IOOI + literature | Meaning & joy | Market price |
IOOI + literature | GHG | IOOI + literature |
IOOI + literature | Non-GHG | IOOI + literature |
Opportunity cost | Scarce natural resources | IOOI + literature |
IOOI + literature | Biodiversity | IOOI + literature |
IOOI + literature | Waste | IOOI + literature |
Per impact category, the monetary valuation methods discussed in this page result in the totals listed in the table below. Numbers are shown as trillion USD per year.
Negative valence | Impact category | Positive valence |
|---|---|---|
N/A | Jobs | 10.01 |
N/A | Taxes | 13.40 |
N/A | Societal infrastructure | 14.26 |
1.75 | Societal stability | 0.67 |
0.39 | Equality & human rights | 0.23 |
N/A | Knowledge infrastructure | 1.01 |
N/A | Creating knowledge | 1.82 |
0.02 | Distributing knowledge | 2.43 |
8.32 | Scarce human capital | N/A |
7.35 | Physical diseases | 2.97 |
1.51 | Mental diseases | 0.38 |
N/A | Nutrition | 3.64 |
0.34 | Relationships | 1.73 |
0.90 | Meaning & joy | 3.21 |
19.22 | GHG | 1.53 |
5.98 | Non-GHG | 0.69 |
1.84 | Scarce natural resources | 0.03 |
6.73 | Biodiversity | 0.06 |
4.20 | Waste | 0.49 |
Last modified 6mo ago