'Value factor' is a new term. Most organisations I'm aware of use 'valuation coefficient', I think it would be better to avoid new terms unless they are clearly additional and differntiated from the existing terminology. From what I can see its the same, so I suggest you use the existing terminology.
The definition is also confusing. It implies the factor is applied to the information collected by the business (impact driver?) to directly get a change in wellbeing (impact). As per existing coalition documentation, you first need to assess the change in the capital. The example used is an exception. Social cost of carbon estimates allow businesses to directly measure change in wellbeing associated with emissions because the change in natural capital (ie the likely future change in the climate resulting from marginal changes in greenhouse gas concentrations) is universally applicable no matter context of emission. Its also an extremely complex exercise so no business/consultancy is going to do it when the IPCCC is much better at it! So it makes sense for the coefficient to go straight from impact driver to impact. But its the exception. Pretty much every other type of impact will separate assessing the capital change and assessing the extent of impact. Its not clear what these criteria are expected to be applied to.
'Value factor' is a new term. Most organisations I'm aware of use 'valuation coefficient', I think it would be better to avoid new terms unless they are clearly additional and differntiated from the existing terminology. From what I can see its the same, so I suggest you use the existing terminology.
The definition is also confusing. It implies the factor is applied to the information collected by the business (impact driver?) to directly get a change in wellbeing (impact). As per existing coalition documentation, you first need to assess the change in the capital. The example used is an exception. Social cost of carbon estimates allow businesses to directly measure change in wellbeing associated with emissions because the change in natural capital (ie the likely future change in the climate resulting from marginal changes in greenhouse gas concentrations) is universally applicable no matter context of emission. Its also an extremely complex exercise so no business/consultancy is going to do it when the IPCCC is much better at it! So it makes sense for the coefficient to go straight from impact driver to impact. But its the exception. Pretty much every other type of impact will separate assessing the capital change and assessing the extent of impact. Its not clear what these criteria are expected to be applied to.