General comment on #40 #105
Dear Stephany,
I have now entered several comments and received each time one absence notification from your side.
I would like to seize the opportunity to feed back that the tool is not really user friendly. Why entering titles per comment? The ordering of the sections in the pull down menu of the commenting functionality did not correspond with the sequence of the numbers/occurrence in the document (it was a pain to spot the correct one). It was not possible to make the comment on a given paragraph or sentence but only at the heading level. And I could not see whether my comment was entered (which is why it might occur that I entered them more than once).
Overall, my main concern is that the document asks yes/no questions and mostly related to whether or not things have been made explicit (i.e. stated in the study/documentation). However, whether this is of quality or not is not evaluated. Note that ISO 14008 demands specific things to be documented in general and also depending on the method and depending on whether or not discounting or equity weighting is applied. Here the document only asks whether something is said about each item. If it is, fine (even if it was rubbish). I am afraid that the quality of a study cannot be judged in this way. For instance, there is not even a criterion on the representativeness of a survey or the quality of its design.
If you want to set up a database, I wonder whether some of the scoping questions make too much sense (i.e. “The decision to be informed” or “The objective behind the decision”). These will vary from one study (to which the value factors will be applied) to the next.
I hope the document improves in this respect in order to make a good contribution not only in terms of (little relevant) transparency but also quality.
Best regards / Bien cordialement / Mit besten Grüßen
Till
Please only use the following address from 01.01.2022 onwards:
From: stephany <reply+164+439@reply.scribehub.com> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 10:57 AM To: Till Bachmann <till.bachmann@eifer.org> Subject: [CapitalsCoalition/Value Commission - Draft Transparency Criteria Consultation] General comment on #40 (#105)
You must sign in or register to reply to this comment.
If you re-use (including potentially updating) a value, would a mere reference to the original study suffice? Or would you have to restate everything that was documented in the original study in order to rank good on this criterion?