We think more clarity would be beneficial in distinguishing between “a group of individuals for which the value factor is developed” mentioned in Section 1: Scope and “stakeholders affected by the impact or dependency” mentioned in Section 2: Stakeholder perspectives included. An impact may be experienced by one group of people (e.g., indigenous people lose native lands) but valued from the perspective of another group of people (e.g., land is economically valued in markets where those who lost their land are unable to participate), and the valued impact might be used to inform decision-making by yet another group of people (e.g., investors). Whether the groups are intended to be conceptually distinct will help determine whether certain context-related criteria under Sections 1: Scope and 2: Stakeholder perspectives included should be collapsed or separated.
We think more clarity would be beneficial in distinguishing between “a group of individuals for which the value factor is developed” mentioned in Section 1: Scope and “stakeholders affected by the impact or dependency” mentioned in Section 2: Stakeholder perspectives included. An impact may be experienced by one group of people (e.g., indigenous people lose native lands) but valued from the perspective of another group of people (e.g., land is economically valued in markets where those who lost their land are unable to participate), and the valued impact might be used to inform decision-making by yet another group of people (e.g., investors). Whether the groups are intended to be conceptually distinct will help determine whether certain context-related criteria under Sections 1: Scope and 2: Stakeholder perspectives included should be collapsed or separated.