Human and Societal Becoming Compass
Foreword
The immediate inspiration
for this text was the 11E Compass, a visual model I encountered online. It
brought together eleven themes - including ecology, economy, ethics, education,
engagement, essence and emotion - in the familiar form of a compass. Its clear
presentation particularly appealed to me. The model showed that diverse values
and domains of life need not be treated as separate subjects, but can jointly
guide the actions of people and organisations.
That encounter prompted a
question: could the human and societal becoming model also be brought together
in a similarly accessible form? Over time, the model had developed into a broad
interdisciplinary framework, drawing on philosophy, psychology, sociology,
public administration, law, economics, ecology and technology ethics. That
breadth is necessary if we are to do justice to the complexity of human and
societal development. At the same time, an extensive theoretical model can
become less manageable for policymakers, public officials, professionals,
organisations and citizens.
The 11E Compass was
therefore not a substantive blueprint, but it was an important visual and
conceptual source of inspiration. It gave me the idea of arranging the
different elements of the human and societal becoming model in a compass of its
own: an instrument that not only identifies values, but also helps assess
concrete policy choices, institutions and social practices.
The Human and Societal
Becoming Compass proposed here consequently has its own substantive foundation
and architecture. Its central idea is that people should not be required to
adapt unilaterally to systems; institutions must instead be assessed repeatedly
by asking whether they enable human and societal development. After all, people
do not become human in isolation. They develop within relationships,
communities, institutions, historical circumstances and ecological systems.
Human becoming and societal becoming are therefore inseparably connected.
The compass brings this
idea together through four perspectives: the individual, interaction between
people, development over time and ecological boundaries. These perspectives are
linked to twelve criteria: autonomy, equality of worth, connectedness, participation,
basic security, justice, bounded power, correctability, implementability, scale
consistency, sustainability and intergenerational responsibility.
The choice of a compass
is deliberate. A compass does not prescribe the destination. It does help
determine direction, reveal deviations and reconsider the course being
followed. Social and political choices cannot be reduced entirely to technical
calculations either. They require normative judgement, democratic deliberation,
experiential knowledge and responsibility. The compass does not assume that
responsibility, but it makes the balancing process more systematic, transparent
and open to correction.
For that reason, this
revised version further develops the instrument with indicators, a scorecard, a
4 x 12 assessment matrix, non-compensable minimum thresholds and an explicit
balancing procedure. Particular attention is paid to groups who can easily remain
invisible in ordinary decision-making, to institutional power relations and
resistance, to ecological and global consequences, to digitalisation and
artificial intelligence, and to the interests of future generations.
This operationalisation
should not suggest that human dignity, justice or connectedness can be captured
fully in numbers. Scores and indicators are aids. They make questions more
precise, differences more visible and commitments more verifiable, but they do
not replace human judgement. That is precisely why the compass also leaves room
for uncertainty, minority positions, qualitative experience and periodic
reconsideration.
The Human and Societal
Becoming Compass is therefore not a closed final model. It is an invitation to
look at systems differently: not only through rules, powers, financial
resources or organisational interests, but by asking what these systems do to
people, relationships, communities and living environments. The compass itself
must remain correctable. New experiences, scientific insights and societal
developments may provide reasons to refine its criteria, indicators and methods
of application.
The 11E Compass
encountered online offered the initial insight that a complex whole can be
represented clearly while still providing direction. The compass developed here
seeks to connect that inspiration with the broader human and societal becoming
model. The ultimate aim is not merely an attractive diagram, but a practical
tool that helps us assess whether our institutions truly do what they exist to
do: create conditions in which people, societies and future generations can
develop in freedom, equality of worth, connectedness and responsibility.
Vital E.H. Moors
August 2026
About
the author
Vital E.H. Moors is a
lawyer working for the central government of the Netherlands in the fields of
legislation, constitutional law and housing. His professional work addresses
legal and institutional questions concerning property, spatial planning, housing,
social rights and the role of government in protecting public interests. His
work lies at the intersection of law, policy and society: the point at which
legal norms, democratic choices and social tensions become concrete.
Moors studied law at
Maastricht University. In his work, he connects legal analysis with broader
reflection on the social context in which law operates. Among other matters, he
examines how fundamental rights - such as the right to property and the right
to housing - relate to democratic decision-making, social justice and the
public interest. For him, law is not only a technical instrument, but also an
institutional form through which a society expresses its view of the human
person, its power relations and its conceptions of justice.
Alongside his legal work,
Moors is developing an interdisciplinary research programme on conceptions of
the human person, living together and the institutional conditions for a just
and sustainable society. Its central question is how implicit assumptions about
human behaviour, freedom, responsibility and development shape policy, law and
social institutions. His approach connects insights from law, philosophy,
sociology, anthropology, political theory and ecological thought.
A key premise in his work
is that the human person cannot be understood as an isolated and completed
individual. Being human is a dynamic, relational and historical process. People
develop within social relationships, cultural meanings, institutional structures
and ecological boundaries. From that perspective, Moors examines how
institutions can support human flourishing, how social conflicts can be
regulated peacefully, and how democratic societies can give sustainable form to
freedom, equality of worth, responsibility and solidarity.
Moors regularly publishes
essays and analyses on democracy, justice, narratives, basic security, social
polarisation and the future of the democratic rule of law. Through social
media, he reaches a wider audience with reflections on current political and
social developments. A distinctive feature of his work is the attempt to
connect technical policy questions with fundamental questions about being
human, living together and institutional responsibility.
Through his essays and
publications, Moors seeks to contribute to a just and humane society in which
everyone has the opportunity to become fully human, within the boundaries of
our planet. His work proceeds from the conviction that a better society does
not arise from grand slogans alone, but from institutions, choices and people
with moral awareness, imagination and hope for a shared future.
Abstract
The Human and Societal
Becoming Compass is a normative and analytical framework for assessing and
designing policy, legislation and institutions from the perspective of the
conditions for human and societal development. It proceeds from a relational
and process-oriented conception of the human person: people do not develop in
isolation, but in interaction with others, within historically formed
institutions and under ecological conditions.
The central question is
whether social choices enable people to become human together as free, equal,
connected and responsible persons. The compass approaches this question from
four perspectives: the individual, social interaction, historical development
and ecological boundaries. Around them are twelve interrelated criteria:
autonomy, equality of worth, connectedness, participation, basic security,
justice, bounded power, correctability, implementability, scale consistency,
sustainability and intergenerational responsibility.
The framework connects
insights from developmental psychology, the capability approach, recognition
theory, sociology, legal philosophy, public administration, institutional
economics and ecological science. It thereby shows that formal rights, economic
growth or administrative efficiency are insufficient on their own. What matters
is whether people actually possess real opportunities for action, can
participate meaningfully, are protected against arbitrariness and have access
to the essential conditions of existence.
The compass does not
produce an automatic ranking or arithmetic final score. It organises a
transparent and interdisciplinary balancing process in which consequences,
power relations, uncertainties and possible displacement of burdens to people
elsewhere or in the future become visible. Particular attention is paid to
multiplier effects and institutional correctability. The compass is therefore
not a blueprint for a perfect society, but a practical aid for developing
humane, just, sustainable and learning institutions.
Core contribution The
central innovation is that each of the twelve criteria is examined through all
four perspectives. The perspectives and criteria are therefore not two separate
rounds. Together they create 48 fields of analysis, supplemented by minimum
thresholds, indicators, strength of evidence, measures, ownership and a review
date.
Inhoud
3.
The architecture: one core, four perspectives and twelve criteria
3.2
The four perspectives are lenses, not separate themes
3.4
The relationship is multiple, but not arbitrary
4.
From values to decisions: minimum thresholds, scores and balancing
4.1
Why an aggregate score is not enough
4.3
Score and strength of evidence
5.
The twelve criteria explained
5.1
Autonomy - from formal choice to real agency
5.2
Equality of worth - the same dignity, sometimes different support
5.3
Connectedness - policy always affects relationships
5.4
Participation - from a consultation event to demonstrable influence
5.5
Basic security - the ability to look ahead
5.6
Justice - distribution, recognition, voice and remedy
5.7
Bounded power - make dependency visible
5.8
Correctability - designing for error and learning
5.9
Implementability - the entire delivery chain counts
5.10
Scale consistency - address the problem where its causes and consequences lie
5.11
Sustainability - from green intention to ecological budget
The
ecological integration pathway
5.12
Intergenerational responsibility - keeping options open
6.
Four cross-cutting lenses that are always required
6.1
Structural inclusion and intersectionality
6.2
Global coherence and responsibility beyond borders
6.3
Digital technology and artificial intelligence
6.4
Future resilience and adaptive policy
7.
Implementation in existing institutions
7.1
Why implementation is political and organisational
7.4
Dealing with interests, bureaucracy and lobbying
8.1
Composition of the assessment team
9.
Worked example: a municipal programme for temporary housing
9.2
Selected intersections in the 4 x 12 matrix
10.
Position in relation to existing instruments
11.
Cultural and contextual scope
12.
Limitations and research agenda
1.
The individual: autonomy and capabilities
2.
Interaction: recognition and relationships
3.
Development: history, learning and change
4.
Ecological boundaries: the planet and future generations
12.
Intergenerational responsibility
Step
1 - Define the concrete choice
Step
2 - Map affected parties and effects
Step
3 - Analyse the four perspectives
Step
4 - Apply the twelve criteria
Step
5 - Make tensions visible
Step
6 - Seek multiplier effects
Step
7 - Organise correction in advance
A
compass for imperfect societies
APPENDIX
A - Scorecard for the twelve criteria
APPENDIX
C - Red-flag and decision form
APPENDIX
D - Implementation check and maturity levels
APPENDIX
E - Core indicators and measurement rules
Measurement
rules against false precision
Human
development, autonomy and connectedness
Justice, democracy and bounded power
Institutions, implementation, learning and correctability
Ecology, well-being and future generations
1.
Why a compass is needed
Societies organise an
increasing share of life through systems: laws, social benefit regimes, care
chains, housing markets, educational institutions, digital portals, algorithmic
selection and international supply chains. Those systems are necessary. They
allocate scarce resources, coordinate behaviour and make collective services
possible. At the same time, they can become detached from their purpose. A
procedure then becomes more important than the problem it was meant to solve; a
measurable performance crowds out what is genuinely valuable; the burden of
proof shifts to the person with the least power; and efficiency in one place
causes harm elsewhere.
The question is therefore
not only whether a measure is legally correct, financially balanced or
administratively attractive. The deeper question is this: does this arrangement
strengthen the ability of people and communities to live dignified, free, connected
and secure lives without undermining the opportunities of others, elsewhere or
in the future? The Human and Societal Becoming Compass structures that question
and translates it into design choices, indicators and moments of
accountability.
The compass is accessible
in form but interdisciplinary in foundation. Sen and Nussbaum's capability
approach shifts attention from formal rights or resources to real
opportunities. Ryan and Deci's self-determination theory emphasises autonomy,
competence and relatedness as conditions for motivation and well-being.
Theories of recognition and justice show that distribution, status and voice
cannot be separated. Public administration reveals how power, routines and
implementation capacity shape policy. Rule-of-law thinking adds legality,
bounded power and effective legal protection. Ecological science constrains
human development by reference to planetary carrying capacity. Strategic
foresight and technology ethics, finally, show that policy must also be able to
deal with uncertainty, digital concentrations of power and irreversible
effects.
2.
Purpose, meaning and use
2.1
Purpose
The compass has three
purposes. First, it provides a shared language for values that are often
fragmented across policy processes. Second, it makes those values assessable
through observations, indicators and rules of evidence. Third, it organises
learning capacity: not merely making promises in advance, but measuring,
listening, correcting and, where necessary, stopping during and after
implementation.
2.2
Meaning
“The system for people”
does not mean that every individual preference is decisive. Living together
requires boundaries, reciprocity, solidarity and ecological self-restraint. Nor
does it mean that human interests stand above nature. Human beings depend on
ecosystems and bear responsibilities towards other forms of life and future
generations. The starting point is therefore relational: people become human
within relationships, institutions and landscapes, while those contexts are in
turn shaped by human action.
2.3
Use
The compass can be used
ex ante in defining problems and designing policy, during decision-making as a
balancing framework, during implementation as a dashboard, and ex post for
evaluation. It is applicable to legislation, municipal policy, public services,
organisational change, spatial development, health and education policy,
digital systems and public-private cooperation. It expressly does not replace
specialised assessments. Human-rights assessments, environmental impact
assessments, data-protection impact assessments, algorithmic impact
assessments, implementability reviews and financial analysis remain necessary.
The compass connects such assessments, makes tensions between them visible and
prevents one technical appraisal from taking over the whole societal judgement.
3.
The architecture: one core, four perspectives and twelve criteria
3.1
The core
Central question Does
this policy, institution or technology demonstrably contribute to humane, just
and ecologically sustainable development - for different groups, across
multiple levels and over time - and can it be corrected in a timely manner?
The central question is
both normative and empirical. “Humane” and “just” require a publicly defensible
conception; “demonstrably” requires data and experiential knowledge; “different
groups” requires distributional analysis; “over time” requires scenarios; and
“correctable” requires rights, information and institutional capacity.
3.2
The four perspectives are lenses, not separate themes
|
Perspective |
Central analytical question |
|
Individual |
What changes in real
freedom of choice, safety, health, capabilities, dignity and access? Who
bears burdens or risks? |
|
Interaction |
What happens to trust, caring relationships, reciprocity, recognition,
conflict, solidarity and the relationship between citizen and institution? |
|
Development over
time |
Which opportunities for
learning, remedy and development arise or disappear? Which path dependence,
lock-in or transfer to future generations is created? |
|
Ecological boundaries |
Does the whole remain within absolute climate, biodiversity, water,
land and material boundaries? Is environmental harm shifted to other groups,
regions or generations? |
Each of the twelve
criteria is examined through all four perspectives. There are therefore not two
independent rounds - perspectives first and criteria second - but one 4 x 12
analysis. A policy intended to advance autonomy may, for example, expand
individual freedom of choice while weakening relationships, locking in future
choices or stimulating ecologically unsustainable consumption. A meaningful
balancing exercise becomes possible only when these effects are made visible
together.
3.3
The twelve criteria
|
No. |
Criterion |
Working definition |
|
1 |
Autonomy |
Real, informed and
non-coerced scope for action. |
|
2 |
Equality of worth |
Equal human dignity, non-discrimination and fair access. |
|
3 |
Connectedness |
Supportive
relationships, recognition, trust and social embeddedness. |
|
4 |
Participation |
Early, accessible and influential involvement in decisions. |
|
5 |
Basic security |
Sufficient and stable
conditions for living and planning. |
|
6 |
Justice |
Fair distribution, recognition, representation and remedy. |
|
7 |
Bounded power |
Lawful, transparent and
scrutinised exercise of power. |
|
8 |
Correctability |
The ability to signal, challenge and remedy errors and use them for
learning. |
|
9 |
Implementability |
Objectives are
achievable with available capacity and humane implementation. |
|
10 |
Scale consistency |
Powers, effects and responsibility correspond across levels. |
|
11 |
Sustainability |
Meeting needs within
ecological carrying capacity and through a just transition. |
|
12 |
Intergenerational responsibility |
Future people retain living space, options and the capacity for
recovery. |
3.4
The relationship is multiple, but not arbitrary
Some criteria have a
natural affinity with a particular perspective: autonomy is closely associated
with the individual, connectedness with interaction, intergenerational
responsibility with development over time, and sustainability with ecological
boundaries. This is a point of entry, not an exclusive allocation. Anyone who
assesses only the “primary” connection will miss system responses and
displacement effects. The strength of the model lies in crossing every
criterion with every perspective.
Figure 1. An earlier
visual representation of the compass. The revised version uses a 4 x 12
assessment matrix and twelve operationalised criteria.
4.
From values to decisions: minimum thresholds, scores and balancing
4.1
Why an aggregate score is not enough
A compass becomes
unreliable when serious harm under one criterion can be “made good” by high
scores elsewhere. An efficient system that discriminates is not acceptable
simply because it is inexpensive. A participatory process does not legitimise
an ecologically irreversible decision. The compass therefore does not use a
simple total, but a layered decision logic.
|
Decision layer |
Content |
Consequence |
|
Layer 1 -
non-compensable minimum thresholds |
Legality; human dignity
and fundamental rights; non-discrimination; a right to effective challenge
and remedy; no scientifically plausible breach of hard ecological or safety boundaries;
no irreversible serious harm without exceptionally weighty justification. |
If breached: stop,
redesign or submit explicitly to the competent court or supervisory body. No
averaging. |
|
Layer 2 - institutional conditions |
Autonomy, meaningful participation, basic security, bounded power,
correctability and minimum implementation capacity. |
A shortfall requires concrete safeguards, budget, an owner and a
deadline before implementation or as a binding implementation condition. |
|
Layer 3 -
optimisation and synergy |
Connectedness, quality
of implementation, scale consistency, sustainability and long-term value
above the minimum. |
Compare alternatives
and seek measures that strengthen several criteria simultaneously. |
4.2 The fixed sequence
for balancing
Test authority and
legality. Is there a clear legal basis, purpose limitation, necessity and
supervision?
Check the minimum
thresholds. Are there red flags concerning fundamental rights, discrimination,
legal protection, safety or ecological carrying capacity?
Make distribution
visible. Who gains, who loses, who bears risk, who is absent from the data, and
which intersectional patterns can be identified?
Compare genuine
alternatives. Assess at least the baseline or no-action option and two credible
variants, including a less intrusive alternative.
Apply proportionality and
precaution. Is the measure suitable, necessary and balanced? Where serious or
irreversible harm is possible, uncertainty may justify delay, phasing or
additional protection.
Seek multiple forms of
value. Prefer alternatives that strengthen several criteria and keep future
options open.
Decide through public
reasons. The legally competent authority must make clear which facts, values
and uncertainties were decisive, including minority positions it did not adopt.
Safeguard review. Record
the indicators, thresholds, owner, independent scrutiny, evaluation date and
rules for stopping or adaptation.
This procedure does not
determine which person or institution is politically “right”; the competent
democratic and rule-of-law bodies continue to decide. It does prescribe how a
decision must be justified: through testable reasons, accessible data, attention
to unequal effects, seriously examined alternatives and a correction route
arranged in advance. It thereby narrows the scope for arbitrariness without
turning political responsibility into technocracy.
4.3
Score and strength of evidence
|
Score |
Meaning |
Decision
consequence |
|
0 - unacceptable |
Serious harm or a minimum threshold is breached; a
safeguard is absent. |
Red: do not implement or redesign fundamentally. |
|
1 -
insufficient |
Significant
risks; measures are vague, unassigned or unfunded. |
Red-amber:
conditions are mandatory, followed by reassessment. |
|
2 - mixed/uncertain |
Advantages and disadvantages partly balance one
another, or evidence is missing. |
Amber: pilot, additional evidence and explicit risk
management. |
|
3 - sufficient |
A positive
effect is plausible; relevant risks are managed and remedy is possible. |
Light green:
implement with monitoring. |
|
4 - strengthening |
Demonstrably positive, fairly distributed and
sustainable impact; the design also increases learning capacity. |
Green: retain and scale after evaluation. |
|
U - unknown |
Essential
information is missing. |
Do not treat as
neutral: assign an owner and deadline for knowledge development. |
Every score is
accompanied by a statement of the strength of the evidence: high, medium or
low. High means several relevant data sources and consistent experiential
knowledge; medium means partial or context-bound information; low means
assumptions, limited samples or conflicting signals. A score of 3 with low
evidential strength is therefore not a green light without a learning plan.
Scores are also disaggregated by group and time horizon; an average must not
conceal serious deterioration for a small group.
5.
The twelve criteria explained
The criteria below do not
all follow the same pattern. Some call for a dilemma, others for a ladder,
power map, stress test or scenario exercise. The uniform indicators are brought
together in Appendix A. The examples are illustrative; application requires
context-specific calibration and participatory validation.
5.1
Autonomy - from formal choice to real agency
Autonomy is not the same
as being told to “sort it out yourself”. People act within physical, social,
financial, cultural and institutional conditions. Real autonomy exists when a
person has understandable information, can choose between credible alternatives,
is not subject to improper pressure and can foresee the consequences. The
capability approach and self-determination theory show why formal consent or
freedom of choice alone is insufficient: what matters is the real capacity to
act and an experienced sense of control.
Practical dilemma A
digital portal may appear to increase freedom of choice because it is available
24 hours a day. For people with limited digital skills, language barriers or
cognitive impairments, the same portal may effectively close access. Autonomy
therefore requires at least an equivalent non-digital channel and independent
support.
Autonomy can be measured,
among other things, by the proportion of affected people who have at least two
genuine alternatives; the comprehensibility of information; time available for
deciding; experienced control; the use and outcome of objections; and differences
between groups. Consent without a viable alternative is a red flag, as is a
choice where refusal leads to disproportionate exclusion. Design should
therefore support autonomy by providing explanation, time for reflection,
assistance and the possibility of revising a decision.
5.2
Equality of worth - the same dignity, sometimes different support
Equality of worth is the
normative floor of the compass. It means that every person has equal moral
status and may not be treated as inferior, suspect, invisible or merely
instrumental. Equality of worth does not always mean identical treatment. Where
starting positions differ, equal treatment can reproduce existing disadvantage.
Reasonable accommodation, targeted support or unequal investment may be
necessary precisely in order to achieve equal access and outcomes.
The
distributional lens
Access: who reaches the
service, who drops out and who does not know it exists?
Process: who is
scrutinised more strictly, made to wait longer or believed less readily?
Outcome: which
differences persist by income, origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability,
age, residence status and combinations of these characteristics?
Experience: who reports
humiliation, stereotyping, insecurity or lack of recognition?
Do not use averages
alone; conduct an intersectional analysis. A favourable overall score may, for
example, coexist with structural attrition among people who have both a
disability and a migrant background. Relevant indicators include accessibility,
non-take-up, disparities in outcomes, complaints of discrimination, reasonable
accommodation and a so-called disparate-impact ratio. Figures must always be
interpreted alongside experiential knowledge, and small groups must not
disappear from the analysis merely because of statistical uncertainty.
5.3
Connectedness - policy always affects relationships
People develop identity,
trust and resilience within relationships. Policy that counts only individuals
can make relational harm invisible: informal carers become overburdened,
neighbourhood networks fall apart, continuity of professional support disappears
or distrust between groups increases. Connectedness therefore requires
attention to reciprocity, care, recognition and the quality of contact between
people and institutions.
A useful relational
assessment asks: which existing networks currently support people; which
relationships are strengthened or burdened by the policy; does dependence arise
without voice; and who performs unpaid or invisible care work? Indicators can
include experienced social support, loneliness, trust in institutions,
continuity of care providers, burdens on informal carers and forced
displacement. The aim is not to preserve every community unchanged, but to
weigh relational costs explicitly and enable new connections.
5.4
Participation - from a consultation event to demonstrable influence
Participation is
meaningful when those affected can influence problem definition, alternatives,
implementation and evaluation early enough to matter. An information meeting
held after the preferred decision has already been fixed is communication, not
shared decision-making. The central question is not how many meetings were
held, but what difference the input made.
|
Level |
Characteristic |
Minimum safeguard |
|
1. Inform |
People understand the
objective, available space and consequences. |
Necessary, but not
participation in itself. |
|
2. Consult |
Experiences and preferences are collected. |
Publish what was heard and who was absent. |
|
3. Co-design |
Affected parties help develop
alternatives and criteria. |
Provide access to
information, expertise and compensation. |
|
4. Shared decision-making |
Participants have formal influence or consent rights on specific
matters. |
Define mandate and escalation in advance. |
|
5. Citizen/community
oversight |
Affected parties
monitor implementation, data and remedy. |
Safeguard resources,
independence and access to decisions. |
Structural inclusion
requires more than an open invitation. Prepare a map of stakeholders and exclusion;
approach organisations representing marginalised groups through trusted
intermediaries; compensate time and expertise; provide interpreters, childcare,
travel and accessible formats; create safe and, where appropriate, anonymous
channels; and report who was not reached. Follow the principle “nothing about
us without us”: people with disabilities, people with a migrant background,
LGBTQ+ people and other affected groups must be able to act as knowledge
holders and co-designers, not merely as respondents. Measure
representativeness, accessibility, traceability of influence and satisfaction
with the process.
5.5
Basic security - the ability to look ahead
Basic security is more
than an income above a statistical threshold. It includes stable housing,
access to food, energy, healthcare, education, safety, time and reliable public
services. Uncertainty itself has consequences: continuous stress reduces attention,
undermines health and makes long-term planning difficult. A system that
provides assistance but makes unpredictable recoveries can therefore both
increase and undermine basic security.
Stress-testing
a household
For different household
types, simulate what happens when an unexpected bill arrives, employment is
lost, illness occurs, a move or separation takes place, or a digital portal
fails. Measure disposable income after fixed costs, housing stability, energy and
food poverty, waiting times, non-take-up of services, income volatility and
cumulative administrative burdens. Design for predictability: simple access,
timely payments, proportionate checks, a human point of contact and bounded
recovery of overpayments.
5.6
Justice - distribution, recognition, voice and remedy
Justice has at least four
dimensions. Distributive justice concerns benefits, burdens and risks.
Recognition justice asks whether people and ways of life are taken seriously.
Procedural justice concerns voice, information and influence. Restorative justice
asks what happens after harm has occurred. Fraser, Honneth, Rawls and Young
each emphasise a different part of this whole; the compass brings them
together.
A justice assessment
therefore shows not only the net social benefit, but also who pays, who
benefits, who bears risks and who can enforce a remedy. Use distributional
analyses by income and population group, qualitative experiences of
recognition, representation on decision-making bodies and the actual operation
of remedies. A policy variant with a higher aggregate return may be rejected
when it imposes disproportionate burdens on an already vulnerable group and a
less harmful alternative is available.
5.7
Bounded power - make dependency visible
Power is the capacity to
influence the decisions, resources, information or life opportunities of
others. It is unavoidable, but must be lawful, proportionate, transparent and
subject to scrutiny. Formal authority tells only part of the story. Expertise,
algorithms, procurement contracts, access to decision-makers, data monopolies
and time pressure also create power.
The
power map
For every important
decision, map five matters: who can initiate, who possesses information, who
can delay or block, who bears the consequences and who can enforce correction?
Add interests, financial relationships, lobbying contacts, revolving-door roles,
dependence on suppliers and informal vetoes. Then assess the legal basis,
discretionary space, separation of functions, transparency, supervision and
access to challenge.
Institutional resistance
is not overcome by an appeal to goodwill. What is needed is organised
countervailing power, disclosure of interests and lobbying contacts,
independent assessment, protected space for dissent, budgets and data for
supervisory bodies, escalation rights and periodic reauthorisation. Power is
sufficiently bounded when a person affected by a decision does not depend on
the goodwill of the same actor who made it.
5.8
Correctability - designing for error and learning
No complex system is free
from error. The moral quality of an institution is therefore also revealed by
what it does when a mistake occurs. Correctability encompasses the
detectability of error, an accessible route for challenge, timely remedy,
compensation, analysis of causes and adaptation of rules or systems. An
objection procedure that exists in law but takes months, is inaccessible or has
no suspensive effect offers only paper protection.
Learning cycle Signal
-> safe reporting -> independent investigation -> temporary protection
-> remedy and compensation -> correction of the cause -> public
learning -> verification that the error does not recur.
Measure the processing
time and outcome of complaints, the proportion of upheld objections, the time
required for remedy, repeated errors, follow-up to audits and satisfaction with
the process. Build in sunset and review clauses, protect whistleblowers, record
near misses and ensure that policymakers see data on appeals and exceptions. A
low number of complaints is not automatically positive; it may also indicate
lack of awareness, fear or inaccessibility.
5.9
Implementability - the entire delivery chain counts
Implementability is not a
final technical check, but a condition of legitimacy. Policy that cannot be
implemented shifts uncertainty and the costs of remedy to citizens and
professionals. The analysis therefore begins with the actual process: from
application, data sharing and professional assessment to payment, supervision,
objection and cooperation across the delivery chain.
|
Link in the chain |
Implementability question |
|
Mandate and rules |
Are objectives, powers
and exceptions clear and mutually consistent? |
|
People and professional expertise |
Are capacity, training, professional discretion and psychosocial
burden responsible? |
|
Resources and time |
Are the structural
budget, implementation period and maintenance funded? |
|
Data and technology |
Are data available, accurate, interoperable, secure and explainable? |
|
Chain and scale |
Can partners deliver,
and is ownership clear at handovers? |
|
Burden on citizens |
How much time, evidence, travel, digital activity and uncertainty does
the system demand? |
|
Supervision and
remedy |
Can errors be
identified early and remedied quickly? |
Relevant indicators
include staffing shortfalls, level of training, processing time, error rates,
administrative burdens in hours and euros, ICT readiness, data quality, the
number of handovers and capacity for remedy. Before broad introduction, conduct
a practical trial with professionals and users. Publish not only the expected
benefits, but also the implementation costs, uncertainties and conditions under
which scaling up would be responsible.
5.10
Scale consistency - address the problem where its causes and consequences lie
Much policy failure
arises because the level of decision-making, the level of the problem and the
level of accountability do not coincide. A municipality may bear the
consequences of national housing policy; climate gains in Europe may be
connected to extraction of materials elsewhere; an algorithm may be used
locally but designed by a global supplier. Scale consistency therefore requires
a map of causes, powers, financial flows, data, benefits and burdens from
neighbourhood to world level.
The principle of
subsidiarity helps: place decisions as close as possible to those affected
unless effectiveness, equality or cross-border consequences require a higher
level. Polycentric governance adds that several levels may bear responsibility
simultaneously, provided coordination and accountability are clear. Measure
cross-border spillovers, alignment between levels of government, mismatches
between tasks and resources, supply-chain transparency and the ability of
affected groups outside the jurisdiction to be heard.
5.11
Sustainability - from green intention to ecological budget
Sustainability becomes
concrete only when policy is connected to absolute ecological boundaries.
Relative efficiency - lower emissions per product - is insufficient when total
production and consumption continue to grow. The planetary-boundaries approach,
climate science and biodiversity research require an assessment of aggregate
pressure on the climate, biosphere, freshwater, land, materials and pollution.
Environmental justice also applies: burdens must not fall systematically on
communities with less power, whether here or elsewhere.
The
ecological integration pathway
Identify the relevant
boundaries. Translate climate, material, water, land and biodiversity
objectives into an appropriate sectoral or territorial budget.
Measure the full life
cycle. Include extraction, production, use, maintenance, waste, transport and
digital infrastructure, including international supply chains.
Compare absolute
alternatives. Examine demand reduction, reuse, repair, circular design and
ecological restoration, rather than only a “greener” version of the same
volume.
Apply precaution. Where
serious or irreversible harm is reasonably foreseeable, the burden of proof
lies with the actor choosing the riskier course.
Design a just transition.
Do not compensate only financially; create voice, new prospects and protection
for groups and regions that depend on the existing arrangement.
Monitor boundaries and
distribution. Report both total ecological pressure and the distribution of
benefits, burdens and exposure.
Indicators include
greenhouse-gas emissions, material footprint, water use and quality, land use,
biodiversity pressure, toxic emissions, circularity and ecosystem restoration.
Indicators must be scientifically grounded and context-specific. A favourable
sustainability score can never legitimise a human-rights violation; conversely,
social benefits cannot compensate without limit for the breach of a hard
ecological boundary. The compass therefore works with both a social floor and
an ecological ceiling.
5.12
Intergenerational responsibility - keeping options open
Future people cannot sit
at today's consultation table, but they will experience the consequences of
infrastructure, debt, education, nature loss, data systems and technological
lock-in. Intergenerational responsibility therefore requires policy to be
assessed beyond the usual budget horizon. The central concerns are
irreversibility, maintenance burdens, adaptive capacity and the value of
keeping options open.
A
concise foresight exercise
Horizon scan: which
climate, demographic, geopolitical, social and technological developments could
undermine the assumptions?
At least three scenarios:
a trend scenario, a stress scenario and a transformative scenario; for major
risks, add a “severe but plausible” scenario.
Time horizons: show
effects at approximately 10, 25 and 50 years, as appropriate to the subject.
Robustness: which
measures work across several scenarios, and which create costly lock-in?
Signals and tipping
points: define measurable developments that trigger adaptation or termination.
A voice for the future:
involve young people, future-generations commissions and representatives of
nature in assessment and monitoring.
Measure long-term
emissions and commitments, maintenance backlogs, financial and ecological debt,
loss of policy options, robustness across scenarios and the availability of
adaptive pathways. The result is not a prediction. Scenarios are structured
ways of testing assumptions and making policy less vulnerable to surprise.
6.
Four cross-cutting lenses that are always required
The twelve criteria do
not automatically prevent certain effects from falling between the categories.
Four cross-cutting lenses are therefore mandatory in every application:
structural inclusion, global coherence, digital technology and future
resilience. They are not added as further criteria because they affect almost
all criteria simultaneously.
6.1
Structural inclusion and intersectionality
Open participation is not
automatically inclusive. Those with little time, money, trust, language
proficiency, mobility or security of residence find it harder to attend a
meeting and may sometimes be placed at risk by becoming visible. Structural
inclusion therefore begins before the invitation. The organisation maps
affected groups, examines historical exclusion and asks the communities
concerned how they can participate safely and meaningfully.
|
Condition |
Minimum elaboration |
|
Representation |
Representative
organisations, informal networks and unorganised affected people;
oversampling of small or heavily affected groups; public disclosure of who is
absent. |
|
Accessibility |
Sign language, captions, plain language, translation, physical and
digital accessibility, several time options and non-digital participation. |
|
Resources |
Compensation for time
and expertise, travel, childcare, support and access to independent
expertise. |
|
Safety |
Confidential or anonymous channels, privacy protection,
trauma-sensitive support and protection against repercussions. |
|
Influence |
A clear mandate in
advance; a visible trail from proposals to decisions; reasoned responses to
input not adopted; the possibility of a minority report. |
|
Continuity |
Involvement in design, pilot, implementation, interpretation of data,
evaluation and remedy - not only in a single consultation. |
The United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities emphasises the active
involvement of persons with disabilities through their representative
organisations. The broader lesson also applies to other marginalised groups:
participation must share power and resources. At the same time, groups must not
be treated as homogeneous. Intersectionality requires attention to combinations
of disability, gender, origin, poverty, age and sexual orientation, among other
characteristics. Use sensitive personal data only when this can be done
lawfully, necessarily and safely; qualitative methods and self-identification
can complement statistical gaps.
6.2
Global coherence and responsibility beyond borders
Local prosperity may
depend on labour, raw materials, ecosystems and migration regimes elsewhere. A
policy analysis that stops at the national border may mistake displacement for
success. The global assessment therefore follows the most important value chains
and external effects. It asks who extracts raw materials, who produces under
which labour conditions, where emissions and waste end up, which trade or
investment rules restrict alternatives, and how migrants and diasporas are
affected by decisions.
In practice, this means
supply-chain research and due diligence in procurement; involvement of affected
groups and trade unions in producing countries; assessment against
international human-rights and labour standards; evaluation of extraterritorial
climate and biodiversity effects; and analysis of policy coherence across
trade, migration, development and climate. Responsibilities are shared but not
equal: actors with greater power, historical contribution and financial
capacity bear a heavier duty. Scale consistency thereby becomes a question of
both effectiveness and global justice.
6.3
Digital technology and artificial intelligence
Digital systems are not
neutral tools. They encode objectives, categories and historical data, shift
professional discretion and can make decision-making opaque. AI and algorithmic
selection can accelerate services and identify patterns, but can also automate
discrimination, reduce human context and increase dependence on private
suppliers. The European AI Act and UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of
Artificial Intelligence provide legal and normative safeguards, but an analysis
of human and societal becoming remains necessary.
|
Digital assessment |
Core questions |
|
Necessity and
purpose |
Is automation genuinely
necessary? Is the purpose specific, lawful and publicly defensible? Has a
simpler non-AI alternative been examined? |
|
Data and distribution |
Are data relevant, current and representative? Which groups are
missing or misclassified? Which proxies reproduce disadvantage? |
|
Explainability and
control |
Can an affected person
understand which factors were decisive? Does a competent professional
actually have the time, knowledge and mandate to depart from the output? |
|
Contestability |
Can a decision be found, challenged in time and remedied without
digital barriers? Are logs and versions retained? |
|
Accessibility |
Is there an equivalent
human and non-digital channel? Does the design meet accessibility standards
and plain-language requirements? |
|
Safety and dependency |
Are cybersecurity, privacy, model changes, supplier lock-in, audit
rights and continuity secured by contract? |
|
Ecological
footprint |
Is the energy, water
and material use of development, training, storage and operation
proportionate to the public value? |
High-risk applications
require prior independent assessment, participation by affected groups, periodic
bias and performance testing, transparency about suppliers, and a clear power
to suspend the system. “Human intervention” is meaningful only when the
professional understands what the system does and can depart from its output
without adverse incentives. A button with a human behind it is not human
control if that person merely confirms the automated result.
6.4
Future resilience and adaptive policy
A scenario chapter added
at the end is insufficient. Foresight must change the definition of the
problem, the alternatives and the indicators. A climate stress scenario may,
for example, require different locations, building standards and insurance
models; technological disruption may require training and public digital
infrastructure; demographic change may affect the carrying capacity of informal
care or tax systems.
The OECD Strategic
Foresight Toolkit recommends challenging assumptions, developing plausible
futures, stress-testing strategies against them and translating the findings
into actionable plans. In the compass, each scenario therefore has predefined
signal indicators and decision thresholds. When a threshold is crossed, an
agreed action follows: accelerate, adapt, add protection or stop.
Intergenerational responsibility thus becomes an administrative routine rather
than an appeal to good intentions.
7.
Implementation in existing institutions
7.1
Why implementation is political and organisational
A new assessment
framework does not insert itself automatically into an organisation. It
competes for time, budget, data and administrative attention. It may call
existing performance indicators into question, shift discretionary space or
expose interests. Resistance is therefore not merely unwillingness; it may
arise from conflicting mandates, fear of liability, loss of status, staff
shortages, technical dependence or previous reforms that produced little. A
mature implementation strategy examines those causes and makes them
discussable.
7.2
Institutional readiness
|
Building block |
Readiness question |
|
Mandate |
Is it clear for which
decisions the assessment is mandatory, who commissions it and what
consequences a red flag has? |
|
Ownership |
Has one senior owner been appointed, with a multidisciplinary team and
an independent challenge function? |
|
Capacity |
Are staff time,
knowledge, a participation budget, data analysis, legal expertise and
implementation knowledge available? |
|
Embedding |
Does the compass connect with budgeting, policy memoranda,
implementability review, procurement, risk management, audit and evaluation? |
|
Data and
narratives |
Are disaggregated
quantitative data and experiential knowledge available, with appropriate
privacy and quality safeguards? |
|
Countervailing power |
Can citizens, professionals, supervisory bodies and minority voices
challenge safely and pause scaling? |
|
Learning pathway |
Have the pilot,
baseline, indicators, evaluation points, decision thresholds and public
reporting been defined in advance? |
7.3
Phased introduction
Phase 1 - prepare. Select
one concrete and administratively relevant pilot case. Establish the mandate,
team, affected groups, minimum thresholds and baseline.
Phase 2 - co-design.
Calibrate indicators with implementers, citizens, researchers and supervisory
bodies. Test comprehensibility and data availability.
Phase 3 - parallel
assessment. Use the compass alongside existing decision-making without
immediate formal consequences, so that gaps and unintended incentives become
visible.
Phase 4 - formal
embedding. Connect the outcome to the decision memorandum, budget, procurement
conditions, implementation plan and evaluation. Red flags require explicit
escalation.
Phase 5 - learn and
scale. Commission an independent evaluation of whether the instrument improves
decision quality, inclusion and correction. Adapt the indicators and scale up
only where added value is demonstrable.
7.4
Dealing with interests, bureaucracy and lobbying
|
Pattern of
resistance |
Institutional
response |
|
Conflict of interest or lobbying pressure |
Public register of interests and lobbying;
publication of underlying studies and funding; adversarial review;
independent counter-expertise. |
|
Bureaucratic
silos |
Joint
commissioning, shared indicators, one chain owner and escalation when
handovers fail. |
|
Metric gaming |
Combination of outcome, process and experience
indicators; independent sampling; checks for burden shifting and undesirable
selection. |
|
Reputation
protection |
Safe reporting
channels, a public register of system-level errors, protection for
whistleblowers and for officials who adjust course early. |
|
Supplier dependency |
Audit and exit rights, data portability,
documentation duties, interoperability and knowledge development within the
public organisation. |
|
Short-term
political pressure |
Scenarios, an
intergenerational section, multi-year budgeting, independent monitoring and
predefined reconsideration points. |
The core principle is
that countervailing power must be organised, not assumed. Transparency is
necessary but insufficient; a public document is of little use when nobody has
the time, expertise or authority to respond. Relevant supervisory bodies,
citizen panels and professionals must therefore have access to information,
resources and a formal route to the decision-maker.
8.
Practical method
The originally separate
steps for perspectives and criteria have been combined. Application now
proceeds through one coherent cycle. The scale of the analysis is
proportionate: a small local project may complete an initial scan in a day;
legislation, infrastructure or a high-risk AI system requires a
multidisciplinary process with external scrutiny.
|
Step |
Result |
|
0. Mandate and scope |
Decide what will be assessed, by whom, for which
period and with which decision consequences. Also identify what falls outside
the scope. |
|
1. Problem and
alternatives |
Formulate the
public problem without treating one solution as self-evident. Include the
no-action option and at least two variants. |
|
2. Stakeholder, impact and power map |
Identify directly and indirectly affected groups,
marginalised voices, implementers, chain partners, veto positions and
displacement effects. |
|
3. Minimum
thresholds and baseline |
Define legal,
human-rights, ecological and safety thresholds; collect the starting position
and strength of evidence. |
|
4. 4 x 12 analysis |
Assess each criterion through the individual,
interaction, development over time and ecological boundaries; disaggregate
scores by group. |
|
5.
Cross-cutting lenses and scenarios |
Conduct
inclusion, global, digital and future assessments. Stress-test alternatives
under plausible scenarios. |
|
6. Deliberation and balancing |
Compare alternatives in the fixed sequence; document
uncertainty, minority positions and non-compensable deficiencies. |
|
7. Decision and
public rationale |
The competent
authority explains the choice, conditions, rejected alternatives and
treatment of conflicting values. |
|
8. Implementation compact |
Record actions, budget, owner, indicators, data,
supervision, milestones, red lines and the route to remedy. |
|
9. Monitor,
learn and correct |
Publish the
dashboard, discuss signals with affected people and activate predefined
adaptation or termination. |
8.1
Composition of the assessment team
A credible assessment
combines substantive policy knowledge, implementation experience, legal
expertise, knowledge of data and methods, ecological expertise and experiential
knowledge. The commissioning authority appoints a process owner; an independent
challenge group tests assumptions and red flags; affected groups have their own
representation and may publish a minority position; and the formally competent
authority decides. Interests and roles are disclosed in advance.
8.2
Dashboard and scorecard
The dashboard has two
levels. The first shows the score, trend, strength of evidence and any red flag
for each criterion. The second shows the underlying indicators, disaggregated
by group, area and time. Every low or unknown score is assigned a measure, an
owner and a date. The scorecard thereby becomes an administrative commitment
rather than a report mark.
|
Criterion |
Score |
Trend |
Evidence |
Core signal |
Measure |
Owner |
Review |
|
Autonomy |
2 |
-> |
Medium |
Digital choice excludes
one group |
Full telephone and in-person
service channel |
Director of Public
Services |
Q1 2027 |
|
Equality of worth |
1 |
down |
High |
People with disabilities drop out |
Accessible redesign and user testing |
Programme Director |
1 Dec 2026 |
|
Participation |
3 |
up |
Medium |
Young people are absent |
Compensated youth
council |
Participation Project
Lead |
Q4 2026 |
|
Sustainability |
U |
- |
Low |
Supply-chain emissions unknown |
Life-cycle and supply-chain analysis |
Procurement Director |
15 Nov 2026 |
|
Correctability |
2 |
-> |
High |
Objection takes 18
weeks |
Accelerated remedy
route and six-week standard |
Legal Director |
Q2 2027 |
The example also shows
why missing data are not rewarded with a neutral score. “U” activates knowledge
development. A dashboard is interpreted periodically together with affected
groups; a rising average score may still coincide with deterioration for one
subgroup. The full form is provided in Appendix A.
9.
Worked example: a municipal programme for temporary housing
Suppose a municipality
wishes to place modular homes quickly for people in urgent housing need,
recognised refugees, young people and people leaving social care accommodation.
The programme promises affordable homes and rapid construction, but encounters
objections concerning location, temporariness, segregation and ecological
quality. The case shows how the compass turns a list of values into a design
and decision-making instrument.
9.1
Problem and alternatives
The problem is not
defined as “where do we place 300 modules?”, but as “how can we increase
affordable, stable and inclusive housing opportunities within two years without
creating new disadvantage, spatial displacement or ecological lock-in?” Three
alternatives are examined alongside the preferred variant: distribution across
smaller sites, conversion of vacant property, and a combination with permanent
social housing. The no-action option is also calculated, including the human
and financial costs of continued homelessness and shelter provision.
9.2
Selected intersections in the 4 x 12 matrix
|
Intersection |
Research
question |
|
Autonomy x individual |
Can residents help choose the location, type of home
or support? Is refusal possible without losing priority? |
|
Connectedness x
interaction |
Does the design
support mixed neighbourhoods, shared space and continuity of networks, or
does it concentrate stigma? |
|
Basic security x development |
Does “temporary” housing provide a realistic pathway
onwards, or will uncertainty return after five years? |
|
Sustainability
x ecology |
What are the
material, energy, water, soil and mobility effects over the full service
life, including reuse? |
|
Equality of worth x interaction |
Are future residents involved as full members of the
neighbourhood, or only treated as a target group about whom others speak? |
|
Scale
consistency x development |
Are municipal
shelter and housing responsibilities aligned with regional construction,
national funding policy and migration patterns? |
|
Digital cross-cutting lens |
Does digital registration exclude people without a
digital identity, fixed address, language proficiency or smartphone? |
|
Intergenerational |
Can the site be
adapted to heat, flooding and changing housing needs, or is a vulnerable path
being locked in? |
9.3
From signals to redesign
The baseline shows that
the central site is inexpensive, but distant from services, exposed to high
heat stress and concentrates one vulnerable group. Residents' organisations
value speed but fear having to move again. People with physical disabilities
point out that only a small proportion is accessible. The supply-chain analysis
also shows that the cheaper modules are difficult to reuse.
Under the balancing
logic, the cost advantage cannot simply compensate for these shortcomings. The
municipality therefore chooses smaller mixed sites, increases the share of
permanently usable and accessible homes, records an individual housing pathway,
organises paid resident management, and includes take-back obligations and
material passports in procurement. An independent residents' council gains
access to progress data and may trigger administrative reconsideration if the
maximum period of residence is exceeded. Investment rises, but so do service
life, legal certainty, ecological value and the likelihood of sustainable
integration.
10.
Position in relation to existing instruments
The compass does not
stand alone. It builds on existing frameworks and connects their strengths. Its
added value lies in the relationship between conceptions of the human person,
social relationships, institutional quality, ecological boundaries, technology
and time. The price of that breadth is that specialist depth must be obtained
elsewhere.
|
Existing
instrument |
Primary focus |
Relationship to
the compass |
|
Human-rights and equal-treatment assessment |
Rights, non-discrimination, necessity,
proportionality and remedies. |
Provides non-compensable minimum thresholds;
specialised legal assessment remains authoritative. |
|
Well-being /
OECD Well-being |
Multiple
societal outcomes, distribution, here and now, later and elsewhere. |
Provides
indicators and a distributional perspective; the compass adds institutional
design and correction. |
|
SDGs |
International objectives for social, economic and
ecological development. |
Helps connect objectives; the compass also examines
power, implementation, conflicts and minimum thresholds. |
|
Doughnut /
planetary boundaries |
Social
foundation and ecological ceiling; scientific carrying capacity. |
Anchors
sustainability in absolute boundaries and just distribution. |
|
Regulatory-burden and implementability review |
Implementability, capacity, compliance, burdens and
ICT. |
Deepened by human dignity, experiential knowledge,
chain effects and remedy. |
|
EIA, LCA and
nature assessment |
Environmental
and life-cycle effects, alternatives and mitigation. |
Provide
specialist ecological data; the compass connects them to social and
administrative effects. |
|
DPIA / algorithmic or AI impact assessment |
Privacy, data risks, discrimination, transparency
and control. |
Provides digital depth; the compass connects it to
all twelve criteria and non-digital alternatives. |
|
Citizens’
assembly and participation guidance |
Deliberation,
representation, influence and process quality. |
Provide
methods; the compass links participation to decision criteria, implementation
and monitoring. |
In practice, there is
therefore no need to start again. Existing analyses are included as evidence in
the scorecard. The compass identifies which specialised assessment is still
missing, where outcomes conflict and which actor is responsible for coherence.
This reduces duplicate administration and increases the likelihood that
analyses genuinely influence the decision.
11.
Cultural and contextual scope
The compass was developed
from international human rights, democratic rule-of-law principles and
predominantly European and North American social-science literature,
supplemented by global development and ecological frameworks. That position
must be explicit. Concepts such as autonomy, participation and justice receive
different emphases in different cultural, religious and political contexts. An
individualistic interpretation of autonomy may, for example, underestimate
family and communal dependencies; an abstract participation model may miss
informal forms of authority or care.
Sensitivity to context
does not, however, mean unlimited cultural relativism. Human dignity, bodily
integrity, non-discrimination, freedom of conscience, legal protection and the
ecological conditions of existence form a minimum floor. Within that boundary,
meanings, indicators and methods are translated together with local
communities. Use local languages and forms of knowledge, recognise collective
rights where relevant, examine power differences within communities and test
whether “tradition” is being used selectively to restrict the voice of women,
young people, minorities or LGBTQ+ people.
Context rule Universal
minimum thresholds; contextual interpretation; empirical testing; structural
space for internal minority voices.
12.
Limitations and research agenda
The compass is a reasoned
interdisciplinary synthesis instrument, not a fully validated measurement
theory. The proposed indicators must be tested in each policy field for
reliability, validity, sensitivity to change and unintended incentives. A
number can create false precision; a dashboard can be gamed; available data
reflect existing power relations; and participation can remain selective
despite sound procedures. The instrument therefore combines quantitative data,
qualitative experiential knowledge, independent challenge and public
justification.
Further research is
needed into weighting without normative flattening; methods for small and
intersectional groups; connections between local decisions and global
ecological budgets; the institutional conditions for genuinely correctable
algorithms; and the influence of the compass on actual decision quality. Pilots
should ask not only whether users find the instrument convenient, but whether
decisions demonstrably change, exclusion decreases, errors are remedied more
quickly and ecological pressure genuinely falls.
13.
Conclusion
The phrase “not people
for the system, but the system for people” is not a simple opposition between
the individual and the institution. People need good institutions; institutions
need boundaries, information, legitimacy and the capacity to learn. The compass
makes that mutual dependence visible. It asks not only what policy seeks to
achieve, but which conceptions of the human person, relationships, positions of
power, ecological effects and future pathways are built into its design.
The revised version takes
the step from a guiding values framework to a practical instrument for
assessment and learning. The four perspectives are crossed with all twelve
criteria; minimum thresholds cannot be averaged away; indicators and strength
of evidence make statements verifiable; marginalised groups gain structural
influence; ecology, global supply chains, digitalisation and future scenarios
become fixed components; and implementation encompasses power, capacity,
resistance and correction.
No scorecard assumes
responsibility. Ultimate quality lies in the combination of sound data,
experiential knowledge, public debate, expertise, political accountability and
effective legal protection. The compass succeeds when it does more than arrange
fine words: when it helps make systems demonstrably more humane, just, liveable
and capable of learning - today, elsewhere and for those who come after us.
Architecture
of the compass
The compass consists of
three layers.
At its centre is the
objective: people must be able to develop as free, equal, connected and
responsible persons.
The inner ring contains
four perspectives from which every choice must be examined:
1.
the
individual;
2.
interaction;
3.
development;
4.
ecological
boundaries.
The outer ring contains
twelve substantive criteria:
1.
autonomy;
2.
equality
of worth;
3.
connectedness;
4.
participation;
5.
basic security;
6.
justice;
7.
bounded
power;
8.
correctability;
9.
implementability;
10. scale consistency;
11. sustainability;
12. intergenerational responsibility.
These elements are not
separate messages. They influence one another. Without basic security, autonomy
easily remains theoretical. Without participation, information about how
institutions operate is missing. Without bounded power, connectedness can turn
into dependency. Without implementability, rights remain promises on paper. And
without ecological sustainability, the conditions for every other form of
development are eroded.
The
four perspectives
1.
The individual: autonomy and capabilities
The individual
perspective asks what policy or an institution means for people's concrete
opportunities.
Do they possess
sufficient knowledge, health, time, income and scope for action? Can they
genuinely make choices? Have differences in language proficiency, health,
digital skills, networks and mental burden been taken into account?
This perspective prevents
people from being treated solely as members of a category. Two people with the
same income or the same formal right may in practice have very different
opportunities.
The individual
perspective also recognises human agency. People are shaped by circumstances,
but are not wholly determined by them. They can learn, resist, develop new
meanings and change existing structures together. Institutions must create room
for this.
2.
Interaction: recognition and relationships
Human becoming takes
place within relationships. People need others in order to develop language,
trust, identity, knowledge and moral sensitivity.
Connectedness is not
automatically positive. Relationships can generate care and solidarity, but
also coercion, exclusion, humiliation and dependency. We must therefore always
ask which relationships an institution promotes.
Axel Honneth's theory of
recognition emphasises that freedom arises partly through mutual recognition:
within personal relationships, as an equal bearer of rights, and through social
appreciation of one's contribution. Institutions can support that recognition,
but they can also produce structural misrecognition.
The interaction
perspective therefore focuses on questions such as:
·
Are
people heard and taken seriously?
·
Does the
arrangement promote reciprocity?
·
Do
relationships of dependency arise?
·
Who
determines the conditions of interaction?
·
Is there
room for difference without exclusion?
·
Are
solidarity and responsibility distributed fairly?
3.
Development: history, learning and change
People and societies have
a history. Institutions never begin with a blank sheet. They carry earlier
choices, power relations, habits and mechanisms of exclusion within them.
An apparently neutral
rule may therefore have unequal effects. Not because the rule discriminates
explicitly, but because people participate from very different starting
positions. Historical disadvantages may consequently persist through
institutions framed in neutral terms.
At the same time,
institutions can change. They are made, interpreted and implemented by people.
The developmental perspective therefore examines both path dependence and the
capacity to learn:
·
Which
historical choices shaped the present situation?
·
Which
groups benefited, and which were disadvantaged?
·
Which
assumptions have come to be taken for granted?
·
Can the
institution learn from experience and error?
·
Are new
knowledge and changing circumstances incorporated?
From this perspective,
societal becoming is not an end state but a continuous process of institutional
development and reinterpretation.
4.
Ecological boundaries: the planet and future generations
Human development does
not take place outside nature. Health, food, water, housing, safety and the
economy depend on stable ecosystems.
Ecology is therefore not
a separate policy field that enters only after economic and social
considerations. Ecological sustainability is a precondition for everything
else.
According to the
Planetary Health Check 2025, seven of the nine planetary boundaries examined
have been transgressed. This does not mean that collapse follows everywhere and
immediately, but it does mean that risks to the stability and resilience of
life-support systems are increasing.
The ecological
perspective asks not only about direct emissions or nature loss, but also about
indirect effects:
·
Where do
raw materials come from?
·
Which
environmental burdens are shifted to other countries?
·
Is the
use of land, water and energy sustainable over the long term?
·
Are the
effects reversible?
·
Who
bears the ecological risks?
·
Which
opportunities remain for people who will live in the future?
The
twelve components
1.
Autonomy
Autonomy means that
people can give direction to their own lives. It is not the same as complete
independence. Nobody is independent of other people, institutions or natural
conditions.
Autonomy is relational:
it arises when people receive sufficient security, knowledge, resources and
recognition to make their own choices. Government therefore promotes autonomy
not only by withdrawing. Education, care, income, housing or support may sometimes
be necessary to make freedom genuinely usable.
·
Every
measure should therefore prompt the following questions:
·
Does
this measure expand real freedom of choice?
·
Can
people understand what is required of them?
·
Is there
room for personal initiative and tailored solutions?
·
Are
people supported or primarily controlled?
·
Can they
refuse or choose an alternative?
Autonomy resists both
paternalism and neglect. Leaving people without support to fend for themselves
is not automatically freedom.
2.
Equality of worth
Equality of worth means
that every person possesses the same fundamental moral and legal value.
Differences in income, education, health, origin, sex, age or social position
must not determine how much respect, protection or political influence a person
deserves.
Equality of worth does
not require identical treatment in every situation. A uniform rule may increase
inequality when people begin from different positions. Differentiation is
sometimes necessary to enable participation on equal terms.
·
The
following should therefore be examined:
·
Who
benefits from the existing starting position?
·
For whom
do barriers arise?
·
Which
groups are not represented in decision-making?
·
Is
additional support needed?
·
Are
differences recognised without confining people to categories?
Equality of worth is the
normative floor of the compass. A positive result on other components cannot
compensate for systematic humiliation or discrimination.
3.
Connectedness
People need enduring
relationships in which they feel seen, protected and involved. Connectedness
includes care, friendship, family, neighbourliness, solidarity and the
formation of public community.
Institutions influence
these relationships. Housing policy that repeatedly moves people can sever
social networks. A work organisation that rewards only individual performance
can undermine cooperation. Digital services may be efficient while eliminating
human encounter and informal signalling.
Connectedness does not
mean that consensus should be enforced. A healthy society makes room precisely
for difference, conflict and criticism. The question is whether people are
treated as fellow members of a shared society despite their differences.
Important questions are:
·
Does the
choice strengthen trust and reciprocity?
·
Will
care and social networks remain intact?
·
Are
people connected to one another or set against one another?
·
Is there
room to live peacefully with disagreement?
·
Is
solidarity supported voluntarily or imposed unilaterally?
4.
Participation
Participation is more
than being informed or heard. Meaningful participation means that people can
influence decisions that affect their lives.
This requires timely
information, understandable procedures, accessible participation and visible
feedback. Anyone who may respond only after the principal choices have already
been fixed is participating symbolically.
Participation has both a
democratic and an epistemic function. Citizens, professionals and people with
lived experience possess knowledge that policymakers and designers lack. Their
involvement can therefore increase not only support for policy, but also its
quality and implementability.
OECD research shows that
experienced political agency is associated with trust in public institutions.
OECD - Open Government and Citizen Participation
The compass asks:
·
Who may
contribute, co-decide and evaluate?
·
Are
groups that are difficult to reach also represented?
·
Is it
clear what happens to the input?
·
Can
participants genuinely place alternatives on the agenda?
·
Are
sufficient time, knowledge and resources available?
5.
Basic security
Freedom has a material
and social foundation. Without sufficient income, food, housing, safety, health
and access to essential services, life is dominated by acute uncertainty.
Basic security is
therefore not a separate social theme, but a condition for autonomy,
participation and development. Those who are constantly occupied with survival
have less mental space to make long-term choices, pursue education, engage
politically or take risks.
Moreover, the issue is
not only a minimum income. The predictability and accessibility of services
also matter. A right to which someone is theoretically entitled, but which can
be reached only through complex forms, advance payments and the risk of recovery,
offers little security.
Questions to examine
include:
·
Are the
essential conditions of life guaranteed?
·
Is
support timely and predictable?
·
Can
people claim services without humiliation?
·
Does the
arrangement lead to debt, stress or dependency?
·
Does
participation in society remain possible?
6.
Justice
Justice concerns the
distribution of benefits, burdens, opportunities, risks, recognition and
political influence.
At least four questions
matter:
·
Distribution:
who receives what, and who bears the costs?
·
Recognition:
which experiences and identities are taken seriously?
·
Representation:
who can exercise influence?
·
Remedy:
what happens when people have suffered injustice?
A measure may be
beneficial on average and still be unjust when its disadvantages fall on people
who are already vulnerable. A service may also appear generous while being administered
in a humiliating manner.
Justice therefore
requires more than cost-benefit analysis. It calls for attention to starting
positions, dependencies, cumulative effects and the question whether certain
burdens may be displaced at all.
7.
Bounded power
Power is unavoidable.
Parents, teachers, employers, companies, platforms, professionals and
governments all possess means of influencing the behaviour and opportunities of
others.
The problem is not that
power exists, but that it can become invisible, unlimited or beyond scrutiny.
Bounded power requires:
·
a clear
legal basis for authority;
·
transparency;
·
independent
scrutiny;
·
fundamental
rights;
·
dissent
and challenge;
·
access
to information;
·
legal
protection;
·
accountability
for decisions.
This applies not only to
government. Private organisations can also exert major influence over housing,
work, communication, information and access to essential services.
The rule of law binds
those who exercise power to law. The World Justice Project includes legal
constraints on power, fundamental rights, open government, effective regulation
and access to justice among the core elements of the rule of law.
The assessment question
is therefore: is power legitimate, bounded, open to scrutiny and genuinely
challengeable?
8.
Correctability
No policy is free from
error. Knowledge is incomplete, circumstances change and measures can have
unexpected consequences. A good institution is therefore distinguished not
because it never makes mistakes, but because it can detect, acknowledge and
remedy them.
Correctability requires
more than periodic evaluation. It calls for continuous feedback through:
·
complaints
procedures;
·
objection
and appeal;
·
independent
courts;
·
ombuds
institutions and supervisory bodies;
·
free
journalism;
·
scientific
evaluation;
·
protection
of whistleblowers;
·
participation
by implementers and affected citizens;
·
opportunities
to adapt policy in a timely manner.
The question must not be
limited to whether a measure was implemented according to plan. Sometimes the
plan itself proves to rest on mistaken assumptions. Correctability therefore
encompasses both improving implementation and reconsidering objectives, norms
and problem definitions.
A correctable democracy
institutionalises doubt. It treats criticism not as an obstacle, but as
necessary information.
9.
Implementability
Good intentions do not
guarantee good outcomes. Rules must be applied by organisations and
professionals in situations that are often more complex than was anticipated
during policymaking.
Implementability requires
attention to:
·
sufficient
people, time and expertise;
·
understandable
rules;
·
workable
data exchange;
·
financial
resources;
·
clear
responsibilities;
·
professional
discretion;
·
accessibility
for citizens;
·
supervision
and enforcement;
·
interaction
with other schemes.
The World Bank describes
institutional capacity as the ability of public institutions to perform the
specific policy tasks for which they are responsible.
Implementability is
therefore not a technical final step. A right that structurally cannot be
realised is institutionally incomplete. At the same time, implementability must
not be invoked as an excuse for postponing fundamental rights or necessary
changes. The relevant question is what capacity must be built in order to
realise the norm.
10.
Scale consistency
Social challenges rarely
respect administrative boundaries. Housing, climate, migration, digital
infrastructure, taxation and labour markets connect local, national, European
and global levels.
Scale consistency means
that the scale of decision-making corresponds to the scale of the problem, its
effects and the available capacity for action.
A municipality may, for
example, apply sustainable standards while shifting environmental harm
elsewhere through imports. A national government may try to regulate digital
platforms even though their infrastructure and market power cross borders.
Global agreements, in turn, may be ineffective when they do not connect with
local knowledge and implementation.
Elinor Ostrom showed that
complex social and ecological challenges need not always be governed by one
central authority or solely through the market. Polycentric systems combine
several interconnected centres of decision-making at different levels.
Scale consistency asks:
·
At which
level does the problem arise?
·
Where
are knowledge and implementation capacity located?
·
Who
experiences the consequences?
·
Can
burdens be shifted to other areas?
·
How are
decisions coordinated across levels?
·
Does it
remain clear who is responsible and answerable?
11.
Sustainability
Sustainability means that
societal development does not destroy the natural and social conditions on
which it depends.
This is broader than
reducing emissions. It encompasses biodiversity, soil, water, raw materials,
health, land use and the capacity of communities and institutions to absorb
shocks.
A sustainable economy is
not simply an economy that pollutes slightly less. It organises production and
consumption within ecological boundaries and directs economic value creation
towards human and societal development.
The Dutch Monitor of
Well-being makes a comparable distinction between well-being “here and now”,
consequences for people “elsewhere”, and the resources that remain available
for “later”.
Sustainability therefore
requires examination of the entire chain:
·
Which
resources are used?
·
What
harm arises during production, use and waste processing?
·
Who
bears that harm?
·
Is
restoration possible?
·
Does the
choice strengthen the resilience of ecosystems and communities?
·
Is the
economy adapted to ecological boundaries, or are ecological boundaries expected
to adapt to the economy?
12.
Intergenerational responsibility
Future people cannot
vote, litigate, negotiate or lobby. Yet their opportunities in life are
profoundly shaped by decisions made today.
Intergenerational
responsibility means that the present generation does not treat the future as a
freely available residual category. It has no unlimited right to exhaust
resources, irreversibly damage ecosystems, leave problematic technologies
behind or pass on financial and social burdens.
The Maastricht Principles
on the Human Rights of Future Generations state that human rights do not end at
the boundaries of the present and that states have obligations towards people
who have yet to be born.
This criterion requires:
·
longer
time horizons;
·
attention
to irreversible consequences;
·
the
precautionary principle in conditions of serious uncertainty;
·
representation
of future interests;
·
periodic
generational assessments;
·
preservation
of natural, social and institutional resources;
·
space
for future generations to make their own choices.
·
The task
is not to determine the future completely, but to avoid needlessly destroying
future freedom.
·
How can
the compass be used?
The compass can be
applied to legislation, policy, organisational change, technological
innovation, investment and social initiatives.
Step
1 - Define the concrete choice
Formulate not only the
policy objective, but also the intervention:
·
Which
rule, investment or institutional change is being proposed?
·
Which
problem should it solve?
·
Which
assumptions underlie it?
·
An
excessively abstract objective can hardly be assessed.
Step
2 - Map affected parties and effects
Examine who is affected
directly and indirectly:
·
citizens;
·
professionals;
·
future
users;
·
vulnerable
or hard-to-reach groups;
·
people
in other areas or countries;
·
future
generations;
·
ecosystems.
Attention must also be
paid to people who do not automatically appear at consultation tables.
Step
3 - Analyse the four perspectives
Examine the choice
through the individual, interaction, historical development and ecological
boundaries. This step prevents a problem from being defined solely in economic,
legal or administrative terms.
Step
4 - Apply the twelve criteria
For each criterion,
record:
·
the
expected effect;
·
who will
experience that effect;
·
which
evidence is available;
·
which
uncertainties exist;
·
which
improvements are possible.
A simple green-amber-red
classification can help, but must not replace the reasoning.
Step
5 - Make tensions visible
The criteria do not
always point in the same direction. Greater participation may take time.
Tailored solutions may conflict with predictability. Local autonomy may shift
burdens to other municipalities. Rapid ecological measures may distribute
social burdens unequally.
The compass does not
eliminate these conflicts, but obliges decision-makers to make them visible and
balance them with reasons.
Fundamental rights, human
dignity and ecological minimum thresholds must not simply be traded off against
economic advantages. Not everything is interchangeable.
Step
6 - Seek multiplier effects
The best interventions
improve several conditions at the same time.
A well-designed
neighbourhood can, for example:
·
provide
affordable housing;
·
support
social connectedness;
·
reduce
energy use;
·
enable
residents to participate;
·
promote
health;
·
increase
access to work and services.
The multiplier principle
therefore directs attention not only to limiting harm, but to institutional
choices that strengthen several dimensions of human becoming.
Step
7 - Organise correction in advance
For every decision, it
should be clear in advance:
·
which
results will be monitored;
·
who can
raise signals;
·
when
evaluation will take place;
·
who has
authority to make adjustments;
·
which
legal protection is available;
·
what
happens when adverse effects arise.
Correctability must be
designed before errors become visible.
Not a measuring machine,
but an organised conversation
The Human and Societal
Becoming Compass does not produce an automatic outcome. It cannot calculate how
much autonomy should be exchanged for sustainability or how much efficiency
justifies a loss of connectedness.
That is not a defect.
Moral and political choices cannot be outsourced entirely to a computational
model. They can, however, be better substantiated.
The compass therefore
organises a conversation that brings together values, facts, experience and
uncertainty. It makes visible:
·
which
conceptions of the human person lie behind policy;
·
which
interests are not represented;
·
how
power is distributed;
·
where
burdens are displaced;
·
which
conditions for development are strengthened; and
·
whether
remedy remains possible when policy goes wrong.
It can be used by public
officials and legislators, but equally by citizens, professionals, companies,
schools, civil-society organisations and supervisory bodies. None of these
parties possesses all the necessary knowledge on its own.
A
compass for imperfect societies
A humane society is not a
society without conflict, error or differences in power. It is a society
capable of processing differences peacefully, bounding power and remedying
mistakes.
The Human and Societal
Becoming Compass therefore offers no final image of perfection. It provides
direction under conditions of pluralism, uncertainty and change.
Its core is simple but
demanding: institutions are not ends in themselves. The economy, government,
law, technology and organisations must ultimately be judged by the conditions
they create for human development and living together.
The central question is
not whether people fit the system sufficiently well. The decisive question is
whether the system enables people to become human together as free, equal,
connected and responsible persons.
APPENDIX
A - Scorecard for the twelve criteria
Use a score from 0 to 4
or U, state the strength of evidence (high/medium/low), disaggregate relevant
data by group, and assign a measure, owner and review date to every score below
3 or unknown score. A red flag cannot be compensated by other scores.
|
Criterion |
Core indicators
(select and calibrate) |
Score |
Trend |
Evidence |
Red flag /
group effect |
Measure and
owner |
Review |
|
1. Autonomy |
Real alternatives; understanding; reflection period;
experienced control; objection/review |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
|
2. Equality of
worth |
Accessibility;
non-take-up; outcome gap; discrimination signals; accommodations |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
|
3. Connectedness |
Social support; trust; continuity; informal-care
burden; displacement/stigma |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
|
4.
Participation |
Reach;
representation; accessibility; compensation; traceability of influence |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
|
5. Basic security |
Income after fixed costs; housing stability;
energy/food; waiting time; volatility |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
|
6. Justice |
Distribution of
benefits/burdens; recognition; representation; effective remedies |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
|
7. Bounded power |
Legal basis; safeguards for discretion;
interests/lobbying; supervision; appeal |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
|
8.
Correctability |
Complaint time;
remedy; repeated errors; audit follow-up; sunset/review |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
|
9. Implementability |
Capacity gap; processing time; errors; burden on
citizens; ICT/data; chain |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
|
10. Scale
consistency |
Spillovers;
task-resource match; coordination; cross-border voice |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
|
11. Sustainability |
Climate; materials; water; land; biodiversity;
circularity; chain |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
|
12.
Intergenerational |
10/25/50 years;
lock-in; maintenance; options; scenario robustness |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
___ |
Dashboard
summary
|
Summary |
Value |
Consequence |
|
Number of criteria
scored 0 |
___ |
Do not proceed without
fundamental redesign |
|
Number of criteria scored 1 |
___ |
Conditions, budget and reassessment mandatory |
|
Number of unknown
scores U |
___ |
Knowledge plan with
owner and deadline |
|
Number of red flags |
___ |
Do not compensate; escalate using the decision form |
|
Number of groups
experiencing deterioration |
___ |
Distributional analysis
and a less harmful alternative |
|
Next integrated review |
___ |
Date, responsible person and public reporting |
APPENDIX
B - 4 x 12 worksheet
For each cell, briefly record
the expected effect, affected groups, most important evidence and uncertainty.
Then enter an overall score; the worksheet ensures that no criterion is viewed
only from its “most obvious” perspective.
|
Criterion |
Individual |
Interaction |
Development
over time |
Ecological
boundaries |
|
1. Autonomy |
Freedom of choice and understanding? |
Dependency and relational pressure? |
Enduring capabilities and options? |
Choice within the ecological ceiling? |
|
2. Equality of
worth |
Equal dignity
and access? |
Stereotyping or
recognition? |
Disadvantage
entrenched or reduced? |
Unequal
exposure or burdens? |
|
3. Connectedness |
Social support and loneliness? |
Trust and reciprocity? |
Networks robust over time? |
Relationship with place and nature? |
|
4. Participation |
Can everyone
genuinely take part? |
Which voices
dominate? |
Influence
throughout the policy cycle? |
A voice for
nature and affected people elsewhere? |
|
5. Basic security |
Income, housing, care and safety? |
Care burdens and solidarity? |
Stability and resilience to shocks? |
Is the service ecologically sustainable? |
|
6. Justice |
Benefits,
burdens and remedy? |
Recognition and
procedural fairness? |
Cumulative and
historical effects? |
Environmental
justice? |
|
7. Bounded power |
Rights vis-a-vis the decision-maker? |
Informal power and dependency? |
Lock-in and concentration? |
Power over natural resources? |
|
8.
Correctability |
Access to
challenge and remedy? |
Safe reporting
and dissent? |
Does the system
demonstrably learn? |
Can ecological
harm be stopped in time? |
|
9. Implementability |
Burden on citizens and accessibility? |
Chain, professional and trust? |
Maintenance and future capacity? |
Resource and environmental burden of implementation? |
|
10. Scale
consistency |
Does access fit
people’s lived reality? |
Coordination
between communities? |
Responsibility
over time? |
No displacement
elsewhere? |
|
11. Sustainability |
Health and affordability? |
Just transition? |
Absolute reduction and restoration? |
Within scientific boundaries? |
|
12.
Intergenerational |
Preservation of
future options? |
Solidarity
between generations? |
Scenarios,
lock-in and tipping points? |
Living space
for later and elsewhere? |
APPENDIX
C - Red-flag and decision form
|
Minimum threshold |
Assessment question |
Outcome |
Evidence / measure |
|
Legality /
fundamental rights |
Is there a clear
authority? Is any interference necessary and proportionate? Are dignity,
privacy, bodily integrity and freedom protected? |
No / Uncertain / Yes |
___ |
|
Non-discrimination |
Have direct and indirect discrimination been excluded? Are reasonable
accommodations arranged? Have intersectional effects been examined? |
No / Uncertain / Yes |
___ |
|
Effective legal
protection |
Can affected people
know and challenge the decision, data and reasons, and obtain timely remedy? |
No / Uncertain / Yes |
___ |
|
Ecological / safety boundary |
Has serious or irreversible harm within relevant scientific thresholds
been excluded or demonstrably controlled? |
No / Uncertain / Yes |
___ |
|
Minimum
implementability |
Are mandate, people,
resources, data, chain and remedy sufficient before introduction? |
No / Uncertain / Yes |
___ |
Decision
rationale
Public problem and chosen
alternative: ________________________________________________________________________
Which alternatives were
seriously examined, and why were they not chosen?
___________________________________________
Which groups gain, lose
or bear uncertainty?
______________________________________________________________________
Which minimum threshold
or red flag arose, and how was it addressed?
_______________________________________________
Which values conflict,
and which balancing rule was decisive?
______________________________________________________
Which minority positions
were not followed, and why?
_____________________________________________________________
Which conditions,
indicators, thresholds and stop rules apply?
____________________________________________________
Decision-making authority
/ date / public location:
_______________________________________________________________
APPENDIX
D - Implementation check and maturity levels
|
Level |
Characteristic |
Next step |
|
1. Incidental |
The compass is used voluntarily
or retrospectively; there are no fixed data or consequences. |
Select a pilot, mandate
and owner. |
|
2. Repeatable |
Fixed steps and templates; limited participation and manual reporting. |
Calibrate indicators and connect them to existing assessments. |
|
3. Embedded |
Mandatory for relevant
decisions; budget, roles, dashboard and independent challenge arranged. |
Link to budgeting,
procurement, audit and training. |
|
4. Learning |
Outcomes are monitored publicly; signals demonstrably lead to adaptation
and remedy. |
Analyse system errors and share lessons across domains. |
|
5. Transformative |
Citizens and
marginalised groups share power structurally; institutions steer by a social
floor and ecological ceiling. |
Safeguard democratic
and rule-of-law control when scaling. |
Concise
implementation check
The scope of application
and the consequences for decision-making have been formally established.
Affected and marginalised
groups were involved early, compensated and enabled to participate accessibly.
Legal, ecological and
safety thresholds were defined in advance.
Indicators have a
baseline, data source, disaggregation, owner and frequency.
At least three
alternatives, including the no-action option, have been assessed.
Institutional interests,
veto positions, lobbying and supplier dependencies have been mapped.
Digital, global and
future-scenario effects have been integrated.
Implementers have
sufficient capacity, training, resources and professional discretion.
Independent challenge,
objection, remedy, stop rules and evaluation have been arranged.
The dashboard and
decision rationale will be made public, subject to lawful confidentiality.
APPENDIX
E - Core indicators and measurement rules
The indicators below are
a starting set. Select only indicators that are relevant, understandable,
responsive to action and proportionately measurable. Combine administrative
data, surveys, interviews, observations, complaint and objection records,
audits and citizen science. For every measure, define the population,
numerator/denominator, disaggregation, baseline, target, threshold, frequency
and data owner.
|
Criterion |
Examples of
indicators |
|
Autonomy |
% with real alternatives; understanding score;
experienced control; % of decisions reviewed on request |
|
Equality of
worth |
accessibility
audit; access and outcome gap; non-take-up; discrimination and treatment
signals |
|
Connectedness |
experienced social support; trust; relational
continuity; informal-care burden; forced displacement |
|
Participation |
representation
index; barriers to participation; compensation; % of proposals adopted or
rejected with reasons |
|
Basic security |
disposable income after fixed costs; housing
stability; energy/food poverty; waiting time; volatility |
|
Justice |
distribution of
net benefits/burdens; experience of recognition; distribution of voice;
remedy rate and time |
|
Bounded power |
% of decisions with legal basis and reasons;
interests/lobbying public; concentration; supervision coverage; access to
appeal |
|
Correctability |
reporting
reach; complaint and remedy time; repeated errors; audit follow-up; use of
stop/review clause |
|
Implementability |
capacity gap; processing and waiting time; error
rate; burden on citizens; ICT/data readiness; chain handovers |
|
Scale
consistency |
spillover
analysis; task-resource mismatch; coordination quality; cross-border
involvement |
|
Sustainability |
absolute emissions; material, water and land
footprints; biodiversity pressure; toxicity; circularity/restoration |
|
Intergenerational |
effects over
10/25/50 years; lock-in; maintenance obligation; scenario robustness; options
and tipping points |
Measurement
rules against false precision
No score without a
source. Refer to data, experiential knowledge, analysis or an explicit
assumption.
No average without
distribution. Report relevant groups, areas and time horizons.
Do not treat unknown as
zero. Use U and record a plan for developing knowledge.
No indicator without a
course of action. Identify which actor must act at which threshold.
No dashboard without
dialogue. Interpret figures periodically with affected groups and implementers.
No fixed set for all
time. Evaluate unintended incentives, missing effects and changing contexts.
Bibliography
Human
development, autonomy and connectedness
Arendt, H. (1958). The
Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bandura, A. (2001).
“Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective.” Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
Bronfenbrenner, U.
(1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Honneth, A. (1995). The
Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Honneth, A. (2014).
Freedom’s Right: The Social Foundations of Democratic Life. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind,
Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nussbaum, M.C. (2011).
Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press.
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L.
(2000). “Self-Determination
Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and
Well-Being.” American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
Sen, A. (1999).
Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) (1990). Human Development Report 1990: Concept and
Measurement of Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) (2025). Human Development Report 2025: A Matter of
Choice – People and Possibilities in the Age of AI. New York: UNDP. Human
Development Report 2025.
Netherlands Scientific
Council for Government Policy (WRR) (2017). Knowing Is Not Yet Doing: A
Realistic Perspective on Self-Reliance [Weten is nog geen doen: Een realistisch
perspectief op redzaamheid]. The Hague: WRR.
Netherlands Scientific
Council for Government Policy (WRR) (2023). Grip: The
Social Importance of Personal Control [Grip: Het maatschappelijk belang van
persoonlijke controle]. The
Hague: WRR.
World Health Organization
(WHO) (2008). Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on
the Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: WHO.
Justice,
democracy and bounded power
Dewey, J. (1927). The
Public and Its Problems. New York: Henry Holt.
Fraser, N. (2008). Scales
of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1996).
Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and
Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maastricht Principles
Drafting Group (2023). Maastricht Principles on the Human Rights of Future
Generations. Rights of Future Generations.
OECD (2022). OECD
Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
Rawls, J. (1971). A
Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schlosberg, D. (2007).
Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
United Nations (1948).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New York: United Nations.
United Nations (1966).
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. New York:
United Nations.
World Justice Project
(2025). Rule of Law Index 2025. Washington, DC: World Justice Project. Factors
of the Rule of Law.
Young, I.M. (2000).
Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Institutions,
implementation, learning and correctability
Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and
Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kim, G., Kumar, T., Ramalho,
R. & Russell, S.E. (2026). Institutional
Capacity for Policy Implementation: An Analytical Framework. Policy Research
Working Paper 11279. Washington, DC: World Bank.
March, J.G. & Olsen,
J.P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics.
New York: Free Press.
Meadows, D.H. (2008).
Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
North, D.C. (1990).
Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990).
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2010).
“Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic
Systems.” American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641.
Pressman, J.L. &
Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are
Dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rittel, H.W.J. & Webber, M.M. (1973). “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy
Sciences, 4, 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.
Simon, H.A. (1997
[1947]). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in
Administrative Organizations. Fourth edition. New York: Free Press.
Ecology,
well-being and future generations
Statistics Netherlands
(CBS) (2026). Monitor of Well-being and the Sustainable Development Goals 2026
[Monitor Brede Welvaart en de Sustainable Development Goals 2026]. The
Hague/Heerlen: CBS.
OECD (2024). How’s Life?
2024: Well-being and Resilience in Times of Crisis. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Richardson, K. et al.
(2023). “Earth beyond Six of Nine Planetary Boundaries.” Science Advances, 9(37), eadh2458.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458.
Rockström, J. et al. (2009). “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Nature,
461, 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a.
Sakschewski, B. et al.
(2025). Planetary Health Check 2025: A Scientific Assessment of the State of
the Planet. Potsdam: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
https://doi.org/10.48485/pik.2025.017.
United Nations (2015).
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York:
United Nations. 2030 Agenda.
Walker, B., Holling,
C.S., Carpenter, S.R. & Kinzig, A. (2004). “Resilience, Adaptability and
Transformability in Social-Ecological Systems.” Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205.
World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Afterword
The Human and Societal
Becoming Compass is not an endpoint, but an invitation to view policy and
institutions differently. Not only through rules, costs and administrative
feasibility, but above all through their meaning for people, relationships,
future generations and the ecological conditions of life.
No compass can fully
prescribe societal choices. Values may conflict, knowledge remains incomplete
and circumstances change. Transparency, participation, dissent and
correctability are therefore indispensable. The strength of the compass lies
not in one final score, but in making consequences, tensions, differences in
power and possible alternatives visible.
The ultimate aim is
simple but demanding: to design institutions so that they do not reduce people
to case files, target groups or implementation problems, but support their
human becoming and life together. The system exists for people - and must
therefore be open to repeated questioning, improvement and, where necessary,
fundamental revision.
Vital E.H. Moors
August 2026
Reacties
Een reactie posten