In this chapter, we perform a conceptual analysis of a household sustainable consumption index, whose construction is based on guidelines in a handbook issued by OECD. We conclude in our analysis that the designers of the index treat the concept ‘sustainable consumption’ as a descriptive concept, and argue that this interpretation is a conceptual mistake. A consequence of this mistake is that the construction of the index is treated as a kind of statistical and empirical problem only. Instead, we argue that sustainable consumption is a specific kind of value concept named intermediate concept, whose function is to link descriptive grounds with normative consequences, and thus that the construction of the index is a normative problem. That is, the construction of a sustainable consumption index should be regarded as a normative multi-attribute decision process. A policy implication of our study is that when measuring sustainability, a decision analytic approach based on an adequate interpretation of the concept sustainability as an intermediate concept should be employed. In order to avoid low validity of sustainability indices as a result of making a conceptual mistake, it is possible to explicitly treat the construction of a sustainability index as a normative multi-attribute decision process that can be aided by decision support tools. The relevance of our analysis to policymakers and other stakeholders is that it contributes to a deeper understanding of what kind of concept sustainability is and what it means to measure such concepts. Without a proper understanding of the nature of this concept, there is an obvious risk of low validity of its measurement.

Gender-neutral job evaluation has become a key method for confirming the presence of value discrimination when accounting for job-related factors such as required skills, responsibility levels, effort and working conditions, and for correcting for a gender-biased pay setting. However, this extensive use of gender-neutral job evaluation tools makes it important to examine the validity of these tools.

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the validity of a weighting method stated in a gender-neutral job evaluation tool that is recommended by the International Labor Office (ILO). The purpose of the ILO tool is to function as a general and worldwide guideline for gender-neutral job evaluations. The evaluation starts from the basic validity requirement that a weighting method has to be based on a correct interpretation of the weights in additive value models, which are used as “measures” of the value of jobs. The conclusion of the evaluation is that the ILO weighting method does not fulfill this basic validity requirement. The conclusion is reached in the following way:

First, I show that the meaning of the weights in additive value models is to determine so-called compensatory relations between job-related factors, which have an important impact on the results of job evaluations.

Second, by analyzing the weighting instructions in the ILO tool, I find that this weighting method is based on so-called direct rating of the relative importance of the job-related factors.

Third, I show that direct rating is based on an incorrect interpretation of the weights. Thus, users of the ILO tool will probably misinterpret the consequences of their weighting decisions. This, in turn, might give rise to a biased weighting, i.e. a weighting that the users would reject when they come to know the correct meaning of the weights.

In this paper we analyze the use of numerical information in the context of job evaluation. The analysis is based on the job evaluation system Steps to Pay Equity, which is recommended by the European Project on Equal Pay supported by the European commission. The main findings can be summarized as follows. Firstly, in Steps to Pay Equity no method is suggested that can be used in order to construct stronger scales than ordinal scales. This implies that rankings of jobs are based on the addition of ordinal scales, which means that the rankings are very unstable for admissible transformations. Secondly, there is no explicit definition or explanation how the weights should be interpreted, something that hampers an assessment about the reasonability of the assigned weights. Thirdly, the convention to classify jobs on predefined levels can give rise to heavy deformations of relevant differences between jobs, which means that received rankings of jobs are unjustified guidance for impartial pay setting. We suggest a possible remedy by illustrating the use of a specific multi-attribute evaluation model.

In this paper we analyze a number of assumptions and conceptual issues that arise in applications of conventional job evaluations, which are used in order to implement the principle “Equal Pay for Jobs of Equal Value” according to the Equal Pay Acts.

The main findings of the analysis can be summarized as follows: 1) A lack of a distinction between subjective and objective criteria as well as between descriptive and evaluative criteria, 2) A defective interpretation of independency conditions that are necessary in order to represent evaluation of jobs by weighted sums of scores, 3) An incorrect diagnosis and subsequently incorrect remedies of defects in job evaluation methods, 4) An incorrect interpretation of the meaning of key concepts such as “Jobs of Equal Value”, 5) Unwarranted assumptions about formal features of relations defined by the concept “Jobs of Equal Value”.

In this paper we test the usefulness of imprecise value judgments in evaluating employee performance. The test is based on two experiments which evaluate the performance of college lecturers. The experiments are carried out by applying the PRIME model (Preference Ratios in Multi-attribute Evaluation), a specific multi-attribute value model that supports the use of imprecise value judgments. The test shows that the use of imprecise value judgments, as synthesized by the PRIME model, can remedy a number of defects that are identified in conventional evaluation models in regard to job requirements and employee performance.

Resultatet av en arbetsvärdering är att varje arbete tillordnas en viktad summa av poäng. Poängsumman kan tolkas som ett mått på en sammantagen värdering av krav och svårigheter som förknippas med arbetenas utförande. Måttet används för att bedöma vilka arbeten som är likvärdiga. En viktig fråga är i vilken mån detta mått utgör en tillförlitlig grund för att bedöma vilka arbeten som är likvärdiga. I arbetsvärderingssystemet Analys Lönelots, som rekommenderas av JämO, finns ett förslag på hur måttet kan användas på ett tillförlitligt sätt. I uppsatsen visas att förslaget har uppenbara brister. Vidare visas att problemet med tillförlitlighet hos måttet kan överföras på problemet med tillförlitlighet av precist angivna vikter och skalor, som avser att representera en beslutsfattares värderingar av relevanta egenskaper hos arbeten. Det finns uppenbara skäl att betvivla att en beslutsfattare kan motivera sådana precisa värderingar som följer av en precist angiven numerisk representation. I uppsatsen presenteras också ett alternativt sätt att numeriskt representera en beslutsfattares värderingar av arbeten. Denna typ av numeriska representation kan beakta att värderingar av arbeten är osäkra.