A recent SSIR article, “Impact Accounting Has an Equity Problem,” raises important questions about equity in monetization. Their core argument is that when impacts are expressed in a single global monetary unit, impacts on poorer countries are systematically undervalued while impacts in wealthier countries appear to matter more. This critique is valid; social accounting is still evolving, and any framework that relies on economic proxies risks reinforcing existing inequalities rather than correcting them.

However, the article builds its case almost entirely on specific IFVI methodologies and then extends its conclusions to impact accounting as a whole. In doing so, it overlooks the diversity of approaches in the field, which take different design paths that may address parts of these concerns, even as trade-offs remain. Just as important, by framing this as an “impact accounting problem,” it risks implying that without impact accounting the bias disappears. In reality, these inequities are not unique to impact accounting but are deeply embedded in traditional finance, trade, and policy models. The debate might be more constructive if reframed around whether — and how — valuation frameworks, including impact monetization, can incorporate adjustments that counteract these distortions while helping to build stronger institutions by informing policy, supporting legal oversight, and surfacing overlooked impacts.

At Common Good Marketplace (CGM), we approach valuation through a human capital lens, focusing on the knowledge, skills, and health that enable individuals to reach their potential and contribute to society (see our previous article, “How and why would you put a dollar figure on impact?” for an introduction to our approach). We express the positive change experienced by beneficiaries as both Social Value and “Verified Impact Assets” (VIAs). One VIA represents one year of improved well-being, measured in financial terms (international dollars). To account for differences across contexts while enabling cross-country comparison, we use GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) as a standardized economic proxy. After calculating Social Value, we divide the total by this proxy to convert the monetary figure into an equivalent count of locally adjusted “years of well-being,” offering a complementary view that emphasizes the scale and depth of impact rather than its financial value.

Nevertheless, we share many of the concerns raised in the article, which is precisely why our framework incorporates additional safeguards. Our overarching goal is to ensure that outcomes are also understood in the context of local livelihoods, not just through global prices. Our framework isn’t meant to capture the entire, precise value of an organization’s work, but to provide a conservative and credible estimate of specific outcomes, grounded in economic theory, reliable data, and transparent assumptions.

Operationally, we rely on project-level measurement and locally calibrated assumptions. CGM works with projects to construct credible baseline and endline scenarios so that the depth of impact reflects measurable change in a given context. Counterfactuals are also region-specific and, where possible, tailored to local project conditions. Since counterfactual scenarios are usually higher in developed countries, incremental gains tend to be smaller, everything else being constant. Where longitudinal evidence exists, we extrapolate impacts into the future and apply social discount rates that are set higher in countries with greater human development. Benefits in those regions are therefore discounted more heavily over time, since attribution is expected to diminish more quickly in resource-rich contexts.

Anchoring valuations in local realities and making design choices that lean toward equity are meaningful steps forward and central to how Common Good Marketplace operates. We see our work, and other credible efforts in the field, as part of a larger, ongoing conversation about valuing and addressing both positive and negative impacts, not as a silver bullet. The debate will and should continue. Our contribution is to keep refining the tools so that monetization helps elucidate and close gaps rather than obscure and widen them, and ensures capital flows to where it can generate the greatest impact.

‍