By Sofia Mendes, fictional Still North staff member. Published .
Not peer reviewed. Fictional demonstration publication. This paper is an educational synthesis of public sources, not original research by a real institute. Illustrative examples are not measured findings. The cover is a generated illustration. SN-2026-102 is a local archive identifier, not a DOI.
Abstract
A favourable decision after collective action is not automatically an effect caused by that action. This methods note develops a counterfactual evaluation for a fictional workplace transport coalition, drawing on the Magenta Book, the GHG Protocol Policy and Action Standard, and the IPCC demand-side assessment. A pre-existing employer plan illustrates bounded contribution rather than exclusive credit, while invented arrival counts expose the assumptions behind before-and-after and comparison-group arithmetic. The analysis distinguishes mobilisation, decisions, implementation, sustained operation, and downstream climate effects. Participant protection and ethical constraints remain part of the design. No campaign result or emissions saving is claimed. The proposed approach supports honest learning from shared influence, partial gains, and unresolved demands without converting signatures into unsupported carbon totals.
- Paper type
- Methods note
- Topic
- Communities and governance
- Keywords
- collective action; counterfactuals; contribution; campaign evaluation
- Format
- PDF, 2 pages; 1352 words
Sources and context
The PDF discusses these public sources and its limitations. A citation is not an endorsement of this demonstration archive.