In this conceptual and methodological contribution, we focus on indicators of the good life and examine how an embodied form of universalism in qualitative and quantitative methods of evaluating the good life may be promoted. We aim to explore what type of universalism can align with a localized understanding of the good life. To achieve our purpose, we propose a gnoseological and ethical framework, grounded in an Aristotelian perspective. This framework supports a universalist goal while avoiding the homogenization often linked to the commensuration process. Our study main results consists in an ethical and gnoseological framework for understanding the good life based on 4 principles: (1) considering plural dimensions of the good life (not just well-being) as a purpose, (2) analyzing the plurality of causes and effects, (3) identifying sufficient thresholds (rather than focusing solely on exponential growth), and (4) practicing evaluation as an art for citizens (instead of mere calculations by technical experts). We emphasize how indicators based on our framework can foster collective reflection on values, rather than reducing qualitative aspects to quantitative measures. While the embodied universalism highlighted in this paper helps avoid some of the pitfalls of abstract universality, this art of composition required for evaluating the good life implies both to respect these universal principles and to adopt a tailor-made evaluation process to embody the approach in each specific context.

The nonprofit organizational studies have extensively examined the factors influencing commitment in the formal governance. However, there has been limited exploration of the mechanisms facilitating inclusion within the day-to-day management of such organizations, particularly with regards to the most vulnerable individuals. This article endeavors to address this research gap by investigating these mechanisms within a specific nonprofit organization, namely the Accorderies, which has prioritized inclusion as a fundamental aspect of its associative project. The role of day-to-day management in inclusion and diversity is rarely considered, even though governance combines formal and informal aspects. However, given the debates on diversity in management, this day-to-day management could shed new light on the inclusion process. For practitioners, it could be a valuable lever for overcoming certain pitfalls linked with the process of inclusion in governance. Our analysis adopts a mixed-method research approach, employing a combination of quantitative and qualitative analyses, involving focus group discussions conducted with six distinct autonomous Accorderies. The findings of our analysis reveal how: (1) diversity can serve as a catalyst for promoting inclusion, and fostering a sense of belonging and recognition of uniqueness of all each individual, and (2) the exchanges and rules that underpin this nonprofit organization encourage people to be committed. These empirical findings lead us to emphasize the benefits of day-to-day management as a lever for inclusion of the most vulnerable, based on specific institutional rules and resources.