Originally from Collective Litigation in Europe: Law and Practice – Preview Page

What are the public policy objectives of Collective Actions? The three most frequently cited objectives are: to deliver compensation, to provide deterrence, and to uphold legal rights. This section summarises the empirical evidence that shows the extent to which those objectives are achieved by collective actions and compares the different systems that are designed to deliver redress in meeting those objectives. The evidence is presented in seven dimensions in order to provide a systematic and objective basis for the appraisal of the different solutions that are available to address situations involving mass harm. 

But first let us look at the graphical presentation we would like to use. We have borrowed it from a similar scenario where various objectives compete with each other which can probably never be all fulfilled at the same time: that of investment. Just as the decision to invest money in capital markets or in the economy in general is a search for optimal outcomes from various conflicting objectives, a similar consideration can be attempted for the objectives inherent in the resolution of conflicts between private individuals and large corporations. An investment of money looks for the optimal weighting of three conflicting objectives: return (profitability), safety (low risk), and liquidity. 

1The ideal investment would fulfil all three objectives thus filling the entire area between the three corners but, alas, such an ideal investment does not exist. Every investment in the real world fulfils some of the criteria more than others. This is shown in the spider diagram example below in incremental steps of 20% from 0% to 100% for each objective, expanding the total area covered as it approaches the ideal.