Commissioned economic contribution studies increasingly shape public discussion and government decision-making. Because their headline figures can influence how public value is understood and resources are allocated, it is important to distinguish what these studies actually measure from the broader impacts their findings may be interpreted as representing. This commentary examines Deloitte’s 2026 assessment of Lockheed Martin Canada, focusing on what its input-output methodology measures, the assumptions underlying its results, and the conclusions those results can support. It distinguishes gross economic contribution from net impact and considers issues including multiplier magnitude, additionality, regional allocation, cumulative presentation, and methodological transparency.
The assessment shows that large headline contribution figures do not, by themselves, demonstrate equivalent net value to Canada. Their relevance to procurement and policy decisions depends on factors the I/O framework does not assess, including additionality, opportunity cost, displacement, and broader social and system effects. The commentary sets out the minimum requirements for decision-grade evaluation and demonstrates why economic, fiscal, social, and system-wide effects must be traced within one coherent modelling framework to support consequential policy and procurement decisions.
