IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/feemcl/230597.html

Assessing SDGs: A New Methodology to Measure Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Campagnolo, Lorenza
  • Carraro, Carlo
  • Eboli, Fabio
  • Farnia, Luca

Abstract

The FEEM project APPS – Assessment, Projections and Policy of Sustainable Development Goals – focuses on the quantitative assessment of the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the United Nations at the end of September 2015. The project consists of two phases. The first, retrospective, computes indicators for all SDGs in 139 countries and then derives a composite multi-dimensional index and a worldwide ranking of current sustainability. This allows informing on strengths and weaknesses of today socio-economic development, as well as environmental criticalities, all around the world. The second phase, prospective, aims at evaluating the future trends of sustainability in the world by 2030. The assessment of the SDGs is carried out by means of an extended version of the recursive-dynamic computable general equilibrium ICES macro-economic model that includes social and environmental indicators. The final goal is to highlight future challenges left unsolved in next 15 years of socio-economic development and analyze costs and benefits of specific policies to support the achievement of proposed targets. This paper presents the methodology and the results of the retrospective assessment. Five main steps are described: i) screening of indicators eligible to address the UN SDGs; ii) data collection from relevant sources; iii) organization in the three pillars of sustainability (economy, society, environment); iv) normalization to a common metrics; v) aggregation of the 25 indicators in composite indices by pillars as well as in the multi-dimensional index. The final ranking summarizes countries’ sustainability performance. As expected, Middle-North European countries are at top of the ranking (Sweden, Norway and Switzerland the first three), with the most industrialized European countries such as Germany and UK, however, penalized by insufficient environmental performance. Other highly developed countries are between 24th (Canada) and 52nd place (United States). The emerging nations are scattered in our sustainability ranking. Brazil (43rd) and Russia (45th) precede China (80th) and India (102nd), the latter two especially penalized because of their social complexity. The worst performances, in terms of overall sustainability, are in Sub-Saharan Africa (Comoros, the Central African Republic and Chad occupy the last places in the ranking).

Suggested Citation

  • Campagnolo, Lorenza & Carraro, Carlo & Eboli, Fabio & Farnia, Luca, "undated". "Assessing SDGs: A New Methodology to Measure Sustainability," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 230597, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:feemcl:230597
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.230597
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/230597/files/NDL2015-089.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.230597?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chong‐Wen Chen, 2024. "Who wins and who loses in global SDGs rankings? Clarifying the influence of the North‐South divide and foreign direct investment on spillover effects," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), pages 2653-2665, June.
    2. Perryman, Michael & Besco, Laurel & Suleiman, Carina & Lucato, Lindsay, 2022. "Ready for take off: Airline engagement with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    3. Manuel Sousa & Maria Fatima Almeida & Rodrigo Calili, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making for the Achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-37, April.
    4. Agatha Oliveira & Rodrigo Calili & Maria Fatima Almeida & Manuel Sousa, 2019. "A Systemic and Contextual Framework to Define a Country’s 2030 Agenda from a Foresight Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-28, November.
    5. Yu, Tiffany Hui-Kuang & Huarng, Kun-Huang, 2024. "Causal analysis of SDG achievements," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O44 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Environment and Growth
    • O57 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Comparative Studies of Countries
    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:feemcl:230597. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.