sustainable development goals: are the rich … sustainable development goals 8. this stress test...
Post on 13-Mar-2018
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainable Development Goals: Are the rich countries ready?
Christian Kroll with a foreword by Kofi Annan
Summary table: rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea, Rep.
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.2 7.1 7.2Go
al 1:
Pove
rty
1.1 P
overt
y rate
1.2 P
overt
y gap
Goal
2: Ag
ricul
ture
and
nutri
tion
2.1 G
ross a
gricu
ltural
nutrie
nt ba
lance
s
2.2 O
besit
y rate
Go
al 3:
Healt
h
3.1 H
ealth
y life
expe
ctanc
y
3.2 L
ife sa
tisfac
tion
Goal
4: Ed
ucat
ion
4.1 U
pper
seco
ndary
attai
nmen
t
4.2 P
ISA re
sults
Go
al 5:
Gend
er eq
ualit
y
5.1 S
hare
of wom
en in
natio
nal p
arliam
ents
5.2 G
ende
r pay
gap
Goal
6: W
ater
6.1 F
reshw
ater w
ithdra
wals
as pe
rcent
of tot
al int
ernal
resou
rces
6.2 P
opula
tion c
onne
cted t
o was
tewate
r trea
tmen
t
Goal
7: En
ergy
7.1 E
nergy
inten
sity
7.2 S
hare
of ren
ewab
le en
ergy i
n TFE
C
Summary table: Which country is fit for which goal?
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea, Rep.
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
8.1 8.2 9.1 9.2 10.1 10.2 11.1 11.2 12.1 12.2 13.1 13.2 14.1 14.2 15.1 15.2 16.1 16.2 17.1 17.2
Goal
8: Ec
onom
y and
labo
r
8.1 G
NI pe
r cap
ita
8.2 E
mploym
ent-t
o-po
pulat
ion ra
tio
Goal
9: In
frastr
uctu
re an
d in
nova
tion
9.1 G
ross fi
xed c
apita
l form
ation
9.2 R
esea
rch an
d dev
elopm
ent e
xpen
diture
Goal
10: In
equa
lity
10.1
Palm
a rati
o
10.2
PISA
Socia
l Justi
ce In
dex
Goal
11: C
ities
11.1
Partic
ulate
matter
11.2
Room
s per
perso
n Go
al 12
: Con
sum
ptio
n an
d pr
oduc
tion
12.1
Mun
icipa
l was
te ge
nerat
ed
12.2
Dom
estic
mate
rial c
onsu
mption
Goal
13: C
limat
e
13.1
Prod
uctio
n-ba
sed e
nergy
-
relate
d CO 2 e
mission
s
13.2
Gree
nhou
se ga
s emiss
ions p
er GD
P
Goal
14: O
cean
s
14.1
Oce
an H
ealth
Inde
x
14.2
Ove
rexplo
ited fi
sh st
ocks
Goal
15: B
iodi
versi
ty
15.1
Terre
strial
prote
cted a
reas
15.2
Red L
ist In
dex f
or bir
ds
Goal
16: In
stitu
tions
16.1
Hom
icide
s
16.2
Tran
spare
ncy C
orrup
tion P
ercep
tions
Inde
x
Goal
17: G
loba
l par
tner
ship
17.1
Offi c
ial de
velop
ment a
ssista
nce
17.2
Cap
acity
to m
onito
r the
SDGs
This table shows at a glance the relative performance of every OECD country for each goal. Deep green represents the leading countries in the respective indi-cator, while deep red indicates the least readiness. Looking at the countries’ relative performance, it becomes evident that not all of them are fi t for the goals, and indeed no one country performs outstandingly in all goals. Every country has its own particular lessons to draw from the others. Moreover, even the best-performing countries by today’s standards will need to strive for signifi cant improvements over the next 15 years. The chapters in this study contain more detailed analysis of each indicator and country.
Sustainable Development Goals: Are the rich countries ready?
Author: Christian Kroll, PhD
with a foreword by Kofi Annan
4
Executive summary
own policies and performance refl ected. Achieving the SDGs
will require major efforts in every country. Consequently,
these goals have the power to question the way we live, how
we structure our economies, the way we produce, the way
we consume. They can spark reform debates that ultimately
increase awareness and highlight the particular responsi-
bilities of the OECD nations in that regard. The SDGs will
therefore demand fundamental policy changes in the rich
countries themselves.
Key findings6. This study examines how high-income countries are currently
performing in this regard: Are the rich countries holding up
their end of the global deal on sustainable development? Are
they doing their homework? It ought to be a fi rst systematic
assessment of developed nations on what are likely to become
the global policy goals for the coming 15 years. It is the fi rst
“stress test” of rich countries for the SDGs and presents a new
SDG Index to assess country performance on the goals. More-
over, the study highlights best practice in ways of achieving
future SDGs. It provides a snapshot of evidence for the crucial
UN summit and much further beyond.
7. An in-depth look at the performance in the proposed 17
goals reveals that currently OECD countries vary greatly
in their capacity to meet these bold ambitions. It becomes
evident that not all countries are fi t for the goals, and indeed
no one country performs outstandingly in every goal.
Each country has its own particular lessons to learn from
the others. So in addition to the common challenges for all
high-income countries, this study offers a detailed profi le of
the strengths and weaknesses of the individual countries.
Visualizations illustrate at a glance the achievements and
challenges of each nation across all 17 goals so that cherry-
picking is impossible.
Background1. World leaders from all UN member countries will gather on
September 25, 2015, in New York for a historic UN summit. It
will be opened by Pope Francis and aims to adopt new global
goals to guide policy in the next 15 years.
2. Throughout the period 2000–2015, the UN Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) have managed to focus the
world’s attention on the key challenges faced by humanity.
Eight goals united the world in an unprecedented effort to
make people’s lives better. These goals were: (1) eradicate
extreme poverty and hunger, (2) achieve universal primary
education, (3) promote gender equality and empower women,
(4) reduce child mortality, (5) improve maternal health, (6)
combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, (7) ensure
environmental sustainability, and (8) develop a global part-
nership for development.
3. Between 2016 and 2030, Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) ought to be at the center of the global political agenda.
The 17 new goals are to be adopted during the UN summit
on September 25, 2015, in New York. The outcome document
from this summit carries the title “Transforming our world:
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” In it, world
leaders commit themselves to “working tirelessly for the full
implementation of this Agenda by 2030.” How this transfor-
mation could work is the subject of this study.
4. What is new about the SDGs in comparison to the MDGs is
not only their extended number and more participatory con-
ception. While the eight MDGs were primarily aimed at end-
ing extreme poverty in all its forms in developing countries,
the most important novelty is that the SDGs will explicitly
broaden the focus to all countries – including the rich nations
of this world.
5. From the high-income countries’ perspective, if the MDGs
were the telescope through which they looked at the develop-
ing world, the SDGs are the mirror in which they see their
Sustainable Development Goals: Are the rich countries ready?
5
Sustainable Development Goals
8. This stress test shows that especially Sweden, Norway, Den-
mark, Finland, and Switzerland can be considered ready for
the SDGs. These countries, the fi t fi ve, are therefore in a good
position to foster further improvements in terms of sustain-
able development going forward. Even these nations still
have signifi cant defi ciencies with regard to certain goals as
the country profi les illustrate. Nonetheless, stronger policy
efforts are needed to follow in the footsteps of the likes of
Sweden and Norway for other countries to reach the ambi-
tious set of UN goals by 2030.
9. Without a doubt, all high-income countries will need to step
up their efforts to fi ght poverty and disease in the poorest
corners of the world. The SDGs, however, go further than that
and also call for domestic reforms in the rich countries them-
selves. The main challenges for the entire set of OECD coun-
tries in terms of the SDGs as far as their own societies are
concerned are: fostering an inclusive economic model (goals
8 and 10) as well as sustainable consumption and production
patterns (goal 12). In the fi rst respect, sadly, the rich countries
in this world are no exception to the trend of a growing gap
between rich and poor. Inequality keeps rising across these
countries as well with the average income of the richest 10
percent of the population now being about nine times that of
the poorest 10 percent. In the latter respect, half of all OECD
nations still draw less than 11 percent of their energy from
renewable sources – clearly more efforts are needed there.
Likewise, countries such as the United States and Denmark
generate 725 and 751 kilograms, respectively, of municipal
waste per person every year. The UK and Estonia overexploit
their fi sh stock by 24 and 22 percent, respectively.
10. Their inability to fi ght the growing social divide combined
with their overuse of resources therefore shows that today’s
high-income countries in their current shape can no longer
serve as role models for the developing world. In terms of
sustainable development, all countries are now developing
countries. Thus, a new – more inclusive as well as sustain-
able – social and economic model must be strived for in the
future.
11. Best practices are becoming visible that can facilitate peer
learning on the way toward such a new model that would
fulfi ll the ambitious SDGs. Sweden, for example, managed
to cut its already outstandingly low levels of greenhouse gas
emissions relative to GDP by more than another third (35
percent) since 2006. Such enormous progress at an already
high level puts other countries to shame and is worthy of
emulation. By contrast, countries such as Canada, Australia,
and Estonia emit eight to ten times as much as Sweden rela-
tive to GDP. Concrete policy instruments which have fostered
this success in Sweden include the carbon tax on the use of
coal, oil, natural gas, petrol, and aviation fuel. It set the right
fi nancial incentives for the use of biomass, such as waste
from forests and forest industries, in heating systems instead
of using carbon. Furthermore, it encouraged the growth of
non-energy-intensive industries, such as the service sector,
which grew stronger than energy-intensive industries over
the last years.
12. Rich nations must do more to achieve the SDGs globally but
also domestically. We must remain ambitious with regard
to the goals: if the MDGs helped developing countries halve
mortality rates among children under fi ve years of age over
the last 15 years, surely we can demand that the high-income
countries use the SDGs to manage the transition toward a
more sustainable economic and social model. From now on,
civil society will have to hold governments to their pledges
at the UN summit and accelerate the change over the next 15
years. This study shall be a start to make that happen.
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhereGoal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agricultureGoal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all agesGoal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for allGoal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girlsGoal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for allGoal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for allGoal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovationGoal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countriesGoal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainableGoal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patternsGoal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impactsGoal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans,
seas and marine resources for sustainable developmentGoal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertifi cation and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity lossGoal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levelsGoal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/7891Transforming%20Our%20World.pdf
Source: Outcome document for the UN summit on September 25–27, 2015: “Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Finland
Switzerland
Germany
Netherlands
Belgium
Iceland
France
Canada
Austria
Japan
Slovenia
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Luxembourg
Australia
Spain
Ireland
Estonia
Poland
Korea, Rep.
Czech Republic
Portugal
Italy
Slovakia
Israel
United States
Greece
Chile
Hungary
Turkey
Mexico
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
13
15
16
17
18
18
20
21
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
7.86
7.79
7.55
7.52
7.21
7.08
7.04
7.00
6.97
6.94
6.93
6.92
6.91
6.91
6.83
6.80
6.66
6.65
6.65
6.47
6.42
6.42
6.32
6.24
6.23
6.13
6.02
6.01
5.95
5.88
5.73
5.55
5.19
4.91
0 4.00
2.00
6.00
9.00
1. 00
5.00
8.00
3.00
7.00
10.00
The SDG Index illustrates the overall performance of each OECD country based on the 17 goals and 34 indicators examined in the study. In sum, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Switzerland are best prepared to meet the SDGs and in a good position to foster sustainable development by 2030. However, even these countries are faced with particular challenges, as the country profi les in this study illustrate.
The world’s first SDG Index
7
Table of contents
Portugal .........................................................................
Slovakia ..........................................................................
Slovenia .........................................................................
Spain ..............................................................................
Sweden ..........................................................................
Switzerland ....................................................................
Turkey ............................................................................
United Kingdom .............................................................
United States ..................................................................
4. Performance by goal ...................................................
Goal 1: Poverty ............................................................
Goal 2: Agriculture and nutrition .................................
Goal 3: Health .............................................................
Goal 4: Education ........................................................
Goal 5: Gender equality ...............................................
Goal 6: Water ..............................................................
Goal 7: Energy .............................................................
Goal 8: Economy and labor ..........................................
Goal 9: Infrastructure and innovation ...........................
Goal 10: Inequality ........................................................
Goal 11: Cities ...............................................................
Goal 12: Consumption and production ..........................
Goal 13: Climate ............................................................
Goal 14: Oceans ............................................................
Goal 15: Biodiversity ......................................................
Goal 16: Institutions ......................................................
Goal 17: Global partnership ...........................................
5. Conclusions: Who is fi t for the goals? .......................
6. Bibliography ................................................................
7. Appendix: Full list of indicators ................................
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
96
98
Executive summary ........................................................
Foreword .....................................................................
1. Introduction: New goals for the world .....................
2. Methodology ...............................................................
3. Country profi les ..........................................................
Australia .........................................................................
Austria ...........................................................................
Belgium ..........................................................................
Canada ..........................................................................
Chile ..............................................................................
Czech Republic ...............................................................
Denmark ........................................................................
Estonia ...........................................................................
Finland ...........................................................................
France ............................................................................
Germany ........................................................................
Greece ...........................................................................
Hungary .........................................................................
Iceland ...........................................................................
Ireland ............................................................................
Israel ..............................................................................
Italy ................................................................................
Japan .............................................................................
Korea, Rep. ....................................................................
Luxembourg ...................................................................
Mexico ...........................................................................
Netherlands ...................................................................
New Zealand ..................................................................
Norway ..........................................................................
Poland ............................................................................
4
8
12
14
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Foreword
Foreword
· The number of people now living in extreme poverty has declined
by more than half, falling from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 836 million
in 2015.
· The proportion of undernourished people in the developing
regions has dropped by almost half since 1990.
· The number of out-of-school children of primary school age
worldwide fell by almost half, to an estimated 57 million in
2015, down from 100 million in 2000.
However, despite some encouraging steps forward, we
are still far from achieving all the targets we had set ourselves.
Too many people remain caught in extreme poverty, too many
remain hungry and sick, too many mothers die in childbirth, and
too many children still do not go to school.
We are also not yet doing enough to meet basic needs
and fulfi ll basic rights, to protect the environment, to build
effective international partnerships for development, or to
harness private entrepreneurship to deliver public goods and
services to those in need.
Fifteen years ago, world leaders acknowledged that in a world of
plenty and astounding technological progress, the poverty, hun-
ger, and disease that so many of our fellow human beings still
faced was intolerable. At our UN Millennium Summit in 2000,
the largest group of world leaders ever assembled signed the
Millennium Declaration in New York and put the Millennium
Development Goals into action. Development issues had fi nally
reached the highest political level and, for the fi rst time, devel-
oping countries were challenged to translate their development
vision into nationally-owned plans.
Today, there is no doubt that the eight Millennium Develop-
ment Goals and their framework of accountability have helped
people across the world to improve their lives and future prospects.
They have not only helped to mobilise resources and provided a
much-needed sense of direction for national plans and interna-
tional cooperation; they have also delivered measurable results:
· The mortality rate of children under fi ve has been cut by more
than half since 1990.
8
Kofi A. AnnanFounder and Chairman of the Kofi Annan Foundation,
Seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations
(1997–2006) and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (2001)
This study therefore shows how the rich countries currently
perform in all of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. It is
a fi rst systematic assessment of what will become the global
policy goals for the coming 15 years. It offers detailed profi les
of the strengths and weaknesses of each country and thereby
highlights best practice in ways of achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals. As such, it provides an evidence base for
policymakers, businesses, and civil society to act.
I am thankful to the Bertelsmann Stiftung for highlighting
this issue in such elaborate detail with the support of the Sus-
tainable Development Solutions Network. The study shows that
high-income countries must do more to achieve the Sustainable
Development Goals. Their top priority, of course, must remain
ending extreme poverty in the poorest regions of the world.
However, rich nations will also have to adopt domestic reforms.
This study will hopefully spark reform debates on sustainability
and social justice in many high-income countries. We owe it to
our planet and its people.
One of the lessons of the last 15 years is that the world’s
biggest challenges cannot be solved in isolation. Consequently,
the new Sustainable Development Goals will be a universal set
of goals for all countries, including the rich nations of this world.
High-income countries have a special responsibility – not only
as donors of development assistance to provide crucial funds in
the quest to end extreme poverty. They will also have to do their
homework and increase efforts towards a more sustainable and
socially just economic model in their own countries. Promoting
peaceful and inclusive societies, for instance, or ensuring sus-
tainable consumption and production patterns are challenges
that OECD countries need to take on just as much, if not more
than, the developing world. High-income nations must become
leading examples of truly sustainable development.
The Sustainable Development Goals should be workable
and understandable by people so they can ask governments to
act. Civil society must be able to put pressure on governments
to hold them to account for what they pledge at the UN summit.
9
Foreword
Foreword
developed, i.e. donor countries. This rightly changes with the
new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which explicitly
demand domestic reforms from high-income nations toward
more social justice and sustainability.
The world’s fi rst “stress test” of OECD countries with
regard to the new global policy goals presented in this study is
a crucial fi rst step for making the SDGs become a game changer
in global development policies. We congratulate and thank the
author as well as everyone else involved, in particular the UN
Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The stress test
shows that rich countries will fail the new goals if they do not
take immediate steps toward a more sustainable and socially
The UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) helped unite
the world in a joint effort to fi ght extreme poverty and produced
impressive results, halving, for example, not only the mortal-
ity rate of children under the age of fi ve years and the number
of people living in extreme poverty, but also the proportion of
undernourished people in the developing world.
However, there is a lot of unfi nished business left that we
must focus on over the next 15 years. We must continue to fi ght
poverty in the most desperate corners of the world, but this will
not be enough. The MDGs did not include the full spectrum of
global issues regarding inequality and environmental issues.
The MDG focus divided the world into developing countries and
10
point to give citizens the power to hold their governments to
account for what they pledge at the historic UN summit in New
York in September 2015. We hope that the study will spark and
enrich reform debates in OECD countries in order to make these
new goals a success story. In the interest of future generations,
we have no time to lose.
just economic model. Only then will they be able to serve as role
models for the rest of the world. But the study also identifi es
best practices across all 17 goals and 34 OECD countries. Going
forward, we will have to learn from these good examples and
discuss how they can be followed by others.
The SDGs are not legally binding goals, they are merely
political goals. They will only be achieved if civil society and citi-
zens are effective in putting pressure on their own governments
to pursue these goals. The SDGs should serve as leverage for
politics to pursue a better economic and social model. The Ber-
telsmann Stiftung is ready to help make these goals a success.
This study and the assessment it provides should be a starting
Dr. Stefan EmpterSenior Director
Program “Shaping Sustainable Economies”
Bertelsmann Stiftung
Aart De GeusChairman and CEO
Executive Board
Bertelsmann Stiftung
11
12
Introduction
comprehensive process. Responding to criticism of the MDGs,
specifi cally the lack of opportunities for participation during
their conception, the UN conducted the largest consultation
exercise in its history to ensure wide ownership of the goals.
Following the Rio+20 summit in 2012, an Open Working Group
(OWG) with representatives from UN member countries was
mandated to create a draft set of goals. It presented the fi nal
draft to the UN General Assembly in September 2014. Alongside
the offi cial negotiations of the OWG, the UN hosted numerous
global conversations including eleven thematic and 83 national
consultations, as well as an online “My World” survey – the larg-
est survey in the history of the UN – which recorded the desired
policy priorities of over seven million participants to inform the
OWG’s deliberations. The OWG proposal was then subject to
intergovernmental negotiations and will be signed into action in
September 2015.2
“1. We, the Heads of State and Government and High Representatives,
meeting at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from
25–27 September 2015 as the Organization celebrates its seven-
tieth anniversary, have decided today on new global Sustainable
Development Goals.
2. On behalf of the peoples we serve, we have adopted a historic deci-
sion on a comprehensive, far-reaching and people-centred set of uni-
versal and transformative Goals and targets. We commit ourselves to
working tirelessly for the full implementation of this Agenda by 2030.”
Pledge by world leaders in outcome document of the UN summit in
September 20153
What is new about the SDGs in comparison to the MDGs is not
only their extended number and more participatory conception.
While the eight MDGs were primarily aimed at ending extreme
poverty in all its forms in developing countries, the most
In the years 2000–2015, the UN Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) have managed to focus the world’s attention on
the key challenges faced by humanity. Eight goals united the
world in an unprecedented effort to make people’s lives better.
These goals were (1) eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, (2)
achieve universal primary education, (3) promote gender equal-
ity and empower women, (4) reduce child mortality, (5) improve
maternal health, (6) combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other dis-
eases, (7) ensure environmental sustainability, and (8) develop
a global partnership for development.
Fifteen years after the MDGs were put in place, the number
of people in extreme poverty, the under-fi ve mortality rate, the
maternal mortality rate, and the proportion of undernourished
people in developing countries have declined by around half
compared to their respective 1990 baseline levels. Many more
girls are in school now and the primary school enrolment rate
in developing countries currently stands at 91 percent. Access
to sources of water has improved signifi cantly, and progress
was made in combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis
with, for instance, over 6.2 million malaria deaths having been
averted in the last 15 years. Nonetheless, there is still much
unfi nished business, with more modest accomplishments in a
number of goals.1
So while levels of fulfi llment vary across the goals, and
although it might be argued that some improvements in liv-
ing standards would have come about without the targets, the
overall verdict on the MDGs is highly positive: they provided
a viable framework for action, a mechanism for peer pressure
between countries, and an overarching concept for assessing
improvements for those most in need.
From 2016–2030, a new set of Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) ought to be at the center of the global political
agenda. World leaders will adopt 17 goals during the UN sum-
mit on September 25, 2015, in New York (see box for the 17 pro-
posed SDGs). These goals are the result of an unprecedentedly
1 UNDP (2015). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/mdg/the-millennium-development-goals-report-2015.html 2 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015 3 Outcome document for the UN summit on September 25–27, 2015: “Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/7891Transforming%20Our%20World.pdf
1. Introduction: New goals for the world
13
important novelty is that the SDGs will explicitly broaden the
focus to all countries – including the rich nations of this world.
Nonetheless, policymakers in the OECD countries still gen-
erally look upon the SDGs as a development policy issue. The
task for high-income countries, one might assume, is simply to
provide greater levels of offi cial development assistance (ODA),
specifi cally, pushing efforts closer to the target of 0.7 percent
of GDP, which few countries have managed so far. The truth is,
however, that the SDGs will not just require rich countries to
increase development funds for others; they will need fundamen-
tal policy changes in their own countries. If the MDGs were the
telescope through which rich countries viewed the developing
world, the SDGs are the mirror in which they see their own poli-
cies and performance refl ected. In other words, every country
is now a developing country when it comes to an economic and
social model which is both sustainable and socially just.
Consequently, these goals have the power to question the
way we, citizens of the rich world, structure our economies, the
way we produce, the way we consume, in short: the way we live.
They can spark reform debates that ultimately increase aware-
ness and highlight the particular responsibilities of high-income
nations in that regard. The SDGs will therefore demand funda-
mental policy changes in the rich countries themselves so that
the OECD nations keep up their end of the global deal on sustain-
able development.
Sustainable development is a truly global endeavor, involv-
ing rich and poor countries alike. Challenges such as sustained,
inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, or sustainable
consumption and production patterns are just as, if not more,
pressing for the OECD as they are for the developing world. Eco-
nomically advanced nations need to become leading examples of
sustainable development.4
This gives rise to the question of how OECD countries are
currently performing: Are they keeping up their end of the global
deal on sustainable development? Are they doing their home-
work? Which countries offer “best practice” for which indicator,
and which ones are lagging behind? What can OECD countries
learn from each other?
This study aims to provide the answers. It will be the fi rst
systematic assessment of developed nations on what are set to
become the major global policy goals for the next 15 years, in
other words a “stress test” or “fi tness test” assessing the pre-
paredness of OECD countries for the SDGs. Moreover, the study
highlights the type of best practice that can help in achieving
SDGs. It provides a snapshot of evidence for the crucial UN sum-
mit and much further beyond.
In order to assess whether countries are fi t for the goals, two
“snapshot indicators” per goal are examined (see Chapter 2,
Methodology). A glance at the performance against the 17 goals
proposed reveals that at present, OECD countries vary greatly in
their capacity to meet these ambitious goals. It becomes evident
that not all countries are fi t for the goals, and indeed no one
country performs outstandingly in every goal. Each country has
its own particular lessons to learn from the others.
The evidence on OECD country performance in this study
highlights the need for these countries to introduce domestic
reforms in order to meet the SDGs. Focusing on the performance
of high-income countries should in no way distract attention
from the fi ght to eradicate extreme poverty and the plight of
those in most desperate need. Truly sustainable development in
fact means, for OECD countries, that efforts in all policy areas be
aligned toward the goal of fi ghting extreme suffering around the
globe in a coherent manner. Rich nations cannot buy their way
out of their responsibilities by merely increasing ODA while
continuing with their own highly unsustainable consumption
and production patterns. This, of course, will ultimately impact
the poorer nations. While richer countries will inevitably
look for trade-offs between different SDGs, they must strive
for the full set. And, as a consequence, this study will make
performance in all 17 goals visible for each country, a holistic
approach which makes cherry-picking impossible.
The remainder of this publication is structured as follows:
Chapter 2 outlines the methodology, particularly the selection
and presentation of the snapshot indicators. Chapter 3 then
illustrates at a glance the strengths and weaknesses of each
country across the 17 goals. Chapter 4 presents and discusses
the performance by goal: Bar charts are used to rank countries
on each goal and make visible the differences between them.
Chapter 5 outlines the lessons learned and policy options for
the way forward.
It is clear already that rich nations must take these goals
seriously, not just globally but domestically as well. And they
must do more to achieve them. Civil society will have to put pres-
sure on governments to hold them to their pledge on these 17
goals. This study aims to be a fi rst step in making that happen.
4 See for instance Sachs, J. (2015). The age of sustainable development. New York: Columbia University Press.
14
Methodology
2. Methodology
and technical expertise from academia, civil society, and the
private sector in support of sustainable development – two
“snapshot indicators” per goal were selected based on the
following three criteria7:
1. Feasibility: Data must be available today in good quality at least for
OECD countries.8
2. Suitability: The indicator should represent the – often multifaceted –
goal in a broad sense like a headline indicator; there should be a close
conceptual fi t between goal and indicator; the indicators should be
appropriate for the particular challenges of economically advanced
nations.
3. Relevance: The indicator should stand a good chance of becoming
an actual part of the SDG monitoring system as currently being dis-
cussed by the IAEG-SDGs.
In the selection of indicators, we have also built on the SDSN
Indicator Report9 – a comprehensive framework for SDG moni-
toring which includes a proposed set of 100 Global Monitoring
Indicators for which hundreds of organizations provided input
over 18 months – as well as on the Sustainable Governance
Indicators10 of the Bertelsmann Stiftung, a country perfor-
mance assessment framework involving over 140 indicators
for measuring sustainable governance, which is produced
with a network of around 100 academics worldwide.
The overriding question of this exercise is: Are the rich
countries ready for the SDGs? For this reason, we assign par-
ticular relevance to the performance on each indicator relative
to other countries, namely whether a country makes it into the
top fi ve of the 34 countries examined here. Naturally, there
are many alternative ways of presenting this information,
including alternative cutoff points such as the top quartile or
quintile of the distribution. As crude as the present approach
Monitoring the SDGs will be a crucial element of the strategy
for achieving them. The SDGs must become management tools
for policymakers: We will only know if we are on track to meet
the ambitious aims if we have a sound system of indicators in
place to guide our policies.
In fact, as this study is being prepared, the Inter-Agency
and Expert Group on SDGs (IAEG-SDGs), with the United
Nations Statistics Division acting as its secretariat, is busy
working out a catalog of indicators to create a full monitor-
ing system for the SDGs by March 2016.5 Naturally, this
monitoring system will include a wide range of indicators for
a detailed view of each goal and target – many more indicators
will eventually be needed than we look at in this study.
The purpose of this analysis in the context of those
global deliberations is to provide a concise snapshot of high-
income countries’ present position with regard to their global
responsibilities for sustainable development in the year that
the SDGs are signed into action. This will make visible the
shortcomings and best practices which policymakers can and
should act on over the coming 15 years. It provides a starting
point for “transforming our world,” as the title of the outcome
document of the historical UN summit puts it. This snapshot
of evidence should therefore be easily accessible and easily
comprehensible, with a manageable number of indicators, but
should at the same time be comprehensive enough to provide
a fi rst glimpse of country performance. Clearly, two snapshot
indicators per goal cannot do justice to the complexity of
sustainable development; this will, of course, be fewer than
the IAEG-SDG system to come, and important aspects will be
omitted. Nonetheless, given the criteria for selection outlined
below, this study will offer a relatively detailed overview of
country performance in the 17 new goals.6
With the support of the Sustainable Development Solu-
tions Network (SDSN) – a network launched by UN Secretary-
General Ban Ki-moon in August 2012 to mobilize scientifi c
15
may appear, it provides a rough-and-ready illustration of the
number of dimensions in which a country can currently be
considered “best practice.”
The exact thresholds and baselines that signal achieve-
ment of each SDG must be worked out by experts and negoti-
ated between and within countries in a sophisticated process
going forward. They should be both ambitious and feasible,
exceeding even the best of today’s best practices. Nonethe-
less, the performance of the top fi ve – as a rule of thumb for
the purpose of this study – provides a substantive impression
of a country’s fi tness for the respective goal. However, this
study also allows the necessary, detailed look at performance
across all dimensions.
This method of benchmarking against the top countries
gives us a reference point that is achievable for many other
OECD countries, yet suffi ciently ambitious that only a hand-
ful of countries have yet attained it. But even the current top
performers must increase their efforts for a number of goals,
including sustainable consumption and production patterns.
Here, current performance benchmarks are simply not good
enough in light of the earth’s capacities.
In order to summarize country performance, the fi rst SDG
Index has been compiled for this study (see results in Chapter
5) based on the 34 individual indicators presented in Chapter
4. To calculate the index, the raw data for each indicator have
been normalized to the interval [0;1] using a linear transforma-
tion, with the minimum and maximum values over the three
observed data points as upper and lower boundaries. Subse-
quently, a score between one and ten has been assigned to the
transformed data in such a way that for each indicator, a score
of ten is the best and a score of one the worst result possible.
The overall SDG Index was calculated as an unweighted arith-
metic mean of the 34 individual indicators.
The key theme of the SDGs, namely that no one gets
left behind, should eventually also be refl ected in the fi nal
monitoring system. There is only so much that statistical
averages can tell us, and in the future they should be comple-
mented by distributions and disaggregation (e.g. by age, sex,
or employment status). Nonetheless, the averages presented
here provide a starting point and a good indication of where
countries currently stand on the path toward the SDGs.
5 Regular updates on the process are available at http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/
6 In the long run, to strike a good balance between accessibility and complexity of an SDG monitoring system, it might be possible to display the larger number of indicators concisely using a sub-index for each of the 17 goals.
7 Thanks to the participants of an expert workshop hosted by the Bertelsmann Stiftung and SDSN in Paris in April 2015 on “SDG indicators for OECD countries” which provided input into the selection of indicators displayed here: Guido Schmidt-Traub, Eve de la Mothe Karoubi, Maria Cortes-Puch (all SDSN Paris), Simone Bastianoni (SDSN Mediterranean and University of Siena), Nilgun Ciliz (SDSN Turkey and Bosphorus University), Nicola Massarelli (Eurostat), Marco Mira d’Ercole (OECD), El Iza Mohamedou (PARIS21), Nicole Rippin (SDSN Germany and German Development Institute), as well as thanks to Wilfried Rickels (IfW Kiel) and all participants of a workshop at the Bonn Conference for Global Transformation (May 2015). The selection of indicators or views expressed in this publication do not represent an official position on the subject by the institutions that participants of the workshop are affiliated with. The author of this study bears full responsibility for the final selection of the indicators.
8 For the future, further improvements in data coverage and quality are, of course, desired. For this assess- ment of current performance, however, the indicator selection had to be restricted to the data that is
already available.
9 Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2015). Indicators and a monitoring framework for the Sustainable Development Goals. http://indicators.report/
10 http://www.sgi-network.org
16
Country profiles
Chapter 3 presents a detailed profi le of the strengths and weaknesses of each country for all
17 SDGs. Charts are used to illustrate relative performance in each of the snapshot indicators
discussed in more detail in chapter 4. The outer circles of the chart in green represent the best
results moving to the worst at the center. A chart for a country that ranks highly in numerous
indicators will have a large shaded area. Where values are missing (e.g., the ocean-related goals
for landlocked countries) the line is interrupted.
These charts and country profi les serve as an illustration of what a concise but informative
SDG monitoring system could look like in the future. It would make it impossible for policy-
makers to cherry-pick selected goals, drawing attention to areas where their country excels and
ignoring dimensions where performance is wanting. In this chapter, then, the whole set of 17
goals will be examined. What emerges is a holistic image of country performance across the
entire catalogue of goals.
In addition, detailed country reports which examine more dimensions than covered here in
this study can be viewed at www.sgi-network.org. Country reports for low- and middle-income
countries are available at www.bti-project.org.
17
Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Iceland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Korea, Rep. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Slovenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
3. Country profiles
18
Country profiles | Australia
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
AUSTRALIA18th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
for goal 14 (which calls for the sustainable use of oceans, seas
and marine resources). The country comes in fi fth on the Ocean
Health Index and second on the use of its fi sh stocks. Australia’s
fi sh stocks are overexploited at a rate of “only” 15.2 percent,
better than the very high 17.8 percent OECD average and just
0.2 percent behind front-runner Japan, but still illustrating how
some of today’s best performances simply are not good enough.
Weaknesses With 47 tons per capita, Australia has the worst rates of domes-
tic material consumption among the OECD countries. The
country also generates 647 kilograms of municipal waste per
capita, putting it 30th among the 34 countries studied. These
two indicators jointly measure the sustainability of consump-
tion and production patterns (goal 12). Australia’s performance
is equally dismal for goal 13 (which calls for action to combat
climate change and its impacts). In terms of both greenhouse
gas emissions and CO2 emissions from energy production, Aus-
tralia ranks 33rd, with the country’s fossil fuel energy produc-
tion causing 17 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita. By
comparison, the top fi ve countries each emit less than 5 tons
per capita.
Overall Australia ranks 18th out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of this study’s SDG Index. It numbers among the top fi ve in
seven of the 34 indicators. Australia’s performance, however,
varies considerably. On eleven of the indicators it can be found
in the bottom third.
Strengths
On average, Australians can expect to live 73 years in full
health; this places the country among the best performers for
this indicator. Australia is also among the top countries for goal
11 (inclusivity, safety, resilience and sustainability of cities and
human settlements). Australians enjoy considerable domestic
space, with 2.3 rooms per person, with particulate matter air
pollution below World Health Organization safety thresholds. In
addition, the country ranks fi fth in gross agricultural nutrient
balances with a surplus of just 15 kilograms per hectare of agri-
cultural land, indicating that nitrogen and phosphorous are used
in farming in a way that minimizes pollution. By comparison,
the average OECD country has a surplus of 67 kilograms while
South Korea, the worst performer on this indicator, has a surplus
of 259 kilograms per hectare of agricultural land. Also notewor-
thy: Australia ranks among the top fi ve countries in this study
19
Austria | Country profiles
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
AUSTRIA12th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
Weaknesses With a score of 6.4, Austria ranks 29th among OECD countries
on the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status. In
other words, the impact of socioeconomic background on edu-
cational performance among Austrian pupils is among the
highest in the OECD, making it hard for students from poorer
households to catch up. So while the country’s income gap
between rich and poor is better than two-thirds of the coun-
tries studied, its low PISA index ranking means that Austria’s
performance for goal 10 (which calls for reduction of inequality
within and among countries) is highly mixed. The country also
ranks 29th for particulate matter air pollution. Also worrying:
with 21.7 tons per capita, Austria’s domestic material consump-
tion level places it among the bottom third of OECD countries.
Overall Austria ranks twelfth out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. The country is among the top ten in twelve
of the 34 indicators in this study, two of those in the top fi ve.
Austria’s performance varies considerably across the various
indicators, although it gravitates toward the mid-zone. The
country features in the bottom fi ve in just two indicators.
Strengths
Austria comes in sixth among the 34 countries studied in terms
of its renewable energy consumption. A laudable 30.6 percent
of gross energy consumption comes from renewable sources.
The country also has lower greenhouse gas emissions per
GDP than 28 other OECD countries. With emissions of 248.8
tons per million measured in CO2 equivalents per GDP, Austria
performs better than the 352.1-ton OECD average, but is still
a long way behind the front-runner Sweden (which emits only
66.8 tons). The country is also a leader in wastewater manage-
ment. Finally, Austria is in a very good position to implement
and track SDG-related performance, featuring in the top three
for SDG monitoring: more than 80 percent of SDG indicators
used in this study are reported annually with a time lag no
greater than three years.
20
Country profiles | Belgium
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
Weaknesses Belgium ranks last for particulate matter air pollution, with
many Belgians exposed to levels exceeding World Health Orga-
nization safety thresholds. Half of all OECD manage to keep
within these limits. In addition, Belgium annually withdraws
51.8 percent of its total renewable freshwater resources, put-
ting it at 31st among the 34 OECD countries, and indicating
that the sustainability of its water resources is gravely endan-
gered. Belgium is also among the bottom fi ve countries for
gross agricultural nutrient balances, with nitrogen and phos-
phorous use that degrades the environment in contravention
of sustainable agriculture concepts (goal 2). On goal 7 (which
calls for universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and
modern energy), Belgium ranks among the bottom 10 OECD
countries. The country’s relatively high primary energy inten-
sity (6.4 petajoules per GDP) and low share of renewable energy
consumption (5.3 percent) are unsustainable and threaten the
energy supply of future generations.
Overall Belgium ranks eighth out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. The country is among the top ten in nine of
the 34 indicators, four of those in the top fi ve. Belgium’s perfor-
mance, however, varies considerably. For three indicators the
country fi nds itself among the bottom fi ve.
Strengths
Belgium does particularly well in terms of gender equality and
the empowerment of women and girls (goal 5). With a relatively
low gender pay gap of 6.4 percent and a national parliament
which is 41.3 percent female, Belgium ranks second and third
respectively. By contrast, the average gender pay gap across
the OECD is 15.5 percent. With 2.2 rooms per person, Belgians
also enjoy considerable domestic space, which places the coun-
try among the top fi ve. In addition, the country ranks among
the top fi ve on the poverty gap (the percentage by which the
mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line). This posi-
tion, combined with a relatively favorable income gap between
rich and poor (seventh, with a Palma ratio of 0.9), illustrates
Belgium’s relative success at tackling poverty and inequality.
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
BELGIUM8th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
21
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
Canada | Country profiles
total renewable freshwater resources. This puts the country
fourth among the countries in this study.
Weaknesses The Canadian government does, however, face policy challenges.
Canada is 32nd for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (with only
Australia and Estonia faring worse) and 31st for CO2 emissions
from energy production. The country’s fossil fuel energy produc-
tion caused 15.3 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita. By
contrast, the top fi ve OECD countries each emit less than half
of Canada’s total GHG emissions and less than 5 tons per capita
through fossil fuel energy production. The country also ranks
among the bottom fi ve countries in this study for primary energy
intensity (8.1 petajoules per GDP). The same is true of domestic
material consumption where Canada (29.2 tons per capita) falls
far short of countries like Japan, Hungary and the United King-
dom (all below 10 tons per capita).
Overall Canada ranks eleventh out of 34 countries across all dimen-
sions of the SDG Index. It does signifi cantly better than its
neighbor, the United States, which comes in at 29th place.
Canada is among the top ten on 15 indicators; on six indica-
tors it ranks in the top fi ve. Across the various goals, Canada’s
performance varies considerably, with six indicators fi nding
the country among the bottom fi ve.
Strengths
Canadians not only do better at school than other OECD
countries, they also overcome socioeconomic background to
a greater degree. On both PISA results and the PISA index of
economic, social and cultural status, Canada comes in fi fth.
Canada also leads the OECD countries in making cities and
human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
(goal 11). With 2.5 rooms per person, Canadians enjoy consid-
erable domestic space, and particulate matter air pollution is
below World Health Organization safety thresholds. Canada
ranks third behind Turkey and Poland in protecting threatened
animal species. A relatively low 9 percent of bird species in
the country are threatened: the OECD average is 22 percent.
In addition, Canada annually withdraws just 1.5 percent of its
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
CANADA11th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
22
Country profiles | Chile
Weaknesses A sustainable economy requires innovation, yet Chile spends
less on research and development than any other OECD coun-
try (just 0.4 percent of GDP). By contrast, the top six countries
in this study each spend between 3 and 4 percent of GDP on
domestic R&D. The country’s last place for income gap between
rich and poor (Palma ratio of 3.3) indicates that Chile has so far
failed to adequately address inequality. Even more worrying,
the country performs dismally for both indicators that measure
goal 4 (which calls for inclusive and equitable quality educa-
tion and lifelong learning). The viability of a society depends
to a large extent on the capabilities of its members, yet Chile
is still a long way from providing education opportunities on a
par with most other OECD countries. In 2011, just 57.5 percent
of Chileans had completed at least upper secondary education.
In addition, the average Chilean student’s PISA score was 60.9
points below the OECD mean, with only Mexico offering a
worse performance. Also alarming: the country’s high domes-
tic material consumption (41 tons per capita) ranks it 33rd,
surpassed only by Australia. By comparison, the average OECD
country uses approximately 19 tons of materials per capita in
its economy.
Overall Chile ranks 31st out of 34 countries across all dimensions of the
SDG Index. Chile is among the top ten in seven of the 34 indica-
tors in this study, but only once manages to crack the top fi ve.
The country’s performance across the indicators varies consider-
ably. On 18 indicators Chile fi nds itself among the bottom third of
countries in this study, nine of those placing it in the bottom fi ve.
Strengths
Chile performs well in protecting animal species, ranking fi fth
among the 34 OECD countries. A relatively low 11 percent of bird
species in the country are threatened (compared to the 21.6 per-
cent OECD average). Similarly, a comparatively low 15.8 percent
of Chile’s fi sh stocks are overexploited, ranking the country sixth.
This is somewhat better than the 17.8 percent OECD average. The
country also is among the top ten for taking urgent action to com-
bat climate change and its impacts (goal 13). For example, the
country’s fossil fuel energy production causes 4.5 tons of carbon
dioxide emissions per capita (sixth place in the sample). Chile
also has lower greenhouse gas emissions per GDP than 25 other
OECD countries. With emissions per GDP of 273 tons per million
USD, the country performs better than the 352.1 tons OECD aver-
age, but still short of the front-runner, Sweden (which emits just
66.8 tons).
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
CHILE31st of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
23
Czech Republic | Country profiles
Weaknesses Unfortunately, the other indicator in goal 10, the PISA index of
economic, social and cultural status, clouds this sunny picture,
with the Czech Republic ranking 30th among the 34 OECD
countries. Truly fulfi lling goal 10 (which calls for a reduction
in inequality within and among countries) will require signifi -
cant policy action that ensures education opportunities are not
limited by socioeconomic status. In addition, the country ranks
32nd on particulate matter air pollution, with many Czechs
exposed to levels which exceed World Health Organization
safety thresholds; in the same year, half of all OECD countries
kept within these limits. The country’s bird species are also not
adequately protected; 52 percent of bird species are threatened
(more than double the 22 percent OECD average). Also worry-
ing: the Czech Republic ranks among the bottom fi ve countries
in the sample for public sector corruption and primary energy
intensity (7.1 petajoules per GDP).
Overall The Czech Republic ranks 24th out of 34 countries across all
dimensions of the SDG Index. For eight of the 34 indicators in
this study the country is among the top ten of OECD countries,
managing the top fi ve for six indicators. The Czech Republic’s
performance, however, varies considerably. For 14 indicators
the country ranks among the bottom third, and for fi ve indica-
tors in the bottom fi ve.
Strengths
Czechs are second only to the Japanese for education rates, with
92.8 percent completing at least upper secondary school. The
Czech Republic has made commendable strides toward ending
poverty in all its forms (goal 1). A relatively low 5.2 percent (the
lowest rate in this study) of Czechs live below the poverty line,
far better than the 11.5 percent OECD average and almost on
par with top performer Iceland. Similarly, the country’s poverty
gap (the percentage by which the mean income of the poor falls
below the poverty line) places it among the top ten OECD coun-
tries. The Czech Republic’s gross fi xed capital formation (25.3
percent of GDP) ranks it fi fth and a relatively progressive Palma
ratio (0.9) – the distance between the richest and the poorest
10 percent – ranks it fourth, indicating that some policies are
helping to reduce inequality (goal 10).
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
CZECH REPUBLIC
24th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
24
Country profiles | Denmark
ranks third in the Ocean Health Index, behind Estonia and New
Zealand. This high ranking indicates Denmark’s sustainable use
of marine ecosystems, ensuring that they are available not just
now but also in the future.
Weaknesses Despite its positive showing, Denmark is not without its chal-
lenges. Danes generate 751 kilograms of municipal waste per
capita every year, one of the worst rates among OECD countries.
By contrast, inhabitants in the fi ve best-performing countries
for this indicator generate between 293 and 347 kilograms
per capita. And while it rates highly for income gap, the other
indicator for goal 10 (which calls for reducing inequality) fi nds
Denmark among the bottom ten on the PISA index of economic,
social and cultural status. Addressing this weakness will require
policy action that ensures education opportunities are not limited
by socioeconomic status.
Overall Denmark ranks third out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. The country is among the top ten for over half
of the 34 indicators in this study, appearing in the top fi ve eight
times. While Denmark’s performance varies, it maintains a very
high average. The country fi nds itself among the bottom third for
fi ve of the indicators, and in the bottom fi ve for just one.
Strengths
Among the 34 OECD countries, Denmark has the least corrupt
public sector. The country also ranks among the top ten for
homicide rates: just 0.8 per 100,000 inhabitants. These indicators
illustrate that Denmark is a leader in promoting peaceful and
inclusive societies, providing equality of justice, and building
accountable public institutions (goal 16). In addition, Denmark’s
poverty rate of 6 percent puts the country right behind the Czech
Republic. Similarly, the Danes’ narrow income gap between rich
and poor puts it in fourth place and demonstrates its success at
reducing inequality. Denmark also leads the way in citizens’ sat-
isfaction with life. The Danish government is at the same time
among the fi ve most generous in development assistance, giving
0.9 percent of GNI (nearly $3 billion in 2014). Signifi cant fi nancial
contributions to developing countries are essential to sustainable
development on a global scale. Also noteworthy: the country
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
DENMARK3rd of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
25
Estonia | Country profiles
formation (27.8 percent of GDP) puts the country in third place,
with only South Korea and Norway performing better.
Weaknesses For all of its impressive accomplishments, Estonia faces sig-
nifi cant policy challenges. Estonia performs dismally in goal
13 (which calls for action to combat climate change and its
impacts). The country ranks last among the 34 OECD coun-
tries for greenhouse gas emissions and 30th for CO2 emissions
from energy production. With emissions per GDP of 680 tons
per million, the country emits nearly double the OECD aver-
age and more than ten times the front-runner, Sweden (which
emits 66.8 tons). Likewise, Estonia’s fossil fuel energy produc-
tion emits 12.3 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita; the
top fi ve countries each emit less than 5 tons per capita. Just as
worrying: Estonia ranks among the three worst-performing on
three diverse indicators: primary energy intensity, the gender
pay gap, and homicide. Estonia’s high primary energy intensity
(9.1 petajoules per GDP) is more than double that of each of the
top fi ve countries. The country’s 31.5 percent gender pay gap,
is more than double the OECD average. Finally, with a homicide
rate of 4.1 per 100,000 inhabitants, the country is surpassed
only by Turkey and Mexico.
Overall Estonia ranks 21st out of 34 countries across all dimensions of the
SDG Index. For nine of the 34 indicators it is among the top fi ve
OECD countries and for fi ve it tops the rankings. Estonia’s perfor-
mance, however, varies greatly. For 13 indicators the country is
among the bottom third, and among the bottom fi ve for eight.
Strengths
The country tops the PISA index of economic, social and cul-
tural status. Educational opportunities are less limited by
socioeconomic status in Estonia than any other country in
the sample. Estonia is a leader among OECD countries when it
comes to goal 15 (the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems
and the protection of biodiversity). The country is showing
the way in protecting both its terrestrial biomes and animal
species. For example, a comparatively low 10 percent of the
country’s bird species are threatened, which puts the country
at fourth. Similarly, Estonia leads the OECD countries in the
Ocean Health Index (which assesses the condition of marine
ecosystems). Estonians also generate the least municipal waste;
the country’s 293 kilograms per capita is far below the OECD
average of 483 kilograms. Also of note: Estonia’s particulate
matter air pollution levels are below World Health Organiza-
tion safety thresholds. In addition, Estonia’s gross fi xed capital
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
ESTONIA21st of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
26
Country profiles | Finland
A third of Finland’s energy comes from renewable sources,
which is almost twice as much as the OECD average and the
fourth-highest value of all countries. Finally, Finland’s parlia-
ment is 42.5 percent female, second only to Sweden’s.
Weaknesses Finland’s relatively high primary energy intensity (8.2 peta-
joules per GDP) puts it well toward the bottom of the table, with
only Estonia and Iceland performing more poorly. Similarly
alarming, the country’s high domestic material consumption
(34.3 tons per capita) puts it 31st; by comparison, the OECD
average is around 19 tons per capita of materials in the econ-
omy. Despite its impressive female representation in parlia-
ment, Finland’s performance in goal 5 is brought down by a
disappointing average gender pay gap of 18.7 percent, below
the OECD average of 15.5 percent, putting Finland 27th in the
sample.
Overall Finland ranks fourth out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. For more than half of the indicators the coun-
try ranks in the top ten and in the top fi ve for 13 indicators.
Finland’s performance varies across the different indicators,
but it skews above average. It fi nds itself among the bottom
third for fi ve indicators and notably in the bottom fi ve for just
two indicators.
Strengths
Finland has made commendable strides toward ending poverty
in all its forms (goal 1). A relatively low 6.6 percent of Finns live
below the poverty line, far better than the 11.5 percent OECD
average. Even more impressively, Finland has the narrowest
poverty gap (the percentage by which the mean income of the
poor falls below the poverty line) of any OECD country. Finland
is not only a champion when it comes to protecting marine
resources, as illustrated by its good performance on the Ocean
Health Index. Particulate matter air pollution is also below
World Health Organization safety thresholds. Furthermore,
the country ranks third for PISA results. It secures the same
position in terms of public sector corruption, with only Den-
mark and New Zealand having lower perceptions of corruption.
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
FINLAND4th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
27
France | Country profiles
fi fth among the countries in the sample. On average, the French
can expect 72 years of life in full health, putting the country
among the top ten countries for this indicator.
Weaknesses In the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status,
France is second-last of all the OECD countries. Fully meeting
goal 10 (which calls for a reduction in inequality within and
among countries) will require signifi cant policy action that
ensures education opportunities are not limited by socioeco-
nomic status. Also, only 75.1 percent of the population have
completed at least upper secondary education; the top fi ve
countries in the sample had completion rates of at least 90 per-
cent. The French generate 530 kilograms of municipal waste
per capita, putting the country 24th among the OECD coun-
tries; inhabitants in the top fi ve countries generate between
293 and 347 kilograms per capita.
Overall France ranks tenth out of 34 countries across all dimensions of
the SDG Index. France ranks among the top ten for eight of the 34
indicators in this study. Only three times, however, does it make it
into the top fi ve. France’s performance varies between indicators,
although it gravitates toward the mid-zone. On only four indica-
tors does the country fi nd itself in the bottom third, and only once
among the bottom fi ve.
Strengths
France ranks among the top ten for urgent action to combat
climate change and its impacts (goal 13). The country has lower
greenhouse gas emissions per GDP than 29 other OECD coun-
tries. With emissions per GDP of 230.8 tons per million USD,
France performs better than the 352.1-ton OECD average, but still
far short of the front-runner, Sweden (which emits 66.8 tons). The
country’s fossil fuel energy production emits 5.3 tons of carbon
dioxide per capita (eighth place in the sample). France has also
made commendable strides toward ending poverty in all its forms
(goal 1). A comparatively low 8 percent of French live below the
poverty line, better than the 11.5 percent OECD average. In addi-
tion, the country’s low poverty gap (the percentage by which the
mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line) places it
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
FRANCE10th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
28
Country profiles | Germany
(although tempered by a poor showing in the protection of ani-
mal species). Germany also has a relatively low homicide rate
of 0.7 per 100,000 inhabitants, putting it in the top ten, and
relatively high expenditure on research and development (2.9
percent of GDP).
Weaknesses The sustainability of agriculture in Germany is severely threat-
ened by nitrogen and phosphorous use, coming in at 26th for
this indicator. A surplus of 94 kilograms per hectare of total
agricultural land indicates a high risk of pollution soil and
water. In addition, Germany is in 28th place for waste per cap-
ita: at 614 kilograms, far more than inhabitants in the top fi ve
countries, who generate between 293 and 347 kilograms per
capita. Germany’s use of total renewable freshwater resources,
which it draws on at an annual rate of 30.2 percent, puts the
country among the bottom fi ve. In addition, the country ranks
29th among the 34 countries in the sample for protection of
animal species; 36 percent of bird species are threatened,
signifi cantly higher than the 22 percent OECD average. Also
worrying: many Germans are exposed to particulate matter air
pollution exceeding WHO safety thresholds, ranking the coun-
try in 27th place in this indicator.
Overall Germany ranks sixth out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. It is among the top ten for twelve of the 34
indicators in this study, but only twice manages a top fi ve plac-
ing. Across the various indicators Germany’s performance
varies, although it hovers around the median. On seven indica-
tors the country fi nds itself in the bottom third, yet only twice
among the bottom fi ve.
Strengths
As Europe’s economic powerhouse, Germany ranks among the
top countries in the sample for promoting economic growth
and employment. With a GNI in 2014 of $46,840 per capita, the
country ranks sixth (although it needs to do more to ensure that
this growth is inclusive and sustainable, as goal 8 requires). In
addition, 73.8 percent of working-age Germans are in employ-
ment, putting the country in sixth place. The country’s narrow
poverty gap (the percentage by which the mean income of the
poor falls below the poverty line) puts it at fourth among the
countries in the sample. Germany also excels in conserva-
tion, designating 17 percent or more of terrestrial biomes as
protected areas, a distinction it shares with seven other OECD
countries. This demonstrates the country’s commitment to
sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
GERMANY6th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
29
Greece | Country profiles
Weaknesses One of Greece’s many challenges, particularly during the coun-
try’s current economic crisis, is its troublingly low employ-
ment rate. In 2014, 49.4 percent of working-age Greeks were
in employment, the worst fi gures for any OECD country. This
has fueled an alarmingly wide poverty gap (the percentage
by which the mean income of the poor falls below the poverty
line), only exceeded by that found in Italy, Mexico and Spain.
Another major challenge relates to the need for resilient infra-
structure, sustainable industrialization and innovation (goal
9). Greece ranks last in gross fi xed capital formation and only
two places higher for gross domestic research and development
expenditure. Building a sustainable economy requires innova-
tion, yet the country spends just 0.8 percent of GDP on research
and development – only Chile and Mexico spend less. The
country’s perceived level of public sector corruption is among
the highest on a par with Italy and exceeded only by Mexico.
Given its many challenges, it should come as no surprise that
Greece ranks at the very bottom for life satisfaction. Greeks’
life satisfaction has in fact declined the most compared to all
other OECD nations in recent years.
Overall Greece ranks 30th out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. For eight of the 34 indicators in this study
it can be found among the top third of OECD countries, three
indicators of those in the top fi ve. Greece’s performance varies
considerably, with alarmingly low values in some indicators:
the country is among the bottom third for a full 16 indicators,
and in the bottom fi ve for seven.
Strengths
Greece trails only Iceland and Spain for gross agricultural
nutrient balances with 12 kilograms per hectare of agricul-
tural land surplus, indicating nitrogen and phosphorous use
in farming that minimizes environmental degradation. The
country also ranks fourth among the 34 OECD countries for its
relatively narrow gender pay gap; at 6.9 percent, it is less than
half the OECD average of 15.5 percent. Also noteworthy: Greece
ranks fi fth for use of its fi sh stocks. A comparatively low 15.7
percent of the country’s fi sh stocks are overexploited, better
than the 17.8 percent OECD average. At 12.1 tons per capita,
Greece has low enough domestic material consumption to put
it in the top ten.
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
GREECE30th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
30
Country profiles | Hungary
Weaknesses Hungary is one of the least successful OECD countries in
ensuring healthy lives and well-being (goal 3). Hungarians, on
average, can expect 65 years of life in full health, ten years
less than their Japanese counterparts. Hungary’s performance
in gender equality (goal 5) is offset by the number of women
in parliament; with 9.3 percent, only Japan has fewer. Hungary
is also among the fi ve worst-performing countries for goal 11
(making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient
and sustainable). Hungary’s environmental profi le is particu-
larly alarming: it is second-last for particulate matter air pol-
lution and only one place higher for use of renewable water
sources; its annual rate of 93.1 percent severely threatens the
sustainability of its water resources. Similarly, the country
protects just 5 percent of its terrestrial biomes; meanwhile
eight OECD countries have designated 17 percent or more. All
of this may help explain why Hungarians rank 32nd for life
satisfaction.
Overall Hungary ranks 32nd out of 34 countries across all dimen-
sions of the SDG Index. For six of the 34 indicators used in
this study it features among the top third of OECD countries,
and in the top fi ve for three of them. Hungary’s performance,
however, is very much mixed. For 18 indicators the country is
among the bottom third, and in the bottom fi ve for an alarm-
ing eleven indicators.
Strengths
At 10 tons per capita, Hungary’s domestic material consump-
tion is almost half the OECD average of around 19 tons per
capita of materials in the economy, putting it in third place. Fur-
thermore, the country’s fossil fuel energy production causes
4.4 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita (fi fth place in
the sample). Hungary is also among the top ten for its relatively
narrow 8.7 percent gender pay gap, signifi cantly better than
the OECD average of 15.5 percent. Finally, Hungary is in a very
good position to monitor SDGs in the future with over 83 per-
cent of the SDG indicators used in this study reported annually
with a time lag no greater than three years.
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
HUNGARY32nd of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
31
Iceland | Country profiles
these indicators, Iceland leads the OECD. Icelanders are also
largely unaffected by homicide, and when it comes to reducing
inequality (goal 10), Iceland is among the top fi ve countries. The
country ranks fourth in the Palma ratio, the comparatively small
income gap between rich and poor (0.9), and second for its score
on the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (which
assesses the degree to which socioeconomic status limits educa-
tion opportunities). Finally, Iceland leads the world for its use of
renewable energy sources (76.7 percent) – effectively all from
geothermal and hydropower.
Weaknesses While Iceland utilizes the OECD’s highest share of renewable
energy, it also has the least effi cient energy use with a primary
energy intensity of 22 petajoules per billion in GDP, well ahead
of the OECD average of six petajoules. This woefully ineffi cient
energy use makes Iceland’s success in goal 7 (which calls for
a sustainable energy sector) very much mixed. Also worrying,
the country only ranks 31st in gross fi xed capital formation.
Finally, the country performs poorly on biodiversity: 44 per-
cent of bird species are threatened (about double the 22 percent
OECD average).
Overall Iceland ranks ninth out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. The country is in the top third for almost
half of the indicators in this study, and twelve of them fi nd
Iceland in the top fi ve. Iceland in fact comes out on top for
a commendable six indicators, and although its performance
varies, it skews above average. For eight of the indicators the
country fi nds itself among the bottom third, and in the bottom
fi ve for three indicators.
Strengths
Iceland leads the OECD countries in employment with 82.8 per-
cent of its working-age citizens employed. Iceland has also made
progress toward ending poverty in all its forms (goal 1). The
country has a low poverty rate among OECD countries, with just
6.1 percent of Icelanders living below the national poverty line,
far better than the 11.5 percent OECD average. Yet, the country’s
performance on goal 1 is mixed. Iceland’s poverty gap (the per-
centage by which the mean income of the poor falls below the
poverty line) ranks 18th among the countries in the sample. The
country has particulate matter air pollution below World Health
Organization safety thresholds and annually withdraws just 0.1
percent of its total renewable freshwater resources. In both of
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
ICELAND9th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
32
Country profiles | Ireland
Weaknesses Ireland’s exemplary energy effi ciency is offset by the low
proportion of renewables in its energy mix: just 5.2 percent,
putting it in 29th place. Fully meeting goal 7 (which calls for
universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and mod-
ern energy) will require signifi cant policy action to ensure that
current energy needs are met without jeopardizing future gen-
erations. The Irish government faces other policy challenges:
the country protects just 1.8 percent of its terrestrial biomes,
putting it at dead last among OECD countries. By comparison,
eight OECD countries have designated 17 percent or more of
their terrestrial biomes as protected areas. The country also
has appallingly low female representation in parliament; the
most recent elections, in 2011, put women in just 15.7 percent
of seats. At 24.9 tons per capita, Ireland’s domestic material
consumption level puts it among the bottom fi ve countries; the
average OECD country uses approximately 19 tons per capita of
materials in the economy.
Overall Ireland ranks 20th out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. On seven of the 34 indicators in this study
the country is among the top ten OECD countries, featuring in
the top fi ve for two. However, Ireland’s overall performance is
mixed. For nine indicators the country ranks among the bottom
third, and in the bottom fi ve for fi ve indicators.
StrengthsIreland ranks among the top countries for goal 11 (making
cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and
sustainable). The Irish enjoy relatively generous domestic
space, with 2.1 rooms per person, and particulate matter air
pollution below World Health Organization safety thresholds.
In addition, Ireland withdraws a mere 1.6 percent of its total
renewable freshwater resources every year, placing it among
the top ten in this study. Ireland’s effi cient energy use is also
noteworthy, beating every other country with a primary energy
intensity of just 3.4 petajoules per billion in GDP – the OECD
average is six petajoules per GDP. Finally, Ireland is among the
best countries in terms of SDG monitoring due to a good capac-
ity to track progress and failures with regard to the indicators
examined here.
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
IRELAND20th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
33
Israel | Country profiles
Weaknesses Israel annually withdraws 260.5 percent of its total renewable
freshwater resources, putting it at the very bottom of the 34
OECD countries. Israel is also among the worst fi ve countries
in gross agricultural nutrient balances, indicating nitrogen
and phosphorous use in farming that pollutes the ecosystem.
With 136 kilograms per hectare of agricultural land surplus,
the country performs far worse than front-runners Iceland,
Spain and Greece. In addition, Israelis annually generate 620
kilograms of municipal waste per capita, putting the country
at 27th. By comparison, inhabitants in the top fi ve countries
generate between 293 and 347 kilograms per capita. One of
the country’s other great challenges is its troublingly high
poverty rate, at 20.9 percent there is a greater proportion of
people living in poverty than any OECD country apart from
Mexico. Similarly, the income gap between rich and poor in
Israel puts the country at 30th, suggesting little progress at
reducing inequality. The country ranks 31st in this study with
a 21.8 percent gender pay gap, wider than the OECD average
of 15.5 percent. And while development assistance is essential
to strengthening the means to develop sustainably on a global
scale, Israel ranks 32nd in the sample. The Israeli government
gives less than 0.1 percent of its GNI to development assistance.
Overall Israel ranks 28th out of 34 countries across all dimensions of the
SDG Index. Israel is among the top ten for four indicators, twice
making it into the top fi ve. For 16 indicators (almost half of the
indicators), however, the country fi nds itself among the bottom
third of countries in this study, and on seven indicators in the
bottom fi ve.
Strengths
A sustainable economy requires innovation, and Israel spends
more on research and development than any other OECD coun-
try (4.2 percent of GDP), roughly 80 percent of which comes
from business. In addition, the country ranks fourth in life
satisfaction, as measured by surveys. Also noteworthy: Israel
ranks among the top ten countries for the effi ciency of its
energy use with a primary energy intensity of 4.4 petajoules
per billion in GDP, signifi cantly better than the OECD average
of six petajoules. Finally, a respectable 85 percent of Israelis
complete upper secondary education, putting the country on
track to reach goal 4 by 2030: ensuring inclusive and equitable
quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportuni-
ties for all.
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
ISRAEL28th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
34
Country profiles | Italy
primary energy intensity of 4.1 petajoules per billion in GDP,
below the OECD average of six petajoules.
Weaknesses Italians’ perception of public sector corruption is as high as the
Greeks’, the two joint second only to Mexico. One of the coun-
try’s great challenges is its worryingly high unemployment
rate. In 2014, only 56.5 percent of working-age Italians were
in employment, putting the country 31st in the OECD. Italy
also ranks 31st for particulate matter air pollution, with levels
exceeding WHO safety thresholds. Goal 4 calls for inclusive
and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all,
yet Italian students can only manage average PISA results and
school completion rates. In 2013, only 58.2 percent of Italians
had completed at least upper secondary education, well below
the top fi ve countries in the sample, where completion rates are
90 percent or above. Given its many challenges, it is hardly sur-
prising that Italy ranks among the bottom third for life satisfac-
tion, with its self-reported scores declining in recent years.
Overall Italy ranks 26th out of 34 countries across all dimensions of
the SDG Index. For nine of the 34 indicators in this study the
country is among the top third OECD countries, and among the
top fi ve for three of those. Italy’s performance, however, varies
considerably. For 16 indicators (nearly half of the measures) the
country ranks among the bottom third, and in the bottom fi ve
for fi ve indicators.
Strengths
Italians can expect longer lives in full health than anyone in
the OECD, with the exception of the Japanese. On average,
Italians can expect 73 years of life in full health, demon-
strating some policy success in targeting healthy lives and
well-being (offset by low life satisfaction, the other indicator
for goal 3). At 11 tons per capita, Italy’s domestic material
consumption level puts it among the fi ve most frugal OECD
countries, some distance below the OECD average of approxi-
mately 19 tons per capita of materials in the economy. Italy
also has one of the lowest rates of obesity in the sample. A
relatively low 10.4 percent of Italians are overweight or
obese, ranking the country fi fth. Also noteworthy: Italy is
among the ten most effi cient countries for energy use, with a
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
ITALY26th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
35
Japan | Country profiles
leader in both of the indicators for goal 4 (which calls for inclu-
sive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning).
In 2013, all Japanese had completed at least upper secondary
education.
Weaknesses Japan performs particularly poorly on gender equality and
the empowerment of women and girls (goal 5). A high gender
pay gap of 26.6 percent puts it at 32nd (OECD average: 15.5
percent), while it comes last for national parliament seats held
by women – just 8.1 percent. In the top fi ve countries, over a
third of seats in parliament are held by women. In addition, 16
percent of Japanese live below the poverty line, signifi cantly
higher than the 11.5 percent OECD average. The country’s
long-term sustainability will depend on the Japanese gov-
ernment tackling both the plight of the poor as well as the
discrimination of women in Japanese society. Only when all
members of Japanese society are afforded equal opportunities
can the country truly thrive.
Overall Japan ranks 13th out of 34 countries across all dimensions of
the SDG Index. For 14 of the indicators, the country is among
the top third, with nine indicators in the top three, and for an
impressive six indicators Japan comes out on top. The country’s
performance tends toward above average overall, although
twelve of the indicators put Japan in the bottom third, and fi ve
in the bottom fi ve.
Strengths
Japan is a leader on goal 12, which calls for sustainable con-
sumption and production patterns. With 9.5 tons per capita,
Japan has the lowest domestic material consumption among
the OECD countries. Its output is correspondingly low; 354 kilo-
grams of municipal waste per capita puts it sixth in the sample.
By comparison, the per capita averages across the OECD are 19
tons and 483 kilograms respectively. The Japanese have least
cause to fear homicide, with a rate of 0.3 percent per 100,000
inhabitants putting it in joint second place with Iceland. Japan
is also among the slimmest countries in the OECD, with an
obesity rate of just 3.6 percent. Moreover, Japan ranks fi rst in
healthy life expectancy. On average, the Japanese can expect to
live 75 years in full health. Also noteworthy: the country is a
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
JAPAN13th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
36
Country profiles | Korea, Rep.
Weaknesses One of South Korea’s greatest challenges remains its gender
pay gap. At 36.6 percent, this disturbingly wide gap puts the
country at the bottom of the list, far exceeding the OECD aver-
age of 15.5 percent. South Korea’s poverty gap (the percentage
by which the mean income of the poor falls below the poverty
line) also puts it among the bottom fi ve. The country ranks
last on renewable energy use: only 1.3 percent of Korean gross
energy consumption comes from renewable sources. By com-
parison, the top fi ve countries for this measure each use over
30 percent renewable energy. South Korea’s gross agricultural
nutrient balances also sends it to the bottom of the table. The
country’s 259 kilograms per hectare of agricultural land sur-
plus indicates levels of nitrogen and phosphorous use that harm
the environment and threaten terrestrial ecosystems as well as
freshwater supplies. Following these two indicators, it should
come as no surprise that South Korea ranks among the bottom
fi ve on goal 13 (which calls for urgent action to combat climate
change and its impacts). The country has higher greenhouse
gas emissions per GDP than 30 other OECD countries.
Overall South Korea ranks 23rd out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. For twelve of the 34 indicators in this study it
can be found among the top third, and on eight indicators in the
top fi ve. On 15 of the indicators the country is among the bottom
third, and in the bottom fi ve for a worrying ten indicators.
Strengths
South Korea’s PISA results are the best in the OECD. The aver-
age Korean student’s PISA score was 45 points above the aver-
age in the sample. The country is also a leader in goal 9 (which
aims for resilient infrastructure, sustainable industrialization
and innovation). South Korea ranks fi rst in gross fi xed capital
formation (28.8 percent of GDP) and second in gross domestic
research and development expenditure. A sustainable economy
requires innovation and the country has met this challenge
by spending 4.2 percent of GDP on research and development,
more than double the OECD average. South Korea should also
be commended for particulate matter air pollution below World
Health Organization safety thresholds as well as its low rate of
obesity (4.6 percent of Koreans are obese, putting it in second
place). These values go hand in hand with the country’s high
healthy life expectancy, for which it ranks second.
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
23rd of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
37
Luxembourg | Country profiles
Weaknesses Luxembourg’s fossil fuel energy production is particularly alarm-
ing, emitting 19.5 tons of carbon dioxide per capita. This puts it
at the bottom of the OECD, where the top fi ve countries each emit
less than 5 tons per capita. Luxembourg’s poor showing here
is a result of the country’s poor energy mix; renewable sources
account for just 3.7 percent of total energy consumption. Policy
action is required to ensure that the country can meet current
energy needs without threatening future generations, as goal 7
requires. Goal 9 (resilient infrastructure, sustainable industrial-
ization and innovation) represents another major challenge. The
country ranks 32nd in gross fi xed capital formation (15.9 percent
of GDP) and 28th for gross domestic research and development
expenditure. Economic sustainability requires innovation, yet
the country spends a comparatively low 1.2 percent of GDP on
research and development. Luxembourg is also to be found among
the bottom fi ve when it comes to protecting animal species.
Overall Luxembourg ranks 17th out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. For 12 indicators the country is among the top
third, and on seven indicators among the top three. Luxembourg
even manages fi rst for three indicators, and overall the country’s
performance tends toward above average. For ten of the indica-
tors the country fi nds itself among the bottom third, and on fi ve
indicators in the bottom fi ve.
Strengths
Luxembourg ranks among the best-performing OECD coun-
tries on wastewater treatment and air quality. Luxembourg
has also made commendable strides toward ending poverty in
all its forms (goal 1). The country’s poverty rate of 8.3 percent
puts it among the top ten. Luxembourg’s gender pay gap (6.5
percent) is also among the lowest in the sample (third place).
Also noteworthy: with a GNI in 2013 of $57,830 per capita
(based on PPP), the country ranks third. The government is
also among the fi ve most generous in development assistance,
giving 1 percent of its GNI. The country is also a leader in pro-
tecting its terrestrial biomes, designating 17 percent or more
of its terrestrial biomes as protected areas.
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
LUXEMBOURG17th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
38
Country profiles | Mexico
Weaknesses One of Mexico’s greatest policy challenges remains ending
poverty in all its forms (goal 1). With 21.4 percent of Mexicans
living below the national poverty line, the country has the
worst poverty rate in this study and nearly double the OECD
average. Also worrying is Mexico’s wide poverty gap (the per-
centage by which the mean income of the poor falls below the
poverty line) where the country ranks 33rd. In 2013, just 38.4
percent of Mexicans had completed at least upper secondary
education, the second lowest rate in the OECD. In addition, the
average Mexican student’s PISA score was 80 points below the
OECD mean. Relative equality of opportunity in education is
not enough to offset low uptake and quality, which threaten to
hobble the Mexican economy for decades to come. Mexicans
are also at the greatest risk of homicide, with a rate of 18.9 per
100,000 inhabitants. Finally, perception of public sector corrup-
tion is the highest in the OECD.
Overall Mexico ranks last out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. Nonetheless, it manages a top ten placing
for seven of the 34 indicators in this study, two of those in the
top fi ve. For over half of the measures, on the other hand, the
country fi nds itself among the bottom third, and in the bottom
fi ve for 16 indicators.
Strengths
Mexico has the lowest energy-related carbon dioxide emis-
sions in the sample. The country’s fossil fuel energy production
causes emissions of 3.7 tons of CO2 per capita; the fi ve worst-
performing countries for this measure each emit over three
times that amount. The country ranks fourth on the PISA index
of economic, social and cultural status, indicating that Mexi-
cans’ education outcomes tend not to be limited by socioeco-
nomic status (although they remain at a very low level overall).
Also noteworthy: Mexico ranks well for the sustainability of its
consumption and production patterns (goal 12). For both con-
sumption and waste, Mexico comes in at eighth place: 12 tons
per capita domestic material consumption, 360 kilograms per
capita municipal waste generation.
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
MEXICO34th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
39
Netherlands | Country profiles
poverty line, better than the 11.5 percent OECD average. These
strengths may in part explain the country’s seventh place
ranking for life satisfaction.
Weaknesses The Netherlands ranks second-last for freshwater withdraw-
als, annually withdrawing 96.5 percent of its total renewable
freshwater resources and severely threatening the long-term
viability of Dutch water resources. The Netherlands is also
among the bottom fi ve in the sample on gross agricultural
nutrient balances (an indicator of excessive fertilizer use). The
country’s 198 kilograms per hectare of agricultural land sur-
plus indicates levels of nitrogen and phosphorous use that pol-
lute the environment. Similarly worrying: the country is placed
32nd for renewable energy use with just 3.6 percent of Dutch
gross energy consumption coming from renewable sources. By
comparison, the top fi ve OECD countries for this measure each
use over 30 percent renewables. Finally, the Netherlands ranks
29th on particulate matter air pollution.
Overall The Netherlands ranks seventh out of the 34 countries across
all dimensions of the SDG Index. The country is among the
top third for 17 of the 34 indicators in this study, managing
the top fi ve for three of them. For nine measures the country
fi nds itself among the bottom third, and on fi ve indicators in
the bottom fi ve.
Strengths
The Netherlands is among the best-performing OECD countries
for ODA, meaning that it is among the more generous donors
relative to GDP per capita. It also performs well for at least
part of goal 6 (which targets sustainable water management
and sanitation), with all Dutch homes connected to public or
independent wastewater treatment. While this success on goal
6 is commendable, the country performs poorly on the goal’s
other measure: gross freshwater withdrawals. The Netherlands
is among the top countries in the sample for economic pros-
perity and employment (goal 8). With a 2014 GNI of $47,660
per capita (based on PPP), the country ranks fi fth. In addi-
tion, 73.1 percent of the Netherlands’ working-age population
were in employment in 2014, ranking the country seventh. A
comparatively low 7.8 percent of the population live below the
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
NETHERLANDS7th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
40
Country profiles | New Zealand
with 31.5 percent of gross energy consumption coming from
renewable sources (mostly hydro and geothermal).
Weaknesses At 31.3 percent, New Zealand has one of the highest rates
of obesity in this study; outweighed only by Mexico and the
United States. The country’s obesity rate is more than triple
that of the top fi ve countries. Also alarming: New Zealand
ranks 32nd on the PISA index of economic, social and cultural
status. Addressing this weakness will require policy action that
ensures students’ educational opportunities are not limited by
their socioeconomic background. It should also be mentioned
that New Zealand is among the least effi cient users of energy,
with a primary energy intensity of 6.8 petajoules per billion
in GDP. Although close to the OECD average of 6 petajoules, it
nonetheless demonstrates a need for effi ciency improvements.
Finally, the country’s domestic material consumption level of
23.7 tons per capita puts it among the bottom ten countries; the
OECD average here is approximately 19 tons per capita.
Overall New Zealand ranks 16th out of 34 countries across all dimen-
sions of the SDG Index. The country is in the top third for 13 of
the 34 indicators in this study, and for eight indicators makes
it into the top fi ve. For ten measures the country fi nds itself
ranked in the bottom third, four of those in the bottom fi ve.
Strengths
New Zealand is in the commendable position of having the
narrowest gender pay gap among the 34 OECD countries, with
5.6 percent. By comparison, the average gender pay gap across
the OECD is 15.5 percent. Moreover, New Zealand is perceived
to have one of the least corrupt public sectors in the sample,
ranking second behind Denmark. This indicator illustrates
that New Zealand has had some success in promoting peaceful,
equal and inclusive societies, and building accountable public
institutions (goal 16). The country should also be applauded
for its top fi ve ranking in a diverse range of environmental
indicators. New Zealand ranks second on the Ocean Health
Index, which assesses the condition of marine ecosystems. The
country annually withdraws 1.5 percent of its total renewable
freshwater resources, putting New Zealand third, behind Ice-
land and Norway. The country ranks fi fth for renewable energy,
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
NEWZEALAND
16th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
41
Norway | Country profiles
of its total renewable freshwater resources and ranking fi fth
on the Ocean Health Index (which assesses the condition of
marine ecosystems).
Weaknesses At 35.6 tons per capita, Norway’s high domestic material
consumption represents a major policy challenge for Norway.
Only Chile and Australia perform more poorly here, while the
OECD average is 19 tons of material per capita. The country’s
winning performance on environmental indicators is offset by
its excessive fertilizer use. With 108 kilograms per hectare of
agricultural land surplus, this indicates levels of nitrogen and
phosphorous use that pollute the environment, threatening
ecosystems and water quality, and put Norway at 28th for this
indicator.
Overall Norway ranks second out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. For 20 indicators Norway is in the top third,
an impressive 16 of those in the top fi ve. However, four of the
measures fi nd the country among the bottom third, one of them
in the bottom fi ve.
Strengths
Norway ranks among the top three countries for promoting sus-
tainable economic growth and productive employment (goal 8),
with 75.3 percent of working-age Norwegians in employment in
2014. Norway is also one of the most generous OECD countries
in fi nancial contributions to developing countries, giving a laud-
able 1.1 percent of its GNI (approximately $5 billion in 2014).
Also commendable: Norway is among the top fi ve countries in a
range of environmental measures. The country is second only to
Sweden for greenhouse gas emissions. With emissions per GDP
of just 109.3 tons per million USD, Norway performs far better
than the OECD average of 352.1 tons. The country also ranks
second in renewable energy, behind Iceland, with an admirable
56.9 percent of gross energy consumption drawn from renewable
sources (almost entirely hydro). It is also second only to Iceland,
once again, when it comes to water, withdrawing just 0.8 percent
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
NORWAY2nd of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
42
Country profiles | Poland
8 percent of bird species under threat (compared to the 22 per-
cent OECD average). A comparatively low 16.7 percent of the
country’s fi sh stocks are overexploited, putting the country
tenth and ahead of the 17.8 percent OECD average, but there is
still room for improvement.
Weaknesses Poland faces challenges in a wide range of policy areas. Rela-
tively few Polish households are connected to public or inde-
pendent wastewater treatment (64 percent); only Mexico and
Turkey fare worse for this indicator. Healthy life expectancies
are among the shortest in the OECD, putting the country in the
bottom fi ve. On average, Poles can expect 67 years of life in full
health – eight years less than their Japanese counterparts. With
a 2014 GNI of $24,090 per capita (based on PPP), the country
performs worse than 29 other OECD nations, and over $13,000
below the OECD average. Poland’s greenhouse gas emissions
also require attention, offsetting its positive performance in
other environmental indicators. With emissions of 520.7 tons
per million USD as a percentage of GDP, Poland performs far
worse than the 352.1 tons OECD average, coming in 30th.
Overall Poland ranks 21st out of 34 countries across all dimensions of
the SDG Index. The country is among the top third on ten of the
34 indicators in this study; for fi ve of these, it ranks among the
top fi ve. On seven indicators the country fi nds itself among the
bottom fi ve nations.
Strengths
Goal 4 calls for inclusive and equitable quality education and
lifelong learning to ensure that all members of society have the
skills needed to achieve their potential; Poland performs well
in both of the measures of this goal. In 2013, 90.1 percent of
Poles had completed at least upper secondary education, put-
ting the country in fi fth place. High PISA results (sixth in the
sample) point to the quality as well as the quantity of educa-
tion. Also noteworthy: Poland ranks among the top ten for its
narrow gender pay gap. Men in the country earn on average
just 10.6 percent more than their female counterparts (around
5 percentage points over the OECD average). In addition, the
country comes in second for its relatively low municipal waste
(297 kilograms per capita) and among the leading countries
in particulate matter air pollution. Also signifi cant: Poland is
second only to Turkey in protecting animal species, with just
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
POLAND21st of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
43
Portugal | Country profiles
in GDP. Portugal also achieves an admirable 27.9 percent in
renewable energy (gross fi nal energy consumption). Portugal
further protects its terrestrial biomes and freshwater resources
by moderate fertilizer use, putting the country in fi fth place for
gross agricultural nutrient balances.
Weaknesses The Portuguese have among the lowest levels of life satisfac-
tion in this study, with only the Greeks expressing greater
dissatisfaction. Another challenge for Portugal’s government
comes in the area of resilient infrastructure, sustainable
industrialization, and innovation (goal 9). Portugal ranks 24th
for gross domestic research and development expenditure (1.4
percent) and a dismal 33rd in gross fi xed capital formation. The
long-term viability of any economy depends on innovation and
prioritizing investments in the future. Finally, Portugal has
worryingly low education completion rates. Only 39.8 percent
of Portuguese have completed at least upper secondary educa-
tion; by comparison, the top fi ve countries in the sample had
completion rates of 90 percent or above.
Overall Portugal ranks 25th out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. The country is in the top ten for eight of the
34 indicators and among the top fi ve for four measures. For 13
indicators the country is among the bottom third, and on four
indicators in the bottom fi ve.
Strengths
Portugal ranks among the top ten countries in the sample for
goal 13 (which calls for action to combat climate change and
its impacts), coming in seventh for greenhouse gas emissions
and a commendable fourth on CO2 emissions from energy
production. With emissions per GDP of 249.8 tons per million
USD, Portugal emits considerably less than the OECD average,
though still short of front-runner Sweden (which emits 66.8
tons). The country’s fossil fuel energy production causes a com-
paratively low 4.4 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita.
It should come as no surprise that Portugal also ranks among
the top ten for energy sustainability (goal 7), with a primary
energy intensity of 4.1 petajoules per billion in GDP, putting it
in fi fth place, and an admirable 27.9 percent of renewables in
its energy mix. The country ranks fi fth on effi cient energy use
with a primary energy intensity of 4.1 petajoules per billion
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
PORTUGAL25th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
44
Country profiles | Slovakia
Weaknesses One major policy challenge for the Slovakian government is
equitable, high-quality education. Despite its impressive fi n-
ishing rates, Slovakia is at the very bottom of the PISA index
of economic, social and cultural status. Fully meeting goal 10
(which calls for a reduction in inequality) will require signifi -
cant policy action that ensures education opportunities are not
limited by socioeconomic status. Student performance is also
troubling, with the average Slovakian student’s PISA score 70
points below front-runner South Korea, putting it 30th among
OECD countries. Also worrying: the country ranks 31st on
gross fi xed capital formation (21 percent of GDP). In compari-
son, the top fi ve economies are each investing between 25 and
29 percent of GDP. The business climate is further affected by
a high degree of perceived public sector corruption. While Slo-
vakia’s rank in Transparency International’s CPI has fl uctuated
over the previous three years, the country is now among the
bottom fi ve countries for this indicator.
Overall Slovakia ranks 27th out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. For seven of the 34 indicators the country
is among the top third of OECD countries, and among the top
fi ve for three. Slovakia’s performance, however, varies consid-
erably. For 15 indicators (nearly half of the measures) it can be
found among the bottom third, and on eight indicators in the
bottom fi ve.
Strengths
Sustainable consumption and production patterns are essential
for minimizing a country’s ecological footprint. Each year, Slo-
vaks generate just 304 kilograms of municipal waste per cap-
ita, nearly 180 kilograms lower than the OECD average; only
Estonia and Poland perform better here. Slovakia also comes
in third for access to education, with a laudable 91.9 percent
of Slovaks completing at least upper secondary education. The
country’s impressively narrow income gap between rich and
poor puts it in fi rst place. The number of people living below the
poverty line is also relatively low – 8.3 percent, putting Slova-
kia ahead of the 11.5 percent OECD average and into the top ten.
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
SLOVAKIA27th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
45
Slovenia | Country profiles
Weaknesses Slovenia’s performance puts it solidly in the mid-zone. On goal
3, however, which calls for healthy lives and well-being for all,
the country’s performance is wanting. Slovenia ranks among
the bottom fi ve for life satisfaction. Based on self-reporting col-
lected by Gallup, Slovenians’ life satisfaction has also declined
somewhat in the most recent survey year. Moreover, Slovenians
fall just short of the average in healthy life expectancy, rank-
ing the country 26th. Slovenians can expect 69 years of life
in full health, fi ve years less than the Japanese. The country’s
score on Transparency International’s CPI also leaves room for
improvement, bearing in mind that a sustainable economy with
satisfi ed citizens requires trust in government institutions.
Among the 34 OECD countries, Slovenia came in 26th for per-
ceived public sector corruption.
Overall Slovenia ranks 13th out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. Slovenia is among the top third for ten of the
34 indicators in this study and in the top fi ve for four. Across
the diverse measures, however, Slovenia’s performance varies.
On seven indicators, the country fi nds itself among the bottom
third, but only once among the bottom fi ve.
Strengths
Slovenia can be commended for the narrowest income gap
between rich and poor (Palma ratio) among the 34 countries
of the OECD. This second place ranking is associated with the
country’s similarly low poverty gap (the percentage by which
the mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line), for
which it also ranks second. Slovenia’s laudable performance
in both of these measures illustrates considerable success at
addressing poverty and inequality. Also noteworthy: the coun-
try ranks fourth (on par with Spain and behind Luxembourg
and Japan) for its homicide rate, which in 2012 was a compara-
tively low 0.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. Slovenia also deserves
praise for particulate matter air pollution below World Health
Organization safety thresholds.
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
SLOVENIA13th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
46
Country profiles | Spain
gross agricultural nutrient balances (an indicator of exces-
sive fertilizer use).
Weaknesses One of Spain’s greatest policy challenges will come in ending
poverty in all its forms (goal 1). Most alarming, the country
has one of the widest poverty gaps (the percentage by which the
mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line) among
the 34 OECD countries. This is coupled with a relatively high
poverty rate, with 15.9 percent of Spaniards living below the
poverty line, putting the country in 26th place. Despite some
fl uctuation, over the last ten years, this rate has remained high.
This worrying performance is linked to one of the lowest rates of
employment in this study. In 2014, 56.8 percent of working-age
Spaniards were in employment; only Greece, Turkey, and Italy
fared worse. With relatively few opportunities for entry into the
workforce, many Spaniards drop out of education. In 2013, just
55.5 percent of Spaniards had completed at least upper second-
ary education, one of the lowest rates in the OECD.
Overall Spain ranks 18th out of 34 countries across all dimensions of the
SDG Index. The country fi nds itself in the top third on 15 of the
34 indicators in this study and on seven indicators makes it into
the top fi ve. Spain’s performance varies signifi cantly, fi guring in
the bottom third for 13 indicators and the bottom fi ve for three.
Strengths
Spaniards, on average, can expect 73 years of life lived in
full health, longer than the OECD average (71 years) and
second only to the Japanese (75 years). The country also has
a low homicide rate of 0.6 per 100,000 inhabitants (on par
with Slovenia and behind Luxembourg and Japan). On gender
equality and the empowerment of women and girls (goal 5),
Spain performs well. With a national parliament which is
39.7 percent female and a relatively narrow gender pay gap of
8.6 percent (OECD average: 15.5 percent), the country ranks
fourth and seventh, respectively. A comparatively low 15.7
percent of Spain’s fi sh stocks are overexploited, putting the
country in fourth place for this indicator. While this is some-
what better than the 17.8 percent OECD average, there has
been a slight rise in overexploitation over the decade. Finally,
Spain comes in second (behind Hungary and Iceland) for
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
SPAIN18th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
47
Sweden | Country profiles
Finally, Sweden leads the OECD in female representation in
parliament: 45 percent.
Weaknesses Although the country’s renewable energy share is impressive,
it doesn’t use energy as effi ciently as it could. With a primary
energy intensity of 6.3 petajoules per billion in GDP, Sweden
ranks 26th for energy effi ciency. The country also ranks among
the bottom fi ve for terrestrial biome protection. Sweden pro-
tects just 8 percent, well below the 17 percent that eight OECD
countries have designated as protected areas. Also requiring
attention is the country’s performance on the indicators that
measure goal 4 (inclusive and equitable quality education and
lifelong learning). While Sweden’s performance is average
with regard to upper secondary completion, the country ranks
only 28th on PISA results.
Overall Sweden comes out on top of the 34 OECD countries across all
dimensions of the SDG Index. For 21 of the 34 indicators, well
over half, the country ranks among the top third, and in the
top fi ve for an admirable ten indicators. On fi ve indicators the
country can be found among the bottom ten, but never in the
bottom fi ve.
Strengths
The Swedish government can take pride in policy success on a
number of fronts. It is among the top three countries for urgent
action to combat climate change and its impacts (goal 13). The
country also has lower greenhouse gas emissions per GDP than
any other OECD country. Furthermore, its fossil fuel energy
production causes just 4.3 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per
capita (putting it third in the sample). Sweden also ranks third
for renewable energy consumption, with the share of renew-
ables in its energy mix rising by nearly 30 percent since 2004.
These accomplishments should serve as a model for others. At
the same time, a comparatively high 74.9 percent of working-
age Swedes were in employment, putting the country in fourth
place. Earnings are also high, with a GNI in 2014 of $46,710
per capita (based on PPP), putting Sweden in seventh place.
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
SWEDEN1st of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
48
Country profiles | Switzerland
institutions (goal 16). The Swiss also have a homicide rate of just
0.7 per 100,000 inhabitants, making them the sixth safest (from
violent crime). The country is also perceived to have one of the least
corrupt public sectors in the sample, ranking fi fth. With regard to
urgent action on climate change (goal 13), Switzerland can once
again be found among the best-performing OECD countries.
Weaknesses Switzerland comes third-last in this study for municipal waste
generation. The Swiss annually generate a 712-kilogram moun-
tain of municipal waste per capita. Among the 34 OECD coun-
tries, only Denmark and the United States perform worse. The
average in the top fi ve countries for this indicator is between
280 and 350 kilograms per capita. Switzerland’s environmental
profi le is mixed, with the country among the top countries in
one dimension of goal 15 (sustainable use of terrestrial ecosys-
tems and the protection of biodiversity): Switzerland protects
17 percent of its terrestrial biomes, ranking the country fi rst
jointly with various others. However, 35 percent of Switzer-
land’s bird species are under threat. Finally, monitoring the
SDGs in Switzerland will be problematic: the country has the
lowest statistical coverage of the indicators used in this study
to assess performance in the SDGs.
Overall Switzerland ranks fi fth out of 34 countries across all dimen-
sions of the SDG Index. While the country’s performance
varies, it skews above average. On 20 of the 34 indicators the
country ranks among the top third, nine of these rank in the
top fi ve. For seven of the indicators, however, the country fi nds
itself among the bottom third, and in the bottom fi ve for three.
Strengths
The Swiss have made admirable progress toward meeting the
SDGs. The country is among the top ten OECD countries for ensur-
ing healthy lives and promoting well-being (goal 3). The average
Swiss national can expect 72 years of life lived in full health, just
three years less than the Japanese. In addition, the Swiss rank
fi rst for self-reported life satisfaction. These strengths are comple-
mented by Switzerland’s equally commendable second place rank-
ing for goal 8 (which calls for sustainable economic growth and
productive employment). The country’s GNI in 2013 of $59,600
per capita (based on PPP) is over $22,000 more per capita than
the OECD average. In addition, 79.8 percent of working-age Swiss
nationals were in employment in 2014. Switzerland has proven
that it is a desirable place to live and work. Based on the measures,
the country is a leader in promoting peaceful and inclusive soci-
eties, providing equal justice, and building accountable public
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
SWITZERLAND5th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
49
Turkey | Country profiles
Weaknesses Turkey ranks among the least successful OECD countries for
ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being (goal 3). Tur-
key has the shortest healthy life expectancy in our 34-country
study. Turks, on average, can expect just 65 years of life lived in
full health, a decade less than the average Japanese. In addition,
based on self-reporting collected by Gallup, the country ranks
30th on life satisfaction, although this has slightly improved in
the three most recent survey years. Turkey’s performance in
goal 4 (inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong
learning) is worrying. In 2013, only 31.9 percent of Turks had
completed at least upper secondary education. Although this
rate has risen in recent years (26.6 in 2007, 28.4 in 2010), it is
still the lowest in the OECD. By comparison, the top fi ve coun-
tries in the sample had completion rates of 90 percent or above.
Coupled with an average PISA score 35 points below the OECD
mean, this means that Turkey’s education policies have much
room for improvement.
Overall Turkey ranks second-last among the 34 countries across all
dimensions of the SDG Index. For seven indicators Turkey is
among the top third, and in the top fi ve for three. For over half
of the measures, however, the country fi nds itself among the
bottom third and, most alarmingly, in the bottom fi ve for 16
indicators.
Strengths
Turkey has demonstrated some success with the sustain-
able use of terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity (goal 15).
A commendably low 4 percent of bird species in the country
are threatened, far better than the 22 percent OECD average.
However, the country has designated only 2.3 percent of its ter-
restrial biomes as protected areas (eight OECD countries are
protecting at least 17 percent). A relatively low 15.8 percent
of Turkish fi sh stocks are overexploited (better than the 17.8
percent OECD average), putting the country in seventh place.
Furthermore, the country’s fossil fuel energy production
causes a comparatively low 4 tons of CO2 emissions per capita.
By comparison, the fi ve worst-performing countries for this
measure each emit nearly three times as much.
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
TURKEY33rd of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
50
Country profiles | United Kingdom
treatment (on both of these measures, the United Kingdom
shares top ranking with a number of other countries in this
study).
Weaknesses The United Kingdom’s performance on goal 7, which calls for
universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and mod-
ern energy, is unsatisfactory. The country comes second-last
for renewable energy, with just 3.2 percent of total energy
consumption coming from renewable sources. The United
Kingdom comes in 29th for its income gap between rich and
poor, illustrating that the government is failing to adequately
tackle inequality. On goal 2 (which calls for improved nutrition
and sustainable agriculture) the United Kingdom only man-
ages 27th place, with high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous
used in farming which are harming the environment. Finally,
the country has an alarmingly high rate of obesity, with one in
four Britons affected, compared to just one in ten in Switzerland
or Norway.
Overall The United Kingdom ranks 15th out of 34 countries across all
dimensions of the SDG Index. The United Kingdom is among the
top third for eleven of the 34 indicators in this study and in the
top fi ve for six indicators. For seven indicators the country fi nds
itself among the bottom third, and in the bottom fi ve for two.
Strengths
The United Kingdom has a commendably low rate of domestic
material consumption (DMC); at 9.6 tons per capita of materi-
als in the economy, it is second only to Japan. It should further
be noted that the UK’s DMC has improved steadily since 2005.
The UK government is also among the fi ve most generous in
development assistance, giving 0.7 percent of GNI (equivalent
to nearly $20.5 billion in 2014). It is to be applauded for signifi -
cantly ramping up its development assistance in recent years,
even during the global fi nancial crisis, a time when many coun-
tries reduced their development assistance.
The United Kingdom is also among the best-performing
OECD countries for air quality and wastewater treatment. The
country’s particulate matter air pollution does not exceed safety
thresholds set by the World Health Organization and all Brit-
ish homes are connected to public or independent wastewater
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
UNITED KINGDOM
15th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
51
United States | Country profiles
rank 1 – 5 | rank 6 – 13 | rank 14 – 20 | rank 21 – 27 | rank 28 – 34 | no data
Weaknesses The US does face a number of major policy challenges. Ameri-
cans generate the second most municipal waste per capita: 725
kilograms every year. In comparison, inhabitants in the top fi ve
countries generate between 293 and 347 kilograms. Similarly
ecologically worrying is the fact that fossil fuel energy produc-
tion emits 16.2 tons of carbon dioxide per capita, putting the
country in 32nd place. The United States also has the highest
incidence of obesity of any OECD country, with more than one
in three Americans affected. This is more than triple the rate in
each of the top fi ve countries. Another major policy challenge is
ending poverty in all its forms (goal 1). The United States ranks
30th for its high poverty rate and 29th for its wide poverty gap.
A shamefully high 17.4 percent of Americans live below the
national poverty line, signifi cantly above the already high 11.5
percent OECD average. Similarly worrisome, the country’s high
poverty gap (the percentage by which the mean income of the
poor falls below the poverty line) is ahead of only South Korea,
Greece, Spain, Mexico, and Italy. With a large gap between
rich and poor, the country only outranks Turkey, Mexico, and
Chile. This demonstrates that the United States is failing to
adequately tackle inequality – a threat to social cohesion and
economic growth.
Overall The United States ranks 29th out of 34 countries across all dimen-
sions of the SDG Index. For seven of the 34 indicators in this
study the country is among the top third, and in the top fi ve for
three indicators. The country’s performance, however, varies sub-
stantially. For 16 indicators (nearly half) the United States can be
found among the bottom third, and in the bottom fi ve for seven.
Strengths
The US can be commended for the nation’s high performance
on a number of SDGs. Its economic strength in terms of gross
national income (GNI) ranks the US fourth – important for goal
8. Americans overall benefi t from particulate matter air pollu-
tion below safety thresholds set by the World Health Organiza-
tion, and with 2.4 rooms per person, they enjoy considerable
space, which explains the very good performance on goal 11.
The country’s performance is mixed when it comes to goal 15
(which calls for the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems
and biodiversity protection), though. A comparatively low 12
percent of bird species are threatened; ranking the US sev-
enth. However, the country has designated just 8.4 percent of
its terrestrial biomes as protected areas (eight OECD nations
have designated 17 percent or more).
5.1
4.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
2.11.21.117.2
17.1
16.2
16.1
15.2
15.1
14.2
14.1
13.2
13.1
12.2
12.1
11.2
11.1
10.210.1 9.2 9.1
8.2
8.1
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.1
5.2
UNITED STATES29th of 34
Goal: Poverty Poverty ratePoverty gap
11.11.2
Goal: Agriculture and nutritionGross agricultural nutrient balancesObesity rate
22.12.2
Goal: HealthHealthy life expectancyLife satisfaction
33.13.2
Goal: EducationUpper secondary attainmentPISA results
44.14.2
Goal: Energy Energy intensityShare of renewable energy in TFEC
77.17.2
Goal: Economy and labor GNI per capitaEmployment-to-population ratio
88.18.2
Goal: Infrastructure and innovation Gross fi xed capital formation Research and development expenditure
99.19.2
Goal: Water Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resourcesPopulation connected to wastewater treatment
66.1
6.2
Goal: Gender equalityShare of women in national parliamentsGender pay gap
55.1
5.2
Goal: Inequality Palma ratio
PISA Social Justice Index
1010.110.2
Goal: CitiesParticulate matterRooms per person
1111.111.2
Goal: Consumption and production Municipal waste generated
Domestic material consumption
1212.112.2
Goal: Oceans Ocean Health Index
Overexploited fi sh stocks
1414.114.2
Goal: BiodiversityTerrestrial protected areas
Red List Index for birds
1515.115.2
Goal: Institutions Homicides
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
1616.116.2
Goal: Global partnership Offi cial development assistance
Capacity to monitor the SDGs
1717.117.2
Goal: Climate Production-based energy-
related CO2 emissions Greenhouse gas emissions
per GDP
1313.1
13.2
52
Performance by goal
Chapter 4 displays and discusses the performance of OECD countries in each of the proposed 17
SDGs. Two snapshot indicators per goal illustrate where countries stand in the year the SDGs
are signed, thereby showing which countries are best prepared for the respective goal and could
therefore be a role model for other nations. This analytical work enables countries to fi nd ways
to learn from each other and discuss the adoption of best-practice strategies. Each goal will be
discussed separately in the subsequent section but, of course, it must be noted that there are
many interlinkages between them that should be incorporated when devising holistic strategies
for policy action.
53
4. Performance by goal
Goal 1: Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 2: Agriculture and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 3: Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 4: Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 5: Gender equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 6: Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 7: Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 8: Economy and labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 9: Infrastructure and innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 10: Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 11: Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 12: Consumption and production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 13: Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 14: Oceans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 15: Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 16: Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goal 17: Global partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
5454
Performance by goal
1. Poverty
being at a record high compared to the entire past half century.
The poorest 10 percent and the richest 10 percent across the
OECD drift ever further apart. While the latter had seven times
as much income as the former 25 years ago, today they earn
about nine times as much. OECD countries can only serve as
role models for the developing and middle-income nations in
terms of a viable social and economic model if they make sure
that theirs is an inclusive and sustainable one.
The principle of the SDGs, leaving no one behind, clearly
also applies within the rich countries themselves. In fact, the
OWG proposal for goal 1 specifi cally includes a target to “reduce
at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of
all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to
national defi nitions” by 2030.11 As the fi gures show, countries
Ending extreme poverty in all its forms is a fi tting fi rst goal
for a catalog whose eventual purpose is to improve people’s
lives. The absence of poverty is the very condition upon which
other goals can be built, such as making cities and human
settlements inclusive and safe, or promoting peaceful societies.
The primary focus of policy should always be those in the most
desperate need.
Of course, poverty in OECD nations is of a very different
nature to the poverty of, for instance, Sub-Saharan Africa.
Countries with such immense fi nancial resources as the ones
listed here should, however, make sure that they govern their
own societies in a way that allows everybody to take part in
the wealth that is created. They are increasingly failing at this
task, though, with income inequality in OECD countries now
11 Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals (2014). https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=1579&menu=1300
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
13.59
–6.57
–2.86
1.76
5.37
3.15
–2.68
10.61
–6.30
–0.85
1.71
–8.21
–8.94
–9.86
3.81
5.19
1.85
58.49
021.05
–6.59
0–5.68
–21.93
0–11.54
14.71
21.21
1.59
24.53
5.45
2.39
5.03
12.94
–7.29
0.58
1.91
16.03
–3.95
–3.45
–5.48
9.24
7.69
–1.68
–6.50
–5.36
62.50
–8.26
20.99
–10.91
15.48
3.23
3.26
2.35
13.70
0–6.74
11.11
13.04
–1.28
–17.50
–4.69
–9.09
–10.34
2004
2005
2004
2005
2003
2005
2005
2004
2005
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2003
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2008
2008
2007
2006
2008
2006
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2007
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
1.1 Poverty rate
Czec
h Re
publi
cDe
nmar
kIce
land
Finlan
dNo
rway
Neth
erlan
dsFra
nce
Irelan
dLu
xembo
urg
Slova
kiaGe
rman
yAu
stria
Belgi
umSw
eden
New Ze
aland
Slove
niaUn
ited
King
dom
Switz
erlan
dHu
ngar
yPo
land
OECD
ave
rage
Esto
niaCa
nada Italy
Portu
gal
Austr
alia
Spain
Kore
a, Re
p.Gr
eece
Japa
nUn
ited
Stat
esCh
ileTu
rkey
Israe
lM
exico
0
Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012, except DNK, NOR, FRA, DEU, SWE, NZL, CHE, CAN, CHL, TUR, ISR: 2011, GBR: 2010, JPN: 2009)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 8 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
5.2 6.
0
6.1 6.
6 7.7 7.8 8.0 8.3
8.3
8.3 8.7 9.
5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.8 10.0
10.3
10.4
10.6 11
.5
11.5
11.7 12
.6 13.0 13
.8
14.0 14
.6 15.2 16
.0 17.4 17.8 19
.2
20.9 21.4
% Change
5555
poor falls below the poverty line. Thus, it tells us how severe
poverty is in each country with respect to the mean income
levels. Finland (21.7 percent) and Slovenia (22.8 percent) hold
the top places here, while Italy (41.2 percent) has a higher gap
than Mexico (40 percent). Many countries with high poverty
rates also display high poverty gaps. But there are exceptions.
Norway, for example, which is among the top fi ve in terms
of poverty rate, is among the bottom group of countries with
regard to the poverty gap.
vary in their ability to fi ght poverty. The poverty rate displayed
in fi gure 1.1 is the ratio of the number of people whose income
falls below the poverty line, defi ned as half the median house-
hold income of the total population. It is therefore a measure of
how widespread poverty is defi ned by the respective national
standard. The OECD average is 11.46 percent. The differences
between nations above and below that average, however, are
signifi cant. The Czech Republic (5.2 percent), Denmark (6.0
percent), Iceland (6.1 percent), and Finland (6.6 percent) all
show a poverty rate below 7 percent, while at the bottom of
the ranking in Israel (20.9 percent) and Mexico (21.4 percent),
poverty concerns more than one in fi ve citizens.
To add to the picture, the poverty gap (fi gure 1.2) holds
information on the percentage by which the mean income of the
–2.87
1.85
–10.34
2.97
–1.33
14.29
13.27
16.73
–4.61
–13.09
–3.42
3.14
–10.03
12.36
–15.49
10.26
–0.99
8.02
20.42
7.47
–13.56
–24.82
–32.74
7.26
12.88
8.65
0.42
–1.24
0.73
–6.85
0
21.53
3.63
23.05
25.96
7.69
3.24
9.82
4.20
9.45
0.30
26.25
–6.34
14.54
–2.74
5.74
0.65
–0.96
17.05
0.67
6.01
29.13
9.65
7.84
26.70
14.16
–4.14
–3.04
11.06
0.42
–0.42
–16.30
–1.30
4.83
2004
2004
2005
2005
2005
2004
2005
2005
2003
2005
2005
2005
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2003
2004
2004
2005
2005
2004
2005
2005
2005
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2006
2008
2006
2008
2008
2007
2008
2008
2007
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
1.2 Poverty gap
Finlan
dSlo
venia
Belgi
umGe
rman
yFra
nce
Switz
erlan
dCz
ech
Repu
blic
Austr
alia
Swed
enNe
w Zeala
ndLu
xembo
urg
Polan
dDe
nmar
kIre
land
Slova
kiaCa
nada
Hung
ary
OECD
ave
rage
Icelan
dNe
ther
lands
Turke
yIsr
ael
Portu
gal
Chile
Esto
niaJa
pan
Austr
iaUn
ited
King
dom
Norw
ayUn
ited
Stat
esKo
rea,
Rep.
Gree
ceSp
ainM
exico Italy
0
Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012, except DEU, FRA, CHE, SWE, NZL, DNK, CAN, TUR, ISR, CHL, NOR: 2011, GBR: 2010, JPN: 2009)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
21.7 22
.8
23.1
23.8
24.0
24.3 25.1
25.5
25.5
25.8
26.1 27
.5 28.4 29
.7
30.0
30.1
30.2
30.6
30.8
31.1
31.3
31.9
32.3
32.5
32.7
33.2
33.6 34
.7 36.9 38
.2 39.2
39.3
39.5
40.0 41
.2
% Change
5656
Performance by goal
2. Agriculture and nutrition
At the same time, OECD nations face their own particular issues
with nutrition among their citizens due to increasingly wide-
spread overconsumption of unhealthy food resulting in ever-
growing levels of obesity. Thus, a holistic approach is needed to
tackle food insecurity in poor countries as well as unsustainable
food consumption practices in rich countries. Such seemingly
disparate issues are related and ought to be tackled in conjunc-
tion. Furthermore, nutrition-related problems have important
spillover effects on other SDGs. In fact, the health-related costs,
for example, of obesity are alarming: The WHO attributes 44
percent of diabetes cases and 23 percent of ischemic heart dis-
ease to being overweight,12 leading to massive strains on health
budgets in many countries.
In many corners of the world, the plight of hunger and food
insecurity still lead to immense suffering among millions
of people. Famines and disasters threaten the livelihoods of
entire regions. OECD countries have largely overcome such
challenges and ought to do their utmost to help other nations
overcome them, too. Such problems are furthermore linked
to defi ciencies in the OECD nations themselves that need to
be dealt with: Agriculture must be made more sustainable if
we are to ensure its benefi ts for future generations and larger
proportions of our current generation. High-income countries
must become leading examples in the quest to reconcile the
need for good-quality food with a cautious treatment of those
natural resources upon which the agricultural economy is
very much dependent.
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
12 http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/obesity/en/
–22.99
–5.49
–12.45
5.39
–6.76
4.42
–8.87
–15.00
12.50
–11.76
–7.79
7.28
23.73
3.45
–29.91
–10.81
–36.25
–2.90
4.18
–38.46
–22.22
–4.16
–61.70
3.92
–31.25
–14.52
7.73
–50.00
–4.90
–22.58
–14.02
19.48
18.24
1.20
–17.15
–24.35
–10.87
–8.47
–9.73
–7.84
25.00
–24.76
01.66
–21.92
–37.78
–34.15
–19.70
0–35.82
–22.36
106.25
–23.81
–20.05
61.11
–47.17
–27.27
12.26
–15.94
5.00
13.33
6.62
–50.00
–45.65
–2.17
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2.1 Agricultural nutrient balances
Icelan
dSp
ainGr
eece
Austr
alia
Portu
gal
Esto
niaM
exico
Cana
daAu
stria
Swed
en Italy
Unite
d St
ates
Slova
kiaHu
ngar
yTu
rkey
Finlan
dFra
nce
Irelan
dSlo
venia
Czec
h Re
publi
cPo
land
New Ze
aland
OECD
ave
rage
Switz
erlan
dDe
nmar
kLu
xembo
urg
Germ
any
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mNo
rway
Belgi
umIsr
ael
Neth
erlan
dsJa
pan
Kore
a, Re
p.Ch
ile
0
Unit: Kg per hectare of agricultural land, deviation from 0, Source: OECD (data refer to 2009, except NZL: 2010, GRC, EST, MEX, ITA, HUN, FRA, SVN, CHE, LUX, DEU, BEL, NLD: 2008)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
14.5
17.0 21.0
21.1
23.8
24.0
28.0
29.0
29.5
32.0
33.0
36.8 43.0 51
.0
53.0
54.0
56.0
57.0 61.4 67.0
71.0 79
.0 90.0
94.0 10
2.0
108.
0 123.
0
136.
1
198.
0
235.
3 258.
6
–
% Change
5757
percent, respectively, of the population affected. In New Zea-
land (31.3 percent), Mexico (32.4 percent), and the US (35.3
percent), obesity concerns around a third of the population.
Currently, a level of around 10 percent or less would put a
country in the top fi ve of this indicator. Many places are still
far off such a target.
Figure 2.1 shows one dimension of how successful countries
are in fostering sustainable agriculture, as illustrated here
by the nitrogen and phosphorous balance expressed as N and
P surplus intensities per hectare of agricultural land (kilo-
grams per hectare of total agricultural land; deviation from
0). Most countries suffer from a surplus which indicates a
risk of polluting soil, water, and air. In the case of Hungary,
however, the deviation from 0 is due to a defi cit of 33, which
could undermine soil fertility. The OECD average lies at 67 on
this indicator. While Iceland (nine) and Spain (ten) lead the
table of nations with values of ten or below, the Netherlands
(198), Japan (235), and Korea (259) display scores of almost or
over 200. By contrast, the latter two countries have the lowest
rates of obesity as pictured in fi gure 2.2, with only 3.6 and 4.6
2.2 Obesity rate
Japa
nKo
rea,
Rep.
Norw
aySw
itzer
land
Italy
Swed
enNe
ther
lands
Austr
iaDe
nmar
kBe
lgium
Franc
eGe
rman
yPo
rtuga
lIsr
ael
Finlan
dPo
land
Spain
Slova
kiaSlo
venia
OECD
ave
rage
Esto
niaGr
eece
Czec
h Re
publi
cIce
land
Turke
yLu
xembo
urg
Irelan
dUn
ited
King
dom
Chile
Cana
daAu
strali
aHu
ngar
yNe
w Zeala
ndM
exico
Unite
d St
ates
0
Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
3.60 4.
60
10.0
0
10.3
0
10.4
0
11.8
0
12.0
0
12.4
0
13.4
0
13.8
0
14.5
0
14.7
0
15.4
0
15.7
0
15.8
0
15.8
0
16.6
0
16.9
0
18.3
0
18.4
0
19.0
0
19.6
0
21.0
0
21.0
0
22.3
0
22.7
0
23.0
0
24.7
0
25.1
0
25.4
0 28.3
0
28.5
0 31.3
0
32.4
0 35.3
0
5858
3. Health
Performance by goal
majority of OECD countries score over 70 healthy life years
now, with the top fi ve at least at 73 and top performer Japan at
even 75 years. Less than 70 healthy life years are experienced
by people in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, the United States
(69), Poland (67), Slovakia (67), Estonia (67), and Mexico (67).
Hungary and Turkey are at the bottom of the table with only
65 years. However, having improved by four years since 2000,
the example of Turkey shows that signifi cant improvements are
possible in this regard in a fairly short time period that can
impact positively on many people’s lives.
In addition, the Gallup World Poll regularly surveys
people’s life satisfaction, or subjective well-being, by asking
them: “Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from zero
at the bottom to ten at the top. The top of the ladder represents
A healthy life is in many ways a fundamental right for every
citizen of the world and at the same time the condition for
economic and social progress. Consequently, there are many
interlinkages between health and other goals examined here.
Goal 3 seeks to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being
for all at all ages.” We consider health and well-being therefore
to have (at least) two components: physical and mental health.
The WHO regularly examines healthy life expectancy (HALE)
as a measure that applies disability weights to health states to
compute the equivalent number of years of life expected to be
lived in full health. Not only can one be more productive if one
is in good health and play a conducive part in the economy of
one’s country. It is also a basic condition for enjoying a high
quality of life overall. Figure 3.1 shows that, thankfully, the
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
Japa
nAu
strali
aIta
lyKo
rea,
Rep.
Spain
Cana
daFra
nce
Icelan
dIsr
ael
Luxe
mbour
gNe
w Zeala
ndSw
eden
Switz
erlan
dAu
stria
Belgi
umFin
land
Germ
any
Gree
ceIre
land
Neth
erlan
dsNo
rway
Portu
gal
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mOE
CD a
vera
geCh
ileDe
nmar
kCz
ech
Repu
blic
Slove
niaUn
ited
Stat
esEs
tonia
Mex
icoPo
land
Slova
kiaHu
ngar
yTu
rkey
60
Unit: Years, Source: WHO (data refer to 2013)
1 2 2 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 24 24 26 26 26 29 29 29 29 33 33
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76 75
73 73 73 73
72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72
71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
70 70
69 69 69
67 67 67 67
65 65
6.56
3.17
3.08
3.08
1.52
6.35
1.47
2.99
4.55
2.94
2.94
1.45
4.41
1.45
2.90
4.41
2.90
2.90
2.90
1.45
1.45
1.41
2.86
4.35
2.90
4.35
1.41
2.86
2.86
4.29
5.88
4.29
4.29
2.74
000000000001.43
01.43
000001.43
1.43
0001.41
000001.39
000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
% Change
5959
on the life satisfaction question best are a country’s gross
domestic product, a lack of corruption, good levels of health,
personal freedom, but also – and especially – social support
(measured for instance by having someone to count on in times
of trouble) and generosity. These fi ndings hint at important
trade-offs between potentially confl icting goals, leading the
report’s authors to demand, for instance, that economic growth
should not be pursued to the point where community cohesion
may suffer. The relationship between sustainable development
as defi ned by the SDGs and subjective well-being is further
examined in this study in Chapter 5.5.
the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder
represents the worst possible life for you. On which step
of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand
at this time?” This question of perceived, self-reported life
satisfaction can in an important manner enhance objective
portrayals of the quality of life in a country with a people’s
perspective. Figure 3.2 illustrates that average scores on this
indicator range from merely 4.8 in crisis-struck Greece to 7.5
in Switzerland, Iceland, and Denmark. The latter nations man-
age therefore to provide an environment in which people are
subjectively satisfi ed, and these countries also score highly on
many other more objective dimensions of human well-being
analyzed in this study. As the latest World Happiness Report13
has shown, the six factors which explain country performance
13 Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., and Sachs, J. (eds.) (2015). World Happiness Report, New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network. http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/04/WHR15.pdf
3.2 Life satisfaction
Denm
ark
Icelan
dSw
itzer
land
Finlan
dIsr
ael
Norw
ayAu
strali
aCa
nada
Neth
erlan
dsNe
w Zeala
ndSw
eden
Unite
d St
ates
Germ
any
Irelan
dAu
stria
Belgi
umLu
xembo
urg
Chile
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mM
exico
OECD
ave
rage
Czec
h Re
publi
cFra
nce
Spain
Slova
kia Italy
Japa
nKo
rea,
Rep.
Polan
dSlo
venia
Esto
niaTu
rkey
Hung
ary
Portu
gal
Gree
ce
0
Unit: Standardized scale, Source: Gallup (data refer to 2014, except ISL: 2013)
1 1 1 4 4 4 7 7 7 7 11 11 13 13 15 15 15 18 18 20 21 21 21 24 25 26 27 27 29 30 30 32 33 34
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0 7.5
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.2
5.1
4.8
–18.18
–8.77
03.92
03.45
–3.45
27.78
6.78
–10.29
11.32
–10.96
0–3.08
1.47
–1.43
12.07
1.43
04.17
–7.89
1.54
–2.74
–1.33
–2.70
0–1.33
1.37
01.37
–3.90
00–2.50
–11.11
–1.92
6.12
5.66
1.82
–5.00
3.57
–15.94
–6.35
–1.64
3.39
0–7.14
3.17
–2.90
–1.45
4.62
–2.82
–2.82
–8.00
06.06
1.41
–2.70
1.39
–3.95
–1.35
–1.35
–2.63
0008.70
–3.85
2007
2008
2008
2008
2008
2006
2008
2008
2008
2008
2006
2008
2008
2007
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2006
2008
2008
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2008
2011
2011
2009
2008
2011
% Change
6060
Performance by goal
4. Education
On average, OECD countries provide more than three-quarters
of their population with this level of education (76.3 percent).
The top fi ve countries, however, score above 90 percent here:
Poland (90.1 percent), Estonia (90.6 percent), Slovakia (91.9
percent), the Czech Republic (92.8 percent), and Japan (100
percent). In Portugal, Mexico, and Turkey the fi gure is below
40 percent. Chile, in particular, is also to be named among the
bottom group. The country has come down to 57.5 percent com-
pared to 71.4 percent in 2010.
As well as granting people access to education, it is, of
course, imperative to ensure that its quality is high. Luckily,
the OECD regularly examines the skills of pupils in its member
countries in the Programme for International Student Assess-
ment (PISA). As a proxy for the quality of education examined
A good education holds the key to success in many areas of
life. Such a basic truth should lead one to assume that ensur-
ing inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting
lifelong learning opportunities for all is very high on the
agenda in every country studied here.
And yet, the distribution in fi gure 4.1 shows that there
are signifi cant differences with regard to the achievement of
that goal. It displays the percentage of the population having
completed at least upper secondary education. Upper second-
ary education (ISCED 3) corresponds here to the fi nal stage of
secondary education in most OECD countries. It is therefore a
measure for how successful countries are in providing citizens
with access to a certain level of education.
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
Japa
nCz
ech
Repu
blic
Slova
kiaEs
tonia
Polan
dUn
ited
Stat
esCa
nada
Switz
erlan
dGe
rman
yFin
land
Slove
niaIsr
ael
Kore
a, Re
p.Sw
eden
Austr
iaHu
ngar
yNo
rway
Luxe
mbour
gUn
ited
King
dom
Denm
ark
Irelan
dOE
CD a
vera
geNe
ther
lands
Austr
alia
Franc
eBe
lgium
Icelan
dNe
w Zeala
ndGr
eece
Italy
Chile
Spain
Portu
gal
Mex
icoTu
rkey
0
Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (AUS, CAN, CHL, ISR, JPN, KOR, MEX, NZL, USA) or Eurostat (data refer to 2013, except CHL: 2011)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
20.0
10.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
100.
0
92.8
91.9
90.6
90.1
89.6
89.6
87.2
86.3
85.9
85.5
85.0
83.7
83.2
83.1
82.5
82.4
80.5
78.4
78.3
76.7
76.3
75.8
75.7
75.1
72.8
72.2
71.4
67.2
58.2
57.5
55.5
39.8
38.4
31.9
6.77
6.61
16.12
4.55
5.56
5.54
4.33
2.76
4.07
3.68
3.36
7.38
–1.23
6.90
1.75
3.68
18.26
2.80
2.65
3.00
2.27
3.29
2.06
1.83
3.11
1.66
–0.23
2.10
1.19
2.55
0.22
2.13
1.55
0
12.32
8.35
25.55
4.91
–19.50
5.43
7.18
–2.30
8.57
3.26
6.07
3.42
4.84
5.36
3.57
3.02
3.60
1.85
1.48
0.73
2.46
4.05
3.56
2.64
3.49
0.58
1.63
1.41
0.74
1.81
1.46
0.99
0.98
0
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
% Change
6161
For this indicator to be used in universal SDG monitoring, it
would be desirable to ever further extend its coverage to more
countries around the globe in the future. We are revisiting the
PISA scores in this study when considering goal 10 (inequal-
ity) by examining the impact of socioeconomic background on
student performance.
here, we display the arithmetic average of the points achieved
on the PISA exercise regarding reading, mathematics, and sci-
ence scales in fi gure 4.2. They range from 417 to 542. On aver-
age, OECD countries score around 497 points. Canada (522),
Estonia (526), Finland (529), Japan (540), and above all the
Republic of Korea (542), however, are in the top fi ve here with
scores of 522 and above. These countries quite literally hold
important lessons to learn for all other OECD nations, but in
particular, those whose values are below 470, which are Greece
(466), Turkey (462), Chile (436), and Mexico (417). Ireland and
Poland show the biggest improvements over the last few years
here. They managed to improve their scores compared to 2009
from 497 to 516 in the case of Ireland, and from 501 to 521 in
Poland, indicating how progress can be made here.
4.2 PISA results
Kore
a, Re
p.Ja
pan
Finlan
dEs
tonia
Cana
daPo
land
Neth
erlan
dsSw
itzer
land
Irelan
dGe
rman
yAu
strali
aBe
lgium
New Ze
aland
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mAu
stria
Czec
h Re
publi
cFra
nce
Slove
niaDe
nmar
kOE
CD a
vera
geNo
rway
Unite
d St
ates
Luxe
mbour
gSp
ain Italy
Portu
gal
Hung
ary
Icelan
dSw
eden
Israe
lSlo
vakia
Gree
ceTu
rkey
Chile
Mex
ico
0
Unit: Points on standardized scale, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
542.
45
540.
40
529.
40
526.
08
522.
22
520.
50
518.
75
518.
42
515.
56
515.
11
512.
48
509.
77
509.
19
502.
46
500.
31
500.
05
499.
81
498.
86
498.
21
497.
22
495.
94
492.
12
489.
62
489.
57
489.
54
488.
03
486.
60
484.
49
482.
13
474.
12
471.
87
465.
63
462.
30
436.
32
417.
25
2.76
2.03
5.30
1.92
1.21
3.09
–1.73
1.47
0.66
3.99
3.71
1.65
–0.72
3.07
2.77
–0.39
–1.41
0.82
–2.25
–3.05
–0.33
–0.08
–0.25
–0.20
1.06
–2.38
0.69
–0.37
0.16
–0.55
–0.38
–1.69
2.31
–0.13
–0.63
–0.68
1.71
–1.56
–3.33
3.39
–2.72
–3.27
–1.83
–0.35
0.74
1.10
1.64
–0.86
–0.88
–0.19
0.02
0.59
1.95
2.77
0.47
–2.84
0.10
–1.22
0.97
3.75
0.27
–0.01
3.87
–0.83
2.42
–2.59
2.07
0.24
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
% Change
6262
Performance by goal
5. Gender equality
in parliament is close to or above 40 percent. In Sweden’s parlia-
ment, 45 percent of seats are held by women and the proportion
even stood at 47 percent only a few years ago. Mexico also shows
a relatively high rate of female MPs with 37.4 percent, just ahead
of Germany (36.5 percent).
By contrast, a country as economically successful as Japan
only manages to give 8 percent of its seats to women – which is
the lowest proportion measured in any OECD country in the last
seven years and even a decrease on Japan’s low level in 2008
(9.4 percent). Hungary and Turkey also score below 15 percent
and have lots of catching up to do on this goal. The trend in these
countries at least is a positive one, as Turkey’s rate was just 9.1
percent in 2008, and Hungary’s previously stood at 8.8 percent.
Along with strengthening the representation of women in high
Signifi cant progress was made in many OECD countries over the
past decades in terms of fi ghting gender inequality. Nonethe-
less, there are still many areas in which complete equality has
not been achieved and where the success rates vary between
nations. Two such areas are displayed here. Figure 5.1 shows
the proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments.
Representation in the highest political spheres is a strong sym-
bol as well as a proxy for gender equality in a number of areas of
daily life – such as representation in executive positions in large
businesses or civil society organizations. The OECD average for
representation of women in national parliaments is only a little
more than a quarter (27.8 percent). This low score certainly does
not do the role of women in society any justice. In Iceland, Spain,
Belgium, Finland, and Norway, at least, the proportion of women
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
5.1 Share of women in national parliaments
Swed
enFin
land
Belgi
umIce
land
Spain
Norw
ayDe
nmar
kNe
ther
lands
Mex
icoGe
rman
yNe
w Zeala
ndAu
stria
Slove
nia Italy
Portu
gal
Switz
erlan
dLu
xembo
urg
OECD
ave
rage
Franc
eAu
strali
aCa
nada
Polan
dUn
ited
King
dom
Israe
lGr
eece
Czec
h Re
publi
cEs
tonia
Slova
kiaUn
ited
Stat
esCh
ileIre
land
Kore
a, Re
p.Tu
rkey
Hung
ary
Japa
n
0
Unit: Percent, Source: World Bank (data refer to 2014)
1 2 3 4 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 32 33 34
10.00
5.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
45.0
0
42.5
0
41.3
0
39.7
0
39.7
0
39.6
0
39.1
0
38.7
0
37.4
0
36.5
0
33.9
0
33.3
0
33.3
0
31.4
0
31.3
0
31.0
0
28.3
0
27.7
7
26.2
0
26.0
0
25.1
0
24.3
0
22.6
0
22.5
0
21.0
0
19.5
0
19.0
0
18.7
0
18.3
0
15.8
0
15.7
0
15.7
0
14.4
0
9.30
8.10
14.89
–20.72
56.04
7.30
13.53
–5.33
–1.18
–17.10
–4.81
41.94
27.21
40.85
14.36
17.33
12.22
–7.49
3.85
7.30
01.41
1.41
142.11
2.20
–4.17
2.17
12.93
–1.45
2.89
9.70
–0.83
19.22
7.65
2.41
–4.89
–25.00
5.68
1.41
6.80
3.97
11.27
8.93
16.88
–4.04
–11.36
12.30
12.50
1.35
2.53
1.21
5.26
38.62
13.20
8.77
9.06
45.37
3.42
19.35
5.28
10.94
42.75
–4.91
0010.28
08.68
00.67
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
% Change
6363
then has grown to 16 percent. This means that the once strong-
performing nation in this regard is now ranked below OECD
average on this indicator, which stands at 15.46 percent.
political offi ces, a remaining defi ciency in many OECD countries
is the gap in salaries between the sexes. The gender wage gap dis-
played in fi gure 5.2 is defi ned as the difference between median
wages of women relative to the median wages of men. Korea, Japan,
and Turkey are again in the bottom group in this facet of gender
equality with a difference of 36.6 percent, 26.6 percent, and 20.1
percent, respectively. They fi nd themselves in the company of
Estonia (31.5 percent), Israel (21.8 percent), and the Netherlands
(20.5 percent). A small difference of 7 percent or less is to be found
in Norway, Greece, Luxembourg, Belgium, and New Zealand (5.6
percent). Hungary had narrowed the gap to a mere 3.65 percent in
2007, but since then let it increase to 8.7 percent.
A worryingly large increase is also noted for Chile, where
in 2006 the gap stood at a formidable 3.96 percent, but since
5.2 Gender pay gap
New Ze
aland
Belgi
umLu
xembo
urg
Gree
ceNo
rway
Denm
ark
Spain
Hung
ary
Polan
dIta
lySlo
venia
Irelan
dFra
nce
Icelan
dSlo
vakia
Swed
enM
exico
OECD
ave
rage
Czec
h Re
publi
cCh
ilePo
rtuga
lGe
rman
yUn
ited
King
dom
Unite
d St
ates
Austr
alia
Austr
iaSw
itzer
land
Finlan
dCa
nada
Turke
yNe
ther
lands
Israe
lJa
pan
Esto
niaKo
rea,
Rep.
0
Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2013, except BEL, GRC, DNK, ESP, POL, ITA, SWE, PRT, AUT, FIN: 2012, ISL, CHL, DEU, ISR: 2011, LUX, SVN, FRA, CHE, TUR, NLD, EST: 2010)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
5.60 6.
40
6.50 6.90
7.00 7.
80 8.60
8.70 10
.60
11.1
0
11.6
0
12.8
0
14.1
0
14.1
0
14.1
0
15.1
0
15.4
0
15.4
6
15.5
0
16.0
0
16.3
0
16.6
0
17.5
0
17.9
0
18.0
0
18.2
0
18.5
0
18.7
0
19.0
0
20.1
0
20.5
0
21.8
0
26.6
0
31.5
0
36.6
0
3.78
12.02
–9.63
–2.18
11.83
–9.84
–11.69
–4.01
–11.30
–8.81
–5.20
–11.11
–2.74
–11.96
129.69
–6.62
–6.98
–12.62
–15.24
–9.91
0.64
–28.45
59.92
–37.15
74.95
–31.70
–1.29
–18.01
4.68
–58.10
–28.66
–3.40
–7.59
0–7.27
5.31
0.20
0.17
1.27
–0.94
–0.12
–5.15
28.18
–4.84
–9.00
–1.61
21.18
76.00
–2.86
32.44
5.47
–5.06
–1.50
0.33
–0.35
–0.29
–0.10
47.43
36.32
41.66
–18.06
–13.15
–43.32
0.08
–9.14
–17.42
2007
2006
2007
2007
2006
2007
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2006
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2002
2007
2007
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2009
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
% Change
6464
Performance by goal
6. Water
supply, and use for public services, commercial establish-
ments, and homes. Withdrawals for agriculture and industry
are total withdrawals for irrigation and livestock production
and for direct industrial use (including withdrawals for cool-
ing thermoelectric plants). Withdrawals also include water
from desalination plants in countries where they are a sig-
nifi cant source. Withdrawals can exceed 100 percent of total
renewable resources where extraction from non-renewable
aquifers or desalination plants is considerable or where there
is signifi cant water reuse.
The OECD countries vary greatly in how sustainably they
use their water resources. Both Iceland and Norway can be
particularly commended for annually using less than 1 per-
cent of their total renewable water resources in 2013. On the
Water is a fundamental building block of life on our planet.
Our water resources not only affect the well-being of our com-
munities but also the success of our agriculture and industry.
Universal access to water and the sustainable use of water
resources are prerequisites for the viability of all human
settlements. How communities manage both freshwater and
wastewater has far-reaching effects. Freshwater withdrawals
that exceed the natural replenishment rate and inadequate
wastewater management threaten local as well as regional
communities and ecosystems.
Figure 6.1 displays water resource stress. Annual fresh-
water withdrawals refer to total water withdrawals (not count-
ing evaporation losses from storage basins). Withdrawals
for domestic uses include drinking water, municipal use or
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources
Icelan
dNo
rway
New Ze
aland
Cana
daFin
land
Swed
enIre
land
Chile
Austr
alia
Slove
niaSlo
vakia
Luxe
mbour
gSw
itzer
land
Austr
iaUn
ited
King
dom
Denm
ark
Czec
h Re
publi
cEs
tonia
Franc
eGr
eece
Unite
d St
ates
Turke
yM
exico
Japa
nPo
rtuga
lPo
land
Italy
OECD
ave
rage
Spain
Germ
any
Kore
a, Re
p.Be
lgium
Hung
ary
Neth
erlan
dsIsr
ael
0
Unit: Percent, Source: World Bank (data refer to 2013)
1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
0.10
0.77
1.45
1.48
1.53
1.53
1.61 4.00
4.59
5.05
5.46
6.02
6.47
6.65
8.99
11.0
0
12.9
2
14.1
3
15.8
1
16.3
3
16.9
8
17.6
7
19.6
3
20.9
4
22.2
7
22.3
1
24.8
8
25.6
2
29.1
9
30.1
9
39.2
8
51.8
0
93.0
5
96.4
5
260.
53
6.72
28.42
–3.72
–17.55
0–17.50
–9.46
0–1.55
008.75
–4.52
1.06
2.08
–2.35
23.35
–3.03
–16.69
–16.42
000–39.49
196.79
043.67
–2.13
–28.02
022.82
1.23
0–7.42
0000–0.52
0–5.68
001.71
00000015.79
000001.73
0000000
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2007
2007
2007
2007
2002
2007
2007
2002
2007
2002
2002
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2002
2002
2002
2007
2007
2002
2007
2007
2007
2002
2007
2007
% Change
6565
population is connected to wastewater treatment, still leaving
room for improvement to reach SDG number 6, namely ensur-
ing availability and sustainable management of water and
sanitation for all.
other hand, Hungary and the Netherlands each extracted over
90 percent and Israel, in last place among the 34 countries
in this study, withdrew 261 percent of its renewable water
resources.
Our second indicator measures the percentage of the
population connected (through a system of conduits) to public
or independent wastewater treatment. These wastewater collect-
ing systems are often operated by public or semipublic entities.
Figure 6.2 states the fact that entire populations of nine OECD
countries are connected to managed sanitation services. Yet
performance on this measure is not universally stellar, with
seven countries dropping below 75 percent. Mexico (62 per-
cent) and Poland (64 percent) are each over 20 percentage
points below the OECD average and only 52 percent of Turkey’s
6.2 Population connected to wastewater treatment
Austr
iaDe
nmar
kFin
land
Franc
eLu
xembo
urg
Neth
erlan
dsSw
eden
Switz
erlan
dUn
ited
King
dom
Germ
any
Slova
kiaSp
ainIsr
ael
Cana
daNo
rway
Irelan
dIta
lyGr
eece
Kore
a, Re
p.Slo
venia
OECD
ave
rage
Japa
nEs
tonia
Chile
Czec
h Re
publi
cNe
w Zeala
ndBe
lgium
Icelan
dHu
ngar
yPo
rtuga
lPo
land
Mex
icoTu
rkey
Austr
alia
Unite
d St
ates
0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 10 13 14 14 16 17 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26 28 29 30 31 32
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
100.
0
100.
0
100.
0
100.
0
100.
0
100.
0
100.
0
100.
0
100.
0
99.0
99.0
99.0
98.0
97.0
97.0
96.0
93.0
92.0
92.0
91.0
88.8
88.0
87.0
86.0
81.0
80.0
73.0
73.0
72.0
70.0
64.0
62.0
52.0
13.04
21.57
0015.87
5.80
03.95
3.61
3.57
3.57
03.45
2.35
01.04
–1.02
1.04
4.26
0011.11
000–1.00
0000
000000002.53
001.15
3.41
2.22
5.75
041.18
001.03
1.02
0001.01
001.01
4.17
000
2007
2005
2005
2004
2005
2007
1999
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
1991
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2007
1997
2005
2007
2006
2003
2004
2002
2000
2006
2010
2010
2009
2005
2004
2010
2009
1999
2010
2009
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2009
1991
2010
2009
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2004
2010
2010
2010
––
% Change
Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2013, except AUT, NLD, SVK, ESP, GRC, EST: 2012, IRL, JPN, CZE: 2011, GBR, DEU, ISL, MEX, TUR: 2010, CAN, ITA, CHL, BEL, POL: 2009, PRT: 2005, HUN: 2004, NZL: 1999)
6666
Performance by goal
7. Energy
have benefi ted from abundant renewable sources, but failed to
utilize this relative advantage effi ciently. Iceland is the most
striking case in point, utilizing the highest share of renewable
energy (effectively all from geothermal and hydropower) and,
simultaneously, having the highest energy intensity.
Primary energy intensity is used as a proxy for energy
effi ciency, illustrating how we can increase the “extent to
which economic growth is decoupled from energy use – a key
requirement for sustainable energy and decarbonization.”14
Primary energy intensity is the ratio between total primary
energy supply and gross domestic product (GDP), PPP-adjusted.
The higher the primary energy intensity, the less effi cient the
energy sector. As illustrated in fi gure 7.1, Ireland, Switzerland,
and the United Kingdom have the most effi cient energy sectors
Sustainability and energy are tightly intertwined. In many
OECD countries, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
largely come from burning fossil fuels in electricity produc-
tion, heating, and transportation. As such, how we choose to
produce, distribute, and use energy has a tremendous impact
on the pace of climate change. Goal 7 calls not only for uni-
versal access to affordable and reliable energy services, but
just as signifi cantly for substantially increasing the share of
renewable energy and doubling energy effi ciency. The national
governments in the sample have shown great variation in the
extent to which they are pursuing policies that foster a sustain-
able energy sector. Some have made signifi cant strides because
of aggressive, forward-looking energy policies that prioritize
investments in energy effi ciency and renewable sources. Others
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
14 Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2014): Pathways to deep decarbonization. http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DDPP_Digit.pdf
7.1 Energy intensity
Irelan
dSw
itzer
land
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mDe
nmar
kPo
rtuga
lIta
lySp
ainIsr
ael
Austr
iaGe
rman
yJa
pan
Gree
ceTu
rkey
Luxe
mbour
gM
exico
Norw
ayNe
ther
lands
Franc
eCh
ileHu
ngar
y Po
land
Slove
niaOE
CD a
vera
geSlo
vakia
Austr
alia
Unite
d St
ates
Swed
enBe
lgium
New Ze
aland
Czec
h Re
publi
cKo
rea,
Rep.
Cana
daFin
land
Esto
niaIce
land
0
Unit: Petajoules per GDP in billion const. int. 2005 USD PPP, Source: IEA (data refer to 2012)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
10.00
5.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
3.35
3.41 3.89
4.02
4.05
4.14 4.29
4.43
4.53
4.59
4.74
4.74
4.82
4.90
5.02
5.13 5.38
5.39 5.63
5.81
5.81
5.82 6.01
6.07
6.16 6.30
6.32
6.44 6.82 7.13 7.
88 8.14
8.15 9.
12
21.9
7
29.19
8.22
–7.67
–8.79
–0.56
–11.98
2.41
–4.30
–7.26
–4.46
–1.23
–19.18
–5.56
–14.86
–3.38
–6.96
–4.02
–0.16
8.71
2.90
–8.57
4.70
–2.68
–4.85
–9.48
–7.13
–6.65
–10.29
–4.53
–2.58
–4.60
–8.30
–4.29
1.32
5.88
–2.92
–5.01
–6.53
2.16
–1.99
1.72
–4.33
–0.20
–7.85
–3.33
–9.12
–0.02
–6.24
–6.48
6.88
–4.09
–0.68
–6.50
–5.33
–1.34
–1.42
9.82
–9.41
–6.93
–1.35
–1.18
–0.37
–3.38
–9.81
–7.66
–4.56
–10.31
–7.69
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
% Change
6767
percent (almost entirely hydro), and Iceland a laudable 76.7
percent (effectively all from geothermal and hydro). At the
other end of the spectrum, Japan, Luxembourg, the Nether-
lands, the United Kingdom, and South Korea each use less
than 5 percent renewables in their energy sector. South Korea,
the most ecologically alarming country on this measure, uses
just 1.3 percent.
among the OECD countries (each below 4 petajoules per GDP).
These countries demonstrate that economic growth and energy
effi ciency can go hand in hand. Ranking at the bottom of the
sample, Canada, Estonia, and Finland each have more than
double and Iceland more than fi ve times the energy intensity of
the top-performing countries.
Figure 7.2 illustrates the extent of energy use from renew-
able sources. This indicator measures the total fi nal renewable
energy consumption in total fi nal energy consumption (renew-
able energy consumption includes hydro, modern and tradi-
tional biomass, wind, solar, liquid biofuels, biogas, geothermal,
marine, and waste). The top countries on this measure each use
well above the 17.9 percent OECD average in renewable energy,
with Sweden using 47.4 percent (mostly hydro), Norway 56.9
7.2 Share of renewable energy in total fi nal energy consumption
Icelan
dNo
rway
Swed
enFin
land
New Ze
aland
Austr
iaPo
rtuga
lCh
ileEs
tonia
Denm
ark
Switz
erlan
dCa
nada
Slove
niaOE
CD a
vera
geSp
ainTu
rkey
Franc
eGr
eece
Slova
kiaGe
rman
yIta
lyM
exico
Polan
dCz
ech
Repu
blic
Hung
ary
Israe
lUn
ited
Stat
esAu
strali
aBe
lgium
Irelan
dJa
pan
Luxe
mbour
gNe
ther
lands
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mKo
rea,
Rep.
0
Unit: Percent, Source: World Bank (data refer to 2010)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
76.6
7
56.9
0
47.3
6
33.4
8
31.4
6
30.5
6
27.8
8
26.9
6
25.1
3
21.4
1
21.2
4
19.8
7
18.8
0
17.9
3
14.8
5
14.1
9
12.2
5
11.1
3
10.9
0
10.8
4
10.0
4
9.97
9.49
9.46
9.05
8.53
7.57
7.27
5.30
5.20
4.15
3.71
3.56
3.16
1.29
33.09
61.60
69.66
166.31
–6.17
52.58
57.17
–9.33
15.08
–0.95
32.67
24.28
–0.76
–7.27
–3.35
69.62
36.45
5.33
9.18
–25.60
12.84
–8.38
–2.36
7.18
22.19
–7.11
–3.34
16.90
25.27
–4.35
2.41
19.56
1.06
2.75
25.96
67.33
4.38
1.37
11.33
47.88
65.16
4.36
20.76
28.28
47.10
22.73
30.74
2.32
97.83
19.81
27.84
40.36
27.50
13.48
63.03
33.15
0.97
7.55
20.33
35.36
–11.18
20.58
5.25
8.04
4.71
8.60
–1.34
11.97
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
% Change
6868
Performance by goal
8. Economy and labor
goal among many policymakers will be put in perspective by
many other societal goals which we need to pursue with at least
equal rigor.
Nonetheless, research has shown that a high gross
national income (GNI) per capita is not only positively corre-
lated with a number of other desirable quality of life outcomes15,
but also with people’s subjectively reported feelings of happi-
ness and life satisfaction16. Figure 8.1 shows how countries
compare with regard to GNI per capita based on purchas-
ing power parity (PPP). GNI is the sum of value added by all
resident producers plus any product taxes (less subsidies) not
included in the valuation of output plus net receipts of primary
income (compensation of employees and property income) from
abroad. PPP refers to the conversion to international dollars
Promoting sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic
growth as well as full and productive employment – as goal
number 8 states – are not ends in themselves. They form the
basis of people being able to make a decent living and to provide
for their families. The problem with pursuing growth by itself
is that it is neither automatically inclusive nor sustainable. Poli-
cies must be put in place to ensure that economic growth, i.e.
an increase in the sum of goods and services produced, does
not come at the expense of future generations. Likewise, the
benefi ts of growth ought to be shared across the population and
not just by the upper end of the income distribution scale – as is
increasingly the case in OECD countries (see also Chapters 4.1
and 4.10). A comprehensive catalog of goals such as the SDGs
can ensure that a previous focus on growth as the main policy
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
15 Kassenböhmer, S. C., and Schmidt, C. M. (2011): Beyond GDP and Back: What Is the Value-Added by Additional Components of Welfare Measurement? SOEPpapers 351. DIW Berlin.16 Delhey, J., and Kroll, C. (2012): A ‘happiness-test’ for the new measures of national well-being: How much better than GDP are they? WZB Discussion Paper SP I 2012 201, June 2012 http://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2012/i12-201.pdf
8.1 GNI per capita
Norw
aySw
itzer
land
Luxe
mbour
gUn
ited
Stat
esNe
ther
lands
Germ
any
Swed
enDe
nmar
kAu
stria
Cana
daBe
lgium
Austr
alia
Icelan
dIre
land
Finlan
dFra
nce
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mJa
pan
OECD
ave
rage Italy
Kore
a, Re
p.Ne
w Zeala
ndSp
ainIsr
ael
Slove
niaPo
rtuga
lCz
ech
Repu
blic
Gree
ceSlo
vakia
Esto
niaPo
land
Hung
ary
Chile
Turke
yM
exico
0
Unit: Current int. USD PPP, Source: World Bank (data refer to 2014, except CHE, LUX, AUT, FIN, ESP, SVN, CZE, SVK: 2013, NZL: 2012)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000 6597
0
5960
0
5783
0
5586
0
4766
0
4684
0
4671
0
4616
0
4504
0
4340
0
4303
0
4288
0
4253
0
4082
0
4000
0
3972
0
3837
0
3792
0
3751
5
3471
0
3462
0
3376
0
3286
0
3255
0
2865
0
2801
0
2697
0
2613
0
2597
0
2569
0
2409
0
2383
0
2157
0
1904
0
1671
0
9.45
15.65
16.03
13.84
21.48
–2.03
14.71
0.32
0.28
6.52
0.55
4.06
–0.25
7.54
9.41
2.70
0.96
–3.76
5.44
3.30
–10.32
–12.46
7.38
7.91
1.29
7.54
9.42
2.17
8.26
3.35
1.16
–16.23
14.06
5.09
14.53
18.70
26.81
16.36
20.99
30.14
8.84
–7.70
7.79
7.77
4.95
16.42
3.01
17.22
13.69
0.23
8.87
5.64
8.49
3.07
13.17
31.27
14.26
7.71
10.71
7.11
8.61
8.93
15.97
5.84
13.91
5.09
9.50
12.92
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
% Change
6969
(66.92 percent) for all OECD countries. Iceland and Switzerland,
however, lead the table by some margin with 82.23 percent and
79.84 percent, respectively.
using purchasing power parity rates. The strongest economies
by that measure are Norway (USD 65,970), Switzerland (USD
59,600), Luxembourg (USD 57,830), and the USA (USD 55,860).
Chile (USD 21,570), Turkey (USD 19,040), and Mexico (USD
16,710), by contrast, have a GNI that is roughly half of the OECD
average (USD 37,515).
While the employment-to-population ratio does not give
us any information about whether people’s jobs are decent, it
does provide us with an idea of the size of a country’s work-
force. It is measured as the proportion of a country’s popula-
tion that is employed, whereby ages 15 and older are generally
considered the working-age population. Less than half the
population in Turkey (49.55 percent) and Greece (49.42 percent)
are in labor, while on average, the fi gure is around two-thirds
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
Icelan
dSw
itzer
land
Norw
aySw
eden
New Ze
aland
Germ
any
Neth
erlan
dsDe
nmar
kJa
pan
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mCa
nada
Austr
alia
Austr
iaEs
tonia
Czec
h Re
publi
cFin
land
Unite
d St
ates
Israe
l
OECD
ave
rage
Luxe
mbour
gKo
rea,
Rep.
Franc
eSlo
venia
Portu
gal
Chile
Belgi
umHu
ngar
yPo
land
Irelan
dSlo
vakia
Mex
icoSp
ain Italy
Turke
yGr
eece
0
Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2014)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
82.2
3
79.8
4
75.3
1
74.8
9
74.2
4
73.8
0
73.1
2
72.8
0
72.6
6
72.6
4
72.3
0
71.6
0
71.0
8
69.5
6
68.9
6
68.8
9
68.1
5
67.8
6
66.9
2
66.6
4
65.3
5
64.2
0
63.8
9
62.6
2
62.2
2
61.9
0
61.7
8
61.6
8
61.3
1
60.9
7
60.4
4
56.7
8
56.5
2
49.5
5
49.4
2
–2.96
3.80
–1.63
–10.67
–1.24
–3.17
–13.27
3.38
–3.34
–0.05
5.31
–3.47
–2.32
–0.63
–0.94
1.63
2.07
–7.09
–3.09
–1.66
–12.02
0.46
–0.59
–2.68
–2.95
–0.78
–4.77
0.49
3.10
–3.76
–2.78
–2.00
0–8.03
–17.01
7.04
–2.06
–4.83
0.23
3.77
2.22
4.63
11.52
–0.18
4.87
–4.06
–3.49
0.54
3.22
2.18
12.79
2.19
0.90
6.10
13.64
–0.90
–1.06
1.06
3.38
3.64
–0.74
–2.14
3.71
2.64
3.83
–0.07
1.59
4.28
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
% Change
7070
Performance by goal
9. Infrastructure and innovation
Figure 9.1 illustrates one such dimension which captures an
aspect of goal 9. Gross fi xed capital formation (GFCF) gives an
indication of how much of the new value added in an economy
is invested rather than consumed. Investment or gross capital
formation is measured by the total value of the gross fi xed
capital formation and changes in inventories and acquisitions
less disposals of valuables (i.e. investment minus disposals). As
a percentage of GDP, South Korea, Norway, Estonia, Australia,
and the Czech Republic show the highest GFCF (each in excess
of 25 percent). These countries are making forward-looking
investments that should bode well for economic success in
the future. Conversely, Portugal and Greece show the lowest
GFCF among the 34 OECD countries (14.9 percent and 10.6
percent, respectively). Reigniting these economies will require
The long-term viability of an economy depends on innovation and
prioritizing investments in the future. Innovation is fuelled by both
public and private investments that sustain a vibrant research sec-
tor, staffed by a growing pool of highly skilled researchers. Invest-
ing in the future also requires upgrading infrastructure and the
technological capabilities of industries “to make them sustainable,
with increased resource-use effi ciency and greater adoption of
clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial pro-
cesses.”17 Countries must focus their policies not only on driving
economic growth and high employment in the present, but also on
building a sustainable foundation for future growth and employ-
ment. SDG number 9 therefore calls on governments and citizens
to build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustain-
able industrialization, and foster innovation.
Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
17 Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals (2014). https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=1579&menu=1300
9.1 Gross fi xed capital formation
Kore
a, Re
p.No
rway
Esto
niaAu
strali
aCz
ech
Repu
blic
Cana
daSw
itzer
land
Swed
enNe
w Zeala
ndAu
stria
Franc
eHu
ngar
yM
exico
Belgi
umJa
pan
Chile
Slova
kiaOE
CD a
vera
geFin
land
Polan
dUn
ited
Stat
esSlo
venia
Spain
Denm
ark
Turke
yIsr
ael
Germ
any
Neth
erlan
dsUn
ited
King
dom
Irelan
dIta
lyIce
land
Luxe
mbour
gPo
rtuga
lGr
eece
0
Unit: Percent of GDP, Source: IMF (data refer to 2014)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
28.8
2
28.7
7
27.7
6
26.7
3
25.2
8
24.0
7
23.5
7
23.3
4
23.1
4
23.1
3
21.9
9
21.9
8
21.9
3
21.8
6
21.8
3
21.4
9
21.0
0
20.8
8
20.4
3
20.2
6
19.7
6
19.7
1
19.4
7
19.3
4
19.0
3
18.9
6
18.8
8
18.6
7
17.6
6
17.3
9
16.5
3
15.9
7
15.8
5
14.8
8
10.5
8
–36.06
–21.08
–1.43
–39.54
–6.09
–37.64
–9.39
–7.92
–1.18
5.19
8.14
–19.20
–25.97
–33.58
–10.78
–8.56
–6.35
–12.73
–8.46
–12.07
–6.85
–8.90
–17.16
–3.64
–1.22
–15.03
–2.87
6.18
0.47
–13.09
–4.61
–6.08
–0.70
–0.18
–33.09
–20.01
–16.94
2.00
–19.16
16.12
8.42
–9.02
–8.38
–7.12
–19.21
–0.61
–11.15
–9.23
6.53
–8.86
–12.97
–16.46
–9.48
8.05
–9.76
–1.49
7.49
–5.26
–4.56
14.77
–2.01
–12.59
–0.26
–6.53
–3.22
–3.84
11.37
–12.57
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
% Change
7171
sustainability requires such innovation, yet a number of coun-
tries are failing to meet this challenge. Turkey, Poland, Slova-
kia, Greece, Mexico, and Chile each spend less than 1 percent
on R&D. On their current trajectory, the long-term viability of
their economies could be signifi cantly hindered by their com-
paratively weak ability to contribute to necessary innovations.
substantial investments in modernizing infrastructure and
industries. Without these aggressive investments, no recovery
can be realistically expected. Harsh austerity measures that
hamper or even scale back such investments simply perpetuate
the painful status quo.
Our second snapshot indicator for goal 9 is a measure of
innovation potential. Gross domestic expenditure on research
and development (GERD) is the total intramural expenditure on
R&D performed during a given year, expressed as a percentage
of GDP. Figure 9.2 illustrates the extreme variation in GERD
that exists across the countries in this study. By far the top
performers, both Israel and South Korea, each spend more than
4 percent of their annual GDP on research and development
(more than double the OECD average of 2.01 percent). Economic
9.2 Research and development expenditure
Israe
lKo
rea,
Rep.
Japa
nFin
land
Swed
enDe
nmar
kAu
stria
Switz
erlan
dGe
rman
yUn
ited
Stat
esSlo
venia
Belgi
umFra
nce
Austr
alia
OECD
ave
rage
Icelan
dNe
ther
lands
Czec
h Re
publi
cEs
tonia
Norw
ayUn
ited
King
dom
Cana
daIre
land
Hung
ary
Portu
gal
Italy
Spain
New Ze
aland
Luxe
mbour
gTu
rkey
Polan
dSlo
vakia
Gree
ceM
exico
Chile
0
Unit: Percent of GDP, Source: OECD (data refer to 2013, except AUT, MEX: 2014, CHE, IRL: 2012, AUS: 2011)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50 4.21
4.15
3.47
3.31
3.30
3.06
2.99
2.96
2.85
2.73
2.59
2.28
2.23
2.13
2.01
1.99
1.98
1.92
1.74
1.65
1.63
1.62
1.58
1.41
1.37
1.26
1.24
1.17
1.16
0.94
0.87
0.83
0.80
0.54
0.39
6.59
23.37
3.76
37.78
28.88
16.75
–8.68
8.84
9.33
7.95
36.32
19.24
30.94
–4.19
0.22
5.50
48.00
2.66
1.52
4.18
9.61
7.68
11.13
44.65
4.20
10.85
1.93
12.72
16.79
–1.24
11.36
–5.99
15.52
–11.70
17.84
18.78
33.80
33.97
20.05
11.45
–22.80
–8.43
–8.12
3.09
–10.61
22.48
–2.38
–11.84
–3.64
–0.05
9.96
43.30
14.80
–25.30
–3.09
2.52
11.37
25.76
–0.26
4.97
8.48
9.05
4.19
2.61
–11.16
6.64
19.74
6.44
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2004
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2009
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2009
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2008
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
% Change
7272
Performance by goal
10. Inequality
percent of people with the lowest disposable income. Figure 10.1
shows how OECD countries compare in this regard. The share is
comparatively small in Slovakia (0.82), Slovenia (0.84), Norway
(0.85), the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Iceland (all 0.87). In
23 OECD countries, however, the top 10 percent earn more than
the bottom 40 percent combined, with the United States (1.74),
Turkey (1.99), Mexico (2.93), and Chile (3.26) showing the most
severe levels of income inequality.
Inequality extends beyond income alone, though. As
an example of inequalities in education, an area where the
basis of one’s entire life is formed, fi gure 10.2 displays the
strength of the impact of one’s socioeconomic background
and educational success. Chapter 4.4 has shown how the level
of educational achievement varies across OECD countries
Inequality is a growing problem in almost all OECD coun-
tries. Recent research has shown that in the EU, for instance,
the gap between northern and southern member countries is
increasing, in addition to the divide within countries18. At the
same time, studies have shown that less inequality is in fact
benefi cial to growth. Rich countries must therefore fi nd ways
to integrate more equality with economic progress in order to
be viable examples for the rest of the world19. OECD countries
are currently not on the right track since the gap between the
richest 10 percent and the poorest 10 percent is at a record level
(see also Chapter 4.1).
The so-called Palma ratio represents the share of all income
received by the 10 percent of people with the highest disposable
income divided by the share of all income received by the 40
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
18 Schraad-Tischler, D., and Kroll, C. (2014). Social Justice in the EU – A Cross-national Comparison. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. http://news.sgi-network.org/uploads/tx_amsgistudies/Social-Justice-in-the-EU-2014.pdf 19 Ostry, et al. (2014): Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth. IMF Staff Discussion Note. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf OECD (2015): In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2015-In-It-Together-Chapter1-Overview-Inequality.pdf
10.1 Palma ratio
Slova
kiaSlo
venia
Norw
ayCz
ech
Repu
blic
Denm
ark
Icelan
dBe
lgium
Finlan
dAu
stria
Swed
enNe
ther
lands
Hung
ary
Switz
erlan
dGe
rman
yPo
land
Irelan
dLu
xembo
urg
Kore
a, Re
p.Ca
nada
Franc
eNe
w Zeala
ndAu
strali
aEs
tonia Italy
OECD
ave
rage
Spain
Japa
nGr
eece
Portu
gal
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mIsr
ael
Unite
d St
ates
Turke
yM
exico
Chile
0
Unit: Ratio, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012, except NOR, DNK, SWE, CHE, DEU, KOR, CAN, FRA, NZL, ISR, TUR, CHL: 2011, GBR: 2010, JPN: 2009)
1 2 3 4 4 4 7 8 9 9 11 12 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 21 22 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
0.82
0.84
0.85
0.87
0.87
0.87 0.90
0.91 0.96
0.96 0.99 1.04
1.04 1.07 1.09
1.10
1.11 1.13 1.18
1.18 1.22
1.23
1.23
1.24
1.26
1.28
1.30 1.34
1.36
1.37 1.
55 1.74
1.99
2.93
3.26
1.82
–9.77
–1.20
–0.61
3.79
–9.70
–7.91
5.04
2.48
–7.75
–11.45
13.68
02.83
2.52
3.92
–15.20
–7.20
0.97
–9.26
1.96
12.66
11.11
–1.05
–9.00
18.18
5.13
0–16.67
–4.88
–18.69
–4.96
4.64
2.58
5.45
–4.32
0–8.72
4.69
4.00
3.23
4.20
6.03
–7.52
–6.15
8.26
–3.28
–0.88
4.72
3.77
–6.03
2.88
6.12
–4.81
7.87
–4.00
–3.19
–1.10
–25.64
6.10
–5.43
07.69
–5.75
2004
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2003
2005
2004
2005
2004
2003
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2004
2005
2005
2004
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2004
2005
2005
2006
2008
2007
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2006
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2007
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
% Change
7373
A score of fi ve would put a country near the OECD average on
this indicator. Estonia (1.76), Iceland (1.87), and Norway (2.07),
though, manage to generate for all students a fairly level play-
ing fi eld for their start in life. These countries show that a high
level of educational attainment – which becomes evident by
their good performance displayed in Chapter 4.4 – can go hand
in hand with giving students from all backgrounds access to
good education. In fact, a country can only lay a fi rm founda-
tion for future innovation in a globally competitive economy if
it taps into the intellectual resource of students from all back-
grounds. By contrast, countries such as New Zealand (8.51),
France (10.90), and Slovakia (13.39) still need to catch up sig-
nifi cantly in this respect.
as measured by the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA).
Moreover, the PISA index of economic, social, and cultural
status refl ects how inequalities in socioeconomic background
impact on student success. It was created on the basis of the
following variables: the International Socio-Economic Index of
Occupational Status (ISEI); the highest level of education of the
student’s parents, converted into years of schooling; the PISA
index of family wealth; the PISA index of home educational
resources; and the PISA index of possessions related to “classi-
cal” culture in the family home. The PISA Social Justice Index is
the product of the strength of the relationship between reading/
science/mathematics performance and ESCS and the slope of
the socioeconomic gradient for reading/mathematics/science.
10.2 PISA Social Justice Index
Esto
niaIce
land
Norw
ayM
exico
Cana
daFin
land
Kore
a, Re
p.Ita
lyJa
pan
Swed
enSp
ainGr
eece
Neth
erlan
dsUn
ited
Stat
esTu
rkey
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mPo
land
Israe
lAu
strali
aOE
CD a
vera
gePo
rtuga
lSw
itzer
land
Germ
any
Slove
niaLu
xembo
urg
Irelan
dDe
nmar
kBe
lgium Chile
Austr
iaCz
ech
Repu
blic
Hung
ary
New Ze
aland
Franc
eSlo
vakia
0
Unit: Standardized scale, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
1.76 1.87 2.07 2.27 2.41
2.47
2.57 2.
98
2.99 3.
45 3.92 4.06
4.17
4.20
4.30 4.
75
4.77 4.96
4.98
5.04
5.18
5.22 5.
61
5.62 5.82
5.89
5.99 6.
30
6.37
6.42 6.76
8.47
8.51
10.9
0
13.3
9
–9.65
7.38
18.97
43.33
–11.35
33.03
–17.74
19.47
49.91
6.15
–15.06
–5.66
4.82
1.83
–15.32
20.70
64.70
3.65
14.78
37.20
–16.02
–13.49
15.68
39.88
89.22
19.35
68.06
91.76
9.66
–20.73
–10.15
4.32
39.50
–0.48
123.68
27.98
–1.41
–32.15
18.48
–19.37
9.96
–30.55
14.80
19.93
–19.13
0.73
–28.71
–7.52
4.61
–14.82
–7.67
–17.38
–21.16
–21.95
–40.49
–12.00
–4.49
–0.71
–40.14
–13.14
–21.02
–26.95
1.96
–12.54
–37.45
–33.08
11.67
–20.22
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2003
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
% Change
7474
Performance by goal
11. Cities
as the United Kingdom and the United States, the population
is on average not exposed to particulate matter concentrations
exceeding this threshold. However, in the other half of the
OECD nations, the picture looks different. In the Czech Repub-
lic, Hungary, and Belgium, for instance, more than 50 percent
of the population is on average exposed to particulate matter
levels above the threshold. These three countries lag farthest
behind. And also countries such as Germany (25 percent of
the population), Switzerland (28 percent), the Netherlands (32
percent), Austria (32 percent), and Italy (35 percent) still have
some catching up to do.
The second indicator used here and portrayed in fi gure 11.2
refers to potential overcrowding as measured by the average
number of rooms in a dwelling per person. The indicator thus
Today, more than half of the world’s population lives in urban
areas. It is thus incumbent upon states and societies to foster
policies that help make cities and human settlements more
inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, as SDG number
eleven states. In this cross-national comparison we look at two
aspects that can be ascribed to this complex and multidimen-
sional goal.
The fi rst indicator refers to air pollution and potential
health stresses caused by high particulate matter concentra-
tions. Figure 11.1 shows the respective proportion of the popu-
lation whose exposure to “PM2.5” is above the WHO threshold
of 15 micrograms per cubic meter. In 17 OECD member states,
including several small countries such as Estonia, Iceland,
Luxembourg, and Slovenia, but also some large countries such
Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
11.1 Particulate matter
Austr
alia
Cana
daEs
tonia
Finlan
dIce
land
Irelan
dKo
rea,
Rep.
Luxe
mbour
gNe
w Zeala
ndNo
rway
Polan
dPo
rtuga
lSlo
venia
Spain
Swed
enUn
ited
King
dom
Unite
d St
ates
Chile
Denm
ark
Franc
eIsr
ael
Gree
ceOE
CD a
vera
geM
exico
Turke
ySlo
vakia
Japa
nGe
rman
ySw
itzer
land
Austr
iaNe
ther
lands
Italy
Czec
h Re
publi
cHu
ngar
yBe
lgium
0
Unit: Percent of population exposed to >15 ug/cbm, Source: Yale (data refer to 2012)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 31 32 33 34
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.00 5.
00 7.00 8.00 9.00 12
.53
14.0
0
15.0
0 21.0
0
23.0
0
25.0
0
28.0
0 32.0
0
32.0
0
35.0
0
50.0
0 57.0
0 62.0
0
–39.29
–44.00
–72.41
–12.82
–71.19
–68.00
–97.18
–81.54
3.13
–86.36
–27.27
–23.53
–75.00
0–28.57
–100.00
25.00
–50.00
–100.00
0000000–100.00
00000–100.00
0
21.57
1.79
108.33
2.94
88.24
33.33
1300.00
108.33
–30.30
75.00
87.50
7.69
80.00
0–30.00
0–40.00
–100.00
0000000000000000
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
% Change
7575
These domains are particularly relevant outside the OECD
nations since 90 percent of global road deaths, for instance,
occur in low- and middle-income countries.
provides some information on housing conditions in terms of
space. The top fi ve countries in this respect are Canada, New
Zealand, the United States, Australia, and Belgium, where the
respective room per person ratio is between 2.3 and 2.5. The
midfi eld comprises a number of countries with on average 1.6
to 1.8 rooms per person. Countries such as Japan, Germany,
France, Sweden, Austria, Portugal, and Switzerland belong
to this group. At the bottom of the league table, however, we
fi nd several countries where a person has – on average – only
one room at his or her disposal: Mexico (1.0), Turkey, Slovakia,
Poland, and Hungary (all 1.1).
Further indicators which could be relevant to this goal
include, but are not limited to, widespread access to public
transport or the number of people killed in road accidents.
11.2 Rooms per person
Cana
daNe
w Zeala
ndUn
ited
Stat
esAu
strali
aBe
lgium
Irelan
dLu
xembo
urg
Neth
erlan
dsNo
rway
Denm
ark
Finlan
dSp
ainUn
ited
King
dom
Franc
eGe
rman
yJa
pan
Switz
erlan
dSw
eden
OECD
ave
rage
Austr
iaPo
rtuga
lEs
tonia
Icelan
dSlo
venia
Czec
h Re
publi
cIta
lyKo
rea,
Rep.
Chile
Gree
ceIsr
ael
Hung
ary
Polan
dSlo
vakia
Turke
yM
exico
0
Unit: Number of rooms, Source: OECD (data refer to 2015)
1 2 2 4 5 6 7 7 7 10 10 10 10 14 14 14 14 18 19 19 21 21 21 24 24 24 27 27 27 30 30 30 30 34
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
022.22
–8.33
10.00
10.00
9.09
0–7.69
0007.14
–6.25
–6.25
0–5.88
000005.56
5.56
00005.26
0004.35
4.35
–3.85
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
7676
Performance by goal
12. Consumption and production
well as from selected municipal services (e.g. street cleaning).
Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Iceland are
the top fi ve OECD countries in terms of limiting the production
of municipal waste. However, the variation across the OECD
nations is immense. Whereas in top-ranked Estonia “only” 293
kilograms waste per person is generated per year, Denmark
and the United States come in the last places with 751 and 725
kilograms per capita, respectively. More than 600 kilograms of
municipal waste is also generated per capita and year in Israel,
Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Luxembourg, and Switzer-
land, where the respective fi gure is even 712 kilograms.
The indicator presented in fi gure 12.2 – domestic material
consumption (DMC) – refers to the amount of materials directly
used in an economy (apparent consumption) and is defi ned
Sustainable development is only possible when all countries
make sure that their consumption and production patterns
do not undermine the planet’s environmental boundaries, as
well as the social and economic conditions in other countries.
The rich countries have a special responsibility to bear in this
respect since economically advanced countries produce and
consume much more than less developed countries. Goal 12 is
therefore particularly relevant for the highly developed coun-
tries and the world’s fast-emerging economies.
The indicator in fi gure 12.1 assesses how much municipal
waste is generated per capita and per year in each OECD coun-
try. Municipal waste includes waste originating from house-
holds, commerce and trade, small businesses, offi ce buildings
and institutions (schools, hospitals, government buildings) as
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
12.1 Municipal waste generated
Esto
niaPo
land
Slova
kiaCz
ech
Repu
blic
Icelan
dJa
pan
Kore
a, Re
p.M
exico
Hung
ary
Chile
Turke
ySlo
venia
Cana
daPo
rtuga
lBe
lgium
Spain
Swed
enOE
CD a
vera
ge Italy
Finlan
dUn
ited
King
dom
Norw
ayGr
eece
Neth
erlan
dsFra
nce
Austr
iaIre
land
Israe
lGe
rman
yNe
w Zeala
ndAu
strali
aLu
xembo
urg
Switz
erlan
dUn
ited
Stat
esDe
nmar
k
0
Unit: Kilograms per capita, Source: OECD (data refer to 2013, except KOR, MEX, GRC, AUT, IRL, USA: 2012, JPN: 2010, CHL, AUS: 2009, CAN: 2004)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
293
297
304
307 34
7
354
358
360 37
8
385 40
7
409
418
429
438 455
458 48
3
484
493
494
501
504 52
5
530 58
0
587 60
7
614 626 64
7
661 71
2 725 75
1
4.05
–7.31
–0.56
0.29
–6.23
04.96
1.33
–17.80
–7.81
–0.19
–1.34
4.06
3.49
–8.40
–2.83
–4.65
–4.03
–7.29
–3.71
11.83
01.55
1.70
4.05
–8.12
02.16
–11.46
–37.12
–17.97
1.66
–1.56
–15.08
8.37
0.28
0.99
–3.50
0–16.53
3.72
–0.16
–9.83
–1.69
–0.93
–10.87
9.33
5.47
–7.49
2.71
–9.19
–3.78
–16.82
–6.21
–17.50
0–21.95
–2.86
0–12.09
5.88
–5.29
–2.48
–1.98
–2.54
–0.98
–6.01
–13.31
2006
2006
2006
2006
2000
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2004
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2006
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2004
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
% Change
7777
as the annual quantity of raw materials extracted from the
domestic territory minus total exports plus total imports. The
indicator is important in the context of a new global sustainable
development agenda as it sheds light on each country’s use of
resources in absolute terms. Japan, the United Kingdom, and
Hungary are the only three OECD countries where domestic
material consumption is below 10 tons per capita. Italy and the
Netherlands follow in places four and fi ve with approximately
11 and 11.6 tons per capita. By contrast, domestic material
consumption is more than four times as high in last-ranked
Australia (47 tons). Alongside Australia, the bottom group also
includes Canada (29.2 tons), Finland (34.3 tons), Norway (35.6
tons), and Chile (41 tons).
12.2 Domestic material consumption
Japa
nUn
ited
King
dom
Hung
ary
Italy
Neth
erlan
dsSw
itzer
land
Turke
yM
exico
Gree
ceFra
nce
Spain
Slova
kiaIsr
ael
Slove
niaGe
rman
yPo
rtuga
lKo
rea,
Rep.
Icelan
dBe
lgium
Czec
h Re
publi
cLu
xembo
urg
OECD
ave
rage
Denm
ark
Polan
dSw
eden
Unite
d St
ates
Austr
iaEs
tonia
New Ze
aland
Irelan
dCa
nada
Finlan
dNo
rway
Chile
Austr
alia
0
Unit: Tons per capita, Source: OECD (data refer to 2010, except JPN, HUN, FRA, SVK, SVN, PRT, ISL, CZE, LUX, POL, SWE, NZL, CAN, AUS: 2011, TUR: 2009, NOR: 2008)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
10.00
5.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
9.47
9.59 9.99 10
.98
11.5
7
11.6
9
11.9
4
12.0
4
12.0
6
12.5
9
12.8
7
13.3
5
14.1
1
14.4
4
15.2
6
15.3
6
15.5
7
16.2
2
16.6
4
16.8
0
18.8
0
18.9
4
19.7
6
20.7
6
21.2
6
21.4
8
21.7
4
21.9
6
23.7
2
24.8
7 29.2
0
34.3
2
35.6
0
41.0
0
47.0
0
–5.14
3.47
–1.87
7.03
–7.76
–33.22
–8.15
19.49
0.15
–12.59
0.59
16.76
–4.42
–9.44
1.10
–4.30
–6.22
5.30
19.15
2.32
12.41
16.75
9.87
–10.78
2.20
–4.31
5.38
0–2.08
5.14
–8.92
–27.21
–8.81
–3.15
12.06
3.03
0–11.95
–1.90
–23.98
–18.08
–13.08
–10.61
–12.33
–6.79
22.61
–26.39
–10.42
–9.41
–3.62
–24.70
–3.88
–26.50
–4.82
–30.66
–26.47
–12.06
–28.13
–11.27
–22.64
2.44
01.23
–2.60
–16.18
–26.82
–14.15
–15.82
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
% Change
7878
Performance by goal
13. Climate
In the fi ve leading countries, Mexico, Turkey, Sweden, Portu-
gal, and Hungary, as well as in sixth-ranked Chile, production-
based CO2 emissions are below 5 tons per capita. These coun-
tries’ performances stand in stark contrast to the respective
emission levels of countries placed at the bottom of the list,
such as Canada, the United States, Australia, and Luxembourg.
Here, CO2 emissions range from 15.3 (Canada) to 19.47 tons per
capita (Luxembourg).
The second snapshot indicator links emission levels to the
size of a country’s economy, and refers to total greenhouse gas
emissions per GDP. Greenhouse gas emissions include land use,
land-use change, and forestry, and are measured in CO2 equiva-
lents as a percentage of GDP (tons per million constant 2005 int.
USD PPP). The fi ndings are remarkable: While Sweden is by far
The highly developed industrialized nations’ responsibility to
combat climate change is obvious and cannot be overestimated.
Similar to the issue of sustainable consumption and production
patterns, the rich countries need to become leading examples
if the goal of combating climate change and its consequences
is not to remain mere lip service. Effectively reducing CO2 and
other greenhouse gas emissions is imperative in this regard.
The data displayed in fi gures 13.1 and 13.2 show how far many
OECD countries are still lagging behind compared to the respec-
tive benchmark countries of the sample. Figure 13.1 provides
information on production-based CO2 emissions per capita.
“Production-based” means that emissions refer to gross direct
CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, emitted within the
national territory excluding bunkers, sinks, and indirect effects.
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
13.1 Production-based energy-related CO2 emissions
Mex
icoTu
rkey
Swed
enPo
rtuga
lHu
ngar
yCh
ileSw
itzer
land
Franc
eIce
land
Spain
Slova
kia Italy
Denm
ark
Gree
ceSlo
venia
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mNo
rway
New Ze
aland
Polan
dAu
stria
Irelan
dOE
CD a
vera
geFin
land
Germ
any
Israe
lBe
lgium
Japa
nCz
ech
Repu
blic
Neth
erlan
dsKo
rea,
Rep.
Esto
niaCa
nada
Unite
d St
ates
Austr
alia
Luxe
mbour
g
0
Unit: Tons CO2 equivalent per capita, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
3.72 4.02 4.25
4.36
4.39
4.47 5.
19
5.26 5.76
5.78
5.90 6.15 6.
64 6.99
7.11 7.18
7.21
7.25 7.62
7.68
7.75 8.
35 9.13
9.22
9.26
9.40 9.59 10
.25
10.3
7 11.8
6
12.3
0
15.3
0
16.1
7
17.0
0
19.4
7
–15.14
–0.97
–11.32
–7.08
–5.01
6.39
–2.33
–10.59
–8.85
–10.79
–3.08
–9.50
–19.08
–18.54
–12.52
–5.23
–11.21
–4.38
–16.23
–7.18
–4.59
–17.88
–16.01
–10.90
–18.22
–11.94
–9.64
–7.50
5.88
–13.04
–7.59
–15.01
5.56
–2.72
–3.82
–6.70
–4.31
–0.73
12.22
13.10
–2.67
–2.42
12.72
0.67
8.78
3.36
–10.66
–10.34
0.19
0.78
0.41
–6.06
–4.21
–3.30
–13.35
–21.80
–5.03
–5.10
–6.11
–10.77
–5.59
–5.18
15.89
–8.64
–13.56
–5.52
13.05
5.05
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
% Change
7979
the top-performing country with an amount of 66.75 tons, Esto-
nia comes in last place with 680 tons – more than ten times as
much as in the case of the leading country. Moreover, Sweden is
the only country ranked among the top fi ve on both indicators
chosen here.
With regard to greenhouse gas emissions per GDP, Nor-
way, Switzerland, Finland, and France follow in places two to
fi ve. In fi fth-ranked France, however, emissions are already
nearly four times as high as in Sweden. At the negative end of
the spectrum, Canada and Australia again fi nd themselves in
the bottom group. Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions per
GDP amount to 641 tons, which means that the country ranks
second to last on both indicators of goal 13.
13.2 Greenhouse gas emissions per GDP
Swed
enNo
rway
Switz
erlan
dFin
land
Franc
eAu
stria
Portu
gal
Spain
Chile Italy
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mSlo
venia
Denm
ark
Slova
kiaBe
lgium
Japa
nNe
ther
lands
Luxe
mbour
gGe
rman
yIre
land
Hung
ary
OECD
ave
rage
Israe
lTu
rkey
Unite
d St
ates
New Ze
aland
Gree
ceIce
land
Czec
h Re
publi
cM
exico
Polan
dKo
rea,
Rep.
Cana
daAu
strali
aEs
tonia
0
Unit: Tons CO2 equivalent per million const. 2005 int. USD PPP, Source: UNFCCC, IEA (data refer to 2012, except ISR: 2010, CHL, MEX: 2006, KOR: 2001)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
66.7
5 109.
26 160.
28 205.
35
230.
80
248.
81
249.
80
251.
88
273.
03
275.
08
280.
05
289.
43
289.
55
301.
44
316.
63
317.
50
319.
49
326.
45
328.
13
334.
47
340.
51
352.
14
353.
34
374.
29
389.
72
424.
96
461.
12
476.
81
496.
04
512.
64
520.
69
555.
18
572.
74 640.
53
680.
01
4.18
–2.53
–18.28
0–10.88
0–14.71
5.94
–6.04
–18.43
–6.00
5.06
0–9.94
–11.39
–9.41
–11.06
–5.10
–5.06
–11.97
–19.51
–12.63
–4.15
–10.59
–8.69
0–16.94
–16.40
–14.27
–5.58
–40.58
–5.06
–19.47
–22.92
45.42
–7.85
3.65
0–7.28
0–5.79
–7.73
8.39
13.42
–9.34
–0.44
–26.47
–9.64
–5.38
–4.74
–3.44
–4.04
5.88
–9.21
–17.85
–21.90
–2.04
–4.73
–4.29
0–4.15
–2.63
–5.30
–8.14
22.62
–7.84
9.62
–15.85
2006
2006
2006
2001
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2000
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2009
2009
2009
2001
2009
2006
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2000
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2006
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
% Change
8080
Performance by goal
14. Oceans
Synthesis at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the Uni-
versity of British Columbia’s Sea Around Us Project, Conserva-
tion International, the National Geographic Society, and the New
England Aquarium.
The ten goals that the index refers to are food provision,
artisanal fi shing opportunities, natural products, carbon
storage, coastal protection, sense of place, coastal livelihoods
and economies, tourism and recreation, clean waters, and
biodiversity. A healthy ocean is therefore considered to be
one that can sustainably deliver a range of benefi ts to people
now and in the future. Figure 14.1 shows that Turkey and
Mexico lag farthest behind on the index, whereas Estonia,
New Zealand, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Australia form
the top group.
Goal 14 refers to a key dimension of environmental sustainabil-
ity. Decisive action is necessary to limit the human-caused deg-
radation of marine ecosystems and to restore marine resources
for sustainable development. Setting up protected marine areas,
establishing sustainable fi shing quotas in order to protect threat-
ened species, and reducing CO2 emissions can, among other
measures, serve as potential strategies to curb the negative
human impact on our marine environment.
The Ocean Health Index evaluates the condition of marine
ecosystems according to ten human goals, which represent the
key ecological, social, and economic benefi ts that a healthy
ocean provides. It is developed by the contributions of more than
65 experts on marine science, economics, and sociology under
the leadership of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
14.1 Ocean Health Index
Esto
niaNe
w Zeala
ndDe
nmar
kFin
land
Austr
alia
Norw
ayBe
lgium
Neth
erlan
dsSw
eden
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mGe
rman
yFra
nce
Italy
Kore
a, Re
p.
OECD
ave
rage
Cana
daPo
rtuga
lSlo
venia
Unite
d St
ates
Chile
Gree
ceIre
land
Israe
lPo
land
Japa
nSp
ainIce
land
Mex
icoTu
rkey
Austr
iaCz
ech
Repu
blic
Hung
ary
Luxe
mbour
gSlo
vakia
Switz
erlan
d
0
Unit: Standardized index, Source: Ocean Health Index (data refer to 2014)
1 2 3 3 5 5 7 7 7 10 11 12 12 12 15 15 15 18 19 19 19 22 22 24 24 26 27 28
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
80.0
0
78.0
0
77.0
0
77.0
0
76.0
0
76.0
0
75.0
0
75.0
0
75.0
0
74.0
0
73.0
0
71.0
0
71.0
0
71.0
0
70.7
5
70.0
0
70.0
0
70.0
0
69.0
0
68.0
0
68.0
0
68.0
0
67.0
0
67.0
0
66.0
0
66.0
0
65.0
0
61.0
0
57.0
0
–4.92
03.13
–1.47
0–7.14
00–2.74
–1.43
13.11
–5.41
–2.78
4.62
3.03
0–1.35
01.39
4.11
–1.30
002.67
1.33
1.32
1.28
–4.88
–1.72
–1.61
–1.52
–1.49
–1.49
3.08
–1.47
–2.86
–4.23
–1.45
0002.94
4.41
0–2.74
–1.35
1.37
–1.32
–1.32
0–1.30
–1.30
1.32
0–1.27
2.56
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
––––––
% Change
8181
these countries to better protect and conserve their respective
marine resources.
In this cross-national comparison, Australia also per-
forms – in relative terms – well on the second indicator, which
assesses for each country the extent to which fi sh stocks are
overexploited and collapsed within the countries’ exclusive
economic zones. Besides Australia, Japan, Korea, Spain, and
Greece are those countries within the OECD with the lowest
share of overexploited fi sh stocks by exclusive economic zone.
In these countries, overexploitation amounts to approximately
15 percent. From an ecological point of view, these fi gures are
still much too high. However, things look even less encourag-
ing in those countries at the bottom of the ranking on this
indicator. In France, Estonia, and the United Kingdom, overex-
ploitation rates are between 21.25 percent (France) and 24.04
percent (United Kingdom). This clearly underlines the need for
14.2 Overexploited fi sh stocks
Japa
nAu
strali
aKo
rea,
Rep.
Spain
Gree
ceCh
ileTu
rkey
Portu
gal
Mex
icoPo
land
Norw
ayCa
nada Italy
Swed
enOE
CD a
vera
geNe
w Zeala
ndDe
nmar
kIce
land
Germ
any
Irelan
dFin
land
Unite
d St
ates
Neth
erlan
dsFra
nce
Esto
niaUn
ited
King
dom
Austr
iaBe
lgium
Czec
h Re
publi
cHu
ngar
yIsr
ael
Luxe
mbour
gSlo
vakia
Slove
niaSw
itzer
land
0
Unit: Percent, Source: Yale (data refer to 2011)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
14.9
4
15.1
8
15.2
1
15.6
6
15.7
0
15.7
6
15.8
4
16.2
9
16.5
2
16.6
7
17.0
3
17.1
6
17.5
1
17.6
5
17.8
0
17.8
3
17.9
4
18.0
8
18.3
3
18.5
9
19.4
4
19.7
2
20.4
7
21.2
5
22.2
2 24.0
4
9.37
14.17
3.61
3.12
4.43
17.65
4.30
4.40
5.67
–0.10
4.59
5.55
39.61
2.99
–3.03
9.09
–2.25
–0.97
6.42
0.79
0.13
3.54
–12.93
1.91
–6.06
–0.20
7.94
3.48
0.76
4.75
10.19
–4.13
–1.86
–3.22
1.00
1.00
–6.37
0.32
4.48
–2.46
0–7.25
–3.31
0.17
–0.95
–1.13
1.98
3.55
–0.22
–6.22
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
–––––––––
% Change
8282
Performance by goal
15. Biodiversity
and the United Kingdom. While most countries have held
these relatively high levels for a number of years now, the
Netherlands only joined the top group recently with a further
improvement compared to their 2009 level of 14.83 percent.
However, there is still much room for improvement for these
countries. The bottom four countries are Korea, Hungary,
Turkey, and Ireland. Here, the respective share of protected
terrestrial biome area is extremely small. In Ireland, for
instance, only 1.76 percent of the country’s terrestrial biome
area counts as protected area. What is encouraging to see at
least is that in no country examined here has the terrestrial
biome area shrunk in recent years. In Estonia and Iceland, for
instance, it was expanded by around a third between 2006
and 2009. The stagnation and low levels of expansion shown
Goal 15 is the direct counterpart to goal 14. Both goals high-
light the importance of protecting and preserving the sustain-
ability of natural resources and quality of the environment.
The ecological dimension of sustainable development implies
that governments and societies must shape effective policies to
secure the natural foundation of human existence and leave an
intact ecosystem for future generations. The two snapshot indi-
cators used in our analysis refer to two very important aspects
of goal 15: protecting terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity.
With regard to the fi rst indicator, fi gure 15.1 shows that
the best-performing OECD countries have so far managed to
protect 17 percent or more of their terrestrial biome areas.
This benchmark group consists of Estonia, Germany, Lux-
embourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Switzerland,
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss
15.1 Terrestrial protected areas
Esto
niaGe
rman
yLu
xembo
urg
Neth
erlan
dsPo
land
Slove
niaSw
itzer
land
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mCz
ech
Repu
blic
Gree
ceJa
pan
Austr
iaBe
lgium
Icelan
dSlo
vakia
New Ze
aland
Franc
eNo
rway
Denm
ark
OECD
ave
rage
Austr
alia
Israe
lM
exico Italy
Chile
Spain
Portu
gal
Finlan
dUn
ited
Stat
esCa
nada
Swed
enKo
rea,
Rep.
Hung
ary
Turke
yIre
land
0
Unit: Percent, Source: Yale (data refer to 2012)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00 17.0
0
17.0
0
17.0
0
17.0
0
17.0
0
17.0
0
17.0
0
17.0
0
16.7
2
16.2
7
14.9
3
14.7
2
14.6
8
14.5
8
14.3
4
14.2
7
13.7
4
12.9
7
12.7
1
12.2
9
12.2
5
12.2
2
10.7
0
10.6
6
10.3
1
8.56
8.55
8.54
8.43
8.39
8.04
6.17
5.03
2.33
1.76
00.23
02.31
3.28
2.39
00.89
3.49
00.19
3.43
5.76
1.00
13.45
3.39
0.79
3.59
0031.80
0.13
0019.15
0.01
01.99
001.12
0035.20
00.86
00.03
0.83
0.07
00.26
0.03
01.38
000.39
2.80
1.80
1.74
00000.01
000000.26
0014.64
000
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
% Change
8383
by many countries, however, will put goal 15 under strain in
those places if policymakers do not act soon.
With regard to a country’s performance on preventing
biodiversity loss, fi gure 15.2 displays the OECD’s Red List
Index for Birds as a well-established proxy measure. Iceland,
Luxembourg, and the Czech Republic show the strongest
defi ciencies on this indicator, and Switzerland and Germany
also belong to the bottom group. Here, governments need
to strengthen their efforts to protect the natural habitats of
endangered species. By contrast, Turkey, Poland, Canada,
Estonia, Chile, and Korea form the benchmark group. The
percentage of threatened bird species in the top fi ve countries
ranges from 4 percent (Turkey) to 11 percent in Chile and Korea.
15.2 Red List Index for birds
Turke
yPo
land
Cana
daEs
tonia
Chile
Kore
a, Re
p.Un
ited
Stat
esAu
strali
aGr
eece
Japa
nFra
nce
Hung
ary
Norw
ayDe
nmar
kSw
eden
Israe
lBe
lgium
Mex
icoNe
ther
lands
OECD
ave
rage
Finlan
dIre
land
Slova
kiaAu
stria
Slove
niaSp
ain Italy
Portu
gal
Switz
erlan
dGe
rman
yIce
land
Luxe
mbour
gCz
ech
Repu
blic
New Ze
aland
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
0
Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to latest available)
1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 9 11 11 11 14 14 16 17 18 18 20 20 20 23 23 23 26 26 28 29 30 31 32
20
10
30
40
50
60
4
8 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 14 15 15 15 16 16
19 20 21 21 22
24 24 24
27 27 27 28 28
35 36
44
50
52
––
8484
Performance by goal
16. Institutions
With regard to the latter aspect, the rate of intentional homi-
cides in fi gure 16.1 provides some information on whether
societies can be considered peaceful, stable, and inclusive.
These attributes can be assigned to the broad majority of
OECD countries. Homicide rates are generally low in most of
these nations. Less than one intentional homicide occurs per
100,000 inhabitants per year in Luxembourg, Iceland, Japan,
Slovenia, Spain, Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Nether-
lands, Switzerland, Italy, Korea, Poland, the Czech Republic,
Norway, and Sweden. However, there are also some countries,
such as the United States (4.7 homicides) and Estonia (5.0),
where homicide rates are clearly above average. Mexico is the
biggest outlier in this regard with 18.9 homicides per 100,000
inhabitants per year. This underlines the country’s massive
There has been much discussion in the multi-stakeholder Post-
2015 Development Agenda process on whether specifi c objec-
tives on “good governance” could, for the fi rst time, be incorpo-
rated into the SDGs. Several reports and contributions, among
others the report of the High-Level Panel of eminent persons
on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, rightly pointed out that
good governance practices based on the rule of law are impor-
tant “enablers” for sustainable development. Although the terms
“good governance” and “rule of law” are not directly mentioned
in goal 16, the objectives of building effective, accountable,
and inclusive institutions as well as providing access to justice
for all clearly refl ect the underlying ideas of good governance.
Sustainable development requires sound institutions, legal cer-
tainty, and peaceful and inclusive societies.20
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
20 See for instance Schraad-Tischler, D. (2013): Enabling factors for sustainable development – strengthening rule of law and other key sustainable governance indicators. Available from www.sgi-network.org
16.1 Homicides
Luxe
mbour
gIce
land
Japa
nSlo
venia
Spain
Austr
iaDe
nmar
kGe
rman
yNe
ther
lands
Switz
erlan
dIta
lyKo
rea,
Rep.
Polan
dCz
ech
Repu
blic
Norw
aySw
eden
New Ze
aland
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mAu
strali
aIre
land
Franc
ePo
rtuga
lCa
nada
Gree
ceSlo
vakia
Finlan
dIsr
ael
Belgi
umOE
CD a
vera
geHu
ngar
yCh
ileUn
ited
Stat
esEs
tonia
Turke
yM
exico
0
Unit: Per 100,000 inhabitants, Source: UNODC (data refer to 2013, except KOR, ISR, CHL, TUR: 2012)
1 2 2 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 11 11 11 14 14 14 17 17 19 19 21 22 23 23 23 26 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
0.20
0.30
0.30 0.60
0.60
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.10
1.10 1.20
1.30
1.40
1.40
1.40 1.70
1.70 1.80
1.87 2.
70 3.10 3.
80 4.10 4.30
18.9
0
82.80
–28.26
–21.74
–13.79
2.78
–17.65
–19.05
–33.33
–4.35
–6.25
30.00
–5.88
–20.00
–21.43
–13.33
–7.69
–14.29
25.00
–10.00
–14.29
–30.77
0–9.09
–12.50
12.50
–20.00
80.00
–28.57
–18.18
0–20.00
–47.37
11.18
30.30
–24.07
–24.00
–16.22
92.86
5.88
–5.56
–22.73
–6.67
7.69
–12.50
8.33
9.09
–15.38
–8.33
–16.67
–33.33
050.00
0–38.46
–20.00
0–22.22
–12.50
–22.22
40.00
–33.33
0–25.00
0–80.00
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
% Change
8585
or even asked for bribes. Besides Mexico, Turkey, Italy, and
Greece exhibit the strongest weaknesses in this regard. By
contrast, the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, and
Sweden feature traditionally in the CPI’s top group and can
be regarded as leading examples. New Zealand and Switzer-
land also belong to the top fi ve. Countries such as the United
States, Austria, and France only fi nd themselves in the mid-
fi eld together with Chile, Estonia, and Portugal.
problems when it comes to guaranteeing safe living condi-
tions for its population.
Mexico also ranks last on the second indicator shown
in fi gure 16.2. The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranks
countries and territories based on how corrupt their public
sector is perceived to be. It is a composite index – a combi-
nation of polls and expert surveys – drawing on corruption-
related data collected by a variety of reputable institutions.
High levels of corruption undermine legal certainty, hamper
effective policy implementation, and threaten the legitimacy
of a political system as a whole. Governments must do more
to strengthen mechanisms that prevent public servants and
politicians from accepting bribes, such as providing spaces
and ways that allow people to shame offi cials that accepted
16.2 Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
Denm
ark
New Ze
aland
Finlan
dSw
eden
Norw
aySw
itzer
land
Neth
erlan
dsLu
xembo
urg
Cana
daAu
strali
aGe
rman
yIce
land
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mBe
lgium
Japa
nIre
land
Unite
d St
ates
Chile
Austr
iaOE
CD a
vera
geEs
tonia
Franc
ePo
rtuga
lPo
land
Israe
lSp
ainSlo
venia
Kore
a, Re
p.Hu
ngar
yCz
ech
Repu
blic
Slova
kiaTu
rkey
Gree
ceIta
lyM
exico
0
Unit: Standardized index, Source: Transparency International (data refer to 2014)
1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 11 13 14 14 16 16 18 19 20 20 22 23 24 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 34
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
92.0
0
91.0
0
89.0
0
87.0
0
86.0
0
86.0
0
83.0
0
82.0
0
81.0
0
80.0
0
79.0
0
79.0
0
78.0
0
76.0
0
76.0
0
74.0
0
74.0
0
73.0
0
72.0
0
69.2
4
69.0
0
69.0
0
63.0
0
61.0
0
60.0
0
60.0
0
58.0
0
55.0
0
54.0
0
51.0
0
50.0
0
45.0
0
43.0
0
43.0
0
35.0
0
–16.67
–18.75
–27.66
–8.70
–20.00
–15.38
–9.80
–3.57
–11.94
–4.62
–3.33
19.57
01.45
–3.03
–3.70
4.35
–2.74
–2.60
9.59
2.74
1.30
–6.74
1.27
1.15
02.41
0–2.22
13.92
04.44
2.15
1.08
16.67
10.26
26.47
7.14
25.00
15.91
17.39
1.85
–1.69
–3.23
3.45
10.91
3.28
–1.43
7.81
–7.69
1.39
4.23
–1.33
–5.00
1.33
0–4.82
–1.25
–9.09
–6.90
–3.53
–6.74
–2.27
–4.44
–6.45
–5.32
–4.21
–2.13
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
% Change
8686
Performance by goal
17. Global partnership
have not managed to fulfi ll the target of providing at least 0.7
percent of their respective GNI for ODA. In fact, as fi gure 17.1
clearly shows, this target is far out of sight for the vast majority
of OECD countries. There are only fi ve countries meeting the
target already: Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, and
the United Kingdom. Luxembourg’s and Sweden’s spending on
ODA even exceeds one percent of the two countries’ respective
GNI. By contrast, rich countries such as Japan and the United
States only spend a mere 0.19 percent.
In addition to the aspect of revitalizing the global part-
nership for sustainable development, goal 17 also refers to the
challenge of strengthening the means of implementation. An
effective implementation of the new SDGs depends heavily on
the availability, comparability, and quality of timely data for the
Revitalizing the global partnership for sustainable develop-
ment depends crucially on the political will and the genuine
commitment of developed countries to foster global public
goods and to promote equal socioeconomic opportunities in
developing countries. OECD countries must seek to ensure that
their national policies are in alignment with international strat-
egies in this regard. Policy coherence for development is thus a
necessary condition for a truly global partnership.
In this context, the so-called donor countries also have
to live up to their self-declared standards regarding offi cial
development assistance (ODA). ODA is defi ned as fl ows to
developing countries and multilateral institutions provided by
offi cial agencies, including state and local governments, or by
their executive agencies. Most OECD member states, however,
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
17.1 Offi cial development assistance
Swed
enLu
xembo
urg
Norw
ayDe
nmar
kUn
ited
King
dom
Neth
erlan
dsFin
land
Switz
erlan
dBe
lgium
Germ
any
Turke
yIre
land
Franc
eOE
CD a
vera
geAu
strali
aNe
w Zeala
ndAu
stria
Cana
daIce
land
Japa
nPo
rtuga
lUn
ited
Stat
esIta
lyEs
tonia
Spain
Kore
a, Re
p.Slo
venia
Hung
ary
Czec
h Re
publi
cGr
eece
Polan
dSlo
vakia
Israe
lCh
ileM
exico
0
Unit: ODA as percentage of GNI, Source: OECD (data refer to 2014)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 12 13 14 14 16 17 18 19 19 19 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 28 30 30 32
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.10
1.07
0.99
0.85
0.71
0.64
0.60
0.49
0.45
0.41
0.41
0.39
0.36
0.36
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.21
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.08
0.08
0.07
00–20.00
6.25
18.18
12.50
8.33
71.43
16.22
25.00
–21.05
31.25
31.82
17.65
7.41
17.24
–36.00
–3.70
031.58
–5.45
44.44
5.41
48.84
5.41
41.03
058.33
12.35
10.53
14.13
4.30
0–11.11
0–35.29
–15.38
33.33
08.33
–67.44
50.00
6.67
–9.52
–34.48
–5.00
–27.59
–29.41
–18.75
3.85
–15.63
–28.00
–25.00
215.38
5.13
–29.69
25.64
9.09
–20.99
24.56
–6.59
–5.71
1.90
13.40
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
––
% Change
8787
top performers in this respect are Spain and Japan with nearly
85 percent. Switzerland, Mexico, and New Zealand, by con-
trast, have to improve their reporting standards. In the case of
these three countries, the percentage of timely data regularly
reported for the SDG indicators used in this study is still below
70 percent, showing that the demand for a data revolution actu-
ally extends beyond the poorest countries.
individual indicators. Countries therefore have to strengthen
their statistical capacities to make sure that progress on the
implementation of the SDGs can be tracked and monitored in a
transparent and reliable way.
Against this backdrop, our second snapshot indicator
refers to the percentage of SDG indicators used in this study
that are reported annually with a time lag no greater than
three years in the respective country. This indicator is cal-
culated as the number of indicators reported divided by the
number of indicators applicable for the respective country, mul-
tiplied by 100. Figure 17.2 shows that many OECD countries
are already faring quite well on this indicator. Twenty out of 34
OECD member states provide timely data on an annual basis for
more than 80 percent of the SDG indicators selected here. The
17.2 Capacity to monitor the SDGs
Japa
n Sp
ainAu
stria
Czec
h Re
publi
cHu
ngar
yBe
lgium
Cana
daDe
nmar
kFin
land
Franc
eGr
eece
Icelan
dIre
land
Kore
a, Re
p.Ne
ther
lands
Polan
dPo
rtuga
lSlo
venia
Turke
yUn
ited
King
dom
OECD
ave
rage
Esto
niaGe
rman
yIsr
ael
Chile
Luxe
mbour
gSlo
vakia
Swed
enAu
strali
aIta
lyNo
rway
Unite
d St
ates
New Ze
aland
Mex
icoSw
itzer
land
0
Unit: Percentage of SDG indicators used in this study that are reported annually with time lag no greater than three years, Source: Bertelsmann Stiftung (data refer to 2015)
1 1 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 21 21 21 24 25 26 26 28 28 28 28 32 33 34
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00 84.8
5
84.8
5
83.8
7
83.8
7
83.8
7
81.8
2
81.8
2
81.8
2
81.8
2
81.8
2
81.8
2
81.8
2
81.8
2
81.8
2
81.8
2
81.8
2
81.8
2
81.8
2
81.8
2
81.8
2
79.0
9
78.7
9
78.7
9
78.7
9
78.1
3
77.4
2
75.7
6
75.7
6
72.7
3
72.7
3
72.7
3
72.7
3
69.7
0
68.7
5
67.7
4
88
Conclusions: Who is fit for the goals?
5. Conclusions: Who is fit for the goals?
5.1. Countries that are ready for the SDGs: The fit fiveThis stress test has shown that, of all OECD countries, Sweden,
Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Switzerland are best prepared
for the SDGs. They form the top fi ve on the aggregated SDG
Index which summarizes performance across all 34 indicators
and 17 goals examined in this study.21 These countries, the “fi t
fi ve,” are therefore in a strong position to foster further improve-
ments in the SDGs in the future. They demonstrate that an
economic and social model which is sustainable and inclusive
is possible. Nonetheless, they must maintain their ambition
since even these countries have their particular challenges,
sometimes considerable in scope, as the country profi les have
illustrated. Despite certain shortcomings, though, these coun-
tries have managed best overall so far in generating favorable
results regarding economic, social, and environmental policy in
the diverse fi elds we have examined. The 29 other OECD coun-
tries need to step up their policy efforts and follow the likes of
Sweden and Norway if they are to reach the UN’s ambitious set
of goals by 2030.
Sweden, for instance, demonstrates how to achieve a
strong yet low-carbon economy. The country leads the OECD
nations with its low greenhouse gas emissions, while its
fossil fuel energy production causes just 4.3 tons of carbon
dioxide emissions per capita as well as a renewable energy
share of over 47 percent (third place on both indicators). At
the same time, the economy is among the strongest in the
OECD with 74.9 percent of working-age Swedes in employ-
ment (fourth) and a GNI of USD 46,680 per capita (seventh).
The particular responsibility of high-income countries when
it comes to the SDGs extends to three types of goals: 1) domestic
sustainability targets to reform how societies in the OECD them-
selves are organized, 2) do-no-harm targets to minimize negative
external effects of domestic policies for other countries, and fi nally
3) international responsibility targets related to the rich nations’
commitment to fi ghting poverty in the developing world.22
21 For details of how the SDG Index was constructed, see Chapter 2, Methodology.22 Typology by the Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives (2015): Goals for the rich. https://www.globalpolicywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RG-Goals-for-the-Rich-Advaced-Unedited-Version.pdf
Figure 1: The world’s first SDG Index
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Finland
Switzerland
Germany
Netherlands
Belgium
Iceland
France
Canada
Austria
Japan
Slovenia
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Luxembourg
Australia
Spain
Ireland
Estonia
Poland
Korea, Rep.
Czech Republic
Portugal
Italy
Slovakia
Israel
United States
Greece
Chile
Hungary
Turkey
Mexico
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
13
15
16
17
18
18
20
21
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
7.86
7.79
7.55
7.52
7.21
7.08
7.04
7.00
6.97
6.94
6.93
6.92
6.91
6.91
6.83
6.80
6.66
6.65
6.65
6.47
6.42
6.42
6.32
6.24
6.23
6.13
6.02
6.01
5.95
5.88
5.73
5.55
5.19
4.91
0 4.00
2.00
6.00
9.00
10.00
1. 00
5.00
8.00
3.00
7.00
89
For a number of goals, however, high-income countries dif-
fer greatly in their performance on the SDGs. This is especially
evident with respect to goals 12 (sustainable consumption and
production) and 13 (tackling climate change). While in Estonia,
Poland, and Slovakia, for instance, citizens generate below 310
kilograms of waste per capita every year, the fi gure is more
than twice as high in Denmark (751 kilograms), the United
States (725 kilograms), and Switzerland (712 kilograms). Like-
wise, greenhouse gas emissions amount to less than 110 tons
of CO2 equivalent as a percentage per million GDP in Sweden
and Norway, while six countries each emit more than 500 tons
(Mexico, Poland, South Korea, Canada, Australia – and Estonia
with 680 tons). The share of renewable energy (goal 7) is around
or above 50 percent in the top three countries Iceland, Norway
and Sweden, while in 17 OECD countries it is below 11 per-
cent – including in the Netherlands (3.56 percent), the United
Kingdom (3.16 percent), and South Korea (1.29 percent). Finally,
gender equality (goal 5) is in a good state, at least as indicated
by the share of women in the national parliaments in Sweden,
Finland, and Belgium with over 40 percent, while less than 15
percent of MPs in Turkey, Hungary, and Japan are female.
5.3. The ideal country: A vision for the future Going forward, all nations will have to effectively handle poten-
tial trade-offs between the 17 goals, thus managing to foster a
stronger economy and balanced social policies and protecting
the environment at the same time. Governments and citizens
must reconcile the manifold and often diverging policy goals
with one another.
Building upon the benchmarking in this study, the ideal
country in terms of the 17 goals for sustainable development
would therefore be one that by 2030 will have managed to (1)
tackle poverty even better than the Czech Republic and Finland,
(2) promote sustainable agriculture and nutrition even better
than Iceland and Japan, (3) ensure healthy lives and well-being
for all even better than Japan and e.g. Denmark, (4) ensure
inclusive and equitable quality education even better than Japan
and Korea, (5) promote gender equality even better than Swe-
den and New Zealand, (6) ensure availability and sustainable
management of water even better than Iceland and e.g. Austria,
(7) ensure access to affordable and modern energy even bet-
ter than Ireland and Iceland, (8) promote economic growth and
employment even better than Norway and Iceland, (9) build
resilient infrastructure and foster innovation even better than
South Korea and Israel, (10) reduce inequality even better than
Slovakia and Estonia, (11) make cities and settlements safe even
Thus, next to strengthening the global partnership for develop-
ment and reducing inequality within and between nations, this
study has shown that the main challenges overall for the entire
set of OECD countries in terms of the SDGs related to domestic
reforms remain: a) fostering an inclusive economic model (goals
8 and 10) as well as b) sustainable consumption and production
patterns (goal 12).
In the fi rst respect, sadly the rich countries in this world
are no exception to the trend of a growing gap between rich and
poor. In most OECD nations, the richest 10 percent earn more
than the poorest 40 percent combined. Inequality keeps rising
across these countries, and the average income of the richest
10 percent of the population is now about nine times that of
the poorest 10 percent. This trend will threaten not only social
cohesion, but also economic growth.
In the latter respect, countries such as the USA and Den-
mark generate 725 and 751 kilograms of municipal waste per
person every year. Half of all OECD nations still have a share of
renewable energy below 11 percent – clearly more efforts are
needed there. The UK and Estonia overexploit their fi sh stock
by 24 and 22 percent, respectively. One can only imagine what
would happen if the likes of India and China followed the path
that these countries have chosen.
In fact, their inability to fi ght the growing social divide
coupled with their overuse of resources begs the question
whether today’s high-income countries really can still serve as
role models for the developing world. In terms of sustainable
development, all countries are now developing countries. Thus,
a new – more inclusive and sustainable – social and economic
model must be strived for in the future.
5.2. The great divide: Where OECD nations lie far apartThis comparison of OECD countries across all 17 SDGs has
shown that in some areas, countries perform at a similar level.
The range of scores is quite narrow for some indicators; in other
words: OECD nations pretty much all play in the same league
here. This is true, for instance, with regard to homicide rates,
as captured by goal 16. All OECD countries are very safe places
to live, with homicide rates ranging from 0.2 (Luxembourg) to
4.3 (Turkey) per 100,000 inhabitants. Mexico is the only drastic
exception here, with a rate of 18.9. A similar picture emerges
concerning the capacity to monitor the SDGs (goal 17). Although
all countries will need to improve their statistical coverage, they
currently all report between around 68 percent and around 85
percent of the indicators used in this study annually, with a time
lag no greater than three years.
90
Conclusions: Who is fit for the goals?
better than e.g. Australia and Canada, (12) ensure sustainable
consumption and production patterns even better than Estonia
and Japan, (13) cut emissions even better than Mexico and
Sweden, and combat climate change, (14) conserve oceans
even better than Estonia and Japan, (15) protect terrestrial ecosys-
tems and halt biodiversity loss even better than e.g. Estonia and
Turkey, (16) promote peaceful societies and effective institu-
tions even better than Luxembourg and Denmark, and fi nally
(17) revitalize the global partnership for sustainable develop-
ment and strengthen the means of implementation of the SDGs
through monitoring even better than Sweden, Japan, and Spain
(see Table 1 for details).
5.4. Lessons from rising starsIf countries are trying to get serious about learning from
each other, then the most promising way to facilitate such
peer learning is to look at the success (and failures) that
other nations have displayed. Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the
biggest improvements and the worst deteriorations in the 17
SDGs over the past few years – both in terms of percentage
change23 on all respective indicators and with regard to rank
change. There are too many lessons for them all to be spelled
out here, and they will need to be analyzed in depth going for-
ward. Reform debates need to focus on which policies can be
transferred successfully to other nations, taking into account
differing contexts and particular challenges.
For example, Sweden has managed to cut its already
outstandingly low levels of greenhouse gas emissions relative
to GDP by another third (35.1 percent) since 2006. Such enor-
mous progress at an already high level puts other countries to
shame and is worthy of emulation. By contrast, countries such
as Canada, Australia, and Estonia emit eight to ten times as
much as Sweden relative to GDP. Concrete policy instruments
which have fostered this success in Sweden include the carbon
tax on the use of coal, oil, natural gas, petrol, and aviation fuel.
It set the right fi nancial incentives for the use of biomass, such
as waste from forests and forest industries, in heating systems
instead of using carbon. Furthermore, it encouraged the growth
of non-energy-intensive industries, such as the service sector,
which grew stronger than energy-intensive industries over the
last few years. Even countries in which environmentally con-
scious mindsets are still less common than in Sweden, such
measures can lead to signifi cant objective improvements in a
range of areas without necessarily harming economic growth,
and consequently bring about much-needed changes in public
awareness of these issues.24
Goal Best countries Worst countries
Poverty 1.1 Czech Republic Mexico
1.2 Finland Italy
Agriculture 2.1 Iceland Korea, Rep.and nutrition
2.2 Japan United States
Health 3.1 Japan Turkey
3.2 Denmark and others Greece
Education 4.1 Japan Turkey
4.2 Korea, Rep. Mexico
Gender equality 5.1 Sweden Japan
5.2 New Zealand Korea, Rep.
Water 6.1 Iceland Israel
6.2 Austria and others Turkey
Energy 7.1 Ireland Iceland
7.2 Iceland Korea, Rep.
Economy 8.1 Norway Mexicoand labor
8.2 Iceland Greece
Infrastructure 9.1 Korea, Rep. Greeceand innovation
9.2 Israel Chile
Inequality 10.1 Slovakia Chile
10.2 Estonia Slovakia
Cities 11.1 Australia and others Belgium
11.2 Canada Mexico
Consumption 12.1 Estonia Denmarkand production
12.2 Japan Australia
Climate 13.1 Mexico Luxembourg
13.2 Sweden Estonia
Oceans 14.1 Estonia Turkey
14.2 Japan United Kingdom
Biodiversity 15.1 Estonia and others Ireland
15.2 Turkey Czech Republic
Institutions 16.1 Luxembourg Mexico
16.2 Denmark Mexico
Global 17.1 Sweden Israelpartnership
17.2 Japan, Spain Switzerland
23 The levels at which the respective countries perform need to be taken into account when interpreting the table of improvements in percentage. The fact that the UK, for instance, managed to increase its share of renewable energy by 170 percent might seem impressive at first sight, but must be seen in context of the country still being second to last in this regard. Much stronger efforts from one of Europe’s leading economies are needed here.24 The policy instrument of sustainability strategies must also play a more prominent role in the future. A global comparison of sustainability strategies can be found in: Bertelsmann Stiftung (ed.) (2013). Winning Strategies for a Sustainable Future. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung
Table 1: The best and worst performers in all 17 goals and 34 indicators
91
Likewise, fi ghting inequality is an issue that many OECD
countries are not addressing successfully enough: Turning
the tide with regard to the growing gap between rich and
poor will require more focused policy efforts. One can see,
for instance, that over the last few years, Slovakia managed
to narrow the income gap between rich and poor more than
any other country, cutting the Palma ratio by 23.4 percent and
consequently climbing up 13 places in the ranking. This does
not allow the country’s government to slow down their efforts,
however, since a growing gap in education in Slovakia could
lay the foundation for future inequalities to rise and jeopardize
past success, as becomes evident in the dramatically wors-
ening performance over the last few years with regard to the
country’s PISA Social Justice Index ranking. In contrast, for all
its defi ciencies regarding income inequality, the United States
managed to lower the gap in terms of educational performance
between students from high and low socioeconomic back-
grounds, climbing up 18 places on the aforementioned PISA
Social Justice Index and thereby giving reason to be cautiously
optimistic. Overall, however, such disparities illustrate that for
a challenge as complex as inequality, a holistic approach that
captures multiple dimensions will be required.
Aside from domestic reform with regard to problems at
home, this study has made clear that fi ghting extreme poverty
in the poorest regions of the world must remain the top priority
for high-income countries over the period of the SDGs. It will
therefore be necessary for nations at similar income levels such
as Turkey to step up their ODA at least as much (given Turkey’s
signifi cant increase that led to an improvement in the ranking
by 17 places) and fi nally reach the eventual goal of 0.7 percent.
For all its domestic problems, Spain should therefore take inspi-
ration from those nations which have kept their ODA levels at
least constant despite signifi cant domestic problems – rather
than cutting their ODA level by 62 percent.
5.5. Are the best performers in sustainable devel-opment also the most economically powerful or the happiest? A widespread belief is that economic power is the basis upon
which progress in other fi elds can build. The SDGs contain
many dimensions of quality of life beyond merely the sum of
goods and services produced in an economy in order to chart
progress in a comprehensive way. Would a focus on strength-
ening the economy yield automatic rewards for sustainable
development as defi ned by the SDGs and as measured by our
34 indicators? Figure 2 shows the relationship between GDP
Goal Country Percentage change*
Country Percentage change*
1.1 Ireland –27.9 Sweden 83.0
1.2 New Zealand –23.2 Ireland 55.5
2.1 Greece – 61.3 Luxembourg 40.6
2.2 – – – –
3.1 South Korea 7.4 – –
3.2 Chile 17.2 Greece –27.3
4.1 Portugal 45.8 Chile –15.0
4.2 Turkey 7.1 Sweden –4.4
5.1 Slovenia 150.4 Hungary –16.2
5.2 Luxembourg –58.1 Chile 304.2
6.1 Slovakia –39.5 Slovenia 201.9
6.2 Ireland 41.2 Canada – 1.0
7.1 Slovakia –26.6 Iceland 36.8
7.2 United Kingdom 170.4 Turkey –15.6
8.1 Chile 47.1 Luxembourg –12.0
8.2 Israel 15.1 Greece –19.5
9.1 Norway 10.6 Greece –57.2
9.2 Slovakia 84.6 Luxembourg –29.5
10.1 Slovakia –23.4 Sweden 21.5
10.2 United States –50.0 Slovakia 102.1
11.1 Slovakia –76.1 Denmark 150.0
11.2 Turkey 22.2 Slovakia –8.3
12.1 Iceland –38.4 Greece 13.8
12.2 Ireland –49.2 Poland 43.2
13.1 Denmark –35.8 Chile 22.7
13.2 Sweden –35.1 Estonia 51.5
14.1 United States 13.1 Greece –6.9
14.2 Japan –11.9 Italy 40.1
15.1 Estonia 35.2 – –
15.2 – – – –
16.1 Luxembourg –89.5 Mexico 103.2
16.2 Poland 32.6 Slovenia –13.4
17.1 Turkey 355.6 Spain –62.2
17.2 – – – –
Worst deteriorationMost improvement
*Change from oldest to latest year covered in the respective indicator.
Table 2: Biggest improvements and deteriorations in percentage
92
Conclusions: Who is fit for the goals?
and the SDG Index that was produced in this study. Although
the relationship is positive – meaning that economic power
usually goes together with a stronger performance in all other
dimensions of progress in the 17 SDGs – there are a number
of interesting observations to be made here. For instance,
Poland, Estonia, Portugal, and the Czech Republic are just as
strong as the US with regard to sustainable development in
the broad sense as captured by the SDG Index. However, they
manage to generate those other goods deemed valuable for
sustainable development with signifi cantly fewer economic
resources, as their GNI per capita is roughly half of that of the
US. Given its economic power, the US should show leadership
and do more to translate this strength into a more sustain-
able future – probably more so than any other nation in this
study of OECD countries, given its size and important role on
the global stage.
A related question concerns the relationship between
how happy people are and how sustainable their lifestyle is.
A widely held notion is that living in a sustainable fashion
would force us to abandon habits in our day-to-day lives
which were conducive to – or perhaps even invaluable to – our
happiness. Figure 3 shows that this would not be the case,
though. In fact, countries that do better in terms of sustainable
development as measured by the SDG Index are also countries
where people have a higher life satisfaction. The exceptions are
Chile, Mexico, Israel, and the US, where defi cits in sustainable
development seem to affect people’s life satisfaction less than in
other countries. This fi nding leaves food for thought for those
who are trying to strengthen public awareness of the need for
sustainable development.
5.6. Governance and reform capacity outlookGoing forward, countries will need to increase their political
efforts to foster progress on all dimensions of the SDGs. Which
countries seem capable of managing policy reforms toward
more sustainable development in the near future, though? The
Sustainable Governance Indicators – an assessment framework
of country performance involving a network of around 100
academics worldwide – contain both a Democracy Index and
a Governance Index. The Democracy Index assesses how each
country compares with regard to the quality of democracy and
the rule of law, while the Governance Index examines how well
developed reform and governance capacities are in the coun-
tries of the OECD.25 Figures 4 and 5 show the correlations of
the respective index with the SDG Index that captures country
performance that was examined in this study.
Goal Country Rank change*
Country Rank change*
1.1 Ireland 10 Sweden –12
1.2 New Zealand 15 Austria –14
2.1 Greece | Slovenia 5 Hungary | Luxembourg –8
2.2 – – – –
3.1 South Korea 19 United States –5
3.2 Iceland 18 Greece –12
4.1 Luxembourg 9 New Zealand –6
4.2 Poland 13 Sweden –14
5.1 Slovenia 18 Estonia –7
5.2 Luxembourg 12 Chile –17
6.1 Finland | Slovakia 1 Slovenia –5
6.2 United Kingdom 14 Canada and others –4
7.1 Poland | Slovakia 7 Greece –8
7.2 Germany | Italy 6 Australia –9
8.1 Germany 7 Ireland –7
8.2 Germany | Israel 11 Ireland –12
9.1 Canada 17 Greece | Iceland –20
9.2 Estonia | Slovenia 9 Luxembourg –10
10.1 Slovakia 13 Japan –9
10.2 United States 18 Denmark –14
11.1 United States 19 Israel –20
11.2 Turkey 4 Mexico –3
12.1 Iceland 16 Greece –11
12.2 Hungary 16 Poland –13
13.1 Denmark 11 South Korea –6
13.2 Slovakia 10 Estonia –12
14.1 South Korea 11 Greece –7
14.2 Mexico 12 Finland –15
15.1 Estonia 16 Austria and others –3
15.2 – – – –
16.1 Luxembourg 24 Greece –14
16.2 Poland 9 Austria –8
17.1 Turkey 17 Spain –13
17.2 – – – –
Most improvement Worst deterioration
25 For details of the composition of the two indices, see http://www.sgi-network.org
Table 3: Biggest improvements and deteriorations in rank positions
*Rank change from oldest to latest year covered in the respective indicator.
93
4
5
6
7
8
GNI per capita (2014, USD PPP)
20,000 30,000 40,000 60,00050,000 70,000
SDG
Inde
x
MEX
TUR
HUNCHL
GRC
ESTPOL
SVKPRT
SVN
ESPNZL
KORITA
ISR
JPN
GBR
IRLAUS
FIN DNK
AUTISL CAN
SWE
USA
LUX
CHE
NOR
CZE
FRA DEUBEL NLD
Austr
alia
Austr
iaBe
lgium
Cana
daCh
ileCz
ech
Repu
blic
Denm
ark
Esto
niaFin
land
Franc
eGe
rman
yGr
eece
Hung
ary
Icelan
dIre
land
Israe
lIta
lyJa
pan
Kore
a, Re
p.Lu
xembo
urg
Mex
icoNe
ther
lands
New Ze
aland
Norw
ayPo
land
Portu
gal
Slova
kiaSlo
venia
Spain
Swed
enSw
itzer
land
Turke
yUn
ited
King
dom
Unite
d St
ates
AUS
AUT
BEL
CAN
CHL
CZE
DNK
EST
FIN
FRA
DEU
GRC
HUN
ISL
IRL
ISR
ITA JPN
KOR
LUX
MEX
NLD
NZL
NOR
POL
PRT
SVK
SVN
ESP
SWE
CHE
TUR
GBR
USA
Key
Figure 2
4
5
6
7
8
SDG Index
54 6 7 8
Life
sat
isfac
tion
(201
4)
GRC
HUNPRT
ESTPOL
SVNJPN
KOR
SVKITA
TUR
MEXCHL
USAISR
CZE ESP
FRA
IRLGBRLUX
AUSNZL
CANISL
NLDDEUAUT
BEL
CHE DNK
NORSWE
FIN
Figure 3
94
Conclusions: Who is fit for the goals?
by examining the relationship between an objective good
with people’s life satisfaction.29
A related challenge is that there are certain trade-offs
between the goals. Consequently, it will therefore be diffi -
cult to pursue all goals to the same extent all the time. The
aforementioned country-specifi c priorities could therefore
also inform the relative weights given to each SDG and the
corresponding Global Reporting Indicators in every respec-
tive nation. Varying priorities can be refl ected in a hierarchy
of the different goals to enable handling trade-offs between
policy choices and therefore guide policymakers in the alloca-
tion of resources.
5.8. We must remain ambitious because we canThis study examined how high-income countries are cur-
rently performing with regard to the SDGs. It ought to be a
fi rst systematic assessment of developed nations on what are
likely to become the global policy goals for the coming 15
years. It is the fi rst “stress test” of rich countries for the SDGs.
An in-depth look at the performance in the proposed 17
goals revealed that OECD countries currently vary greatly in
their capacity to meet these bold ambitions. It became evident
that not all countries are fi t for the goals, and indeed no coun-
try is showing a stellar performance in all goals. Each country
has their own particular lessons to learn from the others.
It is now clear that rich nations must do more to achieve
the SDGs goals both globally and domestically. The challenge
is huge: Financing the SDGs will require an unprecedented
effort. Nonetheless, we must remain ambitious with regard to
the goals: If the MDGs helped developing countries to reduce
mortality rates among children under fi ve by half during the
last 15 years, then we have every reason to demand that the
SDGs enable high-income countries to manage the transition
toward a more sustainable economic and social model. Going
forward, civil society will have to put pressure on govern-
ments to hold them to account for what they pledge at the UN
summit and accelerate the change over the next 15 years.
This study shall be a start to make that happen.
It becomes evident that in both cases the cross-country corre-
lation is positive, indicating that sustainable development as
defi ned by the 17 SDGs goes hand in hand with the quality of
democracy and the governance capacities in OECD countries.
A closer look reveals interesting specifi cations, though. With
regard to the quality of democracy, it emerges that Hungary,
Turkey, Mexico, and South Korea display defi cits which might
jeopardize progress on the SDGs, even if those goals were
widely accepted among the electorate. Likewise, in terms of
governance capacities of political actors, the Governance Index
shows that certain countries would have a harder time imple-
menting change toward the SDGs, even if there was signifi cant
political will among policymakers to do so. Countries with such
defi cits regarding political steering capability include Hungary,
Greece, Turkey, Slovakia, Portugal, and Mexico. The picture
is different for the US, Poland, Ireland, and Australia. These
countries may lag behind the front-runners in terms of truly
sustainable development, such as the Scandinavian countries.
However, a stronger performance with regard to governance
gives reason to be optimistic that if the political will is there to
improve a nation’s performance regarding the SDGs, the imple-
mentation of the necessary policy changes appears more likely
to be successful.
Governments alone, however, will not be able to gen-
erate suffi cient progress in terms of the SDGs. Sustainable
development is a challenge that requires policymakers as well
as businesses and consumers to join forces and align business
models, codes of practice, and modes of consumption with the
needs of future generations.26
5.7. Country-specific priorities and trade-offs between the goalsOf course, the priorities and challenges differ to a certain
extent for every nation. The country profi les in this study
have shown in which areas countries lag behind and lead the
way, respectively. In addition, however, people of every nation
may prioritize certain goods more than others. Overarching
development strategies such as the SDGs must therefore be
complemented with country-specifi c goals. In other words,
a mix of “Global Reporting Indicators” and “Complementary
National Indicators”27 seems appropriate to strike a balance
between universal SDGs and “Customized Development Goals
(CDGs)”28 for every nation. Such country-specifi c priorities
can be identifi ed in an evidence-based manner, for instance,
26 How small and medium-sized companies can incorporate the notion of sustainability into their everyday practices was outlined, for example, in: Bertelsmann Stiftung and Council for Sustainable Development (2014). Leitfaden zum Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitskodex (Guidelines for the German Sustainability Code). Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.27 Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2015). Indicators and a monitoring framework for the Sustainable Development Goals. http://indicators.report/ 28 Kroll, C. (2014). What makes people happy and why it matters for development. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/sep/03/happiness-economics-wellbeing-mdgs29 Kroll, C. (2015). Global Development and Happiness: How can data on subjective well-being inform development theory and practice? Oxford Development Studies, Volume 43, Issue 3, p. 281 – 309. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600818.2015.1067293#abstract
95
Austr
alia
Austr
iaBe
lgium
Cana
daCh
ileCz
ech
Repu
blic
Denm
ark
Esto
niaFin
land
Franc
eGe
rman
yGr
eece
Hung
ary
Icelan
dIre
land
Israe
lIta
lyJa
pan
Kore
a, Re
p.Lu
xembo
urg
Mex
icoNe
ther
lands
New Ze
aland
Norw
ayPo
land
Portu
gal
Slova
kiaSlo
venia
Spain
Swed
enSw
itzer
land
Turke
yUn
ited
King
dom
Unite
d St
ates
AUS
AUT
BEL
CAN
CHL
CZE
DNK
EST
FIN
FRA
DEU
GRC
HUN
ISL
IRL
ISR
ITA JPN
KOR
LUX
MEX
NLD
NZL
NOR
POL
PRT
SVK
SVN
ESP
SWE
CHE
TUR
GBR
USA
Key
Figure 4
4
5
6
7
8
SGI Democracy Index (2015)
54 6 7 98 10
SDG
Inde
x
HUN
ISL
SWE
TUR
MEX
KOR
JPN
CHL
ESP GBR
USA
NZLLUXAUS
CHEDEU
FRA
BEL NLD
AUT SVNCAN
GRC
PRTCZE
ITA ESTPOL
IRL
SVKISR
NOR
FIN
DNK
Figure 5
4
5
6
7
8
SGI Governance Index (2015)
54 6 7 98
SDG
Inde
x
GRCUSA
HUN
PRT
SVN JPN
CHL
TUR
MEX
ESTKOR
ITA
POL
GBRAUS
NZLLUX
DEUCHE
SWE
ISR
IRL
FRA
SVK
ESPAUT
ISL CAN
BEL
NLD
CZE
FIN
DNKNOR
96
Bibliography
6. Bibliography
Kassenböhmer, S. C., and Schmidt, C. M. (2011). Beyond GDP and Back: What Is the Value-Added
by Additional Components of Welfare Measurement?
SOEPpapers 351. DIW Berlin.
http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/
diw_01.c.368539.de/diw_sp0351.pdf
Kroll, C. (2014). What makes people happy and why it matters for development.
The Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/
2013/sep/03/happiness-economics-wellbeing-mdgs
Kroll, C. (2015). Global Development and Happiness: How can data on subjec-
tive well-being inform development theory and practice?
Oxford Development Studies, Volume 43, Issue 3,
pp. 281–309
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/
13600818.2015.1067293#abstract
OECD (2015). In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefi ts All.
OECD Publishing, Paris.
http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2015-In-It-Together-Chapter1-
Overview-Inequality.pdf
Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals (2014).
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=
view&type=400&nr=1579&menu=1300
Bertelsmann Stiftung (ed.) (2013). Winning Strategies for a Sustainable Future.
Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/publikationen/publikation/did
winning-strategies-for-a-sustainable-future-1/
Bertelsmann Stiftung and German Council for Sustainable Development (2014). Leitfaden zum Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitskodex
[Guidelines for the German Sustainability Code].
Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fi leadmin/fi les/Projekte/31_
Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien/Leitfaden_zum_Deutschen_Nachhaltigkeitskodex.pdf
Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives (2015). Goals for the rich.
https://www.globalpolicywatch.org/wp-content uploads/2015/02/RG-Goals-for-
the-Rich-Advanced-Unedited-Version.pdf
Delhey, J., and Kroll, C. (2012). A “Happiness Test” for the New Measures of National
Well-Being: How Much Better than GDP are they?
WZB Discussion Paper SP I 2012-201, June 2012.
http://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2012/i12-201.pdf
Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., and Sachs, J. (eds.) (2015). World Happiness Report.
New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/04/WHR15.pdf
97
Ostry, J. D., Berg, A., and Tsangarides C. G. (2014). Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth.
IMF Staff Discussion Note.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf
Outcome document for the UN summit on September 25–27, 2015. “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development.”
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/
7891Transforming%20Our%20World.pdf
Sachs, J. (2015). The age of sustainable development.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Schraad-Tischler, D. (2013). Enabling factors for sustainable development – strengthening
rule of law and other key sustainable governance indicators.
Available from www.sgi-network.org
Schraad-Tischler, D., and Kroll, C. (2014). Social Justice in the EU – A Cross-national Comparison.
Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
http://news.sgi-network.org/uploads/tx_amsgistudies/
Social-Justice-in-the-EU-2014.pdf
Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2014). Pathways to deep decarbonization.
http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DDPP_Digit.pdf
Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2015). Indicators and a Monitoring Framework
for the Sustainable Development Goals.
http://indicators.report/
UNDP (2015). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015.
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/mdg/
the-millennium-development-goals-report-2015.html
98
Appendix
7. Appendix: Full list of indicators
Goal 5: Gender equality
Share of women in national parliaments
Source: World Bank Gender StatisticsURL: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspxDate of retrieval: February 5, 2015
Gender pay gap
Source: OECD online databaseURL: stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: August 7, 2015 (fi rst data point),May 1, 2015 (second and third data point)
Goal 6: Water
Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources
Source: World Bank, World Development IndicatorsURL: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspxDate of retrieval: March 29, 2015
Percentage of population connected to wastewater treatment
Source: OECD online databaseURL: stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: May 13, 2015 (second and third data point)
Goal 7: Energy
Energy intensity
Source: IEA CO2 Emissions Highlights 2014URL: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/co2-emissions-from-fuel-combustion-highlights-2014.html
Share of renewable energy in TFEC
Source: World Bank, Sustainable Energy For AllURL: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspxDate of retrieval: February 6, 2015
Goal 8: Economy and labor
GNI per capita, PPP
Source: World Bank, World Development IndicatorsURL: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspxDate of retrieval: August 6, 2015 (fi rst data point),March 6, 2015 (second and third data point)
Employment-to-population ratio
Source: OECD online databaseURL: stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: August 6, 2015 (fi rst data point),February 6, 2015 (second and third data point)
Goal 1: Poverty
Poverty rate, cutoff point 50 percent of median disposable income
Source: OECD online databaseURL: stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: August 7, 2015
Poverty gap, cutoff point 50 percent of median disposable income
Source: OECD online databaseURL: stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: August 6, 2015
Goal 2: Agriculture and nutrition
Gross agricultural nutrient balances, N and P surplus/defi cit intensities per square kilometer of agricultural land, deviation from zero
Source: OECD online databaseURL: stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: May 1, 2015
Obesity rate
Source: OECD Obesity Update 2014URL: http://www.oecd.org/health/obesity-update.htmDate of retrieval: May 5, 2015
Goal 3: Health
Healthy life expectancy
Source: WHO Global Health Observatory Data RepositoryURL: http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.688Date of retrieval: August 6, 2015 (fi rst data point),March 3, 2015 (second and third data point)
Life satisfaction
Source: Gallup World PollURL: http://www.gallup.com/services/170945/world-poll.aspx
Goal 4: Education
Upper secondary attainment
Source: Eurostat online database, OECD online database (AUS, CAN, CHL, ISR, JPN, KOR, MEX, NZL, USA)URL: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: February 6, 2015
PISA results
Source: OECD PISA 2012 (fi rst data point),OECD PISA 2009 (second data point),OECD PISA 2006 (third data point) except USA (OECD PISA 2003)URL: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
4.1
4.2
5.1
5.2
6.1
6.2
7.1
7.2
8.1
8.2
99
Greenhouse gas emissions per GDP
Source: UNFCCC (GHG),IEA CO2 Emissions Highlights 2014 (GDP)URL: http://unfccc.int/di/FlexibleQueries.dohttp://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/ghg_profi les/items/4626.php (CHL, ISR, KOR, MEX),http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/co2-emissions-from-fuel-combustion-highlights-2014.htmlDate of retrieval: February 6, 2015 (UNFCCC)
Goal 14: Oceans
Ocean Health Index
Source: Ocean Health IndexURL: http://www.oceanhealthindex.org/Comparison/Date of retrieval: May 13, 2015
Percentage of fi sh stocks overexploited and collapsed by exclusive economic zone
Source: Environmental Performance Index, Yale UniversityURL: epi.yale.edu
Goal 15: Biodiversity
Terrestrial protected areas
Source: Environmental Performance Index, Yale UniversityURL: epi.yale.edu
Red List Index for birds
Source: OECD online databaseURL: stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: May 5, 2015
Goal 16: Institutions
Homicides
Source: United Nations Offi ce on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Homicide StatisticsURL: https://data.unodc.org/ (fi rst data point),http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/data/GSH2013_Homicide_count_and_rate.xlsx (second and third data point)Date of retrieval: August 6, 2015 (fi rst data point),February 6, 2015 (second and third data point)
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index
Source: Transparency InternationalURL: http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/
Goal 17: Global partnership
Offi cial development assistance as percentage of GNI
Source: OECD online databaseURL: stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: August 6, 2015 (fi rst data point),March 9, 2015 (second and third data point)
Percentage of SDG indicators used in this study that are reported annually with time lag no greater than three years in the respective country
Goal 9: Infrastructure and innovation
Gross fi xed capital formation as percent of GDP
Source: IMF World Economic Outlook April 2013URL: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/index.aspxDate of retrieval: April 21, 2015
Research and development expenditure
Source: OECD online databaseURL: stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: August 7, 2015 (fi rst data point),February 6, 2015 (second and third data point)
Goal 10: Inequality
Palma ratio
Source: OECD online databaseURL: stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: August 7, 2015
PISA Social Justice Index
Source: OECD PISA 2012 (fi rst data point),OECD PISA 2009 (second data point),OECD PISA 2006 (third data point) except USA (OECD PISA 2003)URL: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/
Goal 11: Cities
Particulate matter, share of population exposed to >15 ug/cbm
Source: Environmental Performance Index, Yale UniversityURL: epi.yale.edu
Rooms per person
Source: OECD online databaseURL: stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: August 7 (fi rst data point),May 1 (second and third data point)
Goal 12: Consumption and production
Municipal waste generated
Source: OECD online databaseURL: stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: August 6, 2015 (fi rst and second data point),February 6, 2015 (third data point)
Domestic material consumption
Source: OECD online databaseURL: stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: May 1, 2015
Goal 13: Climate
Production-based energy-related CO2 emissions per capita
Source: OECD online databaseURL: stats.oecd.orgDate of retrieval: May 1, 2015
10.1
9.2
9.1
10.2
11.1
11.2
12.1
12.2
13.1
13.2
15.2
14.1
14.2
15.1
16.1
16.2
17.1
17.2
Publishing information
Bertelsmann StiftungSeptember 2015
Bertelsmann StiftungCarl-Bertelsmann-Straße 25633311 Gütersloh ∙ Germanywww.bertelsmann-stiftung.de
AuthorDr. Christian Kroll
Responsible
Dr. Christian Kroll
Phone +49 5241 81-81471 ∙ Fax +49 5241 81-81999 christian.kroll@bertelsmann-stiftung.de
Research and editorial assistanceSascha Matthias Heller, Berlin
EditingTextklinik, DüsseldorfDr. Barbara Serfozo, Berlin
Statistics and calculations advisorDr. Margit Kraus (Calculus Consult)
Graphic designkopfstand, Bielefeld
Photography (cover)Dimitrios Stefanidis – iStockphoto.com
PrintingDruckhaus Rihn, Blomberg
SDG Index
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Finland
Switzerland
Germany
Netherlands
Belgium
Iceland
France
Canada
Austria
Japan
Slovenia
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Luxembourg
Australia
Spain
Ireland
Estonia
Poland
Korea, Rep.
Czech Republic
Portugal
Italy
Slovakia
Israel
United States
Greece
Chile
Hungary
Turkey
Mexico
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
13
15
16
17
18
18
20
21
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
7.86
7.79
7.55
7.52
7.21
7.08
7.04
7.00
6.97
6.94
6.93
6.92
6.91
6.91
6.83
6.80
6.66
6.65
6.65
6.47
6.42
6.42
6.32
6.24
6.23
6.13
6.02
6.01
5.95
5.88
5.73
5.55
5.19
4.91
0 4.00
2.00
6.00
9.00
1. 00
5.00
8.00
3.00
7.00
10.00
This fi gure displays the world‘s fi rst SDG Index. It illustrates the overall performance of each OECD country based on the 17 goals and 34 indicators examined in the study. In sum, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Switzerland are best prepa-red to meet the SDGs and in a good position to foster sustainable development by 2030. However, even these countries are faced with particular challenges, as the country profi les in this study illustrate.
SDG Index
Address | Contact
Bertelsmann Stiftung
Carl-Bertelsmann-Straße 256
33311 Gütersloh
Germany
Phone +49 5241 81-0
Dr. Christian Kroll
Phone +49 5241 81-81471
christian.kroll@bertelsmann-stiftung.de
www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en
www.sgi-network.org
top related