sustainable development goals: are the rich … sustainable development goals 8. this stress test...

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.


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


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


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 assessment 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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



per GDP

1313.1

13.2

21


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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).


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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).


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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.


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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.


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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.


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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.


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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.


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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.


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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.


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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.


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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,


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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.


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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.


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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.


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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.


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



per GDP

1313.1

13.2

51

United States | Country profiles


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


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


11.11.2


22.12.2


33.13.2


44.14.2


77.17.2


88.18.2


99.19.2


66.1

6.2


55.1

5.2



1010.110.2


1111.111.2



1212.112.2



1414.114.2



1515.115.2



1616.116.2



1717.117.2



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


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


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


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


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


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].


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.


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


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




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)


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 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


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)



Goal 13: Climate

Production-based energy-related CO2 emissions per capita


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 [email protected]

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


Carl-Bertelsmann-Straße 256

33311 Gütersloh

Germany

Phone +49 5241 81-0

Dr. Christian Kroll

Phone +49 5241 81-81471

[email protected]

www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en

www.sgi-network.org

sustainable development goals: are the rich … sustainable development goals 8. this stress test...

Documents