In Search of Sustainable Economy Indicators: A Comparative Analysis between the Sustainable Development Goals Index and the Green Growth Index

Abstract

The absence of globally accepted indicators for measuring progress towards a Sustainable Economy (SE) presents a significant challenge in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a timely and comprehensive manner. Despite decades of attempts to develop alternative metrics and indicators for SE and Sustainable Development (SD), progress has been incremental and incomplete. This paper aims to comparatively assess the existing metrics for measuring progress towards SE based on their completeness and utility in various SE dimensions, attributes and characteristics. It aims to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of each identified metric and provide a detailed analysis of existing sustainability indices through a comprehensive literature review and analysis.. The importance and originality of our approach come from comparative analysis, mapping promising and relevant metrics identified through an extensive literature review against identified sustainability features. This paper employs the Sustainable Development Goals Index (SDGI) and the Green Growth Index (GGI) and applies them to Qatar and few selected countries. Qatar is showing noteworthy progress in both indices, albeit at varying rates, but it has more room for progress by learning from other countries. This study acknowledges its limitations, including data availability for a limited period and its application to only a selected set of countries. Finally, it recommends future research to broaden the scope of analysis over an extended timeframe and to a larger group of countries, enhancing the applicability and depth of the indices.

1. Introduction

The absence of globally accepted indicators for measuring progress towards a Sustainable Economy (SE) presents a significant challenge in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a timely and comprehensive manner. Despite decades of attempts to develop alternative metrics and indicators for SE and Sustainable Development (SD), progress has been incremental and incomplete. Indicators, metrics, and indices are essential for guiding transformation efforts, plans, and strategies for SE and SD, as well as improving timely and effective decision making.

This paper contributes to the literature by comparatively assessing the existing metrics for measuring progress towards SE based on their completeness and utility in various SE dimensions, attributes and characteristics. It aims to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of each identified metric and provide a detailed analysis of existing sustainability indices through a comprehensive literature review and analysis. Its importance and originality come from providing comparative analysis and mapping the promising relevant metrics identified by the literature review against identified characteristic features and against Sustainability Indicators to determine which indicators cover most SE features and carry out comparative analyses among each other. The identified features of SE used in this paper are based on the findings of Al-Thani and Koç [1]. This paper aims to determine which indicator or index reflects most SE features and applies to Qatar and a few other benchmark countries to evaluate the applicability of the metrics.

This paper’s contribution lies in its novel approach to evaluating the effectiveness of Sustainable Economy Indicators (SEIs). It provides a detailed analysis and examination of sustainability indices, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses, mainly focusing on the Sustainable Development Goals Index (SDGI) and the Green Growth Index (GGI). This paper enriches academic literature and holds profound implications for policy makers and stakeholders by guiding the selection and application of appropriate SE metrics. It significantly contributes to the ongoing efforts to shape a sustainable future by offering novel insights and a methodological framework.

In short, this paper addresses the critical need for dynamic and comprehensive sustainability metrics. It aims to contribute meaningfully to measuring the progress towards SE, beginning with Qatar as a benchmark and extending the applicability of the SEIs to a set of selected countries to come up with lessons and experiences of the most appropriate SEIs.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Adopting a Definition of a Sustainable Economy

This paper adopts the definition of SD as: “a value-based, dynamic balancing process of sustaining a system that meets the needs of today’s all living creatures while not compromising the system’s ability to meet future needs of all living creatures” [1], which is more comprehensive than the commonly used definition of “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations” [2].

Based on this definition of SD, the adopted definition of SE could be: “a value-based, dynamic and balanced economic system that meets today’s all living creatures’ needs within ecological and social limits while not compromising the system’s ability to meet future needs of all living creatures” [1]. This definition highlights the significance of an economic system that focuses on monetary, efficiency and productivity and includes other dimensions and pillars of sustainability.

2.2. The Need for Metrics

Metrics for SD, including indicators and indices, should enable better decision making [3] and could link the micro-to-macro aspects of SD [4], which could help develop relationships to better understand complex overlapping connections.

An indicator is a single metric that indicates the state and progress of a specific system [5] and how it functions, thereby assisting in measuring progress towards goals and better defining and connecting performance to goals [6]. Indicators provide specific information relevant to a particular aspect [7].

On the other hand, an index is a composite of indicators summarized in a single value that reflects the weights of the underlying indicators [8]. A wide range of methodological and aggregation options, including weighing sums regarding SEIs, could allow for subjectivity [9].

2.3. Sustainability Metrics

SD considers human development and sustainability as part of measuring sustainability [10], and there is a clear shift away from focusing solely on the economic dimension towards more inclusion of social and ecological dimensions [11]. There are hundreds of SD-related metrics [12]; however, there is no consensus on the best approach to designing and applying these metrics [3].

Furthermore, Sustainability Indicators (SIs) are subject to time and spatial variables [13]. For example, a five-year reading for an SI could give a different trend and conclusion than the ten years. This is illustrated in Figure 1, demonstrating that the first five-year period shows progress and a positive trend. In contrast, the next five-year period shows deterioration and a negative trend, although there is positive progress for the entire fifteen-year period.

The accuracy of SIs depends on the sustainability definition adopted and what is intended to be measured. For example, although many indicators and targets are linked to the SDGs, only a few metrics reflect economic and health measures combined [14].

Many SIs are either unsuitable or not applicable to all countries [15] or lack data availability [12]. Thus, the feasibility of indicators is subject to data availability, the country’s development level due to its capacity for know-how, and the complexity of deriving the indicator.

Dashboards give more information than indices because they can cover more areas of sustainability (economic, social, and environmental), and each metric can be viewed with precision. For example, according to [10], a single indicator is insufficient to assess SD progress and is impractical for policy purposes. This implies that it is more practical to use dashboards in some cases; however, there may be discrepancies between some indices or indicators, causing confusion for stakeholders [16].

2.4. Possible Sustainable Economy Indicators

According to Agenda 21 [17], the most commonly used economic indicators and metrics do not adequately cover sustainability. These indicators do not help measure sustainability and do not help make more sustainable decisions [18]. Gross domestic product (GDP) is the most commonly used indicator for measuring economic performance [3]. Still, it does not reflect environmental and social aspects [11] and focuses solely on economic growth without internalizing the costs and impacts of growth on society and the environment [19]. Many researchers and experts have proposed alternatives to GDP or ways to complement it to reflect better social and environmental aspects [18]. In contrast, others believe that building a greener alternative to GDP might not be feasible [7].

The reviewed literature identified several indicators and indices that could be probable metrics for sustainability, including the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) [19,20]; Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) [21,22]; Adjusted Net Savings (ANS) [8]; Better Life Index (BLI) [23,24,25]; World Happiness Index (WHI) [26,27]; Human Development Index (HDI) [28,29,30]; Happy Planet Index (HPI) [31,32]; Environmental Performance Index (EPI) [33]; Ecological Footprint (EF) [29,34,35]; Green Growth Index (GGI) [36]. Understanding these metrics individually and then focusing on the ones that cover more sustainability aspects is a reasonable exercise.

Without an adequate Sustainable Economy Indicator (SEI), some could attempt to develop their dashboard of indicators, which will necessitate a bottom-up approach of gathering experts and stakeholders and allowing them to dialogue and interact [16]. Metrics could be selected to correspond to regional, national, and district themes [37]. Selecting or developing a customized set of metrics and indicators would require engagement from all relevant stakeholders through discussion of priorities and holding workshops to define the requirements, the set of criteria for selecting indicators, and checking for data availability, affordability, inclusiveness, robustness, ease of measurement, and scalability [38]. However, there will always be tradeoffs to be considered.

Thus, there are several promising SEIs. Even though they might fall short of measuring some of SE’s features, they remain good starting points for measuring progress towards SE.

3. Methodology

This research aims to answer the following questions:

1-

Are there any readily available metrics to measure progress towards SE?

2-

Do these metrics give similar results?

The methodology of this research synthesizes a comprehensive approach for measuring progress towards SE, drawing from the foundational work of Al-Thani and Koç [1] and expanding upon it with empirical data analysis. The methodology encompasses several steps, each building upon the previous to ensure a holistic assessment of SE progress. Figure 2 shows the process and methodology.

3.1. Definition and Feature Selection

Adopting a clear definition of SE is paramount. This study uses the definition and core features of SE as outlined by Al-Thani and Koç [1], which emphasizes the integration of economic activities within ecological and social boundaries. The features identified in their paper serve as the foundation for our analysis.

3.2. Literature Review and Empirical Foundation

A literature review was conducted to identify existing metrics for SE, which provided a foundation for the analysis. This review considered metrics that cover the economic, social, and environmental pillars of sustainability, ensuring a multi-dimensional approach to measure progress towards SE.

3.3. Metric Availability and Relevance

This study then evaluates which metrics are available and most relevant for measuring progress towards SE. This involves an assessment of widely recognized sustainability metrics that capture SE features, ensuring the analysis is grounded in practical, real-world considerations.

3.4. Metric Matching and Coverage Analysis

Each available metric is to be mapped against the core features of SE. This matching process aims to evaluate the coverage of each of the selected metrics of the SE feature. The tool kit for the analysis of the data is Microsoft Excel 365 spreadsheet since most of the data were downloaded in that format.

3.5. Comparative Analysis of Metrics

The selected metrics follow a comparative analysis to assess their comparability, robustness, and practicality. This step involved critically evaluating how these metrics interrelate and their suitability for measuring progress towards SE across different countries.

3.6. Real-World Empirical Testing

A real-world empirical test application by measuring the selected metrics against Qatar’s performance. Qatar, whose SE efforts were the basis of the Al-Thani and Koç [1] study, serves as the benchmark country. The performance of these metrics in Qatar’s context provided insights into their applicability and relevance. A set of countries is to be chosen based on the selection criteria. This comparative analysis aims to evaluate the applicability of these metrics, understand how Qatar’s efforts align with those of other countries, and identify best practices in the pursuit of SE. The analysis will first compare and analyze the selected countries in terms of general scores for the most probable indices for SE and then will compare these indices for each country. The countries to be chosen based on the following criteria:

1. Sustainability Goals: Countries with explicit goals or visions for sustainability. This allows for comparing different national strategic approaches and progress towards sustainability objectives. The focus and orientation of a country’s national policies related to sustainability. This helps in understanding different strategic approaches to achieving sustainability and green growth.

2. Economic Structure: Countries with similar economic foundations, particularly those reliant on hydrocarbons. This helps in analyzing the sustainability strategies of economies transitioning from resource-based economies. Focus on countries with varying levels of natural resources, from resource rich to resource limited. This criterion is critical to understanding how natural resource availability impacts sustainability strategies.

3. Policy Orientation: Countries’ focus and orientation of national policies provide a basis for comparing strategic approaches to sustainability and green growth.

4. Development Stage: Countries at various stages of development (developing vs. developed). This provides insights into sustainability challenges and achievements across different economic contexts.

5. Data Availability: Inclusion of countries with reliable and consistent sustainability data. This is crucial for the accuracy and robustness of the comparative analysis.

6. Geographic Location: This criterion is important for understanding regional environmental challenges and opportunities and comparing within a similar climatic and geographic context. It is also important to include countries outside the region to understand regional implications. Furthermore, proximity could imply similar cultural factors can significantly influence environmental policies and sustainability practices, making this a relevant criterion for comparative analysis. On the other hand, selecting countries from outside the region could help contrast countries in the region with them.

3.7. Conclusion Drawing

The analysis provides insights and recommendations for utilizing and enhancing SE metrics, aiming to contribute to the body of knowledge on sustainable development and inform policy making. Furthermore, it could contribute to drawing conclusions about Qatar’s progress towards SE and comparing it with other countries. This paper recognizes potential limitations, such as the dynamic nature of SE metrics and the countries’ evolving policy landscapes.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Mapping Indicators and Indices

Based on the literature review, mapping the potential SEIs along the three dimensions of sustainability reveals that only a few existing indices cover all dimensions, while the rest are more lenient towards one sustainability dimension than the others. For example, the GPI [21,22], ISEW [19,20], BLI [23,24,25,39], GGI [36,40], and SDGI [35] seem to cover all dimensions of sustainability; however, the accuracy of coverage is subject to what aspects are covered in each sustainability dimension.

Not all identified indicators cover all countries; some indicators are very limited in country coverage. Another important consideration is the availability and accuracy of data for each covered country.

4.2. Comparative Analysis of Sustainability Metrics

To better understand how these metrics capture the features of SE, the work of Al-Thani and Koç identified 15 core features of SE based on the feedback of sustainability experts in Qatar [1]. These features are: (1) sustainability focused, (2) circular, (3) economic activity within ecological limits, (4) fairness and equity, (5) resilient, (6) long-term view, (7) well-being focused, (8) inclusive, (9) knowledge based economy, (10) balanced, (11) social development, (12) internalization of externalities, (13) dynamic, (14) creative and innovative and (15) entrepreneurial. It is possible to score each metric against the SE features (

Table 1. Metrics Benchmarking.

Features		Metrics
Rank	Sustainable Economy	GDP	EF	EPI	HPI	WHI	ANS	HDI	ISEW	GPI	BLI	SDGI	GGI
1	Sustainability focused		X	X	X		X		X	X	X	X	X
2	Circular											X	X
3	Economic activity within ecological limits		X	X	X		X				X	X	X
4	Fairness and equity					X				X	X	X	X
5	Resilient
6	Long-term view											X	X
7	Well-being Focused			X	X	X	X		X	X	X	X	X
8	Inclusive							X	X	X	X	X	X
9	Knowledge-based economy										X	X	X
10	Balanced											X	X
11	Social development				X	X		X	X	X	X	X	X
12	Internalization of externalities						X		X	X		X	X
13	Dynamic											X	X
14	Creative and innovative											X	X
15	Entrepreneurial
	Score	0	2	3	4	3	4	2	5	6	7	13	13
	Percentage	0%	13%	20%	27%	20%	27%	13%	33%	40%	47%	87%	87%

) and then explore which of the identified promising metrics meets the largest number of SE features and determine its fitness for becoming a potential SEI.

GDP received the lowest score, zero, while EF and EPI mostly focused on environmental sustainability and scored two and three, respectively. In addition, EF was developed in 1996 by Wackernagel and Rees and measures the needed amount of biological area to produce human needs and waste absorption, known as the load [8]. The situation is considered unsustainable if the load exceeds the ecological capacity [3]. It focuses mainly on the environmental dimension but is biased against small countries [8]. It cannot serve as a standalone SE or SD indicator since it mainly focuses on the environmental pillar only; however, it could add value upon integration with other indicators or as a part of a dashboard.

The EPI ranks 180 countries based on 11 categories of 32 performance indicators divided into two performance areas: Ecosystems Vitality and Environmental Health [28]. Even though the EPI focuses on the ecological side, it gives a different result than the EF. It could be a potential index for ecological and environmental evaluation but not for sustainability in general.

The HPI is one of the earliest measures of well-being [32]; it attempts to use data on people’s well-being [41] to measure how efficiently countries are delivering happy and long lives within ecological limits and then ranks them from top to bottom (Happy Planet Index). It also uses life expectancy multiplied by well-being divided by EF per capita. The downside is that it uses EF per capita as a denominator, which is mostly biased against countries with less population.

On the other hand, WHI and HDI primarily focus on social development while ignoring environmental sustainability, scoring three and two, respectively. The HDI was adopted by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in 1990 [42]. It is a composite index that includes a combination of three indicators: income, life expectancy at birth, and level of education [18]. It is more of a socioeconomic index. According to [43], the HDI lacks two important aspects: freedom and environment.

On the other hand, WHI is a survey-based method conducted by the Gallup World Poll [8]. It is published each year in the World Happiness Report (WHR) and is based on six factors: levels of GDP, life expectancy, generosity, social support, freedom, and corruption. It also measures happiness based on socioeconomic factors.

The ANS is calculated in percentages of Gross National Income (GNI). It equals net national savings plus education expenditure, less energy depletion, less mineral depletion, less net forest depletion, and less carbon dioxide, excluding particulate emissions damage [44]. A positive ANS percentage indicates that the country is sustainable. In contrast, a negative percentage indicates that depreciation of natural capital is higher than investment in building capital to compensate for natural capital loss. The ANS captures parts of the economic, social, and environmental aspects but in a limited manner and considers a very weak form of sustainability by assigning economic value to natural capital.

The ISEW scores higher than the ANS and shares the weak form of sustainability but captures more aspects of sustainability pillars; however, it has been superseded by the GPI. Thus, this index could be dropped in favor of the GPI since it covers the same factors along with some additional ones. While GPI scores six, the second lowest score in capturing SE features, it should also be dropped since the other metrics score relatively higher. According to [11], the ISEW and GPI are the most commonly used indicators for measuring economic sustainability. It could be calculated at the country level as well as for domestic districts and local provinces [45]. One of the critiques of the ISEW is that it uses commutative accounting for calculating environmental costs; this could exaggerate the values, which would do a disservice to the ISEW [46]. The GPI is an indicator that covers areas not covered by the ISEW. According to research [21], the ISEW and GPI do not adequately reflect the changes in the stock of human capital, such as health and knowledge, due to not considering human capital as a reference point. On the other hand, no metric reflects human and economic welfare and GPI and ISEW are considered part of economic accounting [22], which is not a weakness since neither is intended to measure human well-being.

The GPI considers the difference between economic activities that increase and reduce welfare [11]. On that basis, GPI could be used as SEI [47]. Still, it is criticized for the assumption and component variable estimation and sensitivity to depletion of non-renewable resources, income inequality, and climate change [48]. Moreover, the valuation of natural capital depletion and public services is subject to market prices and financial assumptions, which could cause variation in the GPI estimation. Thus, standardization of methods and data sources could minimize variation [47].

The BLI scores seven, the second highest score. Its website allows people from other countries to provide their responses; however, it mainly focuses on Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and only provides a ranking for them to understand what derives well-being [24]. It is based on eleven elements, eight related to Quality of Life and three to Material Conditions. In addition, it delves deeper into the details of the data, such as gender, age, and education level [39]. However, most countries outside the OECD cannot use this index. With some enhancement, BLI could become a potential index for SE, although it is most useful for OECD and developed countries at this stage.

The SDGI is an index that measures progress towards the overall 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [49]. The SDGs are developed using a top-down approach at a high level and from a global perspective, with a large number of goals and indicators. However, in many instances, countries need more customized indicators that correspond to their circumstances and development needs [38].

The 2021 Sustainable Development Report ranks 165 countries based on the SDGI score derived from 120 indicators provided by reputable international bodies. The SDGI score is derived through the normalization of scores so that the score ranges from one to one hundred, and each SDG is given equal weight, with all adding up to one hundred as a maximum [49]. This makes it easy to compare historical scores and progress over time for a single or group of countries. Still, due to the evolution of the historical index, comparability might be a challenge.

According to the SDGI in the 2021 Sustainable Development Report, it was mentioned that due to the refinement of the methodology, it might not be helpful to compare the ranking of this report with previous reports. Furthermore, according to [50], the indicator could pose a challenge in terms of historical data comparison since it kept evolving by adding new relevant indicators as they became available (i.e., in 2016, the SDGI consisted of 60 indicators, while in 2018, it expanded to 88 indicators). This could be an issue; however, given that this is a relatively new index, it is expected to have some challenges. Still, such modifications and refinements are expected to diminish as the indicator evolves. Adding new indicators gives a dynamic feature to this index but also puts forward the challenge of carrying out historical time series analysis and making historical comparisons.

Nonetheless, the indicator still provides rich and valuable information that could be helpful for policy and decision making and the academic community. Experts have been engaged with member countries (civil societies, governments, and the private sector) to identify indicators. Formal comments and communication were considered and integrated.

Another challenge is that sourcing data from reputed international organizations could cause a two- to three-year lag due to reporting and data validation. The calculation is processed to eliminate extreme values from the distribution by rescaling and normalizing each indicator and then aggregating with equal weighting [50].

The SDGs are developed using a top-down approach at a high level and from a global perspective, with a large number of goals and indicators. Still, in many instances, countries need more customized indicators that correspond to their circumstances and development needs [38]. Even though the SDGI encompasses all SDGs, this does not imply that SDGs are sufficient to meet SE features and individual country priorities, given that many factors relevant to sustainability are unknown. Nevertheless, SDGI is one of the best indices for SE since it encompasses most SE features and scores thirteen, sharing the highest score with GGI. Therefore, it is a good candidate for measuring SE.

The GGI measures a country’s progress towards sustainability targets, including the SDGs, the Paris Climate Agreement, and Aichi Biodiversity Targets for green growth such as efficient and sustainable use of resources, protection of natural capital, green economic opportunities, and social inclusion (Figure 3).

This includes all economic, social, and environmental sustainability aspects. It was first launched in 2019 by the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) [51]. This index captures SE features and scores thirteen in our comparative metric (Table 1), sharing the highest score with SDGI.

The index results from the normalized aggregation of indicators within the four dimensions, with a maximum score of one hundred [36]. Furthermore, correlation tests were carried out among indicators in each dimension to ensure no multicollinearity and enhance statistical power. This index prefers rankings on a regional basis rather than a global basis. The normalization makes it easy to use this index as a comparative tool for progress towards sustainability. However, like the SDGI, this index is relatively new, and changes in methodology and additions of new indicators could make scoring and ranking volatile.

Furthermore, more than 300 experts in more than 40 countries have carried out a significant amount of work, including sensitivity analysis, to evaluate the impact of uncertainty in indicators and input targets that showed minimal impact on the index [36]. This increases the transparency and confidence in GGI.

The SDGI is also one of the best indices for SE since it encompasses most SE features and scores thirteen, sharing the highest score with the GGI. Both indices are considered very recent and were first published in 2016 and 2019, respectively, which might not be regarded as a considerable time gap between their development timing. Therefore, the three-year difference is not expected to pose a challenge in choosing which index to adopt. In short, both are considered relatively new in comparison with other indices.

Table 2. Comparison between SDGI and GGI.

Background Information	SDGI	GGI
Starting Year	2016	2019
Countries Covered	165	140
Indicators	120	40
Scoring	100	100
Aggregation	Yes	Yes
Time Lag	up to 3 years	up to 3 years
Basis	SDGs	Sustainability (including SDGs)
Data Sources	International Bodies	International Bodies
Expandability	Dynamic and Expandable	Dynamic and Expandable
Ranking Level	Global	Regional
Methodology	Scientific	Scientific
Selection of Indicators	Countries, Experts, Consultants	Countries, Experts, Consultants
Statistical Presentation	Yes	Yes
Visual Presentation	Yes	Yes
Missing Features	Entrepreneurship, Economic Resilience	Entrepreneurship, Economic Resilience

summarizes the main similarities and differences between SDGI and GGI.

In addition, the SDGI mainly measures progress towards the SDGs, while the GGI measures sustainability, including achieving the SDGs. Both cover a wide range of countries (165 and 140, respectively), indicating that data are available for most countries. Although there is a minor disparity, if the set of countries being observed is not in one of the indices, the choice is to go with the one with the most coverage of the observed countries.

Both indices give maximum scores of one hundred. This is very helpful in ranking countries and making progress comparisons for the same countries or comparisons with other countries. However, caution should be considered here: a historical comparison might not give an accurate conclusion for both indices. This is because both evolve by integrating new indicators and metrics annually or changing calculation methodologies. The adaptability to include changes in the framework of both indices adds a dynamic aspect to them; however, it is at the cost of losing historical comparison accuracy through volatility in ranking.

There is a difference between the two indices regarding ranking basis. While the SDGI ranks at the global level, the GGI focuses on the regional level. Still, it depends on whether the global or regional context is more important for the researcher’s purpose. This is relevant to the spatial issue of an index, but overall, in both indices, the geographical concern is defined by the country’s border, which is not a serious concern. In some cases, the regional context could be more meaningful for comparison, in which case the GGI could be considered more appropriate. Still, since it uses one hundred as the maximum, the ranking could be modified to reflect the global position with little effort. The SDGI also provides progress reports at the regional level. Therefore, the reporting basis is not an issue, and both appear adequate in terms of spatial definition.

Another noteworthy point is that both indices rely on reputable international organizations for data collection and processing. This might cause a time lag of up to three years but minimizes the chance of revising the data since many reputable international organizations, including the World Bank, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations bodies, have their own methods of managing, processing, and treating data to ensure accuracy. In this case, there is a tradeoff between recent data and quality data, in which quality data come at the cost of time. Thus, it is important to obtain the data directly from the statistical authority of a country to stay up to date. In some cases, this might require more time and effort to organize the data since different countries report statistical data in different formats. In many cases, the early numbers might be revised later, reducing accuracy while increasing effort and time.

The SDGI and GGI include 120 and 40 metrics and indices, of which ten overlap. The indicators building up both indices have been analyzed and mapped individually across the identified SE features.

Table A1. SDGI and GGI Indicators Mapping onto the Proposed Sustainability Features.

Sustainability Feature	No.	Relevant to SDG No.	Indicator	Relevance
Sustainability focused	1	2	Yield gap closure (% of potential yield)	Medium
	2	2	Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (best 0–1.41 worst)	High
	3	2	Exports of hazardous pesticides (tonnes per million population)	Medium
	4	6	Scarce water consumption embodied in imports (m3/capita)	High
	5	7	CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for electricity and heating per total electricity output (MtCO2/TWh)	High
	6	12	Municipal solid waste (kg/capita/day)	High
	7	12	Electronic waste (kg/capita)	High
	8	12	Production-based SO2 emissions (kg/capita)	High
	9	12	SO2 emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita)	High
	10	12	Production-based nitrogen emissions (kg/capita)	High
	11	12	Nitrogen emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita)	High
	12	13	CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production (tCO2/capita)	High
	13	13	CO2 emissions embodied in imports (tCO2/capita)	High
	14	13	CO2 emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports (kg/capita)	High
	15	12/15	Soil nutrient budget (Kg/Hectare)	High
	16	12	Total material footprint (MF) per capita population (Tons/Capita)	High
	17	13	Ratio of CO2 emissions to population, including AFOLU (Tons/capita)	High
	18	13	Ratio of non-CO2 emissions (CH4, N2O and F-gas) excluding AFOLU to population (CO2 equivalent tons per capita)	High
	19	13	Ratio of non-CO2 emissions (CH4, N2O and F-gas) in Agriculture and LUCF to population (CO2 eq tons per capita)	High
	20	13	Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO2 (%, worst 0–100 best)	High
	21	14	Mean area that is protected in marine sites important to biodiversity (%)	High
	22	14	Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0–100 best)	High
	23	14	Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch)	High
	24	14	Fish caught by trawling or dredging (%)	High
	25	14	Fish caught that are then discarded (%)	High
	26	14	Marine biodiversity threats embodied in imports (per million population)	High
	27	15	Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (%)	High
	28	15	Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%)	High
	29	15	Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best)	High
	30	15	Terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity threats embodied in imports (per million population)	High
	31	2/12	Share of agriculture organic to total agriculture land area (%)	High
	32	13	Share of ruminant livestock population to agricultural area (%)	High
	33	13	Share of food loss to production and food waste to food consumption (%)	High
	34	12/15	Soil nutrient budget (Kg/Hectare)	High
	35	11	3 Municipal solid waste (MSW) generation per capita (tons/capita)	High
	36	14/15	Average proportion of Key Biodiversity Areas covered by protected areas (%)	Medium
	37	15	Share of forest area to total land area (%)	Medium
	38	15	Above-ground biomass stock in forest (Tons/hectare)	Medium
	39	14/15	Share of terrestrial and marine protected areas to total territorial areas	Medium
Circular	40	6	Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources)	Medium
	41	6	Anthropogenic wastewater that receives treatment (%)	Medium
	42	7	Share of renewable energy in total primary energy supply (%)	Medium
	43	12	Non-recycled municipal solid waste (kg/capita/day)	Medium
	44	8/12	Total domestic material consumption (DMC) per unit of GDP (Kg/ GDP)	Medium
	45	15	Permanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average)	Medium
Economic Growth within Ecological Limits	46	7	Ratio of total primary energy supply to GDP, or energy intensity level of primary energy (%)	Medium
	47	8	Unemployment rate (% of total labor force)	Medium
	48	17	Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants (% of GDP)	Medium
	49	14	Sustainable fisheries as a proportion of GDP (%)	High
	50	12	Share of export of environmental goods (OECD and APEC classifications) to total export (%)	Medium
	51	9	Share of green employment in total manufacturing employment (%)	High
	52	5/9/11	Universal access to sustainable transport (Score)	Medium
	53	7/9/12/17	Efficiency in sustainable transport	Medium
	54	6	Water use efficiency	Medium
Fairness and Equity	55	5	Demand for family planning satisfied by modern methods (% of females aged 15 to 49)	High
	56	5	Ratio of female-to-male mean years of education received (%)	High
	57	5	Ratio of female-to-male labor force participation rate (%)	High
	58	5	Seats held by women in national parliament (%)	High
	59	5	Gender wage gap (% of male median wage)	High
	60	5	Gender gap in time spent doing unpaid work (minutes/day)	High
	61	8	Fundamental labor rights are effectively guaranteed (worst 0–1 best)	High
	62	8	Employment-to-population ratio (%)	High
	63	9	Gap in internet access by income (percentage points)	High
	64	9	Female share of graduates from STEM fields at the tertiary level (%)	High
	65	16	Press Freedom Index (best 0–100 worst)	High
	66	16	Access to and affordability of justice (worst 0–1 best)	High
	67	16	Persons held in prison (per 100,000 population)	High
	68	5/8	Gender ratio of account at a financial institution or mobile-money-service provider (Ratio)	Medium
	69	5/10	Getting paid, laws and regulations for equal gender pay (Score)	Medium
Resilient			INDIRECTLY
Long-Term View			INDIRECTLY
Well-Being Focused	70	2	Prevalence of undernourishment (%)	Medium
	71	2	Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%)	Medium
	72	2	Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%)	Medium
	73	2	Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population)	Medium
	74	3	Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births)	Medium
	75	3	Neonatal mortality rate (per 1000 live births)	Medium
	76	3	Mortality rate under-5 (per 1000 live births)	Medium
	77	3	Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 population)	Medium
	78	3	New HIV infections (per 1000 uninfected population)	Medium
	79	3	Age-standardized death rate due to cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease in adults aged 30–70 years (%)	Medium
	80	3	Age-standardized death rate attributable to household air pollution and ambient air pollution (per 100,000 population)	Medium
	81	3	Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population)	Medium
	82	3	Life expectancy at birth (years)	High
	83	3	Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1000 females aged 15 to 19)	Medium
	84	3	Births attended by skilled health personnel (%)	High
	85	3	Surviving infants who received 2 WHO-recommended vaccines (%)	Medium
	86	3	Universal health coverage (UHC) index of service coverage (worst 0–100 best)	High
	87	3	Subjective well-being (average ladder score, worst 0–10 best)	High
	88	3	Daily smokers (% of population aged 15 and over)	Low
	89	8	Fatal work-related accidents embodied in imports (per 100,000 population)	Low
	90	10	Elderly poverty rate (% of population aged 66 or over)	Low
	91	11	Annual mean concentration of particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) (μg/m³)	High
	92	11	Access to improved water source piped (% of urban population)	High
	93	11	Satisfaction with public transport (%)	Medium
	94	11	Population with rent overburden (%)	Medium
	95	16	Homicides (per 100,000 population)	Medium
	96	16	Unsentenced detainees (% of prison population)	Medium
	97	16	Population who feel safe walking alone at night in the city or area where they live (%)	Medium
	98	3	DALY rate due to unsafe water sources (DALY lost per 100,000 persons)	Medium
Inclusive	99	3	Gap in life expectancy at birth among regions (years)	Medium
	100	3	Gap in self-reported health status by income (percentage points)	Medium
	101	4	Net primary enrollment rate (%)	Medium
	102	4	Lower secondary completion rate (%)	Medium
	103	4	Variation in science performance explained by socio-economic status (%)	Medium
	104	4	Underachievers in science (% of 15-year-olds)	Medium
	105	4	Resilient students in science (% of 15-year-olds)	Medium
	106	6	Population using at least basic drinking water services (%)	Medium
	107	6	Population using at least basic sanitation services (%)	Medium
	108	6	Population using safely managed water services (%)	Medium
	109	6	Population using safely managed sanitation services (%)	Medium
	110	7	Population with access to electricity (%)	Medium
	111	7	Population with access to clean fuels and technology for cooking (%)	Medium
	112	9	Population using the internet (%)	Medium
	113	9	Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population)	Medium
	114	10	Gini coefficient adjusted for top income	High
	115	10	Palma ratio	High
	116	11	Proportion of urban population living in slums (%)	High
	117	17	For high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional public finance, including official development assistance (% of GNI)	Medium
	118	6/7	Population with access to basic services, i.e., water, sanitation, electricity, and clean fuels (%)	Medium
	119	1	Proportion of population above statutory pensionable age receiving a pension (%)	Medium
Knowledge-Based Economy	120	9	The Times Higher Education Universities Ranking: Average score of top 3 universities (worst 0–100 best)	High
	121	9	Scientific and technical journal articles (per 1000 population)	High
	122	17	Statistical Performance Index (worst 0–100 best)	Medium
	123	12	Share of patent publications in environmental technology to total patents (7 Year moving average)	High
Balanced	124	2	Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst)	Low
Social Development	125	1	Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%)	High
	126	2	Prevalence of undernourishment (%)	Medium
	127	2	Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested land)	Medium
	128	4	Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24)	Medium
	129	4	Participation rate in pre-primary organized learning (% of children aged 4 to 6)	Medium
	130	4	Tertiary educational attainment (% of population aged 25 to 34)	Medium
	131	8	Victims of modern slavery (per 1000 population)	Medium
	132	8	Adults with an account at a bank or other financial institution or with a mobile-money-service provider (% of population aged 15 or over)	Medium
	133	8	Youth not in employment, education, or training (NEET) (% of population aged 15 to 29)	Medium
	134	16	Children involved in child labor (% of population aged 5 to 14)	Medium
	135	16	Exports of major conventional weapons (TIV constant million USD per 100,000 population)	Medium
	136	17	Government spending on health and education (% of GDP)	High
	137	17	Financial Secrecy Score (best 0–100 worst)	Low
Internalization of Externalities	138	12	Ratio of adjusted net savings to GNI, including particulate emissions damage (5 year Moving Average)	High
Dynamic	139	9	Logistics Performance Index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (worst 1–5 best)	Low
Creative and Innovative	140	9	Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP)	High
	141	9	Researchers (per 1000 employed population)	High
	142	9	Triadic patent families filed (per million population)	High
Entrepreneurship

in Appendix A attempts to map 142 indicators extracted from the SDGI and GGI along the identified SE features and their relevance to each feature. It also reveals that resilience and a long-term view are not being covered directly but could be sensed in indicators mapped along other SE features. Another observation is that some features are better covered than others. For example, circular economy indicators are included only by adopting a wider macroeconomic level boundary since many are designed to measure circularity at the industrial level, not the national level, while sustainability-focused indicators are sufficiently available. Thus, there is no direct indicator of entrepreneurship within the SDGI and the GGI.

In SDGI and GGI, indicators selected through consultations and collaborations with experts, countries, and international organizations must pass statistical and scientific methods. For example, once a metric is selected, it goes through a normalization process, correlation tests, and aggregation process. Following proper scientific and statistical procedures, these processes are carried out to ensure that each metric contributes positively to the index with appropriate statistical power. Therefore, either can be used by researchers with confidence.

Both use a wide range of metrics and indicators, individually or combined, to determine economic, social, or environmental aspects. The indicators in both indices cover vast parts of the identified SE feature; however, the challenge is that one indicator could be used to measure several of the SE features and not purely cover one feature. In some cases, there are missing or insufficient indicators for covering some of the identified SE features. Thus, the coverage of SE features by indicators remains somewhat subjective. A good example would illustrate GGI’s indicators against some of the identified SE features.

Table 3. Sample GGI Indicators against SE Features.

GGI No.	Relevant to SDG No.	Indicator	Sustainability-Focused	Circular	Economic Activity within Ecological Limits
EE1	7	Ratio of total primary energy supply to GDP, or energy intensity level of primary energy (%)	50%		80%
EE2	7	Share of renewable energy in total primary energy supply (%)	70%	80%	70%
EE3	7/9/12/17	Efficiency in sustainable transport	30%		50%
EW1	6	Water use efficiency	50%		60%
EW2	6	Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources)	40%	50%	30%
EW3	14	Sustainable fisheries as a proportion of GDP (%)	50%		80%
SL1	12/15	Soil nutrient budget (Kg/Hectare)	60%		50%

shows that GGI indicator EE1 is relevant to SDG 7, “Ratio of total primary energy supply to GDP, or energy intensity level of primary energy (%)” and partially fulfills SE features of sustainability-focused and circular. However, it is more relevant to economic activity within ecological limits. One reason is that it uses GDP as the denominator; thus, it is safer to consider it part of economic activity within ecological limits.

Another example is where experts’ judgment could be valuable in developing the indicator inclusion rationale. For instance, under SDG8 (“Decent Work & Economic Growth”), the unemployment rate is used as an indicator. From a standalone point of view, it is considered a purely economic indicator associated with growth. Nevertheless, within the sustainability features context, it could fall under economic growth within the ecological limit, or it could also fall under social development depending on what is intended to be measured. Thus, the same indicator could be used for different purposes under different reasoning categories within different contexts.

Furthermore, SDGI and GGI provide a wealth of tools, information, and data on their websites, allowing researchers to use them. Both provide simple and easily understandable indices with a statistical and visual presentation. Therefore, they contain a wealth of expertise in identifying and categorizing SIs. They both include essential economic indicators, although additional indicators should be considered to cover economic resilience. For example, GGI uses ANS, which adds investment to capital and deducts depreciation and degradation from natural capital [8]. It is calculated in percentages of Gross National Income (GNI). A positive ANS percentage means that the country is sustainable. In contrast, a negative percentage indicates that depreciation of natural capital is higher than investment in building capital to replace the loss from natural capital. As a result, the ANS follows a weak sustainability form; other indicators within the GGI might compensate for this.

Both SDGI and GGI fail to consider entrepreneurship and economic resilience indicators directly. On the other hand, the SDGI uses adjusted GDP growth, which does not consider sustainability but could be compensated for by other SIs within the index.

4.3. Countries Selection

The selection of six countries for comparative analysis in this study is based on carefully considered criteria outlined in the methodology section. These criteria ensure a diverse yet relevant set of comparisons to Qatar’s sustainability progress. While unified in their commitment to sustainability goals within their national strategies, the chosen countries exhibit a broad spectrum of economic, social structures and development stages.

Table 4. Selected Countries Comparative Table.

No.	Criteria	Qatar	UAE	Saudi Arabia	Norway	Singapore	Germany	South Korea
1	Sustainability Goals	Qatar National Vision 2030	UAE Vision 2031	Saudi Vision 2030	Sustainable Norway	Sustainable Singapore	Energiewende (Energy Transition)	Green Growth Policy
2	Economic Structure	Hydrocarbon rich, developing	Hydrocarbon rich, developing	Hydrocarbon rich, developing	Hydrocarbon rich, developed	Technology and trade based, developed	Industrial and service based, developed	Technology and industrial based, developed
3	Policy Orientation	Diversification and modernization	Diversification and modernization	Diversification and modernization	Environmental stewardship, social welfare	Innovation, sustainability in urban development	Renewable energy, environmental protection	Technological innovation, green growth
4	Development Stage	Rapidly developing	Rapidly developing	Rapidly developing	Developed	Developed	Developed	Developed
5	Data Availability	Medium	Medium	Medium	High	High	High	High
6	Geographical Location	GCC, Middle East	GCC, Middle East	GCC, Middle East	Europe	Asia	Europe	Asia

in this study delineates these similarities and differences in detail.

United Arab Emirates (UAE): A neighboring GCC country, like Qatar, in many respects, including rich hydrocarbon-based economies and ambitious long-term visions for economic diversification and SD. It provides a regional perspective, reflecting the challenges and opportunities unique to the GCC region in transitioning towards SE. Another reason for including GCC countries is to see whether they resemble a similar pattern in indices.

Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia’s recent focus on sustainability, its close cultural and geographical ties to Qatar and its economic structure that heavily relies on hydrocarbons make it a fascinating case for SE progress in a regional setting. Additionally, the availability of data and Saudi Arabia’s active participation in global sustainability initiatives highlight its importance in conducting a thorough analysis. The enormous economic transformation goals mirror the principles of SD in diversifying away from oil dependency. This can provide insights into the strategies adopted by transitioning economies, especially GGC countries.

Norway: Norway could serve as a good example for successfully leveraging hydrocarbon resources while fostering SD. Despite its hydrocarbon resource richness, Norway’s economy is not solely dependent on these resources. Its approach to environmental stewardship sets it apart from GCC countries, while social welfare could bring it closer to GCC countries. Norway’s status as a developed economy in a different geographical context offers valuable insights into diverse sustainability pathways.

Singapore: Singapore stands out distinctly from GCC countries due to its limited natural resources. Singapore’s success in fostering a SE is driven by its focus on human resources, services, trade, technology, and innovation. It shares similar attributes with Qatar, such as being a small nation with significant economic development, making it a compelling case for study even though it has a different economic structure.

Germany: Germany represents a developed, industrial economy in Europe, aspiring towards SE through a comprehensive energy transition. Germany’s approach and progress in integrating sustainability into an advanced industrial economy offer valuable lessons since it is one of the leaders in energy transition.

South Korea: A developed nation with an industrial economy based on technology and innovation, South Korea’s pursuit of SE is framed within its Green Growth strategy. Its position in Asia adds to the geographical diversity of the comparative analysis.

Table 4 provides a comparative snapshot of the set of selected countries. The countries offer a broad geographical representation, each following unique paths towards achieving SE based on their distinct economic and social structures. This diversity enriches the comparative analysis, enabling a more comprehensive understanding of different models and strategies for SE. The analysis relies on the availability of data and information of the indices to conduct a comparative analysis. This requirement ensures that the comparisons drawn are credible and could provide meaningful insights into the various approaches to achieving SE.

In summary, the deliberate selection of countries, ranging from neighboring GCC states to economically diverse nations in Europe and Asia, offers a rich diversity of sustainability journeys. These comparisons are essential in understanding the multifaceted nature of SD and in identifying effective strategies that Qatar might emulate or adapt in its pursuit of SE.

4.4. Application of GGI and SDGI: Qatar and Selected Countries

This section examines the applicability of both indices to analyze similarities and differences in progress towards sustainability using the SDGI and the GGI for Qatar because it is the country in which the authors are based and the identified features and adopted definition of SE based on a research that comes from Qatar [1].

Figure 4 compares Qatar GGI scores to the selected set of countries from 2010 to 2022 [52]. The GGI score for Qatar has witnessed an uptrend, rising from 44.2 in 2010 to 46.5 in 2022. This suggests that green growth initiatives have been gradually progressing in the country. On the other hand, the UAE’s score has experienced significant growth, increasing from 44.5 to 50.8 during the same period. This might be attributed to the investments made by the UAE in advanced infrastructure, economic diversification and energy transformation, which are reflected in its higher GGI score. In contrast, Saudi Arabia’s trend has fluctuated over time, starting at 44.5 in 2010 and decreasing to 40.8 by 2022. This indicates challenges in maintaining momentum for growth potentially due to its heavy reliance on hydrocarbon resources.

Norway’s score has remained relatively stable throughout this period, starting at 66.2 in 2010 and slightly decreasing to 65.7 by 2022. As a leader in green practices, Norway consistently maintains policies for green growth. The decrease in GGI score is unusual and requires further analysis.

Singapore’s GGI score shows volatility over time, beginning at 45.9 and increasing to 50.1 by 2022. The improving GGI score could reflect Singapore’s commitment to green growth. South Korea demonstrates progress with its GGI score starting at 49.2 and rising consistently to 52.6 by 2022, which is especially notable in its technology and manufacturing sectors.

Germany takes the lead among these countries with a score of 70.7, which steadily increases to reach its point of 75.3 by 2022. Germany’s remarkable progress could be attributed to its focus on sustainability and clean energy. Germany is the leading country in GGI due to its high scores and continuous improvement.

UAE and Singapore have improved their GGI scores compared to Qatar, indicating that they have implemented more proactive and effective green growth policies. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is experiencing a decline in its scores, suggesting that it is facing challenges in transitioning towards green growth. Germany and South Korea all have higher GGI scores than Qatar, which reflects their well-established practices in promoting green growth.

While Qatar has made progress at a pace, it can learn from countries like Germany and the UAE and adapt its strategies to enhance its green growth efforts further. The decreasing trend observed in Saudi Arabia should serve as a wakeup call for the country to reassess and intensify its strategies for promoting development. The positive upward trends in the UAE, Singapore and South Korea are encouraging indications that focused policies and investments in technology yield outcomes.

In summary, all countries, except Saudi Arabia and Norway, are making strides towards achieving green growth; however, there are variations in scale and speed of progress. Qatar can draw insights from the experiences of nations—particularly the UAE and Singapore—where significant positive trends have been observed—to strengthen its path towards SE.

Figure 5 compares Qatar to the selected set of countries towards SE based on SDGI scores from 2000 to 2022. tells a fascinating story of progress. In 2000, Qatar started with a score of 55 and steadily improved, reaching 66.2 in 2022. This upward trend demonstrates Qatar’s efforts towards SD aligning with its National Vision for the year 2030. In comparison, the UAE began with a higher baseline score of 59.8 and consistently grew over time to achieve a score of 69.7 by 2022. The UAE’s higher scores throughout this period indicate an accelerated approach towards accomplishing SDGs compared to Qatar. Saudi Arabia’s SDGI trend closely resembles Qatar’s, starting at a score of 57.4 in 2000 and rising to 67.7 by 2022. This parallel progression highlights the growing commitment to sustainability within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.

Norway serves as a benchmark for practices, starting from an already high baseline score of 79.2 and gradually advancing to reach a noteworthy score of 82 by 2022. Norway’s more minor incremental improvements could indicate that since starting at a very high baseline, most of the measures of SD are implemented and there might be less space for improvements. Overall, the high SDGI score is evidence of Norway’s dedication to SD.

Singapore’s progress in SDGI score, starting at 66.2 and reaching 71.8 by 2022, could indicate the effectiveness of its policies towards progressing to SE. These scores suggest that Singapore integrates sustainability into its economic planning. South Korea also shows improvement, starting at a score of 73.1 in 2000 and steadily rising to 78.1 by 2022. South Korea’s stable growth could be attributed to its emphasis on innovation and technology-driven sustainability policies.

Germany’s score progression from 77.2 in 2000 to 83.4 by 2022 could indicate its dedication to SD surpassing the reviewed countries. Germany’s score highlights its development practices supported by robust policy frameworks and investments in green technology.

While the UAE and Saudi Arabia demonstrate trends similar to Qatar, the UAE consistently achieves higher scores than both countries. On the other hand, Norway, Germany, Singapore and South Korea showcase advanced practices towards SD. Norway and Germany stand out as leaders among the selected countries. This might be due to their robust policies and investments in sustainability.

Qatar has been making progress regarding its SDGI score, but there is room for improvement to catch up with countries like UAE and Singapore. Qatar could also look at Norway, a resource-rich country that has already established advanced sustainable practices. The experiences of Singapore and South Korea further emphasize that focused policies can drive efforts towards SE in countries with different economic structures and resources compared to Qatar.

It is commendable to see Qatar’s progress in SD. However, there is an opportunity for the country to learn from the policies and practices of leading countries. This analysis demonstrates that each country follows its path towards SE, with the pace and scope of progress influenced by national strategies and contextual factors. By incorporating approaches from other countries, Qatar could strengthen its development initiatives even more significantly in areas with ample room for advancement.

Countries with high scores in both SDGI and GGI, like Norway and Germany, demonstrate that it is possible to align SDGs with green growth to achieve SE effectively. Countries with diverging SDGI and GGI trends, like Saudi Arabia, may need to reevaluate their green growth strategies or increase their focus in this area to progress towards SE. Adopting strategies from the leading countries could enhance Qatar’s performance in both indices. Collaborating with or learning from these countries could provide valuable insights into policy making and strategic investments in sustainability.

Figure 6 compares the GGI and SGDI for Qatar from 2010 to 2022 [52,53]. Qatar appears to be progressing towards SE; however, the SDGI consistently achieves higher scores throughout the period than the GGI. This suggests that Qatar’s performance in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has been strong. On the other hand, the GGI shows fluctuations over the years when compared to the SDGI.

The GGI score for Qatar has increased from 44.2 in 2010 to 46.5 in 2022, indicating progress in the country’s green growth initiatives over 12 years. The GGI shows more variability, with a slight decline in 2019 and flattening from 2020 to 2022, but the overall trend is moving upward. This indicates some volatility in the factors influencing the GGI, shifts in policy, or external circumstances impacting green growth and progress towards SE. This could suggest that while there are efforts towards SE, the implementation pace and impact scale are relatively modest. On the other hand, the SDGI score for Qatar has experienced a noticeable rise from 60.1 in 2010 to 66.2 in 2022, suggesting progress in broader SD efforts compared to specific green growth initiatives. The GGI scores exhibit stability, whereas the SDGI scores consistently show a trend. This consistent progress and larger increase in SDGI scores might reflect a strategy encompassing social, economic and environmental development rather than solely focusing on green growth or SE.

The difference between the GGI and SDGI scores is quite noticeable, with the SDGI being nearly double the GGI score in 2010. This could be because the selected indicators or measurements used by the SDGI are more in line with Qatar’s development policies and initiatives than the GGI. Additional context about Qatar’s economic, social and environmental policies during these years would be helpful to provide a better analysis. An observation here is that neither index has enough historical data to carry out a statistically significant test at this stage.

The correlation between GGI and SDGI scores for Qatar is strong at 81.0%, indicating that as Qatar’s SD efforts improve, its green growth initiatives tend to follow, though not at a similar rate. This high correlation suggests that the factors driving improvements in SDGI are closely aligned with those influencing GGI. It is worth noting that ten years of data for both indices might not be sufficient for many types of analyses. Still, the correlation test here is used to give an indication of whether one index is enough for measuring progress towards SE.

In short, both indices show upward trends, but the SDGI demonstrates a more robust growth rate than the GGI, indicating that Qatar’s development strategies may be more effective in broader sustainability terms than in the specific area of green growth. While the GGI exhibits slight fluctuations over the years, the SDGI shows a more consistent upward trajectory, albeit with a brief dip in 2013 before resuming its growth.

Figure 7 compares the GGI and SGDI for the UAE from 2010 to 2022 [52,53].

The GGI and SDGI scores for the UAE have shown progress in green growth and SD from 2010 to 2022. The GGI score for the UAE started at 44.5 in 2010 and increased to 50.8 in 2022, marking a rise of 6.3 points. This indicates a steadily positive trend over 12 years, with a notable increase in 2020 suggesting a focus on initiatives that promote green growth. The SDGI score for the UAE began at 62.2 in 2010. It improved to 69.7 in 2022, reflecting a gain of 7.5 points. This shows steady progress over the period, though slightly more gradual than the GGI score, indicating ongoing comprehensive efforts towards SE.

The strong correlation coefficient of 96.0% between the GGI and SDGI scores may indicate that the UAE has integrated green growth initiatives within the framework of SDGs. This may reflect that their strategies in these areas mutually reinforce and are well aligned. In recent years, the UAE has emphasized targeted initiatives for green growth, especially in sectors like renewable energy and sustainable urban planning. The noticeable bump in the GGI score in 2020 suggests that the UAE may have implemented specific policies or projects around that time that significantly impacted its green growth metrics. The UAE’s approach can provide insights into how a country rich in hydrocarbon resources can still make meaningful progress in SD and green growth.

In summary, the UAE is firmly committed to SD and green growth, with integrated policies that address both areas effectively to achieve SE. The high correlation and overall positive trend in both indices highlight the success of the UAE’s strategies and provide a model for other countries aiming to balance economic growth with environmental and social sustainability.

Figure 8 compares the GGI and SGDI for Saudi Arabia from 2010 to 2022 [52,53]. The GGI and SDGI scores for Saudi Arabia from 2010 to 2022 exhibit differing levels of progress in green growth and SD. The GGI score increased from 37.9 in 2010 to 40.8 in 2022, showing a modest positive change of 2.9, equivalent to 7.7% over 12 years. This is a positive trend with some fluctuations, suggesting gradual improvements in green growth initiatives but not a significant transformation. On the other hand, the SDGI shows an increase of 9 points, equivalent to 15.9% during the same period, starting with 58.7 in 2010 and ending with 67.7 in 2022. Furthermore, a correlation of 15.9% between GGI and SDGI indicates a very low correlation between progress in SD and its green growth performance. This low correlation could suggest that the factors contributing to SD are not significantly impacting its green growth measures or that the improvements in broader SD, as captured by the SDGI, are not strongly reflected in green growth performance, as measured by the GGI.

The analysis indicates that while Saudi Arabia is making good progress in SD, as evidenced by the SDGI scores, there is not an equivalent level of progress in green growth, which might be more relevant to SE as reflected by the GGI scores. The SDGI demonstrates a more noticeable improvement over time than the GGI. This difference suggests that Saudi Arabia’s efforts towards SD may not fully encompass all the features of SE, highlighting a potential area for strategic focus and policy alignment to ensure balanced advancements.

Figure 9 compares the GGI and SGDI for Norway from 2010 to 2022 [52,53]. It is interesting to note that Norway’s GGI score experienced a decrease during this period, which’s unexpected for a well-developed economy focusing on sustainability. In 2010, Norway had a GGI score of 66.2, but by 2022, it marginally declined to 65.7—a reduction of 0.5 points or approximately 0.8%. This trend could suggest challenges in achieving growth within a high performing economy. It might also indicate the need for Norway to refocus or innovate its growth policies to maintain or advance its leadership position in this area.

Conversely, the SDGI score shows steady yet small progress from 2010 to 2022. In the beginning, Norway had an SDGI score of 80.4 in 2010. However, by 2022, this score increased to 82—a change of approximately 1.6 points or approximately a 2% increase. Despite starting with scores in SD, Norway continues to make gradual improvements over time. These modest advancements are noteworthy, considering that Norway had room for growth due to its already high starting base in both indices in the year of reference (2010).

The negative correlation of 72.9% suggests an observation about Norway’s GGI and SDGI scores. There appears to be an inverse relationship between the two over the period. This means that as Norway’s SDGI scores have shown improvement, its GGI scores have slightly declined. This could happen for various reasons, such as economic changes, policy shifts, or statistical anomalies in the indexes. Norway has been consistently performing well in SD, making improvements over time. The slight decrease in the GGI might require a reevaluation of Norway’s strategies for green growth to ensure their effectiveness and adaptability to challenges. The slight decline in GGI scores could indicate a need for aggressive policies focused on green growth to maintain or enhance this equilibrium. It’s important to consider that the negative correlation might be influenced by how the indices are constructed or by factors unrelated directly to Norway’s actual performance in green growth.

Figure 10 compares the GGI and SGDI for Singapore from 2010 to 2022 [52,53]. The country’s GGI score started at 45.9 in 2010 and increased to 50.1 in 2022, marking a moderate rise of 4.2 points, translating to a 9.2% increase over the 12 years. Notably, a jump from 46.1 in 2018 to 50.5 in 2019 could indicate a period of significant advancement in green growth initiatives. This trend could demonstrate Singapore’s active and effective commitment to enhancing its green growth strategies, positioning it as a progressive player in sustainable and environmentally-friendly development. Furthermore, from 2010 to 2022, Singapore’s SDGI started at a score of 68.5, reaching 71.8. Singapore achieved a moderate growth of 3.3 points, equivalent to a 4.8% increase over 12 years. This upward trend in SDGI scores could reflect Singapore’s dedication to promoting SD on a larger scale. A strong positive correlation exists between Singapore’s GGI and SDGI scores of 81.7%. This suggests that initiatives contributing to SD also positively impact green growth and vice versa. Singapore’s sustainability and green growth strategies appear complementary and mutually reinforcing.

While both GGI and SDGI have increased, the percentage change in the GGI is almost double that of the SDGI, which is significant given that Singapore started with a higher base in the SDGI. This could indicate that Singapore has placed a strong and possibly increasing focus on green growth in recent years. The steady increase in SDGI scores reflects a consistent approach to sustainable development. In contrast, the GGI scores show a more variable pattern with a significant boost in 2019, which could reflect policy changes, new initiatives, or investments targeted at green growth.

Figure 11 compares the GGI and SGDI for Germany from 2010 to 2022 [52,53]. Germany gradually increased its GGI score, reaching 70.7 in 2010 and 75.3 in 2022. During this period, Germany improved by 4.6 points, translating to an increase of 6.5%. This could indicate Germany’s dedication to promoting growth initiatives focusing on renewables and energy transition. This steady upward trend in GGI scores highlights Germany’s efforts to improve policies and foster sustainable economic practices, demonstrating its leadership role in integrating sustainability into its economic growth model.

Regarding the SDGI score, Germany made moderate progress over 12 years. The SDGI score rose steadily from 79.3 in 2010 to 83.4 in 2022, reflecting an increase of 4.1 points or a growth rate of 5.2%. This upward trend could demonstrate Germany’s comprehensive efforts across various SDGs.

Germany’s GGI and SDGI scores are extremely correlated at 98.9%, an extremely high positive correlation suggesting that the country’s green growth and SD efforts are closely aligned. Progress in one area is almost perfectly mirrored by progress in the other, indicating a highly integrated approach to sustainability and SE.

Both indices indicate positive trends, with the GGI showing a higher percentage increase than the SDGI. This is noteworthy because both indices began from a relatively high base. It might imply that Germany has not just maintained its efforts towards sustainability but has also intensified its focus on specific areas of green growth. Both indices demonstrate steady growth, reflecting Germany’s stable policy environment and strategic planning. Germany’s leadership in sustainability is reaffirmed by its progress in both the SDGI and GGI. The country is renowned for its regulations’ commitment to renewable energy and sustainable industrial practices. The strong correlation between these indices suggests that Germany’s SD and green growth policies are likely intertwined within an overarching sustainability framework. This integration could help ensure that progress in one area supports and strengthens the other.

In short, Germany’s balanced approach could provide a model for other countries on how to simultaneously pursue economic growth, environmental protection, and social development. The slight edge in the increase in GGI scores over SDGI scores also might indicate that Germany is effectively capitalizing on the economic opportunities of green growth.

Figure 12 compares the GGI and SGDI for South Korea from 2010 to 2022 [52,53]. From 2010 to 2022, South Korea had a moderate rise in its GGI score, which could indicate the country’s commitment to promoting green growth initiatives. Beginning at a score of 49.2 in 2010 and steadily climbing to 52.6 by 2022, South Korea has achieved an increase of 3.4 points, corresponding to a growth of 6.9% over this period. This upward trend in the GGI score could be a testament to the country’s efforts in fostering technology and sustainable innovation, showcasing the strategic approach of integrating environmental sustainability into the economic development model. The continuous improvement highlights South Korea’s narrative in establishing itself as a pioneer in growth and technological advancements within the realm of initiatives. In addition, the country’s SDGI score began at 75.5 in 2010 and will be 78.1 by 2022, indicating a growth of 2.6 points or a 3.4% improvement over the same period. This continual upward trend in SDGI scores could reflect South Korea’s efforts to achieve SDGs by implementing effective strategies and initiatives to promote sustainability across multiple sectors. The increase shows South Korea’s commitment to aligning its objectives with sustainability standards. The higher percentage increase in the GGI compared to the SDGI might indicate a particular focus or successful outcomes in South Korea’s green growth initiatives, especially in the context of its economic and technological advancement. Both indices’ incremental yet steady growth indicates a consistent and strategic approach to sustainability without drastic fluctuations that might suggest policy instability or reactive measures.

There is an extremely high positive correlation between South Korea’s GGI and SDGI scores at 97.1%. This could suggest a strong alignment between the country’s initiatives for green growth and SD. Improvements in one index are closely accompanied by improvements in the other, showing that the policies and strategies for sustainability are integrated and coherent.

South Korea seems to have found a balanced approach to SD and green growth. The country’s commitment to advancements and sustainable practices is evident in the rise of both the GGI and SDGI scores. South Korea could set an example for high tech economies by demonstrating that economic growth can go hand in hand with an emphasis on sustainability and green growth.

Table 5. Countries Progress from 2010 to 2022.

Country	Qatar	UAE	Saudi Arabia	Norway	Singapore	Germany	South Korea
GGI 2010	44.2	44.5	37.9	66.2	45.9	70.7	49.2
GGI 2022	46.5	50.8	40.8	65.7	50.1	75.3	52.6
GGI Progress	2.3	6.3	2.9	−0.5	4.2	4.6	3.4
GGI % Change	5.2%	14.2%	7.7%	−0.8%	9.2%	6.5%	6.9%
SDGI 2010	60.1	62.2	58.7	80.4	68.5	79.3	75.5
SDGI 2022	66.2	69.7	67.7	82	71.8	83.4	78.1
SDGI Progress	6.1	7.5	9.0	1.6	3.3	4.1	2.6
SDGI % Change	10.1%	12.1%	15.3%	2.0%	4.8%	5.2%	3.4%
Indices’ Correlation	81.0%	96.0%	15.9%	−72.9%	81.7%	98.9%	97.1%

gives a snapshot of the selected set of countries during the analysis period from 2010 to 2022 to better compare performance in terms of both indices. The data reveal each country’s progress and percentage change in both indices and the correlation between the two measures, signifying how aligned the countries’ green growth efforts are with their broader sustainable development goals. Yellow shows the least number, green is the highest number, and red is a negative number.

For Qatar, there’s an increase in both indices, with a slightly higher change in SDGI 10.1% compared to GGI 5.2%. The indices show a strong positive correlation of 81.0%, indicating that green growth policies complement Qatar’s SD measures. The UAE shows remarkable progress, especially in GGI, with a 14.2% increase, the highest among the countries. The SDGI also sees a substantial rise of 12.1%, with the strongest correlation between the two indices at 96.0%, suggesting highly integrated and mutually reinforcing sustainability efforts. Saudi Arabia has a notable increase in SDGI 15.3%, the highest percentage change for this index among the countries, but a lower change in GGI 7.7%. The correlation between the indices is the lowest at 15.9%, indicating a disconnect between green growth initiatives and SD outcomes. Norway exhibits an exceptional case where the GGI decreased by 0.8% while SDGI increased by 2.0%.

Interestingly, the correlation is negative 72.9%, which is unique and suggests a complex relationship between the indices, potentially due to high baseline scores. Singapore shows a solid increase in GGI 9.2% and SDGI 4.8%, with a significant jump in GGI score between 2018 and 2019. The indices have a strong positive correlation of 81.7%, reflecting the effective integration of green growth within the broader SD strategy. Germany has a near-perfect correlation of 98.9% between the two indices and consistent progress in GGI 6.5% and SDGI 5.2%. This could denote a well-synchronized approach to sustainability, with green growth and SD going hand in hand. Lastly, South Korea increased in both indices, with GGI at 6.9% and SDGI at 3.4%. The high positive correlation of 97.1% implies that South Korea’s green growth initiatives are closely aligned with its SDGs.

To further identify progress among the group in terms of ranking changes during the period,

Table 6. Comparative Countries Ranking from 2010 and 2022.

Rank	Country	GGI 2010	Rank	Country	GGI 2022
1	Germany	70.7	1	Germany	75.3
2	Norway	66.2	2	Norway	65.7
3	South Korea	49.2	3	South Korea	52.6
4	Singapore	45.9	4	UAE	50.8
5	UAE	44.5	5	Singapore	50.1
6	Qatar	44.2	6	Qatar	46.5
7	Saudi Arabia	37.9	7	Saudi Arabia	40.8
Rank	Country	SDGI 2010	Rank	Country	SDGI 2022
1	Norway	80.4	1	Germany	83.4
2	Germany	79.3	2	Norway	82
3	South Korea	75.5	3	South Korea	78.1
4	Singapore	68.5	4	Singapore	71.8
5	UAE	62.2	5	UAE	69.7
6	Qatar	60.1	6	Saudi Arabia	67.7
7	Saudi Arabia	58.7	7	Qatar	66.2

is constructed. Germany leads in the GGI 2010 ranking, followed by Norway and South Korea, indicating a solid foundation in green growth. Qatar was before the last, only above Saudi Arabia. By 2022, the ranking among countries remained the same except for UAE and Singapore. The UAE jumped to the fourth rank to overcome Singapore, which could indicate significant green growth initiatives.

In the SDGI 2010 ranking, Norway is at the top, indicating a robust approach to SD, with Germany and South Korea following. By 2022, Germany will overtake Norway for the top spot, emphasizing SD practices more strongly. Qatar started in sixth place in 2010, surpassing Saudi Arabia, but dropped to last in 2022. This highlights the need for further SD practices.

Table 7. The Ranking of Percentage Changes in GGI and SDGI from 2010 to 2022.

Rank	Country	GGI % Change
1	UAE	14.2%
2	Singapore	9.2%
3	Saudi Arabia	7.7%
4	South Korea	6.9%
5	Germany	6.5%
6	Qatar	5.2%
7	Norway	−0.8%
Rank	Country	SDGI % Change
1	Saudi Arabia	15.3%
2	UAE	12.1%
3	Qatar	10.1%
4	Germany	5.2%
5	Singapore	4.8%
6	South Korea	3.4%
7	Norway	2.0%

compares the ranking of percentage changes in GGI and SDGI from 2010 to 2022. Regarding GGI, the UAE shows the highest progress, with a 14.2% increase, followed by Singapore and Saudi Arabia, indicating significant strides in green initiatives and policies. South Korea and Germany also demonstrate notable progress, while Qatar has a modest increase. Norway is the only country that has regressed slightly in GGI performance, potentially due to its high starting baseline and the challenges of maintaining progress at such levels. The case of Norway requires further analysis, which is beyond the scope of this paper, but it could be due to its already high starting base and further improvement could come at a higher cost. It could indicate that when a country starts at a low base, it has more space for progress, while countries that start at a high base face more difficulties in making progress, such as Norway and Germany, but they still rank at the top of both indicators.

For the SDGI, Saudi Arabia leads with the most substantial percentage change at 15.3%, suggesting robust advancements in sustainable development. It is worth mentioning that the GCC countries rank in the top three percentage progress list in terms of SDGI. The UAE and Qatar also exhibit double-digit percentage improvements, while Germany, Singapore, and South Korea show more moderate progress. Despite its slight decrease in GGI, Norway has improved in SDGI, albeit with the smallest percentage change among the listed countries, reflecting ongoing development efforts.

This analysis indicates that while all countries are improving their sustainability profiles, the pace and scale of progress vary, with the UAE and Saudi Arabia making the most significant advancements in GGI and SDGI, respectively. This could indicate that the GCC countries are serious about their economic transformation, even though they start from a relatively lower starting base.

4.5. Discussion

Analyzing GGI and SDGI in measuring progress towards SE presents nuanced insights into their effectiveness. Both indices encompass a broad array of SE core features, yet they diverge in focus, capturing distinct aspects of SE and providing unique perspectives on the transformation to SE. Notably, some indicators overlap within both indices, enriching the comprehensive understanding of SE progress. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that both indices lack direct metrics for resilience and entrepreneurship, two vital components of SE.

A key observation from this analysis is the GGI’s emphasis on green growth, a fundamental component of SE. The SDGI, in contrast, offers a broader view of sustainable development, capturing elements beyond green growth. This distinction is evident in Norway’s case, where positive strides in SDGI contrast with a regression in GGI. This scenario exemplifies that advancing in general sustainable development metrics does not necessarily equate to progress in SE-specific aspects like green growth. Qatar has shown a dedicated but moderate progression towards SE, as indicated by its GGI and SDGI changes. Despite these positive trends, Qatar’s progress in both indices is outpaced by several other countries, including the UAE and Saudi Arabia, indicating room for enhanced policies and actions. Nevertheless, Qatar is moving towards its National Vision 2030, which emphasizes modernization, economic diversification and SD. The country’s progress, while steady, suggests that adopting and integrating successful strategies from leading countries could further accelerate its SD.

From the GCC region, the UAE could be an excellent model to look at and try to learn from. From outside the region, Singapore could be a model for small countries such as Qatar to learn from even though they face different circumstances and making comparisons might do both countries injustice.

When evaluating the effectiveness of the GGI and the SDGI as indicators of SE for Qatar, the analysis indicates that the GGI focuses more on green growth, which is one of the major building blocks of SE. The SDGI may be a more effective way of measuring progress towards SD in general without focusing on green growth. Moving towards SD, in general, does not imply movement towards SE. This can be seen in the case of Norway, where it is making positive progress in SDGI while negative progress in GGI. The case of Norway also provides evidence that one country could perform highly on SDGs while not achieving green growth and SE. This might require further study and analysis.

Despite Qatar’s advancements reflected in both indices, the SDGI presents a more consistent and holistic measurement of Qatar’s progress towards sustainability. It captures a wide array of development aspects, including economic, social, and environmental dimensions, which are part of SE, but it seems that GGI is more relevant to SE. The GGI focuses on environmental sustainability and efficient use of resources, which, while a crucial part of SE. The case of Germany’s energy transition is a good example of how efficient use of resources could even help achieve a higher rank in SDGI.

The correlation between Qatar’s GGI and SDGI scores suggests an alignment between green growth initiatives and broader SDGs, which is a positive sign. Qatar might benefit from a strategy that aligns its green growth initiatives more closely with its National Development Strategy (NDS) and SDGs. This could involve integrating green technologies and practices into all aspects of development planning. Qatar needs to focus more on green growth policies to enhance its progress towards SE. This could involve investing in energy transition, promoting Industry 4.0, enhancing environmental conservation efforts and applying a digital economy.

The correlation between Qatar’s GGI and SDGI scores indicates a positive alignment between green growth initiatives and broader SDGs. However, a more integrated approach is advisable for Qatar to enhance its SE trajectory. This could include aligning green growth initiatives with the NDS and SDGs, incorporating green technologies across development sectors, and prioritizing policies that bolster energy transition, Industry 4.0, environmental conservation, and digital economy applications.

In summary, while both GGI and SDGI offer valuable insights into the progress towards SE, their distinct focuses highlight the complexity of measuring SE. For Qatar, a more harmonized approach, integrating green growth policies within its broader sustainability agenda, is crucial for achieving comprehensive progress in SE.

5. Conclusions

This paper presents a novel approach to evaluating the effectiveness of Sustainable Economy Indicators (SEIs). A broad definition of SE is adopted, integrating economic, ecological, and social dimensions, thereby setting a comprehensive framework for our analysis. Moreover, considering the proposed definitions and the SE features, this paper provides a comparative and critical analysis of possible SE indicators.

Then, it attempts to identify the most suitable and representative metrics to assess and measure countries’ progress towards a Sustainable Economy (SE) by mapping the existing metrics and their indicators onto the fundamental sustainability dimensions and comparing them to the most basic and required SE features. Following a comparative review and analysis of relevant literature on sustainability, sustainable development (SD), Sustainable Economy (SE), sustainability metrics and indices (SIs),, this study identified 11 different indices that could be candidates for measuring progress towards SE and matches them against the 15 distinct underlying features of a SE, which is considered a valuable contribution to SE studies.

The analysis focused on two existing promising indices (SDGI and GGI), and it is the first study to conduct such a comparative analysis and work. Both indices show potential for improvement to meet the coverage of SE’s missing features since they are dynamic and can integrate new metrics and indicators as they become available. Both indices are imperfect and do not necessarily lead to similar conclusions as all other indices and indicators. However, they are more advanced and balanced than other existing sustainability indices. The comparative analysis of SDGI and GGI unveils their respective strengths and gaps in capturing the essence of SE. This nuanced understanding is vital for developing more effective and inclusive sustainability strategies, providing a clear path to measuring and achieving SE.

Applying these indices to Qatar and few selected countries offered practical insights into their applicability and relevance in a real-world context. It also laid the groundwork for broader, more diverse comparative analyses across selected countries.

In the future, a longer time frame with additional SEI improvements could be used to enhance the coverage of the indices for a larger group of countries. Therefore, even though SDGI and GGI are not specifically designed to measure progress towards SE, they both provide a good starting point for modifications and enhancement to include more of identified features of SE. Choosing to refine and improve an existing index rather than starting from scratch offers an efficient approach. This strategy takes advantage of the groundwork laid by experts guaranteeing that we build upon indices developed with adherence, to the statistical and scientific standards. This approach could enable us to make contribution to the existing body of knowledge enhancing the usefulness and relevance of these indices in assessing progress, towards SE.

The findings of this paper have extensive implications. It enhances our comprehension of SE and provides policy makers and stakeholders with the essential resources to navigate the complex landscape of SE.

Finally, this study acknowledges limitations, including data availability for a limited period and its application to Qatar and only a selected set of countries. It recommends future research to broaden the scope of analysis over an extended timeframe and to a larger group of countries, enhancing the applicability and depth of the indices.