Indicator Assessment of Sustainable Development Goals: A Global Perspective

Abstract

This study compares the progress of 141 countries towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), using a multi-criteria approach based on 72 indicators from the Sustainable Development Report 2024. The adoption of two aggregation methods—min-max and TOPSIS—has made it possible to highlight both the sensitivity of the results to the techniques used and the moderate consistency between the rankings obtained. Sweden comes out on top using the min-max method, followed by Finland and Denmark. The TOPSIS method, on the other hand, rewards Croatia, followed by Brazil and Sweden. The aggregate ranking by position shows Sweden ahead of Finland and Croatia, and there are sixteen European countries in the top twenty. The analysis using the min-max method reveals Sweden’s leadership in economic sustainability, Belarus’s in environmental sustainability, and Denmark’s in social sustainability. At the continental level, Europe—particularly the Nordic countries—stands out as an area of excellence in all dimensions, although North America emerges as the leader in the economic dimension. Africa, instead, shows the poorest results. Furthermore, a comparison between OECD and BRICS+ countries shows a clear superiority of the former, especially in the social sphere. The findings highlight the pressing need for enhanced commitment to the SDGs, calling for coherent, cross-sectoral strategies and long-term global vision in policymaking.

1. Introduction

Sustainability is one of the fundamental pillars of political, economic, and social strategies worldwide. With the adoption of the 2030 Agenda by the United Nations in 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have become a universal reference point for guiding development towards greater social equity, economic prosperity, and environmental protection [1,2]. The SDGs constitute an integrated and multi-scalar framework designed to address today’s most critical global issues, with particular emphasis on climate change, social inequalities, poverty, public health, pollution, and the digital transition [3,4,5].

In the global context, differences in policies and strategies are emerging. Territorial differences highlight the need for analytical tools capable of measuring, comparing, and monitoring the evolution of sustainability at the national and subnational levels [6,7]. To this end, it is essential to have accurate, up-to-date, and disaggregated regional data that can capture the complexity of social, environmental, and economic dynamics [8,9].

In response to this need, numerous studies have adopted multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods to assess the performance of territories regarding SDGs. MCDA is a set of quantitative and qualitative techniques that allow alternatives to be compared on the basis of multiple and often conflicting criteria [10,11]. It stands out for its ability to synthesize large volumes of data into aggregate indicators, thus supporting complex decision-making processes in multidimensional areas such as sustainability [12,13].

Among the most widely used methods are TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), which allows for compensation between indicators, and the min-max method, which instead adopts a non-compensatory logic, highlighting areas of criticality that cannot be masked by good performance in other dimensions [14,15]. Some recent studies suggest the integration of compensatory and non-compensatory models to obtain more balanced and realistic assessments [16,17], avoiding distortions due to the arbitrary selection of indicators or their aggregation [18].

In this context, it is crucial to assess the synergies and trade-offs between SDGs, which allows us to understand not only the level of achievement of the goals but also the possible positive or negative interactions between them [19,20]. Some SDGs, such as SDG 5 (gender equality), have a much broader network of interconnections than others, such as SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), highlighting the importance of a holistic approach to sustainability [21].

Furthermore, the need to develop dynamic monitoring tools that are sensitive to socioeconomic changes has been emphasized, especially in contexts with high territorial variability [22,23]. Such tools should be able to guide national and local strategies through empirical evidence, promoting alignment between local initiatives and the global SDG framework [24].

National efforts to achieve the SDGs are not limited to domestic impacts but also affect other countries through multiple cross-border channels, such as international trade and natural flows of water and air, thus highlighting the importance of effective global collaboration [25]. However, the absence of shared scientific methods for assessing progress risks undermines the transparency and reliability of SDG assessments; it is therefore crucial to adopt systematic and flexible frameworks that allow for rigorous and adaptable selection of performance indicators [26]. At the same time, promoting a green and circular vision, together with the development of local skills, is essential for creating sustainable autonomy, strengthening competitiveness, and addressing global challenges with an integrated and multi-level approach [27].

This study aims to analyze and compare the progress of 141 countries towards achieving the SDGs by adopting a multi-criteria approach based on 72 indicators from the Sustainable Development Report 2024. Different aggregation techniques—such as the min-max method and TOPSIS—will be applied and compared to evaluate the extent to which methodological choices influence the outcomes. The analysis will also be disaggregated across three sustainability dimensions (economic, environmental, and social) and will include a comparative assessment of geographic regions and country groups (e.g., OECD vs. BRICS+). Finally, this study presents a combination of the two methods to provide a comprehensive overview of the country rankings and proposes a critical reflection on data limitations and the effectiveness of the public policies implemented.

After this introduction, the work presents a brief overview of the existing literature (Section 2). The two methodological approaches are proposed in Section 3, and Section 4 compares the results obtained, showing the performance achieved in the various case studies analyzed. The conclusions complete this paper (Section 5).

2. Literature Analysis

2.1. Development Goals Towards Sustainability

The topic of SDGs is rapidly gaining momentum. It is worth noting that Scopus has introduced a tool called Impact for each author, which defines their contribution in terms of specific SDGs. It is therefore important to carry out this advanced search: “sustainable AND development OR sustainable AND development AND goal” (accessed on 27 July 2025). The results show that 355,086 papers were published in the period 2021–2025, more than triple the number published in the period 2016–2020 (109,563). The total number of works is 526,605 documents. Some comparisons have been made:

• At the journal level, Sustainability prevails with 14,970 documents (4.2% of the total), followed by the Journal of Cleaner Production with 4067 and Energies with 3105 documents in the period 2021–2025. In the total period, Sustainability again stood out with 19,739 documents (3.7% of the total), the Journal of Cleaner Production with 6638, and Energies with 3805 documents;
• At the country level, China prevails with 66,091 documents (18.6% of the total), followed by the United States with 44,154 and India with 36,238 documents in the period 2021–2025. Comparing the data with the total, the United States emerges with 85,745 documents (16.3% of the total), followed by China with 79,626 and the United Kingdom with 51,555 documents.

It should be noted that the 2025 figure is still partial, although it stands at 67,122 documents, close to the 2023 figure of 77,189 documents. The record currently belongs to 2024 with 101,130 documents, or 28.5% of the 2021–2025 total and 19.2% if all time filters are removed. It can therefore be said that two-thirds of all work related to SDGs has been published in the last five years. In terms of authors, Leal Filho W. leads with 160 documents, followed by Ahinkorah B.O. and Bhutta Z.A. with 150 and 148 documents, respectively. Analyzing the data for 2021–2025, Ahinkorah B.O. stands out with 132 documents, followed by Abdelkareem M.A. and Aigbavboa C. with 117 and 112 documents.

Figure 1 shows the co-occurrence network of this research through VOSviewer Version 1.6.20. Given the huge number of documents, it was decided to apply a filter to only works from 2025, evaluating the top 20,000 by relevance. An approach was used in which the frequency analysis focused on keywords. Among the red bubbles, the term sustainable development clearly stands out, and sustainable development goal and sustainable development goals also receive a lot of attention. Among the green bubbles, the term human emerges, and significant attention is given to the term female. This result is consistent with previous analyses, highlighting how human beings are at the heart of sustainable development.

2.2. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Sustainability assessment involves the structured evaluation of environmental, economic, and social dimensions in policy and system analysis. Theoretical approaches to sustainability generally fall into two categories: weak sustainability, which allows for substitution between natural capital and human capital, and strong sustainability, which argues that natural capital is not substitutable and must be preserved [28].

Given the multidimensional nature of sustainability, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has become a widely adopted methodology due to its ability to process large data sets and support transparent decision-making [10,29]. Techniques such as AHP, ANP, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, and ELECTRE differ in their weighting, normalization, and aggregation approaches. Despite its strengths, MCDA is often limited by its static framework and lack of interaction models [30]. However, its flexibility in integrating qualitative and quantitative data makes it particularly useful in sustainability contexts [31,32].

MCDA has been applied to assess countries’ sustainability performance. Tools such as the Sustainable Development Index and SDG dashboards help monitor progress toward the SDGs [33,34,35]. Empirical studies have applied MCDA methods to assess SDG performance at both the national and urban levels [36,37], with a growing focus on trade-offs and synergies between goals [24].

Recent contributions propose composite indicators such as the sustainability score, which is based on weighted aggregations of indicators aligned with the 17 SDGs [38]. Although equal weighting is commonly used [39], alternative schemes reflecting differentiated priorities have been suggested [40,41,42]. Other studies have explored compensatory and non-compensatory models to better reflect real-world trade-offs [16,43].

Despite its usefulness, a persistent challenge in SDG analysis is the inconsistency of territorial rankings due to methodological variations [7]. To overcome this problem, another work adopts both min-max normalization and TOPSIS for the validation of SDG performance [17]. Several analyses highlight the benefits of multi-criteria decision-making methods for assessing sustainability performance in relation to the SDGs [44,45,46].

3. Materials and Methods

The concept of sustainable development, today one of the pillars of public policy and international economic strategy, has grown in significance on a worldwide scale. Unsustainability contributes to rising inequality, resource depletion, and climate change, and there is an urgent need for a development model capable of reconciling economic growth with environmental protection and social inclusion.

To evaluate territorial progress towards sustainability, the SDGs have been extensively studied [35,47,48]. In this regard, policymakers may benefit greatly from analytical decision-making [49,50], especially when working with sizable and intricate datasets that need to be synthesized to produce useful insights.

A popular method for assessing multifaceted decision-making issues with conflicting goals is MCDA, and its methodologies are particularly useful for assessing SDG [51,52]. The TOPSIS and min-max methods stand out among the other MCDA methodologies. According to the chosen criteria, the TOPSIS rates options according to how close they are to a positive ideal solution and how far they are from a negative ideal solution [53,54]. In contrast, the min-max approach normalizes within a range of 0 to 1, where 0 represents the worst performance and 1 represents the best [2,17]. This normalization technique is well accepted because it is frequently used in international reports. Both approaches were employed in this study to categorize the examined countries. It is important to recognize the pivotal roles played by both the decision-maker and the data analyst in this process. In fact, whether the system analyst correctly designs the model and selects the best MCDA approach determines both the effectiveness of any MCDA model and the credibility of the resulting policy implications. To assist in selecting the most appropriate MCDA strategy for a given decision-making context, the literature suggests several approaches, guidelines, and frameworks, frequently using algorithms or decision rules. The decision-making problem this research addresses, which is identifying an indicator for evaluating SDG achievement across the examined countries, was approached using the same methodology. The goal of the analysis was made clear in the first step, problem identification. The identification of SDG characteristics, evaluation countries, and pertinent indicators comprised the second stage. To categorize the countries, the third stage computed two indicators and used two MCDA approaches. The final step examined the findings and assessed how they may affect policy. These phases are shown in Figure 2.

Ensuring data consistency, the decision-making procedure is initiated by sourcing a dataset from a validated and authoritative repository. The United Nations publishes yearly reports on the SDGs that include national-level statistics [55]. Analyzing these indicators and determining their suitability was the first step in the process. Because of their high concentration index, certain indications were eliminated during the 0–1 normalization procedure, resulting in little variation between regions. Also, eliminating those indicators that had missing data, 72 indicators made up the final dataset. The outcome of the decision-making process was an SDG value, a composite indicator derived by multiplying a row vector of size (1 × n) with a column vector of size (n × 1), where n represents the number of indicators. When all criteria (i.e., indicators) are considered equally important, the row vector corresponds to uniform weights, resulting in an equally weighted average. The values for each territory according to the criterion under consideration were contained in the column vector. Other approaches propose assigning equal weight to the three dimensions of sustainability regardless of the population size of each dimension, and assigning equal weight to individual SDGs regardless of the population size of the indicators contained therein [38]. The current analysis is based on separate applications: comparison between 141 countries; comparison between OECD and BRICS+ countries and continents; and finally, comparison between Italy and EU countries. Finally, an approach is proposed in which the rankings obtained by the two methods (min-max and TOPSIS) are integrated.

4. Results

This section presents the results obtained through MCDA, using the min-max (0–1) normalization and TOPSIS methods, which can assess the overall progress towards the 17 SDGs of 141 countries that have decided to adopt the 2030 Agenda through 72 indicators listed in

Table 1. Sustainability indicators divided by SDGs.

SDG	Indicators
SDG1 No poverty	Incidence rate of poverty at USD 2.15/day (2017 PPP, %)
	Poverty incidence rate at USD 3.65/day (2017 PPP, %)
SDG2 Zero hunger	Prevalence of undernourishment (%)
	Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%)
	Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%)
	Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population)
	Human trophic level (2–3)
	Cereal yield (tons per hectare of harvested land)
	Sustainable nitrogen management index (0–1.41)
SDG3 Good health and well-being	Maternal mortality ratio (per 100,000 live births)
	Neonatal mortality rate (per 1000 live births)
	Under-five mortality rate (per 1000 live births)
	Tuberculosis incidence (per 100,000 inhabitants)
	Age-standardized mortality rate due to cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease in adults aged 30–70 years (%)
	Age-standardized mortality rate attributable to domestic and environmental air pollution (per 100,000 inhabitants)
	Deaths from road accidents (per 100,000 inhabitants)
	Life expectancy at birth (years)
	Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1000 women aged 15 to 19)
	Births attended by skilled health personnel (%)
	Infants surviving and receiving two WHO-recommended vaccines (%)
	Universal health coverage (UHC) service coverage index (0–100)
	Subjective well-being (average score on a scale of 0–10)
SDG4 Quality education	Net primary school enrollment rate (%)
	Lower secondary school completion rate (%)
SDG5 Gender equality	Family planning demand satisfied with modern methods (% of women aged 15 to 49)
	Ratio of average years of schooling received by women and men (%)
	Ratio of women to men in the labor force (%)
	Seats held by women in national parliament (%)
SDG6 Clean water and sanitation	Population using at least basic drinking water services (%)
	Population using at least basic sanitation (%)
	Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources)
	Anthropogenic wastewater receiving treatment (%)
	Water consumption embedded in imports (m3 H2O eq/capita)
SDG7 Affordable and clean energy	Population with access to electricity (%)
	Population with access to clean cooking fuels and technologies (%)
	CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for total electricity production (MtCO2/TWh)
	Share of renewable energy in total final energy consumption (%)
SDG8 Decent work and economic growth	Adjusted GDP growth (%)
	Victims of modern slavery (per 1000 inhabitants)
	Adults with a bank account or other financial institution account or with a mobile money service provider (% of population aged 15 and over)
	Fatal accidents at work incorporated into imports (per million inhabitants)
	Victims of modern slavery incorporated into imports (per 100,000 inhabitants)
SDG9 Industry, innovation, and infrastructure	Rural population with access to roads usable in all seasons (%)
	Population using the Internet (%)
	Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 inhabitants)
	Logistics performance index: infrastructure score (1–5)
	Times Higher Education University Rankings: average score of top 3 universities (0–100)
	Articles published in academic journals (per 1000 inhabitants)
SDG10 Reduced inequalities	Palma Index
SDG11 Sustainable cities and communities	Average annual concentration of PM2.5 (μg/m3)
	Access to improved water sources connected to the network (% of urban population)
SDG12 Responsible consumption and production	Municipal solid waste (kg/capita/day)
	Electronic waste (kg per capita)
	Air pollution based on production (DALY per 1000 inhabitants)
	Air pollution associated with imports (DALY per 1000 inhabitants)
	Nitrogen emissions based on production (kg/capita)
	Nitrogen emissions associated with imports (kg/capita)
SDG13 Climate action	CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production (tCO2/per capita)
	Greenhouse gas emissions embodied in imports (tCO2/capita)
SDG14 Life below water	Threats to marine biodiversity embedded in imports (per million inhabitants)
SDG15 Life on land	Average protected area in terrestrial sites important for biodiversity (%)
	Average protected area in freshwater sites important for biodiversity (%)
	Red List Index of species survival (0–1)
	Imported deforestation (m2/capita)
SDG16 Peace, justice, and strong institutions	Birth registrations with civil authorities (% of children under 5)
	Corruption perception index (0–1)
	Exports of major conventional weapons (millions of USD TIV constant per 100,000 inhabitants)
	Press freedom index (0–100)
SDG17 Partnerships for the goals	Public spending on health and education (% of GDP)
	Corporate tax haven score (0–100)
	Statistical performance index (0–100)
	Index of countries’ support for UN-based multilateralism (0–100)

.

4.1. SDG Value Through Normalization Min-Max

Focusing the analysis exclusively on the results obtained by applying the normalization method, countries were ranked according to their overall average value in descending order (

Table 2. Global ranking of average performance of all countries according to the normalization method—SDG value.

Rkg	Countries	Avg	Rkg	Countries	Avg	Rkg	Countries	Avg
1	Sweden	0.826	48	Romania	0.736	95	Turkmenistan	0.653
2	Finland	0.824	49	China	0.735	96	Botswana	0.651
3	Denmark	0.823	50	Tunisia	0.734	97	Cambodia	0.651
4	United Kingdom	0.808	51	Dominican Republic	0.734	98	Rwanda	0.651
5	Norway	0.804	52	Georgia	0.734	99	Gabon	0.650
6	Germany	0.804	53	Albania	0.733	100	India	0.647
7	Japan	0.798	54	Malaysia	0.731	101	Senegal	0.646
8	France	0.796	55	Ukraine	0.731	102	Bangladesh	0.638
9	Spain	0.795	56	Russia	0.730	103	Lao People’s Democratic Republic	0.636
10	Austria	0.793	57	Republic of Kyrgyzstan	0.728	104	Iraq	0.632
11	Croatia	0.793	58	Armenia	0.726	105	Kenya	0.629
12	Australia	0.791	59	Turkey	0.725	106	Ivory Coast	0.626
13	Portugal	0.790	60	Vietnam	0.724	107	Burma	0.615
14	Czech Republic	0.789	61	Mexico	0.724	108	Gambia	0.610
15	Poland	0.788	62	Morocco	0.723	109	Tanzania	0.606
16	Italy	0.788	63	Algeria	0.720	110	Zimbabwe	0.605
17	Latvia	0.787	64	Peru	0.719	111	Togo	0.602
18	Republic of Korea	0.784	65	Cyprus	0.719	112	Uganda	0.601
19	Canada	0.784	66	Jamaica	0.718	113	Syrian Arab Republic	0.60
20	Netherlands	0.781	67	Ecuador	0.718	114	Malawi	0.598
21	New Zealand	0.779	68	Kazakhstan	0.717	115	Cameroon	0.588
22	Iceland	0.779	69	Paraguay	0.717	116	Sierra Leone	0.586
23	Belgium	0.778	70	Bosnia and Herzegovina	0.717	117	Zambia	0.583
24	Chile	0.776	71	Uzbekistan	0.715	118	Benin	0.578
25	Slovenia	0.776	72	Arab Republic of Egypt	0.709	119	Mali	0.577
26	Greece	0.775	73	Bhutan	0.705	120	Republic of Congo	0.574
27	Switzerland	0.774	74	Panama	0.704	121	Burkina Faso	0.573
28	Hungary	0.773	75	Islamic Republic of Iran	0.703	122	Pakistan	0.573
29	Uruguay	0.772	76	Jordan	0.701	123	Mozambique	0.570
30	Estonia	0.771	77	El Salvador	0.700	124	Burundi	0.562
31	Brazil	0.770	78	United Arab Emirates	0.694	125	Ethiopia	0.560
32	Slovakia	0.770	79	South Africa	0.692	126	Mauritania	0.555
33	Argentina	0.763	80	Bolivia	0.691	127	Guinea	0.550
34	Malta	0.761	81	Indonesia	0.691	128	Nigeria	0.550
35	Thailand	0.760	82	Sri Lanka	0.689	129	Djibouti	0.546
36	Belarus	0.757	83	Azerbaijan	0.686	130	Angola	0.545
37	Ireland	0.757	84	Nicaragua	0.685	131	Haiti	0.544
38	Moldova	0.756	85	Tajikistan	0.683	132	Sudan	0.543
39	Lithuania	0.755	86	Philippines	0.683	133	Liberia	0.530
40	United States	0.755	87	Honduras	0.672	134	Madagascar	0.524
41	Israel	0.749	88	Namibia	0.667	135	Papua New Guinea	0.523
42	Bulgaria	0.748	89	Mongolia	0.664	136	Democratic Republic of Congo	0.516
43	North Macedonia	0.743	90	Nepal	0.664	137	Niger	0.505
44	Colombia	0.741	91	Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela	0.662	138	Republic of Yemen	0.498
45	Serbia	0.739	92	Saudi Arabia	0.661	139	Afghanistan	0.491
46	Costa Rica	0.738	93	Ghana	0.660	140	Chad	0.460
47	Luxembourg	0.737	94	Guatemala	0.654	141	Central African Republic	0.445

). The highest positions in the ranking correspond to countries with the best performance in terms of economic (SDGs 7, 8, 9, 11, 12), environmental (SDGs 6, 13, 14, 15) and social (SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,10, 16, 17), while the lowest positions highlight countries with the least satisfactory overall results.

Given the large amount of data and to facilitate analysis, a map (Figure 3) has been created to provide a clearer and more intuitive overview of the results.

Specifically, the closer the color associated with a country is to green, the better its overall performance in terms of sustainability. Conversely, a shade closer to red indicates significantly lower results. Countries shown in gray, on the other hand, are those for which insufficient data are available to ensure a reliable assessment; their absence from the ranking limits a fully comprehensive global view, but at the same time, it highlights the importance of strengthening information and statistical systems at the international level.

The results obtained show significant differences between geographical areas of the world. European countries occupy the top positions in the ranking, with Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Norway. This European dominance indicates a strong commitment and a well-established strategy in terms of economic, environmental, and social sustainability. These countries have historically been characterized by green policies, high levels of welfare, and good environmental management practices.

Some countries in Oceania and North America, such as New Zealand and Canada, also rank high in the ranking, demonstrating that sustainability is also pursued outside the European context, albeit with greater variability. Asia, on the other hand, presents a mixed picture: while some emerging economies are showing signs of growth (Japan and the Republic of Korea), many countries remain in the middle or lower positions, highlighting imbalances between economic development and environmental protection. Africa, in most cases, ranks at the bottom of the ranking. This result reflects, at least in part, the structural difficulties faced by many African countries: limited access to resources, political instability, lack of adequate infrastructure, and vulnerability to the effects of climate change.

4.2. SDG Analysis by SDG Dimensions

In summary, the analysis at the continental level shows that sustainability is now a priority in Europe and some developed areas, while it is still a distant goal in many other regions of the world, where improving economic, environmental, and social conditions remains an ongoing challenge. At this point, it is also necessary to analyze the results based on the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, environmental, and social. These results are shown in

Table 3. Average performance of all countries in the economic sustainability sector.

Rkg	Countries	Avg	Rkg	Countries	Avg	Rkg	Countries	Avg
1	Sweden	0.792	48	Romania	0.711	95	Senegal	0.649
2	Japan	0.790	49	North Macedonia	0.710	96	Guatemala	0.646
3	Finland	0.784	50	Jordan	0.709	97	Ivory Coast	0.640
4	Brazil	0.777	51	Austria	0.709	98	Luxembourg	0.639
5	United States	0.773	52	Netherlands	0.707	99	Iraq	0.636
6	Republic of Korea	0.768	53	Tunisia	0.707	10	Nepal	0.633
7	Portugal	0.767	54	Arab Republic of Egypt	0.707	101	Lao People’s Democratic Republic	0.631
8	Malaysia	0.762	55	Mexico	0.705	102	Syrian Arab Republic	0.628
9	Spain	0.762	56	Slovakia	0.705	103	Bangladesh	0.621
10	Australia	0.760	57	Bulgaria	0.704	104	Zimbabwe	0.621
11	Canada	0.759	58	Paraguay	0.704	105	Tanzania	0.615
12	United Kingdom	0.759	59	Armenia	0.703	106	Rwanda	0.614
13	Norway	0.757	60	Peru	0.699	107	Zambia	0.610
14	Poland	0.757	61	Dominican Republic	0.697	108	Uganda	0.608
15	South Africa	0.754	62	Albania	0.697	109	Burma	0.607
16	Denmark	0.753	63	Lithuania	0.697	110	Gambia	0.607
17	Thailand	0.753	64	Ukraine	0.696	111	Saudi Arabia	0.606
18	Uruguay	0.751	65	Philippines	0.694	112	Cameroon	0.596
19	Italy	0.751	66	Algeria	0.693	113	Pakistan	0.594
20	China	0.748	67	Indonesia	0.689	114	Ethiopia	0.593
21	France	0.745	68	Belgium	0.688	115	Sudan	0.590
22	Croatia	0.743	69	Ghana	0.688	116	Malawi	0.590
23	Israel	0.743	70	Botswana	0.688	117	Angola	0.589
24	Malta	0.741	71	Gabon	0.683	118	Mozambique	0.589
25	Iceland	0.739	72	Uzbekistan	0.680	119	Mongolia	0.589
26	Germany	0.737	73	Cyprus	0.680	120	Togo	0.587
27	Greece	0.733	74	Moldova	0.679	121	Turkmenistan	0.585
28	Chile	0.733	75	Bhutan	0.679	122	Mali	0.580
29	Latvia	0.731	76	Bosnia and Herzegovina	0.677	123	Benin	0.570
30	Hungary	0.730	77	India	0.675	124	Nigeria	0.567
31	Serbia	0.729	78	El Salvador	0.674	125	Djibouti	0.565
32	Colombia	0.729	79	Slovenia	0.672	126	Guinea	0.564
33	New Zealand	0.728	80	Panama	0.671	127	Republic of Yemen	0.560
34	Costa Rica	0.728	81	Kazakhstan	0.671	128	Papua New Guinea	0.555
35	Russia	0.725	82	Sri Lanka	0.669	129	Republic of Congo	0.554
36	Morocco	0.725	83	Belarus	0.668	130	Madagascar	0.548
37	Turkey	0.724	84	Ireland	0.667	131	Liberia	0.547
38	Switzerland	0.722	85	Namibia	0.667	132	Democratic Republic of Congo	0.546
39	Argentina	0.721	86	Honduras	0.663	133	Sierra Leone	0.539
40	Islamic Republic of Iran	0.721	87	Bolivia	0.660	134	Burkina Faso	0.538
41	Georgia	0.721	88	Azerbaijan	0.659	135	Mauritania	0.529
42	Ecuador	0.720	89	Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela	0.658	136	Haiti	0.528
43	Czech Republic	0.718	90	Tajikistan	0.658	137	Burundi	0.520
44	Estonia	0.715	91	Cambodia	0.655	138	Niger	0.513
45	Republic of Kyrgyzstan	0.715	92	Kenya	0.654	139	Afghanistan	0.494
46	Vietnam	0.714	93	Nicaragua	0.651	140	Central African Republic	0.494
47	Jamaica	0.711	94	United Arab Emirates	0.650	141	Chad	0.469

,

Table 4. Average performance of all countries in the environmental sustainability sector.

Rkg	Countries	Avg	Rkg	Countries	Avg	Rkg	Countries	Avg
1	Belarus	0.898	48	Zimbabwe	0.757	95	Switzerland	0.711
2	Latvia	0.897	49	Guinea	0.757	96	Guatemala	0.707
3	Croatia	0.883	50	Belgium	0.757	97	Turkey	0.705
4	United Kingdom	0.879	51	Burundi	0.756	98	Mozambique	0.705
5	Hungary	0.870	52	Chile	0.756	99	Kazakhstan	0.702
6	Czech Republic	0.866	53	Nepal	0.755	10	Republic of Congo	0.700
7	Poland	0.866	54	Ivory Coast	0.755	101	Vietnam	0.700
8	Greece	0.847	55	Portugal	0.754	102	Cyprus	0.699
9	Bulgaria	0.845	56	Tajikistan	0.751	103	Chad	0.699
10	Slovak Republic	0.842	57	Namibia	0.751	104	Sri Lanka	0.698
11	Slovenia	0.839	58	Netherlands	0.750	105	Japan	0.695
12	Moldova	0.833	59	Syrian Arab Republic	0.749	106	Burma	0.693
13	Denmark	0.832	60	Thailand	0.749	107	Haiti	0.692
14	Finland	0.828	61	Afghanistan	0.746	108	Cameroon	0.690
15	Sweden	0.820	62	Togo	0.746	109	Bangladesh	0.687
16	Albania	0.819	63	Uzbekistan	0.745	110	Niger	0.687
17	Germany	0.818	64	Azerbaijan	0.744	111	Australia	0.685
18	Lithuania	0.817	65	Ireland	0.738	112	Israel	0.679
19	Ukraine	0.815	66	Mexico	0.737	113	Angola	0.678
20	Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela	0.813	67	Sierra Leone	0.737	114	Benin	0.675
21	Algeria	0.809	68	Costa Rica	0.736	115	Uganda	0.674
22	France	0.809	69	Peru	0.736	116	Turkmenistan	0.672
23	Brazil	0.808	70	Philippines	0.734	117	New Zealand	0.671
24	Italy	0.806	71	Rwanda	0.734	118	China	0.671
25	Romania	0.806	72	Cambodia	0.731	119	Serbia	0.670
26	Mali	0.803	73	Burkina Faso	0.731	120	Republic of Korea	0.668
27	North Macedonia	0.801	74	Uruguay	0.731	121	Tanzania	0.667
28	Tunisia	0.797	75	Bhutan	0.731	122	United States	0.667
29	Honduras	0.796	76	Panama	0.730	123	Liberia	0.667
30	Gambia	0.796	77	El Salvador	0.729	124	Malaysia	0.665
31	Estonia	0.793	78	Senegal	0.727	125	Mauritania	0.661
32	Dominican Republic	0.790	79	Lao People’s Democratic Republic	0	126	India	0.66
33	Morocco	0.790	80	Armenia	0.725	127	Iraq	0.658
34	Austria	0.790	81	Norway	0.724	128	Republic of Yemen	0.652
35	Arab Republic of Egypt	0.782	82	Indonesia	0.722	129	Democratic Republic of Congo	0.651
36	Colombia	0.781	83	Pakistan	0.722	130	Kenya	0.650
37	Ghana	0.776	84	Botswana	0.720	131	Jamaica	0.644
38	Paraguay	0.776	85	Central African Republic	0.720	132	Canada	0.640
39	Bosnia and Herzegovina	0.773	86	Russia	0.719	133	Sudan	0.637
40	Gabon	0.772	87	Malta	0.718	134	Iceland	0.633
41	Nigeria	0.772	88	Zambia	0.715	135	Madagascar	0.625
42	Spain	0.765	89	Jordan	0.715	136	Luxembourg	0.616
43	Nicaragua	0.765	90	Ecuador	0.715	137	Papua New Guinea	0.607
44	Georgia	0.762	91	Mongolia	0.714	138	Ethiopia	0.602
45	Republic of Kyrgyzstan	0.762	92	South Africa	0.713	139	Djibouti	0.582
46	Bolivia	0.761	93	Islamic Republic of Iran	0.713	140	Saudi Arabia	0.577
47	Argentina	0.760	94	Malawi	0.711	141	United Arab Emirates	0.505

and

Table 5. Average performance of all countries in the social sustainability sector.

Rkg	Countries	Avg	Rkg	Countries	Avg	Rkg	Countries	Avg
1	Denmark	0.863	48	Jamaica	0.746	95	Bangladesh	0.634
2	Norway	0.860	49	Costa Rica	0.745	96	India	0.625
3	Iceland	0.851	50	Bulgaria	0.744	97	Cambodia	0.623
4	Sweden	0.849	51	North Macedonia	0.744	98	Iraq	0.622
5	Finland	0.849	52	Armenia	0.741	99	Senegal	0.618
6	Austria	0.847	53	Dominican Republic	0.738	10	Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela	0.615
7	Canada	0.847	54	Vietnam	0.738	101	Lao People’s Democratic Republic	0.609
8	New Zealand	0.846	55	Russia	0.737	102	Kenya	0.608
9	Australia	0.844	56	Colombia	0.736	103	Botswana	0.606
10	Germany	0.842	57	Malaysia	0.734	104	Ghana	0.605
11	Belgium	0.842	58	Georgia	0.732	105	Burma	0.594
12	Luxembourg	0.838	59	Turkey	0.731	106	Gabon	0.590
13	Netherlands	0.836	60	Tunisia	0.731	107	Tanzania	0.581
14	Japan	0.836	61	Mexico	0.731	108	Ivory Coast	0.576
15	Republic of Korea	0.832	62	Romania	0.729	109	Uganda	0.574
16	Switzerland	0.827	63	Albania	0.728	110	Malawi	0.566
17	Spain	0.825	64	Uzbekistan	0.727	111	Sierra Leone	0.565
18	France	0.824	65	Peru	0.726	112	Togo	0.564
19	Slovenia	0.821	66	Republic of Kyrgyzstan	0.725	113	Benin	0.552
20	Ireland	0.819	67	Ukraine	0.725	114	Gambia	0.551
21	Portugal	0.816	68	Bosnia and Herzegovina	0.723	115	Cameroon	0.550
22	United Kingdom	0.816	69	Saudi Arabia	0.722	116	Zimbabwe	0.546
23	Chile	0.811	70	Ecuador	0.718	117	Republic of Congo	0.545
24	Czech Republic	0.809	71	Panama	0.715	118	Burkina Faso	0.544
25	Italy	0.806	72	Bhutan	0.714	119	Mauritania	0.536
26	Uruguay	0.799	73	Algeria	0.708	120	Syrian Arab Republic	0.535
27	Estonia	0.798	74	El Salvador	0.707	121	Ethiopia	0.525
28	Croatia	0.795	75	Paraguay	0.705	122	Burundi	0.524
29	Argentina	0.790	76	Morocco	0.70	123	Zambia	0.524
30	Malta	0.788	77	Sri Lanka	0.699	124	Djibouti	0.523
31	Slovak Republic	0.787	78	Mongolia	0.695	125	Mozambique	0.515
32	Latvia	0.786	79	Jordan	0.691	126	Pakistan	0.513
33	Poland	0.783	80	Islamic Republic of Iran	0.689	127	Haiti	0.506
34	United Arab Emirates	0.782	81	Turkmenistan	0.689	128	Mali	0.501
35	Moldova	0.779	82	Bolivia	0.688	129	Sudan	0.483
36	Greece	0.778	83	Arab Republic of Egypt	0.687	130	Madagascar	0.477
37	Israel	0.775	84	Azerbaijan	0.684	131	Papua New Guinea	0.476
38	United States	0.772	85	Indonesia	0.683	132	Liberia	0.476
39	Lithuania	0.771	86	Nicaragua	0.680	133	Guinea	0.474
40	Hungary	0.769	87	Tajikistan	0.677	134	Angola	0.474
41	Thailand	0.768	88	Philippines	0.659	135	Nigeria	0.468
42	Serbia	0.767	89	Nepal	0.653	136	Democratic Republic of Congo	0.453
43	Belarus	0.766	90	South Africa	0.648	137	Niger	0.441
44	Brazil	0.753	91	Rwanda	0.647	138	Republic of Yemen	0.409
45	Kazakhstan	0.751	92	Guatemala	0.643	139	Afghanistan	0.406
46	Cyprus	0.749	93	Namibia	0.640	140	Chad	0.376
47	China	0.748	94	Honduras	0.637	141	Central African Republic	0.326

.

It is useful to refer to a three-dimensional scatter plot (Figure 4) that provides an overview of the sustainability levels achieved by the countries ranked in the top 40 in all three fundamental dimensions: economic, environmental, and social sustainability. The countries in this chart are all European, such as Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Finland, and France. These countries stand out for having achieved high levels in all three dimensions, demonstrating strong consistency between economic development, environmental protection, and social inclusion. Among the countries that, on the contrary, perform poorly in all three rankings, those on the African continent stand out, for example, Chad, Niger, and Mauritania. There are some exceptions, such as the Republic of Yemen and Haiti. Finally, there is a third group of countries that fall into an intermediate range, where sustainability levels are not consistent across dimensions. In some cases, good economic performance does not translate into social or environmental sustainability, or environmental progress is observed in economically fragile contexts. This confirms the importance of a multidimensional approach to assessing the real level of sustainable development.

4.3. A Comparison Between the OECD and BRICS+

The results obtained through 0–1 normalization were used to conduct a comparative analysis between the levels of sustainability achieved by countries belonging to the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) and BRICS+ (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, plus) groups, with reference to the three dimensions considered: economic, environmental, and social.

Table 6. Comparison of performance between OECD and BRICS+.

	Global	Economic	Environment	Social
BRICS+	0.693	0.704	0.689	0.688
OECD	0.779	0.734	0.765	0.811
Difference	0.086	0.030	0.076	0.123

presents the results obtained, offering a concise but meaningful overview of the performance achieved.

The dimensions analyzed are economic, environmental, and social sustainability, to which is added a global average, expressing the overall level of sustainable development. The comparison highlights the superiority of the OECD’s average performance compared to that of BRICS+ in all three dimensions, thus highlighting greater structural maturity in sustainable processes. In terms of the global average, the OECD scores 0.779, while the BRICS+ countries scores 0.693. This gap reflects the structural divide between advanced and developing economies.

Countries such as Norway, Germany, and Canada are concrete examples of economic systems that manage to combine innovation, social equity, and attention to the environment, thanks to substantial investments in ecological transition, digitalization, and inclusive policies. In contrast, the BRICS+ countries, despite their economic growth, face complex challenges such as social inequalities, institutional weaknesses, and environmental pressures resulting from accelerated industrialization. In terms of economic sustainability, the OECD scores an average of 0.734 compared to 0.704 for the BRICS+ countries. This gap can be explained by the better performance of OECD countries in terms of economic stability, institutional quality, infrastructure, and technological innovation. For example, the United States and Japan boast high levels of productivity and a strong ability to attract investment. Conversely, some BRICS+ countries, such as South Africa and India, still face challenges related to unemployment, the fragility of their production systems, and limited access to financial services. Environmental sustainability also scores higher for the OECD (0.765) than for the BRICS+ (0.689). OECD countries stand out for their greater commitment to decarbonization, promoting the circular economy, and reducing emissions. Sweden, for example, has achieved high percentages of energy from renewable sources, while Finland is investing in innovative environmental policies. On the other hand, countries such as Brazil and China, despite being rich in biodiversity and natural resources, face problems related to deforestation, industrial pollution, and still insufficient environmental regulation. Finally, social sustainability highlights the greatest gap between the two groups: 0.811 for the OECD versus 0.688 for the BRICS+. Thanks to advanced welfare systems, OECD countries guarantee a high quality of life and social inclusion, thanks to high levels of access to essential services such as healthcare, human rights protection, and gender equality. The BRICS+ countries, while showing improvements in some areas, remain marked by inequalities and critical issues in democratic governance. However, there are encouraging signs; for example, Brazil has expanded social programs such as Bolsa Família, which aims to combat poverty and inequality through investment in human capital, such as education and children’s health, linking benefits to school attendance and child vaccination.

In summary, the comparison between the OECD and BRICS+ based on data recorded in 2024 confirms a clear gap in terms of sustainability but also suggests potential for evolution in emerging countries. The future challenge for these countries will be to bridge this gap through international cooperation and the integration of economic growth and sustainable development.

4.4. A Comparison Among Continents

The results achieved at the continental level are presented below, obtained solely from normalized data and by aggregating countries by continent.

Table 7. Comparison of performance between continents.

Continents	Global	Economic	Environmental	Social
Europe	0.772	0.720	0.793	0.797
North America	0.754	0.746	0.681	0.783
Latin America	0.733	0.715	0.764	0.734
Oceania	0.698	0.681	0.654	0.722
Central America and the Caribbean	0.683	0.663	0.732	0.680
Asia	0.680	0.670	0.702	0.679
Africa	0.595	0.603	0.716	0.551

provides a comparative overview of average sustainability performance, broken down into economic, environmental, and social dimensions at the continental level.

It should be noted that Europe ranks first with a global average of 0.772, driven in particular by the social (0.797) and environmental (0.793) dimensions. This result reflects the effectiveness of European policies on welfare, education, health, and environmental protection. A significant example is the European Green Deal, a package of strategic initiatives launched in 2019 that set the EU on the path to a green transition, with the goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2050; in particular, it strengthened the commitment to decarbonization and energy transition.

North America follows, with strong economic (0.746) and social (0.783) performance but weaker environmental performance (0.681), attributable to a production model that is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels, as in the case of the United States and Canada. Latin America shows a balance between the three dimensions, with an overall average of 0.733. Its good environmental performance (0.764) is the result of its rich biodiversity and the presence of vast protected natural areas, such as the Amazon rainforest, which is unfortunately at risk from deforestation policies in some countries. Oceania shows weakness in the environmental dimension (0.654), due in part to the vulnerability of marine and land ecosystems and the impacts of climate change on the Pacific islands. Rising sea levels caused by global warming are eroding the coasts of the islands that make up these countries. However, there is a fair degree of social resilience (0.722).

Asia, Central America, and the Caribbean show similar values, with relatively high environmental performance (0.702 and 0.732, respectively) but more marked deficiencies in the economic and social dimensions, particularly related to inequalities, limited access to basic services, and institutional fragility in some areas. Africa ranks last with an overall average of 0.595, penalized above all by the social dimension (0.551), which reflects high levels of poverty, frequent political and economic instability, and low accessibility to health and education services. However, the environmental dimension has a relatively high value (0.716), attributable to lower industrial impact and vast areas of unspoiled nature. In conclusion, the analysis of sustainability performance at the continental level highlights strong inequalities in sustainable development: while high-income countries, particularly in Europe, stand out for their integrated approach to the three dimensions of sustainability, developing regions require more effective structural and multilateral support to strengthen social cohesion, improve access to basic services, and promote equitable and resilient economic growth.

4.5. A Comparison Between Italy and the EU27

The latest analysis using 0–1 normalization is dedicated to Italy’s performance compared to other EU countries. The chart in Figure 5 summarizes Italy’s performance in relation to the 17 SDGs.

The analysis shows an overall positive picture, with high scores in several key areas. In Italy stands out for its results in SDG 1 (no poverty) and SDG 3 (good health and well-being), both of which are close to the maximum value. SDG 4 (quality education) and SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) also show robust performance, highlighting the quality of primary and secondary education and the wide coverage of urban services. However, some critical issues remain. SDG 2 (zero hunger) and SDG 5 (gender equality) score lower than other goals, confirming the persistent challenges related to gender inequality and equitable access to food, especially in marginal socioeconomic contexts. Moderate results are also observed for the environmental SDGs (12, 13, 14, and 15), indicating the need for more effective policies. To gain a deeper understanding of Italy’s performance, a detailed analysis of the results reported in

Table 8. Italy’s performance according to each indicator, with initial and normalized values.

Indicator	Initial Values	Normalized Values
Incidence rate of poverty at USD 2.15/day (2017 PPP, %)	0.8	0.990
Poverty incidence rate at USD 3.65/day (2017 PPP, %)	1	0.990
Prevalence of undernourishment (%)	2.5	1.000
Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%)	2.6	0.962
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%)	0.7	0.968
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population)	17.3	0.638
Human trophic level (2–3)	2.4	0.333
Cereal yield (tons per hectare of harvested land)	4.8	0.183
Sustainable nitrogen management index (0–1.41)	0.8	0.429
Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births)	4.6	0.997
Neonatal mortality rate (per 1000 live births)	1.6	0.979
Under-five mortality rate (per 1000 live births)	2.6	0.994
Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 inhabitants)	4.6	0.994
Age-standardized mortality rate due to cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease in adults aged 30 to 70 (%)	9	0.981
Age-standardized mortality rate attributable to domestic and environmental air pollution (per 100,000 inhabitants)	15	0.973
Deaths from road accidents (per 100,000 inhabitants)	5	0.903
Life expectancy at birth (years)	82.9	0.941
Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1000 women aged 15 to 19)	2.9	0.986
Births attended by skilled health personnel (%)	99.4	0.990
Surviving newborns who received 2 WHO-recommended vaccines (%)	94	0.919
Universal health coverage (UHC) service coverage index (0–100)	84	0.887
Subjective well-being (average score on a scale of 0–10)	6.2	0.762
Net primary school enrolment rate (%)	98.4	0.963
Lower secondary school completion rate (%)	100.3	0.736
Family planning demand satisfied with modern methods (% of women aged 15–49)	75	0.761
Ratio of average years of education received by women and men (%)	97.4	0.751
Ratio of female-to-male labor force participation (%)	70.2	0.640
Seats held by women in the national parliament (%)	32.3	0.527
Population using at least basic services for drinking water (%)	99.9	0.998
Population using at least basic sanitation services (%)	99.9	0.999
Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources)	29.7	0.981
Anthropogenic wastewater receiving treatment (%)	58.8	0.588
Water scarcity embedded in imports (m3 H2O eq/capita)	2638.8	0.691
Population with access to electricity (%)	100	1.000
Population with access to clean cooking fuels and technologies (%)	100	1.000
CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for total electricity production (MtCO2/TWh)	1.2	0.924
Share of renewable energy in total final energy consumption (%)	18.7	0.225
Adjusted GDP growth (%)	15.6	0.521
Victims of modern slavery (per 1000 inhabitants)	3.3	0.911
Adults with an account at a bank or other financial institution or with a mobile money service provider (% of population aged 15 and over)	97.3	0.971
Fatal accidents at work incorporated into imports (per million inhabitants)	1.8	0.719
Victims of modern slavery incorporated into imports (per 100,000 inhabitants)	50.7	0.779
Rural population with access to roads usable in all seasons (%)	99.8	0.997
Population using the Internet (%)	85.1	0.839
Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 inhabitants)	95.9	0.408
Logistics performance index: infrastructure score (1–5)	3.8	0.778
Times Higher Education University Rankings: average score of the top 3 universities (0–100)	60.9	0.622
Articles published in academic journals (per 1000 inhabitants)	2.3	0.390
Palma Index	1.3	0.903
Average annual concentration of PM2.5 (μg/m3)	16.3	0.840
Access to an improved water source connected to the network (% of urban population)	100	1.000
Municipal solid waste (kg/capita/day)	17.5	0.328
Electronic waste (kg/capita)	8.4	0.683
Air pollution based on production (DALY per 1000 inhabitants)	7.4	0.716
Air pollution associated with imports (DALY per 1000 inhabitants)	28.1	0.816
Nitrogen emissions based on production (kg/capita)	27.7	0.853
Nitrogen emissions associated with imports (kg/capita)	3.6	0.947
CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production (tCO2/capita)	5.7	0.780
Greenhouse gas emissions embodied in imports (tCO2 per capita)	4.6	0.782
Threats to marine biodiversity embedded in imports (per million inhabitants)	0.3	0.700
Average protected area in terrestrial sites important for biodiversity (%)	76.7	0.772
Average protected area in freshwater sites important for biodiversity (%)	85.2	0.852
Red List Index of species survival (0–1)	0.87	0.721
Imported deforestation (m2/capita)	12.2	0.809
Birth registrations with civil authorities (% of children under 5)	100	1.000
Corruption perception index (0–1)	56	0.558
Exports of major conventional weapons (millions of constant TIV USD per 100,000 inhabitants)	2	0.733
Press freedom index (0–100)	69.8	0.703
Public spending on health and education (% of GDP)	11.2	0.651
Corporate tax haven score (0–100)	58	0.408
Statistical performance index (0–100)	91.9	0.973
Index of countries’ support for UN-based multilateralism (0–100)	68.4	0.702

is provided, highlighting the values obtained for each of the indicators considered.

Italy has excellent scores for extreme poverty, with a rate of less than 1% (normalized value of 0.99). The prevalence of undernourishment is also very low (2.5%), confirming Italy’s high level of food security. The national healthcare system guarantees high coverage, as evidenced by data on births attended by qualified personnel (99.4%) and vaccination coverage (94%), achieving high scores from normalization. Maternal and infant mortality indicators also show very positive values. However, Italy faces challenges related to obesity (17.3%) and mortality from non-diseases; in particular, obesity can be due to unhealthy diets and sedentary lifestyles, with negative consequences for public health. Furthermore, the UHC index, which stands at 84, shows good but not yet optimal coverage of essential services. Access to primary and secondary education is virtually universal, with a lower secondary school completion rate of 100%. However, gender disparities remain: women hold only 32.3% of parliamentary seats and have a significantly lower labor force participation rate than men (70.2%). These figures indicate that, despite progress, full gender equality in the labor market and political institutions has not yet been achieved.

Regarding environmental issues, Italy scores highly in water management and access to sanitation but shows mixed results in terms of environmental sustainability. While nitrogen and CO₂ emissions remain relatively low, the share of renewable energy in total consumption is still low (18.7%). Furthermore, only 58.8% of wastewater receives adequate treatment. Imported deforestation and emissions embedded in imports remain critical issues for supply chain sustainability. On a positive note, the large extent of protected areas and high performance in the species survival index are signs that Italy is succeeding in ensuring the protection and conservation of biodiversity. In summary, Italy performs well in several dimensions of sustainability, thanks to a well-established institutional system and public policies that have ensured high social and health standards. However, there are areas for improvement, particularly in the ecological transition, energy efficiency, and the promotion of gender equality. For the purposes of comparison with other European countries,

Table 9. Comparison between Italy and the EU27.

	Global	Economic	Environment	Social
Italy	0.788	0.726	0.478	0.664
EU27	0.779	0.709	0.490	0.659
Difference	0.009	0.017	−0.012	0.005

has been drawn up, showing the averages for global, economic, environmental, and social sustainability to highlight strengths and weaknesses.

In economic terms, Italy ranks above the European average with an index of 0.726 compared to the EU average of 0.709. This result reflects an economic fabric characterized by good resilience, despite moderate GDP growth. Among the factors that have had a positive impact on this performance are high financial inclusion, stable essential public services, and a well-developed banking infrastructure. With a score of 0.478 Italy ranks slightly below the EU average (0.490) in the environmental dimension. Despite positive results in terms of access to drinking water and protection of protected areas, significant challenges remain. These include the low share of renewable energy in final consumption (less than 20%) and inefficient wastewater management, which is still partially treated. In addition, air pollution and dependence on fossil fuels contribute to penalizing overall performance. In the social sphere, Italy achieved a score of 0.664, slightly above the European average (0.659). This result is supported by good access to healthcare services and very low rates of extreme poverty. Compulsory education is widely attended, and life expectancy is among the highest in Europe. However, gender equality in the labor market and female political representation remain critical areas, as do intergenerational inequalities and the gap between urban and rural areas. With an overall average score of 0.788, Italy ranks above the EU average (0.779), confirming a sustainable profile balanced across the various dimensions analyzed. The Italian system demonstrates a solid capacity to ensure social welfare and economic stability but highlights significant room for improvement in the environmental field. Strengthening environmental policies, improving energy efficiency, and transitioning to a greener economy therefore appear to be strategic priorities for the future.

4.6. TOPSIS

Considering the results obtained by applying only the TOPSIS method, the following ranking was obtained, as presented in

Table 10. Global ranking of average performance of all countries, according to the TOPSIS method.

Rkg	Countries	Avg	Rkg	Countries	Avg	Rkg	Countries	Avg
1	Croatia	0.754	48	Tajikistan	0.708	95	Ethiopia	0.680
2	Brazil	0.743	49	Morocco	0.708	96	Kenya	0.680
3	Sweden	0.743	50	Indonesia	0.707	97	Tanzania	0.680
4	Chile	0.741	51	Nicaragua	0.706	98	Switzerland	0.679
5	Poland	0.740	52	Islamic Republic of Iran	0.705	99	Togo	0.673
6	Finland	0.736	53	Algeria	0.705	10	Namibia	0.672
7	Albania	0.736	54	Russia	0.704	101	Cameroon	0.672
8	Colombia	0.735	55	Lithuania	0.703	102	Iraq	0.671
9	Greece	0.732	56	El Salvador	0.702	103	Pakistan	0.669
10	Portugal	0.731	57	Belarus	0.701	104	Ireland	0.668
11	Latvia	0.730	58	Ukraine	0.701	105	Botswana	0.668
12	Hungary	0.730	59	Iceland	0.70	106	Gambia	0.667
13	United Kingdom	0.729	60	Azerbaijan	0.700	107	Zimbabwe	0.666
14	Uruguay	0.728	61	Bhutan	0.700	108	Turkmenistan	0.665
15	Czech Republic	0.728	62	Jamaica	0.699	109	Zambia	0.664
16	Italy	0.726	63	Jordan	0.698	110	Syrian Arab Republic	0.664
17	Argentina	0.726	64	Bangladesh	0.698	111	Burma	0.662
18	Georgia	0.726	65	France	0.697	112	Benin	0.661
19	Bosnia and Herzegovina	0.725	66	New Zealand	0.697	113	Malawi	0.661
20	Republic of Korea	0.724	67	Costa Rica	0.696	114	Mali	0.659
21	Peru	0.724	68	Nepal	0.696	115	Sierra Leone	0.657
22	Vietnam	0.724	69	Ghana	0.695	116	Guinea	0.656
23	Bulgaria	0.723	70	Slovenia	0.694	117	Israel	0.653
24	Romania	0.723	71	Sri Lanka	0.694	118	Mongolia	0.651
25	China	0.722	72	United States	0.694	119	Burkina Faso	0.650
26	Denmark	0.721	73	Honduras	0.694	120	Angola	0.650
27	Serbia	0.720	74	Australia	0.694	121	Papua New Guinea	0.650
28	Moldova	0.719	75	Canada	0.694	122	Mozambique	0.649
29	Norway	0.719	76	Bolivia	0.694	123	Sudan	0.648
30	Turkey	0.719	77	Cambodia	0.693	124	Djibouti	0.646
31	Armenia	0.718	78	Malta	0.691	125	Mauritania	0.645
32	Arab Republic of Egypt	0.717	79	Senegal	0.691	126	Haiti	0.644
33	Austria	0.717	80	Lao People’s Democratic Republic	0.691	127	Republic of The Congo	0.643
34	Slovak Republic	0.717	81	Guatemala	0.690	128	Nigeria	0.641
35	Paraguay	0.716	82	Kazakhstan	0.689	129	Democratic Republic of Congo	0.639
36	Republic of Kyrgyzstan	0.715	83	Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela	0.689	130	Madagascar	0.638
37	Thailand	0.715	84	Belgium	0.688	131	Liberia	0.637
38	North Macedonia	0.714	85	Philippines	0.687	132	Burundi	0.637
39	Spain	0.714	86	Panama	0.687	133	Cyprus	0.637
40	Dominican Republic	0.714	87	Estonia	0.687	134	Niger	0.629
41	Germany	0.713	88	Rwanda	0.686	135	Republic of Yemen	0.614
42	Japan	0.713	89	Gabon	0.685	136	Luxembourg	0.610
43	Ecuador	0.713	90	Netherlands	0.683	137	Chad	0.606
44	Mexico	0.712	91	India	0.683	138	Saudi Arabia	0.604
45	Tunisia	0.710	92	Uganda	0.682	139	Central African Republic	0.599
46	Uzbekistan	0.710	93	South Africa	0.682	140	Afghanistan	0.584
47	Malaysia	0.709	94	Ivory Coast	0.682	141	United Arab Emirates	0.550

. The results obtained by TOPSIS are, at the individual country level, quite different from those obtained with 0–1 normalization. The former is a compensatory method, unlike the latter. Some countries take completely different positions, but if we evaluate the two rankings in overall terms using R-squared (0.59) and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (ρ = 0.77), they appear to be quite similar given the large number of countries considered. The analysis developed not on the rankings but on the values obtained with the two methods also confirms the moderate similarity between the two rankings (R-squared = 0.58, and Spearman’s index ρ = 0.77), as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7. It can be seen that some countries take completely different positions in the two rankings (Israel, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland), while others confirm their position precisely (Italy and Nigeria). It should be noted that Croatia, which ranks first in the TOPSIS ranking, loses ten positions when using the 0–1 normalization method. In addition, Kendall’s Tau is equal to 0.61, highlighting a strong correlation between the two methods.

4.7. The Integrated Min-Max and TOPSIS Method

The final step in this work consists of combining the two methods to provide an additional perspective. When used to select alternatives, the Min-Max method is a non-compensatory approach, since each criterion is evaluated separately, and a very low value in one criterion cannot be compensated for by high values in others. In contrast, the TOPSIS method is compensatory: an alternative that performs poorly in one criterion may still be preferable if it excels in others, thanks to the calculation of the distance from the ideal positive and negative solutions. By evaluating the ranking of each of the two methods, they are assigned equal weights, and the final ranking is obtained as an average between the Min-Max and TOPSIS rankings (

Table 11. Global ranking of average performance of all countries, according to the integrated min-max and TOPSIS method.

Rkg	Countries	Rkg	Countries	Rkg	Countries
1	Sweden	48	Slovenia	95	Gabon
2	Finland	48	Tunisia	95	Namibia
3	Croatia	50	Malaysia	97	India
4	United Kingdom	51	Paraguay	98	Cyprus
5	Poland	51	Arab Republic of Egypt	99	Ivory Coast
6	Portugal	53	Mexico	100	Botswana
7	Chile	54	Belgium	100	Kenya
7	Latvia	55	Ecuador	102	Turkmenistan
9	Denmark	55	Russian Federation	103	Uganda
9	Czech Republic	55	Netherlands	104	Iraq
11	Italy	58	Morocco	104	Tanzania
12	Brazil	59	Malta	106	Mongolia
13	Norway	59	United States	107	Togo
14	Greece	61	Costa Rica	108	Gambia
15	Republic of Korea	61	Ukraine	109	Cameroon
16	Hungary	63	Algeria	110	Zimbabwe
17	Austria	64	Estonia	111	Burma
17	Uruguay	64	Uzbekistan	112	United Arab Emirates
19	Germany	66	Switzerland	113	Ethiopia
20	Spain	67	Islamic Republic of Iran	114	Syrian Arab Republic
21	Japan	68	Jamaica	115	Pakistan
22	Argentina	69	Indonesia	116	Zambia
23	Colombia	70	El Salvador	117	Malawi
24	Albania	70	Tajikistan	118	Saudi Arabia
25	Bulgaria	72	Bhutan	118	Benin
26	Moldova	73	Nicaragua	120	Sierra Leone
26	Slovakia	74	Jordan	121	Mali
28	Georgia	75	Ireland	122	Burkina Faso
29	Romania	76	Azerbaijan	123	Guinea
29	Serbia	77	Kazakhstan	124	Mozambique
29	Thailand	78	Sri Lanka	125	Republic of Congo
32	France	79	Bolivia	126	Angola
33	China	80	Israel	127	Mauritania
34	Iceland	80	Nepal	128	Djibouti
34	North Macedonia	82	Honduras	129	Sudan
36	Vietnam	82	Panama	130	Burundi
37	Peru	84	Ghana	130	Nigeria
38	Australia	85	Bangladesh	130	Papua New Guinea
39	New Zealand	86	Philippines	133	Haiti
40	Armenia	87	South Africa	134	Liberia
40	Bosnia and Herzegovina	88	Cambodia	134	Madagascar
40	Turkey	88	Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela	136	Democratic Republic of Congo
43	Dominican Republic	90	Guatemala	137	Niger
44	Belarus	91	Senegal	138	Republic of Yemen
44	Republic of Kyrgyzstan	92	Luxembourg	139	Chad
46	Canada	92	Lao People’s Democratic Republic	140	Afghanistan
46	Lithuania	94	Rwanda	141	Central African Republic

and Figure 8).

The ranking paints a clear picture: the center of gravity for the best performances is in Europe. Sweden and Finland stand out at the top of the ranking, but Croatia also features on the podium. Other European countries follow, such as the United Kingdom, Poland, and Portugal. Latvia, Denmark, and the Czech Republic also feature in the top 10. These figures are very interesting when compared with the other G7 countries: Italy ranks 11th, Germany is 19th, and France is 32nd. Among the most populous countries, Spain stands out, behind Germany in 20th place. Northern Europe confirms its leadership, flanked by Central and Eastern Europe.

Looking at Latin America, the results are perhaps the most surprising. Chile, in 7th place, ranks among the top 10 countries and is the only non-European country, followed by Brazil (12th) and Uruguay (17th). Despite the region’s historical problems, some South American countries are showing dynamism and the ability to compete globally. Asia tells a story of light and shade. South Korea and Japan (a G7 country) remain solid performers, while Thailand and Vietnam testify to the ferment in Southeast Asia. However, the position of China, only 33rd, and especially India, 97th, is striking: two economic giants that, at least in this ranking, are unable to translate their weight into concrete results. Considering Oceania, Australia and New Zealand rank in the middle, around 40th place. North America, on the other hand, performs negatively with the performance of the other two G7 countries: Canada does not go beyond 46th place, while the United States, in 59th place, lags behind many European and Latin American countries. Finally, Africa remains the region with the greatest structural difficulties. Tunisia emerges as a positive exception, but most countries are at the bottom of the ranking, with the Central African Republic closing the list. This is a sign that there is still a wide gap to be bridged with other continents.

Ultimately, this ranking highlights a Europe that remains at the center of the stage, a Latin America capable of surprising, an Asia divided between excellence and delays, and a North America that is unexpectedly low-key. Oceania remains in the middle, while Africa still faces profound challenges.

5. Conclusions

This study focuses on comparing the progress of 141 countries towards meeting the SDGs. To this end, a multi-criteria approach was adopted that integrates different quantitative analysis methods, using the most up-to-date information contained in the Sustainable Development Report 2024 based on a set of 72 indicators.

Integrating different aggregation techniques revealed that the choice of methodology can substantially affect the final outcomes. This result underscores the need to adopt a critical approach in selecting the evaluation methodology most consistent with the knowledge objectives of the analysis. The consistency analysis of the rankings revealed a moderate similarity across methods, thereby reinforcing the validity of the adopted multi-criteria approach.

The application of the min-max method placed Sweden at the top, followed by Finland, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Norway. In contrast, the TOPSIS method ranked Croatia first, followed by Brazil, Sweden, Chile, and Poland. Despite the differences in rankings, there is a moderate correlation between the values of the two rankings. As for the bottom positions, there is convergence on the presence of Afghanistan and the Central African Republic; Chad appears in the min-max ranking, while the United Arab Emirates appears in the TOPSIS ranking.

The ranking highlights clear European leadership with the best performances. Sixteen of the top twenty countries are European, with Sweden leading the ranking, followed by Finland, Croatia, the United Kingdom, and Poland. Latin America shows surprising capabilities, while Asia presents contrasting results between excellence and delays. Oceania remains in the middle of the ranking, North America does not shine, and Africa remains the region with the greatest structural difficulties.

The disaggregated analysis by dimension (economic, environmental, and social) through the min-max method showed that Sweden, Finland, and Denmark are consistently at the top in all dimensions. The United Kingdom scores slightly lower in the social dimension, while Norway falls below the middle of the ranking in the environmental dimension. This highlights a first limitation of this study: the unbalanced distribution of indicators, with a prevalence (about 50%) of those relating to the social dimension, to the detriment of the environmental dimension, which is underrepresented.

In terms of individual dimensions, Sweden ranks first in the economic dimension, followed by Japan and Finland. Belarus, Latvia, and Croatia stand out in the environmental dimension, while Denmark, Norway, and Iceland excel in the social dimension, with Sweden and Finland close behind. The analysis at the continental level highlights the clear prevalence of European countries, particularly the Nordic countries. Asia presents a highly uneven picture, while Africa remains the continent with the weakest performance. In particular, Europe leads in both the environmental and social dimensions, followed by North America (which excels in the economic dimension); Latin America; Oceania; Central America and the Caribbean; Asia; and, finally, Africa.

An important political consideration emerges from the comparison between the level of development and performance on the SDGs: although high-income economies generally perform better, there are also cases of middle-income countries achieving high performance. This suggests that progress towards the SDGs does not depend solely on the level of economic development but also, and above all, on the effectiveness of the public policies adopted.

A comparison between OECD countries and BRICS+ countries shows a clear advantage for the OECD in all dimensions of sustainability, with a less marked difference in the economic dimension and a more significant difference in the social dimension.

The results of the analysis have important implications for global governance and the development of sustainability-oriented public policies. The ability to accurately identify the strengths and weaknesses of individual countries allows policymakers to allocate resources more effectively and define targeted interventions. Furthermore, the adoption of a comparative assessment framework can foster international cooperation by promoting systematic comparisons of performance and stimulating mutual learning between countries in order to identify areas for improvement and disseminate best practices.

Alongside the strengths of the analysis, three main limitations emerge. The first concerns the unbalanced distribution of indicators across the three dimensions of sustainability, with a strong predominance of social indicators. The second concerns the availability and quality of data: limited coverage in terms of countries and indicators, especially in low-income contexts, is a significant obstacle to building a truly inclusive assessment of the 2030 Agenda. The third limitation lies in the lack of analysis of synergies or divergences between the different indicators: the capacity of a policy to generate simultaneous positive effects in multiple areas (multiplier effects) has not been investigated, nor has the possibility of conflicting impacts between dimensions. Assessing these relationships would allow for a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of the strategies adopted, highlighting whether they produce cross-cutting benefits or generate trade-offs between different objectives. A further direction for research is to explore a country-by-country analysis (as performed, for example, for Italy, which occupies a distinct position in both methodologies). Some areas for future research could include what happens to the results when different weights are assigned to individual indicators. Furthermore, there is synergy among several SDGs, and it is therefore worth assessing how positive actions on one could have benefits on other indicators.

Finally, it should be noted that the principle of sustainability is to provide a future for younger generations, to look beyond one’s own country, and to have a global vision. It is essential that policy guidelines move towards reducing geopolitical risks and that sustainability is seen in its pragmatic vision, i.e., oriented towards benefiting the greatest number of stakeholders. The thematic map shows a clear link between sustainable development and humans. When sustainability is interpreted from a cultural approach of humanity and progress among all peoples, civil society will be closer to meeting the great challenge facing humanity: respecting nature and living in harmony and peace.