ANNEX – METHODS SUMMARY AND DATA TABLES

Annex
Methods Summary and Data Tables

A.1 Interpreting the SDG Index and

Dashboards results
The Sustainable Development Report 2024 provides an The SDG Trend Dashboards indicate whether a country
assessment of progress towards the SDGs for all UN is on track to achieve each individual goal by 2030
member states. The SDG Index score is presented based on past performance. It builds on past annual
on a scale of 0 to 100 and can be interpreted as a growth rates, since 2015, which are extrapolated to
percentage towards optimal performance on the 2030. Indicator trends are aggregated at the goal level
SDGs. Therefore, the difference between 100 and a to give an indication of how the country is progressing
country’s SDG Index score is the distance, in percentage towards that SDG.
points, that must be overcome to reach optimum SDG
performance. To minimize missing data bias, we do This section provides a brief summary of the methods
not calculate an overall SDG Index score and rank for used to compute the SDG Index and Dashboards.
countries missing data on more than 20 percent of the A detailed methodology paper is accessible online
indicators. The same basket of indicators and similar (Lafortune et al., 2018). The European Commission
performance thresholds are used for all countries to Joint Research Centre (JRC) conducted an independent
generate comparable scores and rankings. statistical audit of the report’s methodology and results
in 2019, reviewing the conceptual and statistical coher-
Substantial differences in rankings may be due to ence of the index structure. The detailed statistical audit
small differences in aggregate SDG Index scores. report and additional data tables are available on our
This calls for caution when interpreting differences in website: www.sdgtransformationcenter.org
rankings between countries. Differences of two or three
positions between countries should not be interpreted Due to time lags in international statistics, this year’s
as “significant”, whereas differences of 10 places may be edition may not fully capture the severe consequences
ascribed to meaningful differences in performance. For on the SDGs of the war in Ukraine and of other geopo-
further details, see the statistical audit by Papadimitriou litical and security crises over the past two years. The
et al. (2019) conducted on behalf of the EU Joint data for Ukraine correspond to a large extent to the
Research Centre (JRC). situation before February 2022, as many data points
have not been able to be updated since then. The inclu-
The SDG Dashboards provide a visual representation sion of an indicator on exports of major conventional
of countries’ performance on the 17 SDGs. The “traffic arms should not be interpreted as a value judgment
light” color scheme (green, yellow, orange, and red) by the authors on the policies implemented in the
illustrates how far a country is from achieving a partic- context of the war in Ukraine, but rather as an effort to
ular goal. The SDG Dashboards are presented for all evaluate more generally trends towards disarmament
countries where data permits, including countries not recognized by the United Nations as well as by civil
included in the SDG Index. As in previous years, the society organizations as an important priority for peace,
SDG Dashboards and country profiles for OECD coun- socio-economic stability and sustainable development
tries include additional metrics that are not available for (UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, 2018; Amnesty
non-OECD member states. International, 2008).

68 Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future
 .2 hanges to the 2 2 edition and limitations

A.2 Changes to the 2024 edition

and limitations

The 2024 SDG Index covers 167 countries, one more imported deforestation that uses geospatial datasets
than last year (Guinea-Bissau). This year, the SDR on yearly deforestation, crop and livestock distribution
continues to integrate more indicators that build on and main deforestation drivers, as well as carbon
geographic information systems (GIS) to increase stocks, and links those results to MRIO tables in order
data availability and timeliness. For example, under to attribute deforestation to the final consumer of
SDG 15 (Life on Land), we included a new indicator on each commodity.

Table A.1
New indicators and modifications

SDG Indicator Modification Source

Modification: now measures variation in

Variation in mathematics performance mathematics instead of science performance
4 OECD
explained by socio-economic status (%) explained by student' socio-economic status to
match the latest PISA.

Part 4. Transforming systems

Modification: now measures underachievers in
Underachievers in mathematics
4 mathematics instead of science to match the focus OECD
(% of 15-year-olds)
of the latest PISA.

CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion per total Modification: CO₂ data now sourced from the Global Carbon
7
electricity output (MtCO₂/TWh) Global Carbon Project. Project & IEA

Youth not in employment, education or training Modification: now measured as a percent of people
8 OECD
(NEET) (% of population aged 15 to 24) aged 15–24.

Washington
11 Annual mean concentration of PM2.5 (μg/m³) Modification: data no longer limited to urban areas.
University in St Louis

Population with convenient access to public

11 Replaces "Satisfaction with public transport (%)" UN-Habitat
transport in cities (%)

Production-based air pollution

12 Replaces "Production-based SO₂ emissions" UNEP
(DALYs per 1,000 population)

Air pollution associated with imports

12 Replaces "SO₂ emissions associated with imports" UNEP
(DALYs per 1,000 population)

Modification: now measures all GHG emissions

GHG emissions embodied in imports
13 associated with imports, instead of just CO₂ Lenzen et al. (2022)
(tCO₂/capita)
emissions.

Replaces "Terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity

15 Imported deforestation (m²/capita) threats embodied in imports (per million GSCI
population)"

Replaces "Population who feel safe walking alone

16 Crime is effectively controlled (worst 0–1 best) World Justice Project
at night in the city or area where they live"

Index of countries' support to UN-based

17 New Indicator SDSN
multilateralism (worst 0–100 best)

Source: Authors

Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future 69
 ANNEX – METHODS SUMMARY AND DATA TABLES

This edition also incorporates one new spillover indica- A.3 Methodology (overview)
tor on countries’ support to UN-based Multilateralism
(See Part 3). Table A.1 summarizes these additions and The SDG Index provides a comprehensive assessment
identifies indicators that were replaced or modified due of distance to targets based on the most up-to-date
to changes in the methodology and estimates pro- data available covering all 193 UN member States.
duced by data providers. This year’s report includes 98 global indicators and
27 additional indicators included specifically for OECD
As last year, we present an overview of where the world countries’ dashboards (due to better data coverage).
stands on SDG progress, calculated using a popula-
tion-weighted average for all UN member states. For The following sections provide an overview of the
the first time, BRICS (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, methodology for indicator selection, normalization,
China and South Africa) and BRICS+ country profiles are aggregation and for generating indications on trends
also presented. over time. Additional information including raw data,
additional data tables and sensitivity tests, is available
online.
Limitations
Due to changes in the indicators and refinements
in the methodology, SDG Index rankings and scores
A. Data selection
from one edition cannot be compared with the results Where possible, we use official SDG indicators endorsed
from previous editions. However, Part 2 provides by the UN Statistical Commission. Where there are data
time series for the SDG Index calculated retroactively gaps or insufficient data available for an official indica-
using this year’s indicators and methods, providing tor, we include other metrics from official and unofficial
results that are comparable across time. The full time providers. We used five criteria in selecting indicators
series for the SDG Index are available for download suitable for inclusion in the report:
online and on our interactive data visualization at
sdgtransformationcenter.org. 1. Their global relevance and applicability to a broad
range of country settings.
Despite our best efforts to identify data for the SDGs, 2. Statistical adequacy: The indicators represent valid
several indicator and data gaps persist at the interna- and reliable measures.
tional level (Table A.2).
3. Timeliness: The indicators are current and published
To ensure the results are comparable across countries, on a timely schedule.
we do not incorporate estimates received directly from 4. Coverage: Data is available for at least 80 percent of
national statistical offices. Data providers may adjust UN member states with a population 1 million.1
national data to ensure international comparability.
5. Distance to targets must be measurable (optimal
As a result, some data points presented in this report
performance can be defined).
may differ from data available from national sources.
Moreover, the length of the validation processes by
international organizations can lead to significant Data sources
delays in publishing some data. National statistical The data come from a mix of official and non-official
offices may therefore have more recent data for some data sources. Most of the data (around two-thirds)
indicators than presented in this report. come from international organizations (World Bank,
OECD, WHO, FAO, ILO, UNICEF, other) which have
extensive and rigorous data validation processes.

1. There are two exceptions to this rule: (i) New HIV infections
and; (ii) Children involved in child labor.

70 Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future
 .3 ethodology overvie

Other data sources (around one-third) come from These non-official data sources complement other
less traditional statistics including household surveys data sources and help increase data availability and
(Gallup World Poll), civil society organizations and timeliness for key SDG indicators and targets. The full
networks (Oxfam, the Tax Justice Network, the list of indicators and data sources is available in Table
World Justice Project, Reporters Without Borders), A.5 and online. The data for this year’s edition were
peer-reviewed journals (e.g., to track international extracted between March and April 2024.
spillovers), and geographic information systems (GIS).

Table A.2
Major indicator and data gaps for the SDGs

SDG Issue Desired metrics

Food loss and food waste
2 Agriculture and nutrition Global yield gap statistics

Health care system resilience and preparedness to face global health risks
3 Health
Internationally comparable survey data on unmet care needs

Internationally comparable measures of the quality of primary and secondary education

Part 4. Transforming systems

4 Education
Early childhood development (access and quality)

Gender pay gap and other empowerment measures

5 Women empowerment
Violence against women

6 Water Quality of drinking water and surface waters

8 Decent work Decent work

Wealth inequality
10 Inequality
Vertical mobility

Environmental impact of transboundary physical flows (e.g. air pollution through wind,
Sustainable consumption water pollution through rivers)
12
and production Recycling and re-use (circular economy)
Hazardous chemicals

13 Climate Action Robust indicators of climate adaptation

Maximum sustainable yields for fisheries

14 Marine ecosystems
Impact of high-sea and cross-border fishing

Leading indicators for ecosystem health

15 Terrestrial ecosystems
Trade in endangered species

16 Peace and justice Violence against children

Development impact of trade practices

17 Means of implementation
Lead international indicator to track Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development

Source: Authors

Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future 71
 ANNEX – METHODS SUMMARY AND DATA TABLES

B. Missing data and imputations 2. Where no explicit SDG target is available, apply the
principle of “Leave-No-One-Behind” to set upper
To minimize biases from missing data, the SDG Index bound to universal access or zero deprivation.
only includes countries that have data for at least
3. Where science-based targets exist that must be
80 percent of the indicators. We make an exception
achieved by 2030 or later, use these to set the
for countries that have been in previous editions of
100 percent upper bound (e.g., zero greenhouse
the SDG Index as long as they are not missing more
gas emissions from CO as required by no later than
than 25 percent of the data.2 The list of countries not
2050 to stay within 1.5 C, 100 percent sustainable
included in the SDG Index due to missing data is pre-
management of fisheries).
sented in Table A.3 below. We include all UN member
countries in the SDG Dashboards and country profiles, 4. For all other indicators, use the average of the top 5
which also indicate where there are gaps in available performers.
SDG data for a country. We generally do not impute
or model any missing data, except for a few excep- These principles interpret the SDGs as “stretch targets”
tional circumstances. The list of indicators that include and focus attention on the indicators where a country
imputed data is available online in the Codebook. is lagging behind. The lower bound was defined at the
2.5th percentile of the distribution. Each indicator distri-
bution was censored, so that all values exceeding the
C. Method for constructing the SDG Index and upper bound scored 100, and values below the lower
Dashboards bound scored 0.
The procedure for calculating the SDG Index comprises
three steps: (i) establish performance thresholds and
censor extreme values from the distribution of each Normalization
indicator; (ii) rescale the data to ensure comparability After establishing the upper and lower bounds, vari-
across indicators (normalization); (iii) aggregate the ables were transformed linearly to a scale between 0
indicators within and across SDGs. and 100 using the following rescaling formula for the
range 0; 100 :

Establishing Performance thresholds x – min(x)

To make the data comparable across indicators, each
x´ = x 100
max(x) – min(x)
variable was rescaled from 0 to 100, with 0 denoting
worst performance and 100 describing the optimum.
Rescaling is sensitive to the choice of limits and extreme where x is the raw data value; max/min denote the
values (outliers). The latter may become unintended upper and lower bounds, respectively; and x’ is the
thresholds and introduce spurious variability in the data. normalized value after rescaling.
Consequently, the choice of upper and lower bounds
can affect the relative ranking of countries in the index. The rescaling equation ensured that all rescaled
variables were expressed as ascending variables (i.e.,
The upper bound for each indicator was determined higher values denoted better performance). In this
using the following decision tree: way, the rescaled data became easy to interpret and
compare across all indicators: a country that scores 50
1. Use absolute quantitative thresholds in SDGs and on a variable is half-way towards achieving the optimum
targets: e.g., zero poverty, universal school comple- value; a country with a score of 75 has covered three
tion, universal access to water and sanitation, full quarters of the distance from worst to best.
gender equality.

2. This applies to Comoros and Somalia.

72 Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future
 .3 ethodology overvie

Weighting and Aggregation others. As a normative assumption, we therefore opted

The results of several rounds of expert consultations on for fixed, equal weight to every SDG to reflect policy-
earlier drafts of the SDG Index made clear that there makers’ commitment to treat all SDGs equally and as
was no consensus across different epistemic commu- an integrated and indivisible set of goals. This implies
nities on assigning higher weights to some SDGs over that to improve their SDG Index score countries need

Table A.3
Countries excluded from the 2024 SDG Index due to insufficient data

Country Missing Values Percentage of Missing Values

Andorra 45 48.4%

Antigua and Barbuda 28 28.6%

Dominica 39 39.8%

Equatorial Guinea 26 26.5%

Eritrea 21 21.4%

Grenada 33 33.7%

Part 4. Transforming systems

Kiribati 36 36.7%

Korea, Dem. Rep. 29 29.6%

Libya 25 25.5%

Liechtenstein 60 64.5%

Marshall Islands 48 49.0%

Micronesia, Fed. Sts. 41 41.8%

Monaco 60 61.2%

Nauru 44 44.9%

Palau 48 49.0%

Samoa 27 27.6%

San Marino 59 60.2%

Seychelles 32 32.7%

Solomon Islands 29 29.6%

St. Kitts and Nevis 38 38.8%

St. Lucia 24 24.5%

St. Vincent and the Grenadines 30 30.6%

Timor-Leste 22 22.4%

Tonga 34 34.7%

Tuvalu 46 46.9%

Vanuatu 27 27.6%

Source: Authors

Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future 73
 ANNEX – METHODS SUMMARY AND DATA TABLES

to place attention on all goals with a particular focus on referred to as the issue “substitutability” or “compen-
goals where they are furthest from achieving the SDGs sation”). This applies particularly to high-income and
and where incremental progress might therefore be upper-middle-income countries that have made signif-
expected to be fastest. icant progress on many SDG dimensions but may face
serious shortfalls on individual variables, for example on
To compute the SDG Index, we first estimate scores for the sustainability of diets and agriculture within SDG 2.
each goal using the arithmetic mean of indicators for
that goal. These goal scores are then averaged across As a result, the SDG Dashboards focus exclusively on
all 17 SDGs to obtain the SDG Index score. The results the two variables on which a country performs worst.
of various sensitivity tests are available online includ- We applied the additional rule that a red rating was
ing comparisons of arithmetic mean versus geometric assigned only if both the worst-performing indicators
mean and Monte-Carlo simulations at the Index and score red. Similarly, to score green, both indicators had
Goal level. Monte-Carlo simulations call for prudence in to be green. The quantitative thresholds used for gen-
interpreting small differences in the Index scores and erating the dashboards are available in Table A5.
rankings between countries as those may be sensitive
to the weighting scheme.
SDG Trends
Using historic data, we estimate how fast a country
Dashboards has been progressing towards an SDG and determine
We introduced additional quantitative thresholds whether – if extrapolated into the future – this pace
for each indicator to group countries in a “traffic will be sufficient to achieve the SDG by 2030. For each
light” table. Thresholds were established based on indicator, SDG achievement is defined by the green
statistical techniques and through various rounds of threshold set for the SDG Dashboards. The difference
consultations with experts conducted since 2016. in percentage points between the green threshold and
the normalized country score denotes the gap that
Averaging across all indicators for an SDG might must be closed to meet that goal. To estimate trends
hide areas of policy concern if a country performs at the indicator level, we calculated the linear annual
well on most indicators but faces serious shortfalls growth rates (i.e., annual percentage improvements)
on one or two metrics within the same SDG (often needed to achieve the target by 2030 (i.e., 2015–2030)

Figure A.1
The Four-arrow system for denoting SDG trends

p 5 D L
On track or Maintaining
Decreasing Stagnating Moderately improving
SDG achievement

Decreasing score, i.e. Score remains stagnant or Score increases at a rate Score increases at the rate
country moves in the increases at a rate below above 50% of the required needed to achieve the SDG
wrong direction 50% of the growth rate growth rate but below the by 2030 or performance
needed to achieve the rate needed to achieve has already exceeded SDG
SDG by 2030. Also denotes the SDG by 2030 achievement threshold
scores that currently
exceed the target but have
decreased since 2015

74 Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future
 .3 ethodology overvie

Figure A.2
Graphic representation of the methodology for SDG trends

Goal achievement
Green threshold

Performance in 2015
Extrapolated linear
annual growth rate
2015–2030

2015 2022 2030

Source: Authors

Part 4. Transforming systems

which we compared to the average annual growth Status of SDG targets
rate over the most recent period since the adoption of In addition to the SDG Index, Dashboards and Trends,
the SDGs in 2015 (e.g. 2015–2023). Progress towards we present an assessment of the status of SDG targets
achievement on a particular indicator is described using for all countries and for the world overall. To make this
a 4-arrow system (Figure 4.1). Figure A.2 illustrates the assessment, we only use trend indicators (Table A5)
methodology graphically. Because time series data is since time series data was needed to calculate rates
required for these calculations, indicators with only one of progress. Indicators used for OECD countries only
or very few data points across time could not be used were excluded to provide comparable results across
for these analyses. The list of indicators used to gener- countries.
ate the trend indications is available in Table A6.
In the case where the past rate of progress is sufficient
Because projections are based on the growth rate over to meet the target by 2030 – corresponding to the
the last several years, a country might have observed green arrow “On track or maintaining SDG achieve-
a decline in performance in the past year (for instance ment” the indicator is counted as a target on track.
due to the impact of COVID-19) but still be considered Indicators where past rates of progress are insufficient
as being on track. This methodology emphasizes long- to meet the SDG target corresponding to the orange
term structural changes over time since the adoption “stagnating” or yellow “moderately improving” arrows
of the SDGs in 2015, and less so annual changes which are counted as limited progress. Finally, indicators
may be cyclical or temporary. Countries that currently that are going in the wrong direction the red arrow
exceed an indicator target but have decreased since “decreasing” were counted as worsening. Indicators
2015, are assigned an orange arrow. This is because for which a country has already met the target but have
if the decreasing trend continues, the country may no decreased in score since 2015 were also considered
longer meet the SDG target in the future. worsening. For the assessment of the status of SDG

Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future 75
 ANNEX – METHODS SUMMARY AND DATA TABLES

targets for the World (population-weighted average), dashboards for OECD countries. The 14 remaining indi-
we only considered as on track those indicators that cators are used to calculate the International Spillover
showed consistent progress both in the long term Index Score. These indicators can be organized into
(since 2015) and in the short term (the most recent year three categories of international spillovers: 1) envi-
of reference for the indicator). ronmental and social impacts embodied into trade;
2) economy and finance and 3) UN-based multilater-
alism, peace and security. The International Spillover
International Spillover Index Index Score is calculated as the arithmetic average
The 2024 International Spillover Index tracks the of a country’s score on all of the indicators, weighted
impacts of a given country’s actions on others. The equally. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where a lower
Sustainable Development Report 2024 contains 16 spill- score denotes more negative spillover impacts and a
over indicators, including two that are used only in the higher score denotes fewer negative spillover impacts.

Table A.4
Spillover indicators and categories

Spillover Categories SDG Indicator

2 Exports of hazardous pesticides (tonnes per million population)

6 Scarce water consumption embodied in imports (m³ H₂Oeq/capita)

8 Fatal work-related accidents embodied in imports (per million population)

8 Victims of modern slavery embodied in imports (per 100,000 population)

12 Air pollution associated with imports (DALYs per 1,000 population)

Environmental and social
impacts embodied into trade 12 Nitrogen emissions associated with imports (kg/capita)

12 Exports of plastic waste (kg/capita)

13 GHG emissions embodied in imports (tCO₂/capita)

14 Marine biodiversity threats embodied in imports (per million population)

15 Imported deforestation (m²/capita)

For high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional public
17
finance, including official development assistance (% of GNI)
17
Corporate Tax Haven Score (best 0–100 worst)
Economy and finance
17
Financial Secrecy Score (best 0–100 worst)*
17
Shifted profits of multinationals (US$ billion)*

Exports of major conventional weapons (TIV constant million USD per 100,000
16
UN-based multilateralism, population)
Peace & Security 17
Index of countries' support to UN-based multilateralism (worst 0–100 best)

*Denotes OECD only indicator

Source: Authors

76 Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future
 .3 ethodology overvie

Table A.5
Indicators included in the Sustainable Development Report 2024

egend for ote

a denotes OECD-only indicators
b denotes indicators not used in OECD dashboard but that are used in the calculation of OECD countries’ index scores

Green Red Lower Reference

SDG Notes Trend Indicator Optimum threshold threshold bound Year Source

✓ Poverty headcount ratio at $2.15/day

1 0 2 13 72.6 2024 World Data Lab
(2017 PPP, %)

✓ Poverty headcount ratio at $3.65/day

1 0 2 13 51.5 2024 World Data Lab
(2017 PPP, %)

1 [a] ✓ Poverty rate after taxes and transfers (%) 6.1 10 15 17.7 2021 OECD

2 ✓ Prevalence of undernourishment (%) 2.5 7.5 15 42.3 2021 FAO

✓ Prevalence of stunting in children under

2 0 7.5 15 40 2021 UNICEF et al.
5 years of age (%)

✓ Prevalence of wasting in children under

2 0 5 10 16.3 2021 UNICEF et al.
5 years of age (%)

✓ Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30

2 2.8 10 25 35.1 2022 WHO
(% of adult population)

✓ Bonhommeau et al.
2 Human Trophic Level (best 2–3 worst) 2.04 2.2 2.4 2.45 2021
(2013)

Part 4. Transforming systems

✓ Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested
2 7 2.5 1.5 0.2 2022 FAO
land)

✓ Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index Zhang and Davidson

2 0 0.3 0.7 1.2 2018
(best 0–1.41 worst) (2019)

2 [a] Yield gap closure (% of potential yield) 77 75 50 28 2022 Global Yield Gap Atlas

Exports of hazardous pesticides (tonnes per

2 0 1 50 250 2021 FAO
million population)

3 ✓ Maternal mortality ratio (per 100,000 live births) 3.4 70 140 814 2020 WHO et al.

3 ✓ Neonatal mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 1.1 12 18 39.7 2022 UNICEF et al.

3 ✓ Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000 live births) 2.6 25 50 130.1 2022 UNICEF et al.

✓ Incidence of tuberculosis
3 0 10 75 561 2022 WHO
(per 100,000 population)

✓ New HIV infections (per 1,000 uninfected

3 0 0.2 1 5.5 2022 UNAIDS
population, all ages)

Age-standardized death rate due to

✓ cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or
3 9.3 15 25 31 2019 WHO
chronic respiratory disease in adults aged 30
to 70 years (%)

Age-standardized death rate attributable

3 to household air pollution and ambient air 0 18 150 368.8 2019 WHO
pollution (per 100,000 population)

3 ✓ Traffic deaths (per 100,000 population) 3.2 8.4 16.8 33.7 2021 WHO

3 ✓ Life expectancy at birth (years) 83 80 70 54 2021 UNDESA

✓ Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1,000

3 2.5 25 50 139.6 2022 WHO
females aged 15 to 19)

3 ✓ Births attended by skilled health personnel (%) 100 98 90 23.1 2022 UNICEF

Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future 77
 ANNEX – METHODS SUMMARY AND DATA TABLES

Table A.5
(continued)

Green Red Lower Reference

SDG Notes Trend Indicator Optimum threshold threshold bound Year Source

✓ Surviving infants who received 2 WHO-

3 100 90 80 41 2022 WHO and UNICEF
recommended vaccines (%)

✓ Universal health coverage (UHC) index of

3 100 80 60 38.2 2021 WHO
service coverage (worst 0–100 best)

✓ Subjective well-being (average ladder score,

3 7.6 6 5 3.3 2023 Gallup
worst 0–10 best)

✓ Gap in life expectancy at birth among regions

3 [a] 0 3 7 11 2021 OECD
(years)

✓ Gap in self-reported health status by income

3 [a] 0 20 40 45 2022 OECD
(percentage points)

✓ Daily smokers (% of population aged 15 and

3 [a] 10.1 18 32 35 2022 OECD
over)

✓ Participation rate in pre-primary organized

4 100 90 70 35 2022 UNESCO
learning (% of children aged 4 to 6)

4 ✓ Net primary enrollment rate (%) 100 97 80 53.8 2022 UNESCO

4 ✓ Lower secondary completion rate (%) 100 90 75 18 2022 UNESCO

4 ✓ Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24) 100 95 85 45.2 2022 UNESCO

✓ Tertiary educational attainment

4 52.2 40 10 0 2022 OECD
(% of population aged 25 to 34)

4 [a] ✓ PISA score (worst 0–600 best) 525.6 493 400 350 2022 OECD

✓ Variation in mathematics performance

4 [a] 8.3 10.5 20 21.4 2022 OECD
explained by socio-economic status (%)

✓ Underachievers in mathematics
4 [a] 10 15 30 48 2022 OECD
(% of 15-year-olds)

✓ Demand for family planning satisfied by

5 100 80 60 30 2024 UNDESA
modern methods (% of females aged 15 to 49)

✓ Ratio of female-to-male mean years of

5 100 98 75 41.8 2022 UNDP
education received (%)

✓ Ratio of female-to-male labor force

5 100 70 50 21.5 2023 ILO
participation rate (%)

5 ✓ Seats held by women in national parliament (%) 50 40 20 1.2 2024 IPU

5 [a] ✓ Gender wage gap (% of male median wage) 0 8 20 36.7 2022 OECD

✓ Population using at least basic drinking water

6 100 98 80 40 2022 JMP
services (%)

✓ Population using at least basic sanitation

6 100 95 75 9.7 2022 JMP
services (%)

✓ Freshwater withdrawal (% of available

6 12.5 25 75 100 2021 FAO
freshwater resources)

Anthropogenic wastewater that receives

6 100 50 25 15 2020 EPI
treatment (%)

✓ Scarce water consumption embodied in

6 30 800 3000 8000 2024 UNEP
imports (m³ H₂Oeq/capita)

✓ Population using safely managed water

6 [a] 100 95 80 10.5 2022 JMP
services (%)

✓ Population using safely managed sanitation

6 [a] 100 90 65 14.1 2022 JMP
services (%)

✓ IEA, IRENA, UNSD,

7 Population with access to electricity (%) 100 98 80 9.1 2021
WB, WHO

78 Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future
 .3 ethodology overvie

Table A.5
(continued)

Green Red Lower Reference

SDG Notes Trend Indicator Optimum threshold threshold bound Year Source

✓ Population with access to clean fuels and

7 100 85 50 2 2021 WHO
technology for cooking (%)

✓ CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion per total Global Carbon

7 0 1 1.5 5.9 2022
electricity output (MtCO₂/TWh) Project & IEA

✓ Renewable energy share in total final energy IEA, IRENA, UNSD,

7 55 32 10 3 2021
consumption (%) WB, WHO

8 Adjusted GDP growth (%) 5 0 -3 -14.7 2022 World Bank

Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 Walk Free

8 0 4 10 22 2022
population) Foundation (2018)

Adults with an account at a bank or other financial

✓ Global Findex
8 institution or with a mobile-money-service 100 80 50 8 2021
Database
provider (% of population aged 15 or over)

Unemployment rate (% of total labor force,

8 [b] ✓ 0.5 5 10 25.9 2024 ILO
ages 15+)

✓ Fundamental labor rights are effectively

8 0.85 0.7 0.5 0.3 2022 World Justice Project
guaranteed (worst 0–1 best)

✓ Fatal work-related accidents embodied in Alsamawi et al.

8 0 1 4 10 2018
imports (per million population) (2017)

Victims of modern slavery embodied in

8 0 20 250 300 2018 Malik et al (2022)
imports (per 100,000 population)

8 [a] ✓ Employment-to-population ratio (%) 77.8 60 50 50 2023 OECD

Part 4. Transforming systems

✓ Youth not in employment, education or training
8 [a] 8.1 10 15 28.2 2021 OECD
(NEET) (% of population aged 15 to 24)

SDSN (2023), based

Rural population with access to all-season on Workman, R. &
9 99.5 90 60 35 2024
roads (%) McPherson, K., TRL
(2019)

9 ✓ Population using the internet (%) 100 80 50 2.2 2022 ITU

✓ Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100

9 100 75 40 1.4 2022 ITU
population)

✓ Logistics Performance Index: Infrastructure

9 3.8 3 2 1.6 2023 World Bank
Score (worst 1–5 best)
The Times Higher Education Universities
✓ Times Higher
9 Ranking: Average score of top 3 universities 50 30 0 0 2024
Education
(worst 0–100 best)

✓ Articles published in academic journals (per Scimago Jounal

9 1.2 0.7 0.05 0 2022
1,000 population) Rank

✓ Expenditure on research and development

9 3.7 1.5 1 0 2022 UNESCO
(% of GDP)

9 [a] ✓ Researchers (per 1,000 employed population) 15.6 8 7 0.8 2022 OECD

✓ Triadic patent families filed (per million

9 115.7 20 10 0.1 2020 OECD
population)

✓ Gap in internet access by income (percentage

9 [a] 0 7 45 63.6 2020 OECD
points)

✓ Female share of graduates from STEM fields

9 [a] 50 30 20 15 2018 World Bank
at the tertiary level (%)

10 ✓ Gini coefficient 27.5 30 40 63 2021 World Bank

10 ✓ Palma ratio 0.9 1 1.3 2.5 2022 OECD & UNDP

Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future 79
 ANNEX – METHODS SUMMARY AND DATA TABLES

Table A.5
(continued)

Green Red Lower Reference

SDG Notes Trend Indicator Optimum threshold threshold bound Year Source

✓ Elderly poverty rate (% of population aged 66

10 [a] 3.2 5 25 45.7 2021 OECD
or over)

✓ Proportion of urban population living in

11 0 5 25 90 2020 UN Habitat
slums (%)

✓ Washington
11 Annual mean concentration of PM2.5 (μg/m³) 6.3 10 25 87 2022
University in St Louis

✓ Access to improved water source, piped

11 100 98 75 6.1 2022 WHO and UNICEF
(% of urban population)

11 [a] ✓ Population with rent overburden (%) 4.6 7 17 25.6 2020 OECD

SDSN (2023),
Urban population with access to points of based on Nicoletti,
11 [a] 98 90 50 15 2024
interest within a 15min walk (%) L., Sirenko, M., &
Verma, T. (2023)

Population with convenient access to public

11 100 80 50 9 2020 UN-Habitat
transport in cities (%)

12 [b] Municipal solid waste (kg/capita/day) 0.1 1 2 3.7 2019 World Bank

12 Electronic waste (kg/capita) 0.2 5 10 23.5 2019 UNU-IAS

✓ Production-based air pollution

12 0 2 10 24 2024 UNEP
(DALYs per 1,000 population)

✓ Air pollution associated with imports

12 0 2 12 35 2024 UNEP
(DALYs per 1,000 population)

✓ Production-based nitrogen emissions

12 2 20 50 100 2024 UNEP
(kg/capita)

✓ Nitrogen emissions associated with imports

12 0 10 30 90 2024 UNEP
(kg/capita)

12 ✓ Exports of plastic waste (kg/capita) 0 1 5 12 2023 UN Comtrade

✓ Non-recycled municipal solid waste

12 [a] 0.6 0.8 1 1.5 2021 OECD
(kg/capita/day)

✓ CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion and Global Carbon

13 0 2 4 20 2022
cement production (tCO₂/capita) Project

✓ GHG emissions embodied in imports

13 0 1 4 16 2021 Lenzen et al. (2022)
(tCO₂/capita)

CO₂ emissions embodied in fossil fuel exports

13 0 100 8000 44000 2023 UN Comtrade
(kg/capita)

✓ Carbon Pricing Score at EUR60/tCO₂

13 [a] 100 70 30 0 2021 OECD
(%, worst 0–100 best)

✓ Mean area that is protected in marine sites Birdlife

14 100 85 65 0 2023
important to biodiversity (%) International et al.

✓ Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score

14 100 80 70 28.6 2023 Ocean Health Index
(worst 0–100 best)

✓ Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed

14 0 25 50 90.7 2018 Sea around Us
stocks (% of total catch)

14 ✓ Fish caught by trawling or dredging (%) 1 7 60 90 2019 Sea Around Us

14 ✓ Fish caught that are then discarded (%) 0 5 15 20 2019 Sea around Us

Marine biodiversity threats embodied in

14 0 0.2 1 2 2018 Lenzen et al. (2012)
imports (per million population)

✓ Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites Birdlife

15 100 85 65 0 2023
important to biodiversity (%) International et al.

80 Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future
 .3 ethodology overvie

Table A.5
(continued)

Green Red Lower Reference

SDG Notes Trend Indicator Optimum threshold threshold bound Year Source

✓ Mean area that is protected in freshwater Birdlife

15 100 85 65 0 2023
sites important to biodiversity (%) International et al.

✓ IUCN and Birdlife

15 Red List Index of species survival (worst 0–1 best) 1 0.9 0.8 0.6 2024
International

✓ Permanent deforestation (% of forest area,

15 0 0.05 0.5 1.5 2022 Curtis et al. (2018)
3-year average)

15 ✓ Imported deforestation (m²/capita) 0 10 30 50 2022 GSCI

16 ✓ Homicides (per 100,000 population) 0.3 1.5 4 38 2022 UNODC

16 ✓ Crime is effectively controlled (worst 0–1 best) 0.95 0.8 0.6 0.45 2022 World Justice Project

16 ✓ Unsentenced detainees (% of prison population) 7 30 50 75 2022 UNODC

Birth registrations with civil authority

16 100 98 75 11 2023 UNICEF
(% of children under age 5)

✓ Transparency
16 Corruption Perceptions Index (worst 0–100 best) 88.6 60 40 13 2023
International

16 Children involved in child labor (%) 0 2 10 39.3 2020 UNICEF

Exports of major conventional weapons

Stockholm Peace
16 (TIV constant million USD per 100,000 0 0.04 2 3.4 2023
Research Institute
population)*

✓ Reporters sans
16 Press Freedom Index (worst 0–100 best) 88 70 50 40 2024

Part 4. Transforming systems

frontières

✓ Access to and affordability of justice

16 0.75 0.65 0.5 0.1 2022 World Justice Project
(worst 0–1 best)

✓ Timeliness of administrative proceedings

16 0.85 0.7 0.4 0.15 2022 World Justice Project
(worst 0–1 best)

✓ Expropriations are lawful and adequately

16 1 1 1 0 2022 World Justice Project
compensated (worst 0–1 best)

✓ Persons held in prison

16 [a] 25 100 250 475 2021 UNODC
(per 100,000 population)

✓ Government spending on health and

17 15 10 5 0 2022 UNESCO
education (% of GDP)

For high-income and all OECD DAC countries:

✓ International concessional public finance,
17 1 1 0 0 2023 OECD
including official development assistance
(% of GNI)

✓ Other countries: Government revenue

17 40 30 16 10 2022 IMF
excluding grants (% of GDP)

17 Corporate Tax Haven Score (best 0–100 worst) 40 60 70 100 2021 Tax Justice Network

17 [a] ✓ Financial Secrecy Score (best 0–100 worst) 43 45 55 77 2022 Tax Justice Network

17 [a] ✓ Shifted profits of multinationals (US$ billion) 0 0 -30 -70 2019 Zucman et al. (2019)

17 ✓ Statistical Performance Index (worst 0–100 best) 100 80 50 25 2022 World Bank

Index of countries' support to UN-based

17 90 75 50 30 2023 SDSN
multilateralism (worst 0–100 best)

*Note: The inclusion of an indicator on export of major conventional weapons should not be interpreted as a value judgment by the authors on the policies implemented in the
context of the war in Ukraine, but rather as an effort to evaluate more generally trends towards disarmament recognized by the UN and civil society organizations as an important
priority for peace, socio-economic stability and sustainable development (UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, 2018; Amnesty International, 2008).
Source: Authors

Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future 81
 ANNEX – METHODS SUMMARY AND DATA TABLES

References
Amnesty International (2008). Blood at the Crossroads:
Making the Case for a Global Arms Trade Treaty. London,
UK: Amnesty International Publications. https://
controlarms.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/
act300112008en.pdf

Lafortune, G., G. Fuller, J. Moreno, G. Schmidt-Traub and

C. Kroll (2018). SDG Index and Dashboards. Detailed
Methodological paper’. Bertelsmann Stiftung and
Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Paris

Papadimitriou, Eleni, Ana Neves, and William Becker. (2019).

JRC Statistical Audit of the Sustainable Development Goals
Index and Dashboards. European Commission, Joint
Research Centre. doi:10.2760/723763, JRC116857

UNODA (2018). Securing our Common Future: An Agenda

for Disarmament. United Nations O ce for Disarmament
A airs. https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/06/sg-disarmament-agenda-pubs-page.pdf

82 Sustainable Development Report 2024 The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future