Report on transformative indicators initiatives for a sustainable wellbeing paradigm

Recognizing that each indicator set, or index emerges from specific initiatives with distinct goals, actors, and contexts, this research sets out to examine the initiatives themselves to uncover the broader implications and uses of the metrics they generate. In doing so, this deliverable explores the potential of Transformative Indicators Initiatives (T-IIs) to reshape policymaking within the European Union (EU), aiming to overcome the pre-eminence of conventional socio-economic evaluations such as GDP. As the national initiatives analysed in this study as well as the relevant literature on “beyond-GDP” indicators demonstrate, the biggest challenges related to enforcing sustainable wellbeing metrics at top levels of governance do not lie in the ex-ante definition of “the right” or “the best” indicators, but in being aware of a series of technical quality, theoretical adequacy, and potential of amplification challenges. This is why, rather than proposing a definit(iv)e list of indicators to be readily adopted, we craft a framework for the elaboration of a dashboard that keeps up with the theoretical as well as practical state of the art in transformative sustainable wellbeing indicators. The report is structured around three main phases: conceptualization, empirical analysis, and recommendations, with a focus on defining, analysing, and proposing pathways toward a T-II for the EU. By integrating theoretical insights with practical examples, this study aims to establish a foundation for a future where indicators not only measure but also inspire and enact change. Conceptual phase – Defining Transformative Indicators Initiatives The study begins by defining T-IIs through a combination of quality criteria, theoretical adequacy criteria, and impact reach criteria, grounded in sustainable transition studies. This phase characterizes T-IIs not just as measurement tools, but as sets of norms, rules, principles, actors, and institutions that support alternative measurement practices oriented toward transformations aligned with sustainable wellbeing paradigms. The conceptualization emphasizes that T-IIs should influence socio-economic realities beyond merely measuring them, aiming to reshape or replace prevailing paradigms to better align with sustainable wellbeing. Empirical phase – Illustrating Transformative Indicators Initiatives The analysis involved a comprehensive review of eight existing IIs0F0F[1], assessing their alignment with T-II criteria developed in the conceptual phase. This phase revealed three distinct groups of IIs—informist, reformist, and transformist—, each displaying varying degrees of proximity with our quality, theoretical, and impact criteria. The review highlighted strengths and areas for improvement in these initiatives, particularly in terms of their ability to integrate ecological considerations and their effectiveness in influencing policy and socio-economic norms. Recommendation phase – Designing an EU Transformative Indicators Initiative Drawing on insights from the two previous phases, and a roundtable dialogue with EU practitioners, the third phase worked out the concept of a feasible and desirable T-II for the EU. The discussion emphasizes the integration of the T-II into the EU’s Impact Assessment mechanisms, advocating for a co-constructed approach with institutional stakeholders and citizens, and enhanced resource optimization among existing agencies. Conclusions Our final proposition for an EU T-II consolidates the findings from the theoretical, empirical, and recommendation phases of this study into a framework designed to guide EU policymaking towards the design of a transformative sustainable wellbeing indicators initiative. The final proposition for an EU T-II integrates theoretical and empirical insights with the practical realities shared by EU practitioners. For quality criteria, we advocate for standards that ensure accuracy, reliability, robustness, timeliness, coherence, comparability, accessibility, and clarity. The theoretical framework should be holistic, boundary-limited, systemic, and integrate individual, societal, and planetary wellbeing domains. For the impact criteria, we suggest drawing on the roundtable’s recommendations but also pushing closer to an ideal T-II, inspired by the transformative approaches observed in the “transformist” group of IIs identified in our analysis. This involves integrating the T-II into the EU’s Impact Assessment mechanisms to enhance decision-making processes, establishing a mix of quantitative and qualitative indicator targets, and optimizing resources to foster synergies among existing frameworks and agencies. This comprehensive approach aims to position the EU at the forefront of global efforts to integrate sustainable wellbeing into policymaking. By adopting this transformative framework, the EU can catalyse significant socio-economic changes that align with long-term sustainability goals, setting a global standard for others to follow. [1] The eight IIs are the Measuring What Matters Dashboard of Australia, the Gross National Happiness Index of Bhutan, the Canadian Index of Wellbeing of Canada, the New Indicators of Wealth of France, the Equitable and Sustainable Wellbeing Indicators of Italy, the Living Standards Framework Dashboard from New Zealand, the National Performance Framework Dashboard of Scotland, and the National Wellbeing Indicators of Wales.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.