OECD nations outperform BRICS+ on sustainable development goals

A major comparative study of national progress toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has revealed striking differences in how countries measure up when assessed with alternative ranking methods.

The research, published in Sustainability and titled Indicator Assessment of Sustainable Development Goals: A Global Perspective, examines the performance of 141 nations against 72 indicators and highlights how methodological choices can shift outcomes, alter perceived leaders, and expose regional disparities.

Which countries are leading the race to meet the SDGs?

The analysis identifies Sweden, Finland, and Denmark as the world’s frontrunners when applying a min–max normalization approach. These Nordic states consistently appear at the top of global sustainable development rankings due to balanced performance across economic, environmental, and social indicators. The same approach places Belarus, Latvia, and Croatia at the forefront on environmental dimensions, while Denmark, Norway, and Iceland dominate the social rankings. Economically, Sweden leads, followed closely by Japan and Finland.

Yet the picture changes when the study applies the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). Under this method, Croatia and Brazil leap to the top, with Sweden retaining a place among the leaders. This divergence underlines how different multi-criteria methods, one that treats dimensions independently and another that allows trade-offs, can influence perceptions of national performance.

To balance the two approaches, the authors developed an integrated ranking that combines results. In this composite view, Sweden emerges as the global leader, followed by Finland and Croatia, with the top tier dominated by European states. This integrated outcome demonstrates both the strength of European performance and the volatility introduced by alternative ranking methodologies.

How do methods and regions compare in global sustainability rankings?

The study finds a moderate level of correlation between the two methods. Statistical comparisons show that while broad global patterns hold, significant shifts occur at the individual country level. These shifts are not trivial: for some nations, performance differences between inventories reach up to 250 percent, raising concerns about how policymakers interpret results.

Regional contrasts also stand out. OECD countries outperform the BRICS+ group across all SDG dimensions. The widest gap appears in the social dimension, where OECD states post an average advantage of more than 0.12 points. This suggests stronger social infrastructure, health systems, and education outcomes in advanced economies compared to emerging markets.

Continental comparisons highlight Europe as the most consistent leader, scoring highest in overall, environmental, and social categories. North America performs best in economic indicators, reflecting high-income productivity but weaker balance in environmental and social domains. Africa records the lowest overall average, although its relative strength in environmental indicators underscores its lower per capita emissions and resource consumption compared to industrialized regions.

What do the rankings reveal about global progress toward the SDGs?

Sixteen of the top 20 performers in the integrated ranking are European, underscoring the continent’s structural advantages in governance, social policy, and green transition strategies. At the same time, Latin American countries such as Brazil and Chile perform better than expected in some categories, signaling that middle-income states can close gaps when strong national policies align with global frameworks.

Asian results are mixed. Japan and South Korea achieve high rankings, while China and India lag, appearing in the lower half of the integrated list despite their economic influence. This contrast points to the challenge of balancing rapid growth with sustainable development goals. Meanwhile, the United States and Canada occupy mid-table positions, reflecting strong economic capacity but more uneven performance in environmental and social dimensions.

The authors caution that many of these outcomes are shaped by structural limitations in the indicator set itself. Social metrics remain overrepresented compared with environmental ones, skewing the balance of results. They also stress that data quality remains inconsistent across countries, creating blind spots in global assessments.

Another critical limitation is the absence of explicit modeling of synergies and trade-offs among the SDGs. Current rankings assess goals separately, but real-world progress is shaped by interactions, such as how climate policy affects economic inclusion or how urban growth impacts ecosystems. Without accounting for these relationships, rankings may fail to capture the full complexity of sustainable development.

Why the findings matter for global policymaking

For policymakers, the findings provide both reassurance and caution. The dominance of European countries and the rise of selected Latin American performers show that strong governance and coherent policies can translate into measurable gains. At the same time, the divergence between min–max and TOPSIS rankings warns that international comparisons are highly sensitive to methodology. This raises important questions about which measures should guide funding, international assistance, and policy benchmarking.

The study also calls for better data harmonization and balanced indicator sets. Without these improvements, rankings risk being seen as political or methodological artifacts rather than robust guides to action. To address this, the authors call for future work on standardizing indicator coverage, developing frameworks for uncertainty measurement, and building models that incorporate inter-goal synergies.

With the midpoint to 2030 now behind the international community, clarity on what drives progress and where gaps persist has become urgent. The study suggests that refining methodological approaches is as important as improving policy itself, since flawed or unbalanced rankings can mislead stakeholders and distort priorities.