Sustainable Development Goals

A Pragmatic Approach
D'Adamo, Idiano; Gastaldi, Massimo; Nallapaneni, Manoj Kumar

Published: 01/11/2024

Document Version:
Final Published version, also known as Publisher’s PDF, Publisher’s Final version or Version of Record

License:
CC BY-NC-ND

Publication record in CityUHK Scholars:

Go to record

Publication details:
D'Adamo, I., Gastaldi, M., & Nallapaneni, M. K. (Eds.) (2024). Sustainable Development Goals: A Pragmatic
Approach. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). [Link]
sustainable-development-goals-a-pragmatic-approach

Citing this paper

Please note that where the full-text provided on CityUHK Scholars is the Post-print version (also known as Accepted Author
Manuscript, Peer-reviewed or Author Final version), it may differ from the Final Published version. When citing, ensure that
you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination and other details.

General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the CityUHK Scholars portal is retained by the author(s) and/or other
copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal
requirements associated with these rights. Users may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity
or commercial gain.
Publisher permission
Permission for previously published items are in accordance with publisher's copyright policies sourced from the SHERPA
RoMEO database. Links to full text versions (either Published or Post-print) are only available if corresponding publishers
allow open access.

Take down policy

Contact lbscholars@[Link] if you believe that this document breaches copyright and provide us with details. We will
remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Download date: 30/06/2025

Special Issue Reprint

Sustainable Development
Goals
A Pragmatic Approach

Edited by
Idiano D’Adamo, Massimo Gastaldi and Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni

[Link]/journal/sustainability
Sustainable Development Goals: A
Pragmatic Approach
Sustainable Development Goals: A
Pragmatic Approach

Editors
Idiano D’Adamo
Massimo Gastaldi
Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni

Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade • Novi Sad • Cluj • Manchester

Editors
Idiano D’Adamo Massimo Gastaldi Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni
Sapienza University of Rome University of L’Aquila City University of Hong Kong
Rome L’Aquila Kowloon
Italy Italy Hong Kong

Editorial Office
MDPI AG
Grosspeteranlage 5
4052 Basel, Switzerland

This is a reprint of articles from the Special Issue published online in the open access journal
Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050) (available at: [Link]
special issues/3EDH89176K).

For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as
indicated below:

Lastname, A.A.; Lastname, B.B. Article Title. Journal Name Year, Volume Number, Page Range.

ISBN 978-3-7258-2579-0 (Hbk)

ISBN 978-3-7258-2580-6 (PDF)
[Link]/10.3390/books978-3-7258-2580-6

Cover image courtesy of Idiano D’Adamo

Vasto, located in the Abruzzo Region, is a city in which to experience the beauty of nature.

© 2024 by the authors. Articles in this book are Open Access and distributed under the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. The book as a whole is distributed by MDPI under the terms
and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND)
license.
Contents

About the Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Idiano D’Adamo, Massimo Gastaldi and Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni

Europe Moves toward Pragmatic Sustainability: A More Human and Fraternal Approach
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2024, 16, 6161, doi:10.3390/su16146161 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Idiano D’Adamo, Cristina Di Carlo, Massimo Gastaldi, Edouard Nicolas Rossi and Antonio
Felice Uricchio
Economic Performance, Environmental Protection and Social Progress: A Cluster Analysis
Comparison towards Sustainable Development
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049, doi:10.3390/su16125049 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Idiano D’Adamo and Massimo Gastaldi

Monitoring the Performance of Sustainable Development Goals in the Italian Regions
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094, doi:10.3390/su151914094 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Asheena Singh-Pillay and Jayaluxmi Naidoo

Trainee Teachers’ Shift towards Sustainable Actions in Their Daily Routine
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933, doi:10.3390/su16208933 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Rongbing Liu, Afifa Qadeer, Junqi Liu, Suleman Sarwar and Muhammad Wasim Hussan
The Paradox of Progress towards SDG7: Governance Quality and Energy Poverty Dynamics in
Pakistan
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291, doi:10.3390/su16198291 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Joanna Perzyńska and Małgorzata Klaudia Guzowska

The Feminisation of Poverty in European Union Countries—Myth or Reality?
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2024, 16, 7594, doi:10.3390/su16177594 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Zhijie Cao, Ziao Li and Kexin Zhou

Does the Inter-Provincial Floating Population Affect Regional Economic Development in
China? An Empirical Analysis
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142, doi:10.3390/su16167142 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Miki Fukuda and Eric Zusman

Meaningful Youth Engagement in Sustainability Processes in Japan and Finland: A
Comparative Assessment
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415, doi:10.3390/su16156415 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Ana M. Osorio, Luisa F. Úsuga, Jaime A. Restrepo-Carmona, Isabel Rendón, Julián

Sierra-Pérez and Rafael E. Vásquez
Methodology for Stakeholder Prioritization in the Context of Digital Transformation and
Society 5.0
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317, doi:10.3390/su16135317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Florentina Madalina Perevoznic and Voicu D. Dragomir

Achieving the 2030 Agenda: Mapping the Landscape of Corporate Sustainability Goals and
Policies in the European Union
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971, doi:10.3390/su16072971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

v
Alma Nataly Abundes-Recilla, Diego Seuret-Jiménez, Martha Roselia Contreras-Valenzuela
and José M. Nieto-Jalil
Fuzzy Logic Method for Measuring Sustainable Decent Work Levels as a Corporate Social
Responsibility Approach
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791, doi:10.3390/su16051791 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

Theresa Rubhara, James Gaffey, Gavin Hunt, Fionnuala Murphy, Kevin O’Connor, Enda
Buckley and Luis Alejandro Vergara
A Business Case for Climate Neutrality in Pasture-Based Dairy Production Systems in Ireland:
Evidence from Farm Zero C
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028, doi:10.3390/su16031028 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

Eduardo Ordonez-Ponce
Exploring the Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on Sustainability Trends
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647, doi:10.3390/su152416647 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Farayi Musharavati, Khadija Sajid, Izza Anwer, Abdul-Sattar Nizami, Muhammad Hassan
Javed, Anees Ahmad and Muhammad Naqvi
Advancing Biodiesel Production System from Mixed Vegetable Oil Waste: A Life Cycle
Assessment of Environmental and Economic Outcomes
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550, doi:10.3390/su152416550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

Ernesto D. R. Santibanez Gonzalez, Vinay Kandpal, Marcio Machado, Mauro Luiz Martens
and Sushobhan Majumdar
A Bibliometric Analysis of Circular Economies through Sustainable Smart Cities
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2023, , 15892, doi:10.3390/su152215892 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

Wenling Bao, Yu Chen, Caiyun Cui, Bo Xia, Yongjian Ke, Martin Skitmore and Yong Liu
How to Shape Local Public Acceptance of Not-in-My-Backyard Infrastructures? A Social
Cognitive Theory Perspective
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835, doi:10.3390/su152215835 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

J. N. Chandra Sekhar, Bullarao Domathoti and Ernesto D. R. Santibanez Gonzalez

Prediction of Battery Remaining Useful Life Using Machine Learning Algorithms
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283, doi:10.3390/su152115283 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

Beata Bieszk-Stolorz and Krzysztof Dmytrów

Decent Work and Economic Growth in EU Countries—Static and Dynamic Analyses of
Sustainable Development Goal 8
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327, doi:10.3390/su151813327 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359

Vassilis J. Inglezakis, Donald Rapp, Panos Razis and Antonis A. Zorpas

Chemical Engineering beyond Earth: Astrochemical Engineering in the Space Age
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2023, 15, 13227, doi:10.3390/su151713227 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377

Samuel Chukwudi Agunyai and Lere Amusan

Implications of Land Grabbing and Resource Curse for Sustainable Development Goal 2 in
Africa: Can Globalization Be Blamed?
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845, doi:10.3390/su151410845 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389

Vinicius dos Santos Skrzyzowski, Felipe Neves Farinhas, Maria Cecı́lia Ferrari de Carvalho
Teixeira, Murillo Vetroni Barros, Rodrigo Salvador, Sebastião Cavalcanti Neto and Fernando
Henrique Lermen
Mapping Drivers, Barriers, and Trends in Renewable Energy Sources in Universities: A
Connection Based on the SDGs
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583, doi:10.3390/su16156583 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407

vi
Miray Baybars, Fatma Demircan Keskin, İpek Kazançoğlu and Yiğit Kazançoğlu
Decoding the Nexus: A Bibliometric Review on Sustainability, Circular Economy, and
Consumer Food Waste†
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408, doi:10.3390/su16114408 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425

Carlotta D’Alessandro, Katarzyna Szopik-Depczyńska, Małgorzata Tarczyńska-Łuniewska,

Cecilia Silvestri and Giuseppe Ioppolo
Exploring Circular Economy Practices in the Healthcare Sector: A Systematic Review and
Bibliometric Analysis
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2024, 16, 401, doi:10.3390/su16010401 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441

Caroline Hachem-Vermette and Somil Yadav

Impact of Power Interruption on Buildings and Neighborhoods and Potential Technical and
Design Adaptation Methods
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299, doi:10.3390/su152115299 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460

Carina Pasqualotto, Daniela Callegaro-De-Menezes and Cornelius Stephanus Lodewyk

Schutte
An Overview and Categorization of the Drivers and Barriers to the Adoption of the Circular
Economy: A Systematic Literature Review
Reprinted from: Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532, doi:10.3390/su151310532 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486

vii
About the Editors
Idiano D’Adamo
Idiano D’Adamo is an Associate Professor of Management Engineering at the Department of
Computer, Control, and Management Engineering of Sapienza University of Rome, where he teaches
Business Management, Economics of Technology, Management and Economics, and Management of
Energy Sources and Services. Idiano was among world’s top 0.1% of scientists in 2023 and among
the world’s top 2% of scientists for the fifth consecutive year (Elsevier Repository Data). He received
a master’s of Science in Management Engineering in 2008 and his PhD in Electrical and Information
Engineering in 2012. In August 2015, he obtained the Elsevier Atlas Award with a work published in
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. He collaborates continuously with several journals as an
Editor in Chief (Sustainability), Subject Editor (Sustainable Production and Consumption), and Associate
Editor (Environment, Development and Sustainability, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,
Frontiers in Sustainability, Sustainable Development, Supply Chain Analytics, and the Decision Analytics
Journal). During his academic career, Idiano D’Adamo published 165 papers in the Scopus database,
reaching an h-index of 50. He has participated in scientific research projects (PRIN2022 ‘Protecting
the Environment: Advances in Circular Economy (PEACE)’, PNRR-PE ‘Made-in-Italy circolare e
sostenibile’, Horizon 2020 ‘Star ProBio’, Life ‘Force of the Future’), has collaborated with relevant
national institutes (MATTM, CNBBSV, SVIMEZ), and has written for major national newspapers
(Formiche, il Messaggero). His current research interests are the bioeconomy, circular economy, green
energy, sustainability, and waste management.

Massimo Gastaldi
Massimo Gastaldi is now a Full Professor in Managerial Engineering at University of L’Aquila,
Department of Industrial and Information Engineering and Economics, where he teaches Applied
Economics in Engineering Science, Analysis of Financial Systems, and Circular Economy and
Sustainability Management. Since 1993, he has contributed to several publications and edited
books while working for the National Research Council (C.N.R.) and at the University of Rome
“Tor Vergata”. In 1995, he was a Visiting Professor at the California State University, San Marcos,
USA, and in 1997 he worked at Colorado University, Builder, USA. His current research interests
are regulation and public utilities, green supply chain management, sustainability and the circular
economy, finance, renewable energy, and real options. He is the responsible manager of private and
public research projects. He is the past Editor in Chief of the International Journal of Management and
Network Economics published by Inderscience. He is author of more than 200 papers published in
peer-reviewed books, journals, and conference proceedings.

Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni

Dr. Nallapaneni is a transdisciplinary energy and sustainability engineer with a PhD in the
Digital Circular Economy and Circular Power System from the School of Energy and Environment,
City University of Hong Kong. He has obtained two master’s degrees, one in Renewable Energy
Technologies from Karunya University, India, and the other in Environmental Economics from
Annamalai University, India. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering
from GITAM University. Before joining the CityU, he worked as a Research Fellow at Universiti
Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia, on a project which focused on using solar photovoltaics as urban
and rural infrastructure. Prior to this, he worked as an Assistant Professor in the Department

ix
of Electrical and Electronics Engineering at the Bharat Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Hyderabad, India, and Energy Engineer at Atiode Solar Systems Limited, Benin City, Nigeria.
Dr. Nallapaneni’s research works focus on the topics of simulation, experimental, real-time
empirical and location-, or climate-specific studies mainly focused on building sustainable and
resilient systems (that are decentralized, networked, and centralized) across critical infrastructure
sectors by adopting nexus thinking and systems innovation, with an emphasis on circular business
models and digitalization. He has worked on key sustainability challenges that include the
design, performance modeling, and analysis of a wide range of clean energy and environmental
systems, the food–energy–water–waste nexus, industrial symbiosis, waste valorization and material
passports, carbon accounting, and pricing. He possess an interdisciplinary skill set that includes
performance analytics, techno-economics, life cycle assessments, resilience assessments, leveraging
digital innovations (blockchain, IoT, smart contracts, and AI), business model innovation, and nexus
systems design, with excellent conceptualization skills.

x
Preface
The most promising visions of the future are those in which young people are trusted and experts
pass on their knowledge to them. However, respect is essential. We hope for a society built on peace,
and a more humane and fraternal Europe with a pragmatic approach to sustainability is our future
horizon.
This Special Issue was made possible by the effort, talent, and support of the Managing Editor,
Ms Milica Milosev.

Idiano D’Adamo, Massimo Gastaldi, and Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni

Editors

xi
 sustainability

Editorial
Europe Moves toward Pragmatic Sustainability: A More
Human and Fraternal Approach
Idiano D’Adamo 1, *, Massimo Gastaldi 2 and Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni 3,4,5

1 Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome,

00185 Rome, Italy
2 Department of Industrial and Information Engineering and Economics, University of L’Aquila,
67100 L’Aquila, Italy; [Link]@[Link]
3 School of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong;
nallapanenichow@[Link]
4 Swiss School of Business and Management Geneva, Avenue des Morgines 12, 1213 Genève, Switzerland
5 Center for Circular Economy Skills, HICCER—Hariterde International Council of Circular Economy Research,
Palakkad 678631, Kerala, India
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]

“Sustainable by passion and deliberate choice, not mere interest” This is the first
message that young people should read, as should more mature adults. Sustainability had
its beginnings in environmental protection, which was being defaced with the idea that
resilience would always lead nature to regenerate. However, humankind has opted for the
overuse of resources, and while scepticism about climate change still exists, it is clear that
urgent action is needed. However, it is incumbent to be realistic and implement actions
that protect the environment and not seek momentary consensus by making promises
that cannot be kept. Nature must be protected, but so must the needs of humankind, and
therefore, social welfare must also be preserved and economic opportunities generated.
Hence, the 1987 Brundtland Report calls for respect for future generations by allocating
at least the same resources to them as we currently have. In this context, the concept
of sustainability shifts from an environmental view to a more comprehensive one that
includes economic and social spheres. Is it then simple to find this balanced point? The
answer is that with a purely ideological approach, disconnected from reality, we are far
Citation: D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; from improving our existing situation. Therefore, the need to find a pragmatic approach
Nallapaneni, M.K. Europe Moves emerges. As such, what is derived from thought is subjected to the scrutiny of experience
toward Pragmatic Sustainability: A and an attempt is made to find an optimal point not only in an abstract model but also in a
More Human and Fraternal
concrete one. Theories or words are not enough; instead, real actions and deeds are needed.
Approach. Sustainability 2024, 16,
Pragmatic sustainability is a model of sustainability that contemplates the three di-
6161. [Link]
mensions of environmental, economic, and social factors and does not stop at enunciating
su16146161
a concept but ensures it is implemented in practice and is made concrete after providing
Received: 12 July 2024 analyses that support it. Clearly, an optimal point does not always derive from the point of
Accepted: 16 July 2024 maximum utility for each of the three dimensions but from a proper balance in which one
Published: 18 July 2024 or more of the three dimensions could be more highly valued. But who does this depend
on? Stakeholders. As a function of what? The balance of ecosystems. So, the balance
between humans and nature drives decision-making and a humane and fraternal approach
to life needs to be put back at the centre of the agenda. A pragmatic view, therefore, values
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
the great challenge of sustainability: overcoming personal selfishness to protect ecosystems
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
and achieve the triple aim of economic performance, environmental protection, and social
This article is an open access article
progress [1].
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Pragmatic sustainability is based on the concept of altruism, just as the morning
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
sentinels baptised by St. John Paul II defended “life at every moment of its earthly devel-
[Link]/licenses/by/ opment” to make it “ever more habitable for all”. In the 2003 post-synodal exhortation
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 6161. [Link] 1 [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 6161

“Ecclesia in Europa”, Europe is seen not in opposition or competition with the world com-
munity but in harmony with it. It is pointed out how the increasing openness of peoples to
one another and the reconciliation between those who had long been enemies allowed for
recognition, collaboration and exchanges of every order. In this way, “a culture, indeed a
European consciousness, is created, which should especially among young people, grow
the feeling of fraternity and the will to share”.
The European Coal and Steel Community came into effect in 1952, bringing together
Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. The goal was to pre-
vent any country alone from making weapons of war for use against others. Unfortunately,
even today, there are armed conflicts that take the lives of innocent people and children. The
European Union is seeing its borders expand but also shrink due to the United Kingdom
voting to leave. Europe aims to be peaceful, united and prosperous; it should also promote
the entry of new countries. The goal is to be able to compete with two global giants, such
as the U.S. and China.
The European Green Deal has the potential to generate a competitive advantage,
saving our planet but also creating new jobs. It is a set of policy initiatives involving states,
civil society, and private actors in the fight against climate change [2]. In this innovative
framework, digital technologies can enable the achievement of these policies, but they are
also characterised by barriers [3]. However, it is crucial to combine sustainability with the
needs of households, businesses and citizens without generating new dependencies or
destroying entire production chains.
Forward-looking choices toward the future include ex-ante spatial impact assessments
and sustainability analyses that demonstrate the relevant environmental, economic and
social benefits. These are adequately outlined in the opinion “A Just Transition for All EU
Regions” by Abruzzo Region President Marco Marsilio (rapporteur) and Stefano Cianciotta
(expert). This opinion, which was voted on in July 2024 by the Coter Commission of the
European Committee of the Regions, emphasises the relevance of technology neutrality,
the role of storage, and the security of energy networks. This pragmatic approach to
sustainable energy is a topic proposed in the literature [4], where it is emphasised that this
approach is at the core of engineering activities that focus on technical needs to achieve
energy sustainability and less on the role of economics, politics and other non-technical
factors. Similarly, interdisciplinary collaboration, pragmatism, reliance on youth, and
altruism are believed to be the resources that can support the realisation of a sustainable
community within a university setting, where the phenomena of sustainable washing
should be avoided [5]. This is a change resulting from the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs), which concern all universities at the European level [6].
The topic of sustainability requires further analysis, as some aspects of this concept are
not yet well understood [7,8]. Similarly, other analyses show a concentration of research
and development on the SDGs in developed countries rather than in developing and
underdeveloped countries [9]. The measurement of the SDGs plays a key role, and some
analyses propose assessing their status [10], while others focus on comparing certain
countries [11] and finally, approaches are also proposed at the level of each individual
nation [1].
This Special Issue, titled “Sustainable Development Goals: A Pragmatic Approach”,
aims to counter non-doing, i.e., day-to-day approaches that deny climate change or ide-
ological approaches that do not allow for community-useful projects and infrastructure.
Stakeholder engagement toward sustainable development is as basic as the balance between
ecosystems.
The current context sees the Suez Canal as the needle in the reconciliation of new
international balances, and a necessary ecological and digital transition cannot materialise
by creating dependencies on raw materials from Asian territories. In this context, territorial
specificities must be strengthened, poles of excellence must be generated, programs for
the exchange of resources and skills must be fostered, and support must be given to the
industrial system to modernise and be competitive. In this framework, public administra-

2
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6161

tion is called upon to equip itself with new professionalism, to reduce unproductive delays
related to the Not In My Term Of Office (NIMTO) phenomenon, and include citizens in
decision-making processes to reduce the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) phenomenon. The
goal of European funding programs is to foster a just transition by focusing on circular, dig-
ital and green investments with continuous monitoring of the proper use of public money.
Europe must offer its countries and citizens a model of development that is sustainable
but also inclusive and resilient. It is crucial for an area to avoid a diaspora of talent and
graduates and to be attractive to acquire new knowledge.
Europe must be ambitious and be a spokesperson for a change in geopolitical balances.
Pope Francis speaks of an “open sore in our humanity” that has seen the deaths of men,
women and children in the Mediterranean Sea trying to reach Europe. The Mattei Plan
has become part of the G7 agenda and envisions a cooperative approach between Europe
and Africa. This Plan concerns not only cultural cooperation but also the implementation
of investments in energy and infrastructure. Figure 1 shows that the same picture can be
painted in different colours. The most promising future visions are those in which the
respect of young people is given for more experienced profiles, and there is trust that more
mature people for the new generation will come from a variety of different backgrounds.
A more humane and fraternal Europe with a pragmatic approach to sustainability is our
future horizon.

Figure 1. Vasto (CH). City located in the Adriatic Sea in the Abruzzo Region, known as the green
region of Europe.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, I.D., M.G. and M.K.N.; writing—original draft prepara-
tion, I.D., M.G. and M.K.N.; writing—review and editing, I.D., M.G. and M.K.N.; supervision, I.D.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was carried out within the PEACE (Protecting the Environment: Advances in
Circular Economy) study, which received funding from the “Fund for the National Research Program
and Projects of Significant National Interest (PRIN)”, Investment M4.C2.1.1-D.D. 104.02-02-2022,
2022ZFBMA4, funded by the European Union-Next Generation EU. This manuscript reflects only the
authors’ views and opinions, and the authors can be considered solely responsible for them.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: This study was carried out within the PEACE (Protecting the Environment:
Advances in Circular Economy) study, which received funding from the “Fund for the National

3
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6161

Research Program and Projects of Significant National Interest (PRIN)”, Investment M4.C2.1.1-D.D.
104.02-02-2022, 2022ZFBMA4, funded by the European Union-Next Generation EU. This manuscript
reflects only the authors’ views and opinions, and the authors can be considered solely responsible
for them.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. D’Adamo, I.; Di Carlo, C.; Gastaldi, M.; Rossi, E.N.; Uricchio, A.F. Economic Performance, Environmental Protection and Social
Progress: A Cluster Analysis Comparison towards Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049. [CrossRef]
2. Vela Almeida, D.; Kolinjivadi, V.; Ferrando, T.; Roy, B.; Herrera, H.; Vecchione Gonçalves, M.; Van Hecken, G. The “Greening” of
Empire: The European Green Deal as the EU first agenda. Polit. Geogr. 2023, 105, 102925. [CrossRef]
3. Sharma, R.; Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.; Jain, V.; Shishodia, A. The role of digital technologies to unleash a green recovery:
Pathways and pitfalls to achieve the European Green Deal. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2022, 35, 266–294. [CrossRef]
4. Rosen, M.A. Energy Sustainability: A Pragmatic Approach and Illustrations. Sustainability 2009, 1, 55–80. [CrossRef]
5. Biancardi, A.; Colasante, A.; D’Adamo, I.; Daraio, C.; Gastaldi, M.; Uricchio, A.F. Strategies for developing sustainable communi-
ties in higher education institutions. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 20596. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Pactwa, K.; Woźniak, J.; Jach, K.; Brdulak, A. Including the social responsibility of universities and sustainable development goals
in the strategic plans of universities in Europe. Sustain. Dev. 2024, in press. [CrossRef]
7. Yamaguchi, N.U.; Bernardino, E.G.; Ferreira, M.E.C.; de Lima, B.P.; Pascotini, M.R.; Yamaguchi, M.U. Sustainable development
goals: A bibliometric analysis of literature reviews. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 5502–5515. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Giannetti, B.F.; Agostinho, F.; Almeida, C.M.V.B.; Liu, G.; Contreras, L.E.V.; Vandecasteele, C.; Coscieme, L.; Sutton, P.; Poveda, C.
Insights on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals scope: Are they aligned with a ‘strong’ sustainable development?
J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119574. [CrossRef]
9. Mishra, M.; Desul, S.; Santos, C.A.G.; Mishra, S.K.; Kamal, A.H.M.; Goswami, S.; Kalumba, A.M.; Biswal, R.; da Silva, R.M.; dos
Santos, C.A.C.; et al. A bibliometric analysis of sustainable development goals (SDGs): A review of progress, challenges, and
opportunities. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 26, 11101–11143. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Halkos, G.; Gkampoura, E.-C. Where do we stand on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals? An overview on progress. Econ.
Anal. Policy 2021, 70, 94–122. [CrossRef]
11. Nakhle, P.; Stamos, I.; Proietti, P.; Siragusa, A. Environmental monitoring in European regions using the sustainable development
goals (SDG) framework. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2024, 21, 100332. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

4
 sustainability

Article
Economic Performance, Environmental Protection and Social
Progress: A Cluster Analysis Comparison towards
Sustainable Development
Idiano D’Adamo 1, *, Cristina Di Carlo 2 , Massimo Gastaldi 3 , Edouard Nicolas Rossi 2
and Antonio Felice Uricchio 4,5

1 Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome,

00185 Rome, Italy
2 Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; cridicarlo03@[Link] (C.D.C.);
edouard.rossi97@[Link] (E.N.R.)
3 Department of Industrial and Information Engineering and Economics, University of L’Aquila,
67100 L’Aquila, Italy; [Link]@[Link]
4 President of the Governmental Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research System (ANVUR),
00153 Rome, Italy; [Link]@[Link]
5 University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70121 Bari, Italy
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]

Abstract: Sustainable development monitoring reveals the extent to which local and national territo-
ries are progressing towards sustainability goals. This study considered 105 indicators associated
with the Equitable and Sustainable Wellbeing (BES) framework and 139 indicators associated with
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and cluster
analysis to compare regional performance across the Italian territory in 2022. At the SDG level,
Lombardia exhibited the highest performance, while the provinces of Trento and Bolzano led at
the BES level. The results were further analyzed with respect to geographic macro-areas and the
three dimensions of sustainability, via separate cluster analyses comparing the BES and SDG results.
Citation: D’Adamo, I.; Di Carlo, C.; Northeast regions emerged as the top performers, and comparable performance was shown by
Gastaldi, M.; Rossi, E.N.; Uricchio,
regions in the center and northwest. The development of a sustainable innovation model, along-
A.F. Economic Performance,
side territorial cooperation and synergy between regional specificities, may generate competitive
Environmental Protection and Social
advantages, especially when combined with resources and skills with an international profile.
Progress: A Cluster Analysis
Comparison towards Sustainable
Keywords: cluster analysis; equitable and sustainable wellbeing; indicators; Italy; multicriteria
Development. Sustainability 2024, 16,
5049. [Link]
decision analysis; sustainable development goals
su16125049

Academic Editor: Cristina Raluca

Gh. Popescu
1. Introduction
Received: 1 May 2024 1.1. The Concept of Sustainability
Revised: 30 May 2024 The topic of sustainability requires in-depth exploration, as some aspects of the concept
Accepted: 7 June 2024 are not yet well understood [1,2]. The definition offered by the Brundtland Report in 1987
Published: 13 June 2024
stressed the need to consider future generations, moving beyond a concept of sustainability
anchored in a purely environmental perspective [3]. Thus, sustainability may be considered
to encompass not only environmental protection but also the balancing of social welfare
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
and economic opportunities. In this vein, Saint John Paul II, on World Youth Day 2000
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
in Rome, urged young people to be “sentinels of the morning”. Importantly, the concept
This article is an open access article of pragmatic sustainability may be contrasted with that of ideological sustainability, as
distributed under the terms and Europe’s goal of climate neutrality by 2050 requires solutions that meet the needs of various
conditions of the Creative Commons stakeholders while also involving young people and fostering a sense of brotherhood
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// among peoples [4].
[Link]/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049. [Link] 5 [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

1.2. Development Goals towards Sustainability

Compared to the last publication of the development goals towards sustainability
(accessed on 19 April 2023), the number of published papers on the topic has increased to
31,757 (as of 15 April 2024). A keyword search was run on the Web of Science (WoS) using
the search terms “SDGs” and/or “Sustainable Development Goals”. The data covered the
past 4.5 years (2020–2024), and a 14% growth in the number of publications over this period
was evident. Notably, 62.2% of the papers were published with open access, representing
an increase of 60% with respect to the previous set.
• Table A1 lists the top 10 WoS categories, with “environmental sciences” leading,
followed by “green sustainable science technology”.
• Table A2 indicates that approximately 83% of the work originated in the top
10 countries, with China contributing approximately 18%, followed by the USA (12.9%)
and the UK (10.3%). South American countries were absent from the ranking, while
India, Spain, Australia, Italy, Germany, South Africa and Canada were included.
• Table A3 presents the analysis by WoS index, showing the Science Citation Index
Expanded (57.4%) as the most significant, followed by the Social Sciences Citation
Index (39.4%).
• Table A4 describes the distribution of papers across the individual SDGs. The results
indicated a shift from the previous ranking, where SDG 3 prevailed, followed by
SDG 2 and SDG 1. In the new ranking, SDG 13 led, followed by SDG 3 and SDG 11;
SDGs 14, 15 and 16 received the least attention.

1.3. The Role of SDG and BES Indicators

In 2015, all United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. The reviewed literature analyzed the SDGs with respect to different goals,
including food consumption [5], medical waste management [6], education institutions [7],
tourism [8], digitalization [9], the circular economy [10], smart cities [11], fashion [12] and
space [13]. Core research topics included the SDGs, Agenda 2030, climate change and
sustainability indicators [14]. Since the launch of the SDGs, some environmental and social
goals have shown significant improvement [15]. In this regard, the use of indicators to
measure performance at the territorial level is crucial [16–18]. Globally defined targets are
not easily transmitted to the national level [19], and the maintenance of ecosystem services
and promotion of well-being in low-income countries must be made a priority [20].
SDG calculations benefit businesses by encouraging managers to adopt green solu-
tions [21]. Additionally, they allow politicians and the public to measure performance
at the territorial level [22]. Consequently, techniques for measuring and evaluating the
SDGs are crucial for various categories of stakeholders [23]. Importantly, social welfare
must be measured alongside SDG indicators [24], and several European countries have
proposed specific tools for this purpose [25]. Italy, for instance, considers Equitable and
Sustainable Wellbeing (BES) indicators across 12 dimensions [26]. It is considered a virtuous
example [27], as it was the first OECD country to introduce supplementary measures to
GDP at the economic planning stage [28].
Scholars have suggested regional evaluations incorporating both BES and SDG met-
rics [29] while stressing the importance of preserving the uniqueness of these indices [30].
The pursuit of equitable, sustainable development and a high standard of living requires
the identification of SDG and BES overlap [31]. However, the aggregation of information
(which may or may not be related) is a complex challenge [32], and composite indicators
may be needed for this purpose [33]. The effectiveness of composite indicators relies on
the weighting system used, which can be implicit (i.e., equally weighted) or explicit (i.e.,
based on expert judgment) [34]. Equal weighting methods are often preferred due to their
simplicity and immediacy [35].
In the literature, the Italian territory has been analyzed with respect to the SDGs [22,31,36].
As both the SDGs [4] and the BES [37] have been classified for the Italian territory, this
paper aims to address a gap in the literature by providing aggregate analyses of BES

6
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

and SDG indicators (using MCDA and cluster analysis) to compare the territorial perfor-
mance of Italian regions in 2022. The work not only provides a global comparison of the
two sets of indicators but also develops the analysis at the macro-geographical level and
for the three dimensions of sustainability (i.e., economic, environmental, social), generating
a ranking for the different Italian regions.
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a review of the literature;
Section 3 defines the methods used; Section 4 presents the results; Section 5 discusses the
implications of the analyses; and Section 6 offers a brief conclusion.

2. Literature Analysis
The present literature analysis aimed at identifying the main topics and trends of
authors and countries relative to the SDGs. Given the vast amount of literature on the
SDGs, spanning both STEM (i.e., science, technology, engineering, mathematics) and non-
STEM disciplines, the review adopted a high-level approach. As indicated in Section 1.2,
WoS yielded a total of 31,757 papers, which was too extensive for this work and for anal-
ysis using bibliometric methods. Therefore, we employed a novel approach, conducting
three separate searches on Scopus (accessed on 25 April 2024): one for publications related
to economic sustainability from 2020–2024 (Section 2.1), one for publications related to
social sustainability from 2020–2024 (Section 2.2) and one for publications related to en-
vironmental sustainability from 2020–2024 (Section 2.3). Finally, Section 2.4 proposes the
results of a general search of papers related to the entire field of sustainability.

2.1. Economic Sustainability

We commenced with a search on Scopus for publications on economic sustainability.
The search was conducted using keywords such as “SDGs”, “Sustainable Development
Goals”, and “economic sustainability”, focused on the economic pillar of sustainability.
The search was limited to articles written in the English language. Details of the advanced
search are provided in Appendix A (Table A5). The search yielded 3940 documents. As
depicted in Figure A1, there was a steady increase in scientific production from 2020 to 2023,
with a decrease in 2024 due to the availability of only partial results. In terms of the most
relevant sources (Table 1), Sustainability had the highest number of publications, followed
by the Journal of Cleaner Production and Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
Figure A2 shows the most relevant countries in terms of production, with the top five as
follows: China (656), Italy (219), India (201), Spain (187) and the USA (164).

Table 1. Three top journals: economic sustainability.

Journal Number of Published Articles

Sustainability 539
Journal of Cleaner Production 225
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 119

2.2. Environmental Sustainability

For the advanced Scopus search of environmental sustainability publications, details
can again be found in Appendix A (Table A5). The 5162 retrieved papers focused on the
environmental pillar of sustainability and were limited to articles written in English. As
shown in Figure A3, there was a positive trend from 2020 to 2023, similar to the economic
case. Table 2 shows that the most relevant sources were Sustainability, the Journal of
Cleaner Production and Environmental Science and Pollution Research. The most relevant
countries in terms of production (Figure A4) were again China (799), Italy (312), India (299),
the USA (273) and Spain (238).

7
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

Table 2. Three top journals: environmental sustainability.

Journal Number of Published Articles

Sustainability 597
Journal of Cleaner Production 303
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 130

2.3. Social Sustainability

In total, 3601 publications were related to social sustainability. Again, the search was
limited to articles written in English and details of the advanced Scopus search can be
found in Appendix A (Table A5). As in the previous cases, annual scientific production
registered a positive trend, as seen in Figure A5. This time, the most relevant sources
were Sustainability and the Journal of Cleaner Production, with Sustainable Development
occupying the third position (Table 3). Figure A6 shows the most relevant countries in
terms of production: China (404), Spain (238), Italy (233), the USA (211) and the UK (167).

Table 3. Three top journals: social sustainability.

Journal Number of Published Articles

Sustainability 544
Journal of Cleaner Production 175
Sustainable Development 58

2.4. Global SDG Literature Analysis

Analyzing the current literature regarding the three pillars of sustainability, we found
positive trends in academic research across these dimensions. At this point, we found it
natural to conduct only a global assessment. Specifically, we conducted an advanced search
on Scopus (Table A5) for articles related to the “SDGs” and “Sustainable Development
Goals” from 2023 to 2024, which retrieved 12,080 articles in the English language. The most
relevant sources were Sustainability, the Journal of Cleaner Production and Environmental
Science and Pollution Research (Table 4).

Table 4. Three top journals: environmental sustainability.

Journal Number of Published Articles

Sustainability 787
Journal of Cleaner Production 311
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 260

Figure 1 highlights the authors of the corresponding articles, with SCP and MCP
representing intra-country and inter-country collaboration, respectively. China accounted
for 2418 articles, India for 887, the USA for 562, the UK for 455 and Italy for 436.
Figure 2 presents the co-occurrence network of our search results. A co-occurrence
network is a graphical representation of relationships between entities based on their
co-occurrence in a set of documents. In the context of a literature review, this involves iden-
tifying and analyzing the frequency with which terms (e.g., keywords, concepts, authors)
appear together in documents [38]. In our network, some important links were notable,
including a strong connection between “sustainable development” and “Sustainable De-
velopment Goals”. Indeed, in the modern academic landscape of sustainability, the SDGs
are fundamental goals for future progress. Additionally, the network displayed a triangle
formed by the SDGs, sustainable development and the word “human”. In this regard,
we must in fact affirm that humans are the centerpiece of sustainable development. The
continuous search for sustainable solutions makes us not only actors but also observers of
the changes we seek. Finally, as seen throughout this literature review, China has positioned
itself at the forefront of sustainable research and development.

8
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

Figure 1. Top countries: literature analysis.

Figure 2. Co-occurrence network.

In light of these topics, we conducted an analysis to determine the top five authors
(Table 5) and top five affiliations (Table 6) based on document counts in Scopus from
2023 to 2024, using an advanced search: “sustainable AND development OR sustainable
AND development AND goal” (accessed on 21 May 2024). To align with the scope of the
present research, we restricted the analysis to the Italian territory. The results showed
that, globally, Adetunji Charles O. from Edo University Iyamho authored 69 papers over
the period, followed by two authors from the University of Sharjah: Olabi Abdul Ghani
and Abdelkareem Mohammad Ali. At the Italian level, the most productive authors were
D’Adamo Idiano from Sapienza University of Rome, followed by Gastaldi Massimo from
University of L’Aquila and Appolloni Andrea from Tor Vergata University of Rome.

9
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

Table 5. Top five authors.

International Italy
Author Number of Published Articles Author Number of Published Articles
Adetunji, C.O. 69 D’Adamo I. 33
Olabi, A.G. 66 Gastaldi M. 18
Abdelkareem, M.A. 64 Appolloni A. 17
Adebayo, T.S. 58 Kraus, S. 16
Leal Filho, W. and Guo H. 54 Valeri, M. 15

Table 6. Top five affiliations.

International Italy
Number of Number of
Affiliation Affiliation
Published Articles Published Articles
Chinese Academy of Sciences 1981 Sapienza Università di Roma 334
Ministry of Education of the
1352 Politecnico di Milano 305
People’s Republic of China
University of Chinese Consiglio Nazionale
1002 304
Academy of Sciences delle Ricerche
Alma Mater Studorium
Tsinghua University 717 269
Università di Bologna
Università degli Studi di
University of Johannesburg 681 256
Napoli Federico II

3. Materials and Methods

The present study compared Italian regional performance with respect to BES and SDG
indicators using MCDA. This methodology, which is well known in the literature [39–41],
is able to synthesize a large multiplicity of data, even considering data of different types
and belonging to different scenarios characterized by contrasting objectives. The strength of
the technique lies in its ability to create a composite indicator to rank different alternatives,
thereby providing support for policymakers. In more detail, the method represents a
mathematical combination of a set of elementary indicators representing the different  
components of a multidimensional concept to be measured. The matrix X = xij of
the original data is formed by n rows (regions) and m columns (indicators). Of note,
the present analysis considered 21 regions, since Trentino Alto Adige is divided into
two macro-areas, the provinces of Trento and Bolzano, and m columns, relating to either
the j indicators of the BES (with j = 1, . . . , m = 105) or the SDG indicators (with j = 1, . . . ,
m = 139). Oncethedata matrix was constructed, it could be normalized by obtaining
the matrix Y = yijt cont = 2022. For region I, the composite indicator was determined
according to the following formula:
 
ICit = f yi1t , yi2t , yi3t , . . . , yimt ; w1 , w2 , w3 , . . . , wm

with f representing a linear or non-linear aggregation function and e wj (j = 1, . . . m = 105

for BES; or j = 1, . . . m = 139 for SDG) representing the weight of the single indicator j.
The construction of the composite indicator was ensured through a dynamic process. First,
elementary BES and SDG indicators were selected; then, these indicators were normalized
and finally aggregated, determining the sustainable performance of each region. The
min–max normalization method was used to create the composite indicator by determining
values between 0 (worst performance) and 1 (best performance) and aggregating the results
using the arithmetic mean (of note, all indicators had the same weight) [4,37]. In this way,
two composite indicators were constructed: the first related to BES indicators and the
second related to SDG indicators for the 21 regions in the year 2022. These indicators,

10
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

having a common dimensionless range of variation (0–1), were thus fully comparable. Data
for the analysis were taken from ISTAT’s official website and related to all indicators for
which there were available data at the regional level during the study period [42].

4. Results
The results of this paper refer to the calculation of regional performance against the
SDGs (considering 139 indicators), compared to the BES (considering 105 indicators), for
the year 2022. Section 4.1 reports the results of the baseline scenario and then breaks them
down into functions of the three dimensions of sustainability (Section 4.2). Finally, a cluster
analysis is proposed (Section 4.3).

4.1. The SDG–BES Comparison for Italian Regions

Within the 0–1 value normalization approach, a score of 1 is indicative of excellent
performance. In the present analysis, no region produced a 1. Thus, the SDG and BES
rankings showed different leading regions (Table 7). For the colored maps, the average
value for Trentino Alto Adige was considered (0.587 for SDG and 0.732 for BES), considering
the two provinces of Trento and Bolzano (Figure 3).

Table 7. SDG–BES comparison across Italian regions.

Sustainable Development Goal Equitable and Sustainable Well-Being

1 Lombardia 0.626 1 Provincia Autonoma di Trento 0.740
2 Provincia Autonoma di Trento 0.612 2 Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano 0.724
3 Emilia-Romagna 0.607 3 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 0.609
4 Toscana 0.580 4 Valle d’Aosta 0.593
5 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 0.580 5 Emilia-Romagna 0.580
6 Veneto 0.569 6 Veneto 0.570
7 Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano 0.561 7 Lombardia 0.565
8 Valle d’Aosta 0.556 8 Umbria 0.565
9 Umbria 0.555 9 Toscana 0.564
10 Piemonte 0.538 10 Lazio 0.552
11 Lazio 0.538 11 Marche 0.541
12 Marche 0.527 12 Piemonte 0.535
13 Liguria 0.521 Italy 0.518
Italy 0.503 13 Liguria 0.515
14 Abruzzo 0.487 14 Abruzzo 0.484
15 Molise 0.446 15 Sardegna 0.477
16 Sardegna 0.439 16 Molise 0.453
17 Basilicata 0.402 17 Basilicata 0.419
18 Puglia 0.389 18 Puglia 0.371
19 Campania 0.354 19 Calabria 0.358
20 Sicilia 0.341 20 Campania 0.335
21 Calabria 0.328 21 Sicilia 0.332

According to the SDG, Lombardia excelled with a score of 0.626 (far from the theoretical
maximum of 1), followed by the province of Trento with 0.612 and Emilia-Romagna with
0.607. Thirteen regions were above the national average (0.503), with the first position being
0.123 away from the benchmark. The remaining eight were below the national average,
with the lowest ranked, Calabria, only 0.175 away.
All eight regions below the national average were located in the south, led by Abruzzo
with a score of 0.487. In contrast, regions in the north and center were above the benchmark.
Among those in the center, Tuscany scored highest (0.580) while Marche scored lowest
(0.527). This result was nonetheless better than that of the lowest-performing northern
region, Liguria (0.521). Table A6 shows the percentage change in each region’s score
compared to each other region. The maximum variation was 91%, between the first
(Lombardia) and last ranked (Calabria).

11
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

Figure 3. Map of Italy in 2022.

This difference between the first and last positions was 0.298, which was less marked
than that of the BES (0.408). In alignment with previous research [37], the province of Trento
(0.740) emerged in the top position, followed closely by the province of Bolzano (0.724).
Much more significant was the distance with Friuli-Venezia Giulia (0.609). The following
differences were also evident:
• The national average was 0.518 for the BES, slightly higher than the 0.503 for the
SDGs; also for the BES, Liguria, in addition to the southern regions, fell below
the national average.
• The negative changes from the BES ranking mainly concerned Lombardia and Toscana,
which lost six and five positions, respectively.
• Positive changes from the BES ranking mainly concerned the provinces of Bolzano
and Valle d’Aosta, which gained five and four positions, respectively.
• There was a change of two positions shown by four regions (Emilia-Romagna, Friuli-
Venezia Giulia, Piemonte and Calabria), while five regions had the same position in
the two rankings (Veneto, Liguria, Abruzzo, Basilicata and Puglia).
The numerical variation between the SDGs and the BES (Figure A7) showed that for
nine regions there was a higher value, with Lombardy showing a positive delta of 0.061.
However, while the difference for Sardegna (−0.038) was small, it was much more marked
for the provinces of Trento (−0.128) and Bolzano (−0.163). This figure may be explained by
the very significant BES performance of these regions, which was not, however, negative.
In fact, the province of Trento ranked second in the SDG ranking.

4.2. Sustainability in Its Three Dimensions (i.e., Economic, Environmental, Social)

A useful analysis involved aggregating and disaggregating the results. The aggre-
gation step considered the three Italian macro-areas (north, center and south) (Figure 4).
In this analysis, no significant differences emerged between the two sets of indicators,
although the delta between the north and center reduced when considering the SDGs due
to the reduction in overall value. For instance, while Lombardia and Emilia-Romagna
registered the most significant growth, the provinces of Trento and Bolzano followed the

12
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

opposite direction. Thus, in the SDG ranking, the north (0.575) prevailed over the center
(0.550). The difference with the south was much more pronounced, with the south record-
ing the lowest-performing value (0.398), similar to that of the BES and on par with the
central regions.

Figure 4. SDG and BES comparison at the macro-geographical level.

In the disaggregation step, the results were broken down according to the
three dimensions of sustainability (Table 8). In accordance with the literature, the fol-
lowing classification was used [43,44]:
• Economic dimension: SDGs 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12.
• Social dimension: SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 16 and 17.
• Environmental dimension: SDGs 6, 13, 14 and 15 (SDG 14 was not included due to
data unavailability).

Table 8. The three dimensions of sustainability: SDG side.

Social Dimension Environmental Dimension Economic Dimension

1 Emilia-Romagna 0.641 1 Provincia Autonoma di Trento 0.704 1 Lombardia 0.649
2 Lombardia 0.635 2 Provincia Aut onoma di Bolzano 0.653 2 Provincia Autonomadi Bolzano 0.618
3 Provincia Autonoma di Trento 0.622 3 Valle d’Aosta 0.645 3 Provincia Autonoma di Trento 0.574
4 Toscana 0.611 4 Toscana 0.637 4 Veneto 0.544
5 Umbria 0.609 5 Sardegna 0.627 5 Emilia-Romagna 0.539
6 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 0.606 6 Liguria 0.605 6 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 0.525
7 Valle d’Aosta 0.587 7 Basilicata 0.598 7 Lazio 0.523
8 Veneto 0.585 8 Lazio 0.584 8 Toscana 0.502
9 Marche 0.569 9 Abruzzo 0.581 9 Piemonte 0.490
10 Piemonte 0.563 10 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 0.570 10 Valle d’Aosta 0.472
11 Lazio 0.540 11 Emilia-Romagna 0.570 11 Liguria 0.463
12 Liguria 0.540 12 Molise 0.549 Italy 0.454
13 Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano 0.527 Italy 0.548 12 Marche 0.441
14 Abruzzo 0.523 13 Umbria 0.535 13 Umbria 0.440
Italy 0.521 14 Veneto 0.519 14 Basilicata 0.395
15 Molise 0.478 15 Piemonte 0.499 15 Abruzzo 0.392
16 Sardegna 0.449 16 Marche 0.499 16 Sardegna 0.380
17 Puglia 0.412 17 Puglia 0.475 17 Molise 0.355
18 Basilicata 0.387 18 Campania 0.470 18 Campania 0.351
19 Sicilia 0.363 19 Sicilia 0.412 19 Puglia 0.322
20 Calabria 0.350 20 Lombardia 0.408 20 Sicilia 0.280
21 Campania 0.345 21 Calabria 0.364 21 Calabria 0.275

13
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

Lombardia confirmed its leadership in the economic dimension (0.649), took

second place in the social dimension (0.635, only 0.006 lower than its first position) and
performed poorly in the environmental dimension (0.408), ranking only 20th, below the
national average. Emilia-Romagna led in the social dimension, while the province of Trento
led in the environmental dimension. Regions in the north were above the national average
in the economic and social dimensions. However, in the environmental dimension, Lom-
bardia, Piemonte and Veneto ranked below the national average. Central regions ranked
above the national average only in the social dimension, and Marche and Umbria ranked
below average in both the environmental and economic dimensions. Southern regions
showed slightly different results: all were below the national average in the economic
dimension, while, in the social dimension, Abruzzo was just above, with a score of 0.523
(compared to the benchmark of 0.521). In the environmental dimension, Molise held a
higher position with 0.549 (compared to the benchmark of 0.548), and Abruzzo rose to
ninth place, exceeding the national average by 0.033.
To compare the three dimensions of sustainability related to the SDGs, we integrated
BES indicators into the same dimensions (Table 9) as follows:
• Economic dimension: (i) economic well-being and (ii) innovation, research and creativity.
• Social dimension: (i) health, (ii) education and training, (iii) work and life time balance,
(iv) social relationships, (v) policy and institutions, (vi) safety, (vii) subjective well-
being, and (viii) quality of services.
• Environmental dimension: (i) landscape and cultural heritage and (ii) environment.

Table 9. The three dimensions of sustainability: BES side.

Social Dimension Environmental Dimension Economic Dimension

1 Provincia Autonoma di Trento 0.776 1 Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano 0.674 1 Provincia Autonoma di Trento 0.720
2 Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano 0.742 2 Provincia Autonoma di Trento 0.592 2 Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano 0.715
3 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 0.620 3 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 0.581 3 Lazio 0.676
4 Valle d’Aosta 0.604 4 Umbria 0.563 4 Lombardia 0.668
5 Emilia-Romagna 0.596 5 Toscana 0.557 5 Friuli-Venezia Giulia 0.654
6 Lombardia 0.576 6 Valle d’Aosta 0.530 6 Emilia-Romagna 0.651
7 Veneto 0.573 7 Piemonte 0.527 7 Umbria 0.639
8 Toscana 0.567 8 Marche 0.524 8 Veneto 0.639
9 Lazio 0.559 9 Molise 0.510 9 Marche 0.605
10 Umbria 0.557 Italy 0.495 10 Toscana 0.603
11 Marche 0.545 10 Abruzzo 0.490 11 Valle d’Aosta 0.583
12 Liguria 0.545 11 Veneto 0.487 Italy 0.550
13 Piemonte 0.543 12 Lombardia 0.484 12 Liguria 0.517
Italy 0.523 13 Basilicata 0.480 13 Piemonte 0.514
14 Abruzzo 0.503 14 Sardegna 0.477 14 Basilicata 0.512
15 Sardegna 0.479 15 Emilia-Romagna 0.466 15 Sardegna 0.467
16 Molise 0.453 16 Liguria 0.451 16 Puglia 0.423
17 Basilicata 0.387 17 Lazio 0.448 17 Molise 0.421
18 Puglia 0.363 18 Puglia 0.406 18 Calabria 0.419
19 Calabria 0.353 19 Calabria 0.397 19 Abruzzo 0.419
20 Campania 0.332 20 Sicilia 0.378 20 Sicilia 0.365
21 Sicilia 0.322 21 Campania 0.368 21 Campania 0.333

The province of Trento confirmed its leadership in the economic and social dimensions,
with scores of 0.720 and 0.776, respectively. It was followed in both cases by the province
of Bolzano, with close scores of 0.715 and 0.742, respectively. For the environmental
dimension, first place was obtained by the province of Bolzano (0.674), followed by the
province of Trento, whose score was only 0.082 lower. Of note, in the social dimension,
northern regions consistently scored above the national average. However, this was not
the case in the other two dimensions. In the environmental dimension, Veneto, Lombardia,
Emilia-Romagna and Liguria fell below the national average, as did Liguria and Piemonte
in the economic dimension. Among the central regions, all were above the national average
in the social and economic dimensions. Particularly in the economic dimension, Lazio took
third place with a score of 0.676. However, in the environmental dimension, it was the

14
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

only region below the national average, holding the 17th position with a score of 0.448
(0.047 away from the benchmark). Southern regions occupied the final positions in the
ranking across all dimensions. In the social dimension, they were below the national
average, led by Abruzzo, which ranked just below the average with a score of 0.503 (0.020
from the benchmark). In the economic dimension, Basilicata scored highest among these
regions with a score of 0.512, which was still below the national average by 0.038. In the
environmental dimension, Molise ranked just above the national average with a score
of 0.510, exceeding the benchmark by 0.015. Abruzzo, similar to its performance in the
social dimension, ranked just below the national average with a score of 0.490 (0.005 below
the benchmark). Finally, in both types of indicators, the social dimension had the fewest
regions below the national average. Conversely, the environmental dimension for the
BES and the economic dimension for the SDGs had the least number of regions above
the national average.

4.3. Clustering Sustainability Pillars

In this subsection, we present our comparative analysis of the SDG and BES indices,
focusing on the social, environmental and economic dimensions. Our aim was to examine
the relationship between these indices using scatterplots and Spearman correlations to
gain insight into their interplay across Italian regions and their differences in capturing
the multifaceted aspects of sustainability and well-being (Figure A8). In general, the
Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.92 indicated a significant correlation between the
two classifications.

4.3.1. Social Assessment

Figure 5 assesses the social aspect of sustainable development in the form of a scatter-
plot, with the SDG index on the x-axis and the BES index on the y-axis. Red lines indicate
the respective medians of 0.540 for the SDG and 0.545 for the BES. The Spearman correlation
coefficient of 0.84 indicated a strong linear correlation between the two indices. Here, we
refer to the upper right quadrant, defined by high scores on both the SDG and the BES
indices, as the UP quadrant. Notably, eight Italian territories fell into this quadrant: the
province of Trento, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Valle d’Aosta, Emilia-Romagna, Veneto, Toscana,
Lombardia and Umbria. Marche did not belong in this quadrant as its score (0.545) fell
exactly on the BES median, similar to Lazio and Liguria, with scores of 0.540.

Figure 5. SDG and BES: social dimension.

15
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

4.3.2. Environmental Assessment

Figure 6 examines the environmental aspect of sustainable development in the form
of a scatterplot. The median for the SDG index was 0.559, while that of the BES index was
0.488. The Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.56 was moderate, suggesting that the
two indices weighed environmental aspects differently. In particular, the regions of
Sardegna, Liguria, Basilicata, Lazio and Emilia-Romagna (which, despite appearing to be
on the median, actually scored 0.570) scored highly on the SDG index for their environmen-
tal performance. However, they fell below the median for the BES index. This discrepancy
suggests that, while these regions may excel in certain environmental indicators highlighted
by the SDG framework, they may not perform as well when considering the broader range
of environmental factors included in the BES index. Conversely, the four regions of Umbria,
Piemonte, Marche and Molise (but not Veneto, which scored 0.48) scored highly on the
BES index but fell below the SDG median. Six regions in the UP quadrant registered high
environmental scores on both indices: the province of Bolzano, the province of Trento,
Toscana, Valle d’Aosta, Abruzzo and Friuli-Venezia Giulia. This highlights the remarkable
environmental performance of these regions, according to both indices.

Figure 6. SDG and BES: environmental dimension.

4.3.3. Economic Assessment

Figure 7 presents a comparative analysis of the economic aspect of the SDG and
BES indices. The median for the SDG economic index was 0.458, while that for the BES
index was 0.566. The Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.9 indicated a strong positive
correlation between the two indices, representing the highest among the three dimen-
sions. This suggested significant convergence in the assessment of economic aspects, with
both indices broadly agreeing on the economic performance of the respective regions.
Nine regions fell in the UP quadrant, demonstrating high economic scores on both indices:
the province of Trento, the province of Bolzano, Lombardia, Lazio, Friuli-Venezia Giulia,
Emilia-Romagna, Veneto, Toscana and Valle d’Aosta. Notably, Valle d’Aosta, while aligned
with the BES median, actually exceeded the median score with a value of 0.583. This
convergence highlights the consistency in the assessment of economic performance across

16
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

regions, providing valuable insight into areas of economic strength and potential strategies
for enhancing economic sustainability.

Figure 7. SDG and BES: economic dimension.

4.3.4. Mapping Italian Regional Performance

Finally, we summarized the results of our previous analysis by mapping Italian regions
according to their relative scores in the scatterplots. In more detail, we assigned a score
to each region based on its presence in the UP quadrant: 1 if present once, 2 if present
twice and 3 if present three times. Notably, the provinces of Bolzano and Trento were
treated as a single entity, Trentino-Alto Adige.
Figure 8 shows the results of this clustering analysis:
• Four regions scored 3: Trentino-Alto Adige, Toscana, Friuli-Venezia Giulia and
Valle d’Aosta.
• Three regions scored 2: Emilia-Romagna, Lombardia and Veneto.
• Three regions scored 1: Umbria, Lazio and Abruzzo.
The analysis also revealed that three regions narrowly missed being ranked with a
score of 1: Marche, Liguria and Piemonte, due to their slightly below-average scores in the
social dimension. The findings also revealed interesting patterns in regional sustainability
performance across Italy. In particular, three of the four regions scoring 3 were located in
the north, with Trentino-Alto Adige and Friuli-Venezia Giulia all falling in the northeast.
All regions scoring 2 were also in northern Italy. In central Italy, only Toscana scored 3 and
two regions scored 2. Conversely, in southern Italy, only Abruzzo scored 1, while all other
southern regions scored 0. Overall, northeastern regions emerged as the top performers,
with all scoring 3 or 2. Southern Italy, however, showed lower performance across the
board. These observations underline regional disparities in sustainability performance,
highlighting potential areas for targeted interventions and policy initiatives to promote
more equitable and balanced development across Italy.

17
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

Figure 8. Clustering sustainability pillars in Italian regions.

5. Discussion
While the topic of sustainability has gained significant traction in recent years, some
stakeholders remain focused solely on their own benefits. Consequently, phenomena
such as green economy rebound, circular economy rebound and greenwashing have
emerged [45–48], necessitating appropriate management to prevent a loss of public con-
fidence. Public involvement is crucial for sustainability efforts, as highlighted by the
prominence of the word “human” in the co-occurrence network (Figure 2). Some au-
thors have called for new regulatory approaches and business models, emphasizing that
“progress is too slow” and societal value creation remains underutilized [49].
The SDGs have gained fundamental relevance within the scientific community and
civil society. Previously considered niche, the urgent need to address climate change has
elevated these goals to a central focus. In particular, this urgency has underscored the need
to develop innovative ideas and concepts to support SDG achievement, prompting the
development of a new section within sustainability [50]. Thus, a vision of a sustainable
community requires interdisciplinary contributions from various perspectives [51–53].
Local and global analyses often have different scopes of analysis, stakeholder cate-
gories may have different interests, and indicators sometimes provide competing informa-
tion. This paper built on a review of the literature [29–31], showing that the BES and SDG
indices are complementary while providing distinct insights. The results obtained from the
analysis must now be integrated with the existing literature [37].
The first methodological contribution of this research was the creation of scatterplots
ranking alternatives based on the two sets of indicators across the three dimensions of
sustainability. The interplay between economic well-being and the SDGs is not only an
Italian priority but also a European one [54].
From this analysis, a second consideration emerged, this time of a managerial nature.
The cluster analysis made it possible to redefine the geographical structure of Italy, showing
that it cannot be divided into north, center and south according to SDG and BES indicators.
In fact, the data revealed that the northeast significantly outperformed the northwest
(0.586 vs. 0.560 at the SDG level and 0.645 vs. 0.552 at the BES level). Additionally, values
in the center were close to those registered in the northwest. Interestingly, among the
southern regions, Abruzzo performed similarly to the central regions, reducing the overall

18
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

value by only 0.012 in terms of the SDGs and 0.015 with respect to the BES. This suggests
that central regions have great potential, demonstrated by Abruzzo’s strong performance
in the environmental dimension, Lazio’s in the economic dimension and Umbria’s in the
social dimension, combined with Toscana’s strong performance across all three dimensions.
Although Marche narrowly missed the mark in the social dimension, it could still make
a fundamental contribution. This shows that the realization of a sustainable community
in these regions, facilitated by the exchange of services and products, may generate a
competitive macro-area. This requires further data monitoring, which is already showing
growth in these regions and the northeast’s superior performance [4].
The “Made in Italy” brand aims to integrate regional disparities, rather than high-
light them, to produce unique brands that are globally competitive [37]. However, this
integration cannot overlook existing disparities, particularly in southern Italy. The south’s
potential, while significant, has yet to be fully and efficiently harnessed. Promoting the
south will be essential for achieving balanced regional development in Italy and upholding
the Italian pillars of sustainability. In addition, promoting technological innovation in
the south may contribute to what many consider the fourth pillar of sustainability. By
leveraging each region’s unique strengths and fostering nationwide collaboration, Italy
may advance towards holistic sustainability and enhance its global competitiveness under
the “Made in Italy” banner. The involvement of new generations, alongside the experience
of older generations, will be crucial for building sustainable community models based on
skills and resources [47].
Finally, we must highlight a third implication, which is political. The use of European
funds should not focus solely on individual territories but incorporate a future vision
incorporating points of interconnection and uniting the Adriatic with the Tyrrhenian to
achieve significant logistical advantages. In central Italy, cohesion between national and
local governments may provide political stability and a comprehensive perspective, thereby
supporting the interception of European funds and promoting green, circular and digital
projects. Important initiatives include those of Abruzzo, Marche and Umbria, along with
their respective “confindustries” universities and industrial development companies. These
entities have collaborated in the Hamu (Hub Abruzzo Marche Umbria) project, experiment-
ing with ecosystem building and value generation in central Italy. These territories should
foster the degree of attractiveness to their own talents and those from other countries. A
further collaborative effort involves the financial institutions of Lazio, Abruzzo, Marche
and Umbria, which have signed a partnership agreement on European Funds in Rome.
Central Italy currently represents a model of sustainable innovation that should aspire
to emulate the performance of northeastern regions. A divided and fragmented Italy
hindered by ideological visions has no future. We must therefore pursue a pragmatic vision
that recognizes the great challenge of sustainability: overcoming personal selfishness to
protect ecosystems and achieve the triple goal of economic performance, environmental
protection and social progress. Indicators allow decision-makers and the public to monitor
the performance of individual territories towards this goal. While the SDG and BES
indicators share some criteria, their rankings reveal critical differences, indicating that
their outputs are complementary, rather than redundant. This highlights the importance of
developing new tools to integrate these rankings.
Limitations of the present work include the time period of reference, which could
be extended in future research. In this regard, close monitoring of the relevant data will
be necessary to assess regional performance in light of interregional policies. In addition,
it may be useful to study the relationships between these data and those related to the
implementation of sustainability goals by universities in their respective territories. Such
research may also open up a social perspective, exploring how these indicators might
influence young people’s choice of university and base for skills training. Further analysis
could evaluate the present results concerning culture and income readiness, providing
assessments at the macro-geographical level.

19
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

The SDG–BES pairing promotes ethical sustainability, engaging individuals’ religious

and philosophical beliefs to facilitate an ecological consciousness that may restore the
human–nature relationship.

6. Conclusions
The great challenge of sustainability is to overcome personal selfishness, as this is
crucial for protecting ecosystems and achieving the threefold goal of economic performance,
environmental protection and social progress. Indicators allow decision-makers and the
public to monitor the performance of individual territories towards this goal. Although the
SDG and BES indicators share some criteria, their rankings also highlight some differences.
Consequently, their outputs are complementary, rather than redundant, emphasizing the
need for tools capable of integrating the different rankings.
In the present study, a cluster analysis was conducted to differentiate the various
territorial realities. The regions of Trentino-Alto Adige, Toscana, Friuli-Venezia Giulia and
Valle d’Aosta scored highly across all three dimensions of sustainability. Emilia-Romagna,
Lombardia and Veneto performed positively in two of the three dimensions and Umbria,
Lazio and Abruzzo achieved similar results in one dimension. Regions outside these
clusters have gaps that require strengthening. However, the present work did not aim to
highlight territorial differences but attempted to suggest actions to enhance sustainability
contributions from all regions.
In this direction, reintroducing the “Made in Italy” concept may foster the development
of an innovative, sustainable model based on territorial cooperation and related synergies,
thereby maximizing the use of resources and skills to enhance global competition.
The present findings showed strong performances by regions in the northeast and
center of Italy. To overcome the north–south divide, some southern regions must improve
their performance, and the present analysis indicated that this is starting to happen. There
are many challenges ahead, but with a stable political climate and proactive decision-
making, the dream of a more sustainable country may become a reality. Present issues
must be addressed with foresight to ensure that benefits are generated for a wide range of
stakeholder categories.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.D., C.D.C., M.G., E.N.R. and A.F.U.; methodology, I.D.,
C.D.C., M.G., E.N.R. and A.F.U.; data curation, I.D., C.D.C., M.G., E.N.R. and A.F.U.; writing—original
draft preparation, I.D., C.D.C., M.G., E.N.R. and A.F.U.; writing—review and editing, I.D., C.D.C.,
M.G., E.N.R. and A.F.U.; supervision, I.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: This study was carried out within the PEACE (Protecting the Environment:
Advances in Circular Economy) study, which received funding from the “Fondo per il Programma
Nazionale di Ricerca e Progetti di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale (PRIN)” Investimento M4.C2.1.1-D.D.
104.02-02-2022, 2022ZFBMA4 funded by the European Union-Next Generation EU. This manuscript
reflects only the authors’ views and opinions, and the authors can be considered solely responsible
for them.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

20
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

Appendix A

Table A1. Trend of published articles per Web of Science categories (top 10 categories).

Category Number of Published Articles

Environmental sciences 9554
Green sustainable science technology 7153
Environmental studies 6023
Energy fuels 1892
Public environmental occupational health 1684
Economics 1519
Engineering environmental 1483
Management 1305
Business 1290
Education educational research 1180

Table A2. Trend of published papers per country (top 10 countries).

Country Number of Published Articles

China 5706
USA 4085
UK 3256
India 2737
Spain 2248
Australia 2081
Italy 1823
Germany 1703
South Africa 1350
Canada 1332

Table A3. Trend of published papers per Web of Science index.

Number of
WoS Index
Published Articles
Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) 18,246
Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) 12,516
Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) 6877
Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) 1033
Book Citation Index—Social Sciences & Humanities (BKCI-SSH) 465

Table A4. Trend of published papers per SDG.

SDG Description Number of Published Articles

13 Climate action 5927
3 Good health and well-being 4495
11 Sustainable cities and communities 3632
15 Life on land 2685
12 Responsible consumption and production 2295
1 No poverty 2125
6 Clean water and sanitation 1799
2 Zero hunger 1789
9 Industry, innovation and infrastructure 1671
7 Affordable and clean energy 1591
4 Quality education 1278
10 Reduced inequality 723

21
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

Table A4. Cont.

SDG Description Number of Published Articles

8 Decent work and economic growth 709
14 Life below water 690
5 Gender equality 519
16 Peace and justice strong institutions 216

Table A5. Advanced search.

Section Query String

TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( sustainable AND development AND goals OR sdgs ) AND economic AND
2.1 (Economic) sustainability ) AND PUBYEAR > 2019 AND PUBYEAR < 2025 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , “ar” ) )
AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE , “English” )
TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( sustainable AND development AND goals OR sdgs ) AND environmental AND
2.2 (Environmental) sustainability ) AND PUBYEAR > 2019 AND PUBYEAR < 2025 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , “ar” ) )
AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE , “English” ) )
TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( sustainable AND development AND goals OR sdgs ) AND social AND sustainability
2.3 (Social) ) AND PUBYEAR > 2019 AND PUBYEAR < 2025 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , “ar” ) ) AND
( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE , “English” ) )
TITLE-ABS-KEY ( sdgs OR sustainable AND development AND goals ) AND PUBYEAR > 2022 AND
2.4 (Global)
PUBYEAR < 2025 AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE , “English” ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE , “ar” ) )

Table A6. Percentage variation between each region’s SDG score compared with every other
region. The following acronyms are used: R1: Lombardia; R2: Provincia Autonoma di Trento;
R3: Emilia-Romagna; R4: Toscana; R5: Friuli-Venezia Giulia; R6: Veneto; R7: Provincia Autonoma
di Bolzano; R8: Valle d’Aosta; R9: Umbria; R10: Piemonte; R11: Lazio; R12: Marche; R13: Liguria;
R14: Abruzzo; R15: Molise; R16: Sardegna; R17: Basilicata; R18: Puglia; R19: Campania; R20: Sicilia;
R21: Calabria.

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21
R1
R2 2%
R3 3% 1%
R4 8% 5% 5%
R5 8% 6% 5% 0%
R6 10% 8% 7% 2% 2%
R7 12% 9% 8% 3% 3% 1%
R8 13% 10% 9% 4% 4% 2% 1%
R9 13% 10% 9% 5% 5% 3% 1% 0%
R10 16% 14% 13% 8% 8% 6% 4% 3% 3%
R11 16% 14% 13% 8% 8% 6% 4% 3% 3% 0%
R12 19% 16% 15% 10% 10% 8% 6% 5% 5% 2% 2%
R13 25% 22% 21% 15% 15% 13% 12% 11% 10% 7% 7% 5%
R14 29% 26% 25% 19% 19% 17% 15% 14% 14% 10% 10% 8% 3%
R15 41% 37% 36% 30% 30% 28% 26% 25% 24% 21% 21% 18% 13% 9%
R16 43% 39% 38% 32% 32% 30% 28% 27% 26% 23% 23% 20% 15% 11% 2%
R17 56% 52% 51% 45% 44% 42% 406 39% 38% 34% 34% 31% 25% 21% 11% 9%
R18 61% 58% 56% 49% 49% 46% 44% 43% 43% 38% 38% 36% 29% 25% 15% 13% 3%

22
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

Table A6. Cont.

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21
R19 77% 73% 72% 64% 64% 61% 59% 57% 57% 52% 52% 49% 42% 38% 26% 24% 14% 10%
R20 84% 80% 78% 70% 70% 67% 65% 63% 63% 58% 58% 55% 47% 43% 31% 29% 18% 14% 4%
R21 91% 86% 85% 77% 77% 73% 71% 69% 69% 64% 64% 61% 53% 48% 36% 34% 22% 18% 8% 4%

Figure A1. Annual scientific production: economic sustainability.

Figure A2. Corresponding authors’ countries: economic sustainability.

23
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

Figure A3. Annual scientific production: environmental sustainability.

Figure A4. Corresponding authors’ countries: environmental sustainability.

24
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

Figure A5. Annual scientific production: social sustainability.

Figure A6. Corresponding authors’ countries: social sustainability.

25
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano

Provincia Autonoma di Trento
Sardegna
Valle d'Aosta
Calabria
Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Basilicata
Italy
Lazio
Marche
Umbria
Molise
Veneto
Piemonte
Abruzzo
Liguria
Sicilia
Toscana
Puglia
Campania
Emilia-Romagna
Lombardia

-0.200 -0.150 -0.100 -0.050 0.000 0.050 0.100

Figure A7. Numerical variation between SDG and BES in 2022.

Figure A8. SDG and BES: overall dimension.

References
1. Yamaguchi, N.U.; Bernardino, E.G.; Ferreira, M.E.C.; de Lima, B.P.; Pascotini, M.R.; Yamaguchi, M.U. Sustainable development
goals: A bibliometric analysis of literature reviews. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 5502–5515. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Giannetti, B.F.; Agostinho, F.; Almeida, C.M.V.B.; Liu, G.; Contreras, L.E.V.; Vandecasteele, C.; Coscieme, L.; Sutton, P.; Poveda, C.
Insights on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals scope: Are they aligned with a ‘strong’sustainable development?
J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119574. [CrossRef]

26
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

3. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987;
ISBN 019282080X.
4. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M. Monitoring Performance of Sustainable Development Goals in the Italian Regions. Sustainability 2023,
15, 14094. [CrossRef]
5. Mensah, K.; Wieck, C.; Rudloff, B. Sustainable food consumption and Sustainable Development Goal 12: Conceptual challenges
for monitoring and implementation. Sustain. Dev. 2024, 32, 1109–1119. [CrossRef]
6. Olabi, A.G.; Shehata, N.; Obaideen, K.; Sayed, E.T.; Mahmoud, M.; AlMallahi, M.N.; Abdelkareem, M.A. COVID-19: Medical
Waste Management, Impact on Sustainable Development Goals, and Bibliometric Analysis. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2024, 47, 4–19.
[CrossRef]
7. Serafini, P.G.; de Moura, J.M.; de Almeida, M.R.; de Rezende, J.F.D. Sustainable Development Goals in Higher Education
Institutions: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 370, 133473. [CrossRef]
8. Buhalis, D.; Leung, X.Y.; Fan, D.; Darcy, S.; Chen, G.; Xu, F.; Wei-Han Tan, G.; Nunkoo, R.; Farmaki, A. Editorial: Tourism 2030 and
the contribution to the sustainable development goals: The tourism review viewpoint. Tour. Rev. 2023, 78, 293–313. [CrossRef]
9. Parmentola, A.; Petrillo, A.; Tutore, I.; De Felice, F. Is blockchain able to enhance environmental sustainability? A systematic
review and research agenda from the perspective of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2022,
31, 194–217. [CrossRef]
10. Vann Yaroson, E.; Chowdhury, S.; Mangla, S.K.; Dey, P.; Chan, F.T.S.; Roux, M. A systematic literature review exploring and
linking circular economy and sustainable development goals in the past three decades (1991–2022). Int. J. Prod. Res. 2024,
62, 1399–1433. [CrossRef]
11. Sharifi, A.; Allam, Z.; Bibri, S.E.; Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R. Smart cities and sustainable development goals (SDGs): A systematic
literature review of co-benefits and trade-offs. Cities 2024, 146, 104659. [CrossRef]
12. Pelikánová, R.M.; Němečková, T.; MacGregor, R.K. CSR Statements in International and Czech Luxury Fashion Industry at the
Onset and during the COVID-19 Pandemic—Slowing Down the Fast Fashion Business? Sustainability 2021, 13, 3715. [CrossRef]
13. Wood, D.; Rathnasabapathy, M.; Stober, K.J.; Menon, P. Challenges and progress in applying space technology in support of the
sustainable development goals. Acta Astronaut. 2024, 219, 678–692. [CrossRef]
14. Mishra, M.; Desul, S.; Santos, C.A.G.; Mishra, S.K.; Kamal, A.H.M.; Goswami, S.; Kalumba, A.M.; Biswal, R.; da Silva, R.M.; dos
Santos, C.A.C.; et al. A bibliometric analysis of sustainable development goals (SDGs): A review of progress, challenges, and
opportunities. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 26, 11101–11143. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Ordonez-Ponce, E. Exploring the Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on Sustainability Trends. Sustainability 2023,
15, 16647. [CrossRef]
16. Akande, A.; Cabral, P.; Gomes, P.; Casteleyn, S. The Lisbon ranking for smart sustainable cities in Europe. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019,
44, 475–487. [CrossRef]
17. Hametner, M.; Kostetckaia, M. Frontrunners and laggards: How fast are the EU member states progressing towards the sustainable
development goals? Ecol. Econ. 2020, 177, 106775. [CrossRef]
18. Kostetckaia, M.; Hametner, M. How Sustainable Development Goals interlinkages influence European Union countries’ progress
towards the 2030 Agenda. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 916–926. [CrossRef]
19. Hickmann, T.; Biermann, F.; Spinazzola, M.; Ballard, C.; Bogers, M.; Forestier, O.; Kalfagianni, A.; Kim, R.E.; Montesano, F.S.;
Peek, T.; et al. Success factors of global goal-setting for sustainable development: Learning from the Millennium Development
Goals. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 31, 1214–1225. [CrossRef]
20. Henderson, K.; Loreau, M. A model of Sustainable Development Goals: Challenges and opportunities in promoting human
well-being and environmental sustainability. Ecol. Model. 2023, 475, 110164. [CrossRef]
21. Perevoznic, F.M.; Dragomir, V.D. Achieving the 2030 Agenda: Mapping the Landscape of Corporate Sustainability Goals and
Policies in the European Union. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971. [CrossRef]
22. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Ioppolo, G.; Morone, P. An analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in Italian cities: Performance
measurements and policy implications. Land Use policy 2022, 120, 106278. [CrossRef]
23. Siddiqui, A.; Altekar, S.; Kautish, P.; Fulzele, S.; Kulkarni, N.; Siddiqui, M.; Bashir, M.F. Review of measurement of sustainable
development goals: A comprehensive bibliometric and visualized analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 91761–91779.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Ciommi, M.; Gigliarano, C.; Emili, A.; Taralli, S.; Chelli, F.M. A new class of composite indicators for measuring well-being
at the local level: An application to the Equitable and Sustainable Well-being (BES) of the Italian Provinces. Ecol. Indic. 2017,
76, 281–296. [CrossRef]
25. Bacchini, F.; Baldazzi, B.; Di Biagio, L. The evolution of composite indices of well-being: An application to Italy. Ecol. Indic. 2020,
117, 106603. [CrossRef]
26. Davino, C.; Dolce, P.; Taralli, S.; Vinzi, V.E. A Quantile Composite-Indicator Approach for the Measurement of Equitable and
Sustainable Well-Being: A Case Study of the Italian Provinces. Soc. Indic. Res. 2018, 136, 999–1029. [CrossRef]
27. Ermini, B.; Santolini, R.; Ciommi, M. Equitable and sustainable well-being in Italian municipalities: Do women in politics make
the difference? Socioecon. Plann. Sci. 2023, 90, 101741. [CrossRef]
28. Dello Strologo, A.; D’Andrassi, E.; Paoloni, N.; Mattei, G. Italy versus Other European Countries: Sustainable Development
Goals, Policies and Future Hypothetical Results. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3417. [CrossRef]

27
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049

29. Tebala, D.; Marino, D. A Synthetic Indicator BES-SDGs to Describe Italian Well-Being. New Metrop. Perspect. 2021, 178, 1862–1871.
30. Guarini, E.; Mori, E.; Zuffada, E. Localizing the Sustainable Development Goals: A managerial perspective. J. Public Budg.
Account. Financ. Manag. 2022, 34, 583–601. [CrossRef]
31. Richiedei, A.; Pezzagno, M. Territorializing and Monitoring of Sustainable Development Goals in Italy: An Overview. Sustainabil-
ity 2022, 14, 3056. [CrossRef]
32. Ricciolini, E.; Tiralti, A.; Paolotti, L.; Rocchi, L.; Boggia, A. Sustainable development according to 2030 agenda in European Union
countries: Evidence of the enlargement policy. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 32, 1894–1912. [CrossRef]
33. Ruiz, F.; Cabello, J.M. MRP-PCI: A Multiple Reference Point Based Partially Compensatory Composite Indicator for Sustainability
Assessment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1261. [CrossRef]
34. Mazziotta, M.; Pareto, A. Weighting in composite indices construction: The case of the Mazziotta-Pareto index. Riv. Ital. di Econ.
Demogr. e Stat. 2022, 76, 1–10.
35. Gan, X.; Fernandez, I.C.; Guo, J.; Wilson, M.; Zhao, Y.; Zhou, B.; Wu, J. When to use what: Methods for weighting and aggregating
sustainability indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 81, 491–502. [CrossRef]
36. Puertas, R.; Marti, L. Regional analysis of the sustainable development of two Mediterranean countries: Spain and Italy. Sustain.
Dev. 2023, 31, 797–811. [CrossRef]
37. D’Adamo, I.; Di Carlo, C.; Gastaldi, M.; Uricchio, A.F. Equitable and sustainable well-being indicators: A study of Italian regional
disparities towards sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 2024. [CrossRef]
38. Booth, A.; Sutton, A.; Papaioannou, D. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Thousand
Oaks, CA, USA, 2016.
39. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M. Sustainable Development Goals: A Regional Overview Based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9779. [CrossRef]
40. Sousa, M.; Almeida, M.F.; Calili, R. Multiple Criteria Decision Making for the Achievement of the UN Sustainable Development
Goals: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4129. [CrossRef]
41. Baffo, I.; Leonardi, M.; Bossone, B.; Camarda, M.E.; D’Alberti, V.; Travaglioni, M. A decision support system for measuring and
evaluating solutions for sustainable development. Sustain. Futur. 2023, 5, 100109. [CrossRef]
42. ISTAT Benessere e Sostenibilità. Available online: [Link] (accessed on
3 December 2023).
43. Costanza, R.; Daly, L.; Fioramonti, L.; Giovannini, E.; Kubiszewski, I.; Mortensen, L.F.; Pickett, K.E.; Ragnarsdottir, K.V.; De Vogli,
R.; Wilkinson, R. Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Ecol. Econ. 2016, 130, 350–355. [CrossRef]
44. Kettunen, M.; Boywer, C.; Vaculova, L.; Charveriat, C. Sustainable Development Goals and the EU: Uncovering the Nexus between
External and Internal Policies; Think2030 Discuss. Pap. IEEP Brussels; Institute of European Environmental Policy: Brussels,
Belgium, 2018.
45. Fan, W.; Anser, M.K.; Nasir, M.H.; Nazar, R. Uncertainty in firm innovation scheme and impact of green fiscal policy; Economic
recovery of Chinese firms in the post-Covid-19 era. Econ. Anal. Policy 2023, 78, 1424–1439. [CrossRef]
46. Ferrante, M.; Vitti, M.; Facchini, F.; Sassanelli, C. Mapping the relations between the circular economy rebound effects dimensions:
A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 456, 142399. [CrossRef]
47. Biancardi, A.; Colasante, A.; D’Adamo, I.; Daraio, C.; Gastaldi, M.; Uricchio, A.F. Strategies for developing sustainable communi-
ties in higher education institutions. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 20596. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. de Freitas Netto, S.V.; Sobral, M.F.F.; Ribeiro, A.R.B.; Soares, G.R.D.L. Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review.
Environ. Sci. Eur. 2020, 32, 19. [CrossRef]
49. Van Tulder, R.; van Mil, E. Principles of Sustainable Business: Frameworks for Corporate Action on the SDGs; Routledge: New York, NY,
USA, 2022; ISBN 1003098355.
50. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.;
et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
51. Suguna, M.; Sreenivasan, A.; Ravi, L.; Devarajan, M.; Suresh, M.; Almazyad, A.S.; Xiong, G.; Ali, I.; Mohamed, A.W. En-
trepreneurial education and its role in fostering sustainable communities. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 7588. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Lennon, B.; Dunphy, N. Sustaining energetic communities: Energy citizenship and participation in an age of upheaval and
transition. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 3267. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Skaloumpakas, P.; Sarmas, E.; Rachmanidis, M.; Marinakis, V. Reshaping the energy landscape of Crete through renewable energy
valleys. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 8038. [CrossRef]
54. Cook, D.; Davíðsdóttir, B. An appraisal of interlinkages between macro-economic indicators of economic well-being and the
sustainable development goals. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 184, 106996. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

28
 sustainability

Article
Monitoring the Performance of Sustainable Development Goals
in the Italian Regions
Idiano D’Adamo 1, * and Massimo Gastaldi 2

1 Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome,

Via Ariosto 25, 00185 Rome, Italy
2 Department of Industrial and Information Engineering and Economics, University of L’Aquila,
Piazzale E. Pontieri 1, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy; [Link]@[Link]
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]

Abstract: The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a shared agenda among countries but also a
rallying point for forward-looking policy dialogue. Analysis and monitoring of the SDGs are decisive
steps in evaluating possible corrective actions. This paper aims to reach two research objectives:
(i) providing methodological insights for the application of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in
the evaluation of the SDGs and (ii) emphasizing the relevance of monitoring the outcomes of the SDGs
by evaluating the Italian regions. For the first objective, an online survey among twenty academics
is used, while for the second, an MCDA is proposed that compares the temporal performance of
a sustainability score for each Italian region. The results, based on 27 targets, show that in 2021
the northern regions showed better performance, with the province of Trento topping the list. This
is followed by Valle d’Aosta and the province of Bolzano, confirming the trio that emerged in the
previous year. A very interesting fact is the growth of the central regions, which overall tend to reach
a value close to that of the northern regions. In particular, Toscana, Marche and Lazio stand out
for a good performance. It is also confirmed that the southern regions occupy the last places in the
ranking with the only exception of Abruzzo. The implications of this paper suggest collaboration
between different regions in order to achieve a social community in which resources and skills
can be enhanced.

Keywords: Italy; monitoring; multicriteria decision analysis; performance indicators; sustainable

Citation: D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.
development goals; sustainability
Monitoring the Performance of
Sustainable Development Goals in
the Italian Regions. Sustainability
2023, 15, 14094. [Link]
10.3390/su151914094 1. Introduction
The topic of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) shows a very growing trend in
Academic Editor: Cristina Raluca
Gh. Popescu
the literature. A major problem in assessing the SDGs is the multiplicity of aspects to be
considered and the different scales [1], but also the relationships among the indicators [2].
Received: 28 August 2023 While, in fact, SDG 5 (Gender Equality) has the most relationships, unlike SDG 7 (Affordable
Revised: 15 September 2023 and Clean Energy) [3], the literature has placed more emphasis on SDG 3 (Good Health
Accepted: 21 September 2023 and Well-Being) followed by SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 1 (No Poverty), and less on
Published: 22 September 2023 SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 16 (Peace and Justice Strong Institutions) [4]. Thus,
to achieve the 2030 Agenda, synergies among the goals must be exploited and suitable
trade-offs should be identified [5].
Climate change, health and global governance puts the SDGs at the center of re-
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
search [6], but nevertheless, care must be taken to avoid sustainable washing phenomena
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
by favoring a pragmatic approach [4]. Markets are characterized by new economic mod-
distributed under the terms and
els, as it has been shown that gross domestic product does not capture the full economic
conditions of the Creative Commons dimension of sustainability, and an overcoming of the selfish view that may characterize
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// some stakeholders emerges in importance [7]. Another key aspect is cooperation to support
[Link]/licenses/by/ economic exchanges, foster technological innovation and develop a global culture of sus-
4.0/). tainable development [8]. One issue to be resolved is the structural distances between actors

Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094. [Link] 29 [Link]

Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

and the consequences of their acts, and policy has the task of reducing and eliminating
them [9]. Thus, it is necessary to think of the SDGs as a shared agenda among different
countries, but they are also a proposed meeting point for forward-looking policy and
programmatic dialogue. Indeed, there is a problem of fragmentation in global sustainability
governance [10]. Therefore, improvements in green technological innovation can be identi-
fied [11], but a balance between the digital economy and industrial eco-efficiency needs
to be identified [12]. Similarly, there is also a need for policies to encourage sustainable
monetary supply [13] through public–private partnership [14].
In addition, analyses on the SDGs require appropriate policies because otherwise their
achievement is at risk [15] and it is necessary to assess which policies are most appropri-
ate [16] by fostering a global partnership between developed and developing countries [17].
Some authors emphasize how achieving the SDGs requires each city government to demon-
strate its support toward these goals and congruity with global sustainability [18]. Along
this direction, cities’ progress toward SDGs can be proposed according to seven directions
(economy, environment, human, operations, organization, society and staff). In particular,
the criteria considered most relevant are sustainable policy and green public investments,
and rationing public spending and political stability also show important relevance [19]. In
addition, public administrators can put data-driven policy targets into their government
programs [20].
The relationship between indicators on the SDGs and policy implications is an
essential aspect of their achievement [21], and the literature highlights the key role of
indicators in monitoring progress. Therefore, it is necessary to measure and monitor
progress toward the SDGs [22,23]. It is useful to create a sustainable development index
and dashboard to track countries’ development in relation to the SDGs [24]. Analyses
can be conducted at various levels, concerning a single country [25], as a comparison of
several countries [23] or arriving at a global view [26]. Thus, the use of statistical methods
supports assessments of sustainability goals [27,28], and the analyses need to integrate
different information [29,30]. According to the literature, ranking various options is
likely to raise awareness and accountability for achieving the SDGs [31,32]. The use of
multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) can aggregate different data to compare several
territories [33]. The MCDA is used to measure the performance of Italian regions, and
monitoring their performance is crucial to the achievement of the SDGs [24]. This paper
covers two research objectives (ROs):
RO1—The first is to provide methodological insights for the application of MCDA in
the evaluation of the SDGs.
RO2—The second is to emphasize the relevance of monitoring the outcomes of the
SDGs by evaluating the Italian regions.
The methodological implications of RO1 can be used in other MCDAs to be imple-
mented in different geographical contexts. RO2 can provide policy-makers with informa-
tion regarding the roles and degrees of satisfaction of the different SDGs. This will help
indicate where to focus future investments so as to foster sustainable development in differ-
ent regions. This approach needs to be applied from both local and national perspectives,
fostering interregional collaborations for sustainability.
The paper is organized as follows: after this introduction, the methodology and dataset
used are presented in Section 2, where the online survey among academics and the MCDA
are proposed. The results for the two ROs are proposed in Section 3, and discussion are
presented in Section 4. Section 5 shows the conclusions.

2. Materials and Methods

This section consists of an analysis of an online survey among academics to assess
insights on MCDA versus the SDGs (Section 2.1—RO1) and a description of MCDA and
related data used in this paper (Section 2.2—RO2).

30
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

2.1. Survey with Academic Experts

Expert surveys are a method used in studies described in the literature to enhance
their backgrounds in order to provide useful implications for the development of the topic
examined [25,26]. In this paper, we want to consider what approaches may be most useful
for conducting MCDA. Responses can be scored from 0% to 100%. The content of the email
sent to experts described the purpose of the paper, the time to complete the questionnaire
(maximum 5 min), the methodology used, and that only the first 20 responses would
be included. In addition, it was specified that anonymity would be guaranteed. Other
works in the literature use samples with the same number of observations [19,27]. The list
of profiles to contact was chosen by looking at the Scopus database [28] and identifying
academics with at least ten years of experience and expertise on SDG issues [19].
These authors were identified from those who published several papers with the
word SDG in the title, abstract or keywords. Approximately one hundred emails were
forwarded, and among the twenty responses obtained (Table 1), five of them were received
from women (25%). In addition, eleven of these twenty experts work in Europe. The survey
was conducted in August 2023.

Table 1. List of academic experts.

Number Role Country Years of Experience

E1 Professor France 16
E2 Professor Spain 11
E3 Professor India 14
E4 Professor Sweden 13
E5 Professor Italy 11
E6 Professor Spain 12
E7 Professor Italy 13
E8 Professor Germany 15
E9 Professor Italy 18
E10 Professor India 20
E11 Professor China 18
E12 Professor Canada 12
E13 Professor Australia 14
E14 Professor Bangladesh 11
E15 Professor Cyprus 19
E16 Professor Greece 14
E17 Professor China 16
E18 Professor USA 18
E19 Professor Poland 11
E20 Professor Brazil 12

Before being sent, the questions were submitted to the attention of two colleagues
who have opened discussions on the special issues on SDG themes and have more than
ten years of experience each. Some suggestions were implemented. This initial survey was
done through a video call lasting about half an hour. Table 2 presents the nine questions
submitted to the twenty academics who participated in the online survey. Experts could
provide comments.

31
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

Table 2. List of questions.

Number Question
Q1 How useful do you think MCDA is as a method for assessing the SDGs?
Q2 How congruous do you think the number of public indicators on the SDGs is?
Q3 How robust do you think an indicator composed of 27 targets is for assessing individual local realities?
We proceed below to evaluate the approach related to values and weights, where it is specified that answers should be provided for
a small sample of targets (about 30).
Q4 How valid do you think the 0–1 range approach is (0 = weak performance; 1 = strong performance)?
Q5 How valid do you think the maximum value approach is as a benchmark (1 = strong performance)?
Q6 How valid do you think equal weight among SDGs (EWG) scenario is?
Q7 How valid do you think equal weight among indicators (EWI) scenario is?
Finally, two final questions are provided on the possible decomposition of the results obtained.
Q8 How useful do you think it is to break down the final data according to the three dimensions of sustainability?
Q9 How useful do you think it is to break down the final figure according to geographic macro-areas?

2.2. Multicriteria Decision Analysis

MCDA synthesizes a large multiplicity of data, also considering their different nature
and belonging to different concepts. The method is widely used in the literature to make
comparisons between different geographical realities, and the initial objective is to arrive
at a ranking among different alternatives in order to provide insights for the decision-
maker [29]. Thus, we can identify three precise stages:
• The first step is to assign suitable criteria to achieve this goal;
• The second step is to assign weights and values to these criteria;
• The third step is to aggregate the different information obtained, calculating the
sustainability score of each alternative.
One of the major limitations is the lack of dynamicity, such that evaluation of the
interactions between the different variables does not occur.
MCDA falls under the field of operations research, and the final results can be decom-
posed to understand which criteria affect the others the most. In addition, strengths and
weaknesses can be ranked for each alternative, and how the trend varies over the years can
be measured. The alternatives are represented by the geographic realities, which in this
paper are the twenty regions of Italy (considering, for the Trentino Alto Adige region, the
decomposition into the two provinces of Bolzano and Trento)—Figure 1.
The accuracy of these analyses depends on their data reliability, and for this reason,
the data released by ASviS (Italian Alliance for Sustainable Development) are used, an
approach already used in the literature [30,31], given the active role that ASviS plays in
providing recent and reliable data.
This paper aims to monitor the data comparing the 2021 and 2022 ASviS re-
ports [31,32], where 26 targets were confirmed, while two targets were not re-proposed:
(i) target 4.1 (a)—By 2030, reduce the number of students who do not reach the suf-
ficient level of numerical proficiency (18–19 years old) below the 15% quota and
(ii) target 4.1 (b)—By 2030, reduce the number of students who do not reach the suf-
ficient level of literacy proficiency (18–19 years old) below the 15% quota. Instead,
this paper, in accordance with the new report released by ASviS for 2022, considers a
new target [33]: by 2027 to reach at least 33% of placement in early childhood educa-
tion services (3–36 months). Specifically, the latest report shows values for 27 targets
attributable to 16 of the 17 SDGs (SDG 17 is absent)—Table 3.

32
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

Figure 1. The map of Italy.

Table 3. List of criteria.

SDG Target Unit

Target 1.2—By 2030 reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 16%
SDG 1 %
compared to 2020
Target 2.4 (a)—By 2030 reduce the use of fertilizer distributed in non-organic agriculture by 20%
SDG 2 quintals per ha
compared to 2020
SDG 2 Target 2.4 (b)—By 2030 achieve the 25% share of UAA invested by organic crops %
Target 3.4—By 2025 reduce the probability of dying from no communicable diseases by 25%
SDG 3 %
compared to 2013
SDG 3 Target 3.6—By 2030 reduce road traffic injuries by half compared to 2019 per 10,000 population
SDG 4 Target 4.1—By 2030 reduce early exit from education and training (18–24 years old) below the 9% rate %
Target 4.2—By 2027 achieve at least 33% of places in early childhood education
SDG 4 %
services (3–36 months)
SDG 4 Target 4.3—By 2030 to reach the 50% share of college graduates (30–34 years old) %
SDG 5 Target 5.5—By 2030 to halve the gender employment gap compared to 2020 females/males * 100
SDG 6 Target 6.3—By 2027 ensure high or good ecological quality status for all surface water bodies %
SDG 6 Target 6.4—By 2030 achieve 90% efficiency share of drinking water distribution networks %
SDG 7 Target 7.2—By 2030 achieve at least 45% share of energy from renewable sources %
SDG 7 Target 7.3—By 2030 to reduce final energy consumption by at least 20% compared to 2020 ktoe per 10,000 population
SDG 8 Target 8.5—By 2030 achieve 78% share of the employment rate (20–64 years old) %
SDG 8 Target 8.6—By 2030 reduce the share of NEETs to below 9% (15–29 years old) %
SDG 9 Target 9.5—By 2030 achieve the share of 3% of GDP devoted to research and development %
SDG 9 Target 9.c—By 2026 ensure that all households have coverage to the Gigabit network %
Target 10.4—By 2030 reduce net income inequality (S80/S20) to levels observed in the best of
SDG 10 s80/s20
European countries
Target 11.2—By 2030 increase public transport seat-km per inhabitant offered by 26% compared
SDG 11 places-Km per inhabitant
to 2004
SDG 11 Target 11.6—By 2030 reduce PM10 exceedances to below 3 days per year days

33
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

Table 3. Cont.

SDG Target Unit

Target 12.4—By 2030 reduce the share of municipal waste generated per capita by 26% compared
SDG 12 kg/inhab.* year
to 2004
Target 13.2—By 2030 reduce emissions of CO2 and other climate-altering gases by 55% from
SDG 13 ton CO2 equivalent per capita
1990 levels
SDG 14 Target 14.5—By 2030 achieve 30% share of marine protected areas %
SDG 15 Target 15.3—By 2050 achieve zero increase in annual land consumption ha per 100,000 population
SDG 15 Target 15.5—By 2030 achieve 30% share of terrestrial protected areas %
SDG 16 Target 16.3—By 2030 achieve zero overcrowding in penal institutions %
SDG 16 Target 16.7—By 2026 reduce the average duration of civil proceedings by 40 percent compared to 2019 days

In particular, it emerges that SDG 4 is the one most represented, with 3 targets, while
there are 2 targets for the following SDGS: 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15 and 16. The remaining
6 targets refer to SDGs 1, 5, 10, 12, 13 and 14, while SDG 17 is absent.
Another observation concerns the reference year related to the target data. In fact,
for 12 targets, it is 2021 (targets 1.2, 2.4 (a), 2.4 (b), 3.6, 4.1, 4.3, 5.5, 8.5, 8.6, 15.3, 16.3 and
16.7), while for 10 other targets, it is earlier than 2021 (targets 3.4, 4.2, 6.3, 6.4, 9.5, 11.2, 11.6,
12.4, 14.5 and 15.3). Finally, for 5 targets, the Italian figure is 2021, while that of individual
regions is before 2021 (targets 7.2, 7.3, 9.c, 10.4, 13.2). It should also be pointed out that the
latest available data are used.
The product between a value and the weights associated with the various criteria was
the basis for the overall sustainability indicator, which was calculated for all alternatives.
Having completed the first stage of the multicriteria analysis, we proceeded to examine
whether the data are homogeneous with each other or not, and it emerged that they are all
comparable. Thus, the more populous regions have data that can be compared with the
less populous ones. Particular mention should be made of target 14.5, whose value is not
proposed for six regions (Piemonte, Valle d’Aosta, Lombardia, the province of Bolzano, the
province of Trento and Umbria). A number of 26 targets is therefore considered for these
six regions. Instead, when the value 0 is proposed, it is considered as input data.
The second step was to assign weights and values to the criteria for the different
alternatives. A value of 1 was assigned to the most relevant performance and 0 to the
least relevant performance. In addition, an intermediate value was assigned to the other
alternatives using the interpolation method. The choice of the normalized method is the
one that emerges most from the indications from the literature [7]. In addition, this choice
was verified before presenting RO2 results by examining what emerged from RO1.
Table 4 proposes all the values assigned to the 21 alternatives. Two assumptions are
considered: (i) Italy’s data for target 11.6 is estimated as a function of population and
(ii) the maximum value for target 7.2 is considered to be 100%.

Table 4. List of values. IT = Italy; A1 = Piemonte; A2 = Valle d’Aosta; A3 = Liguria; A4 = Lombardia;

A5 = Province Bolzano; A6 = Province Trento; A7 = Veneto; A8 = Friuli Venezia Giulia; A9 = Emilia
Romagna; A10 = Toscana; A11 = Umbria; A12 = Marche; A13 = Lazio; A14 = Abruzzo; A15 = Molise;
A16 = Campania; A17 = Puglia; A18 = Basilicata; A19 = Calabria; A20 = Sicilia; A21 = Sardegna.

Target IT A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10
1.2 0.617 0.794 0.938 0.706 0.851 1.000 0.886 0.828 0.848 0.970 0.821
2.4 (a) 0.634 0.521 1.000 0.676 0.000 0.972 0.958 0.028 0.479 0.183 0.831
2.4 (b) 0.449 0.102 0.000 0.335 0.087 0.122 0.198 0.111 0.219 0.455 0.968
3.4 0.583 0.528 0.833 0.583 0.722 0.917 1.000 0.889 0.667 0.833 0.667
3.6 0.636 0.717 0.854 0.000 0.655 0.574 0.809 0.650 0.730 0.377 0.280
4.1 0.625 0.721 0.522 0.610 0.728 0.610 0.912 0.875 0.926 0.831 0.743
4.2 0.491 0.600 0.897 0.627 0.591 0.370 0.815 0.609 0.721 0.900 0.806

34
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

Table 4. Cont.

Target IT A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10
4.3 0.559 0.596 0.615 0.522 0.839 0.429 0.988 0.807 0.509 0.981 0.696
5.5 0.546 0.747 1.000 0.694 0.755 0.794 0.850 0.677 0.744 0.772 0.766
6.3 0.384 0.503 0.874 0.707 0.260 0.933 0.826 0.340 0.388 0.248 0.298
6.4 0.406 0.585 1.000 0.448 0.770 0.857 0.648 0.439 0.296 0.728 0.382
7.2 0.107 0.137 1.000 0.000 0.076 0.660 0.432 0.116 0.146 0.044 0.114
7.3 0.388 0.313 0.013 0.650 0.313 0.181 0.163 0.231 0.031 0.000 0.456
8.5 0.581 0.808 0.866 0.751 0.866 1.000 0.895 0.840 0.888 0.927 0.831
8.6 0.574 0.743 0.796 0.726 0.778 1.000 0.813 0.974 0.874 0.922 0.800
9.5 0.529 1.000 0.000 0.529 0.471 0.176 0.588 0.471 0.647 0.882 0.588
9.c 0.920 0.697 0.127 0.984 0.636 0.000 0.352 0.376 0.434 0.592 0.516
10.4 0.368 0.737 0.921 0.447 0.632 0.921 0.816 0.789 0.868 0.816 0.737
11.2 0.371 0.373 0.018 0.328 1.000 0.309 0.354 0.457 0.330 0.217 0.206
11.6 0.367 0.022 0.944 0.944 0.000 0.967 0.900 0.022 0.578 0.167 0.622
12.4 0.512 0.515 0.095 0.393 0.576 0.597 0.522 0.549 0.478 0.000 0.180
13.2 0.519 0.432 0.247 0.494 0.531 0.457 0.469 0.259 0.667 0.284 0.617
14.5 0.370 0.130 0.000 0.109 0.000 1.000
15.3 0.730 0.597 0.803 1.000 0.790 0.777 0.853 0.617 0.813 0.590 0.820
15.5 0.331 0.203 0.436 0.124 0.150 0.556 0.853 0.128 0.192 0.094 0.165
16.3 0.442 0.518 0.917 0.252 0.085 0.000 1.000 0.222 0.128 0.403 0.598
16.7 0.609 0.919 1.000 0.853 0.834 0.953 0.946 0.797 0.951 0.842 0.733
Target A11 A12 A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21
1.2 0.851 0.908 0.600 0.425 0.428 0.000 0.438 0.440 0.226 0.167 0.408
2.4 (a) 0.775 0.746 0.732 0.789 0.944 0.704 0.775 0.915 0.845 0.887 0.944
2.4 (b) 0.446 0.685 0.653 0.347 0.143 0.510 0.592 0.714 1.000 0.630 0.297
3.4 0.833 0.972 0.444 0.639 0.472 0.000 0.611 0.556 0.417 0.306 0.444
3.6 0.730 0.439 0.480 0.765 1.000 0.957 0.604 0.911 0.987 0.760 0.809
4.1 0.676 0.978 0.882 0.971 1.000 0.353 0.265 0.919 0.529 0.000 0.588
4.2 1.000 0.606 0.736 0.436 0.324 0.000 0.261 0.318 0.027 0.045 0.597
4.3 1.000 0.689 0.776 0.578 0.950 0.211 0.081 0.429 0.236 0.000 0.248
5.5 0.738 0.652 0.621 0.379 0.203 0.000 0.067 0.223 0.070 0.022 0.632
6.3 0.000 0.344 0.342 0.346 0.010 0.301 0.011 0.025 1.000 0.571 0.507
6.4 0.030 0.648 0.075 0.000 0.299 0.301 0.313 0.313 0.319 0.152 0.131
7.2 0.175 0.125 0.036 0.218 0.348 0.136 0.123 0.485 0.391 0.068 0.217
7.3 0.188 0.694 0.794 0.538 0.613 1.000 0.625 0.619 0.913 0.950 0.725
8.5 0.792 0.780 0.636 0.562 0.364 0.016 0.192 0.390 0.032 0.000 0.399
8.6 0.743 0.883 0.639 0.661 0.374 0.096 0.248 0.483 0.122 0.000 0.552
9.5 0.235 0.235 0.824 0.235 0.294 0.412 0.176 0.059 0.000 0.176 0.176
9.c 0.392 0.115 1.000 0.268 0.033 0.840 0.455 0.178 0.150 0.577 0.225
10.4 0.842 1.000 0.395 0.789 0.789 0.000 0.395 0.842 0.289 0.079 0.368
11.2 0.114 0.147 0.508 0.158 0.000 0.120 0.130 0.048 0.099 0.106 0.234
11.6 0.422 0.678 0.144 0.811 1.000 0.133 0.889 0.900 0.911 0.844 0.578
12.4 0.451 0.468 0.502 0.627 0.922 0.641 0.573 1.000 0.878 0.661 0.661
13.2 0.432 0.728 0.778 0.704 0.111 1.000 0.296 0.185 0.654 0.617 0.000
14.5 0.000 0.109 0.261 0.000 0.435 0.217 0.000 0.196 0.478 0.413
15.3 0.657 0.780 0.850 0.000 0.480 0.800 0.663 0.617 0.937 0.750 0.710
15.5 0.218 0.297 0.410 1.000 0.000 0.906 0.455 0.665 0.571 0.342 0.083
16.3 0.472 0.550 0.448 0.470 0.298 0.397 0.062 0.647 0.565 0.677 0.943
16.7 0.558 0.735 0.612 0.719 0.500 0.371 0.362 0.000 0.161 0.340 0.458

Once the values were obtained, we proceeded to consider the weights to be assigned
to the criteria. Two approaches (EWG, Equal Weights Goals, and EWI, Equal Weights
Indicators) are proposed in the literature [24], and this choice emerged from the result
related to the question proposed in RO1. Thus, also for this methodological stage, the
choices that would be implemented in RO2 would depend on what emerged in RO1.
However, it is also useful to show what the literature proposes on the topic. The choice of
not giving more emphasis to some goals and indicators is proposed in several works [34,35].

35
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

This practice appears to be widespread because it is based on the logic of assigning the
same impact to the individual indicators analyzed [36,37]. However, approaches with
different weights can also be used [38].
Finally, during the third step, all data were aggregated and a sustainability score for
each alternative was obtained by the product between a row vector (referred to as the
values of the criteria) and a column vector (referred to as the weights of the criteria). The
results were also broken down according to the three main geographic macro-areas of Italy:
• North—Valle d’Aosta, Piemonte, Lombardia, Liguria, Trentino Alto Adige, Veneto,
Friuli Venezia Giulia and Emilia Romagna.
• Center—Toscana, Umbria, Marche and Lazio.
• South—Abruzzo, Molise, Campania, Puglia, Basilicata, Calabria, Sardegna and Sicilia.

3. Results
This section is divided as follows: results related to RO1 are proposed in Section 3.1
and those related to RO2 are examined in the following subsections. In fact, first, the
sustainability score in the base scenario is proposed (Section 3.2), then its value is monitored
over time (Section 3.3), and finally, an alternative scenario is considered (Section 3.4).

3.1. Methodological Insights for the Application of MCDA in the Evaluation of the SDGs
The responses from the different experts are collected and proposed in Table 5. It
should be pointed out that in order to ensure anonymity, there is no correspondence
between the numbers of the experts in Tables 1 and 5. In order to give statistical significance
to the results obtained, a Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted. The comparison of the
questions determines that the hypothesis H0 was rejected (χ2 = 146.68, p < 0.001). This
suggested that certain groups’ average ranks were indeed not equal. The post hoc Dunn’s
test using a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.0014 indicated that the mean ranks of the
following pairs are significantly different: Q1–Q2, Q1–Q3, Q1–Q5, Q1–Q6, Q1–Q8, Q2–Q5,
Q2–Q6, Q3–Q4, Q3–Q7, Q4–Q5, Q4–Q6, Q4–Q8, Q5–Q7, Q5–Q9, Q6–Q7, Q6–Q9, Q7–Q8
and Q8–Q9.

Table 5. Survey online according to 20 academic experts—all data are in percentages.

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E20
Q1 95 100 100 95 100 100 95 100 100 95 100 95 100 95 100 100 100 100 90 90
Q2 90 90 90 85 90 95 90 90 85 85 85 85 90 90 85 85 90 90 80 80
Q3 70 80 85 75 85 85 75 90 80 70 70 65 85 75 75 70 85 85 65 70
Q4 95 100 95 100 95 95 90 95 100 90 95 95 95 90 95 95 95 100 90 90
Q5 70 80 70 75 65 70 65 70 70 65 70 65 65 60 65 65 70 70 65 65
Q6 75 70 70 65 65 60 60 65 60 65 70 70 65 60 60 60 65 70 70 70
Q7 90 95 95 90 90 90 85 90 90 85 90 90 90 85 90 95 95 95 85 80
Q8 75 65 65 70 75 65 75 75 90 75 80 60 75 65 85 80 85 90 65 75
Q9 95 90 90 90 85 85 90 85 90 90 95 90 95 85 90 90 85 90 85 90

The next step was to aggregate all responses, giving the experts equal weighting. It
is worth mentioning that the experts could assign a percentage value between 0% and
100%—Table 6.

36
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

Table 6. Average values of questions.

Number Question Percentage Average

Q1 How useful do you think MCDA is as a method for assessing the SDGs? 97.50
Q2 How congruous do you think the number of public indicators on the SDGs is? 87.50
Q3 How robust do you think an indicator composed of 27 targets is for assessing individual local realities? 77.00
Q4 How valid do you think the 0–1 range approach is (0 = weak performance; 1 = strong performance)? 94.75
Q5 How valid do you think the maximum value approach is as a benchmark (1 = strong performance)? 68.00
Q6 How valid do you think equal weight among SDGs (EWG) scenario is? 65.75
Q7 How valid do you think equal weight among indicators (EWI) scenario is? 89.75
How useful do you think it is to break down the final data according to the three dimensions of
Q8 74.50
sustainability?
Q9 How useful do you think it is to break down the final figure according to geographic macro-areas? 89.25

The responses to question Q1 show a percentage of 97.5%, with more than half of the
experts assigning the maximum value. The result is not surprising given the wide use of
MCDA. A limitation of the paper also emerges from this question, as some experts pointed
out that such an approach is not the only useful way to compare different methodologies
in order to monitor and analyze SDG values.
However, one of the problems encountered when using these methodologies is the
availability of data, and the Q2 figure should be interpreted in this direction. A relevant
value emerges, of 87.5%; however, a comment that has come from several experts should
be highlighted. For example, Eurostat is a useful tool that compares different countries;
however, then, the national figure cannot always be broken down to a more detailed local
level.
In this direction, we then investigated whether an indicator consisting of 27 targets
(Table 3) would be suitable for evaluating a local reality. The Q3 value is 77%. It is useful to
underline that having specified individual local realities led to providing a higher value to
this question.
The analyses of questions Q4 and Q5 aimed to evaluate the method to be assigned
to the criteria values. Absolute values should tend to be normalized in order to be made
homogeneous. In these questions, a choice toward the 0–1 approach emerges (94.75% vs.
68%) because it is believed that, just as the emphasis is placed on the best performance,
likewise the weakest performance should be penalized. Clearly, the 0–1 approach tends to
accentuate differences in terms of normalized values.
Instead, questions Q6 and Q7 evaluate the method related to the assignment of weights.
In these questions, too, a clear choice toward the EWI scenario emerges (89.75% vs. 65.75%)
because with a small number of criteria, individual SDGs might themselves be underrepre-
sented. Thus, both methods are considered suitable with a larger sample of criteria, since
being alternatives may or may not confirm the results obtained.
Finally, the last two questions, Q8 and Q9, aim to provide insights into the breakdown
of sustainability scores at the size and geographic area level. The subdivision by economic,
environmental and social dimensions is considered very useful; however, like the previous
observation, it is noted that its significance loses significance (74.5%) when the sample
number is small. In contrast, geographic data are crucial (89.25%) when conducting analyses
at the level of individual territorial realities.
Consequently, it follows from this analysis that the MCDA of this paper will use the
following assumptions:
• Value will be assigned through the 0–1 approach.
• Weight will be assigned through the EWI approach.
• Results will be decomposed only at the geographical area level.

37
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

3.2. Sustainability Score for Italian Regions—Baseline Scenario

The main result of a quantitative analysis is to provide numbers, and in the case of
this paper, the sustainable performance of the Italian regions is indicated. Another key
step is to be able to compare these results with those of the previous year. This approach
allows the performance of alternatives to be monitored and improvements or worsening
to be evaluated.
The number of criteria examined is small compared to other studies [39], but nev-
ertheless, it still plays its role of providing new information to stakeholders. Pragmatic
sustainability calls for evaluating the performance of alternatives based on real data, which
could be affected by virtuous policies. Within the EWI scenario, the different values were
normalized, which made it possible to homogenize criteria characterized by different units
of measurement (Table 3).
This subsection shows the sustainability score in the EWI scenario, in which a value
trending toward 1 indicates excellent sustainability performance. All alternatives were
compared with each other, but also, with respect to the Italian average, it was considered in
addition to the 21 alternatives. It is worth noting that Figure 2 proposes the average value
for the Trentino Alto Adige region (that is composed of the two provinces of Bolzano and
Trento, and the same will also be repeated in the monitoring phase).

Figure 2. Sustainability score in EWI scenario.

The results see the province of Trento excel, with a score of 0.725, which is a high
performance and shows a significant difference from that of Valle d’Aosta, which follows
with 0.643, and the province of Bolzano, with 0.620. The difference is thus 0.082 with
the second, and it increases to 0.220 compared to the national benchmark. There are
13 alternatives placed above the national average (0.505), with Abruzzo placed at 0.507,
while the last position, occupied by Puglia, is 0.139 away from the national benchmark.
These results show how northern regions occupy the top positions, while southern regions
are placed at the bottom of the ranking. It is interesting to note the performance of the
three central regions (Toscana, Marche and Lazio), which are behind the first three northern
regions mentioned above.
In order to understand the results obtained, we identify which alternatives perform
better or worse in the individual targets, and the corresponding concentration indicator
(Table 7 and Figure 3).

38
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

Table 7. The best and worst alternative for each target audience and the value of indicator concentra-
tion for each target.

Target Max Min Indicator Concentration

1.2 Province of Bolzano Campania 0.644
2.4 (a) Valle d’Aosta Lombardia 0.700
2.4 (b) Calabria Valle d’Aosta 0.410
3.4 Province of Trento Campania 0.635
3.6 Molise Liguria 0.671
4.1 Molise Sicilia 0.697
4.2 Umbria Campania 0.538
4.3 Umbria Sicilia 0.580
5.5 Valle d’Aosta Campania 0.543
6.3 Calabria Umbria 0.421
6.4 Valle d’Aosta Abruzzo 0.416
7.2 Valle d’Aosta Liguria 0.240
7.3 Campania Emilia Romagna 0.476
8.5 Province of Bolzano Sicilia 0.611
8.6 Province of Bolzano Sicilia 0.630
9.5 Piemonte Valle d’Aosta, Calabria 0.389
9.c Lazio Province of Bolzano 0.426
10.4 Marche Campania 0.642
11.2 Lombardia Molise 0.250
11.6 Molise Lombardia 0.594
12.4 Basilicata Emilia Romagna 0.538
13.2 Campania Sardegna 0.474
Veneto, Emilia Romagna,
14.5 Toscana 0.223
Marche, Molise, Basilicata
15.3 Liguria Abruzzo 0.710
15.5 Abruzzo Molise 0.374
16.3 Province of Trento Province of Bolzano 0.460
16.7 Valle d’Aosta Basilicata 0.650

1.2
16.7 2.4ȱ(a)
16.3 2.4ȱ(b)
15.5 3.4
15.3 3.6
14.5 4.1
13.2 4.2
12.4 4.3
11.6 5.5
11.2 6.3
10.4 6.4
9.c 7.2
9.5 8.6 8.5 7.3

Figure 3. Indicator concentration.

The province of Trento confirms its leadership in targets 3.4 and 16.3, and while it loses
the first position in target 4.1, it still maintains a high value, whereas its reduction is much
more significant in target 9.5. The province of Bolzano retains leadership in targets 8.5 and

39
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

8.6, and gains it in target 1.2, replacing Valle d’Aosta, which nevertheless confirms it in
targets 2.4 (b), 5.5, 6.4, 7.2 and 16.7. Most of the different alternatives present a highest value
in the different targets; the only ones never to reach this target are Veneto, Friuli Venezia
Giulia, Emilia Romagna, Puglia, Sicilia and Sardegna. However, the data in Table 7 show
how for some targets of the same SDG, the alternatives are able to achieve diametrically
opposite results. This is the case for Valle d’Aosta for target 2.4 (a) and 2.4 (b), Lombardia
and Molise for targets 11.2 and 11.6, and Abruzzo for targets 15.3 and 15.5.
Focusing on the alternatives occupying the first three positions, however, it should be
pointed out that they too show weak performance in the following cases: the province of
Trento presents a value below 0.2 only in targets 2.4 (b) and 7.3; the province of Bolzano, in
addition to the two mentioned above, is also weak in target 9.5, but especially occupies the
last position in targets 9.c and 16.3 and finally Valle d’Aosta is last in targets 2.4 (b) and
9.5 and below 0.2 in targets 7.3, 11.2 and 12.4. Thus, it emerges that the province of Trento
prevails over Valle d’Aosta despite having fewer first positions in the targets, as it has a
higher value in the other criteria.
Among the northern regions, Veneto is the only one that is below the national average,
presenting a performance below 0.2 in targets 2.4 (a), 2.4 (b), 7.2, 11.6, 14.5 and 15.5, and,
as highlighted above, does not excel in any target. As noted earlier, the central regions
show very interesting performances. Primacy is verified in target 14.5 (Toscana), targets
4.2 and 4.3 (Umbria), target 10.4 (Marche) and target 9.c (Lazio). In contrast, the situation
tends to change considerably when analyzing the southern ones, where only Abruzzo is
above the national average. Abruzzo is first in target 15.5 and it has very high performance
in target 4.1 and high performance in target 11.6. On the other hand, it is last in targets
6.4 and 15.3 and is also weak in target 11.2. The other seven regions occupy the last
positions in the ranking. This aspect clearly denotes a strong criticality, which, however,
is also proclaimed at the European level, where targeted funding programs are allocated
precisely for southern Italy.
The indicator concentration shows that where this value is high, many alternatives
have significant performances, and this reduces the advantages of those occupying the
top positions over the other alternatives. Similarly, when the value of the concentration
index is low, the alternatives occupying the top positions will have much more significant
numerical values than the alternatives that have values close to the concentration index.
High values occur for targets 15.3 and 2.4 (a), while low values occur for targets 14.5,
7.2 and 11.2.

3.3. Sustainability Score Monitoring for Italian Regions

An additional element of the analysis was to compare the sustainability score in the
EWI scenario for the two reference years (Figure 4 and Table 8). Results from the 2022
ASviS report were obtained for this paper and can be compared with what is reported in
the literature regarding the 2021 ASviS report [24].
The two maps show no significant color differences, while the analysis of the val-
ues shows that numerical changes have occurred. As noted earlier, the very low target
concentration index, 9.5, in the previous year led the province of Trento to have a very
high value. This explains the 0.060 reduction. The other alternative that marks a reduc-
tion is Veneto. As for increases, there are very important changes for the central regions
Lazio (0.058) and Toscana (0.053). At the ranking level, the most significant change is in
Lazio, which climbs seven positions, while Lombardia and Liguria lose three positions.
These variations also determine that the performance of the three macro-areas tends to
increase when comparing years (Figure 5). While the increase in the northern regions is
minimal (+0.004), the increase in the southern regions is appreciable (+0.022), wherein
a very important role is played by Sardegna and Puglia. However, it is the central re-
gions, as shown above, that mark the most significant increases, with +0.041. However,
these data confirm the existence of gaps between regions with different performances.
It is worth noting that the new figure for the central regions (0.569) is close to that of

40
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

the northern regions (0.574). These values are significantly different from that of the
southern regions (0.436).

Figure 4. Monitoring of SDGs in Italian regions in the period 2021–2022.

Table 8. Delta sustainability score in the period 2021–2022.

ASviS 2021 Delta ASviS 2022–ASviS 2021 Delta Ranking (2022 vs. 2021)
Province of Trento 0.785 −0.060 0
Valle d’Aosta 0.628 0.015 0
Province of Bolzano 0.612 0.009 0
Toscana 0.548 0.053 +1
Marche 0.556 0.032 −1
Lazio 0.498 0.058 +7
Piemonte 0.528 0.027 +1
Friuli Venezia Giulia 0.514 0.029 +1
Lombardia 0.536 0.002 −3
Liguria 0.529 0.009 −3
Umbria 0.508 0.021 −1
Emilia Romagna 0.502 0.019 0
Abruzzo 0.504 0.003 −2
Italia 0.494 0.011
Veneto 0.495 −0.010 0
Basilicata 0.460 0.017 0
Calabria 0.446 0.018 0
Sardegna 0.418 0.040 0
Molise 0.411 0.030 0
Campania 0.380 0.014 0
Sicilia 0.358 0.020 0
Puglia 0.333 0.033 0

41
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

0.574 0.570 0.569

0.528

Sustainabilityȱscore
0.436 0.414

North Center South

BasedȱonȱASviSȱ2022 BasedȱonȱASviSȱ2021

Figure 5. Sustainability score in EWI scenario—a comparison among macro-areas.

3.4. Sustainability Score for Italian Regions—Alternative Scenario

Finally, in order to give robustness to the results obtained, we proceeded to consider
an alternative scenario. Specifically, the EWG scenario was chosen, in which the same
criteria values were considered, but we evaluated the aggregation of targets within the
SDGs. This inevitably tended to mediate the effects for targets that were a larger sample
within the SDGs (Table 9 and Figure 6). For the six regions that do not consider target 14.5,
the contribution from 15 SDGs is assessed.

Table 9. Delta sustainability score in EWG scenario in 2022.

EWG Scenario Delta EWG-EWI Delta Ranking EWG-EWI

Province of Trento 0.784 0.059 0
Province of Bolzano 0.712 0.091 +1
Valle d’Aosta 0.704 0.062 −1
Toscana 0.661 0.060 0
Marche 0.642 0.053 0
Piemonte 0.607 0.052 +1
Lombardia 0.602 0.064 +2
Friuli Venezia Giulia 0.593 0.050 0
Lazio 0.590 0.033 −3
Liguria 0.581 0.043 0
Umbria 0.580 0.050 0
Abruzzo 0.557 0.050 +1
Italia 0.545 0.040
Emilia Romagna 0.530 0.010 −1
Basilicata 0.526 0.049 +1
Calabria 0.518 0.054 +1
Veneto 0.516 0.031 −2
Sardegna 0.497 0.040 0
Molise 0.476 0.035 0
Campania 0.437 0.043 0
Sicilia 0.434 0.056 0
Puglia 0.413 0.047 0

42
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

Figure 6. A comparison of the sustainability score between EWI and EWG scenarios.

It can be seen that EWG values are higher than EWI values due to the different
normalization approaches to criteria. This alternative scenario demonstrates how much
a chosen method influences the results obtained in this paper. The EWG scenario, which
tends to be more synthetic than EWI, leads to different measurements. The results of this
EWG scenario sees several ranking positions change, and 11 alternatives keep the same
position. In the top part of the ranking, the province of Bolzano overtakes Valle d’Aosta,
and Lombardia gains two positions, while Lazio loses three. As for the final part of the
ranking, no changes are noted. Further relevant data include that twelve of the thirteen
alternatives maintain a value above the national average; Emilia Romagna is the exception.
Furthermore, we proceed to aggregate the data at the macro-area level (Figure 7), and
since the value of the national average in the EWG scenario is greater than that in the EWI
scenario (0.545 vs. 0.505), the three individual values turn out to be greater. The difference
between the areas does not tend to change significantly, as the values vary in the range of
0.047–0.053. The northern regions are slightly ahead of the central regions (0.627 vs. 0.618),
while the difference is much more pronounced than in the southern regions (0.482).

0.627 0.618
0.574 0.569
Sustainabilityȱscore

0.482
0.436

North Center South

EWIȱscenario EWGȱscenario

Figure 7. Sustainability score in both EWI and EWG scenarios—a comparison among macro-areas.

43
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

4. Discussion
The issue of sustainability has entered the agenda of many governments [28], and
many citizens are involved and interested in applying a social welfare model. The challenge
is complex and takes time to meet. This does not imply that there is no urgency, but a
goal must be set. Some authors have pointed out that any paper that talks about the SDGs
must specify what goal it aims to achieve [4]. Academic works must be projected to real
problems in order to support policy-makers. This paper aims to focus its attention on the
strategic role of monitoring the SDGs. A key step is to highlight critical issues that emerge
over time in order to implement possible corrective measures.
This paper has limitations related to the number of criteria that are available, but
first and foremost we need to be grateful to those who make it possible to have this data
available. In this context, ASviS supports the monitoring of SDGs [30,31]. This research
proposes not only to compare individual alternatives with the national benchmark but also
to make comparisons, since the normalized 0–1 method determines that the value achieved
does not depend only on one’s own performance. However, it is desirable to invest in
obtaining more available data and that these data are updated. In fact, the other limitation
of the research is that not all data are available for 2021. In addition, the same literature
proposes several approaches to managing data related to the SDGs [39,40].
This paper confirms the north–south divide in Italy already proposed in the litera-
ture [24], and its comparison with the existing literature makes it possible to highlight the
decisive role of monitoring. Where the number of targets is greater, more information can
be extrapolated [19]. Nonetheless, this paper provides managerial and policy implications.
It shows how sustainability can succeed where different strategic choices and funding
policies have failed to close the gap between different areas of Italy. The Next Genera-
tion EU (NGEU) in Italy was changed because some projects would not be completed on
time. Sustainability suggests not using approaches in which investments are concentrated
in a limited period, but are spread out over time and allow for the diffusion of skills
and resources [41].
This paper considers 16 of the 17 SDGs (SDG 17 (Partnerships to achieve the SDG)
is not considered), and so the approaches used obviously change according to specific
contexts. The basic idea would be to invest in the sectors that will drive the economy of
the future, where there will be demand, in order to have adequate supply. Likewise, this
supply must have a strong national character in order not to be subjected to geopolitical
risks and foreign dependence. In this direction, the new name of the Ministry of Enterprises
and Made in Italy clearly indicates this direction. Thus, the choices of the future are based
on a policy direction in which there is a tendency to produce within one’s own country, in
which research and innovation occur, in which health skills are valued, and in which social
approaches that counter forms of selfishness are developed.
Stakeholder engagement is therefore essential, with input also required from all
citizens, and in particular there is a need to invest in the youngest of them, the target
audience of the NGEU [29]. Businesses are called upon to revise their strategies and public
administrations to change to be able to capture the dynamic aspects coming from the
external context [4].
The basic question is as follows. Economic theories have taught us that a euro today is
worth more than a euro tomorrow, but how do we quantify this tomorrow; how much is
the opportunity cost of capital for projects that are different from each other and affect not
only the Italian context but have a global vocation? The challenge, therefore, calls not only
for germinating national resources but also for building bridges of freedom and democracy
with other countries to move toward a common goal. Is this the hope with which Europe
was born? Sustainability is, thus, not only the 2050 goal for climate neutrality but requires
a pragmatic approach in which solutions are explored that give opportunities to future
generations and create a brotherhood among peoples [29].
Green and circular resources call for thinking with a perspective that is not only
focused on the short term but looks to the future, in which citizens will be involved to make

44
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

them feel part of the change. Likewise, there is a need to overcome parochialism in order
to bring out collaborations between territorial realities, since in the struggle between the
small ones, in the end, those who emerge and win are not them, but they instead come out
even weaker. Finally, where young people are trained in the different trades, it is necessary
to retain these backgrounds. However, their demands are modified, as the abandonment
of stress, the idea of being part of a group, and the possibility of having recognition for
achievements determine insights that all public and private actors should reflect on.
Achieving the SDGs is done by giving confidence to young people, creating partner-
ships with more experienced profiles, fostering an opening of the university world to the
real world, and allowing younger people to be directed to the profiles required by the
market. However, it is also crucial to create and foster the concept of a community that does
not only look at its own backyard but shares it with its neighbors in order to be globally
competitive and attractive.

5. Conclusions
This paper makes a contribution to the pragmatic view of sustainability since, starting
from an objective dataset, it tries to aggregate the data to provide different information
to stakeholders. This research aims at the achievement of the different proposed targets
and, thus, overall, pays attention to all SDGs, with the exception of SDG 17, which was not
included in the source database.
The methodological contribution of this paper is about a very established methodology
such as MCDA, in which insights are provided to be applied to the attribution of values and
weights. It emerges that the range 0–1 is considered correct in order to bias the strongest
and weakest performances of the examined alternatives. Moreover, in a context where
the number of criteria is small, the EWI method appears to be more appropriate than the
EWG method. The motivation is mathematical since where there is already a contained
data availability, the additional aggregation step risks losing some of the information that
emerges from the individual criteria.
The pragmatic contribution of this paper confirms the north–south divide in Italy, in
which northern regions excel in the sustainability indicator, while seven of the southern
ones close the ranking list. In this direction, the result of Abruzzo is very important,
which aspires to have a performance equal to that of the central regions. It is precisely
these regions, and in particular, Toscana, Lazio and Marche, that are on the edge of the
podium occupied by three alternatives belonging to northern Italy. The province of Trento,
confirming its leadership, is followed by Valle d’Aosta and the province of Bolzano. On the
other hand, if these regions travel with a green card toward sustainability goals, Campania,
Sicilia and Puglia take a red card.
This paper has two limitations, namely the number of criteria examined and the time
period covered, which highlight how useful it is for public decision-makers to invest in this
aspect. In addition, it would also be useful to analyze the impact that could be exerted by
stakeholder engagement from the perspective of territorial collaboration between different
regions. However, in order to make the right choices, it is necessary to have data and to
assess their trends over time through appropriate monitoring of the SDGs.
It is the time for action, for proposing ideas and solutions, and not the time to stop
at sterile no’s and maintain one’s own interests, in order to build the Europe of the future
with a key role played by the realities of the Mediterranean, which will play a key role in a
global economy oriented toward sustainability.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.D. and M.G.; methodology, I.D. and M.G.; data cu-
ration, I.D. and M.G.; writing—original draft preparation, I.D. and M.G.; writing—review and
editing, I.D. and M.G.; supervision, I.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.

45
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

Funding: This study was carried out within the PEACE (Protecting the Environment: Advances in
Circular Economy) and received funding from the “Fondo per il Programma Nazionale di Ricerca e
Progetti di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale (PRIN)” Investimento 1.1-D.D. 104.02-02-2022, 2022ZFBMA4.
This manuscript reflects only the authors’ views and opinions, and they can be considered responsible
for them.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all the participants.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Krishankumar, R.; Mishra, A.R.; Ravichandran, K.S.; Peng, X.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Cavallaro, F.; Mardani, A. A Group Decision
Framework for Renewable Energy Source Selection under Interval-Valued Probabilistic linguistic Term Set. Energies 2020, 13, 986.
[CrossRef]
2. Bali Swain, R.; Ranganathan, S. Modeling interlinkages between sustainable development goals using network analysis. World
Dev. 2021, 138, 105136. [CrossRef]
3. Kuc-Czarnecka, M.; Markowicz, I.; Sompolska-Rzechuła, A. SDGs implementation, their synergies, and trade-offs in EU
countries—Sensitivity analysis-based approach. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 146, 109888. [CrossRef]
4. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.;
et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
5. Kostetckaia, M.; Hametner, M. How Sustainable Development Goals interlinkages influence European Union countries’ progress
towards the 2030 Agenda. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 916–926. [CrossRef]
6. Sianes, A.; Vega-Muñoz, A.; Tirado-Valencia, P.; Ariza-Montes, A. Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on the academic
research agenda. A scientometric analysis. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0265409. [CrossRef]
7. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Morone, P. Economic sustainable development goals: Assessments and perspectives in Europe. J.
Clean. Prod. 2022, 354, 131730. [CrossRef]
8. Zhao, W.; Yin, C.; Hua, T.; Meadows, M.E.; Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Cherubini, F.; Pereira, P.; Fu, B. Achieving the Sustainable Development
Goals in the post-pandemic era. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2022, 9, 258. [CrossRef]
9. Bonnedahl, K.J.; Heikkurinen, P.; Paavola, J. Strongly sustainable development goals: Overcoming distances constraining
responsible action. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 129, 150–158. [CrossRef]
10. Bogers, M.; Biermann, F.; Kalfagianni, A.; Kim, R.E.; Treep, J.; de Vos, M.G. The impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on
a network of 276 international organizations. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2022, 76, 102567. [CrossRef]
11. Li, Z.; Huang, Z.; Su, Y. New media environment, environmental regulation and corporate green technology innovation: Evidence
from China. Energy Econ. 2023, 119, 106545. [CrossRef]
12. Liu, L.; Liu, M. How does the digital economy affect industrial eco-efficiency? Empirical evidence from China. Data Sci. Financ.
Econ. 2022, 2, 371–390. [CrossRef]
13. Prah, G.J. Innovation and economic performance: The role of financial development. Quant. Financ. Econ 2022, 6, 696–721.
[CrossRef]
14. Masuda, H.; Kawakubo, S.; Okitasari, M.; Morita, K. Exploring the role of local governments as intermediaries to facilitate
partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 82, 103883. [CrossRef]
15. Fuldauer, L.I.; Thacker, S.; Haggis, R.A.; Fuso-Nerini, F.; Nicholls, R.J.; Hall, J.W. Targeting climate adaptation to safeguard and
advance the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 3579. [CrossRef]
16. Biermann, F.; Hickmann, T.; Sénit, C.A.; Beisheim, M.; Bernstein, S.; Chasek, P.; Grob, L.; Kim, R.E.; Kotzé, L.J.; Nilsson, M.; et al.
Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2022, 5, 795–800. [CrossRef]
17. Halkos, G.; Gkampoura, E.-C. Where do we stand on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals? An overview on progress. Econ.
Anal. Policy 2021, 70, 94–122. [CrossRef]
18. Leavesley, A.; Trundle, A.; Oke, C. Cities and the SDGs: Realities and possibilities of local engagement in global frameworks.
Ambio 2022, 51, 1416–1432. [CrossRef]
19. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Ioppolo, G.; Morone, P. An analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in Italian cities: Performance
measurements and policy implications. Land Use Policy 2022, 120, 106278. [CrossRef]
20. Beccarello, M.; Di Foggia, G. Sustainable Development Goals Data-Driven Local Policy: Focus on SDG 11 and SDG 12. Adm. Sci.
2022, 12, 167. [CrossRef]
21. Miola, A.; Schiltz, F. Measuring sustainable development goals performance: How to monitor policy action in the 2030 Agenda
implementation? Ecol. Econ. 2019, 164, 106373. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. De Neve, J.-E.; Sachs, J.D. The SDGs and human well-being: A global analysis of synergies, trade-offs, and regional differences.
Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 15113. [CrossRef]

46
Sustainability 2023, 15, 14094

23. Huan, Y.; Liang, T.; Li, H.; Zhang, C. A systematic method for assessing progress of achieving sustainable development goals: A
case study of 15 countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 752, 141875. [CrossRef]
24. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M. Sustainable Development Goals: A Regional Overview Based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9779. [CrossRef]
25. Chand, M. Strategic assessment and mitigation of risks in sustainable manufacturing systems. Sustain. Oper. Comput. 2021, 2,
206–213. [CrossRef]
26. Sarker, M.R.; Moktadir, M.A.; Santibanez-Gonzalez, E.D.R. Social Sustainability Challenges Towards Flexible Supply Chain
Management: Post-COVID-19 Perspective. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2021, 22, 199–218. [CrossRef]
27. Pasalari, H.; Nodehi, R.N.; Mahvi, A.H.; Yaghmaeian, K.; Charrahi, Z. Landfill site selection using a hybrid system of AHP-Fuzzy
in GIS environment: A case study in Shiraz city, Iran. MethodsX 2019, 6, 1454–1466. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Alfirević, N.; Malešević Perović, L.; Mihaljević Kosor, M. Productivity and Impact of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-
Related Academic Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7434. [CrossRef]
29. Anselmi, D.; D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Lombardi, G.V. A comparison of economic, environmental and social performance of
European countries: A sustainable development goal index. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023. [CrossRef]
30. Richiedei, A.; Pezzagno, M. Territorializing and Monitoring of Sustainable Development Goals in Italy: An Overview. Sustainabil-
ity 2022, 14, 3056. [CrossRef]
31. Mazziotta, M.; Pareto, A. Measuring Well-Being Over Time: The Adjusted Mazziotta–Pareto Index Versus Other Non-
compensatory Indices. Soc. Indic. Res. 2018, 136, 967–976. [CrossRef]
32. ASviS. Report Territories 2021. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 28 June 2022).
33. ASviS. Report Territories 2022. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 8 August 2023).
34. Marti, L.; Puertas, R. Assessment of sustainability using a synthetic index. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2020, 84, 106375. [CrossRef]
35. Sachs, J.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Kroll, C.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G. SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2018; Bertelsmann Stiftung and
Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN): New York, NY, USA, 2018.
36. Gan, X.; Fernandez, I.C.; Guo, J.; Wilson, M.; Zhao, Y.; Zhou, B.; Wu, J. When to use what: Methods for weighting and aggregating
sustainability indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 81, 491–502. [CrossRef]
37. Roszkowska, E.; Filipowicz-Chomko, M. Measuring sustainable development in the education area using multi-criteria methods:
A case study. Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2020, 28, 1219–1241. [CrossRef]
38. Guijarro, F.; Poyatos, J.A. Designing a Sustainable Development Goal Index through a Goal Programming Model: The Case of
EU-28 Countries. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3167. [CrossRef]
39. Alaimo, L.S.; Ciacci, A.; Ivaldi, E. Measuring Sustainable Development by Non-aggregative Approach. Soc. Indic. Res. 2021, 157,
101–122. [CrossRef]
40. Anderson, C.C.; Denich, M.; Warchold, A.; Kropp, J.P.; Pradhan, P. A systems model of SDG target influence on the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development. Sustain. Sci. 2022, 17, 1459–1472. [CrossRef]
41. De La Torre, E.M.; Perez-Encinas, A.; Gomez-Mediavilla, G. Fostering Sustainability through Mobility Knowledge, Skills, and
Attitudes. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1349. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

47
 sustainability

Article
Trainee Teachers’ Shift towards Sustainable Actions in Their
Daily Routine
Asheena Singh-Pillay 1, * and Jayaluxmi Naidoo 2

1 Science and Technology Education Cluster, School of Education, University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN),
Durban 4041, South Africa
2 Mathematic Education Cluster, School of Education, University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), Durban 4041,
South Africa; naidooj2@[Link]
* Correspondence: pillaya5@[Link]

Abstract: The argument made in this study is that sustainability is a system of beliefs that extends
beyond policy and the classroom to transform actions and societies into pro-sustainable behaviours.
Therefore, it is crucial to equip trainee teachers to embrace their role as catalysts for change in
driving Sustainable development goals, sustainable thinking, systems thinking, wise consumption,
sustainable competencies, and sustainable action in their daily lives. The lack of practice-led research
on incorporating Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) into trainee teachers’ training pro-
grammes is noted in the literature. This qualitative practice-led research explored trainee mathematics
and technology teachers’ (TMTTs) experiences learning about sustainability. Kolb’s experiential the-
ory framed this study theoretically. The data were collated from twenty purposively selected TMTTs
via semi-structured interviews and reflective diaries. All ethical protocols were observed. The
analysis highlighted the core experiences TMTTs gained in learning about sustainability, transfor-
mative learning, design thinking, wise consumption, agency, and sustainable teaching strategies.
Theoretically, the findings emphasise the importance of using an ESD perspective and experiential
learning methods to integrate sustainability education into mathematics and technology teaching.
The results suggest that when TMTTs are encouraged to actively engage with sustainability issues in
their communities, informed decisions are made about their future roles as teachers, the teaching
strategies they intend to use, and the type of learning they aim to foster in their learners.
Citation: Singh-Pillay, A.; Naidoo, J.
Trainee Teachers’ Shift towards Keywords: education for sustainable development; sustainable development goals; trainee teachers;
Sustainable Actions in Their Daily system thinking; wise use
Routine. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933.
[Link]

Academic Editors: Manoj Kumar

1. Introduction
Nallapaneni, Idiano D’Adamo and
Massimo Gastaldi Sustainable development is a buzzword that has gained significance. It involves the
responsible utilization of natural resources to meet current needs while safeguarding the
Received: 30 July 2024
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Countries globally are trying to
Revised: 11 October 2024
advance the 17 Sustainable development goals in their social, economic, and educational
Accepted: 14 October 2024
terrains. Globally, documents such as the Decade of Education for Sustainable Develop-
Published: 15 October 2024
ment, which was extended from 2004 to 2014 [1], UNESCO’s Global Action Programme:
Sustainability began with teachers [2], and Agenda 2030 emphasise the need to incor-
porate education on sustainable development into the curriculum for teacher training
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. programmes [3]. Education for sustainable development (ESD) refers to education systems
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. that privilege sustainable development across disciplines and education mandates [4]. The
This article is an open access article 17 SDGs foreground inclusive, peaceful societies that collaborate to fight inequalities and
distributed under the terms and encourage economic growth while caring for the planet [5]. South Africa’s educational
conditions of the Creative Commons policies, including the White Paper on Education and Training [6], the National Curriculum
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Statement [7], and the National Development Plan [8], are all geared towards achieving the
[Link]/licenses/by/ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) outlined in Agenda 2030. Furthermore, there is a
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933. [Link] 48 [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933

growing consensus that universities in South Africa must take a leading role in addressing
the SDGs through various initiatives and projects, and that incorporating Education for
Sustainable Development (ESD) into their curricula is crucial in tackling the escalating
sustainability challenges.
These calls have impacted the traditional role of HEIs as knowledge producers [9].
Consequently, HEIs are expected to provide leadership and sustainable, innovative solu-
tions via their research [10] to bring about social transformation [11]. HEIs are construed as
catalytic tools for achieving the 17 SDGs via research, curriculum development, learning
outcomes, student engagement, faculty development, and community engagement. All
17 SGDs intrinsically connect to education [12]. For example, when people have access to
quality teaching and learning (SDG4), they are better educated and have access to jobs,
which invariably reduces unemployment, poverty (SDG1), hunger (SDG2), and inequal-
ities (SDG5), contributing to economic growth (SDG8) and stimulating good health and
well-being (SGD 3); people live in peace (SDG16); people afford clean water and sanitation
(SDG6) and energy (SDG7), leading to sustainable cities and communities (SDG9).
Moreover, these calls for integrating ESD into the curriculum have catapulted teachers
and teacher educators to the centre stage as brokers of ESD curriculum transformation,
propagators of systems thinking, sustainable thinking, an ethic of care towards sustainabil-
ity issues, sustainable actions, student agencies and developers of sustainable competencies,
collaborations and partnerships. The calls for integrating ESD into the curriculum also have
implications for student engagement in terms of empowerment to be champions of ESD in
their teaching and to take up their role as critical citizens at a community level [13]. Sinakou
et al. [14] argued that trainee teachers should be provided with an opportunity to expe-
rience learning and practice sustainable thinking and behaviour, not via exposure to the
things taught in teaching but through participating in the learning itself. Thus, Refs. [15,16]
emphasise that academics have a crucial responsibility to make intentional decisions in
their curriculum design and teaching practices to promote and instil sustainable thinking
and values in their students.
This paper asserts that teachers and teacher educators must assume a pivotal role
in promoting ESD and the SDGs, thereby cultivating a mindset of sustainability among
their students. This means they must be reflexive practitioners who disrupt, rethink,
and re-envision the curriculum and espouse pedagogies that support the integration of
ESD, activating student engagement and collaboration to promote sustainable thinking
and actions in students without being prescriptive. By transforming the curriculum and
pedagogy, TMTTs can develop a profound understanding of sustainability, foster a deep
sense of environmental stewardship, and acquire the skills to tackle complex sustainability
challenges in their local communities. This empowering experience enables them to
integrate ESD into their teaching practices, thereby catalysing a ripple effect that inspires
schools and communities to adopt sustainable practices and demand systemic change.
We are teacher educators at a teacher training university in South Africa, the locale of
this research. We lecture to the same cohort of students training to be specialist Technology
and Mathematics teachers. The majority of the participant were from previously disadvan-
taged communities and received funding for their studies. They were between the ages of
19 and 23. In their technology lectures on the processing of polymers (which deals with the
chemistry of processing polymers (Crude oil is a monomer/building block of polymers)),
students drew from mathematics to perform calculations, audits, and visual representa-
tions. The approved module content and assessment design for the polymers module were
theoretical and lecture-based. They did not allow TMTTs to reflect on sustainability issues
and link theory to contextual problems (2.4 million tons of plastic waste is disposed of
recklessly in South Africa) in order to engage TMTTs in experiential learning, and initiate
their citizenship and environment stewardship. The module content and assessments were
realigned to the global and national call to integrate ESD/SDGs into the curriculum and to
contextualise the activities and tasks. Contextualised learning is an innovative approach
that bridges the gap between academic learning and real-life experiences, allowing stu-

49
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933

dents to apply their knowledge to tackle authentic sustainability challenges in their local
community. By doing so, it fosters a deeper understanding of complex issues, encour-
ages creative problem-solving, and helps students develop a richer appreciation for their
daily lives and the world around them. The polymers module was used to pilot a project.
Assessment activities were reconstructed in the module to connect to the community so
that learners could learn from actual sustainability issues. The literature is replete with
studies on climate change [17], as well as the pivotal role that rural universities can play in
spearheading sustainable development initiatives [18]. Furthermore, a plethora of research
has delved into the multifaceted challenges that higher education leaders confront in their
quest to drive sustainable development and create a more resilient future, including the
goal of quality education in South Africa [19], perspectives of academic staff on embracing
SGDs [20], challenges of involving students in SDG-related practices [21], and challenges
in meeting SDGs in Southern Africa [22]. Few studies emphasise ESD integration across
curriculum and pedagogy [23]. Moreover, there is a scarcity of empirical studies on the
practicalities of integrating ESD into the higher education curriculum and examining stu-
dents’ firsthand experiences of learning about ESD. This paper reports on a study that
explored trainee mathematics and technology teachers’ (TMTTs) experiences in learning
about sustainability and addresses the gaps identified in the literature.
While existing research, such as [24], focuses on quantitative monitoring of sustainable
development progress using established indicators, there remains a critical gap in under-
standing the qualitative experiences of implementing sustainability education in teacher
education programmes, particularly in developing contexts and specific subject areas.
This study addresses multiple gaps in the current literature. First, while many studies
emphasise macro-level sustainability indicators and outcomes, our research uniquely ex-
plores the practical challenges and opportunities of integrating ESD into specific subject
areas—mathematics and technology teacher training. Second, in contrast to research con-
ducted in developed nations using top-down monitoring approaches, this study provides
valuable insights from the South African context, specifically examining the experiences of
students from previously disadvantaged communities. Third, unlike existing studies that
focus on policy analysis or theoretical frameworks, our research employs a practice-led
approach to understand how trainee teachers engage with and conceptualise sustainability
in their learning journey.
The findings of this study are significant as they not only illuminate the crucial
role of universities in advancing SDGs through teaching and learning but also provide
empirical evidence of the practicalities, challenges, and opportunities of integrating ESD
into the higher education curriculum. By focusing on the intersection of subject-specific
pedagogy (mathematics and technology) with sustainability education, this research offers
unique insights into how disciplinary knowledge can be leveraged to develop sustainability
competencies. Furthermore, by examining the experiences of trainee teachers who will be
future drivers of the SDGs, this study contributes to our understanding of how to effectively
prepare educators to champion sustainability in diverse educational contexts.

2. Literature Review
This literature review focuses on the role of universities and teachers in promoting
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and implementing Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). The review is structured to address three key areas that are crucial to
understanding the context and importance of our study:
Universities and SDGs: this section explores how higher education institutions are
uniquely positioned to drive sustainability initiatives through research, education, and
community engagement.
Teachers’ views and attitudes towards ESD: here, we examine existing research on
how teachers view and approach ESD, highlighting the importance of positive attitudes
and proper training in effectively implementing sustainability education.

50
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933

Relevant pedagogical approaches for ESD integration: the final section reviews current
pedagogical strategies that are considered most effective for teaching ESD principles.
By examining these areas, we seek to establish the theoretical foundation for our study
on pre-service teachers’ experiences in learning about sustainability. This review will help
contextualise our research questions and highlight the gaps in current knowledge that our
study aims to address.

2.1. Universities and SDGs

Universities’ pivotal role in fostering sustainability extends beyond traditional research
and education to encompass cultural transformation and community building [25]. While
the existing literature emphasises universities’ capacity to leverage diverse faculties and
forge strategic collaborations [25,26], emerging perspectives suggest a more student-centred
and community-oriented approach. This evolving paradigm advocates for institutions to
amplify student voices and cultivate a heightened sense of collective responsibility. By
reorienting academic assignments and research initiatives to prioritise widespread societal
impact over individual achievement, universities can nurture a culture that transcends
personal interests in favour of communal benefit [26]. This approach aligns with and
enhances the existing framework of universities as catalysts for sustainable development,
where the focus extends beyond environmental stewardship to encompass social cohesion
and stress reduction within academic communities. Moreover, this perspective comple-
ments the current emphasis on developing transformative leaders [27] by suggesting that
true transformation begins with fostering a culture of empathy, mutual responsibility, and
community-minded thinking. This cultural shift could significantly enhance universities’
effectiveness in implementing SDGs and ESD principles, as it addresses not just the aca-
demic and research aspects but also the fundamental social and psychological barriers to
sustainability. The integration of such community-building approaches with existing peda-
gogical strategies could create a more holistic and impactful framework for sustainability
education in higher institutions [28,29].

2.2. Teachers’ Views and Attitudes towards ESD

Corney and Reid [30] argue that the effectiveness of teachers in incorporating sustain-
ability into their teaching hinges on their expertise and perspectives on subject matter and
teaching methods. They propose that fostering a positive attitude towards sustainability
among teachers could lead to greater engagement with Education for Sustainable Devel-
opment (ESD). Tomas et al. [31] suggest that teachers with favourable attitudes towards
the environment demonstrate a strong self-efficacy in promoting ESD. Similarly, ref. [32]
discovered that effectively teaching ESD concepts hinges on educators possessing a genuine
enthusiasm for and commitment to the underlying principles of ESD. Howlet et al. [33]
(2016) believe that teachers’ understanding and awareness of ESD are shaped by their
attitudes to ESD. Gan and Gal [34] note that teachers need proper training to infuse ESD
into their lessons. Therefore, there is a consensus that ESD should be integrated into initial
teacher training programs.
Research by [35] indicates that teachers believe integrating ESD into the curriculum
would enhance their ability to teach about sustainable development (SD), particularly
emphasising its importance in early childhood education. However, ref. [36] found that
teachers acknowledge the need for further education on environmental issues. Burgener
and Barth [37] assert that teachers’ views of ESD impact their teaching. Additionally,
ref. [35] reveals that teachers feel ESD knowledge, skills, and attitudes are not adequately
addressed in science education. Redman et al. [36] also identify a gap between ESD
learning outcomes and what is being taught, suggesting that integrating ESD would
improve the relevance of science education. This highlights the need for scientific educators
to understand ESD more deeply.
Burgener and Barth [37] noted that many teachers lack the specialised knowledge,
skills, and pedagogical expertise required to effectively incorporate ESD into their teaching,

51
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933

thereby hindering the adoption of transformative and impactful learning approaches. They
propose transformative learning, utilising real-life challenges and examples. Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (PCK) should encompass subject content, teaching methods, ESD
knowledge, and competencies [37]. Maidau et al. [38] emphasise the need for ESD-specific
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (ESD PCK), which includes knowing the content and
appropriate understanding of sustainable development issues and pedagogical techniques
for integrating ESD into teaching. They advocate for science, technology and mathematics
teachers to connect content to societal challenges associated with ESD, thus aligning with
ESD PCK. Furthermore, they stress the importance of guiding science, technology and
mathematics teachers in integrating ESD and change-oriented teaching experiences into
scientific instruction, addressing real-life and community concerns.

2.3. Relevant Pedagogical Approaches for ESD Integration

According to [39], teachers must embody both subject-matter knowledge and pedagog-
ical sophistication to teach the principles of ESD and cultivate a profound appreciation of
sustainable development concepts among their students. The prevailing consensus among
scholars highlights learner-centred approaches, experiential and participatory methods [40],
praxis-oriented and place-based instruction, and interdisciplinary and inquiry-based tech-
niques [41]. These teaching methodologies encourage behavioural shifts and alter individ-
uals’ perspectives and responses towards processes and knowledge. Biasutti [42] asserts
that these approaches are preferred because they foster critical thinking skills among learn-
ers and are learner-centred [43]. ESD emphasises cultivating cooperative skills, such as
decision-making, critical thinking, and envisioning future scenarios, necessitating a re-
evaluation of current educational delivery methods [44]. It is imperative to reshape teacher
training towards sustainability and embrace more systemic learning and instructional
models [45], departing from conventional teaching paradigms [31]. Teachers recognise
that teaching ESD principles requires specific learner-centred, action-oriented pedago-
gies [46]. Such pedagogical strategies motivate learners to engage in actions promoting
sustainable development.

2.4. Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory

This research was framed by Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) [47]. It centred
on the experiences of TMTTs as they learned about sustainability within the polymers
module. ELT was deemed suitable for several reasons: Firstly, it outlines how shifts in
experiences lead to learning, particularly emphasising the journey towards sustainability.
Secondly, it acknowledges that TMTTs engage in a holistic learning process. Thirdly, it
facilitates transformative learning experiences, crucial for sustainability education, when
all four stages of ELT are experienced. Lastly, ELT has been proven effective in teaching
sustainability in consumption.
ELT is a cyclic process with concrete experience (CE) and abstract conceptualisation
(AC) for understanding experience and reflective observation (RO) and active experimen-
tation (AE) for transforming experiences. When TMTTs undertook their task in their
community, they traversed all the stages of ELT: (1) encountering a concrete experience,
(2) reflecting on and observing that experience, (3) integrating reflections to conceptualise
interventions, and (4) applying new ideas through active experimentation.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. General Background
The interpretive paradigm steered this study. A vital feature of the interpretative
paradigm is that it aims to describe and make sense of the phenomenon explored from the
participants’ experiences, opinions and perspectives [48]. Aligned with the interpretive
paradigm, a qualitative research approach was used as it captures participants’ lived
experiences from their perspectives [49].

52
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933

The study was conducted at a teacher training institution in Kwa Zulu Natal in
South Africa. The data were collected from 20 TMTTs who specialised in technology and
mathematics and were registered in 2018 for the polymers module. All ethical protocols
concerning informed consent and voluntary participation were adhered to. A purposive
sampling technique was used. The identifying criteria for selection were that participants
had to specialise in technology and mathematics and had to be registered for the processing
of the polymer module. All 20 TMTTs (10 males and 10 females) teachers lived in university
residences around the campus. Participants self-selected four groups to work in for the
task-based activity. Each group had 10 participants, and they were assigned pseudonyms
A and B, respectively. All participants were workshopped on participatory action research
(PAR) as it was used to generate data for their tasks. The workshop focused on teaching
the participants about the core principles and key features and stages of Participatory
Action Research so that they could apply this methodology to collect data for their own
research tasks or projects. Interactive methods, such as small group discussions and
hands-on exercises, were used to engage the participants, provide practical experience with
PAR techniques, and equip participants with the skills and knowledge to conduct PAR in
their own communities or organisations, fostering a more democratic and action-oriented
approach to research and problem-solving.
The participants had to perform the following audit tasks at their residences and on
campus by inspecting garbage contents. Students were provided with disposable gloves
and masks. A waste audit is an exciting opportunity to investigate the types and quantities
of materials thrown away on campus daily. The task was designed due to South Africa’s
massive problem with plastic consumption and disposal [13] and it allowed for reflection
and critique of consumption habits, hopefully resulting in a change of behaviour. This
task was linked to the polymers module as participants engaged with content on the
classification, chemical properties, structure, and recycling of plastics. The participants had
to share their findings with the residence students they worked with and develop a joint
solution to address consumption patterns.

3.2. Instruments
The data were collected via individual interviews and reflective journals. The semi-
structured interviews were audio recorded and were of thirty-minute duration. The inter-
view questions focused on consumption patterns, disposal, recycling, ESD, ESD behaviour,
changing how coffee and takeout are served, environmental degradation, citizenship re-
sponsibility, and agency. TMTTs recorded their experiences engaging in project-based
learning and ESD in the reflective journals. The protocol of the reflective journal was for
the participants to record their experiences as listed above.

3.3. Data Analysis

The interview transcripts and reflective journals were labelled from 1 to 20 for analysis
before data analysis could commence. The transcripts of the interviews were sent to
TMTTs for member checking to establish that their responses were captured accurately [49].
Member checking enhances the trustworthiness and validity of the data, ensuring that the
findings accurately reflect the experiences and perspectives of the participants. Both data
sets were analysed thematically.
Multiple readings of the transcripts were completed to identify similarities and di-
vergences before coding could begin. This was completed individually by each author
and compared thereafter. Codes were positioned alongside each other before they could
be regrouped into themes. Table 1 reflects the themes and codes. The themes were also
subjected to member checking.

53
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933

Table 1. Categories and codes for interview questions.

Interview Question Themes Codes

Application of theory to solve contextual issues, fossil fuels,
Habits shape behaviour human activities, poor habits, repeated habits, progression
of bad habits, emissions and global warming
What is your Experience in
Awareness of using natural resources, wise consumption,
Learning about sustainability
Default daily practices minimalist lifestyle, changing daily habits, one step at a
using PAR in communities?
time, ESD a way of life from early years
Consciousness, critical reflection, sustainable actions,
Pedagogies for ESD
learning for sustainability

4. Findings and Discussion

The audit findings are presented first, followed by the three experiences TMTTs
encountered in learning about sustainability.

4.1. Audit of Residence Garbage

As mentioned earlier, TMTTs had to audit the garbage at their residences for over
one week (five days). Table 2 highlights the items disposed of by students residing at the
campus residences into garbage packets. The figures displayed in Table 2 are an average
over five days.

Table 2. Audit results.

ITEM Group A Group B Category of Plastic Recycling Status

Coffee cups 1500 1200 Thin plastic lining 4
Polystyrene take-out
1000 950 Polystyrene 5
containers
Plastic cutlery 2500 1600 Bisphenol 7
Shopping bags 300 200 Low-density polyethene 4
Used/soiled serviettes 600 700 Biodegradable Can be composted
Disposal razor 80 60 High-density polyethylene handle 2
Water bottles 500 400 High-density polyethylene 2
Uneaten food yes yes Organic Can be composted
Cider/beer bottles 700 890 Glass Can be recycled

The items listed in Table 2 indicate trainee teachers’ (TTs) waste separation behaviour.
TTs did not separate/segregate their litter or consider whether it could be recycled or
composted. They also did not consider their consumption habits or focus on reducing the
waste they produce. Bins are provided around the residences for different categories of
waste, such as paper, glass, plastics, and composting. Coffee cups, polystyrene take-out
containers, plastic cutlery, disposable shavers, water bottles and shopping bags are all
non-biodegradable. TTs seem oblivious that they cannot decompose. These items are
difficult to recycle and most likely end up in the landfill close to campus. The failure to
separate/segregate the litter produced means it will end up in the landfill in the same
mixed assortment. Moreover, the mixing of waste complicates the handling and separation
of recyclables. As well as the reduction of waste volume. Uneaten food, soiled serviettes
and liquid from coffee cups and water bottles can mix and decompose, releasing harmful
gases/emissions into the atmosphere and runoffs into the soil. TTs seem oblivious to the
impact of their waste separation behaviour (or lack thereof) on the environment and natural
resources. The audits indicate that TTs need to be empowered to become more sustainable,
conscious of their consumption behaviour, and aware of the natural resources used to

54
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933

produce these waste items. The TMTTs have been driving the change campaign on campus
to reduce the use of plastics and drive pro-sustainable behaviour among students.
The audits conducted by TMTTs underpin their experiences in learning about sustain-
ability. These experiences are discussed next.

4.2. Habits Shape Behaviour

During the audit activity, TMTTs connected the theory from the polymer modules
with the activity of sorting/setting garbage, as is visible in the excerpts below.
Engaging in the audit was eye and mind-opening for me . . .I could apply the content
from polymers to understand more about our garbage and its impact on us and the world.
We need to inculcate the behaviour of sorting waste as early as possible—from toddlers..
it starts at home. It must be reinforced at nursery school, primary school, and high school
. . . we have to see the bigger picture when applying theory to solve a contextual problem
about consumption, waste produced, natural resources, fossil fuels, used and its impact
on the environment. (P7 interview)
These tasks that we have been doing as part of the module have extended our application
of learning, and these kinds of activities and tasks are invaluable in learning about
sustainability. Doing this garbage sorting task has made me realise that all of us are
equally responsible for our actions and its impact on the environment and resources. (P12,
Interview)
The waste or garbage we produce is a human activity that we can control; our actions
of using products made from non-renewable resources impact the availability of non-
renewable resources and contribute to global warming and the greenhouse effect, I am
applying what was discussed in our lectures to understand the contents of the garbage
bags. I look back at students’ poor garbage disposal habits and look forward to how I can
change PSTs behaviour. These are educated citizens, yet their behaviour and habits on
plastic use and disposal are shocking. (P19 reflective diary)
Participants applied the content from the polymer modules to complete the audit. In
the process, they see teaching as a contextualised activity to solve local problems, such
as the reckless disposal of plastic and an opportunity to engage in critical thinking and
reflection. They linked pre-service teachers’ indiscriminate waste disposal behaviours to
old, well-established, hard-to-beak habits that are so well ingrained and entrenched that
they persist despite all the sustainability awareness campaigns to reduce consumption and
environmental impact. This finding resonates with that of [50], which asserts that habits
are the basis for daily actions and become barriers to change. What comes to the fore is that
students’ waste disposal behaviour is linked to habits that subvert knowledge of sustain-
ability awareness campaigns or learning about pro-sustainable actions. Verplanken [51]
noted that habits cue our actions and responses and supersede our intentions and learnings.
Similarly, ref. [52] indicated that sustainable actions can only occur if habits change.
TMTTs also linked the students’ poor waste management and excessive use and
disposal of plastic to the earth’s non-renewable resources. TMTTs could see the bigger
picture and discern the link between human activity, consumption actions, non-renewable
resources, and their environmental impact. The audit conscientised TMTTs. It was an
eye-opener to them about their role in resolving environmental issues and promoting
sustainable behaviour, actions, and sustainable competencies as early as possible in children.
This finding confirms that a challenge in TT curricula is helping students unlearn habits
and transform their actions. Furthermore, despite the many active learning approaches
included in pre-service teacher education curricula, competencies for ESD still need to be
developed. It also made them realise that all pre-service teachers should be responsible for
sustainability issues, behaviours, and actions and have sustainability competencies. This
means that sustainability should not be the responsibility relegated to some pre-service
teachers only. The findings of this study align with existing research [53], reaffirming the

55
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933

critical role of ESD in fostering a sustainable mindset in trainee teachers, enabling them to
promote environmental care and sustainable behaviours in communities.

4.3. Default Daily Practices

TMTTs reflect deeply on what they can do to bring about a change in students’ habits,
behaviour and actions concerning waste disposal, as can be gathered from the excerpts below:
How do we get students to change their ill-formed habits? It is not just what we learn
in classes; we have a bigger responsibility. We are all training to be teachers. We have
to drive sustainable actions and develop sustainable competencies amongst the student
cohort on campus. We have to care about the world we live in and how our actions impact
the ecosystems and natural resources. (P1 interview)
It is our responsibility to drive change amongst our fellow pre-service teachers. We have
in-depth knowledge of plastics and should share it so these students can also change
their habits of sorting their waste and consuming plastic products and think about the
depletion of natural resources. (P15, reflective diary)
We are always learning and encouraged to be change agents. We are enlightened with
polymer content knowledge, skills, and sustainability competencies. We must empower
students to adopt sustainable lifestyles, making conscious choices about consumption and
renewable and non-renewable resources and its environmental impact—in short, they
need to be introduced to systems thinking. (P2, reflective diary)
From the above testimonies, it is evident that TMTTs have been reflecting on their
experiences and feel empowered with knowledge, skills, and sustainable competencies,
such as critical thinking, to take on their role as change agents in influencing students’
daily practice regarding waste disposal, poor consumption habits, wise consumerism, and
awareness of natural resources, which are not limitless. Learning about ESD has changed
TMTTs’ outlook on the environment and the need for systems thinking when addressing
poor environmental behaviour. TMTTs underscore the importance of ESD in fostering
awareness about pro-sustainable behaviour. The positive impact of integrating an ESD
approach to the polymer module is evident in the above testimonies. TMTTs take up their
role as drivers of ESD by seeking to transform students’ waste disposal and consumption
habits. This finding concurs with that of [54], which noted the positive impact of teaching
students about environmental education at tertiary institutions. Kopnina [27] asserts that
teaching students about environmental concerns is crucial, as they are our future.

4.4. Pedagogies for ESD

TMTTs recognise, first, that learning extends beyond that classroom and, second, the
need for activities and tasks that allow learners to apply theory to solve contextualised
problems in their communities, as in the excerpts below:
I have learned that traditional pedagogies are not suited for ESD activities. To learn
about ESD, students must be allowed to develop awareness and think critically to solve a
contextual problem in their community. The community should be the backdrop for the
setting of tasks. (P13, interview)
Engaging in the polymer module and the audit activities has made me realise that teaching
learners about ESD requires transformative pedagogies, like project-based learning, action
research, and pedagogies that allow students to collaborate, solve problems, think critically
and be reflexive of their actions. (P16, interview)
I think everyone must learn about ESD. I plan to integrate ESD in all sections of
technology and math, for example, in the section on electricity, I will integrate sustainable
use of resources, wise consumption, discuss illegal electricity connections, social justice,
learners cannot be taught a solution to an environment challenge, they have to evaluate,
think critically to solve the problem. (P11, reflective diary)

56
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933

The testimonies above confirm that learning about ESD requires active learning tasks
in community settings to bridge learning with community action and transform habits,
mindsets and sustainability competencies. TMTTs understand that addressing sustain-
ability issues requires employing contextualised learning within a community context. In
other words, the pedagogy and the learning environment of the task must allow for critical
thinking, collaboration, consciousness-raising, reflection, change in values, habits, and
behaviour and a heightened sense of care for the environment and its resources [15]. It
must allow them to reflect and critique their actions and perspectives. TMTTs are drawing
on their experience and involvement in a community-based audit task to mould the peda-
gogies they plan to use in their classrooms. Such pedagogies bode well for sustainability
issues. ESD pedagogies are collaborative, situated, and social processes.

5. Conclusions
This research explored South African Trainee Mathematics Technology Teachers’
(TMTTs) experience of learning about sustainability during the polymer module. The
module espoused SDG 4, which underscores quality teaching and learning, while the audit
task embraced SDG 12 (responsible consumption) and SDG 11 (sustainable communities).
Our findings reveal that to effectively pursue sustainability goals, universities must un-
dergo a fundamental shift in their approach, particularly in how they engage with and
empower students.
Universities serve as catalysts for change, driving the development of sustainable
communities through education, research, and community engagement, as highlighted by
SDG 11. However, our research suggests that this role needs to evolve beyond traditional
approaches. To truly pursue the goal of sustainability, universities should accomplish
the following:
• Lead cultural change by actively listening to student voices and perspectives;
• Increase students’ sense of responsibility towards others;
• Design assignments that maximise community impact.
This paper emphasises the importance of appropriate pedagogies for teaching ESD,
such as active learning tasks in community settings. By engaging pre-service teachers in
these practical, community-oriented experiences, universities can directly contribute to
sustainable community development while preparing future educators.
The research argues for the need to empower trainee teachers as agents of change
in driving sustainable thinking, systems thinking, wise consumption, sustainable com-
petencies, and sustainable action in their daily lives. This empowerment aligns with the
university’s role in fostering sustainable communities. By equipping trainee teachers with
these skills and perspectives, universities extend their impact beyond campus boundaries.
Our findings indicate that when trainee teachers engage in community-focused sus-
tainability initiatives, they develop the following traits:
• A deeper understanding of sustainability challenges;
• Enhanced problem-solving skills in real-world contexts;
• A stronger sense of community responsibility.
As a result of this approach to building sustainable communities through teacher
training education, these teachers will be better prepared to undertake the following tasks:
• Adapt their teaching methods to incorporate sustainability principles;
• Influence not just students, but also parents and the wider community;
• Contribute to a broader cultural shift towards sustainability.
This strategic approach to empowering trainee teachers about sustainability creates a
long-term, widespread impact, amplifying the university’s role in community sustainability.
It aligns with the growing recognition that solutions should accrue benefits to many, not
just a few, and that building community and overcoming individualistic approaches are
crucial for sustainable development.
Our research suggests several key implications:

57
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933

• Policymakers should prioritise solutions that benefit the broader community;

• Universities should redesign curricula to emphasise community impact;
• Stress reduction and community building should be integrated into sustainability
education.
Ultimately, this approach helps develop environmentally conscious, socially responsi-
ble, and action-oriented future generations capable of addressing the complex sustainability
challenges our world faces. Through this process, universities become true catalysts for
sustainable community development, fulfilling their educational mission while actively
contributing to global sustainability goals.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.S.-P.; Methodology, A.S.-P.; Formal analysis, J.N.; In-
vestigation, J.N.; Writing—original draft, A.S.-P. and J.N. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: HSSREC 00003472/21.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: All data are available from the corresponding author upon reason-
able request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. McGrath, S.; Powell, L. Skills for Sustainable Development. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2016, 50, 12–19. [CrossRef]
2. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). EFA Global Monitoring Report for 2005. Education for
All: The Quality Imperative; Final Report; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2005.
3. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). UNESCO Roadmap for Implementing the Global Action
Programme on Education for Sustainable Development; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2014.
4. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: [Link]
[Link]?OpenElement (accessed on 7 February 2023).
5. Garcia-Meca, E.; Lopez-Iturriaga, F.; Tejerina-Gaite, F. Institutional investors on boards: Does their behavior influence corporate
finance? J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 146, 365–382. [CrossRef]
6. Republic of South Africa Department of Basic Education. The White Paper on Education and Training; Government Printer: Pretoria,
South Africa, 1995. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 9
June 2023).
7. Department of Basic Education. Curriculum Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS): Civil Technology. 2011. Available online:
[Link] (accessed on 9 June 2024).
8. PricewaterhouseCoopers. Make It Your Business: Engaging with the Sustainable Development Goals. 2016. Available online:
[Link] (accessed on 9 February 2024).
9. Zaléniené, I.; Pereira, P. Geography and sustainability higher education for sustainability: A global perspective. Geogr. Sustain.
2021, 2, 99–106.
10. Too, L.; Bajracharya, B. Sustainable campus: Engaging the community in sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2015, 16, 57–71.
[CrossRef]
11. Rosak-Szyrocka, J.; Apostu, S.A.; Ali Turi, J.; Tanveer, A. University 4.0 sustainable development in the way of Society 5.0.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16043. [CrossRef]
12. Pasara, M.T.; Dunga, S.H. Trade creation and diversion effects in the tripartite region: A gravity approach. Int. J. Econ. Financ.
Stud. 2020, 12, 305–320. [CrossRef]
13. Adeniran, A.A.; Shakantu, W. The health and environmental impact of plastic waste disposal in South African townships: A
review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 20779. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Sinakou, E.; Donche, V.; Boeve-de Pauw, J.; Van Petegem, P. Designing powerful learning environments in education for
sustainable development: A conceptual framework. Sustainability 2019, 11, 15994. [CrossRef]
15. Kalsoom, Q.; Khanam, A.; Quraishi, U. Sustainability consciousness of pre-service teachers in Pakistan. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.
2017, 18, 1090–1107. [CrossRef]
16. Leal Filho, W. “Sustainability 2.0” a new age of sustainable development in higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2015, 16,
57–71. [CrossRef]

58
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933

17. Chersich, M.F.; Wright, C.Y. Climate change adaptation in South Africa: A case study on the role of the health sector. Glob. Health
2019, 15, 22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Uleanya, C. Rural University Education for Sustainable Development in South Africa: A Review. Afr. Educ. Rev. 2022, 19, 160–176.
[CrossRef]
19. Pramjeeth, S.; Nupen, D.; Jagernath, J. Challenges Impacting Higher Education Leaders in Achieving the Sustainable Development
Goal of Quality Education in South Africa. Afr. J. Inter/Multidiscip. Stud. 2023, 5, 1–13. [CrossRef]
20. Nhamo, G.; Chapungu, L. Seven years of embracing the sustainable development goals: Perspectives from University of South
Africa’s academic staff. Front. Educ. 2024, 9, 1354916. [CrossRef]
21. Mawonde, A.; Togo, M. Challenges of involving students in campus SDGs-related practices in an OdeL context: The case of the
University of South Africa (Unisa). Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2021, 22, 1487–1502. [CrossRef]
22. Mutanga, S.S.; Skhosana, F.; Mateyisi, M.; Thenga, H.; Naidoo, S.; Lumsden, T.; Ramoelo, A.; Nangombe, S.S. Environmental
challenges to meeting sustainable development goals in Southern Africa. In Sustainability of Southern African Ecosystems under
Global Change: Science for Management and Policy Interventions; von Maltitz, G.P., Midgley, G.F., Brümmer, C., Veitch, J., Rötter, R.P.,
Viehberg, F.A., Veste, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; Volume 248, p. 1. [CrossRef]
23. Wu, K.; Liao, C.; Tseng, M.; Chiu, K. Multi-attribute approach to sustainable supply chain management under uncertainty. Ind.
Manag. Data Syst. 2016, 116, 777–800. [CrossRef]
24. D’Adamo, I.; Di Carlo, C.; Gastaldi, M.; Rossi, E.N.; Uricchio, A.F. Economic Performance, Environmental Protection and Social
Progress: A Cluster Analysis Comparison towards Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049. [CrossRef]
25. El-Jardali, F.; Ataya, N.; Fadlallah, R. Changing roles of universities in the era of SDGs: Rising up to the global challenge through
institutionalising partnerships with governments and communities. Health Res. Policy Syst. 2018, 16, 38. [CrossRef]
26. Bhowmik, J.; Selim, S.; Huq, S. The role of universities in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. In CSD-ULAB and
ICCCAD Policy Brief ; ULAB: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2018.
27. Kopnina, H. Teaching sustainable development goals in The Netherlands: A critical approach. Environ. Educ. Res. 2018, 24,
1268–1283. [CrossRef]
28. Togo, M. Students as agents of social change: Student initiatives at Rhodes University, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Environ. Educ. 2009,
26, 232–242.
29. Trencher, G.; Broto, V.; Takagi, T.; Sprigings, Z.; Nishida, Y.; Yarime, M. Innovative policy policies to advance building energy
efficiency and retrofitting: Approaches, impacts and challenges in ten C40 cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 66, 353–365. [CrossRef]
30. Corney, G.; Reid, A. Student teachers’ learning about subject matter and pedagogy in education for sustainable development.
Environ. Educ. Res. 2007, 13, 33–54. [CrossRef]
31. Tomas, L.; Girgenti, S.; Jackson, C. Pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward education for sustainability and its relevance to their
learning: Implications for pedagogical practice. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017, 23, 324–347. [CrossRef]
32. Chunteng, L. Survey of primary and secondary school teachers’ teaching competence for environmental education in Xicheng
District of Beijing. Chin. Educ. Soc. 2004, 37, 39–44. [CrossRef]
33. Howlett, C.; Ferreira, J.A.; Blomfield, J. Teaching sustainable development in higher education: Building critical, reflective
thinkers through an interdisciplinary approach. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2016, 17, 305–321. [CrossRef]
34. Gan, D.; Gal, A. Self-efficacy for promoting EfS among pre-service teachers in Israel. Environ. Educ. Res. 2018, 24, 1062–1075.
[CrossRef]
35. Qablan, A. Building capacities of educators and trainers. In Issues and Trends in Education for Sustainable Development Education on
the Move; Leicht, A., Heiss, J., Byum, W.J., Eds.; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 2018.
36. Redman, E.; Wiek, A.; Redman, A. Continuing professional development in sustainability education for K-12 teachers: Principles,
programmes, applications, outlook. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 12, 59–80. [CrossRef]
37. Burgener, L.; Barth, M. Sustainability competencies in teacher education: Making teacher education count in everyday school
practice. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 821–826. [CrossRef]
38. Maidou, A.; Plakisti, K.; Polatoglou, H.M. Knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes on education for sustainable development of
pre-service early childhood teachers in Greece. World J. Educ. 2019, 9, 1–15. [CrossRef]
39. Barth, M. Implementing Sustainability in Higher Education: Learning in an Age of Transformation; Routledge: London, UK, 2015.
40. Lysgaard, J.A.; Simovska, V. The significance of ‘participation’ as an educational ideal in education for sustainable development
and health education in schools. Environ. Educ. Res. 2016, 22, 613–630. [CrossRef]
41. Saka, A.; Sahintűrk, A. Attitudes of prospective forest engineers and primary school teachers towards a sustainable environment.
Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2013, 22, 1533–1557.
42. Biasutti, M. An intensive programme on education for sustainable development: The participants’ experience. Environ. Educ. Res.
2015, 21, 734–752. [CrossRef]
43. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Education for Sustainable Development in Action;
UNESCO: Paris, France, 2012.
44. United Nations Educational; Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development; UNESCO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1992.
45. Sterling, S. Transformative learning and sustainability: Sketching the conceptual ground. Learn. Teach. High. Educ. 2011, 5, 17–33.

59
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8933

46. Rieckmann, M. Learning to transform the world: Key competencies in education for sustainable development. In Issues and Trends
in Education for Sustainable Development Education on the Move; ALeicht, A., Heiss, J., Byum, W.J., Eds.; UNESCO Publishing: Paris,
France, 2018.
47. Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, 2nd ed.; FT Press: Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA, 2015.
48. Cohen, L.; Manion, L.; Morrison, K. Research Methods in Education, 8th ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018.
49. Moser, A.; Korstjens, L. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. Eur. J.
Gen. Pract. 2018, 24, 9–18. [CrossRef]
50. Wood, W.; Rünger, D. Psychology of habit. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2016, 67, 289–314. [CrossRef]
51. Verplanken, B. Introduction. In The psychology of Habit: Theory, Mechanisms, Change, and Contexts; Verplanken, B., Ed.; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1–10.
52. Schultz, P.W. Conservation means behavior. Conserv. Biol. 2011, 25, 1080–1083. [CrossRef]
53. Laurie, R.; Tarumi, Y.N.; McKeown, R.; Hopkins, H. Contributions of education for sustainable development (ESD) to quality
education: A synthesis of Research. Cent. Environ. Educ. 2016, 10, 226–242. [CrossRef]
54. Brennan, M. Struggles for Teacher Education in the age of the Anthropocene. J. Educ. 2017, 69, 43–65.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

60
 sustainability

Article
The Paradox of Progress towards SDG7: Governance Quality
and Energy Poverty Dynamics in Pakistan
Rongbing Liu 1 , Afifa Qadeer 1 , Junqi Liu 1 , Suleman Sarwar 2, * and Muhammad Wasim Hussan 1, *

1 School of Finance & Trade, Liaoning University, Shenyang 110036, China; rbllnu@[Link] (R.L.);
afi.kadeer@[Link] (A.Q.); jqllnu@[Link] (J.L.)
2 Department of Finance and Economics, College of Business, University of Jeddah, Jeddah 23218, Saudi Arabia
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link] (S.S.); mwasimhassan@[Link] (M.W.H.)

Abstract: This study investigates the multidimensional aspects of energy poverty in Pakistan from
2000 to 2022, specifically evaluating the direct, indirect, and total effects of socioeconomic and envi-
ronmental factors. We employed Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to
examine the impacts of income, population, governance quality, energy intensity, fuel prices, and
renewable energy consumption on energy poverty. The study further contributes by examining
the mediating role of governance quality and developing the World Governance Indicators (WGI)
Index. The findings indicate significant negative effects of energy intensity and renewable energy
consumption on energy poverty. Conversely, population growth and income levels demonstrate
positive effects, contradicting conventional economic development and energy access assumptions.
Governance quality establishes direct and indirect effects that mediate most relationships between
independent variables and energy poverty. Bootstrapping analysis confirms the significance of gover-
nance quality as a mediator. The model describes significant energy poverty variance with robust
predictive relevance. This study emphasizes the need to adopt a comprehensive strategy to decrease
Pakistan’s energy poverty by articulating socioeconomic, environmental, and governance factors.
Our findings offer valuable information for policymakers to achieve UN Sustainable Development
Goal 7, embarking on governance reforms, promoting sustainable growth, and enforcing investments
in energy efficiency and renewable sources as Pakistan approaches the 2030 SDG 7 deadline.
Citation: Liu, R.; Qadeer, A.; Liu, J.;
Sarwar, S.; Hussan, M.W. The
Keywords: energy poverty; Sustainable Development Goals (SDG7); governance quality; WGI index
Paradox of Progress towards SDG7:
Governance Quality and Energy
Poverty Dynamics in Pakistan.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291. https://
[Link]/10.3390/su16198291
1. Introduction
A major global problem, energy poverty impacts approximately a billion individuals
Academic Editors: Idiano D’Adamo,
who are without access to affordable and secure electricity. Energy is the essential force
Massimo Gastaldi and Manoj
Kumar Nallapaneni
behind contemporary society, fueling various sectors such as industries, residences, and
transportation networks [1,2]. Nevertheless, as the worldwide population grows and
Received: 28 July 2024 economies expand, the demand for energy increases, resulting in a complex set of chal-
Revised: 17 September 2024 lenges known as the world energy conundrum [3]. This complex issue involves aspects
Accepted: 18 September 2024 of sustainability, accessibility, affordability, and environmental effects among the primary
Published: 24 September 2024 urgent concerns of the 21st century. The core of the global energy challenge is the conflict
between the high energy demands of continuous population growth and the reduction
of the harmful environmental effects of energy generation and consumption [4]. Despite
their historical status as primary sources of energy, fossil fuel extraction, burning, and
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
greenhouse gas emissions, which include coal, oil, and natural gas, lead to environmental
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
devastation and global warming. Consequently, there is a collective need to switch to
distributed under the terms and
greener, more environmentally friendly energy sources like geothermal, hydropower, solar,
conditions of the Creative Commons and wind power [5]. Developing countries need help with basic access to power and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// clean energy, whereas developed economies have dependable energy facilities and services.
[Link]/licenses/by/ Energy poverty jeopardizes public health, impedes economic growth, and maintains social
4.0/). inequity [6,7].

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291. [Link] 61 [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

Furthermore, the global energy problem connects to geopolitical conflicts and eco-
nomic inequalities. Energy reliance on a few oil-producing countries leads to inadequate
global supply systems, and clashes over limited fossil fuel supplies frequently cause fuel
crises and instability in global politics [8,9]. The shift towards renewable energy prospects
to decentralize energy generation, diminish reliance on imported fuels, and promote energy
self-sufficiency at the national and local levels. However, there are obstacles to the shift
to sustainable energy. Despite significant progress, renewable energy systems encounter
obstacles, such as intermittency, storage constraints, and initial expenses [10]. Moreover, the
deeply rooted vested interests in the fossil fuel sector, combined with the lack of political
drive and regulatory obstacles, can hinder the advancement of renewable energy imple-
mentation. A comprehensive and synchronized strategy is necessary, which incorporates
technical advancements, governance changes, and active public involvement to overcome
these difficulties [11].
The world attempts to address the problems of the global energy dilemma. The United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties
(COP) meetings [12] and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are at the center of
these attempts [13]. All member countries of the United Nations accepted the Sustainable
Development Goals in 2015, which offer an extensive plan to tackle the most important
global issues. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offer a framework for nations to
organize and set priorities for their initiatives to attain a sustainable energy future [14,15].
The temporal distribution of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) characterizes the
change in research emphasis towards various SDGs. SDG-related publications reveal a
consistent 14% increase during the 2020–2024 timeframe. Significantly, 62.2% of these
publications are available with open access, indicating a remarkable 60% growth. This
tendency suggests an increasing scholarly interest in Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). The latest research [16] shows SDG 13 (Climate Action) as the primary area of
concern. SDG 3, which emphasizes Good Health and Well-being, ranks second. SDG 11,
which focuses on Sustainable Cities and Communities, is in third position, while SDG 7 is
ranked 10th with 1591 published papers. SDG 7 highlights energy as a primary catalyst
for achieving sustainable development and enhancing human welfare. It underscores the
pressing necessity to tackle energy poverty, given that more than 700 million individuals
globally still do not have access to power, and almost 2.4 billion depend on ineffective
and environmentally harmful cooking techniques [17]. The objective is based on the shift
towards sustainable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and hydropower, which are
crucial for mitigating carbon emissions, addressing climate change, and maintaining the
environment [18,19]. Fulfilling SDG 7 necessitates both the growth of renewable energy
sources and substantial enhancements in energy efficiency, which can reduce energy use
and promote environmentally friendly consumption and production habits [20].
Furthermore, Sustainable Development Goal 7 aims to foster inclusiveness by tackling
inequalities in energy access, especially for excluded groups and women who bear a
disproportionate burden of energy poverty. The objective further emphasizes the need for
international collaborations and financial support to finance the shift towards sustainable
energy generation systems. Sustainable Development Goal 7 promotes economic growth,
social fairness, and environmental protection by ensuring affordable and sustainable energy
access. It aligns energy programs with the overarching objectives of poverty reduction and
climate adaptation.
The recent COP 28 aims to drive progress towards a more equitable, sustainable, and
adaptable global energy future through global collaboration in renewable energy imple-
mentation, investment for clean energy initiatives in underdeveloped nations, technology
advancement, and capacity-building activities [21,22].
In Pakistan, energy poverty is a profoundly ingrained problem that presents major
obstacles to social progress, economic growth, and environmental sustainability [23,24].
Pakistan is under immense pressure to meet the energy requirements of its population,
which exceeds 220 million, with a developing economy [25,26]. One of the most apparent

62
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

indicators of Pakistan’s energy poverty is the frequent power outages and load shedding
that many households and businesses encounter. Additionally, unstable electricity supplies
exacerbate the disproportionate negative impact on senior citizens, women, and young
people, among other vulnerable groups [27]. Apart from the scarcity of electricity, one major
obstacle in Pakistan is to obtain renewable energy. According to a World Bank estimation,
60% of people use conventional biomass-based fuels like wood, agricultural waste, and
animal excrement, which degrades the environment and causes domestic air pollution and
respiratory ailments, i.e., allergies and asthma [28].
Pakistan’s energy poverty exacerbates environmental and socioeconomic challenges
and hinders ecologically conscious progress. Dependence on fossil fuels, especially im-
ported gas and oil, burdens the nation’s financial resources and exacerbates the issue of
global warming, polluting the environment and greenhouse gas emissions resulting in en-
ergy poverty and environmental destruction. Pakistan’s energy poverty must be addressed
with a multidimensional, holistic, and comprehensive strategy that incorporates social
efforts, funding for infrastructure, policy reforms, and technological advancements [29].
Governance plays a crucial role in reducing energy poverty, which occurs when house-
holds cannot access modern energy services necessary for necessities such as cooking,
heating, lighting, and communication [30,31]. Effective governance, which includes strong
institutions, openness, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law, substantially im-
pacts energy policy, infrastructure development, and resource allocation and affects the
extent and severity of energy poverty. Good governance also fosters an environment
conducive to innovation and adaptation in the energy sector, facilitates research and de-
velopment, supports the adoption of new technologies, and promotes sustainable energy
solutions through investment in renewable energy sources, energy storage technologies,
and smart grid systems [32–34]. Additionally, governance supports the development of
innovative business models, such as micro grids and pay-as-you-go systems that can
provide affordable energy access to low-income households. Furthermore, a sound regula-
tory environment, underpinned by good governance, is critical for ensuring that energy
markets function efficiently and equitably [35,36]. Effective regulation promotes compe-
tition, attracts private investment, and protects consumers from manipulation by setting
fair tariffs, ensuring service quality, and preventing anticompetitive practices. Strong
regulatory bodies, free from political interference, oversee the energy sector and enforce
regulations impartially [33]. Effective governance determines the development, execution,
and oversight of programs to reduce energy poverty. It is well-defined and consistent
with energy policies that tackle energy supply and demand issues. Governance affects
resource allocation, especially in rural or low-income areas. Effective resource allocation
programs, like India’s Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gramme Jyoti Yojana (DDUGJY), improve
rural electrification as they possess strong governance frameworks [37]. Through govern-
mental supervision and efficient policy formulation, India substantially reduced energy
poverty by 30% in six states, extending the provision of electricity to all income and social
groups from 2015 to 2018 [38]. Governance requires establishing institutions that oversee
energy markets, encourage competition, and ensure affordable access to energy to prevent
monopolistic practices and pricing structures. Effective governance promotes a competitive
and transparent energy market environment and facilitates private sector investment in
energy infrastructure, especially in regions with limited government capabilities.
Pakistan is unlikely to attain the Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG 7) targets by
2030, despite worldwide attempts and efforts established by the United Nations General
Assembly in 2015 [39]. However, Pakistan still faces significant challenges to overcome
energy poverty. Pakistan’s energy distribution issue stems from a complex interplay of
socioeconomic disparities, governance failures, and geopolitical challenges. Income in-
equality influences energy access and affordability in Pakistan. While urban areas and
high-income communities often have better energy infrastructure, many low-income house-
holds, especially in remote areas, need more access to the grid entirely [40]. This disparity
propagates energy poverty. Due to income inequality, rich households can afford backup

63
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

power systems (like generators), while poorer households are more likely to experience
frequent outages and high tariffs.
Another major barrier to Pakistan’s efficient energy distribution is corruption. Within
the energy sector, corruption is rampant at all levels, from misallocating resources to
inflating project costs and mishandling money, using illicit connections to steal electricity,
which burdens an already overburdened system [41,42]. Special interests have maintained
control over the energy industry at the policy level due to ineffective administration and a
lack of political will to pursue reforms. It gets worse when decision-makers and political
connections profit from subsidized energy pricing.
The geopolitical context of Pakistan exacerbates the country’s energy distribution
issue [43]. The nation is vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and global price changes
due to its reliance on imported energy, particularly gas and oil. Potential energy cooperation,
such as the Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India (TAPI) gas pipeline, is impacted by
geographical issues [44]. Cross-border energy projects face obstacles by political instability
in the wider region, which further limits Pakistan’s capacity to diversify its energy supplies.
Currently, a significant portion of the population still lacks accessibility to renewable
energy, while the energy infrastructure is confronted with challenges related to energy
demand [23,45]. Only six years remain until the 2030 deadline, so prompt action and
meticulous preparation are needed to bridge this gap effectively.
Based on our extensive analysis and the consideration of SDG7 standpoints, our study
offers significant contributions to energy poverty studies by addressing several gaps and
integrating a comprehensive analytical framework, specifically in the context of developing
countries like Pakistan. We conduct a holistic analysis of energy poverty, assimilating
socioeconomic, energy-related issues, and governance aspects, with a detailed understand-
ing of energy poverty dynamics. Our study contributes to existing literature through the
following aspects. Firstly, our study explores the direct and indirect relationships between
energy poverty and socioeconomic factors, energy intensity, fuel prices, and renewable
energy consumption from 2000 to 2022 which provides a longitudinal perspective [46,47]
of energy poverty dynamics in Pakistan. The study aims to explain the connection between
income levels and energy poverty, with a challenge of economic development and access
to energy simultaneously. Moreover, our study examines various energy sources and
their impacts on energy poverty and adds to the literature on energy shifts in emerging
economies as affordable and renewable energy alleviates energy poverty [48,49]. This
holistic approach provides a nuanced understanding of how these variables interplay,
which may be overlooked in other studies [50–53], focusing on individual aspects in iso-
lation and not integrating the interplay between socioeconomic factors, fuel prices, and
governance quality.
Secondly, by incorporating governance quality as a mediating factor, our research
adds a crucial dimension to the analysis. The mediating role of governance quality is a
relatively novel aspect of energy poverty research. Governance quality can influence the
effectiveness of policies aimed at alleviating energy poverty and can mediate the impact
of socioeconomic and environmental factors. Previous studies [54–57] investigated the
determinants of energy poverty but have overlooked the important role of governance
quality. This aspect needs to be explored more in existing literature, making this study
innovative in highlighting the importance of governance.
Thirdly, this study employs Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-
SEM) to construct an extensive and effective model. PLS-SEM allows for the analysis
of complex relationships between observed and latent variables, providing a more accu-
rate and comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing energy poverty. Many
previous studies have used simpler statistical methods, which may not capture the full com-
plexity of these relationships. For instance, studies [53,58–61] focused on specific indicators
or regions. Still, they did not utilize PLS-SEM to analyze their data, potentially overlooking
intricate interdependencies. Furthermore, by measuring the effect sizes of different factors,

64
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

we offer a data-based framework for defining policy priorities in resource-constrained

environments, as recommended by [62].
Fourthly, Pakistan faces distinctive socioeconomic and energy challenges similar to
numerous emerging nations. The study’s emphasis on Pakistan will yield context-specific
insights essential for developing targeted interventions, an aspect inevitably omitted in
broader and more generalized studies. Our analysis evaluates Pakistan’s progress in
achieving SDG7 by 2030, integrating academic research with global development goals,
as [63] in their emphasis on sustainable development objectives. Our study links theoreti-
cal concepts and practical policy inferences, making valuable contributions to academic
literature and policy development. That validates the [20,64] discussion on the practical
challenges of achieving SDG7. Ultimately, it assists the nation’s efforts to achieve the
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), namely SDG 7, and offers realistic
policy recommendations.
Based on the contribution of this study following are some objectives. First, to inves-
tigate the direct and indirect relationships between energy poverty and socioeconomic
factors (income level, population), energy intensity, fuel prices (oil, coal, natural gas, LNG),
and renewable energy consumption in Pakistan. The second objective is to determine
the mediating role of governance quality in the relationships between socioeconomic and
environmental factors and energy poverty. The third objective of our study is to construct
an effective and extensive PLS-SEM model that elucidates the intricate paths by which
these variables influence energy poverty in Pakistan.
This study aims to assess the intricate interaction among socioeconomic, environmen-
tal, and governance elements that impact energy poverty in Pakistan. It will use PLS-SEM
modeling to offer policymakers a detailed understanding of these factors and suggest
practical approaches for attaining SDG7 goals by 2030.

2. Literature Review
Access to renewable energy sources is crucial to alleviate energy poverty and enhance
the quality of life [58]. Numerous studies have highlighted the issues related to traditional
biomass-based fuels like wood and manure as fuel causes domestic air pollution and
respiratory illnesses, especially in underdeveloped nations where women and children
are more likely to suffer from these conditions [28,65]. The availability of clean fuels,
especially liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and electricity, has been associated with reduced
levels of energy poverty and strengthened socioeconomic parameters [66]. The relationship
between income level, population, energy intensity, and renewable energy in relation to
clean energy is complex, as it reflects the economic, demographic, and energy traits of the
country [4,67,68].
The level of income is a crucial factor in determining energy poverty, as income
significantly impacts households’ aptitude to buy contemporary energy products and
services [61]. Energy costs disproportionately affect low-income households, resulting in
energy scarcity and restricted access to other necessities [69,70]. Research has continuously
demonstrated a negative relationship between energy poverty and income level, with
greater incomes being linked to improved accessibility to dependable and environmentally
friendly energy sources [71]. Rapid population growth in another reason for energy
poverty, particularly in nations with inadequate resources and facilities. Fast urbanization
and a growing population strain energy infrastructures, causing erratic service delivery
and higher levels of energy poverty [72]. Studies reveal that population growth has a
detrimental effect on people’s ability to access electricity, especially in rural and remote
areas where the growth of infrastructure is inadequate [73].
The term “energy intensity” refers to the quantity of energy required to generate a
single unit of economic activity and is also significantly correlated with energy poverty.
High energy intensity can exacerbate energy poverty, which increases energy costs and ad-
verse ecological effects, which indicates inadequacies in energy consumption [48]. Ref. [74]
documented that controlling energy poverty to achieve sustainable development objectives

65
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

necessitates a combination of energy-saving measures and a decrease in energy intensity.

One effective approach to reduce energy poverty and mitigate the impacts of climate change
is to enhance the proportion of renewable energy sources [48]. Renewable energy sources,
such as hydro, wind, and solar power, offer environmentally friendly and long-lasting
replacements for conventional fossil fuels [68]. Literature has demonstrated how renewable
energy improves affordability, accessibility to energy, and environmental sustainability [75].
The interaction between income level, population dynamics, energy intensity, and renew-
able energy substantially impacts the availability of clean energy in Pakistan and provides
a foundation for formulating the first hypothesis of this research.

H1: Energy poverty in Pakistan is significantly influenced by the nexus of socioeconomic, energy
intensity, and environmental factors.

Effective governance significantly impacts the results of energy access, affordability,

and sustainability. Robust governance structures and policies are linked to enhanced en-
ergy service provision, infrastructure advancement, and regulatory structures, resulting in
increased energy accessibility and decreased poverty rates [30,31]. Effective governance
standards, such as rational energy regulations, regulatory structures, and financial incen-
tives for investment, reduce risks associated with energy poverty and facilitate renewable
energy consumption [33]. Governance quality influences energy strategy, investments, and
environmental regulations, which in turn influences energy intensity and the adoption
of renewable energy. Transparent and liable governance structures facilitate sustainable
energy shifts through venture capital investment, technological advancement, and public
involvement in renewable energy initiatives [76,77].
According to [32,63] empirical research, governance quality mediates the relationship
between socioeconomic determinants, energy availability, and poverty. Countries with
well-functioning governance structures show a more pronounced connection between
income levels, population dynamics, energy intensity, renewable energy consumption, and
energy poverty. In countries with robust governance, energy policies are often inclusive
and well-targeted, ensuring that vulnerable populations receive the necessary support.
Strong governance in Germany has led to effective energy policies promoting renewable
energy and energy efficiency, significantly reducing energy poverty rates [78]. Conversely,
in countries with weak governance, corruption may influence energy policies, resulting in
misallocation of resources and insufficient support for people with low incomes. In Nigeria,
poor governance has contributed to widespread energy poverty despite the country’s
abundant energy resources [79].
The energy governance in Morocco enabled significant private investments in renew-
able energy, such as the Noor Ouarzazate Solar Complex, which is among the largest solar
power plants [80]. The rigorous regulatory systems assured the provision of affordable
energy, therefore mitigating energy poverty. Bangladesh has achieved significant progress
in alleviating energy poverty by implementing effective governance measures that have
enabled the widespread adoption of Solar Home Systems (SHS) in rural regions [81]. The
Infrastructure Development Company Limited (IDCOL) initiative has successfully estab-
lished energy supply to more than 4 million households. Strong governmental control,
useful financial incentives, and a mechanism that enabled cost recovery while enhancing
access to sustainable energy are all part of the governance structure supporting this initia-
tive. Botswana effectively controlled corruption through prudent governance practices to
enhance its energy industry [82]. In contrast, Nigeria, although a major global oil producer,
experiences substantial energy poverty mostly due to corrupt governance systems [83].
Despite the considerable potential income from natural resources, the mismanagement of
oil earnings, power sector reforms, and infrastructural endeavors have resulted in the per-
sistence of energy poverty among large population segments. This literature is consistent
with our second hypothesis; hence, on the basis of the mentioned studies, we developed
our second hypothesis.

66
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

H2: Governance quality enhances the impact of socioeconomic and environmental factors to reduce
energy poverty, particularly through income levels, population dynamics, energy intensity, and
renewable energy consumption.

Governance quality includes the authority’s efficacy, accountability, and integrity to

run the economy. Numerous scholarly investigations have emphasized the noteworthy
influence of governance quality on positive development consequences, such as energy
poverty mitigation, economic development, and environmental durability [74]. Strong
governance structures are necessary to effectively address energy poverty and advance
sustainable energy accessibility. Transparent, efficient, and responsible governance sys-
tems enable the creation and execution of energy policies, ensure fair resource allocation,
and ensure the availability of clean and affordable energy services [84,85]. Studies have
documented that countries with better governance quality experience less energy poverty
because they have stronger enforcement of regulations, consistent policies, and improved
infrastructure [33]. Effective governance frameworks enable collaborative efforts among
stakeholders, leading to improved energy accessibility, reduced energy costs, and enhanced
service reliability [86]. In Pakistan, the impact of governance quality on energy poverty has
been recognized as a crucial factor influencing the efficiency and progress of the energy
sector and the results of poverty [29]. Inadequate governance structures, bureaucratic inef-
ficient and bottleneck processes, and corruption have impeded the progression of energy
sector transformations and infrastructural development, resulting in energy poverty and
socioeconomic inequalities [87].
Research findings of [53] suggest that improving governance quality might directly
reduce energy poverty by enhancing the implementation of policies, allocation of re-
sources, and collaboration of stakeholders. Improved performance of governing author-
ities, enhanced accountability and transparency, and combating corrupt behavior are
needed to achieve sustainable energy access and reduce energy poverty in Pakistan [74].
The mentioned direct impact of effective governance gives us the base to formulate our
third hypothesis.

H3: Governance quality has a direct negative effect on energy poverty in Pakistan.

Literature shows [46,50,55,88] that the advancement made towards achieving the goals
of SDG 7 has been a combination of positive and negative outcomes. Even if there have been
tremendous advancements in certain areas, there remain numerous obstacles to overcome
and gaps to close before 2030, with access to reliable, affordable, and environmentally
friendly energy [89]. Therefore, there is a clear need for more focused research in Pakistan.
This research gap underscores the importance of further investigation to understand this
correlation within Pakistan’s distinct socioeconomic landscape.

3. Research Methodology
3.1. Composition of WGI Index
This study examines the relationship between governance indicators and energy
poverty in Pakistan. The World Governance Indicators (WGI) play an essential role in
the analysis. These indicators comprise five dimensions: Political Stability and Absence
of Violence/Terrorism, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and
Control of Corruption. They offer a thorough evaluation of a country’s governance perfor-
mance. We initially collected the World Governance Indicators (WGI) data for Pakistan from
2000 to 2022. The dataset includes annual estimates for the five WGI variables, with higher
values indicating stronger governance performance. However, separate analyses of these
variables may result in potential multicollinearity problems and mislead the interpretation
of the findings [90,91].
To address this potential issue, we applied factor analysis techniques to integrate the
information from the five WGI variables into a unified composite index. Our approach is

67
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

meticulous, and we performed a common factor analysis in Table 1, and results show that
a single latent factor can explain a substantial portion of the variation in the WGI variables
by following the [92] approach. The factor loadings demonstrate the strong correlations
between the variables and the latent factor, ranging from 0.94 to 0.98.

Table 1. Common factor analysis of governance.

Variables Notation Factor Loadings

Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism PS 0.94
Government effectiveness GE 0.96
Regulatory quality RQ 0.95
Rule of law RL 0.98
Control of corruption CC 0.97

Our study uses principal component analysis (PCA) to derive a unique factor based
on the outcomes of the common factor analysis. This factor represents the shared variation
across the five WGI variables and validates our index composition that consolidated the
governance information into a single measure.
Furthermore, we employ dynamic factor analysis, an expanded version of factor anal-
ysis that includes time-series data, to model the fluctuations in the fundamental component
across time Table 2. This technique examines the potential connection between consecu-
tive data points and the interdependence among distinct parts of the data. Additionally
enhances our understanding of how the notion of governance, as measured by the WGI
variables, evolves over time.

Table 2. Dynamic factor analysis results of governance.

Factor Proportion Cumulative

Variables Notation
Loading Variance Variance
Political stability and absence
PS 0.94 0.176 0.176
of violence/terrorism
Government effectiveness GE 0.96 0.184 0.36
Regulatory quality RQ 0.95 0.18 0.54
Rule of law RL 0.98 0.192 0.732
Control of corruption CC 0.97 0.188 0.92

The dynamic factor analysis indicates that the latent factor gradually declines over
time, with occasional variations. However, the factor loadings exhibit a consistent level of
stability, demonstrating that the connections between the observable WGI variables and
the latent factor do not experience substantial changes across the studied timeframe.
At first, the composite index using the factor scores exhibited negative values for all
years. It is crucial to understand that negative numbers do not always indicate insufficient
effectiveness in governance; rather, negative values illustrate that Pakistan’s performance is
below the global average, which is set at 0 for the WGI variables [91]. To clarify the
index values, we modified the index scale to range from 0 to 100, where 50 equates
to the worldwide average, as recommended by [93,94]. The rescaling method entailed
standardizing the index values and implementing a linear transformation to translate the
normalized values to the target range. The rescaled composite index presents a more precise
measure, where values above 50 reflect performance exceeding the worldwide average, and
values below 50 indicate a decline in performance from the global average. Subsequently,
the study uses a rescaled index for further research to investigate its relationship with
energy poverty in Pakistan.
Through factor analysis techniques, we combined the five WGI variables into a sin-
gle composite index [95] to represent the core governance paradigm in a more concise,
parsimonious, and interpretable way while maintaining essential data on Pakistan’s gov-
ernance performance over time. This approach resolves possible problems related to

68
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

multicollinearity and makes it significantly easier to include governance indicators in our

investigation of energy poverty in Pakistan. The approach is mathematically represented
by the Equation (1).
The study aims to offer a more precise and succinct assessment of the state of gov-
ernance by employing dynamic factor analysis as discussed by [96,97], to facilitate stake-
holders and policymakers to develop a more comprehensive understanding of Pakistan’s
governance initiatives.

S( I, J, T ) = {Sijt}, i = 1, j = 1, 2, . . . , 5, t = 1, 2, . . . ., T (1)

Our study establishes the matrix Z of S( I, J, T ) which includes the elements Sijt where
i represents Pakistan, j represents the five WGI variables, and t corresponds to time. This
matrix contains temporal data on the WGI variables over time for Pakistan, as represented
by Equation (1). As indicated by Equation (2), we decompose the correlation matrix Z of
S( I, J, T ) into three smaller components and combine them. The three components of this
equation are
X = X ( I )ρ∧∗ + X ( IT ) + X ( T )∧∗ (2)
The static matrix X ( I )∧∗ represents Pakistan, illustrating the intertemporal correlation
between the WGI variables. The temporal dimension does not impact this static matrix.
The dynamic difference matrix X ( IT ) integrates the WGI variables and time. The aver-
age dynamic change matrix, represented as X ( T )∧∗ , displays changes across time while
excluding the country-specific component.
Equation (2) is simplified into Equation (3) in the following way:

X = X ( I )∧∗ + X ( IT ) + X ( T )∧∗ = X ( T ) + X ( T )∧∗ (3)

X ( T ) is the principal component analysis average correlation matrix across years,

derived through the transformation of panel data into a cross-sectional matrix. X ( T )∧∗
refers to a linear regression model extract that captures fluctuations across time [96,97].
As indicated in Equation (4), we use X ( T ) to compute the solution and identify the
primary components from the correlation matrix to reduce dimensionality.

1 T
T ∑ t =1
X(T ) = ∧ X (t) (4)

This Equation represents the average correlation matrix calculated across years and
displays the temporal fluctuations of the WGI variables. Data standardization is crucial to
mitigate the impact of various scales and units of measurement between 2000 and 2022.
For this uniformity, the data are comparable and suitable for analysis [98,99]. Subsequently,
we conducted a dynamic factor analysis to explore the results for each WGI variable. The
dynamic factor analysis results validate that dimensional reduction parallels expectations.
Furthermore, we calculated the cumulative variance contribution rate, followed by [100],
and noticed it is close to 100%. It suggests that, as shown in Table 1, the significance of
interpretation for the five WGI variables is approximately in line with the predicted level.

3.2. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling

This study employs Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to
examine the complex, intricate connections among socioeconomic determinants, energy-
related variables, governance quality, and energy poverty in Pakistan used by [101,102]
and recommended by [103,104]. The selection of PLS-SEM is due to its ability to handle
complex models that involve several constructs, indicators, and interactions. Additionally,
it is known for its robustness and ability to handle non-normal data and small sample
sizes [105]. Our approach aligns with previous studies [60,106] on energy poverty. Given
the specific attributes of our data and the complexity of our model, (PLS-SEM) is very
suitable for this research.

69
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

3.3. Data and Variables

The study employs annual data from 2000 to 2022 for Pakistan. The dependent variable
is energy poverty, measured by access to clean fuels and technology for cooking, following
the approach of [107]. Independent and mediating variables include a wide range of
socioeconomic, environmental, and energy-related variables. The variables encompassed
in the dataset are listed in Table 3:

Table 3. Variables, units of measurement, and data sources.

Variable Notation Measure Source

The proportion of the
population with access to Word development
Energy Poverty EP
clean fuels and indicators
technology for cooking
GDP per capita (constant Word development
Income level Income
2015 US$) indicators
Word development
Population Pop Total Population
indicators
Word development
Governance Quality WGII Index
indicators
Mega joules per USD Word development
Energy intensity EI
(constant 2017 PPP GDP) indicators
Oil Price OP US dollars per barrel BP statistical review
Federal reserve
Coal Price CP US dollar per tonne.
economic data
US dollars per
Natural Gas Price NGP BP statistical review
million Btu
US dollars per Federal reserve
LNG Price LNG
million Btu economic data
Renewable energy % of total final energy Word development
Renew
consumption consumption indicators

All variables are log-transformed to tackle putative non-linearity and enhance the
model fit, an approach [108] utilized in their energy poverty study analysis.

3.4. Model Specification

Our study employs the PLS-SEM methodology to pursue our research objectives and
test our hypotheses. This approach enables us to investigate the intricate relationships
between socioeconomic determinants, energy-related variables, governance quality, and
energy poverty in Pakistan. Table 4 depicts the variables specification model.

Table 4. Model specification and variables.

Endogenous Variable Exogenous Variables Mediating Variable

Income level
Total Population
The proportion of the
Energy intensity
population with access to
Oil Price Governance Quality
clean fuels and technology for
Coal Price (WGII)
cooking (representing
Natural Gas Price
Energy Poverty)
LNG Price
Renewable energy consumption

The WGI index acts as both an exogenous variable and as a mediator, following an
identical strategy to [35,109] in their studies. The structural relationships in our model are
illustrated in Equations (5)–(8), which incorporate direct effects, mediating effects, indirect
effects, and total effects, following the integrated modeling methodology of [110,111].

70
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

3.4.1. Direct Effects on Energy Poverty

EP = β 1 Income + β 2 Pop + β 3 WGI I + β 4 EI + β 5 OP + β 6 CP + β 7 NGP + β 8 LNG + β 9 Renew + ε 1 (5)

This Equation captures the core of our model, specifically targeting our primary
research objective to determine the factors of energy poverty in Pakistan. Each β coefficient
signifies the direct effect of an independent variable on energy poverty (EP). It enables us
to test our hypotheses concerning the impacts of income level (Income), total population
(Pop), governance quality (WGII), energy intensity (EI), energy prices (OP, CP, NGP, LNG),
and renewable energy consumption (Renew) on energy poverty (EP).

3.4.2. Effects on Governance Quality (Mediator)

WGI I = γ1 Income + γ2 Pop + γ3 EI + γ4 OP + γ5 CP + γ6 NGP + γ7 LNG + γ8 Renew + ε 2 (6)

This Equation models the factors that influence governance quality specifically em-
phasizing our secondary objective to observe the role of governance in energy poverty
dynamics. It enables us to test hypotheses regarding the impact of different factors on
governance quality, which subsequently affects energy poverty.

3.4.3. Indirect Effects

IE_i = γi × β 4 ( f or i = 1 to 8) (7)
This Equation assesses the indirect effects of every exogenous variable on energy
poverty by considering governance quality. It supports us in addressing our research
objective by grasping the mediating role of governance in the relationship between different
components and energy poverty and examining our hypotheses regarding indirect effects.

3.4.4. Total Effects

TE_i = β_i + IE_i ( f or i = 1 to 8, excluding β 4 ) (8)

This Equation comprehensively incorporates the direct and indirect effects and pro-
vides a thorough understanding of each variable’s total effect on energy poverty. It fulfills
our objective to evaluate the overall influence of several factors on energy poverty, imple-
mented both directly and through a governance-mediated path. In Equations (5)–(8), β 1 to
β 9 and γ1 to γ8 represents path coefficients and ε 1 and ε 2 denote the error terms.
These Equations together allow us to test our hypotheses regarding the direct, indirect,
and total effects of several socioeconomic and energy-related factors on energy poverty
in Pakistan. By addressing governance quality as both a direct factor and a mediator, we
can investigate the complex connections between institutional factors and energy poverty,
confronting the multifaceted nature of this issue in developing countries.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Descriptive Analysis
Our comprehensive descriptive analysis includes the central tendency, dispersion, and
distribution shape measures and reveals a significant finding. This method is similar to the
approach employed by [112], who presented comprehensive descriptive statistics in their
study of energy poverty in Nigeria. We observe a rising trend of energy poverty, which
aligns with the results of [61] in their examination of Indian households. This alignment
with previous studies reinforces the validity of our findings. Table 5 displays the descriptive
statistics for all variables used in the study.

71
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of key variables.

Variable Mean Std. Dev Max Min Skewness Kurtosis

EP 3.59 0.27 3.96 3.17 −0.02 −1.21
Income 7.17 0.16 7.44 6.96 0.34 −1.15
Pop 19.07 0.14 19.28 18.85 −0.01 −1.22
WGII 3.50 0.10 3.68 3.31 −0.09 −0.78
EI 1.50 0.09 1.63 1.36 −0.15 −1.14
OP 4.09 0.52 4.72 3.20 −0.45 −1.08
CP 4.46 0.62 5.96 3.41 0.55 0.30
NGP 1.91 0.54 3.19 1.07 0.58 −0.51
LNG 2.21 0.57 3.51 1.49 0.77 −0.35
Renew 3.85 0.05 3.94 3.74 −0.36 −0.83

The descriptive statistics indicate considerable variability in the variables during

the study period. Energy poverty demonstrates an increasing tendency (mean = 3.59,
SD = 0.27), indicating a long-standing concern in Pakistan. Income level (mean = 7.17,
SD = 0.16) and total population (mean = 19.07, SD = 0.14) demonstrate consistent growth,
indicating Pakistan’s economic and demographic shifts. The WGI index with (mean = 3.50,
SD = 0.10) demonstrates minor fluctuations, suggesting variations in governance quality.
Energy intensity indicates a declining trend (mean = 1.50, SD = 0.09), suggesting progress
in energy efficiency. Energy prices, specifically oil (mean = 4.09, SD = 0.52) and coal
(mean = 4.46, SD = 0.62), indicate significant volatility reflecting global market dynam-
ics. The skewness and kurtosis values suggest that many variables are almost normally
distributed, which supports the rationale for using log-transformed data in our analysis.

4.2. Measurement Model Assessment

Since our model uses single-item measurements, standard assessments such as internal
consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability) and convergent validity are
not pertinent. We analyze the collinearity between indicators employing Variance Inflation
Factor (VIF) values in Table 6, as proposed by [103,113].

Table 6. Variance inflation factor (VIF) values for multicollinearity.

Variable VIF
Income 12.34
Pop 15.21
WGII 1.53
EI 8.76
OP 5.87
CP 6.42
NGP 9.15
LNG 8.93
Renew 3.21

VIF values above 5 suggest potential collinearity issues [114], Figure 1.

Various variables in our model exceed the specified threshold, notably income level
(VIF = 12.34), total population (VIF = 15.21), and natural gas price (VIF = 9.15). Our results
indicate the presence of multicollinearity, specifically for total population and income level,
similar to the findings of [115,116]. It validates the presence of multicollinearity and justifies
using PLS-SEM (Python 3.12.4), which is more robust to such problems than traditional
regression methods. The high VIF values indicate that these variables share considerable
variance, which is to be anticipated due to the interrelated nature of socioeconomic and
energy dynamics. However, this multicollinearity does not affect the predictive power of
the model.

72
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

Figure 1. Variance inflation factor (VIF) values for multicollinearity assessment.

4.3. Structural Model Assessment

The structural model assessment examines the relationships between exogenous
variables, the mediator (World Governance Indicators Index), and the endogenous variable
(Energy Poverty). The model reveals important pathways and the relative significance
of different variables, offering insights into the complex and multifaceted interplay of
socioeconomic and governance factors in influencing energy access and affordability.

4.4. Path Coefficients and Significance

The study examines the structural model by analyzing the path coefficients, their
statistical significance, and their relevance. Table 7 presents these results.

Table 7. Path coefficients and statistical significance of the model.

Path Coefficient t-Value p-Value Significance

Income → EP 0.312 4.567 <0.001 ***
Pop → EP 0.485 6.892 <0.001 ***
WGII → EP −0.079 2.765 0.006 **
EI → EP −0.176 3.124 0.002 **
OP → EP 0.087 2.023 0.043 *
CP → EP 0.098 2.11 0.035 *
NGP → EP 0.046 1.364 0.173 ns
LNG → EP 0.035 1.079 0.281 ns
Renew → EP −0.157 2.982 0.003 **
Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, ns = not significant.

The results reveal that the majority of the hypothesized relationships are statistically
significant. Income level (β = 0.312, ρ < 0.001) and total population (β = 0.485, ρ < 0.001) have
a strong positive impact on energy poverty and support our hypotheses and are aligned
with the findings reported by [67,117]. Results indicate that as population and income
levels increase, the challenge of energy poverty becomes more severe, potentially because of
higher increased energy consumption and potential imbalances in energy distribution. The
WGI index indicates a significant negative effect (β = −0.079, ρ = 0.006), underscoring the
crucial role of effective and efficient governance in mitigating energy poverty. This finding
is consistent with the existing literature [30] highlighting the impact of governance quality
on energy accessibility and affordability. Establishing high governance quality, signified by
robust public services and minimal corruption, is crucial for enacting policies that efficiently
tackle energy poverty [31]. Oil and coal prices show modest but significant positive effects
and demonstrate that a rise in these prices intensifies energy poverty. Rising fossil fuel

73
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

prices increase energy costs, reducing real purchasing power. Ref. [118] study indicates that
this tendency is associated with increased energy poverty during the global energy crisis,
especially among low-income households. The findings underscore the pressing necessity
for policies to tackle the volatility of fossil fuel costs and advocate for sustainable energy
alternatives to alleviate energy poverty [48].
Energy intensity (β = −0.176, ρ = 0.002) and renewable energy consumption
(β = −0.157, ρ = 0.003) display significant negative effects. The negative impact of energy
intensity and renewable energy consumption on energy poverty align with the findings
of [119,120], respectively, hence validating our hypotheses (Figure 2). This specifies that
developments in energy efficiency and expanded usage of renewable energy can signifi-
cantly help in mitigating energy poverty. Surprisingly, the effect of natural gas and LNG
prices is not statistically significant, contrary to our expectations. One plausible factor may
be Pakistan’s convoluted natural gas and LNG pricing structures. Various elements, like
government rules, subsidies, or contract lengths, can influence the pricing mechanism and
may obscure the direct effect of global price variations on the variable under investigation.
Our finding aligns with prior research that underscores the intricacies of energy pricing
in developing countries [121,122]. However, it contradicts studies [123] proposing a more
direct correlation between fuel prices and domestic energy usage.

Figure 2. Path coefficients and statistical significance in the structural model. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01,
* p < 0.05, ns = not significant.

Another aspect to consider is the minor contribution of natural gas and LNG to
household energy consumption in Pakistan. The complex correlation between energy
prices and residential energy use is shaped by various socio-economic, political, and
cultural elements that might differ in different contextual regions.

4.5. Model’s Explanatory and Predictive Power

 
To measure the model’s explanatory power, we assess the R-squared R2 value
Table 8 for the endogenous construct (energy poverty). To assess predictive relevance, we
employ the Stone–Geisser Q2 value.

Table 8. R-squared and q-squared values for model fit and predictive accuracy.

Endogenous Construct R2 R2 Adjusted Q2

EP 0.968 0.955 0.942

74
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

Our model’s high R2 value (0.968) implies that the model describes 96.8% of the
variance in energy poverty, which signifies considerable explanatory power. The adjusted
R2 of 0.955 provides strong evidence, even considering the number of predictors. Ref. [124]
states that R2 values of 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 are categorized as substantial, moderate,
and weak, respectively. Our R2 value surpasses the threshold required for substantial
explanatory power. These results are similar to the findings of [125] in their extensive
energy poverty study.
The Q2 value of 0.942 is considerably greater than zero, representing the strong
predictive significance of the model. Q2 values above 0, 0.25, and 0.50, defined by [103],
indicate the PLS path model’s small, medium, and large predictive importance. Our Q2
results clearly show that the model has a large predictive relevance and significance for
energy poverty.

4.6. Effect Sizes

We employ the f 2 effect sizes Table 9 to assess each predictor’s practical relevance,
a method commonly employed in energy poverty research, as demonstrated by [126].
According to [127] guidelines, f 2 values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 signify small, medium, and
large effects, respectively. Figure 3 demonstrates the graphical representation of effect size.

Table 9. Effect sizes (f 2 ) for key predictors in the model.

Path f2 Effect
Income → EP 0.287 Medium
Pop → EP 0.452 Large
WGII → EP 0.058 Small
EI → EP 0.124 Small
OP → EP 0.063 Small
CP → EP 0.072 Small
NGP → EP 0.034 Small
LNG → EP 0.026 Small
Renew → EP 0.116 Small

Figure 3. Effect size (f 2 ) assessment for practical relevance of predictors.

Our effect size total population analysis confirms a significantly large effect size
( f 2 = 0.452), demonstrates its strong practical significance to determine the energy poverty.
Income level has a medium effect ( f 2 = 0.287), while the left over variables show small
effect sizes on energy poverty. The effect sizes offer further supportive data for the path
coefficients to prioritize components to handle energy poverty.

75
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

4.7. Mediation Analysis

To evaluate the mediating role of governance quality (WGI index), we performed a
mediation investigation employing the approach proposed by [128]. Table 10 and Figure 4
displays the indirect effects and their statistical significance.

Table 10. Indirect effects with statistical significance in the model.

Mediation Path Indirect Effect t-Value p-Value

Income → WGII → EP −0.028 2.345 0.019
Pop → WGII → EP −0.035 2.567 0.010
EI → WGII → EP −0.015 2.123 0.034
OP → WGII → EP −0.007 1.876 0.061
CP → WGII → EP −0.008 1.945 0.052
Renew → WGII → EP −0.013 2.234 0.026

Figure 4. Mediation analysis: Indirect effects of governance quality (WGII) on energy poverty.

The findings demonstrate the significant mediating effects of governance quality

on the connections between most independent variables and energy poverty, except for
oil and coal prices. These findings are consistent with the results of [36,129], noted the
key role of governance in energy poverty evolution. It affirms our hypothesis of the
governance quality as a mediator. The negative indirect effects indicate that advancements
in governance quality can boost the influence of additional contributing variables to reduce
energy poverty. The research conducted by [83,84] emphasizes that effective governance
enhances the provision of regulatory rules, essential for providing fair and equal access to
energy resources. Strong governance structures enable countries to establish a conducive
environment for the efficient implementation of policies targeting the reduction of energy
poverty, optimizing the effectiveness of supplementary interventions. Figure 5 presents the
structure model assessment of the direct and mediating effects of variables.

76
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

Figure 5. Structural model assessment.

4.8. Bootstrapping for Mediation

To strengthen the validity of the mediation results and address potential limitations
associated with normal theory techniques in small sample sizes, we conducted bootstrap-
ping with 5000 subsamples, a method also utilized by [130] in their poverty governance
research. Table 11 and Figure 6 presents the bootstrap estimates and confidence intervals
for the indirect effects.

77
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

Table 11. Bootstrap estimates and confidence intervals for indirect effects.

Mediation Path Indirect Effect 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper

Income → WGII → EP −0.028 −0.052 −0.004
Pop → WGII → EP −0.035 −0.064 −0.006
EI → WGII → EP −0.015 −0.029 −0.001
OP → WGII → EP −0.007 −0.015 0.001
CP → WGII → EP −0.008 −0.017 0.001
Renew → WGII → EP −0.013 −0.026 −0.001

Figure 6. Bootstrap estimates for validation of mediation path.

Our rigorous methodology verifies the significance of the mediating effects for income
level, total population, energy intensity, and renewable energy consumption, as their
confidence intervals do not contain zero. Furthermore, our study presents persuasive
evidence to support our mediation hypothesis, emphasizing the significance of governance
quality in influencing the energy poverty trends in Pakistan.

4.9. Total Effects Analysis

To obtain a thorough comprehension of the influence of each factor on energy poverty,
we compute the total effects, which include both direct and indirect effects (refer to Table 12
and Figure 7).

Table 12. Total effects of governance and socioeconomic factors on energy poverty.

Variable Direct Effect Indirect Effect Total Effect

Income 0.312 −0.028 0.284
Pop 0.485 −0.035 0.450
WGII −0.079 - −0.079
EI −0.176 −0.015 −0.191
OP 0.087 −0.007 0.080
CP 0.098 −0.008 0.090
NGP 0.046 - 0.046
LNG 0.035 - 0.035
Renew −0.157 −0.013 −0.170

78
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

Figure 7. Total effects, including direct and indirect influences on energy poverty.

Our total effects examination indicates that the total population has the highest overall
impact on energy poverty (0.450), followed by income level (0.284), which aligns with the
findings of [88,131] on energy poverty. The noteworthy negative total effects of energy
intensity (−0.191) and renewable energy (−0.170) corroborate the conclusions of [132],
respectively highlighting the significant potential of renewable energy to combat energy
poverty. Energy communities, as localized collectives striving for sustainable energy goals,
have a vital role in promoting multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), namely
SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities),
and SDG 13 (Climate Action) [16]. By facilitating the local communal ownership and
administration of renewable energy resources, these communities may directly supply
cost-effective and sustainable electricity to those deemed highest at risk of experiencing
energy poverty. This decentralized strategy enables local production and consumption of
energy, generally at a reduced cost compared to conventional energy suppliers, alleviating
the financial strain on low-income people [133]. By offering individuals and communities
more autonomy over their energy sources, energy communities advance energy justice,
guaranteeing everyone access to cost-effective and sustainable energy and substantially
reducing energy poverty. Moreover, they strengthen the ability to withstand high energy
expenses and promote active participation from the local community, increasing energy
availability for underprivileged communities.
The WGI index, although its direct impact is limited, plays a crucial role in mediating
the effects of other variables, emphasizing the vital role of governance in tackling energy
poverty. This comprehensive analysis shows strong evidence in support of our hypotheses.
It provides valuable insights into the complicated mechanism of energy poverty in Pakistan,
which is consistent with and improves the findings of recent literature in this study domain.

5. Conclusions and Policy Implications

5.1. Conclusions
Our findings emphasize the crucial role of governance quality as a mediator between
different socioeconomic and energy-related factors and energy poverty in Pakistan, es-
pecially relevant given the impending 2030 deadline for SDG7, which strives to provide
universal access to affordable, consistent, and sustainable energy. This study validates that
income level and population growth positively and substantially impact energy poverty.
Our results validate the “energy ladder” theory [134] but specify that developing countries
like Pakistan move at different paces. This complication highlights the challenges of SDG7
goals by 2030 and suggests that economic development alone will not be enough to achieve

79
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

this goal. The study highlights the negative relationships between energy intensity and re-
newable energy consumption with energy poverty and affirms the energy transition theory,
which suggests that advanced technology and transition to cleaner energy sources can help
reduce energy poverty [135]. The governance quality (WGI index) significantly mediates
the relationship between most independent variables and energy poverty. It validates the
institutional theory in energy policy [59]. This assertion indicates that the effectiveness of
energy poverty elevation strategies depends on the efficacy of governance and institutions.
Our research conclusion provides insight into why Pakistan, despite its efforts, might need
help to meet SDG7 targets and emphasizes the importance of institutional reforms along-
side technical solutions, aligning with the results of [136]. The disparity effects of various
energy prices on energy poverty (significant for oil and coal, non-significant for natural gas
and LNG) underscore the intricate relationship between global energy markets and regional
energy poverty characteristics. The volatility of oil and coal prices indicates that Pakistan’s
energy mix and pricing structure may require modification to comply more effectively with
SDG7 targets and protect vulnerable populations from energy poverty [45,87].

5.2. Policy Implications

To address the persistent obstacles towards SDG7 objectives, policymakers in Pakistan
must give precedence to unified national energy initiatives with this goal. It entails estab-
lishing clear, time-bound targets to enhance energy accessibility, efficiency, and renewable
energy adoption that coincide with the 2030 deadline [60,137].
Our counterintuitive finding of income level highlights the need for more reasonable
economic growth policies, such as the introduction of subsidies on solar panels or progres-
sive energy pricing mechanisms to ensure energy access for all societal groups, complying
with the “leave no one behind” premise of the SDGs [4,61]. The negative effect of high
energy intensity on energy poverty urges policymakers to prioritize programs in both
industrial and residential sectors that improve energy efficiency, such as the implementing
rules, appliance standards, and the adoption of industrial energy management technologies
mediating role of governance quality indicates that effective governance is essential for the
reduction of energy poverty in Pakistan. It is crucial to increase the autonomy of regula-
tory institutions to conduct energy market regulation, enforce energy efficiency standards,
and implement transparent tariff regulations without political interference. Transparency
through implementing rigorous audits and imposing penalties for electricity theft is es-
sential to combat corruption [30,32]. Establishing regional autonomous organizations is
also necessary to cater effectively to the varied requirements of each province in Pakistan.
Provinces can assume more accountability for energy management and customize solu-
tions to meet their unique needs when energy distribution is decentralized. The diverse
effects of energy prices emphasize the necessity for effective, nuanced, sophisticated price
policies. Pakistan’s experience building wind and solar farms with the private sector has
demonstrated that public–private partnerships (PPPs) can result in more effective project
delivery [138]. These collaborations ought to be promoted, with the government helping to
share risk and giving investors assurances. The government should also finance large-scale
renewable energy projects by issuing green bonds, as green bonds have the potential to
appeal to both local and global investors concerned with sustainable development. Inter-
national organizations, including the Green Climate Fund (GCF), have already provided
Pakistan with climate financing [139]. Reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels can
be achieved by facilitating the development of solar, wind, and hydroelectric infrastructure
by implementing well-designed programs that increase access to these funds.
The Pakistani government has established ambitious renewable energy objectives to
increase the proportion of renewable energy sources in the national energy mix to 60%
by 2030. The Gharo Wind Corridor and the Quaid-e-Azam Solar Park are noteworthy
projects that the Alternative Energy Development Board (AEDB) has already successfully
supported [140]. Nevertheless, further endeavor is required to expand these to achieve the
objectives set for 2030. In order to promote energy efficiency in businesses, households, and

80
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

agriculture, the government has launched programs such as the National Energy Efficiency
and Conservation Act of 2016. Nevertheless, there has been uneven execution, and more
work is required to guarantee broad adoption.
Although this study focuses on the 2030 deadline (SDG 7), sustained efforts in critical
areas are necessary to achieve long-lasting gains for long-term sustainability after 2030.
First, investing in renewable energy infrastructure, including grid modernization and
energy storage, can help manage intermittent renewable sources and improve system
resilience. Furthermore, supporting decentralized energy systems like micro-grids might
improve rural communities’ access to electricity while ensuring long-term dependability
and autonomy. Secondly, governance reforms must be institutionalized to safeguard against
future political instability or corruption, thereby ensuring transparency and accountability.
In conclusion, it is essential to prioritize energy efficiency, climate resilience, and capacity
building to guarantee that the progress achieved by 2030 continues to develop and meet
future energy requirements while accommodating technological advancements and climate
change challenges. The formulation of these policies ought to emphasize SDG7 goals and a
balance between affordability and sustainability [107,120].

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

Despite the significant insights on governance and energy poverty provided by this
study, it is important to recognize its substantial limitations. A fundamental limitation is the
availability of data. While the current study relies on annual data, using higher-frequency
data such as quarterly or monthly will allow for a more precise analysis of short-term
fluctuations in energy availability and governance effectiveness. Moreover national-level
approach may overlook geography or demography variations in energy poverty. Further-
more, future studies should explore the importance of private sector participation, which
has been important in successfully executing renewable energy initiatives in other devel-
oping countries. The integration of private sector investment models can offer substantial
insights into the financing of sustainable energy development. Furthermore, future research
should consider more precise factors, such as technological advancements and the impact
of foreign aid on the development of energy infrastructure.
This study offers a static view of energy poverty factors. However, the potential of
future research using dynamic panel models to observe the evolution of these interactions
over time, especially in the lead-up to the 2030 SDG timeframe, is another vision to advance
our understanding. Furthermore strengthening this quantitative analysis with qualitative
studies, like case studies or interviews with policymakers and contributed groups, can
offer profound insights into the causes driving energy poverty and the obstacles in meeting
SDG7 in Pakistan.
Our study enhances the comprehension of energy poverty dynamics in Pakistan
through a complete model that takes into account various socioeconomic, energy-related,
and governance challenges. The findings provide a foundation for evidence-based policy-
making. The ultimate goal is to boost sustainable development and alleviate energy poverty
in Pakistan by achieving the SDG7 2030 target. The constant challenges underlined in this
study emphasize the urgency of swift action and focused interventions to ensure Pakistan
can fulfill its SDG7 commitments. Future studies addressing the limitations mentioned
earlier will enhance our knowledge of this important problem and bolster more effective
interventions to reduce energy poverty and achieve universal energy access by 2030.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.L.; Methodology, M.W.H.; Software, M.W.H.; Formal

analysis, S.S.; Investigation, S.S.; Data curation, A.Q.; Writing—original draft, R.L., A.Q. and M.W.H.;
Writing—review & editing, S.S.; Supervision, J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

81
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made
available by the authors on request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Garzón Baquero, J.E.; Bellon Monsalve, D. From Fossil Fuel Energy to Hydrogen Energy: Transformation of Fossil Fuel Energy
Economies into Hydrogen Economies through Social Entrepreneurship. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 54, 574–585. [CrossRef]
2. Madurai Elavarasan, R.; Nadarajah, M.; Pugazhendhi, R.; Sinha, A.; Gangatharan, S.; Chiaramonti, D.; Abou Houran, M. The
Untold Subtlety of Energy Consumption and Its Influence on Policy Drive towards Sustainable Development Goal 7. Appl. Energy
2023, 334, 120698. [CrossRef]
3. Rehman, A.; Ma, H.; Ozturk, I.; Ulucak, R. Sustainable Development and Pollution: The Effects of CO2 Emission on Population
Growth, Food Production, Economic Development, and Energy Consumption in Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29,
17319–17330. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Khan, I.; Hou, F.; Irfan, M.; Zakari, A.; Le, H.P. Does Energy Trilemma a Driver of Economic Growth? The Roles of Energy Use,
Population Growth, and Financial Development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 146, 111157. [CrossRef]
5. Rahman, A.; Farrok, O.; Haque, M.M. Environmental Impact of Renewable Energy Source Based Electrical Power Plants: Solar,
Wind, Hydroelectric, Biomass, Geothermal, Tidal, Ocean, and Osmotic. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 161, 112279. [CrossRef]
6. Nsafon, B.E.K.; Same, N.N.; Yakub, A.O.; Chaulagain, D.; Kumar, N.M.; Huh, J.-S. The Justice and Policy Implications of Clean
Energy Transition in Africa. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1089391. [CrossRef]
7. Kod’ousková, H.; Ilavská, A.; Stašáková, T.; David, D.; Osička, J. Energy Transition for the Rich and Energy Poverty for the Rest?
Mapping and Explaining District Heating Transition, Energy Poverty, and Vulnerability in Czechia. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2023,
100, 103128. [CrossRef]
8. Yuan, H.; Zhao, L.; Umair, M. Crude Oil Security in a Turbulent World: China’s Geopolitical Dilemmas and Opportunities. Extr.
Ind. Soc. 2023, 16, 101334. [CrossRef]
9. Hafezi, R.; Souhankar, A. Energy Security in a Resource-Rich Economy: Case of Iran. In The Handbook of Energy Policy; Springer
Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2023; pp. 97–127. [CrossRef]
10. Qadeer, A.; Hussan, M.W.; Aziz, G.; Waheed, R.; Sarwar, S. Emerging Trends of Green Hydrogen and Sustainable Environment in
the Case of Australia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 115788–115804. [CrossRef]
11. Salman, M.; Zha, D.; Wang, G. Assessment of Energy Poverty Convergence: A Global Analysis. Energy 2022, 255, 124579.
[CrossRef]
12. Zaidan, E.; Antoine Ibrahim, I. Achieving Energy Justice: The Role of Supervisory and Compliance Mechanisms in Global
Frameworks and the International Community. Energy Strategy Rev. 2024, 52, 101335. [CrossRef]
13. Minas, A.M.; García-Freites, S.; Walsh, C.; Mukoro, V.; Aberilla, J.M.; April, A.; Kuriakose, J.; Gaete-Morales, C.; Gallego-Schmid,
A.; Mander, S. Advancing Sustainable Development Goals through Energy Access: Lessons from the Global South. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2024, 199, 114457. [CrossRef]
14. Painuly, P.K.; Tyagi, R.; Vishwakarma, S.; Khare, S.K.; Haghighi, M. Energy Supply Using Nexus Approach for Attaining
Sustainable Development Goal 7. Afford. Clean. Energy 2021, 562–573. [CrossRef]
15. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Morone, P. Economic Sustainable Development Goals: Assessments and Perspectives in Europe. J.
Clean. Prod. 2022, 354, 131730. [CrossRef]
16. D’Adamo, I.; Di Carlo, C.; Gastaldi, M.; Rossi, E.N.; Uricchio, A.F. Economic Performance, Environmental Protection and Social
Progress: A Cluster Analysis Comparison towards Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049. [CrossRef]
17. Pachauri, S.; Poblete-Cazenave, M.; Aktas, A.; Gidden, M.J. Access to Clean Cooking Services in Energy and Emission Scenarios
after COVID-19. Nat. Energy 2021, 6, 1067–1076. [CrossRef]
18. Boeri, A.; Gianfrate, V.; Boulanger, S.O.M.; Massari, M. Future Design Approaches for Energy Poverty: Users Profiling and
Services for No-Vulnerable Condition. Energy 2020, 13, 2115. [CrossRef]
19. Ceglia, F.; Marrasso, E.; Samanta, S.; Sasso, M. Addressing Energy Poverty in the Energy Community: Assessment of Energy,
Environmental, Economic, and Social Benefits for an Italian Residential Case Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15077. [CrossRef]
20. Manko, K.; Watkins, T.A. Microfinance and SDG 7: Financial Impact Channels for Mitigating Energy Poverty. Dev. Pract. 2022, 32,
1036–1048. [CrossRef]
21. Chopra, R.; Rehman, M.A.; Yadav, A.; Bhardwaj, S. Revisiting the EKC Framework Concerning COP-28 Carbon Neutrality
Management: Evidence from Top-5 Carbon Embittering Countries. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 356, 120690. [CrossRef]
22. Jiang, T.; He, X.; Su, B.; Havea, P.H.; Wei, K.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Liu, D. COP 28: Challenge of Coping with Climate Crisis.
Innovation 2024, 5, 100559. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Wang, Z.; Amin, A.; Chandio, A.A.; Shah, A.H.; Ullah, M.I. Dynamical Assessment of Multi-Dimensional Energy Poverty at the
National and Sub-National Levels in Pakistan. Energy Effic. 2024, 17, 18. [CrossRef]
24. Batool, K.; Zhao, Z.-Y.; Nureen, N.; Irfan, M. Assessing and Prioritizing Biogas Barriers to Alleviate Energy Poverty in Pakistan:
An Integrated AHP and G-TOPSIS Model. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 94669–94693. [CrossRef]

82
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

25. Khan, N.U.; Zhongyi, P.; Ullah, A.; Mumtaz, M. A Comprehensive Evaluation of Sustainable Mineral Resources Governance in
Pakistan: An Analysis of Challenges and Reforms. Resour. Policy 2024, 88, 104383. [CrossRef]
26. Raza, M.Y.; Lin, B. Coal Efficiency, Carbon Reduction, and Future Policy Perspective in Pakistan’s Economic Growth: A Decom-
position and Decoupling Approach. Front. Energy Res. 2023, 11, 1275221. [CrossRef]
27. Hussain, S.; Xuetong, W.; Maqbool, R. Understanding the Power Disruption and Its Impact on Community Development:
An Empirical Case of Pakistan. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2023, 55, 102922. [CrossRef]
28. Imran, M.; Ozcatalbas, O. Determinants of Household Cooking Fuels and Their Impact on Women’s Health in Rural Pakistan.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 23849–23861. [CrossRef]
29. Jan, M.Z.; Ullah, K.; Abbas, F.; Khalid, H.A.; Bajwa, T.M. Barriers to the Adoption of Social Welfare Measures in the Electricity
Tariff Structure of Developing Countries: A Case of Pakistan. Energy Policy 2023, 179, 113648. [CrossRef]
30. Bakhsh, S.; Zhang, W.; Ali, K.; Oláh, J. Strategy towards Sustainable Energy Transition: The Effect of Environmental Governance,
Economic Complexity and Geopolitics. Energy Strategy Rev. 2024, 52, 101330. [CrossRef]
31. Du, J.; Shen, Z.; Song, M.; Vardanyan, M. The Role of Green Financing in Facilitating Renewable Energy Transition in China:
Perspectives from Energy Governance, Environmental Regulation, and Market Reforms. Energy Econ. 2023, 120, 106595.
[CrossRef]
32. Agostino, M. Extreme Weather Events and Firms’ Energy Practices. The Role of Country Governance. Energy Policy 2024, 192,
114235. [CrossRef]
33. Acheampong, A.O.; Opoku, E.E.O.; Dogah, K.E. The Political Economy of Energy Transition: The Role of Globalization and
Governance in the Adoption of Clean Cooking Fuels and Technologies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2023, 186, 122156. [CrossRef]
34. Iqbal, K.M.J.; Akhtar, N.; Amir, S.; Khan, M.I.; Shah, A.A.; Tariq, M.A.U.R.; Ullah, W. Multi-Variable Governance Index Modeling
of Government’s Policies, Legal and Institutional Strategies, and Management for Climate Compatible and Sustainable Agriculture
Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11763. [CrossRef]
35. AlShiab, M.S.I.; Al-Malkawi, H.-A.N.; Lahrech, A. Revisiting the relationship between governance quality and economic growth.
Int. J. Econ. Financ. Issues 2020, 10, 54–63. [CrossRef]
36. Shahbaz, M.; Wang, J.; Dong, K.; Zhao, J. The Impact of Digital Economy on Energy Transition across the Globe: The Mediating
Role of Government Governance. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 166, 112620. [CrossRef]
37. Pelz, S.; Chindarkar, N.; Urpelainen, J. Energy Access for Marginalized Communities: Evidence from Rural North India, 2015–2018.
World Dev. 2021, 137, 105204. [CrossRef]
38. Acharya, R.H.; Sadath, A.C. Achievements and Challenges of Energy Poverty Alleviation Policies: Evidence from the Select States
in India. J. Public Aff. 2023, 23, e2839. [CrossRef]
39. UNG Assembly. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A. Antarct. Int. Law. 2015, 15900, 1–35.
40. Masuku, B. Rethinking South Africa’s Household Energy Poverty through the Lens of off-Grid Energy Transition. Dev. S. Afr.
2024, 41, 467–489. [CrossRef]
41. Cummins, M.; Gillanders, R. Greasing the Turbines? Corruption and Access to Electricity in Africa. Energy Policy 2020, 137,
111188. [CrossRef]
42. Sovacool, B.K. Clean, Low-Carbon but Corrupt? Examining Corruption Risks and Solutions for the Renewable Energy Sector in
Mexico, Malaysia, Kenya and South Africa. Energy Strategy Rev. 2021, 38, 100723. [CrossRef]
43. Khurshid, N. Does the Causality between Environmental Sustainability, Non-Renewable Energy Consumption, Geopolitical Risks,
and Trade Liberalization Matter for Pakistan? Evidence from VECM Analysis. Heliyon 2023, 9, e21444. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Ali, Y.; Ahmad, M.; Sabir, M.; Shah, S.A. Regional Development through Energy Infrastructure: A Comparison and Optimization
of Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) & Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) Gas Pipelines. Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theory Appl.
2021, 4, 82–106. [CrossRef]
45. Awan, A.; Bilgili, F.; Rahut, D.B. Household Fuel Choices and Consumption Intensity in Pakistan: Evidence from HIES Data
2001–2019. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 1–16. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Xia, S.; Yang, Y.; Qian, X.; Xu, X. Spatiotemporal Interaction and Socioeconomic Determinants of Rural Energy Poverty in China.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10851. [CrossRef]
47. Tundys, B.; Bretyn, A.; Urbaniak, M. Energy Poverty and Sustainable Economic Development: An Exploration of Correlations
and Interdependencies in European Countries. Energy 2021, 14, 7640. [CrossRef]
48. Zhao, J.; Dong, K.; Dong, X.; Shahbaz, M. How Renewable Energy Alleviate Energy Poverty? A Global Analysis. Renew. Energy
2022, 186, 299–311. [CrossRef]
49. Mahalik, M.K.; Mallick, H.; Padhan, H. Do Educational Levels Influence the Environmental Quality? The Role of Renewable and
Non-Renewable Energy Demand in Selected BRICS Countries with a New Policy Perspective. Renew. Energy 2021, 164, 419–432.
[CrossRef]
50. Katoch, O.R.; Sharma, R.; Parihar, S.; Nawaz, A. Energy Poverty and Its Impacts on Health and Education: A Systematic Review.
Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 2024, 18, 411–431. [CrossRef]
51. Nussbaumer, P.; Bazilian, M.; Modi, V. Measuring Energy Poverty: Focusing on What Matters. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012,
16, 231–243. [CrossRef]
52. Pachauri, S.; Spreng, D. Measuring and Monitoring Energy Poverty. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 7497–7504. [CrossRef]

83
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

53. Qurat-ul-Ann, A.-R.; Mirza, F.M. Multidimensional Energy Poverty in Pakistan: Empirical Evidence from Household Level Micro
Data. Soc. Indic. Res. 2021, 155, 211–258. [CrossRef]
54. Sharif, M.; Khan, F.N. Unveiling the Implications of Energy Poverty for Educational Attainments in Pakistan: A Multidimensional
Analysis. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2023, 13, 472–483. [CrossRef]
55. Sovacool, B.K. The Political Economy of Energy Poverty: A Review of Key Challenges. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2012, 16, 272–282.
[CrossRef]
56. Awan, A.B.; Khan, Z.A. Recent Progress in Renewable Energy–Remedy of Energy Crisis in Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2014, 33, 236–253. [CrossRef]
57. Rasool, Y.; Zaidi, S.A.H.; Zafar, M.W. Determinants of Carbon Emissions in Pakistan’s Transport Sector. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
2019, 26, 22907–22921. [CrossRef]
58. Byaro, M.; Mmbaga, N.F.; Mafwolo, G. Tackling Energy Poverty: Do Clean Fuels for Cooking and Access to Electricity Improve
or Worsen Health Outcomes in Sub-Saharan Africa? World Dev. Sustain. 2024, 4, 100125. [CrossRef]
59. Dragomir, V.D.; Dumitru, M.; Perevoznic, F.M. Carbon Reduction and Energy Transition Targets of the Largest European
Companies: An Empirical Study Based on Institutional Theory. Clean. Prod. Lett. 2023, 4, 100039. [CrossRef]
60. Phoumin, H.; Kimura, F. The Impacts of Energy Insecurity on Household Welfare in Cambodia: Empirical Evidence and Policy
Implications. Econ. Model. 2019, 82, 35–41. [CrossRef]
61. Sadath, A.C.; Acharya, R.H. Assessing the Extent and Intensity of Energy Poverty Using Multidimensional Energy Poverty Index:
Empirical Evidence from Households in India. Energy Policy 2017, 102, 540–550. [CrossRef]
62. Primc, K.; Slabe-Erker, R.; Majcen, B. Energy Poverty: A Macrolevel Perspective. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 982–989. [CrossRef]
63. Sy, S.A.; Mokaddem, L. Energy Poverty in Developing Countries: A Review of the Concept and Its Measurements. Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 2022, 89, 102562. [CrossRef]
64. Andrews-Speed, P. Applying Institutional Theory to the Low-Carbon Energy Transition. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 13, 216–225.
[CrossRef]
65. Smith, K.R.; Bruce, N.; Balakrishnan, K.; Adair-Rohani, H.; Balmes, J.; Chafe, Z.; Dherani, M.; Hosgood, H.D.; Mehta, S.; Pope,
D.; et al. Millions Dead: How Do We Know and What Does It Mean? Methods Used in the Comparative Risk Assessment of
Household Air Pollution. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35, 185–206. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Ghosh, P.; Chatterjee, V.; Paul, A.; Ghosh, D.; Husain, Z. Reducing Energy Poverty: How to Empower Women and Switch to
Clean Fuel in India? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2024, 110, 103444. [CrossRef]
67. Carfora, A.; Passaro, R.; Scandurra, G.; Thomas, A. The Causal Nexus between Income and Energy Poverty in EU Member States.
Energy 2022, 15, 2822.
68. Rahman, A.; Murad, S.M.W.; Mohsin, A.K.M.; Wang, X. Does Renewable Energy Proactively Contribute to Mitigating Carbon
Emissions in Major Fossil Fuels Consuming Countries? J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 452, 142113. [CrossRef]
69. Jones, A.; Nock, D.; Samaras, C.; Qiu, Y.; Xing, B. Climate Change Impacts on Future Residential Electricity Consumption and
Energy Burden: A Case Study in Phoenix, Arizona. Energy Policy 2023, 183, 113811. [CrossRef]
70. Heltberg, R. Fuel Switching: Evidence from Eight Developing Countries. Energy Econ. 2004, 26, 869–887. [CrossRef]
71. Igawa, M.; Managi, S. Energy Poverty and Income Inequality: An Economic Analysis of 37 Countries. Appl. Energy 2022, 306,
118076. [CrossRef]
72. Perera, A.T.D.; Javanroodi, K.; Nik, V.M. Climate Resilient Interconnected Infrastructure: Co-Optimization of Energy Systems and
Urban Morphology. Appl. Energy 2021, 285, 116430. [CrossRef]
73. Acheampong, A.O.; Erdiaw-Kwasie, M.O.; Abunyewah, M. Does Energy Accessibility Improve Human Development? Evidence
from Energy-Poor Regions. Energy Econ. 2021, 96, 105165. [CrossRef]
74. Wu, B.; Liu, S.; Wang, J.; Tahir, S.; Patwary, A.K. Assessing the Mechanism of Energy Efficiency and Energy Poverty Alleviation
Based on Environmental Regulation Policy Measures. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 40858–40870. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
75. Singh, S.; Ru, J. Accessibility, Affordability, and Efficiency of Clean Energy: A Review and Research Agenda. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 2022, 29, 18333–18347. [CrossRef]
76. UNEP Falling Clean Energy Costs Provide Opportunity to Boost Climate Action in COVID-19 Recovery Packages. Available
online: [Link]
action (accessed on 9 July 2024).
77. Wahlund, M.; Palm, J. The Role of Energy Democracy and Energy Citizenship for Participatory Energy Transitions: A Compre-
hensive Review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 87, 102482. [CrossRef]
78. Bouzarovski, S.; Haarstad, H. Rescaling Low-carbon Transformations: Towards a Relational Ontology. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2019,
44, 256–269. [CrossRef]
79. Akinyemi, R.; Ojagbemi, A.; Akinyemi, J.; Salami, A.; Olopade, F.; Farombi, T.; Nweke, M.; Uvere, E.; Aridegbe, M.; Balogun, J.;
et al. Gender Differential in Inclination to Donate Brain for Research among Nigerians: The IBADAN Brain Bank Project. Cell
Tissue Bank. 2019, 20, 297–306. [CrossRef]
80. Terrapon-Pfaff, J.; Ersoy, S.R.; Fink, T.; Amroune, S.; Jamea, E.M.; Zgou, H.; Viebahn, P. Localizing the Water-Energy Nexus: The
Relationship between Solar Thermal Power Plants and Future Developments in Local Water Demand. Sustainability 2020, 13, 108.
[CrossRef]
81. Jones, N.; Warren, P. Innovation and Distribution of Solar Home Systems in Bangladesh. Clim. Dev. 2021, 13, 386–398. [CrossRef]

84
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

82. Saad, R.; Plazas-Niño, F.; Cannone, C.; Yeganyan, R.; Howells, M.; Luscombe, H. Long-Term Energy System Modelling for a
Clean Energy Transition and Improved Energy Security in Botswana’s Energy Sector Using the Open-Source Energy Modelling
System. Climate 2024, 12, 88. [CrossRef]
83. Kaitah, A.; Frimpong, F.B. Understanding differential effects of energy governance constraints in nigeria: A transitional justice
perspective. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2023, 261, 25–33. [CrossRef]
84. Sinha, A.; Bekiros, S.; Hussain, N.; Nguyen, D.K.; Khan, S.A. How Social Imbalance and Governance Quality Shape Policy
Directives for Energy Transition in the OECD Countries? Energy Econ. 2023, 120, 106642. [CrossRef]
85. World Bank. More People Have Access to Electricity Than Ever Before, but World Is Falling Short of Sustainable Energy Goals.
Available online: [Link]
2019 (accessed on 9 July 2024).
86. UNDP. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy; UN, ESCAP: Bangkok, Thailand, 2023.
87. Aized, T.; Rehman, S.M.S.; Sumair, M. Pakistan Energy Situation, Policy, and Issues. In Recent Advances in Renewable Energy
Technologies; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 387–428. [CrossRef]
88. Faiella, I.; Lavecchia, L. Energy Poverty Indicators. In Urban Fuel Poverty; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp.
127–141. [CrossRef]
89. Jayachandran, M.; Gatla, R.K.; Rao, K.P.; Rao, G.S.; Mohammed, S.; Milyani, A.H.; Azhari, A.A.; Kalaiarasy, C.; Geetha, S.
Challenges in Achieving Sustainable Development Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy in Light of Nascent Technologies.
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 53, 102692. [CrossRef]
90. Kaufmann, D.; Kraay, A.; Mastruzzi, M. The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues. Hague J.
Rule Law. 2011, 3, 220–246. [CrossRef]
91. Abegaz, M.B.; Debela, K.L.; Hundie, R.M. The Effect of Governance on Entrepreneurship: From All Income Economies Perspective.
J. Innov. Entrep. 2023, 12, 1. [CrossRef]
92. Qin, L.; Aziz, G.; Hussan, M.W.; Qadeer, A.; Sarwar, S. Empirical Evidence of Fintech and Green Environment: Using the Green
Finance as a Mediating Variable. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2024, 89, 33–49. [CrossRef]
93. He, Y.-T.; Wang, X.-J.; He, H.; Zhai, J.; Wang, B.-S. Moving-Average Based Index to Timely Evaluate the Current Epidemic
Situation after COVID-19 Outbreak. MedRxiv 2020, 2020–2023. [CrossRef]
94. Gu, Y.; Qin, X.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, C.; Guo, S. Correction to: Global Justice Index Report. Chin. Political Sci. Rev. 2020, 5. [CrossRef]
95. Fernando, M.; Samita, S.; Abeynayake, R. Modified Factor Analysis to Construct Composite Indices: Illustration on Urbanization
Index. Trop. Agric. Res. 2012, 23, 327. [CrossRef]
96. Stock, J.H.; Watson, M.W. Generalized Shrinkage Methods for Forecasting Using Many Predictors. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 2012, 30,
481–493. [CrossRef]
97. Bai, J.; Ng, S. Determining the Number of Factors in Approximate Factor Models. Econometrica 2002, 70, 191–221. [CrossRef]
98. Munda, G.; Nardo, M. On the Methodological Foundations of Composite Indicators Used for Ranking Countries. Ispra Italy Jt.
Res. Cent. Eur. Communities 2003, 1–19.
99. Nardo, M.; Saisana, M.; Saltelli, A.; Tarantola, S.; Hoffman, A.; Giovannini, E. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators:
Methodology and User Guide; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2005.
100. Greco, S.; Ishizaka, A.; Tasiou, M.; Torrisi, G. On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of
Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness. Soc. Indic. Res. 2019, 141, 61–94. [CrossRef]
101. Gyimah, J.; Batasuma, S.; Yao, X.; Wauk, G. The Adoption of Renewable Energy towards Environmental Sustainability: Evidence
from Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0299727. [CrossRef]
102. Messie Pondie, T.; Engwali, F.D. Energy Poverty in Light of the Climate Emergency in Sub-Saharan Africa: Impact and
Transmission Channels. Nat. Resour. Forum 2024. [CrossRef]
103. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31,
2–24. [CrossRef]
104. Vishnoi, S.K.; Mathur, S.; Bagga, T.; Singhal, A.; Rawal, P.; Sharma, S.; Yadav, R. Construct Modelling, Statistical Analysis and
Empirical Validation Using PLS-SEM: A Step-by-Step Guide of the Analysis Procedure. Int. J. Data Anal. Tech. Strateg. 2024, 16,
162–180. [CrossRef]
105. Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Hair, J.F. Treating Unobserved Heterogeneity in PLS-SEM: A Multi-Method Approach. Partial. Least Sq.
Path Model. Basic. Concepts Methodol. Issues Appl. 2017, 197–217. [CrossRef]
106. Batool, K.; Zhao, Z.-Y.; Irfan, M.; Żywiołek, J. Assessing the Role of Sustainable Strategies in Alleviating Energy Poverty: An
Environmental Sustainability Paradigm. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 67109–67130. [CrossRef]
107. Khattak, S.I.; Ahmad, M.; Khan, Z.U.; Khan, A. Exploring the Impact of Innovation, Renewable Energy Consumption, and Income
on CO2 Emissions: New Evidence from the BRICS Economies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 13866–13881. [CrossRef]
108. Zhang, D.; Li, J.; Han, P. A Multidimensional Measure of Energy Poverty in China and Its Impacts on Health: An Empirical Study
Based on the China Family Panel Studies. Energy Policy 2019, 131, 72–81. [CrossRef]
109. Sophia Yuliantini, L.; Nurmandi, A. The The Impact of the E-Government Development Index (EGDI) on the Worldwide
Governance Indicator (WGI) in European Union Countries. Policy Gov. Rev. 2023, 7, 140. [CrossRef]
110. Tai, A.; Lin, S. Integrated Multiple Mediation Analysis: A Robustness-specificity Trade-off in Causal Structure. Stat. Med. 2021,
40, 4541–4567. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

85
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

111. Cheung, M.W.-L. Synthesizing Indirect Effects in Mediation Models with Meta-Analytic Methods. Alcohol Alcohol. 2022, 57, 5–15.
[CrossRef]
112. Ogwumike, F.O.; Ozughalu, U.M. Analysis of Energy Poverty and Its Implications for Sustainable Development in Nigeria.
Environ. Dev. Econ. 2016, 21, 273–290. [CrossRef]
113. Fotheringham, A.S.; Oshan, T.M. Geographically Weighted Regression and Multicollinearity: Dispelling the Myth. J. Geogr. Syst.
2016, 18, 303–329. [CrossRef]
114. Kyriazos, T.; Poga, M. Dealing with Multicollinearity in Factor Analysis: The Problem, Detections, and Solutions. Open J. Stat.
2023, 13, 404–424. [CrossRef]
115. Månsson, K.; Kibria, B.M.G.; Shukur, G.; Sjölander, P. On the Estimation of the Co2 Emission, Economic Growth and Energy
Consumption Nexus Using Dynamic OLS in the Presence of Multicollinearity. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1315. [CrossRef]
116. Midi, H.; Sarkar, S.K.; Rana, S. Collinearity Diagnostics of Binary Logistic Regression Model. J. Interdiscip. Math. 2010, 13, 253–267.
[CrossRef]
117. Antepara, I.; Papada, L.; Gouveia, J.P.; Katsoulakos, N.; Kaliampakos, D. Improving Energy Poverty Measurement in Southern
European Regions through Equivalization of Modeled Energy Costs. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5721. [CrossRef]
118. Causa, O.; Soldani, E.; Luu, N. A Cost-of-Living Squeeze? Distributional Implications of Rising Inflation. Public Sect. Econ. 2023,
47, 431–460. [CrossRef]
119. Mlaskawa, J. Renewable Energy and Poverty in Sustainable Development of the European Union. Probl. Ekorozwoju 2022, 17,
110–123. [CrossRef]
120. Balogun, A.; Oloja-Ojabo, E.D. Impact of Renewable Energy Consumption and Public Capital Expenditure on Poverty Reduction
in Nigeria. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Econ. 2023, 4, 212–230. [CrossRef]
121. FathollahZadeh Aghdam, R.; Ahmad, N.; Naveed, A.; Berenjforoush Azar, B. On the Relationship between Energy and Develop-
ment: A Comprehensive Note on Causation and Correlation. Energy Strategy Rev. 2023, 46, 101034. [CrossRef]
122. Calì, M.; Cantore, N.; Iacovone, L.; Pereira-López, M.; Presidente, G. Too Much Energy The Perverse Effect of Low Fuel Prices on
Firms. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2022, 111, 102587. [CrossRef]
123. Solarin, S.A. Towards Sustainable Development in Developing Countries: Aggregate and Disaggregate Analysis of Energy
Intensity and the Role of Fossil Fuel Subsidies. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 24, 254–265. [CrossRef]
124. Bari, T.J.; Hallager, D.W.; Tøndevold, N.; Karbo, T.; Hansen, L.V.; Dahl, B.; Gehrchen, M. Moderate Interrater and Substantial
Intrarater Reproducibility of the Roussouly Classification System in Patients with Adult Spinal Deformity. Spine Deform. 2019, 7,
312–318. [CrossRef]
125. Zhao, Y.; Shuai, J.; Wang, C.; Shuai, C.; Cheng, X.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Ding, L.; Zhu, Y.; Zhou, N. Do the Photovoltaic Poverty
Alleviation Programs Alleviate Local Energy Poverty?—Empirical Evidence of 9 Counties in Rural China. Energy 2023, 263,
125973. [CrossRef]
126. Giger, E.; Gall, H.C. Effect Size Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2013 1st International Workshop on Data Analysis Patterns in
Software Engineering (DAPSE), San Francisco, CA, USA, 21 May 2013; pp. 11–13. [CrossRef]
127. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge: London, UK, 2013.
128. Zhao, X.; Lynch, J.G.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis. J. Consum. Res.
2010, 37, 197–206. [CrossRef]
129. Nguyen, C.P.; Su, T.D. The Influences of Government Spending on Energy Poverty: Evidence from Developing Countries. Energy
2022, 238, 121785. [CrossRef]
130. Abdulkarim, U.F.; Nurudeen, S.O.; Faruk, B.U. Moderating Role of Government Intervention on the Relationship between Interest
Rate and SMES Performance; Implication on Poverty Alleviation in Zamfara State. Acad. Account. Financ. Stud. J. 2022, 26, 1–19.
131. Hong, M.P.; Wang, K.-T.; Khudoykulov, K.; Trung, L.M.; Ngo, T.Q.; Nguyen, T.T.H. Assessing Multidimensional Energy Poverty
and Its Economic Impact on N11 Countries: Mediating Role of Energy Efficiency. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 10, 900449. [CrossRef]
132. Murshed, M. An Empirical Analysis of the Non-Linear Impacts of ICT-Trade Openness on Renewable Energy Transition, Energy
Efficiency, Clean Cooking Fuel Access and Environmental Sustainability in South Asia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27,
36254–36281. [CrossRef]
133. Minuto, F.D.; Lanzini, A. Energy-Sharing Mechanisms for Energy Community Members under Different Asset Ownership
Schemes and User Demand Profiles. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 168, 112859. [CrossRef]
134. Hosier, R.H.; Dowd, J. Household Fuel Choice in Zimbabwe: An Empirical Test of the Energy Ladder Hypothesis. Resour. Energy
1987, 9, 347–361. [CrossRef]
135. Manjon, M.-J.; Merino, A.; Cairns, I. Business as Not Usual: A Systematic Literature Review of Social Entrepreneurship, Social
Innovation, and Energy Poverty to Accelerate the Just Energy Transition. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 90, 102624. [CrossRef]
136. Xu, D.; Abbasi, K.R.; Hussain, K.; Albaker, A.; Almulhim, A.I.; Alvarado, R. Analyzing the Factors Contribute to Achieving
Sustainable Development Goals in Pakistan: A Novel Policy Framework. Energy Strategy Rev. 2023, 45, 101050. [CrossRef]
137. Mehmood, A.; Moktadir, M.A.; Zhou, J.; Ren, J.; Zhang, L. Energy Sustainability Blueprint: A Critical Analysis of Macro and
Micro Influential Factors in Pakistan. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2023, 77, 101311. [CrossRef]
138. Chunling, L.; Memon, J.A.; Thanh, T.L.; Ali, M.; Kirikkaleli, D. The Impact of Public-Private Partnership Investment in Energy
and Technological Innovation on Ecological Footprint: The Case of Pakistan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10085. [CrossRef]

86
Sustainability 2024, 16, 8291

139. Masud, M.A.K.; Sahara, J.; Kabir, M.H. A Relationship between Climate Finance and Climate Risk: Evidence from the South
Asian Region. Climate 2023, 11, 119. [CrossRef]
140. Xin, Y.; Bin Dost, M.K.; Akram, H.; Watto, W.A. Analyzing Pakistan’s Renewable Energy Potential: A Review of the Country’s
Energy Policy, Its Challenges, and Recommendations. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16123. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

87
 sustainability

›’Œ•Ž
‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ž›˜™ŽŠ— —’˜—
˜ž—›’Žœȯ¢‘ ˜› ŽŠ•’¢ǵ
˜Š——Š Ž›£¢Úœ”Š ŗǰ Ș Š— ŠÙ˜›£ŠŠ •Šž’Š ž£˜ œ”Š Ř

ŗ Ž™Š›–Ž— ˜ Š‘Ž–Š’ŒŠ• ™™•’ŒŠ’˜—œ ’— Œ˜—˜–’Œœǰ ŠŒž•¢ ˜ Œ˜—˜–’Œœǰ Žœ ˜–Ž›Š—’Š—

—’ŸŽ›œ’¢ ˜ ŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ǰ ŝŗȬŘŝŖ £Œ£ŽŒ’—ǰ ˜•Š—
Ř Ž™Š›–Ž— ˜ Œ˜—˜–Ž›’Œœ Š’œ’Œœǰ —œ’žŽ ˜ Œ˜—˜–’Œœ Š— ’—Š—ŒŽǰ —’ŸŽ›œ’¢ ˜ £Œ£ŽŒ’—ǰ
ŝŗȬŗŖŗ £Œ£ŽŒ’—ǰ ˜•Š—Dz –Š•˜›£ŠŠǯž£˜ œ”Šȓžœ£ǯŽžǯ™•
Ș ˜››Žœ™˜—Ž—ŒŽDZ “˜Š——Šǯ™Ž›£¢—œ”Šȓ£žǯŽžǯ™•

‹œ›ŠŒDZ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’œ Š Œ˜–™•Ž¡ǰ –ž•’’–Ž—œ’˜—Š• ™‘Ž—˜–Ž—˜— ›Ž•ŠŽ ˜ Ž—Ȭ

Ž› ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ ’— ŸŠ›’˜žœ Šœ™ŽŒœ ˜ •’Žǯ ˜–Ž— Š›Ž ’œ™›˜™˜›’˜—ŠŽ•¢ ŠěŽŒŽ ‹¢ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ™Š¢
Š™ǰ ž—ŽšžŠ• ’—›ŠȬ‘˜žœŽ‘˜• ›Žœ˜ž›ŒŽ ’œ›’‹ž’˜—ǰ ž—™Š’ ˜–Žœ’Œ ˜›”ǰ ŒŠ›Ž’Ÿ’— ›Žœ™˜—œ’‹’•’Ȭ
’Žœǰ œ’—•Ž –˜‘Ž›‘˜˜ǰ Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— ˜› ŽžŒŠ’˜—Š• ‹Š››’Ž›œǰ Ÿ’˜•Ž—ŒŽǰ Ž—Ž› ’œŒ›’–’—Š’˜—ǰ Š—
™Ž›’˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ ˜–‹Š’— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ Š›Ž Š–˜— ‘Ž –Š’— ˜Š•œ ˜ ‘Ž ŘŖřŖ Ž—Š
˜› žœŠ’—Š‹•Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— Š˜™Ž ‹¢ ‘Ž —’Ž Š’˜—œ Ž—Ž›Š• œœŽ–‹•¢ ˜— Řś Ž™Ž–‹Ž›
ŘŖŗśǰ Š— ‘Ž’› ›ŽŠ ’–™˜›Š—ŒŽ ’œ ž›‘Ž› ‘’‘•’‘Ž ’— ‘Ž ™›ŽŠ–‹•Ž ˜ ‘Ž ›Žœ˜•ž’˜— ˜ž•’—’—
‘Ž ™•Š— ˜ ›Š—œ˜›– ˜ž› ˜›• ‹¢ ŘŖřŖǯ ‘’œ œž¢ žœŽœ  ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ ›˜– ‘Ž ž›˜œŠ ŠŠ‹ŠœŽ
˜ ŠœœŽœœ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ‘Ž ȬŘŝ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœ ’— ŘŖŘŖ ‹ŠœŽ ˜— œŽ•ŽŒŽ ’Š—˜œȬ
’Œ Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œœ –Š’—•¢ ›Ž•ŠŽ ˜  ŗ Š—  śDz ‘Ž¢ Š›Ž Š•œ˜ ›Ž•ŠŽ ˜ ˜‘Ž› ˜Š•œ žŽ ˜ ‘Ž
Œ›˜œœȬŒžĴ’— —Šž›Ž ˜ ‘Ž ˜™’Œǯ ‘Ž Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œœ Ž›Ž ›Š—œ˜›–Ž ˜ ›ŽĚŽŒ Ž—Ž› Š™œ Š— ŠȬ
Ž› Š›œ ž—’’œŽ ’‘ Š ŸŽ˜ ‘›Žœ‘˜• ’—’ŒŠ’— Ž—Ž› ‹Š•Š—ŒŽǯ ‘ŽœŽ Ž›Ž ‘Ž— žœŽ ˜ ŒŠ•Œž•ŠŽ
Š œ¢—‘Ž’Œ Š¡˜—˜–’Œ –ŽŠœž›Žǰ Š••˜ ’— ˜› •’—ŽŠ› ˜›Ž›’— Š— Œ•Šœœ’ęŒŠ’˜— ˜ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ‹ŠœŽ ˜—
‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ •ŽŸŽ•œǯ ‘Ž œž¢ Œ˜—ę›–Ž œ’—’ęŒŠ— Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ‘Ž
ȬŘŝǰ ’‘ Š Ž Šœ™ŽŒœ œ‘˜ ’— –ŠœŒž•’—’œŠ’˜—ǯ ’‘ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Šœ ˜‹œŽ›ŸŽ ’—
‹˜‘ Ž–Ž›’— Š— ŠŸŠ—ŒŽ ŽŒ˜—˜–’Žœǯ

’Š’˜—DZ Ž›£¢Úœ”Šǰ ǯDz ž£˜ œ”Šǰ Ž¢ ˜›œDZ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢Dz Ž—Ž› Š™Dz –ž•’ŸŠ›’ŠŽ Œ˜–™Š›Š’ŸŽ Š—Š•¢œ’œDz žœŠ’—Š‹•Ž
ǯ ǯ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ˜Š•œDz  ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ
ž›˜™ŽŠ— —’˜— ˜ž—›’Žœȯ¢‘ ˜›
ŽŠ•’¢ǵ žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚǯ
‘Ĵ™œDZȦȦ˜’ǯ˜›ȦŗŖǯřřşŖȦœžŗŜŗŝŝśşŚ

ŒŠŽ–’Œ ’˜›œDZ Š—˜“ ž–Š›

ŗǯ —›˜žŒ’˜—
Š••Š™Š—Ž—’ǰ ’Š—˜ ȂŠ–˜ Š— ‘Ž •ŠŒ” ˜ Š ž—’ŸŽ›œŠ••¢ ŠŒŒŽ™Ž Žę—’’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‘Šœ •Ž ˜ ’œ Ž¡Š–’—Š’˜—
Šœœ’–˜ ŠœŠ•’ ›˜– ’ŸŽ›œŽ ‘Ž˜›Ž’ŒŠ• ™Ž›œ™ŽŒ’ŸŽœǯ ˜Žœ ǯǯ ǽŗǾ ˜ž•’—Žœ œŽŸŽ›Š• Œ˜›Ž Š™™›˜ŠŒ‘Žœǰ ’—Ȭ
Œ•ž’— œž‹œ’œŽ—ŒŽ ǻ–ŠŽ›’Š• ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ǽǰ ‹Šœ’Œ —ŽŒŽœœ’’Žœǰ Š— ›Ž•Š’˜—Š• Ž™›’ŸŠ’˜—ǯ ‘Ž—
ŽŒŽ’ŸŽDZ řŖ ž•¢ ŘŖŘŚ
Ž•’—ŽŠ’— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— Ž›–œ ˜ œž‹œ’œŽ—ŒŽǰ ’ ’œ ž—Š–Ž—Š••¢ ’Ž ˜ ‘Ž ŽœœŽ—’Š• ›Žšž’›ŽȬ
ŽŸ’œŽDZ Řş žžœ ŘŖŘŚ
ŒŒŽ™ŽDZ řŖ žžœ ŘŖŘŚ
–Ž—œ ˜› ‘ž–Š— œž›Ÿ’ŸŠ•ǰ Ž—Œ˜–™Šœœ’— ‹Šœ’Œ —ž›’’˜—Š• Š— ™‘¢œ’ŒŠ• —ŽŽœǯ ‘Ž ‹Šœ’Œ
ž‹•’œ‘ŽDZ Ř Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘŚ
—ŽŽœ ™Ž›œ™ŽŒ’ŸŽ ’—Œ•žŽœ Œ•˜‘’—ǰ ŽžŒŠ’˜—ǰ ›Š—œ™˜›Š’˜—ǰ Š— ˜‘Ž› —ŽŒŽœœ’’Žœ ‹ŽȬ
¢˜— —ž›’’˜—Š• Š— ™‘¢œ’ŒŠ• Ž–Š—œǯ Ž•Š’˜—Š• Ž™›’ŸŠ’˜— ™Ž›Š’—œ ˜ Š— ’—’Ÿ’žŠ•Ȃœ
œ˜Œ’Š• œ™‘Ž›Ž Š— ‘Ž’› ’—Ž›ŠŒ’˜—œ ’‘ ‘Ž Ž—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—ǯ Ž— Š— ›žœ”¢ Ž Š•ǯ ǽŘǰřǾ ŽȬ
ꗎ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ —˜ –Ž›Ž•¢ Šœ Š •ŠŒ” ˜ ’—Œ˜–Ž ‹ž Šœ ‘Ž ’—Š‹’•’¢ ˜ •ŽŠ Š –ŽŠ—’—ž• •’Ž
˜™¢›’‘DZ Ț ŘŖŘŚ ‹¢ ‘Ž Šž‘˜›œǯ žŽ ˜ Š œ‘˜›ŠŽ ˜ ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ ›Žœ˜ž›ŒŽœǰ ‘žœ ™›˜Ÿ’’— Š –ž•’ŠŒŽŽ ™Ž›œ™ŽŒ’ŸŽ ‘Š
’ŒŽ—œŽŽ  ǰ ŠœŽ•ǰ  ’ĵŽ›•Š—ǯ ’—Œ•žŽœ œ˜Œ’Š• Š— ™˜•’’ŒŠ• ’–Ž—œ’˜—œǯ
‘’œ Š›’Œ•Ž ’œ Š— ˜™Ž— ŠŒŒŽœœ Š›’Œ•Ž ’–’•Š›•¢ǰ ‘Ž Œ˜—ŒŽ™ ˜ œžœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ œ‘˜ž• ‹Ž Š™™›˜ŠŒ‘Ž ’— Š –ž•’ŠŒŽŽ Š¢ǰ
’œ›’‹žŽ ž—Ž› ‘Ž Ž›–œ Š— Š”’— ’—˜ ŠŒŒ˜ž— ’œ ‘›ŽŽ ’–Ž—œ’˜—œDZ Ž—Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—Š•ǰ ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œǰ Š— œ˜Œ’Š• ǽŚǾǯ  ‘Ž
Œ˜—’’˜—œ ˜ ‘Ž ›ŽŠ’ŸŽ ˜––˜—œ œŠ–Ž ’–Žǰ ‘Ž ’–™•Ž–Ž—Š’˜— ˜ ‘’œ Œ˜—ŒŽ™ œ‘˜ž• ‹Ž œž™™˜›Ž ‹¢ Š—Š•¢œŽœ œ˜ ‘Š
Ĵ›’‹ž’˜— ǻ Ǽ •’ŒŽ—œŽ ǻ‘Ĵ™œDZȦȦ ’ ‹ŽŒ˜–Žœ ™›Š–Š’Œ œžœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ’— ›ŽŠ• •’Ž ǽśǰŜǾǯ ‘Ž žœŠ’—Š‹•Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ˜Š•œ
Œ›ŽŠ’ŸŽŒ˜––˜—œǯ˜›Ȧ•’ŒŽ—œŽœȦ‹¢Ȧ ǻ œǼ ˜ Ž—Š ŘŖřŖ ǽŝǰŞǾǰ Ž–™‘Šœ’œŽ ŠŒ”•’— Ž—Ž› ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— ™›˜–˜’— Ž—Ž›
ŚǯŖȦǼǯ

žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚǯ ‘™œDZȦȦ˜’ǯ˜›ȦŗŖǯřřşŖȦœžŗŜŗŝŝśşŚ 88 ‘™œDZȦȦ ǯ–™’ǯŒ˜–Ȧ“˜ž›—Š•ȦœžœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢

žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

ŽšžŠ•’¢ ǽşǾǯ Œ‘’ŽŸ’—  ŗǰ ȃ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ȅǰ –ŽŠ—œ Š›Žœœ’— ‘Ž ›˜˜ ŒŠžœŽœ ˜ Ž—Ž›Ȭ
‹ŠœŽ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ˜ Ž— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ˜› Š••ǰ ’—Œ•ž’— ˜–Ž— Š— ’›•œǯ ‘Ž ’–™•Ž–Ž—Š’˜— ˜
 śǰ ȃ Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢Ȅǰ ’œ ˜ Ž—œž›Ž ‘Ž ŠŒ‘’ŽŸŽ–Ž— ˜ Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ Š— ‘Ž Ž–™˜ Ȭ
Ž›–Ž— ˜ Š•• ˜–Ž— Š— ’›•œǰ ˜Œžœ’— ˜— ŽšžŠ• ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ŽžŒŠ’˜—ǰ ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ ˜™™˜›žȬ
—’’Žœǰ Š— ™Š›’Œ’™Š’˜— ’— ŽŒ’œ’˜—Ȭ–Š”’—ǯ žŽ ˜ ‘Ž –ž•’ŠŒŽŽ —Šž›Ž ˜ œžœŠ’—Š‹’•Ȭ
’¢ǰ ›ŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœ ˜ ‹˜‘ Š•œ˜ Š™™ŽŠ› ’— ˜‘Ž› žœŠ’—Š‹•Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ˜Š•œǯ Ž—Š ŘŖřŖ
›ŽŒ˜—’œŽœ ‘Š Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ Š— ˜–Ž—Ȃœ Ž–™˜ Ž›–Ž— Š›Ž ’—Ž›Š• ˜ Š••  œǯ Ȭ
˜›œ ˜ Œ˜–‹Š Ž—Ž› ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’—Œ•žŽ –ŽŠœž›Žœ œžŒ‘ Šœ ŽšžŠ• ™Š¢ǰ šžŠ•’¢ ŽžŒŠ’˜— Š—
‘ŽŠ•‘ŒŠ›Ž ŠŒŒŽœœǰ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ Ž–™˜ Ž›–Ž— ’— ŽŒ’œ’˜—Ȭ–Š”’—ǰ Š— Ž•’–’—Š’— Ž—Ž›Ȭ
‹ŠœŽ Ÿ’˜•Ž—ŒŽǯ
˜‘ ˜–Ž— Š— –Ž— Ž¡™Ž›’Ž—ŒŽ Ž—Ž›Ȭ‹ŠœŽ ’—ŽšžŠ•’’Žœǰ ‹ž ’ ’œ –˜œ•¢ ˜–Ž—
‘˜ ŠŒŽ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‹ŽŒŠžœŽ ˜ ’ǯ ‘Ž Ž›– ȃŽ–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ȅǰ ‘’Œ‘ ›ŽŽ›œ ˜ ‘Ž
’—Œ›ŽŠœŽ ›Ž™›ŽœŽ—Š’˜— ˜ ˜–Ž— Š–˜— ‘Ž ’–™˜ŸŽ›’œ‘Ž ˜› ŽŒ˜—˜–’ŒŠ••¢ ’œŠŸŠ—Ȭ
ŠŽǰ Šœ ˜›’’—Š••¢ Œ˜’—Ž ‹¢ ’Š—Š ŽŠ›ŒŽ ǽŗŖǾǯ — ‘Ž› ŗşŝŞ ˜›”ǰ ȃ‘Ž Ž–’—’£Š’˜— ˜
˜ŸŽ›¢DZ ˜–Ž—ǰ ˜›”ǰ Š— Ž•Š›ŽȄǰ ŽŠ›ŒŽ ‘’‘•’‘Ž ‘Š ’— ‘Ž —’Ž ŠŽœǰ  ˜Ȭ
‘’›œ ˜ ‘˜œŽ •’Ÿ’— ’— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Ž›Ž ˜–Ž— ŠŽ ŗŜ Š— Š‹˜ŸŽ ǽŗŗǾǯ ‘’œ ™‘Ž—˜–Ž—˜—
™›’–Š›’•¢ ›Ž•ŠŽœ ˜ ‘Ž ˜ŸŽ››Ž™›ŽœŽ—Š’˜— ˜ ˜–Ž— Š— Œ‘’•›Ž— ’— •˜ Ž› œ˜Œ’˜ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ
œŠžœ ›˜ž™œ Œ˜–™Š›Ž ˜ –Ž— ˜ ‘Ž œŠ–Ž œ˜Œ’˜ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ œŠžœǯ ‘Ž ŒŠžœŽœ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠȬ
’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’—Œ•žŽ ŠŒ˜›œ œžŒ‘ Šœ Š–’•¢ Š— ‘˜žœŽ‘˜• œ›žŒž›Žœǰ Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— ˜™Ȭ
™˜›ž—’’Žœǰ Ÿ’˜•Ž—ŒŽǰ ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ŽžŒŠ’˜—ǰ ‘Ž ’–™ŠŒ ˜ Œ•’–ŠŽ Œ‘Š—Žǰ ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ ’œ™Š›Ȭ
’’Žœ ŠěŽŒ’— ˜–Ž— ǻŽ–˜—˜–’ŒœǼǰ Š— ‘ŽŠ•‘ ’œ™Š›’’Žœǯ Ž›œ’œŽ— ›Š’’˜—Š• œŽ›Ž˜Ȭ
¢™Žœ ›ŽŠ›’— ˜–Ž— Œ˜—’—žŽ ˜ ‹Ž ’—›Š’—Ž ’— –Š—¢ Œž•ž›Žœǰ •’–’’— ’—Œ˜–Ž ˜™Ȭ
™˜›ž—’’Žœ Š— Œ˜––ž—’¢ ™Š›’Œ’™Š’˜— ˜› –Š—¢ ˜–Ž—ǯ ˜Š¢ǰ ‘Ž Œ˜—ŒŽ™ ˜ ‘Ž
Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‘Šœ ŽŸ˜•ŸŽ ’—˜ Š ‹›˜ŠŽ› Š— –˜›Ž Œ˜–™•Ž¡ ’ŽŠǯ  –žœ ‹Ž
Ž¡Š–’—Ž ’— ‘Ž Œ˜—Ž¡ ˜ ‘Ž œ˜Œ’Š• ’—ŽšžŠ•’’Žœ ‘Š ˜–Ž— Ž¡™Ž›’Ž—ŒŽǯ ˜–Ž— —˜
˜—•¢ ŽŠ›— •˜ Ž› ŠŽœ Š— ™Ž—œ’˜—œ ‘Š— –Ž— ‹ž Š•œ˜ ŠŒŽ ‘’‘Ž› •ŽŸŽ•œ ˜ ž—Ž–™•˜¢Ȭ
–Ž— ǻ‹Ž’— —˜ Ž–™•˜¢Ž ‹ž ŠŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜› ˜›” Š— ŠŒ’ŸŽ•¢ œŽŽ”’— ˜›”Ǽǰ ’—Œ•ž’—
•˜—ȬŽ›– ž—Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— ǻ˜› ŗŘ –˜—‘œ ˜› –˜›ŽǼǰ ‘Ž Œ‘Š••Ž—Žœ ˜ œ’—•Ž –˜‘Ž›‘˜˜ǰ
Š— ‘Ž ‹ž›Ž—œ ˜ ‘˜žœŽ‘˜• ›Žœ™˜—œ’‹’•’’Žœ ǽŗŘǾǯ
–˜— ‘Ž –˜œ Œ˜––˜— ˜›–œ ˜ Ž–Š•Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ •’Ž›Šž›Ž œž’Žœ ’—Œ•žŽDZ
• ŽŒ’œ’˜—Ȭ–Š”’— ™˜ Ž›ȯ ˜–Ž— ˜Ž— Ž¡™Ž›’Ž—ŒŽ ŽŒ’œ’˜—Ȭ–Š”’— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ –ŽŠ—Ȭ
’— ‘Š ‘Ž¢ ˜ —˜ ‘ŠŸŽ Š— ŽšžŠ• œŠ¢ ’— ŽŒ’œ’˜—œ Š‹˜ž ‘Ž’› •’ŸŽœǰ ‘Ž‘Ž› Š–’•¢ǰ
œ˜Œ’Š•ǰ ˜› ™›˜Žœœ’˜—Š• ǽŗřȮŗśǾDz
• ’œ™Š›ŠŽ ’—Œ˜–Ž ǻŽ—Ž› ™Š¢ Š™Ǽȯ’—Œ˜–Ž ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ǰ ˜Ž— ›ŽŽ››Ž ˜ Šœ ‘Ž Ž—Ȭ
Ž› ™Š¢ Š™ǰ œ’—’ęŽœ ‘Š ˜–Ž— ›ŽŒŽ’ŸŽ •˜ Ž› ŽŠ›—’—œ ‘Š— –Ž— ’— ’Ž—’ŒŠ• ˜›
œ’–’•Š›•¢ šžŠ•’ꮍ ™˜œ’’˜—œǯ ‘’œ ’œ™Š›’¢ ’— ’—Œ˜–Ž œŠ—œ Šœ Š ™›’–Š›¢ ŠŒ˜› Œ˜—Ȭ
›’‹ž’— ˜ ‘Ž ‘Ž’‘Ž—Ž ›’œ” ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š–˜— ˜–Ž—ǯ —œžĜŒ’Ž— ’—Œ˜–Ž ‘’—Ȭ
Ž›œ ˜–Ž— ›˜– ŠŒšž’›’— ŠœœŽœ Š— ›Š—œ•Š’— ‘Ž’› ꗊ—Œ’Š• ›Žœ˜ž›ŒŽœ ’—˜ œ˜Œ’Š•
Š— ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ œŠ—’—ǯ ˜›Ž˜ŸŽ›ǰ ‘’‘Ž› ’—Œ˜–Ž —˜ ˜—•¢ ™›˜Ÿ’Žœ ’—Œ›ŽŠœŽ ˜™™˜›Ȭ
ž—’’Žœ ˜› œ”’•• ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ‹ž Š•œ˜ •ŽŠœ ˜ ‘’‘Ž› ŽŠ›—’—œ ǽŗŜȮŗşǾDz
• —Ž›¢ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ȯ–ŽŠ—œ •ŠŒ” ˜ ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ŽœœŽ—’Š• Ž—Ž›¢ǰ ‘’Œ‘ ŒŠ— ŠěŽŒ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ
šžŠ•’¢ ˜ •’Ž Š— ‘ŽŠ•‘ǰ Žœ™ŽŒ’Š••¢ ’— •˜ Ȭ’—Œ˜–Ž Œ˜ž—›’Žœ Š— ’— ‘˜žœŽ‘˜•œ ‘Ž›Ž
‘Ž ˜–Š— ’œ ‘Ž ‘ŽŠ ˜ ‘Ž Š–’•¢ ǽŘŖȮŘŘǾDz
• ŠŒ” ˜ ŠœœŽœȯŠ ™›’–Š›¢ Ž•Ž–Ž— Ž¡ŠŒŽ›‹Š’— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š–˜— ˜–Ž— ’œ ‘Ž’› ›ŽȬ
œ›’ŒŽ Š‹’•’¢ǰ ™˜Ž—’Š•ǰ Š— Šž‘˜›’¢ ˜ ›ŽŠŒ‘ Š— –Š—ŠŽ ™›˜žŒ’ŸŽ ›Žœ˜ž›ŒŽœǰ
‘’Œ‘ Ž—Œ˜–™Šœœ •Š—ǰ Ž–™•˜¢–Ž—ǰ ‘ž–Š— ŒŠ™’Š• ŠœœŽœǰ œžŒ‘ Šœ ŽžŒŠ’˜— Š—
‘ŽŠ•‘ǰ Š— œ˜Œ’Š• ŒŠ™’Š• ŠœœŽœǰ œžŒ‘ Šœ Ž—ŠŽ–Ž— Š ŸŠ›’˜žœ •ŽŸŽ•œ ǽŘřǰŘŚǾǰ •ŽŠ•
Ž—’•Ž–Ž—œǰ Š— œŠŽžŠ›œ ǽŘśǾDz
• ’–Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ȯ’–Ž ’œ Š Œ˜–™˜—Ž— ’—Ž›ŠŽ ’—˜ ‘Ž Œ˜—ŒŽ™ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‹ŽŒŠžœŽ ’
›Ž™›ŽœŽ—œ Š ž—Š–Ž—Š• ›Žœ˜ž›ŒŽ ‘Š ’œ ›ŽšžŽ—•¢ ’œ›’‹žŽ ž—ŽŸŽ—•¢ Š–˜— ’—Ȭ
’Ÿ’žŠ•œǰ ™Š›’Œž•Š›•¢ ‘Ž— ˜‘Ž› ›Žœ˜ž›ŒŽœ Š›Ž ’—ŠŽšžŠŽǯ ˜–Ž— ž—šžŽœ’˜—Š‹•¢
Ž¡™Ž›’Ž—ŒŽ Š ›ŽŠŽ› œŒŠ›Œ’¢ ˜ ’–Ž Œ˜–™Š›Ž ˜ –Ž— ǽŘŜǰŘŝǾǯ ŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ ›ŽŸŽŠ•œ ‘Š ’—
Š’’˜— ˜ ‘Ž’› ™Š’ Ž–™•˜¢–Ž—ǰ ˜–Ž— Š›Ž Š•œ˜ ‘ŽŠŸ’•¢ Ž—ŠŽ ’— ›Ž™›˜žŒ’ŸŽ
Š— ž—™Š’ Šœ”œ ǻ˜–Žœ’Œ ˜›”Ǽ ǽŘŞȮřŖǾǯ ‘Ž ’œ›’‹ž’˜— ˜ ’–Ž ‹Ž ŽŽ— –Ž— Š—

89
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

˜–Ž— ’‘’— ‘Ž ‘˜žœŽ‘˜• Š— ‘Ž ‹›˜ŠŽ› ŽŒ˜—˜–¢ ’œ Š œ’—’ęŒŠ— Ž—Ž›Ȭ›Ž•ŠŽ
’œœžŽ ’— ‘Ž ˜—˜’— ’œŒžœœ’˜— ˜— ’–Ž œŒŠ›Œ’¢ǯ ’–Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ŒŠ— ‹Ž ž—Ž›œ˜˜ ’—
Ž›–œ ˜ ‘Ž ’—œžĜŒ’Ž— ŠŸŠ’•Š‹’•’¢ ˜ ’–Ž ˜› ›Žœ Š— œ•ŽŽ™ǯ ‘Ž –˜›Ž ’–Ž Ž’Ȭ
ŒŠŽ ˜ ™Š’ ˜› ž—™Š’ ˜›”ǰ ‘Ž •Žœœ ’–Ž ›Ž–Š’—œ ˜› ˜‘Ž› ŠŒ’Ÿ’’Žœ •’”Ž ›Ž•Š¡Š’˜—
Š— Ž—“˜¢–Ž—Dz
• Š™Š‹’•’¢ Ž™›’ŸŠ’˜—œȯ•ŠŒ” ˜ ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ˜™™˜›ž—’’Žœǰ ˜› Ž¡Š–™•Žǰ ŽžŒŠ’˜—Š•
Š— Ÿ˜ŒŠ’˜—Š•ǰ ŒŠ— ŠěŽŒ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ˜™™˜›ž—’’Žœ ˜› ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— Š— ‘Ž’› Š‹’•’¢
˜ ’–™›˜ŸŽ ‘Ž’› œ˜Œ’Š• Š— ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ œŠžœ ǽřŗȮřřǾDz
• Ž™›’ŸŠ’˜— ˜ ‘ŽŠ•‘ ˜žŒ˜–Žœȯ•ŠŒ” ˜ ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ‘ŽŠ•‘ ŒŠ›Žǰ ‘ŽŠ•‘ ŽžŒŠ’˜—ǰ Š— ŠȬ
ŽšžŠŽ •’Ÿ’— Œ˜—’’˜—œ ŒŠ— ›Žœž• ’— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ‘ŽŠ•‘ ˜žŒ˜–Žœ Š— ’—Œ›ŽŠœŽ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ
›’œ” ˜ ‘ŽŠ•‘ ™›˜‹•Ž–œǰ ™Š›’Œž•Š›•¢ ’— ž—Ž›ŽŸŽ•˜™Ž Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ǽřŚǾDz
• Ž›’˜ ǻ–Ž—œ›žŠ•Ǽ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ȯ•’–’Ž ˜› —˜ ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ –Ž—œ›žŠ• ™›˜žŒœǰ œŠ—’Š’˜— Š—
‘¢’Ž—Ž ŠŒ’•’’Žœǰ Š— ŽžŒŠ’˜— Š— Š Š›Ž—Žœœ ˜ –Š—ŠŽ –Ž—œ›žŠ• ‘ŽŠ•‘ ǽřśȮřŝǾǯ
‘’œ ŒŠ— ŠěŽŒ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ‘ŽŠ•‘ Š— ’—’¢ǰ Š— •˜ Ž› ‘Ž’› ’—Ÿ˜•ŸŽ–Ž— ’— ˜›” ˜›
ŽžŒŠ’˜— ǽřŞǾDz
• ˜Œ’Š• Š— Œž•ž›Š• Ž¡Œ•žœ’˜—œȯ›ŽŽ›œ ˜ Š œ’žŠ’˜— ‘Ž›Ž ˜–Ž— –Š¢ ‹Ž Ž¡Œ•žŽ
›˜– œ˜Œ’Š• Š— Œž•ž›Š• ™Š›’Œ’™Š’˜— žŽ ˜ œŽ›Ž˜¢™’—ǰ ’œŒ›’–’—Š’˜—ǰ Š— Ž—Ž›
’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ǯ ‘’œ ŒŠ— ŠěŽŒ ‘Ž’› ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ›Žœ˜ž›ŒŽœ Š— ˜™™˜›ž—’’Žœ ǽřşǾǯ
— Š—Š•¢œ’œ ˜ ˜›” ›˜– ›ŽŒŽ— ¢ŽŠ›œ œ‘˜ œ ‘Š ‘Ž  Ȭŗş ™Š—Ž–’Œ ‘Šœ œ’Ȭ
—’ęŒŠ—•¢ Ž¡ŠŒŽ›‹ŠŽ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ ’— Ž›–œ ˜ –˜œ ˜ ‘Ž ŒŠŽ˜›’Žœ –Ž—Ȭ
’˜—Ž ŽŠ›•’Ž›ǯ ‘Ž ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ ˜ —ž›— ŒŠžœŽ ‹¢ ‘Ž ™Š—Ž–’Œ ’œ™›˜™˜›’˜—ŠŽ•¢ ŠȬ
ŽŒŽ ˜–Ž—ǰ ™Š›’Œž•Š›•¢ ’— •˜ Ȭ’—Œ˜–Ž Œ˜ž—›’Žœ Š— Ÿž•—Ž›Š‹•Ž œŽŒ˜›œ •’”Ž ‘Ž œŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽ
’—žœ›¢ǰ ‘Ž›Ž ˜–Ž— Š›Ž ˜ŸŽ››Ž™›ŽœŽ—Ž ǽŚŖǾǯ ’’˜—Š••¢ǰ ‘Ž ™Š—Ž–’Œ ’—Ž—œ’ꮍ
œ˜Œ’Š• ’—ŽšžŠ•’’Žœǰ •ŽŠ’— ˜ ’—Œ›ŽŠœŽ “˜‹ •˜œœŽœ Š–˜— ˜–Ž—ǰ Š ›’œŽ ’— ž—™Š’ ˜–Žœ’Œ
˜›”ǰ Š— ›ŽŠŽ› ‹Š››’Ž›œ ˜ ŠŒŒŽœœ’— ‘ŽŠ•‘ŒŠ›Ž Š— ŽžŒŠ’˜— ǽŚŗǾǯ ‘ŽœŽ ŠŒ˜›œ ‘ŠŸŽ
Œ˜••ŽŒ’ŸŽ•¢ ŽŽ™Ž—Ž ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ’œ™Š›’’Žœ ’— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ ›Ž’—˜›Œ’— ‘Ž ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ Š— œ˜Ȭ
Œ’Š• Ÿž•—Ž›Š‹’•’’Žœ ˜ ˜–Ž— ˜›• ’Ž ǽŚŘǾǯ
‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’œ –ŽŠœž›Ž ‹¢ Š—Š•¢œ’— Ž—Ž› ’쎛Ž—ŒŽœ ’— ‘Ž Œ˜—Ȭ
Ž¡ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ǯ ‘Ž›Ž Š›Ž œŽŸŽ›Š• ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ Š— Š™™›˜ŠŒ‘Žœ žœŽ
˜ –ŽŠœž›Ž ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ ˜ŸŽ›¢ ‹ŠœŽ ˜— ’—Œ˜–Ž Œ˜–™Š›Žœ ‘Ž ’—Œ˜–Žœ
˜ ˜–Ž— Š— –Ž—ǰ ™Š¢’— ŠĴŽ—’˜— ˜ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ŽŠ›—’—œ Š™ǯ  ˜–Ž— ‘ŠŸŽ œ’—’Ȭ
’ŒŠ—•¢ •˜ Ž› ’—Œ˜–Žœ ‘Š— –Ž—ǰ ‘’œ ŒŠ— ‹Ž Œ˜—œ’Ž›Ž Š –Š—’ŽœŠ’˜— ˜ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠȬ
’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ǽŚřǰŚŚǾǯ œ’— ˜ĜŒ’Š• ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Žę—’’˜—œǰ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›ŠŽœ ˜› ˜–Ž— Š—
–Ž— ŒŠ— ‹Ž ŒŠ•Œž•ŠŽ Š— Œ˜–™Š›Žǯ  ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›ŠŽœ Š›Ž ‘’‘Ž› Š–˜— ˜–Ž—ǰ ‘Ž—
Ž ŒŠ— Š•” Š‹˜ž ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ǽŚśȮŚŝǾǯ ‘Ž ’—’ —Ž¡ –ŽŠœž›Žœ ’—Œ˜–Ž
’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ ’‘’— Š ’ŸŽ— ™˜™ž•Š’˜—ǯ  ‘’‘Ž› ’—’ Œ˜ŽĜŒ’Ž— –ŽŠ—œ ›ŽŠŽ› ’—Œ˜–Ž ’—Ȭ
ŽšžŠ•’¢ǯ ˜–™Š›’— ‘Ž ’—’ ’—Ž¡ ˜› –Ž— Š— ˜–Ž— ŒŠ— ›ŽŸŽŠ• ’—Œ˜–Ž ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢
‹Ž ŽŽ— ‘Ž Ž—Ž›œ ǽŚŞȮśŗǾǯ —Š•¢œ’— Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— Š— ž—Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— ›ŠŽœ ‹Ž ŽŽ—
Ž—Ž›œ ŒŠ— ™›˜Ÿ’Ž ’—˜›–Š’˜— Š‹˜ž ’쎛Ž—ŒŽœ ’— ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ˜›” Š— •Š‹˜ž› –Š›”Ž
Œ˜—’’˜—œ ǽśŘȮśŚǾǯ žŒŠ’˜— ’œ Š— ’–™˜›Š— ŠŒ˜› ’— Œ˜–‹Š’— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ —Š•¢œ’— ŽžȬ
ŒŠ’˜—Š• ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ œžŒ‘ Šœ ŽžŒŠ’˜—Š• ŠĴŠ’—–Ž— Š— ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ŽžŒŠ’˜— ŒŠ— ‘Ž•™ ž—Ž›Ȭ
œŠ— ‘Ž Ž¡Ž— ˜ ‘’Œ‘ ˜–Ž— ‘ŠŸŽ ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ˜˜•œ ˜ ŠŸ˜’ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ǽśśǰśŜǾǯ —Š•¢œ’œ ˜
‘ŽŠ•‘ ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ Š— ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ‘ŽŠ•‘ŒŠ›Ž ‘’‘•’‘œ ™˜œœ’‹•Ž ‘ŽŠ•‘ ’—ŽšžŠ•’’Žœ ‘Š –Š¢
’–™ŠŒ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ›’œ” ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ǽśŝȮśşǾǯ
ŠœŽ ˜— ‘Ž Š‹˜ŸŽ ’—’ŒŠ˜›œǰ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’œ –ŽŠœž›Ž ™›’–Š›’•¢ ‹¢
‘›ŽŽ ’—Ž›—Š’˜—Š• ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ ‘Š ™›˜Ÿ’Ž Œ˜–™›Ž‘Ž—œ’ŸŽ Š—Š•¢œ’œ Š— ŠŠ ˜— Ž—Ž› ’—Ȭ
ŽšžŠ•’¢ ’— ‘Ž Œ˜—Ž¡ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— ‘Ž ›˜•Ž ˜ ˜–Ž— ’— œ˜Œ’Ž¢ǯ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ŽŸŽ•˜™Ȭ
–Ž— —Ž¡ ǻ  Ǽ ’œ Š— ’—’ŒŠ˜› ŽŸŽ•˜™Ž ‹¢ ‘Ž —’Ž Š’˜—œ ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ›˜›Š–
ǻǼ ‘Š Œ˜–‹’—Žœ ‘Ž ›Š’’˜—Š• ž–Š— ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— —Ž¡ ǻ  Ǽ ’‘ Š ˜Œžœ ˜—
Ž—Ž› Š™œǯ ‘Ž  Š”Žœ ’—˜ ŠŒŒ˜ž— —˜ ˜—•¢ ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ œžŒ‘ Šœ ™Ž› ŒŠ™’Š
’—Œ˜–Ž Š— ŽžŒŠ’˜—Š• ŠĴŠ’—–Ž— ‹ž Š•œ˜ Ž—Ž› ’œ™Š›’’Žœ ’— ‘ŽœŽ Š›ŽŠœǯ ‘Ž 
‘Ž•™œ ž—Ž›œŠ— ‘˜ ˜–Ž— Š— –Ž— ™Š›’Œ’™ŠŽ ’— œ˜Œ’Š• Š— ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—
™›˜ŒŽœœŽœ ǽŜŖȮŜřǾǯ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› –™˜ Ž›–Ž— ŽŠœž›Ž ǻ Ǽ ’œ Š—˜‘Ž› ’—’ŒŠ˜› ŽŸŽ•Ȭ
˜™Ž ‹¢ ǯ  –ŽŠœž›Žœ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Šž˜—˜–¢ Š— ’—ĚžŽ—ŒŽ ’— œ˜Œ’Ž¢ǯ ‘Ž

90
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

 ŠœœŽœœŽœ Ž—Ž› ’—ŽšžŠ•’’Žœ ’— ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ™Š›’Œ’™Š’˜— ’— ™ž‹•’Œ •’Žǰ ™˜•’’Œœǰ Š— ‘Ž
ŽŒ˜—˜–¢ǯ ‘’œ ‘Ž•™œ ˜ ž—Ž›œŠ— ‘Ž Ž¡Ž— ˜ ‘’Œ‘ ˜–Ž— ‘ŠŸŽ ‘Ž ˜™™˜›ž—’¢ ˜
™Š›’Œ’™ŠŽ Š— –Š”Ž ŽŒ’œ’˜—œ ’— ‘ŽœŽ Š›ŽŠœ ǽŜŖǰŜŚǰŜśǾǯ ‘Ž ž–Š— ˜ŸŽ›¢ —Ž¡ ǻ  Ǽ
’œ Š —’Ž Š’˜—œ ’—Ž¡ ‘Š Š”Žœ ’—˜ ŠŒŒ˜ž— ŸŠ›’˜žœ Šœ™ŽŒœ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ œžŒ‘ Šœ ‘ŽŠ•‘ǰ
ŽžŒŠ’˜—ǰ Š— œŠ—Š› ˜ •’Ÿ’—ǯ — ‘Ž Œ˜—Ž¡ ˜ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ ‘Ž 
Š•œ˜ Ž¡Š–’—Žœ Ž—Ž› ’—ŽšžŠ•’’Žœ ’— ‘ŽœŽ Š›ŽŠœǯ ‘’œ Š••˜ œ žœ ˜ ž—Ž›œŠ— ‘˜ Ž—Ž›
’œ™Š›’’Žœ ŠěŽŒ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ •ŽŸŽ•œ ’— Š ’ŸŽ— ™˜™ž•Š’˜— ǽŜŜȮŜŞǾǯ
 •’Ž›Šž›Ž ›ŽŸ’Ž ˜— ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ž›˜™ŽŠ— —’˜— ǻǼ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ
›ŽŸŽŠ•œ Š Œ˜–™•Ž¡ Š— –ž•’ŠŒŽŽ ’œœžŽǯ ‘Ž Ž›– ȃŽ–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ȅ ›ŽŽ›œ ˜ ‘Ž
’œ™›˜™˜›’˜—ŠŽ ›Ž™›ŽœŽ—Š’˜— ˜ ˜–Ž— Š–˜— ‘Ž ˜›•Ȃœ ™˜˜›ǰ ˜Ž— ›Žœž•’— ›˜–
Ž—Ž›Ȭ‹ŠœŽ ’—ŽšžŠ•’’Žœ Š— ’œŒ›’–’—Š’˜—ǯ — ‘Ž Œ˜—Ž¡ ˜  Œ˜ž—›’Žœǰ ‘’œ ™‘ŽȬ
—˜–Ž—˜— –Š—’Žœœ ’œŽ• ’— ŸŠ›’˜žœ Š¢œǰ Š— ›ŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ ‘Šœ Ž¡™•˜›Ž ‘ŽœŽ ¢—Š–’Œœ Ž¡Ȭ
Ž—œ’ŸŽ•¢ǯ ‘’œ •’Ž›Šž›Ž ›ŽŸ’Ž ™›˜Ÿ’Žœ Š— ˜ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ˜ ”Ž¢ ꗍ’—œ Š— Ž¡Š–™•Žœ ›˜–
 –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœ ˜ ’••žœ›ŠŽ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ Œ˜—˜–’Œ ’œ™Š›’’Žœ Š— ‘Ž
Ž—Ž› ™Š¢ Š™ Š›Ž ™Ž›œ’œŽ— ™›˜‹•Ž–œ ’— Š••  –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœǯ ˜–Ž— Ž— ˜ ŽŠ›— •Žœœ
‘Š— –Ž—ǰ ›Žœž•’— ’— •˜ Ž› •’Ž’–Ž ŽŠ›—’—œ Š— ›ŽžŒŽ ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ œŽŒž›’¢ǯ ŽœŽŠ›Œ‘
‹¢ ‘Ž ž›˜™ŽŠ— —œ’žŽ ˜› Ž—Ž› šžŠ•’¢ ǻ Ǽ ‘’‘•’‘œ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ™Š¢ Š™ Šœ Š
”Ž¢ Œ˜—›’‹ž˜› ˜ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ‘Ž  ǽŜşǾǯ ŒŒ˜›’— ˜ ž›˜œŠǰ ˜› ‘Ž
ŽŒ˜—˜–¢ Šœ Š ‘˜•Žǰ ’— ŘŖŘŘǰ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ›˜œœ ‘˜ž›•¢ ŽŠ›—’—œ Ž›Ž ˜— ŠŸŽ›ŠŽ ŗŘǯŝƖ ‹Ž•˜
‘˜œŽ ˜ –Ž— ’— ‘Ž ž›˜™ŽŠ— —’˜— Š— ŗřǯŘ Ɩ ’— ‘Ž Žž›˜ Š›ŽŠ ǽŝŖǾǯ ‘Ž ™›˜‹•Ž– ˜ ‘Ž
Ž—Ž› ŠŽ Š™ ’—  Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ‘Šœ ‹ŽŽ— Š›ŽœœŽ ‹¢ –Š—¢ Šž‘˜›œ ǽŝŗȮŝŚǾǯ ‘˜ǰ ’—
Š’’˜— ˜ Š—Š•¢œ’— ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ™Š¢ œ’žŠ’˜— ’— ’—’Ÿ’žŠ•  Œ˜ž—›’Žœǰ Š•œ˜ œž¢ ‘Ž
’–™ŠŒ ˜ Ž•’–’—Š’— ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ™Š¢ Š™ ˜— ’—Œ˜–Ž Š— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ǽŗşǾǯ ˜–Ž— ’— ‘Ž 
Š›Ž –˜›Ž •’”Ž•¢ ˜ Ž—ŠŽ ’— ™Š›Ȭ’–Ž Š— ™›ŽŒŠ›’˜žœ Ž–™•˜¢–Ž—ǰ ‘’Œ‘ ˜Ž— •ŽŠœ ˜
ꗊ—Œ’Š• Ÿž•—Ž›Š‹’•’¢ǯ ž’Žœ ‘ŠŸŽ œ‘˜ — ‘Š ™Š›Ȭ’–Ž ˜›” ŒŠ— •’–’ ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ œ˜Œ’Š•
œŽŒž›’¢ ‹Ž—Žęœ Š— ŒŠ›ŽŽ› ŠŸŠ—ŒŽ–Ž—ǰ ‘Ž›Ž‹¢ ’—Œ›ŽŠœ’— ‘Ž ›’œ” ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ǽŝśȮŝŞǾǯ
’—•ŽȬ™Š›Ž— ‘˜žœŽ‘˜•œǰ ™›Ž˜–’—Š—•¢ •Ž ‹¢ ˜–Ž—ǰ ŠŒŽ ‘’‘Ž› ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›ŠŽœǯ ‘Ž
•ŠŒ” ˜ œž™™˜› Š— Šě˜›Š‹•Ž Œ‘’•ŒŠ›Ž œŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœ ŒŠ— –Š”Ž ’ ’ĜŒž• ˜› œ’—•Ž –˜‘Ž›œ
˜ ŽœŒŠ™Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ  œž¢ Š›˜ž— ‘Ž  ǻŠ—  Œ˜ž—›’ŽœǼ Ž¡™•˜›Žœ ‘Ž Ž¡™Ž›’Ž—ŒŽœ
˜ œ’—•Ž ™Š›Ž—œǰ Žœ™ŽŒ’Š••¢ œ’—•Ž –˜‘Ž›œ •’Ÿ’— ’— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ Š— ‘Ž’› Œ‘Š••Ž—Žœ ’— ŠŒȬ
ŒŽœœ’— œ˜Œ’Š• œŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœ ǽŝşȮŞŚǾǯ ˜–Ž— ˜Ž— ‹ŽŠ› ‘Ž ‹›ž— ˜ ž—™Š’ ŒŠ›Ž ˜›”ǰ œžŒ‘
Šœ Š”’— ŒŠ›Ž ˜ Œ‘’•›Ž—ǰ ‘Ž Ž•Ž›•¢ǰ ˜› Š–’•¢ –Ž–‹Ž›œ ’‘ ’œŠ‹’•’’Žœǯ ‘’œ ŒŠ— •’–’
‘Ž’› ™Š›’Œ’™Š’˜— ’— ‘Ž •Š‹˜ž› –Š›”Ž Š— ‘Ž’› Š‹’•’¢ ˜ ŽŠ›— Š •’Ÿ’—ǯ — Š—Š•¢œ’œ ˜
‘Ž ž—ŽšžŠ• ’œ›’‹ž’˜— ˜ ŒŠ›Ž ˜›” ’—  Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ŒŠ— ‹Ž ˜ž— ’— ǽŞśȮŞŞǾǯ —Ž›œŽŒȬ
’˜—Š•’¢ ™•Š¢œ Š Œ›žŒ’Š• ›˜•Ž ’— ž—Ž›œŠ—’— ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ ––’›Š— Š—
–’—˜›’¢ ˜–Ž— –Š¢ ŠŒŽ Œ˜–™˜ž—Ž ˜›–œ ˜ ’œŒ›’–’—Š’˜— ‘Š Œ˜—›’‹žŽ ˜ ‘Ž’›
‘’‘Ž› ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›ŠŽœ ǽŞşȮşŗǾǯ ‘Ž ŽěŽŒ’ŸŽ—Žœœ ˜ œ˜Œ’Š• Ž•Š›Ž ™˜•’Œ’Žœ ’— Š›Žœœ’— ‘Ž
Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ŸŠ›’Žœ Š–˜—  –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœǯ ŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ ˜— ‘Ž ’–™ŠŒ ˜ Ž•Ȭ
Š›Ž ™˜•’Œ’Žœ ˜— Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ ’— ’쎛Ž—  Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ’œ ’œŒžœœŽ ‹¢ ᗌ‘Ž£Ȭ˜™Ž£
Š— Ž Š£ áێ£ ǽşŘǾǰ ŒŽŸ’Ĵ ǽşřǾǰ ˜› œ—Ž› Š— Ž ’œ ǽşŚǾǯ ’‘’— ‘Ž Š—Š•¢œŽœ ˜
‘Ž ˜Œ’Š• Ž•Š›Ž ˜•’Œ’Žœ ˜ ‘Ž  Œ˜ž—›’Žœǰ ‘Ž ™›˜‹•Ž– ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š–˜— ‘Ž Ž•Ž›•¢ǰ
’—Œ•ž’— ˜–Ž—ǰ ’œ Š•œ˜ ›ŽšžŽ—•¢ ›Š’œŽ ǽşśȮşŞǾǯ
‘’œ ™Š™Ž› Š˜™œ ‘Ž Œ˜—ŒŽ™ ˜ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‹Ž’— Š –ž•’’–Ž—œ’˜—Š•
™‘Ž—˜–Ž—˜— ‘Š ’œ ›Ž•ŠŽ ˜ Ž—Ž› ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ ˜ŒŒž››’— ’— ŸŠ›’˜žœ Šœ™ŽŒœ ˜ •’Žǯ ‘Ž
™ž›™˜œŽ ˜ ‘’œ œž¢ Šœ ˜ Ž¡Š–’—Ž ‘Ž ™›ŽœŽ—ŒŽ ˜ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ž›˜Ȭ
™ŽŠ— —’˜— –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœ Š— ˜ Œ˜–™Š›Ž ’œ •ŽŸŽ• ’— ‘ŽœŽ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ‹ŠœŽ ˜— œŽ•ŽŒŽ
 ’—’ŒŠ˜›œǯ Š›’Š‹•Žœ ›˜– ‘Ž ž›˜œŠ ŠŠ‹ŠœŽ ‘Š ’›ŽŒ•¢ ›Ž™›ŽœŽ— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ Šœ
Ž•• Šœ ‘˜œŽ ‘Š ŒŠ— ’—ĚžŽ—ŒŽ ’ǰ Ž›Ž œŽ•ŽŒŽ ˜› ‘Ž œž¢ǯ ˜ –ŽŠœž›Ž ‘Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜
Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ ‘Ž žœŽ ˜ ›Š—œ˜›–Ž Ž—Ž› Š™œ Šœ ™›˜™˜œŽǯ ‘Ž œ™ŽŒ’ęŒ
˜‹“ŽŒ’ŸŽœ ˜ ‘Ž œž¢ Ž›Ž ˜ ›Š—” Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ŠŒŒ˜›’— ˜ ‘Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜
™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— ˜ Œ›ŽŠŽ Œ•ŠœœŽœ ˜ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ œ’–’•Š› ’— Ž›–œ ˜ ‘Ž’› •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜
™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ ‘Ž Ž–™’›’ŒŠ• œž¢ ŒŠ››’Ž ˜ž Š••˜ Ž ‘Ž ˜••˜ ’— šžŽœ’˜—œ ˜ ‹Ž Š—œ Ž›ŽDZ
ǻŗǼ œ ‘Ž›Ž Š Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’—  –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœǵ ǻŘǼ ¢ ‘’Œ‘ ’Š—˜œ’Œ Œ‘Š›Ȭ
ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œœ ˜Žœ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ˜ŒŒž›ǵ ǻřǼ ›Ž ‘Ž›Ž ’Š—˜œ’Œ Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œœ

91
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

‘Š Œ˜—›’‹žŽ ˜ ‘Ž –ŠœŒž•’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ˜› ‹ŽŒŠžœŽ ˜ ‘’Œ‘ ‘Ž›Ž ’œ Š Ž—Ž›

‹Š•Š—ŒŽ ’— Ž›–œ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǵ ǻśǼ ˜Žœ ‘Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ŸŠ›¢ ŠŒ›˜œœ 
–Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœǵ ǻŜǼ ‘’Œ‘ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ‘ŠŸŽ ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ Š— ‘Ž •˜ Žœ •ŽŸŽ•œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠȬ
’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǵ ǻŝǼ ‘’Œ‘ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ Š›Ž œ’–’•Š› ’‘ ›ŽŠ› ˜ ‘Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜—
˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǵ

Řǯ ŠŽ›’Š•œ Š— Ž‘˜œ

‘Ž Ž–™’›’ŒŠ• œž¢ Œ˜ŸŽ›Ž ‘Ž Řŝ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœ ˜ ‘Ž ž›˜™ŽŠ— —’˜— ǻȬŘŝǼǯ 
žœŽ œŠ’œ’Œœ œ‘˜ ’— ‘Ž œŽ•ŽŒŽ  ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ ˜› ŘŖŘŖ ‹¢ œŽ¡ ›˜– ‘Ž ŠŠ‹ŠœŽ ˜
‘Ž œŠ’œ’ŒŠ• ˜ĜŒŽ ˜ ‘Ž ž›˜™ŽŠ— —’˜—ǰ ž›˜œŠǯ ‘Ž œŽ•ŽŒ’˜— ˜ ™›’–Š›¢ ŠŠ ˜˜”
’—˜ ŠŒŒ˜ž— ‹˜‘ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ ›Ž™›ŽœŽ—’— ‘Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’›ŽŒ•¢ ǻŽǯǯǰ ‘Ž ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽ
˜ ™Ž˜™•Ž Š ›’œ” ˜ ’—Œ˜–Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ˜› Ž¡™Ž›’Ž—Œ’— œŽŸŽ›Ž –ŠŽ›’Š• Ž™›’ŸŠ’˜—Ǽ Š— ‘˜œŽ
‘Š –Š¢ Œ˜—›’‹žŽ ˜ ˜› Œ˜ž—Ž›ŠŒ ’ ǻŽǯǯǰ ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ŽžŒŠ’˜—ǰ Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— Š— ™Ž›ŒŽ—Ȭ
ŠŽ ˜ ’—ŠŒ’ŸŽ ™Ž˜™•Ž žŽ ˜ ŒŠ›’— ›Žœ™˜—œ’‹’•’’ŽœǼǯ —’ŒŠ˜›œ ˜— ‘ŽŠ•‘ ˜› ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ŠŽ›
Š— œŠ—’Š’˜— ‘Š ›Ž•ŠŽ ˜ ™Ž›’˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Ž›Ž Š•œ˜ ’—Œ•žŽ ’— ‘Ž œž¢ ǽşşǰŗŖŖǾǯ ‘Ž
™›’–Š›¢ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ Œ˜••ŽŒŽ Ž›Ž ›Ž•ŠŽ ˜ ‘Ž Ž—Š ŘŖřŖ ˜Š•œDZ  ŗ ȃ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ȅǰ
 ř ȃ ˜˜ ‘ŽŠ•‘ Š— Ž••Ȭ‹Ž’—Ȅǰ  Ś ȃžŠ•’¢ ŽžŒŠ’˜—Ȅǰ  ś ȃ Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•Ȭ
’¢Ȅǰ  Ŝ ȃ•ŽŠ— ŠŽ› Š— œŠ—’Š’˜—Ȅǰ  Ş ȃŽŒŽ— ˜›” Š— ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ ›˜ ‘ȄDz
‘Ž¢ Ž›Ž Š•œ˜ ›Ž•ŠŽ ˜ ˜‘Ž› ˜Š•œ žŽ ˜ ‘Ž Œ›˜œœȬŒžĴ’— —Šž›Ž ˜ ‘Ž ˜™’Œǯ — ˜›Ž›
˜ œŽ•ŽŒ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ ’‘ ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ ™˜œœ’‹•Ž ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŸŠ•žŽœǰ ‘Ž ™›’–Š›¢ ŠŠ œŽ Šœ
œž‹“ŽŒŽ ˜ œŽ•ŽŒ’˜— ŠŒŒ˜›’— ˜ œŠ’œ’ŒŠ• Œ›’Ž›’Š ǽŗŖŗǾǯ ˜ Ž•’–’—ŠŽ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ ’‘ •˜
ŸŠ›’Š‹’•’¢ Š— ‘˜œŽ ‘’‘•¢ Œ˜››Ž•ŠŽ ’‘ ˜‘Ž›œǰ ŒžȬ˜ě ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ŽŠ›œ˜—Ȃœ •’—ŽŠ› Œ˜›Ȭ
›Ž•Š’˜— Œ˜ŽĜŒ’Ž— Š— Œ•Šœœ’ŒŠ• Œ˜ŽĜŒ’Ž— ˜ ŸŠ›’Š’˜— ˜ Ŗǯŝ Š— ŗŖƖǰ ›Žœ™ŽŒ’ŸŽ•¢ǰ Ž›Ž
Š˜™Ž ǽŗŖŘǾǯ žŽ ˜ ‘Ž œžĜŒ’Ž—•¢ ‘’‘ Œ˜ŽĜŒ’Ž— ˜ ŸŠ›’Š’˜— ŸŠ•žŽœǰ ŽŠ›œ˜—Ȃœ Œ˜ŽĜȬ
Œ’Ž— ™›˜ŸŽ ˜ ‹Ž ‘Ž –Š’— œŠ’œ’ŒŠ• Œ›’Ž›’˜— ˜› œŽ•ŽŒ’˜—ǯ  ˜ ™›’–Š›¢ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœǰ 
ŗǯŗŖ ȃŽ›œ˜—œ Š ›’œ” ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ˜› œ˜Œ’Š• Ž¡Œ•žœ’˜—Ȅ Š—  ŗŗǯŗŗ ȃŽŸŽ›Ž ‘˜žœ’— Ž™›’Ȭ
ŸŠ’˜— ›ŠŽȄǰ ‘’‘•¢ Œ˜››Ž•ŠŽ ’‘ œŽŸŽ›Š• ˜‘Ž› ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ Š— Ž›Ž ꗊ••¢ Ž¡Œ•žŽ ›˜–
‘Ž œŽ ˜ Œ˜••ŽŒŽ œžœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ’—’ŒŠ˜›œǯ ˜ ŽŸŽ›ǰ ‘’œ ’ —˜ ›Žœž• ’— Š œ’—’ęŒŠ—
•˜œœ ˜ ’—˜›–Š’˜—ǰ Šœ ‘Ž ›Ž–˜ŸŽ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Ž  ŗǯŗŖ ’œ Š Œ˜–‹’—Š’˜— ˜ ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ 
ŗǯŘŖǰ  ŗǯřŗǰ Š—  ŗǯŚŖǰ Š— ‘Ž¢ ›Ž–Š’—Ž ’— ‘Ž ꗊ• œŽǯ
’—Š••¢ǰ ŗś ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ Ž›Ž œŽ•ŽŒŽǰ ‘Ž ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ‘’Œ‘ ˜› ‘Ž œž¢ ˜‹“ŽŒœ
ǻȬŘŝ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœǼ ‹¢ œŽ¡ Ž›Ž Œ˜••ŽŒŽ ’— –Š›’ŒŽœDZ

 ƽ ǽ¡’“ ǾŘŝ×ŗś ǰ ǻŗǼ

 ƽ ǽ¢’“ ǾŘŝ×ŗś ǰ ǻŘǼ

‘Ž›ŽDZ
’ȯ˜‹“ŽŒ —ž–‹Ž› ǻ’ ƽ ŗǰ Řǰ dzǰ ŘŝǼǰ
“ȯ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Ž —ž–‹Ž› ǻ“ ƽ ŗǰ Řǰ dzǰ ŗśǼǰ
ȯ–Š›’¡ ˜ ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ Š•• ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ ˜› ˜–Ž— Š— ˜› Š•• ˜‹“ŽŒœǰ
¡’“ ȯ‘Ž ŸŠ•žŽ ˜ ‘Ž “Ȭ‘ ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Ž ˜› ˜–Ž— Š— ˜› ‘Ž ’Ȭ‘ ˜‹“ŽŒǰ
ȯ–Š›’¡ ˜ ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ Š•• ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ ˜› –Ž— Š— ˜› Š•• ˜‹“ŽŒœǰ
¢’“ ȯ‘Ž ŸŠ•žŽ ˜ ‘Ž “Ȭ‘ ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Ž ˜› –Ž— Š— ˜› ‘Ž ’Ȭ‘ ˜‹“ŽŒǯ
‘Ž Œ˜•ž–—œ ˜ ‘Ž  Š—  –Š›’ŒŽœ Œ˜—Š’— ‘Ž ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ‘Ž ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ ˜›
Š•• ˜‹“ŽŒœ ‹¢ œŽ¡ǰ ’ǯŽǯǰ “ Š— “ ›Ž™›ŽœŽ— ‘Ž “Ȭ‘ ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Ž ˜› ˜–Ž— Š— –Ž—
›Žœ™ŽŒ’ŸŽ•¢ǯ
Š‹•Ž ŗ œž––Š›’œŽœ œŽ•ŽŒŽ ŽœŒ›’™’ŸŽ Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œœ ˜ ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ ‹¢ œŽ¡ǯ
˜œ ˜ ‘Ž ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ ǻ˜› “ ƽ ŗǰ Řǰ dzǰ ŝǰ ŗŗǰ ŗŘǰ ŗřǰ ŗśǼ Š›Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ œ’–ž•Š—œǰ
‘’Œ‘ Š›Ž ™˜œ’’ŸŽ•¢ Œ˜››Ž•ŠŽ ’‘ ‘Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ ‘Ž Œ˜–™•Ž¡ ™‘Ž—˜–Ž—˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ ‘Ž
›Ž–Š’—’— ˜ž› ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ ǻ˜› “ ƽ Şǰ şǰ ŗŖǰ ŗŚǼ Š›Ž Žœ’–ž•Š—œ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ ’ǯŽǯǰ Š›Ž —ŽŠ’ŸŽ•¢
Œ˜››Ž•ŠŽ ’‘ ‘Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ ˜œ ˜ ‘Ž ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ Š›Ž Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œŽ ‹¢
›’‘Ȭ‘Š—Ž Šœ¢––Ž›¢ǰ ‘’•Ž •ŽȬ‘Š—Ž Šœ¢––Ž›’Œ Š›Ž ‘Ž ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ ş ǰ ŗŚ ǰ Š— ş ǰ
‘’Œ‘ Š›Ž Žœ’–ž•Š—œ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ ˜–™Š›’— ‘Ž ŽœŒ›’™’ŸŽ ™Š›Š–ŽŽ›œ ˜ ‘Ž ŽŠž›Žœ
˜› –Ž— Š— ˜–Ž—ǰ ’ ŒŠ— ‹Ž œŽŽ— ‘Š ‘Ž –Ž’Š— ˜ –˜œ ˜ ‘Ž ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ ‘Šœ

92
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

•Š›Ž› ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜› ˜–Ž—ǯ ‘Ž •Š›Žœ ’쎛Ž—ŒŽ ˜ ŘŘǯř ™™ǯ ’œ ˜› ‘Ž œ’–ž•Š— ›Ž™›ŽœŽ—’—
’—ŠŒ’ŸŽ ™˜™ž•Š’˜— žŽ ˜ ŒŠ›’— ›Žœ™˜—œ’‹’•’’Žœ ǻ“ ƽ ŗŗǼǰ ˜••˜ Ž ‹¢ ŗŗǯŗ ™™ǯ ˜› ‘Ž
Žœ’–ž•Š— ˜ Ž›’Š›¢ ŽžŒŠ’˜—Š• ŠĴŠ’—–Ž— ǻ“ ƽ ŞǼǯ  œ–Š••Ž› –Ž’Š— ŸŠ•žŽ ˜› ˜–Ž—
Š™™•’Žœ ˜ ˜—•¢ ˜ž› ŽŠž›Žœ ǻ—ž–‹Ž›Ž “ ƽ Śǰ ŝǰ ŗŚǰ ŗśǼǰ ‘Ž •Š›Žœ ’쎛Ž—ŒŽ ǻŝǯŜ ™™ǯǼǰ
˜ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ’œŠŸŠ—ŠŽǰ ’œ ˜› ‘Ž Žœ’–ž•Š— ›Ž™›ŽœŽ—’— Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— ›ŠŽ ǻ“ ƽ ŗŚǼǯ
’–’•Š› ›Ž•Š’˜—œ‘’™œ Š™™•¢ ˜ ‘Ž ˜‘Ž› ™Š›Š–ŽŽ›œ ˜ ‘Ž ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ ˜› –Ž— Š—
˜–Ž—ȯ‘Ž –ŽŠ— Š— ‘Ž Ž¡›Ž–Žœǯ

Š‹•Ž ŗǯ Ž•ŽŒŽ ŽœŒ›’™’ŸŽ Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œœ ˜ ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ ‹¢ œŽ¡ǯ

“ “
“ ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Ž ǻ’— ƖǼ
ŽŠ— Ž’Š— ’— Š¡ ”Ž —Žœœ ŽŠ— Ž’Š— ’— Š¡ ”Ž —Žœœ
 ŗǯŘŖ Ž˜™•Ž Š ›’œ” ˜
ŗ ’—Œ˜–Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ŠŽ› ŗŝǯŗ ŗŜǯŝ ŗŗǯŝ ŘśǯŞ ŖǯśŚ ŗśǯř ŗśǯŖ ŝǯŘ ŘŘǯŗ ŖǯŗŖ
œ˜Œ’Š• ›Š—œŽ›œ
 ŗǯřŗ ŽŸŽ›Ž –ŠŽ›’Š• Š—
Ř Ŝǯŝ Śǯŝ ŗǯŚ ŘŜǯś Řǯŗŝ Ŝǯŗ Śǯř ŗǯś ŘŚǯŖ ŘǯŘŖ
œ˜Œ’Š• Ž™›’ŸŠ’˜— ›ŠŽ
 ŗǯŚŖ Ž˜™•Ž •’Ÿ’— ’—
ř ‘˜žœŽ‘˜•œ ’‘ ŸŽ›¢ •˜ ŝǯŜ ŝǯŜ řǯŜ ŗřǯŖ ŖǯřŜ ŝǯŘ ŝǯŘ řǯş ŗŗǯş ŖǯřŖ
˜›” ’—Ž—œ’¢
 ŗǯŚŗ — ˜›”
Ś Ŝǯş ŝǯř řǯŖ ŗŗǯŚ ŖǯŖŞ ŞǯŜ Şǯŗ řǯř ŗŞǯŗ ŖǯŝŞ
ŠȬ›’œ”Ȭ˜Ȭ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›ŠŽ
 ŗǯśŖ ˜žœ’— Œ˜œ
ś ŝǯŜ Ŝǯř ŗǯŞ řŚǯŘ řǯŘŗ Ŝǯş śǯŘ ŘǯŖ řŘǯř řǯśŗ
˜ŸŽ›‹ž›Ž— ›ŠŽ
 řǯŜŖ Ž•Ȭ›Ž™˜›Ž ž—–Ž
Ŝ —ŽŽ ˜› –Ž’ŒŠ• Ž¡Š–’—Š’˜— Řǯŝ ŗǯŝ ŖǯŖ ŗŚǯŜ Řǯřś ŗǯş ŗǯŚ ŖǯŖ ŗŗǯŗ ŘǯŝŖ
Š— ŒŠ›Ž
 ŚǯŗŖ Š›•¢ •ŽŠŸŽ›œ ›˜–
ŝ ŝǯŖ Ŝǯř ŘǯŖ ŗŜǯŜ ŗǯŖř ŗŖǯř ŗŖǯŖ ŘǯŚ ŘŖǯŘ ŖǯŘŝ
ŽžŒŠ’˜— Š— ›Š’—’—
 ŚǯŘŖ Ž›’Š›¢
Ş řśǯŖ řŝǯŝ ŗŝǯś ŚŜǯŝ −ŖǯřŘ Řŝǯř ŘŜǯŜ ŗśǯŖ ŚŖǯŘ −ŖǯŖŜ
ŽžŒŠ’˜—Š• ŠĴŠ’—–Ž—
 Śǯřŗ Š›’Œ’™Š’˜— ’— ŽŠ›•¢
ş şŖǯŚ şŘǯŖ ŝŗǯś ŗŖŖ −ŗǯŖś şŖǯŘ şŗǯŜ ŝŗǯŖ ŗŖŖǯŖ −ŗǯŖř
Œ‘’•‘˜˜ ŽžŒŠ’˜—
 ŚǯŜŖ ž• ™Š›’Œ’™Š’˜—
ŗŖ ŗŗǯř Şǯŝ ŗǯŖ řśǯś ŗǯřś ŞǯŞ ŝǯŚ ŗǯŖ ŘřǯŖ ŖǯşŜ
’— •ŽŠ›—’—
 śǯŚŖ —ŠŒ’ŸŽ ™˜™ž•Š’˜—
ŗŗ řŘǯś řŖǯŚ ŝǯś ŜŜǯŜ ŖǯřŘ ŗŘǯř Şǯŗ ŗǯś ŚŗǯŚ ŗǯŚŚ
žŽ ˜ ŒŠ›’— ›Žœ™˜—œ’‹’•’’Žœ
 ŜǯŗŖ ˜™ž•Š’˜— ‘ŠŸ’—
—Ž’‘Ž› Š ‹Š‘ǰ —˜› Š œ‘˜ Ž›ǰ
ŗŘ ŗǯş ŖǯŚ ŖǯŖ Řŗǯř řǯŝŜ ŘǯŖ ŖǯŚ ŖǯŖ Řŗǯŗ řǯśŗ
—˜› ’—˜˜› ̞œ‘’— ˜’•Ž ’—
‘Ž’› ‘˜žœŽ‘˜•
 ŞǯŘŖ ˜ž— ™Ž˜™•Ž —Ž’‘Ž›
ŗř ’— Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— —˜› ’— ŗŜǯş ŗŝǯŗ ŝǯŝ Řşǯř ŖǯřŚ ŗŗǯŗ ŗŖǯŜ śǯŖ ŘŗǯŖ Ŗǯŝş
ŽžŒŠ’˜— Š— ›Š’—’—
ŗŚ  ŞǯřŖ –™•˜¢–Ž— ›ŠŽ ŜŞǯś ŝŖǯŜ ŚŞǯŝ ŝŝǯŚ −ŗǯŘŚ ŝŞǯř ŝŞǯŘ ŜŞǯŗ ŞŝǯŘ −Ŗǯŗŗ
 ŞǯŚŖ ˜—ȬŽ›–
ŗś ŘǯŚ ŗǯŞ ŖǯŜ ŗřǯś řǯŚŜ ŘǯŘ ŗǯş Ŗǯś ŞǯŘ ŘǯřŖ
ž—Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— ›ŠŽ

— ‘Ž Ž–™’›’ŒŠ• ›ŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ ŒŠ››’Ž ˜žǰ ‘Ž ™ŠĴŽ›—Ȭ›ŽŽ –Ž‘˜ ˜ –ž•’ŸŠ›’ŠŽ Œ˜–™Š›Ȭ
Š’ŸŽ Š—Š•¢œ’œ Šœ žœŽ ˜ ŠœœŽœœ ‘Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ‘Ž ȬŘŝ –Ž–‹Ž›
œŠŽœǯ ‘Ž ›ŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ ™›˜ŒŽž›Ž ˜••˜ Ž œ’¡ œŽ™œǯ
Ž™ ŗǯ ŽŽ›–’—Š’˜— ˜ ‘Ž –Š›’¡DZ

 ƽ ǽŸ’“ ǾŘŝ×ŗś ǰ ǻřǼ

’‘ Ž•Ž–Ž—œ ›Ž™›ŽœŽ—’— Ž—Ž› Š™œ ǻŒǯ ǽŗŖřǾǼDZ


¡’“ − ¢’“ ˜› œ’–ž•Š—œ
Ÿ’“ = ǻŚǼ
¢’“ − ¡’“ ˜› Žœ’–ž•Š—œ

Š›’Š‹•Ž “ ‹Ž’— ‘Ž “Ȭ‘ Œ˜•ž–— ˜ ‘Ž  –Š›’¡ ›Ž™›ŽœŽ—œ Ž—Ž› Š™œ žŽ ˜ ‘Ž
“Ȭ‘ ’Š—˜œ’Œ Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œ ˜› Š•• ˜‹“ŽŒœ ǻȬŘŝ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœǼǯ œ ŸŠ•žŽœ ’—’ŒŠŽ ‘Ž

93
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

’›ŽŒ’˜— ˜ Ž—Ž› ’–‹Š•Š—ŒŽ ǻ™˜œ’’ŸŽ ŸŠ•žŽœ ’—’ŒŠŽ Ž–Š•Ž ’œŠŸŠ—ŠŽ Š— —ŽŠ’ŸŽ
ŸŠ•žŽœ ’—’ŒŠŽ –Š•Ž ’œŠŸŠ—ŠŽǼ ˜› ’—’ŒŠŽ Ž—Ž› ‹Š•Š—ŒŽ ǻŸŠ•žŽœ ŽšžŠ• ˜ ŖǼǯ
Ž™ Řǯ ›Š—œ˜›–Š’˜— ˜ –Š›’¡  ˜ ˜›–DZ

 ƽ ǽ£’“ ǾŘŝ×ŗś ǰ ǻśǼ

‘Ž›Ž
0 ˜› Ÿ’“ ≤ 0
£’“ = , ǻŜǼ
Ÿ’“ ˜› Ÿ’“ > 0
Ž“ŽŒ’— —ŽŠ’ŸŽ ŸŠ•žŽœ ›˜– ‘Ž –Š›’¡  ›Š—œ˜›–œ ’œ Œ˜•ž–—œ ’—˜ ‘Ž ˜›– ˜
‘Ž œ’–ž•Š—œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ǻ“ Ǽǯ
Ž™ řǯ ˜›–Š•’œŠ’˜— ˜ ‘Ž œ’–ž•Š—œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢DZ
£’“
£Ș’“ = , ǻŝǼ
–Š¡£’“
’

Ž™œ Ř Š— ř ˜Ž‘Ž› Š›Ž £Ž›˜Ž ž—’’œŠ’˜— ’‘ Š ŸŽ˜ ‘›Žœ‘˜• ŽšžŠ• ˜ Ŗ ǻŒǯ ǽŗŖŚǾǼ
Ž—˜’— Ž—Ž› ‹Š•Š—ŒŽǯ
Ž™ Śǯ ˜› ŽŠŒ‘ ˜‹“ŽŒǰ ‘Ž ŽŽ›–’—Š’˜— ˜ ‘Ž ŸŠ•žŽ ˜ ‘Ž œ¢—‘Ž’Œ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Ž ǻŠ¡˜Ȭ
—˜–’Œ œ¢—‘Ž’Œ –ŽŠœž›ŽǼǰ ‘’Œ‘ ’œ Š Ž’‘Ž Š›’‘–Ž’Œ –ŽŠ— ˜ ‘Ž ˜›– ǽŗŖśǾDZ

15
’ = ∑ Ș
“ £’“ , ǻŞǼ
“=1

‘Ž›ŽDZ
15
∑ “ = 1, ǻşǼ
“=1

ȯœ¢—‘Ž’Œ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žǰ
’ ȯŸŠ•žŽ ˜ ‘Ž œ¢—‘Ž’Œ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Ž  ˜› ‘Ž ’Ȭ‘ ˜‹“ŽŒǰ
“ ȯ Ž’‘ ˜ ‘Ž “Ȭ‘ —˜›–Š•’œŽ œ’–ž•Š— ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ

‘Ž ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ‘Ž Ž’‘œ Ž™Ž—Ž ˜— ‘Ž —ž–‹Ž› ˜ ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ ›Ž•ŠŽ ˜
ŽŠŒ‘ ˜ ‘Ž œ’¡  œ ’—Œ•žŽ ’— ‘Ž œž¢Dz ‘Ž¢ Š›Ž œž––Š›’œŽ ’— Š‹•Ž Řǯ ¢ œŽĴ’— ‘Ž
Ž’‘œ ’— ‘’œ Š¢ǰ ŽŠŒ‘ ˜ ‘Ž œ’¡  œ Šœ ŽšžŠ••¢ ŸŠ•’ ›ŽŠ›•Žœœ ˜ ‘Ž —ž–‹Ž› ˜
’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ ›Ž™›ŽœŽ—’— ’ǯ

Š‹•Ž Řǯ Ž’‘œ ˜› ›˜ž™œ ˜ —˜›–Š•’œŽ œ’–ž•Š—œ ŠŒŒ˜›’— ˜ ‘Ž ŘŖřŖ Ž—Š  œǯ

 ŗ  ř  Ś  ś  Ŝ  Ş
—ž–‹Ž› ˜ ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ ś ŗ Ś ŗ ŗ ř
Ž’‘ ˜ —˜›–Š•’œŽ œ’–ž•Š— 1 1 1 1 1 1
30 6 24 6 6 18

Ž™ śǯ ’—ŽŠ› ˜›Ž›’— ˜ ˜‹“ŽŒœ ŠŒŒ˜›’— ˜ ‘Ž ŽŒ›ŽŠœ’— ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ‘Ž œ¢—‘Ž’Œ
ŸŠ›’Š‹•Ž ǯ  ‘’‘Ž› ™•ŠŒŽ ’— ‘Ž ›Š—”’— ǻ’ǯŽǯǰ Š •˜ Ž› ›Š—” ŸŠ•žŽǼ ’—’ŒŠŽœ Š ‘’‘Ž› •ŽŸŽ•
˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— Š ’ŸŽ— Œ˜ž—›¢ Œ˜–™Š›Ž ˜ ‘Ž ˜‘Ž› ȬŘŝ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœǯ
Ž™ Ŝǯ •Šœœ’ęŒŠ’˜— ˜ ›Š—”Ž ˜‹“ŽŒœ ’—˜ ˜—Ž ˜ ˜ž› Œ•ŠœœŽœ ˜ ˜‹“ŽŒœ œ’–’•Š› ’—
Ž›–œ ˜ ‘Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢DZ

Œ•Šœœ :  + œ()< ’ ≤ 1 ǻŗŖǼ

Œ•Šœœ :  < ’ ≤  + œ (  ) ǻŗŗǼ

Œ•Šœœ :  − œ()< ’ ≤  ǻŗŘǼ
Œ•Šœœ  : 0 ≤ ’ ≤  − œ() ǻŗřǼ

94
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

‘Ž›ŽDZ
ȯŠ›’‘–Ž’Œ –ŽŠ— ˜ œ¢—‘Ž’Œ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Ž ǰ
œǻǼȯœŠ—Š› ŽŸ’Š’˜— ˜ œ¢—‘Ž’Œ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Ž ǯ
ȬŘŝ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœ ’— Œ•Šœœ ‘ŠŸŽ ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ ‘’•Ž
‘˜œŽ ’— Œ•Šœœ  ‘ŠŸŽ ‘Ž •˜ Žœǯ

řǯ Žœž•œ
— ‘Ž ꛜ œŠŽ ˜ ‘Ž Ž–™’›’ŒŠ• œž¢ ŒŠ››’Ž ˜žǰ ‘Ž ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ ˜› –Ž— Š—
˜–Ž— ™›ŽœŽ—Ž ’— Š‹•Ž ŗ Ž›Ž ›Š—œ˜›–Ž ‹ŠœŽ ˜— ˜›–ž•Šœ ǻřǼ Š— ǻŚǼǰ ŽŽ›–’—Ȭ
’— ‘Ž ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ Ž—Ž› Š™œ ǻ“ Ǽǯ Ž•ŽŒŽ ŽœŒ›’™’ŸŽ Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œœ ˜ ‘Ž ›Š—œ˜›–Ž
’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœǰ ’ǯŽǯǰ Ž—Ž› Š™œǰ Š›Ž ™›ŽœŽ—Ž ’— Š‹•Ž řǯ

Š‹•Ž řǯ Ž•ŽŒŽ ŽœŒ›’™’ŸŽ Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œœ ˜ Ž—Ž› Š™œǯ

ž–‹Ž› ˜ Š•žŽœ ˜ Ž—Ž› Š™

“ ŽŠ— Ž’Š— ’— Š¡ ”Ž —Žœœ
“ ǀ Ŗ “ ƽ Ŗ “ ǁ Ŗ
ŗ ŗǯŞ ŗǯś −Ŗǯř Śǯŝ ŖǯŜŜ Ř Ŗ Řś
Ř ŖǯŜ ŖǯŚ −ŖǯŜ ŘǯŜ ŗǯŗŘ Ś ŗ ŘŘ
ř ŖǯŚ ŖǯŚ −ŗǯŜ Řǯś ŖǯŖŘ Ş ŗ ŗŞ
Ś −ŗǯŜ −ŗǯŚ −ŝǯŝ ŗǯŘ −ŗǯŚŝ Řř ŗ ř
ś Ŗǯŝ Ŗǯş −ŖǯŞ řǯŗ Ŗǯśş Ŝ ŗ ŘŖ
Ŝ Ŗǯŝ Ŗǯś −Ŗǯř řǯś ŗǯřş ř ř Řŗ
ŝ −řǯŘ −řǯŚ −ŞǯŜ ŗǯş −ŖǯŗŖ Řś Ŗ Ř
Ş −ŝǯŝ −ŝǯŝ −ŗŝǯŞ řǯś ŖǯŖŝ ŘŜ Ŗ ŗ
ş −Ŗǯŗ −ŖǯŘ −ŗǯř ŗǯř ŖǯŚŞ ŗŜ ř Ş
ŗŖ −ŘǯŜ −ŗǯş −ŗřǯŜ ŖǯŚ −ŗǯşŜ ŘŘ ŗ Ś
ŗŗ ŘŖǯř ŗşǯş śǯŗ řŝǯŝ ŖǯŗŖ Ŗ Ŗ Řŝ
ŗŘ −Ŗǯŗ ŖǯŖ −ŗǯŘ ŖǯŘ −Řǯřś ŗŗ ŗř ř
ŗř śǯş Śǯř Ŗǯř ŗşǯŘ ŗǯŗś Ŗ Ŗ Řŝ
ŗŚ şǯŝ Şǯř ŗǯŝ ŗşǯŝ ŖǯŜŚ Ŗ Ŗ Řŝ
ŗś ŖǯŘ −Ŗǯŗ −ŗǯř śǯř řǯśŚ ŗś Ŗ ŗŘ

‘Ž ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ‘Ž “ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ ’—’ŒŠŽ ‘Ž ’›ŽŒ’˜— ˜ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ’–‹Š•Š—ŒŽǯ ›˜–
‘Ž ’—˜›–Š’˜— ’— Š‹•Ž řǰ ’ ŒŠ— ‹Ž œŽŽ— ‘Š ‘Ž ‘›ŽŽ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ ŗŗ ǰ ŗř ǰ ŗŚ ‘Š ˜—•¢
™˜œ’’ŸŽ ŸŠ•žŽœǰ ‘’Œ‘ –ŽŠ—œ ‘Š ’— Š•• ȬŘŝ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœǰ ’— ŘŖŘŖǰ ‘Ž›Ž Šœ Š ’œŠȬ
ŸŠ—ŠŽ ˜› ˜–Ž— žŽ ˜ ‘Ž ’Š—˜œ’Œ Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’ŒœDZ ’—ŠŒ’ŸŽ ™˜™ž•Š’˜— žŽ ˜ ŒŠ›’—
›Žœ™˜—œ’‹’•’’Žœǰ ¢˜ž— ™Ž˜™•Ž —Ž’‘Ž› ’— Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— —˜› ’— ŽžŒŠ’˜— Š— ›Š’—’—ǰ Ž–Ȭ
™•˜¢–Ž— ›ŠŽȯ’— ŽŸŽ›¢ Œ˜ž—›¢ǰ ‘Ž’› ŸŠ•žŽœ ǻ’— ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽǼ ˜› ˜–Ž— Ž›Ž ‘’‘Ž› ‘Š—
˜› –Ž—ǯ ‘Ž –Š¡’–ž– Ž—Ž› Š™œ ˜› ‘ŽœŽ ‘›ŽŽ ŽŠž›Žœ Ž›Ž ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ Š–˜— Š••
ŗś ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœǰ ‹Ž’— ›Žœ™ŽŒ’ŸŽ•¢DZ řŝǯŝ ™™ǯ ǻ˜•Š—Ǽǰ ŗşǯŘ ™™ǯ ǻ£ŽŒ‘’ŠǼǰ ŗşǯŝ ™™ǯ ǻ Š•¢Ǽǯ
‘Ž ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ‘Ž ˜‘Ž› Ž—Ž› Š™œ Ž›Ž ‹˜‘ ™˜œ’’ŸŽ Š— —ŽŠ’ŸŽ Š—ǰ ’— Š Ž
ŒŠœŽœǰ ŽšžŠ• ˜ £Ž›˜ǯ ‘Ž •Š›Žœ —ž–‹Ž› ǻŠœ –Š—¢ Šœ ŗřǼ ˜ ŸŠ•žŽœ ŽšžŠ• ˜ £Ž›˜ ’—’ŒŠ’—
Ž—Ž› ‹Š•Š—ŒŽ ‘Š ŸŠ›’Š‹•Ž ŗŘ ǰ –ŽŠ—’— ‘Š ’— ŗř Œ˜ž—›’Žœǰ ‘Ž›Ž Ž›Ž ŽšžŠ• ™›˜™˜›Ȭ
’˜—œ ˜ ˜–Ž— Š— –Ž— ‘ŠŸ’— —Ž’‘Ž› Š ‹Š‘ǰ —˜› Š œ‘˜ Ž›ǰ —˜› ’—˜˜› ̞œ‘’— ˜’•Ž
’— ‘Ž’› ‘˜žœŽ‘˜•ǯ ž›‘Ž›–˜›Žǰ ’— –˜œ ˜ ‘Ž ›Ž–Š’—’— Œ˜ž—›’Žœǰ –Ž— Ž›Ž Š Š ’œŠȬ
ŸŠ—ŠŽ Œ˜–™Š›Ž ˜ ˜–Ž— žŽ ˜ ‘Ž ™›ŽŸ’˜žœ•¢ –Ž—’˜—Ž ŽŠž›Ž Š— ˜—•¢ ’— ‘›ŽŽ
Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ǻžœ›’Šǰ £ŽŒ‘’Šǰ ˜–Š—’ŠǼ Šœ ‘Ž œ’žŠ’˜— ›ŽŸŽ›œŽǯ ‘Ž œ’¡ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ Ś ǰ ŝ ǰ
Ş ǰ ş ǰ ŗŖ ǰ Š— ŗś ǻ’ǯŽǯǰ Š•• ‘Ž Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œœ ’—Œ•žŽ ’— ‘Ž œž¢ Œ˜—ŒŽ›—’— ‘Ž šžŠ•’¢
˜ ŽžŒŠ’˜— Š—ǰ ’— Š’’˜—ǰ ‘Ž ˜›”ǰ ŠȬ›’œ”Ȭ˜Ȭ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›ŠŽǰ Š— ‘Ž •˜—ȬŽ›– ž—Ž–Ȭ
™•˜¢–Ž— ›ŠŽǼ ‘Š Š ™›Ž™˜—Ž›Š—ŒŽ ˜ —ŽŠ’ŸŽ ŸŠ•žŽœ ǻ‹Ž ŽŽ— ŗŜ Š— ŘŜǼ ’—’ŒŠ’—
‘Š –Ž— Ž›Ž Ž—Ž›Š••¢ ˜›œŽ ˜ě ’— Ž›–œ ˜ ‘ŽœŽ Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œœǯ  œ‘˜ž• ‹Ž œ›ŽœœŽ
‘Š ‘Ž›Ž Ž›Ž —˜ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ ›Ž™›ŽœŽ—’— Ž—Ž› Š™œ ’‘ Š•• —ŽŠ’ŸŽ ŸŠ•žŽœǰ ’ǯŽǯǰ ŸŠ›’Ȭ
Š‹•Žœ žŽ ˜ ‘’Œ‘ –Ž— ˜ž• Š• Š¢œ ‹Ž ’œŠŸŠ—ŠŽǯ ‘Ž Œ•˜œŽœ ˜ ‘’œ Šœ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Ž
Ş ȯ˜—•¢ ’— ˜—Ž Œ˜ž—›¢ ǻ Ž›–Š—¢Ǽ Šœ ‘Ž ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽ ˜ Ž–Š•Ž Ž›’Š›¢ ŽžŒŠ’˜—Š• ŠȬ
Š’—–Ž— •˜ Ž› ‘Š— ‘Ž Œ˜››Žœ™˜—’— ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽ ˜ –Š•Žœ ǻ‹¢ řǯś ™™ǯǼǯ

95
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

— ‘Ž —Ž¡ œŠŽ ˜ ‘Ž Ž–™’›’ŒŠ• ›ŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ǰ ‘Ž ›Š—œ˜›–Ž ’Š—˜œ’Œ Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œȬ
’Œœ ǻŽ—Ž› Š™œ “ Ǽ Ž›Ž œž‹“ŽŒŽ ˜ ž—’’œŠ’˜— ’‘ Š ŸŽ˜ ‘›Žœ‘˜• Ž—˜’— Ž—Ž›
‹Š•Š—ŒŽ ǻ˜›–ž•Šœ ǻśǼȮǻŝǼǼǰ ž›’— ‘’Œ‘ œ’–ž•Š—œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ǻ“ Ǽ Ž›Ž
ŽŽ›–’—Žǯ — Š›ŽŠŽ œ¢—‘Ž’Œ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Ž ǻ˜›–ž•Šœ ǻŞǼ Š— ǻşǼǼ Šœ ‘Ž— ŽŽ›–’—Žǰ
˜— ‘Ž ‹Šœ’œ ˜ ‘’Œ‘ ‘Ž ȬŘŝ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœ Ž›Ž ›Š—”Ž Š— ’Ÿ’Ž ’—˜ ˜ž› Œ•ŠœœŽœ
ǻ˜›–ž•Šœ ǻŗŖǼȮǻŗřǼǼ ŠŒŒ˜›’— ˜ ‘Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ŘŖŘŖǯ ‘Ž ›Žœž•œ
˜‹Š’—Ž Š›Ž ™›ŽœŽ—Ž ’— Š‹•Ž Śǯ

Š‹•Ž Śǯ Š•žŽœ ˜ ‘Ž Š¡˜—˜–’Œ œ¢—‘Ž’Œ –ŽŠœž›Žǰ ›Š—”’— Š— Œ•Šœœ’ęŒŠ’˜— ˜ ‘Ž ȬŘŝ –Ž–Ȭ
‹Ž› œŠŽœǯ

’ ȬŘŝ Ž–‹Ž› ŠŽ ’ Š—” •Šœœ

ŗ žœ›’Š ŖǯŘŖŗŘ ŗŝ
Ř Ž•’ž– ŖǯŗřŝŜ ŘŚ
ř ž•Š›’Š ŖǯŘŗŚŞ ŗŚ
Ś ›˜Š’Š ŖǯŗşŗŚ ŗŞ
ś ¢™›žœ ŖǯŘŚŘŜ ş
Ŝ £ŽŒ‘’Š ŖǯřŜśś Ś
ŝ Ž—–Š›” ŖǯŗŖŖŚ Řś 
Ş œ˜—’Š ŖǯřşŖŘ ř
ş ’—•Š— ŖǯŗŚŚř Řř
ŗŖ ›Š—ŒŽ ŖǯŘŖŘŞ ŗŜ
ŗŗ Ž›–Š—¢ ŖǯŘŜŞŖ Ş
ŗŘ ›ŽŽŒŽ ŖǯśśŜŗ Ř
ŗř ž—Š›¢ ŖǯŘŘŝŘ ŗř
ŗŚ ›Ž•Š— ŖǯŘřŝŝ ŗŖ
ŗś Š•¢ ŖǯřŖŗŚ Ŝ
ŗŜ ŠŸ’Š Ŗǯřŗşř ś
ŗŝ ’‘žŠ—’Š ŖǯŗŞśŝ ŘŖ
ŗŞ ž¡Ž–‹˜ž› Ŗǯŗŝśř Řŗ
ŗş Š•Š ŖǯŘřŜŝ ŗŗ
ŘŖ Ž‘Ž›•Š—œ ŖǯŖŞŜş ŘŜ 
Řŗ ˜•Š— ŖǯŘşŝŚ ŝ
ŘŘ ˜›žŠ• ŖǯŘŗŖŗ ŗś
Řř ˜–Š—’Š ŖǯśśşŞ ŗ
ŘŚ •˜ŸŠ”’Š ŖǯŘřŖř ŗŘ
Řś •˜ŸŽ—’Š Ŗǯŗŝřş ŘŘ
ŘŜ ™Š’— ŖǯŗşŖŘ ŗş
Řŝ  ŽŽ— ŖǯŖŞŘś Řŝ 

‘Ž ’—˜›–Š’˜— ’— Š‹•Ž Ś œ‘˜ œ ‘Š ’— Œ•Šœœ ˜ ‘Ž ȬŘŝ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ’‘ ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ
•ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ŘŖŘŖ ’— Ž›–œ ˜ ‘Ž ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ ’—Œ•žŽ ’— ‘Ž œž¢ǰ
‘Ž›Ž Ž›Ž ˜ž› Œ˜ž—›’Žœǰ —Š–Ž•¢ ˜–Š—’Š ǻŗœ ™•ŠŒŽ ’— ‘Ž ›Š—”’—Ǽǰ ›ŽŽŒŽ ǻؗǼǰ œ˜—’Š
ǻř›Ǽǰ Š— £ŽŒ‘’Š ǻŚ‘Ǽǯ ˜› ‘ŽœŽ Œ˜ž—›’Žœǰ –˜œ ˜ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› Š™œ Š— ‘Ž›Ž˜›Ž Š•œ˜ ‘Ž
œ’–ž•Š—œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‘Š ™˜œ’’ŸŽ ŸŠ•žŽœ Ž—˜’— ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ’œŠŸŠ—ŠŽǰ
’‘ œ’¡ ˜ ‘Ž– ›ŽŠŒ‘’— ‘Ž’› –Š¡’–ž–ǯ ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’—
˜–Š—’Š Šœ ŽŽ›–’—Ž ‹¢ ‘Ž ‘’‘ ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ –˜œ ˜ ‘Ž œ’–ž•Š—œ ǻ‘’‘Ž› ‘Š— ‘Ž’›
ŠŸŽ›ŠŽ ŸŠ•žŽœǼȯŠœ –Š—¢ Šœ ŗŖ ˜ ‘Ž– ‘Š ™˜œ’’ŸŽ ŸŠ•žŽœ ’—’ŒŠ’— ‘Ž ’œŠŸŠ—ŠŽ
˜ ˜–Ž—ǯ — Š’’˜—ǰ ˜–Š—’Š ‘Š ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ ŝ ǻŗǯş ™™ǯǼ Š— ŗŘ
ǻŖǯŘ ™™ǯǼ Š–˜— Š•• ‘Ž Œ˜ž—›’Žœ œž’Žǯ ›ŽŽŒŽǰ ‘’Œ‘ ›Š—”Ž œŽŒ˜—ǰ ‘Š ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ
ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ‘Ž  ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ȭ’—žŒ’— ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ ř ǻŘǯś ™™ǯǼ Š— ŗś ǻśǯř ™™ǯǼ Š–˜— ‘Ž Ȭ
Řŝ Œ˜ž—›’Žœǯ œ˜—’Š Š— £ŽŒ‘’Š ‘Š ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ‘Ž ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ Ŝ ǻřǯś ™™ǯǼ Š—
ŗř ǻŗşǯŘ ™™ǯǼǯ — ›ŽŽŒŽ Š— £ŽŒ‘’Šǰ –˜›Ž˜ŸŽ›ǰ ‘Ž •Š›Žœ —ž–‹Ž› ǻŠœ –Š—¢ Šœ ŗŗǼ ˜ ‘Ž
œ’–ž•Š—œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‘Š ™˜œ’’ŸŽ ŸŠ•žŽœǯ
’ŸŽ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ Ž›Ž ’— Œ•Šœœ ’‘ Š ‘’‘ –’•Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢DZ
ŠŸ’Šǰ Š•¢ǰ ˜•Š—ǰ Ž›–Š—¢ǰ ¢™›žœǯ ˜› ‘ŽœŽ Œ˜ž—›’Žœǰ ‘Ž œ’¡ œ’–ž•Š—œ ˜ Ž–’Ȭ
—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›ŽŠŒ‘Ž ‘Ž’› –Š¡’–ž–ǯ ŠŸ’Š ǻś‘Ǽ ‘Š ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ ŸŠ•žŽ ˜ ‘Ž Ś

96
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

œ’–ž•Š— ǻŗǯŘ ™™ǯǼǰ Š•¢ ǻŜ‘Ǽȯş ǻŗǯř ™™ǯǼ Š— ŗŚ ǻŗşǯŝ ™™ǯǼǰ ˜•Š— ǻŝ‘Ǽȯŗŗ ǻřŝǯŝ ™™ǯǼǰ
Ž›–Š—¢ ǻޝ‘ǼȯŞ ǻřǯś ™™ǯǼǰ Š— ¢™›žœ ǻş‘ǼȯŗŖ ǻŖǯŚ ™™ǯǼǯ
•Šœœ ǰ ’‘ Š •˜ –’•Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ Šœ ‘Ž –˜œ —ž–Ž›˜žœǰ
’‘ Šœ –Š—¢ Šœ ꏝŽŽ— Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ’— ’ǯ —•¢ ‘Ž •Šœ ‘›ŽŽ œ’–ž•Š—œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜
™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›ŽŠŒ‘Ž ‘Ž’› –Š¡’–ž– ‘Ž›ŽDZ ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ œ’–ž•Š—œ Ř ǻŘǯŜ ™™ǯǼ Š—
ś ǻřǯŗ ™™ǯǼ Ž›Ž ˜› ž•Š›’Š ǻŗŚ‘ ™•ŠŒŽ ’— ‘Ž ›Š—”’—Ǽ Š— ŗ ǻŚǯŝ ™™ǯǼ ˜› ’‘žŠ—’Š ǻŘŖ‘
™•ŠŒŽǼǯ ‘Ž •Šœ ™•ŠŒŽœ ’— ‘’œ Œ•Šœœ ǻŘŗœȮŘŚ‘Ǽ Ž›Ž ˜ŒŒž™’Ž ‹¢ ž¡Ž–‹˜ž›ǰ •˜ŸŽ—’Šǰ
’—•Š—ǰ Š— Ž•’ž–ǰ ›Žœ™ŽŒ’ŸŽ•¢ǯ
— Œ•Šœœ  ˜ ‘Ž ȬŘŝ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ‘ŠŸ’— ‘Ž •˜ Žœ •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢
’— ŘŖŘŖǰ ‘›ŽŽ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ Š›Ž ›Š—”ŽDZ Ž—–Š›” ǻŘś‘Ǽǰ Ž‘Ž›•Š—œ ǻŘŜ‘Ǽǰ  ŽŽ— ǻŘŝ‘Ǽǯ
˜› Ž‘Ž›•Š—œ Š—  ŽŽ—ǰ ‘Ž Š¡˜—˜–’Œ œ¢—‘Ž’Œ –ŽŠœž›Žœ Ž›Ž œ’–’•Š›ǰ ‘Ž’› •˜ Žœ
ŸŠ•žŽœ ‹Ž’— ŽŽ›–’—Ž ‹¢ ‘Ž ŸŽ›¢ œ–Š•• ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ Š•• œ’–ž•Š—œǰ ’‘ Šœ –Š—¢ Šœ œŽŸŽ—
‘ŠŸ’— ŸŠ•žŽœ ŽšžŠ• ˜ Ŗǯ
‘Ž œ™Š’Š• ’œ›’‹ž’˜— ˜ ‘Ž ȬŘŝ Œ˜ž—›¢ Œ•ŠœœŽœ ’œ œ‘˜ — ’— ’ž›Ž ŗǯ

FODVV,
FODVV,,
FODVV,,,
FODVV,9

’ž›Ž ŗǯ ™Š’Š• ’œ›’‹ž’˜— ˜ ‘Ž ȬŘŝ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽ Œ•ŠœœŽœǯ

‘Ž ŠŸŽ›ŠŽ ŸŠ•žŽ ˜ ‘Ž Š¡˜—˜–’Œ œ¢—‘Ž’Œ –ŽŠœž›Ž Šœ ‘’‘Žœ ’— Œ•Šœœ ’‘ ‘Ž
‘’‘Žœ •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š ŖǯŚŜŞǰ ’— œž‹œŽšžŽ— Œ•ŠœœŽœ ’ ŽŒ›ŽŠœŽ ˜ ›ŽŠŒ‘
Š ŸŠ•žŽ ˜ ŖǯŖşŖ ’— Œ•Šœœ  ’‘ ‘Ž •˜ Žœ •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ǻŠ‹•Ž ŚǼǯ ’–’Ȭ
•Š›•¢ǰ ’— –˜œ ŒŠœŽœǰ ‘Ž ŠŸŽ›ŠŽ ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ œ’–ž•Š—œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Ž›Ž ‘’‘Ȭ
Žœ ’— Œ•Šœœ Š— ’— ‘Ž œž‹œŽšžŽ— Œ•ŠœœŽœ Ž›Ž ’—Œ›ŽŠœ’—•¢ œ–Š••Ž›ǯ ‘Ž Ž¡ŒŽ™’˜—œ Ž›Ž
ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ Ř ǰ Ş ǰ ş ǰ Š— ŗŘ ǰ ‹ž ‘Ž ’쎛Ž—ŒŽœ ‹Ž ŽŽ— ‘Ž’› –ŽŠ— ŸŠ•žŽœ ’— ŽŠŒ‘ Œ•Šœœ
Ž›Ž ’—œ’—’ęŒŠ—ǯ ˜–Ž ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœǰ Žœ™ŽŒ’Š••¢ ‘˜œŽ ›Ž•ŠŽ ˜ ‘Ž šžŠ•’¢ ˜ ŽžŒŠ’˜—ǰ ‘Š
‘Ž Ž Žœ ™˜œ’’ŸŽ ŸŠ•žŽœ ǻŽ—˜’— ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ’œŠŸŠ—ŠŽǼ ˜ Š•• ‘Ž ŸŠ›’Š‹•ŽœDZ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Ž
Ş ‘Š ˜—•¢ ˜—Ž ŸŠ•žŽ ’쎛Ž— ›˜– £Ž›˜ ǻ˜› Ž›–Š—¢Ǽǰ ŝ ȯ ˜ ǻ˜–Š—’Šǰ £ŽŒ‘’ŠǼǰ
Ś ȯ‘›ŽŽ ǻ£ŽŒ‘’Šǰ ŠŸ’Šǰ Ž•’ž–Ǽǰ ŗŘ ȯ‘›ŽŽ ǻ˜–Š—’Šǰ £ŽŒ‘’Šǰ žœ›’ŠǼǰ ŗŖ ȯ˜ž›
ǻ ›ŽŽŒŽǰ £ŽŒ‘’Šǰ Ž›–Š—¢ǰ ¢™›žœǼǯ  ŒŠ— ‹Ž œŽŽ— ‘Š –˜œ ˜ ‘Ž Œ˜ž—›’Žœ –Ž—’˜—Ž
‹Ž•˜—Ž ˜ Œ•Šœœ Š— Œ•Šœœ ǰ ˜—•¢ žœ›’Š Š— Ž•’ž– Ž›Ž ›˜– Œ•Šœœ ǯ ‘Ž ŠŸŽ›Ȭ
ŠŽ ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ‘Ž œŽ•ŽŒŽ œ’–ž•Š—œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ŽŠŒ‘ Œ•Šœœ Š›Ž œ‘˜ — ’—
’ž›Ž Řǯ

97
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

ĐůĂƐƐ/ ĐůĂƐƐ// ĐůĂƐƐ/// ĐůĂƐƐ/s

Ϯϴ͘ϲϴ
Ϯϲ͘ϮϮ
ϭϴ͘ϲϴ

ϭϰ͘ϲϬ
ϭϭ͘ϱϴ
ϴ͘ϯϵ
ϲ͘ϵϳ

ϲ͘ϵϯ
Ϯ͘ϲϴ
Ϯ͘ϰϮ

Ϯ͘Ϭϯ
ϭ͘ϱϱ
ϭ͘ϬϬ

Ϭ͘ϳϰ
Ϭ͘ϱϵ

Ϭ͘ϱϬ

Ϭ͘Ϭϳ
Ϭ͘Ϭϯ

Ϭ͘Ϭϭ
Ϭ͘ϬϬ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϬϬ
Ϭ͘ϬϬ

Ϭ͘ϬϬ
ϭ ϲ ϳ ϭϭ ϭϮ ϭϰ

’ž›Ž Řǯ ŸŽ›ŠŽ ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ œŽ•ŽŒŽ œ’–ž•Š—œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ǻ’— ™™ǯǼ ’— Œ•ŠœœŽœ Ȯ ǯ

Śǯ ’œŒžœœ’˜—
‘Ž ›Ž•Š’ŸŽ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’—’ŒŠ˜›  žœŽ ’— ‘Ž Ž–™’›’ŒŠ• œž¢ ǻ ’—’ŒŠ˜› ŗǯŘŖ
›˜– ‘Ž ž›˜œŠ ŠŠ‹ŠœŽǼ Ž¡™›ŽœœŽœ ‘Ž ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽ ˜ ™Ž˜™•Ž Š ›’œ” ˜ ’—Œ˜–Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢
’‘ ‘Ž ŒžȬ˜ě ™˜’— œŽ Š ŜŖƖ ˜ –Ž’Š— Žšž’ŸŠ•’œŽ ’—Œ˜–Ž ŠŽ› œ˜Œ’Š• ›Š—œŽ›œǯ ›˜–
’œ ™›Ž•’–’—Š›¢ Š—Š•¢œ’œǰ ’ ŒŠ— Š•›ŽŠ¢ ‹Ž œŽŽ— ‘Š ’— ŘŖŘŖ ’— ‘Ž ȬŘŝǰ ˜–Ž— Ž›Ž
˜›œŽ ˜ě ˜— ŠŸŽ›ŠŽ ‘Š— –Ž—ȯŗŝǯŚƖ ˜ ˜–Ž— Ž›Ž Š ›’œ” ˜ –˜—ŽŠ›¢ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ ‘’•Ž
‘Ž Œ˜››Žœ™˜—’— ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽ ˜› –Ž— Šœ ŗśǯŞƖǯ ˜ ŽŸŽ›ǰ ‘Ž  ’—’ŒŠ˜› ’œ —˜ ‘Ž
˜—•¢ –ŽŠœž›Ž ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ž›˜™ŽDz ’— Š’’˜— ˜ ’ǰ ž›˜œŠȂœ ŠŠ‹ŠœŽ ˜—  ŗ Œ˜—Ȭ
Š’—œ —’—Ž –˜›Ž ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›ŽžŒ’˜— ǻŠ•œ˜ •’—”Ž ˜ ˜‘Ž›  œǼ –Š’—•¢ ›˜–
‘Ž ž›ŸŽ¢ ˜— —Œ˜–Ž Š— ’Ÿ’— ˜—’’˜—œǰ Ȭ  ǽŗŖŜǾǯ Ž•ŽŒŽ ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ ›˜– ‘Ž
ž›˜œŠ ŠŠ‹ŠœŽ ˜—  ŗ Ž›Ž žœŽǰ Š–˜— ˜‘Ž›œǰ ‹¢ ’ ˜ Š› Š— £’”ž° ’— ‘Ž’›
œž¢ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— œ˜Œ’Š• Ž¡Œ•žœ’˜— ’— ‘Ž ’œŽ›Š ›˜ž™ ˜ž—›’Žœ ǽŗŖŝǾǰ ˜–™˜•œ”ŠȬ
£ŽŒ‘žÙŠ Š— ž›¢ïȬ ž“Š œ”Š ˜› ‘Ž ŠœœŽœœ–Ž— ˜ ‘Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— 
Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ǽŗŖŞǾǰ ­” Š— Ž›£¢Úœ”Š ’— ‘Ž’› œž¢ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— œ˜Œ’Š• Ž¡Œ•žœ’˜— ’—
ȬŘŞ ǽŗŖşǾǯ ‘’œ ™Š™Ž› ™›˜™˜œŽœ ‘Š ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ ›˜– ‘Ž ž›˜œŠ ŠŠ‹ŠœŽ ˜— ’쎛Ž—
˜Š•œ ŒŠ— ‹Ž žœŽ ˜ ŠœœŽœœ ‘Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ȬŘŝ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœǯ
ŒŒ˜›’— ˜ ‘Ž œž¢ǰ ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ŘŖŘŖ Šœ ’— ˜Ȭ
–Š—’Šǰ ˜› ‘’Œ‘ Šœ –Š—¢ Šœ ŗŖ ˜ ‘Ž ŗś œ’–ž•Š—œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‘Š ŸŠ•žŽœ
›ŽŠŽ› ‘Š— ‘Ž’› –ŽŠ— ŸŠ•žŽœǰ ’—Œ•ž’— ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ ŸŠ•žŽœ Š–˜— Š•• Œ˜ž—›’Žœ œž›ŸŽ¢Ž
˜› ‘Ž ’쎛Ž—ŒŽœ ‹Ž ŽŽ— ‘Ž ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽœ ˜› ˜–Ž— Š— –Ž— ŽŠ›•¢ •ŽŠŸŽ›œ ›˜– ŽžȬ
ŒŠ’˜— Š— ›Š’—’— ǻŗǯş ™™ǯǼ Š— ‘ŠŸ’— —Ž’‘Ž› Š ‹Š‘ǰ —˜› Š œ‘˜ Ž›ǰ —˜› ’—˜˜› ̞œ‘’—
˜’•Ž ’— ‘Ž’› ‘˜žœŽ‘˜• ǻŖǯŘ ™™ǯǼǯ •‘˜ž‘ ‘Ž •ŠĴŽ› ŸŠ•žŽ ’œ —˜ ŸŽ›¢ •Š›Žǰ ’ œ‘˜ž•
‹Ž —˜Ž ‘Š ˜—•¢ ’—  ˜ –˜›Ž Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ‹Žœ’Žœ ˜–Š—’Š ǻ ›ŽŽŒŽ Š— žœ›’ŠǼ Šœ ‘Ž
™›˜™˜›’˜— ˜ ˜–Ž— ‘˜ ’ —˜ ‘ŠŸŽ ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ŠŽ› Š— œŠ—’Š’˜— ›ŽŠŽ› ‘Š— ‘Ž
Œ˜››Žœ™˜—’— ™›˜™˜›’˜— ˜ –Ž—ȯŠ— ‘’œ ’Š—˜œ’Œ Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œ ’œ ’–™˜›Š— Šœ ˜—Ž
˜ ‘Ž ŒŠžœŽœ ˜ ™Ž›’˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ ‘Ž Š—Š•¢œ’œ ˜ ‘Ž  ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ ǻ’ǯŽǯǰ ž—›Š—œ˜›–Ž
’Š—˜œ’Œ Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’ŒœǼ ‹¢ œŽ¡ ž›‘Ž› œ‘˜ œ ‘Š ˜–Š—’Š Šœ Š•œ˜ ‘Ž Œ˜ž—›¢ ’‘
‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ ™›˜™˜›’˜—œ ˜ ˜–Ž— ’‘ —˜ ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ŠŽ› Š— œŠ—’Š’˜— ǻŘŗǯřƖǼǰ ŽŠ›•¢
•ŽŠŸŽ›œ ›˜– ŽžŒŠ’˜— Š— ›Š’—’— ǻŗŜǯŜƖǼǰ Š— Ž¡™Ž›’Ž—Œ’— œŽŸŽ›Ž –ŠŽ›’Š• Š— œ˜Œ’Š•
Ž™›’ŸŠ’˜— ǻŘŜǯśƖǼ ŠŒ›˜œœ ‘Ž ž›˜™ŽŠ— —’˜—ǯ ‘Ž ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽ ˜ ˜–Ž— Š ›’œ” ˜ ’—Ȭ
Œ˜–Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ŠŽ› œ˜Œ’Š• ›Š—œŽ›œ ’— ˜–Š—’Š Šœ ‘Ž œŽŒ˜— ‘’‘Žœ Š–˜— ‘Ž ȬŘŝ
Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ǻŘŚǯŜƖǼǯ ŒŒ˜›’— ˜ ž›˜œŠ ŠŠǰ ‘Ž ›ŽžŒ’˜— ’— ‘Ž ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽ ˜ ‘Ž ›’œ”
˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›ŠŽǰ žŽ ˜ œ˜Œ’Š• ›Š—œŽ›œ ǻŽ¡Œ•ž’— ™Ž—œ’˜—œǼ ’— ˜–Š—’Š Šœ ˜—•¢ ŗśǯŞƖ ˜›
˜–Ž— Š— ‘’œ Šœ ‘Ž •˜ Žœ ŸŠ•žŽ ’— ‘Ž ȬŘŝǯ
‘Ž› ȬŘŝ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœ ‘ŠŸ’— ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’—
ŘŖŘŖ Š›Ž ›ŽŽŒŽǰ œ˜—’Šǰ Š— £ŽŒ‘’Šǯ — ›ŽŽŒŽǰ ›Ž™›ŽœŽ—’— ‘Ž œ˜ž‘Ž›— ž›˜™ŽŠ—
–˜Ž• ˜ œ˜Œ’Š• ™˜•’Œ¢ǰ ž—Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— ‹Ž—Žęœ Š›Ž •˜ Š— ™Ž˜™•Ž ’— —ŽŽ ‘ŠŸŽ ˜ ›Ž•¢
˜— Š–’•¢ ǽşŞǾǯ ŽŠ— ‘’•Žǰ ‘Ž Œ˜ž—›¢ ‘Š ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ Ž—Ž› Š™ Š–˜— ‘Ž ȬŘŝ
–Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœ ˜› ˜–Ž— Š— –Ž— •’Ÿ’— ’— ‘˜žœŽ‘˜•œ ’‘ ŸŽ›¢ •˜ ˜›” ’—Ž—œ’¢

98
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

ǻŘǯś ™™ǯǼ Š— ‘˜œŽ ’— •˜—ȬŽ›– ž—Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— ǻśǯř ™™ǯǼǯ —Š•¢œ’œ ˜ ‘Ž  œ ‹¢ œŽ¡
ž›‘Ž› œ‘˜ œ ‘Š ›ŽŽŒŽ Šœ Š•œ˜ ‘Ž Œ˜ž—›¢ ’‘ ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ —ž–‹Ž› ˜ ˜–Ž— ˜
Š•• ȬŘŝ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ •’Ÿ’— ’— ‘˜žœŽ‘˜•œ ’‘ ŸŽ›¢ •˜ ˜›” ’—Ž—œ’¢ ǻŗřƖǼǰ •˜—ȬŽ›–
ž—Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— ǻŗřǯśƖǼǰ Š— ’— Š’’˜—ǰ ‘˜žœ’— Œ˜œ ˜ŸŽ›‹ž›Ž— ǻřŚǯŘƖǼǯ  ‘Ž œŠ–Ž
’–Žǰ ›ŽŽŒŽ ‘Š ‘Ž •˜ Žœ ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜›  ˜ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ ‘Š ŒŠ— Ž¡ŠŒŽ›‹ŠŽ Ž–Š•Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’—
‘Ž Œ˜ž—›¢DZ ‘Ž Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— ›ŠŽ ˜› ›ŽŽ” ˜–Ž— Šœ ˜—•¢ ŚŞǯŝƖǰ Š— ˜—•¢ ŝŗǯśƖ ˜ ’›•œ
™Š›’Œ’™ŠŽ ’— ŽŠ›•¢ Œ‘’•‘˜˜ ŽžŒŠ’˜—ǯ ‘Ž ž—ŠŸ˜ž›Š‹•Ž ‘’‘ ›Š—”’— ˜ ›ŽŽŒŽ Š—
£ŽŒ‘’Š ’— Ž›–œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Šœ ŽŽ›–’—Ž ‹¢ ‘Ž ‘’‘ ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ Šœ –Š—¢
Šœ ŗŗ ˜ž ˜ ŗś ™˜ŸŽ›¢ œ’–ž•Š—œǯ £ŽŒ‘’Š Š’’˜—Š••¢ ‘Š ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ ŸŠ•žŽ ’— ‘Ž ȬŘŝ
˜ ‘Ž Š™ ‹Ž ŽŽ— ‘Ž ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽœ ˜› ¢˜ž— ˜–Ž— Š— –Ž— —Ž’‘Ž› ’— Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— —˜›
’— ŽžŒŠ’˜— Š— ›Š’—’— ǻŗşǯŘ ™™ǯǼǯ £ŽŒ‘’Š ›Ž™›ŽœŽ—œ ‘Ž Ž—›Š• Š— ŠœŽ›— ž›˜™ŽŠ—
–˜Ž• ˜ œ˜Œ’Š• ™˜•’Œ¢ǰ ’— ‘’Œ‘ œ˜Œ’Š• œŽŒž›’¢ ‹Ž—Žęœ Š›Ž ‘Ž •˜ Žœ ǽşŞǾǯ Žœ™’Ž ‘’œǰ
ŠŒŒ˜›’— ˜ Š— Š—Š•¢œ’œ ˜  œ ‹¢ œŽ¡ǰ ˜—•¢ ŗŗǯŝƖ ˜ £ŽŒ‘ ˜–Ž— Ž›Ž Š ›’œ” ˜ ’—Œ˜–Ž
™˜ŸŽ›¢ ŠŽ› œ˜Œ’Š• ›Š—œŽ›œ Š— ‘’œ Šœ ‘Ž •˜ Žœ ŸŠ•žŽ Š–˜— Š•• ȬŘŝ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœǯ
 ‘Ž œŠ–Ž ’–Žǰ ‘Ž Œ˜››Žœ™˜—’— ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽ ˜› –Ž— Šœ Š•œ˜ ‘Ž •˜ Žœ ǻŝǯŘƖǼǰ –Š”’—
‘Ž Ž—Ž› Š™ ’— ‘’œ ›Žœ™ŽŒ ˜—Ž ˜ ‘Ž •Š›Žœǯ
‘Ž Ž—Ž•ž¡ Š— ŒŠ—’—ŠŸ’Š— Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ’‘ ŸŽ›¢ •˜ ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ‘Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Ž–’Ȭ
—’œŠ’˜— œ’–ž•Š—œ Ž›Ž ›Š—”Ž •Šœ ’— ‘Ž ŘŖŘŖ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ›Š—”’—ǯ Ž—–Š›”ǰ
Ž‘Ž›•Š—œǰ Š—  ŽŽ— ‘Š ‹¢ Š› ‘Ž •˜ Žœ •ŽŸŽ•œ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜—ǯ ‘ŽœŽ Œ˜ž—Ȭ
›’Žœ ›Ž™›ŽœŽ— Š Œ’’£Ž—Ȭœž™™˜›’ŸŽ œ˜Œ’Š•ȬŽ–˜Œ›Š’Œ –˜Ž• ˜ œ˜Œ’Š• ™˜•’Œ¢ǰ ’‘  ŽŽ—
‹Ž’— ‘Ž •ŽŠ’— Ž•Š›Ž œŠŽ ǽŗŖşǾǯ — ’–™˜›Š— Ž•Ž–Ž— ˜  ŽŽ—Ȃœ ™˜•’Œ¢ ’œ ‘Ž ™›˜Ȭ
–˜’˜— ˜ Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ǰ Ž—Š‹•’— ˜–Ž— ˜ ž•ę• ŒŠ›Ž Š— Š–’•¢ ›Žœ™˜—œ’‹’•’’Žœ ‘’•Ž
œ›’Ÿ’— ˜› œŽ•Ȭ›Ž•’Š—ŒŽ Š— Œ‘Š—’— Ž—Ž› œŽ›Ž˜¢™’ŒŠ• Œ‘˜’ŒŽœ ǽŗŗŖǾǯ ‘Ž ’–™ŠŒ ˜
œžŒ‘ Š ™˜•’Œ¢ ’œ ŽŸ’Ž— ’— ‘Ž œ–Š••Žœ ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽ ˜ ˜–Ž— ‘˜ Š›Ž ’—ŠŒ’ŸŽ žŽ ˜ ŒŠ›Ȭ
’— ›Žœ™˜—œ’‹’•’’Žœ ǻŝǯśƖǼ Š— ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— ›ŠŽ ǻŝŝǯŚƖǼ Š–˜— ‘Ž ȬŘŝ Œ˜ž—Ȭ
›’Žœǯ —Š•¢œ’œ ˜ ‘Ž  œ ‹¢ œŽ¡ ž›‘Ž› œ‘˜ œ ‘Š  ŽŽ— Š— ‘Ž Ž‘Ž›•Š—œ Ž›Ž ‘Ž
˜—•¢ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ Š–˜— ‘Ž ȬŘŝ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœ ‘Ž›Ž —Ž’‘Ž› ˜–Ž— —˜› –Ž— ›Ž™˜›Ž
‘ŠŸ’— —Ž’‘Ž› Š ‹Š‘ǰ Š œ‘˜ Ž›ǰ ˜› Š— ’—˜˜› ̞œ‘’— ˜’•Ž ’— ‘Ž’› ‘˜žœŽ‘˜•ǯ — Œ˜—Ȭ
›Šœǰ ‘Ž ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽœ ˜ ˜–Ž— Š ›’œ” ˜ ’—Œ˜–Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ŠŽ› œ˜Œ’Š• ›Š—œŽ›œ Ž›Ž —˜
‘Ž •˜ Žœ ’— ‘ŽœŽ Œ˜ž—›’Žœǰ Š ŗŝǯŘƖ Š— ŗřǯŝƖ ›Žœ™ŽŒ’ŸŽ•¢ǯ
˜ž—›’Žœ ’‘ ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š›Ž –Š’—•¢ ›˜– ‘Ž ŽŠœŽ›—
Š•• ˜ ‘Ž ȬŘŝǯ ŒŒ˜›’— ˜ ‘Ž Œ•Šœœ’ęŒŠ’˜— ˜ ‘Ž —Ž›—Š’˜—Š• ˜—ŽŠ›¢ ž—ǰ ˜Ȭ
–Š—’Š ’œ ’—Œ•žŽ ’— ‘Ž Ž–Ž›’— Š— ŽŸŽ•˜™’— ŽŒ˜—˜–’Žœǰ ‘’•Ž ›ŽŽŒŽǰ œ˜—’Šǰ Š—
£ŽŒ‘’Š ‹Ž•˜— ˜ ‘Ž ŠŸŠ—ŒŽ ŽŒ˜—˜–’Žœ ǽŗŗŗǾǯ ˜ž—›’Žœ ’— Œ•Šœœ ’‘ Š ‘’‘ –’•Ž
•ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š›Ž –˜œ•¢ ŠŸŠ—ŒŽ ŽŒ˜—˜–’Žœ Š— ŽŸŽ— –Š“˜› ŠŸŠ—ŒŽ
ŽŒ˜—˜–’Žœ ǻ Ž›–Š—¢ǰ Š•¢Ǽǯ ‘Ž •Šœ ™•ŠŒŽœ ˜ Œ•Šœœ Š— ’— Œ•Šœœ  Ž›Ž Ž¡Œ•žœ’ŸŽ•¢
ŠŸŠ—ŒŽ ŽŒ˜—˜–’Žœǯ ‘’œ ›Š—”’— ˜ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ˜— ‘Ž ‹Šœ’œ ˜ Ž—Ž›
Š™œ •Š›Ž•¢ ›ŽĚŽŒœ ‘Ž ›Š—”’— ˜ ‘Ž ™›˜–˜’˜— ˜ Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ ŽŽ›–’—Ž ‹¢ ‘Ž
ž›˜™ŽŠ— —œ’žŽ ˜› Ž—Ž› šžŠ•’¢ ˜— ‘Ž ‹Šœ’œ ˜ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› šžŠ•’¢ —Ž¡ ŸŠ•žŽœǯ
ŒŒ˜›’— ˜ ‘Ž   œž¢ ˜— Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ǰ ’— ŘŖŘŖǰ  ŽŽ— ǻ ‘’Œ‘ ‘Š ‘Ž •˜ Žœ
•ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ǽ Šœ ‘Ž •ŽŠŽ› ’— ™›˜–˜’— Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ǰ ‘’•Ž ›ŽŽŒŽ
ǻ ‘’Œ‘ Šœ ‘Ž œŽŒ˜— Œ˜ž—›¢ ’‘ ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ǽ ›Š—”Ž
•Šœ ’— ™›˜–˜’— Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ ǽŜşǾǯ  œ‘˜ž• ‹Ž —˜Ž ‘Šǰ œ’—ŒŽ ŘŖŗŖǰ  ŽŽ— ‘Šœ ‘Š
‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ Š— ›ŽŽŒŽ ‘Ž •˜ Žœ ™›˜›Žœœ ’— Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ ’— ‘Ž  ǽŗŗŘǾǯ ‘Ž ’œŠ—
™•ŠŒŽœ ’— ‘Ž ›Š—”’— ˜ ‘Ž ™›˜–˜’˜— ˜ Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ ’— ŘŖŘŖ ’—Œ•žŽ ˜–Š—’Š ǻŘś‘Ǽǰ
£ŽŒ‘’Š ǻŘؗǼǰ Š— œ˜—’Š ǻŗŝ‘Ǽǰ ’ǯŽǯǰ ‘Ž Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ’‘ ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜—
˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ Ž›–Š—¢ Šœ ›Š—”Ž ˜—•¢ ŗŗ‘ǰ ’‘ Š Ž—Ž› šžŠ•’¢ —Ž¡ Š™™›˜¡’–ŠŽ•¢
ŽšžŠ• ˜ ’œ ŠŸŽ›ŠŽ ŸŠ•žŽ ˜› ‘Ž ȬŘŝ Šœ Š ‘˜•Žǯ ‘Ž ˜‘Ž› Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ’‘ ‘Ž •˜ Žœ
•ŽŸŽ•œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Ž—–Š›” ǻؗǼ Š— Ž‘Ž›•Š—œ ǻś‘Ǽ Ž›Ž ‘’‘ ’— ‘Ž
›Š—”’— ˜ ™›˜–˜’— Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ ’— ŘŖŘŖ ǽŜşǾǯ
 ’œ Œ•ŽŠ› ‘Š Š Œ˜ž—›¢Ȃœ •ŽŸŽ• ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’œ Œ˜—’’˜—Š• ˜— Ž—Ž›
’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ ǻ’— ‘’œ œž¢ Ž¡™›ŽœœŽ ‹¢ Ž—Ž› ’쎛Ž—ŒŽœ ’— ‘Ž ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ’Š—˜œ’Œ Œ‘Š›Ȭ
ŠŒŽ›’œ’ŒœǼ Š— ˜Žœ —˜ —ŽŒŽœœŠ›’•¢ Œ˜››Ž•ŠŽ ’‘ ‘Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ˜› ˜–Ž—ǰ •Ž Š•˜—Ž
‘Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ˜ŸŽ›Š••ǯ œ Š— Ž¡Š–™•Žǰ £ŽŒ‘’Š Š—  ŽŽ— ‹Ž•˜—Ž ˜ ‘Ž Œ•ŠœœŽœ

99
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

’‘ ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ Š— •˜ Žœ Ž–’—’œŽ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ •ŽŸŽ•œǰ ›Žœ™ŽŒ’ŸŽ•¢ǰ ’— ŘŖŘŖǰ ‘’•Ž ŠŒŒ˜›’—
˜ ­” Š— Ž›£¢—œ”Š ǽŗŖşǾ Š— ˜–™˜•œ”ŠȬ£ŽŒ‘žÙŠ Š— ž›¢ïȬ ž“Š œ”Š ǽŗŖŞǾ ’— ŘŖŗŞ
Š— ŘŖŗş ‹Ž•˜—Ž ˜ ‘Ž Œ•ŠœœŽœ ’‘ ‘Ž •˜ Žœ Š— –Ž’ž– ™˜ŸŽ›¢ •ŽŸŽ•œǰ ›Žœ™ŽŒ’ŸŽ•¢ǯ
— ŘŖŘŖǰ ‘Ž ›Ž•Š’ŸŽ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›ŠŽ ˜  ˜ŸŽ›Š•• Šœ şǯśƖ Š— ŗŜǯŗƖ ’— ‘ŽœŽ Œ˜ž—›’Žœǰ
Š— ŗŗǯŝƖ Š— ŗŝǯŘƖ ˜› ˜–Ž—ǰ ›Žœ™ŽŒ’ŸŽ•¢ǯ ‘Ž ‘’‘Žœ  ŸŠ•žŽœ Ž›Ž ’— ž•Š›’Š
ǻŘřǯŞƖ Š— ŘśǯŞƖǼǰ ‘’Œ‘ ›Š—”Ž ˜—•¢ ŗŚ‘ ’— ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›Š—”’—ǯ ‘Ž ޝ‘
™•ŠŒŽ ’— ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›Š—”’— ˜ ŽŒ˜—˜–’ŒŠ••¢ ‘’‘•¢ ŽŸŽ•˜™Ž Ž›–Š—¢ǰ
‘’Œ‘ Šœ ’— ‘Ž Œ•Šœœ ’‘ ‘Ž •˜ Žœ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ •ŽŸŽ•œ ’— ŘŖŗş ǽŗŖŞǾ Š— œ‘˜ž•ǰ ‘Ž›Ž˜›Žǰ
—˜ ‹Ž œž›™›’œ’—ǯ — ŘŖŘŖǰ ‘Ž ™›˜™˜›’˜— ˜ ™Ž˜™•Ž Š ›’œ” ˜ ’—Œ˜–Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ŠŽ› œ˜Œ’Š•
›Š—œŽ›œ ˜ŸŽ›Š•• Šœ ŗŜǯŞƖ ’— Ž›–Š—¢ Š— ‘Ž Œ˜››Žœ™˜—’— ™›˜™˜›’˜— ˜ ˜–Ž— Šœ
ŗŜǯŗƖ ǻ’ǯŽǯǰ •Žœœ ‘Š— ’—  ŽŽ—Ǽǯ ŽŠ— ‘’•Žǰ ’— ŘŖŘŖǰ Ž›–Š—¢ Šœ ‘Ž ˜—•¢ ȬŘŝ Œ˜ž—›¢
’— ‘’Œ‘ ‘Ž ™›˜™˜›’˜— ˜ ˜–Ž— ‘˜ ‘Š Œ˜–™•ŽŽ Ž›’Š›¢ ŽžŒŠ’˜— Šœ •˜ Ž› ‘Š—
‘Ž Œ˜››Žœ™˜—’— ™›˜™˜›’˜— ˜ –Ž— ǻŠ ’쎛Ž—ŒŽ ˜ řǯś ™™ǯǼǯ ž›‘Ž›–˜›Žǰ ’— Ž›–Š—¢ǰ
‘Ž ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽ ˜ ˜–Ž— ‘˜ Ž›Ž ’—ŠŒ’ŸŽ žŽ ˜ ŒŠ›’— ›Žœ™˜—œ’‹’•’’Žœ Šœ –˜›Ž ‘Š—
Řş ™™ǯ ‘’‘Ž› ‘Š— ‘Ž Œ˜››Žœ™˜—’— ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽ ˜ –Ž—ǰ Š— ‘’œ Šœ ˜—Ž ˜ ‘Ž ‘’‘Ȭ
Žœ ŸŠ•žŽœ Š–˜— ‘Ž ȬŘŝ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœǯ ‘’œ Šœ ™›˜‹Š‹•¢ œ›˜—•¢ ’—ĚžŽ—ŒŽ ‹¢ ‘Ž
Œ˜—œŽ›ŸŠ’ŸŽ œ˜Œ’Š• ™˜•’Œ¢ –˜Ž• Š— ‘Ž ™Š›’Š›Œ‘Š• Š–’•¢ –˜Ž• ™›ŽŽ››Ž ’— Ž›–Š—¢ǰ
’— ‘’Œ‘ ˜–Ž— ˜ —˜ ˜›” ˜žœ’Ž ‘Ž ‘˜–Ž ǽŗŖşǰŗŗřǾǯ ŒŒ˜›’— ˜ Š ›Ž™˜› ‹¢ ‘Ž
’—Ž›—Š’˜—Š• ‘ž–Š—’Š›’Š— ˜›Š—’œŠ’˜— ¡Š–ǰ ‘Ž œ˜Œ’Š• Ž•Š›Ž ’—œ’ž’˜—œ ˜™Ž›Š’—
’— Ž›–Š—¢ ›¢ ˜ ›ŽžŒŽ ’—ŽšžŠ•’’Žœ ǽŗŗŚǾǯ  ‘Ž œŠ–Ž ’–Žǰ ‹Ž—Žęœ ˜› ™Š›Ž—œ ˜› ‘Ž
ž—Ž–™•˜¢Ž ˜ —˜ Š• Š¢œ œ’–ž•ŠŽ ‘Ž ™˜˜›Žœ ˜ ’—Œ›ŽŠœŽ ‘Ž’› ’—Œ˜–Ž ›˜– ˜›” ǽŗŗśǾǯ
ŽžŒ’— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ Š›Ž ‘Ž Œ‘Š••Ž—Žœ ˜ ˜Š¢Ȃœ ˜›•ǰ –ŽŠ— ‘’•Žǰ ’—
•ŠŽ ŘŖŗşǰ ‘Ž  Ȭŗş ™Š—Ž–’Œ ‹ŽŠ— ˜ œ™›ŽŠ Š›˜ž— ‘Ž ˜›•ǰ •ŽŠ’— ˜ ’—Œ›ŽŠœŽ
™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— ˜›œŽ—’— ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ǯ ‘Ž ›ŽŠŽœ ’–™ŠŒ ˜ ‘Ž ™Š—Ž–’Œ ‘Šœ ‹ŽŽ— ˜— ‘Ž
™˜˜›Žœ ™Ž˜™•Žǯ Ž ŽŽ— ŘŖŗş Š— ŘŖŘŗǰ ‘Ž ŠŸŽ›ŠŽ ’—Œ˜–Ž ˜ ‘Ž ŚŖƖ ˜ ‘Ž ™˜™ž•Š’˜—
‘˜ Š›Ž ™˜˜›Žœ ‘Šœ ŽŒ›ŽŠœŽ ‹¢ ŘǯŘƖǰ ‘’•Ž ‘Ž ŠŸŽ›ŠŽ ’—Œ˜–Ž ˜ ‘Ž ŚŖƖ ‘˜ Š›Ž ›’Œ‘Ȭ
Žœ ‘Šœ ŽŒ›ŽŠœŽ ‹¢ ˜—•¢ ŖǯśƖ ǽŗŗŜǾǯ ŒŒ˜›’— ˜ ‘Ž —’Ž Š’˜—œ ǽŗŗŝǾǰ ‘Ž ™Š—Ž–’Œ
‘Šœ œŠ••Ž ‘Ž ž—‹›˜”Ž— ›Ž— ˜ Řś ¢ŽŠ›œ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›ŽžŒ’˜—ǰ Š— ‘Ž Œ˜–‹’—Š’˜— ˜
’œ ’–™ŠŒ ’‘ ‘Ž ŽěŽŒœ ˜ Œ•’–ŠŽ Œ‘Š—Žǰ ‘Ž žœœ’Š— ’—ŸŠœ’˜— ˜ ”›Š’—Žǰ ›’œ’— ’—ĚŠȬ
’˜— Š— œ•˜ ’— ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ ›˜ ‘ –ŽŠ—œ ‘Š –˜›Ž Š— –˜›Ž ™Ž˜™•Ž ’•• •’ŸŽ ’— Ž¡›Ž–Ž
™˜ŸŽ›¢ ǽŗŗŞǾǯ œœž–’— ›Ž—œ Œ˜—’—žŽǰ śŝś –’••’˜— ™Ž˜™•Ž ’•• ‹Ž ›Š™™Ž ’— Ž¡›Ž–Ž
™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ŘŖřŖ ǽŗŗşǾǰ ’—Œ•ž’— –˜›Ž ‘Š— řŚŖ –’••’˜— ˜–Ž— Š— ’›•œ ǽŗŘŖǾǯ
‘Ž  Ȭŗş ™Š—Ž–’Œ œ•˜ Ž ˜ — ™˜œ’’ŸŽ ›Ž—œ ˜ Š›œ Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ǯ ŒȬ
Œ˜›’— ˜ ¡Š–Ȃœ ŘŖŘŘ ›Ž™˜›ǰ ˜–Ž—ǰ Š•˜—œ’Ž Ž‘—’Œ –’—˜›’’Žœ Š— ™Ž˜™•Ž ’— ŽȬ
ŸŽ•˜™’— Œ˜ž—›’Žœǰ Š›Ž Š–˜— ‘Ž ›˜ž™œ –˜œ ŠěŽŒŽ ‹¢ ‘Ž ’—Œ›ŽŠœŽ ’— ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ Šœ
Š ›Žœž• ˜ ‘Ž  Ȭŗş ™Š—Ž–’Œȯ ‘Ž—ǰ ’‘ ‘Ž ›’œ’— Œ˜œ ˜ •’Ÿ’—ǰ ‘Ž ™˜˜› Ž
™˜˜›Ž›ǰ ˜–Ž— Ž ™˜˜›Ž› ‘Ž ŠœŽœ ǽŗŘŗǾǯ — ŘŖŘŖǰ ˜–Ž— Ž›Ž ŗǯŚ ’–Žœ –˜›Ž •’”Ž•¢ ˜
›˜™ ˜ž ˜ ‘Ž •Š‹˜ž› –Š›”Ž ‘Š— –Ž—ǰ Š— ž—™Š’ ˜–Žœ’Œ ˜›” Š— ŒŠ›Ž ˜›” ˜˜” ž™
‘›ŽŽ ’–Žœ Šœ –žŒ‘ ˜ ‘Ž’› ’–Ž ǽŗŘŘǾǯ ˜–™Š›Ž ˜ ™›ŽȬ™Š—Ž–’Œ ™›˜“ŽŒ’˜—œǰ ’ ’•• Š”Ž
řŜ –˜›Ž ¢ŽŠ›œ ˜ Œ•˜œŽ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ™Š¢ Š™ǰ ˜› Šœ –Š—¢ Šœ ŗřŜ ¢ŽŠ›œ ǽŗŘřǾǯ —˜›ž—ŠŽ•¢ǰ
žŽ ˜ –’œœ’— ŠŠ ˜› ›ŽŽŒŽ Š— ›Ž•Š—ǰ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ™Š¢ Š™ ŸŠ•žŽ Œ˜ž• —˜ ‹Ž žœŽ
’— ‘’œ œž¢ǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ž›˜œŠ ŠŠ œ‘˜ œ ‘Š ’— ‘Ž ˜‘Ž› ȬŘŝ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ’— ŘŖŘŖǰ ‘Ž
™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽ ’쎛Ž—ŒŽ ‹Ž ŽŽ— ‘Ž ŠŸŽ›ŠŽ ›˜œœ ‘˜ž›•¢ ŽŠ›—’—œ ˜ –Š•Ž Š— Ž–Š•Ž ™Š’
Ž–™•˜¢ŽŽœ ›Š—Ž ›˜– ŖǯŝƖ ’— ž¡Ž–‹˜ž› ˜ ŘŘǯřƖ ’— ŠŸ’Šǰ ’ǯŽǯǰ ’— Š•• ‘ŽœŽ Œ˜ž—›’Žœǰ
˜–Ž— Ž›Ž ™Š’ •Žœœ ‘Š— –Ž—ǯ
‘Ž ž›˜™ŽŠ— —’˜— ’œ ›ŽŠ›Ž Šœ Š ˜›• •ŽŠŽ› ’— Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ǰ ‹ž ’—ŽšžŠ•’’Žœ
Ž–Ž›Ž ˜ ŸŠ›¢’— Ž›ŽŽœ ’— ’œ –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœ ǽŗŗŘǾǯ ˜‘ ˜–Ž— Š— –Ž— Ž¡™Ž›’Ž—ŒŽ
Ž—Ž›Ȭ‹ŠœŽ ’—ŽšžŠ•’’Žœǰ ‹ž ’ ’œ –˜œ•¢ ˜–Ž— ‘˜ ŠŒŽ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‹ŽŒŠžœŽ ˜ ’ǯ ‘Ž
Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’œ Š ‘˜•Ž –ŽŒ‘Š—’œ– ‘Š –Š”Žœ ’›•œ Š— ˜–Ž— –˜›Ž •’”Ž•¢
˜ Š•• ’—˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‘Š— ‹˜¢œ Š— –Ž— ǽŗŘŚǾǯ ‘Ž ˜›œŽ ŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ œ’žŠ’˜— ˜ ˜–Ž— ’œ
˜Ž— Š –Š—’ŽœŠ’˜— ˜ ‘Ž œ˜Œ’Š• ›˜•Žœ ’–™˜œŽ ˜— ‘Ž– ‹¢ ‘Ž ™Š›’Š›Œ‘Š• Š–’•¢ –˜Ž•
‹ž ’œ Š•œ˜ œ˜–Ž’–Žœ ŒŠžœŽ ‹¢ Ÿ’˜•Ž—ŒŽ ˜› Ž—Ž› ’œŒ›’–’—Š’˜— ǽŗŘśǾǯ ˜ šž˜Ž Š‘’›Š
‹ž••Š‘ǰ ȃ˜ŸŽ›¢ ‘Šœ Š ˜–Š—Ȃœ ŠŒŽȄ ǽŗŘŜǾǰ Š— ’œ Ž–’—’—Ž Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ› ’œ Ž¡ŠŒŽ›‹ŠŽ ‹¢
‘Ž Œ˜—œŠ— ™›Žœœž›Ž ˜ —˜›–œ œŽ––’— ›˜– Œž•ž›Žǰ ›Ž•’’˜—ǰ ˜› ›Š’’˜—ǯ ˜–Ž— Š›Ž

100
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

ŠěŽŒŽ ‹¢ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ™Š¢ Š™ǰ ž—ŽšžŠ• ’—›ŠȬ‘˜žœŽ‘˜• ’œ›’‹ž’˜— ˜ ›Žœ˜ž›ŒŽœ ǽŗŘŝǾǰ
‘Ž ‹ž›Ž— ˜ ž—™Š’ ˜–Žœ’Œ ˜›”ǰ œ’—•Ž –˜‘Ž›‘˜˜ǰ ŒŠ›’— ˜› Š–’•¢ –Ž–‹Ž›œǰ Š—
–Ž—œ›žŠ• ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ
ž–Š— ›’‘œ Ÿ’˜•Š’˜—œ Š›Ž Š— ’–™˜›Š— Šœ™ŽŒ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ȯ‘Ž –Š›’—Š•’œŠ’˜— Š—
œ˜Œ’Š• Ž¡Œ•žœ’˜— ˜ ™˜˜› ™Ž˜™•Ž Š›Ž ’Žœ™›ŽŠǰ •ŽŠŸ’— ‘Ž– ŽŽ•’— Š •ŠŒ” ˜ ›Žœ™ŽŒ Š—
’—’¢ ǽŗŘŞǾǯ ‘Ž ›Ž™Ž›Œžœœ’˜—œ ˜ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š›Ž —˜ ˜—•¢ œ’—’ęŒŠ— ‹ŽȬ
ŒŠžœŽ ˜ ‘Ž ’œŠŸŠ—ŠŽ ˜ ˜–Ž— ‘Ž–œŽ•ŸŽœǰ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‘Šœ —ŽŠ’ŸŽ
Œ˜—œŽšžŽ—ŒŽœ ‘Š Š•œ˜ ŠěŽŒ ‘Ž’› Š–’•’Žœǯ ˜–Ž—ǰ ‹Ž’— Š–’•¢ –Š—ŠŽ›œ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ
ž—Ž›Š”Ž ŸŠ›’˜žœ ŠŒ’Ÿ’’Žœ ˜ œž™™•Ž–Ž— ‘Ž’› –ŽŠ›Ž ‹žŽœ ǽŗŘşǾǰ Š ‘Ž œŠ–Ž ’–Ž
›Ž™›˜žŒ’— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‹¢ œ‘Š›’— ’ ’‘ ‘Ž Œ‘’•›Ž— ‘Ž¢ Š›Ž ›Š’œ’— ǽŗŘŚǾǯ ‘Ž œŽŸŽ›’¢ ˜
˜–Ž—Ȃœ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ œ‘˜ž• ‹Ž Š”Ž— ’—˜ ŠŒŒ˜ž— Š— Š ‹ŽĴŽ› œ’žŠ’˜— ’— ‘Ž Š–’•¢ Š— œ˜Œ’Ȭ
Ž¢ œ‘˜ž• ‹Ž Ž—œž›Žǯ ‘Ž ꐑ ŠŠ’—œ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ œ‘˜ž• ‹Ž Œ˜–‹’—Ž ’‘ ŠŒ”•’— Ž—Ž›
’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ ’— Š•• Šœ™ŽŒœ ˜ •’Žǯ ŽŠ— ‘’•Žǰ Šœ —˜Ž ‹¢ ȂŠ–˜ Ž Š•ǯǰ ŠŒŠŽ–’Œ ’—Ž›Žœ
’—  ś ˜™’Œœ ’œ Š•–˜œ ‘Ž •˜ Žœ ˜ Š•• ‘Ž  œ ǽśǾǯ ‘Ž —’Ž Š’˜—œ Ž–™‘Šœ’œŽœ ‘Ž
—ŽŽ ˜ ŠŒŒŽ•Ž›ŠŽ ŠŒ’˜— •ŽŠ’— ˜  ś Š— ‘žœ Š›—œ ‘Š Š’•ž›Ž ˜ ™›’˜›’’œŽ Ž—Ž›
ŽšžŠ•’¢ Œ˜ž• “Ž˜™Š›’œŽ ‘Ž Ž—’›Ž Ž—Š ŘŖřŖ ˜› žœŠ’—Š‹•Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ǽŗŘŖǾǯ
— ŘŖŘŖǰ ‘Ž œ›Ž—‘ ˜ ž›˜™ŽŠ— ˜–Ž— Šœ ŽŸ’Ž— ’— ŽžŒŠ’˜—ǰ Žœ™ŽŒ’Š••¢ ’— œŽŒȬ
˜—Š›¢ Š— Ž›’Š›¢ ŽžŒŠ’˜—ǰ œ˜ ‘Ž¢ œ‘˜ž• ‹Ž ž›‘Ž› œž™™˜›Ž ’— ‘’œǰ ‹ž Š ‘Ž œŠ–Ž
’–Žǰ –Ž— œ‘˜ž• Š•œ˜ ‹Ž œž™™˜›Ž ’— ‘’œ œ™‘Ž›Žǯ ˜–Ž— —ŽŽ œž™™˜› ’— ꗍ’— Ž–Ȭ
™•˜¢–Ž— ’ ‘Ž¢ Š— ˜ ˜›” ‹ž Š›Ž ™›ŽŸŽ—Ž ›˜– ˜’— œ˜ ‹ŽŒŠžœŽ ˜ ‘Ž —ŽŽ ˜ ŒŠ›Ž
˜› ›Ž•Š’ŸŽœǯ šžŠ•’¢ ™˜•’Œ’Žœ œ‘˜ž• Š•œ˜ ’—Œ•žŽ ‘Ž Ž•’–’—Š’˜— ˜ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ™Š¢ Š™ǯ
žŽ ˜ Š •ŠŒ” ˜ ŠŠǰ ‘’œ ŸŠ›’Š‹•Ž Šœ —˜ ’—Œ•žŽ ’— ‘Ž Ž–™’›’ŒŠ• œž¢ Œ˜—žŒŽǰ ‹ž
‘Ž ™‘Ž—˜–Ž—˜— ˜ ž—ŽšžŠ• ™Š¢ ˜› ˜–Ž— Ž¡’œŽ ’— Š••  –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœ ˜› ‘’Œ‘ ŠŠ
Ž›Ž ŠŸŠ’•Š‹•Žǯ  ’œ ‘Ž›Ž˜›Ž —ŽŒŽœœŠ›¢ ˜ ™›˜Ÿ’Ž ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ‘ŽœŽ ŠŠ ›˜– ‘Ž ›Ž–Š’—’—
Œ˜ž—›’Žœǯ ŠŠ Œ˜••ŽŒ’˜— ˜— –Ž—œ›žŠ• ™˜ŸŽ›¢ œ‘˜ž• Š•œ˜ ‹Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™Žǯ — Š’’˜—ǰ
Š•• ™ž‹•’Œ œŠ’œ’Œœ Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’— ‘Ž ™˜™ž•Š’˜— œ‘˜ž• ‹Ž ™›ŽœŽ—Ž ‹¢ Ž—Ž›ǰ Š— ‘Ž
Š¢ ‘Ž¢ Š›Ž –ŽŠœž›Ž œ‘˜ž• ‹Ž œŠ—Š›’œŽ ˜ Ž—œž›Ž Œ˜–™Š›Š‹’•’¢ ˜ ’—˜›–Š’˜—
›˜– ’쎛Ž— Œ˜ž—›’Žœǯ ˜ ŠœœŽœœ Š— –ŽŠœž›Ž ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ ’ ’œ žœŽž•
˜ žœŽ ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ ‘Š ›Ž™›ŽœŽ— Ž—Ž› ’쎛Ž—ŒŽœ ’— –Š—¢ Šœ™ŽŒœ ˜ •’Žǰ Šœ ™›˜™˜œŽ ’—
‘’œ ™Š™Ž›ǯ

śǯ ˜—Œ•žœ’˜—œ
‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ œ’—’¢’— ‘Ž ’œ™›˜™˜›’˜—ŠŽ ˜ŸŽ›Ȭ›Ž™›ŽœŽ—Š’˜— ˜
˜–Ž— Š— ’›•œ •’Ÿ’— ’— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ ›Ž ˜ž ˜ Ž—Ž› ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ Š—ǰ ˜— ‘’œ ‹Šœ’œǰ œ‘˜ž•
‹Ž Œ˜—œ’Ž›Ž Šœ Š –ž•’’–Ž—œ’˜—Š• Œ˜—ŒŽ™ ›Ž•ŠŽ ˜ ’쎛Ž— œ™‘Ž›Žœ ˜ •’Žǯ ‘Ž –ž•Ȭ
’’–Ž—œ’˜—Š•’¢ ˜ ‘Ž ™‘Ž—˜–Ž—˜— ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›Žœž•’— ›˜– Ž—Ž› ’—Ȭ
ŽšžŠ•’¢ ›Žšž’›Žœ –Ž‘˜œ Š— ŠŠ ‘Š Š”Ž ‘’œ Šœ™ŽŒ ’—˜ ŠŒŒ˜ž— ˜ ŠœœŽœœ ’ǯ ‘’œ
™Š™Ž› ™›˜™˜œŽœ —˜ ˜ ’›ŽŒ•¢ Ž¡Š–’—Ž ‘Ž •ŽŸŽ• ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’œŽ•Dz ’—œŽŠǰ ‘Ž ’Š—˜œ’Œ
Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œœ ˜ Ž–Š•Ž Š— –Š•Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Ž›Ž ›Š—œ˜›–Ž ’—˜ Ž—Ž› Š™œ œ˜ ‘Š ‘Ž¢
œ‘˜ Ž—Ž› ’—ŽšžŠ•’’Žœǯ ‘Ž— Œ˜–™Š›’— ‘Ž ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ‘Ž Žœ’—ŠŽ Ž—Ž› Š™œǰ ’
Šœ —˜Ž ‘Š Š•• ŸŠ›’Š‹•Žœ ’—Œ•žŽ ’— ‘Ž Ž–™’›’ŒŠ• œž¢ Œ˜—ę›–Ž ‘Ž Ž¡’œŽ—ŒŽ ˜ Š
Ž—Ž› ’–‹Š•Š—ŒŽ ’— Ž›–œ ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ ˜œ ˜ ‘Ž ’Š—˜œ’Œ ŽŠž›Žœ ’—’ŒŠŽ ‘Ž Ž–’Ȭ
—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ ‹ž ’— Š Ž Šœ™ŽŒœǰ ’œ –ŠœŒž•’—’œŠ’˜— ‹ŽŒŠ–Ž Š™™Š›Ž—ǯ — Š•• ȬŘŝ
Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ’— ŘŖŘŖǰ Š œ’—’ęŒŠ—•¢ ‘’‘Ž› ™›˜™˜›’˜— ˜ ˜–Ž— ‘Š— –Ž— Ž›Ž ’—ŠŒ’ŸŽ žŽ
˜ ŒŠ›’— ›Žœ™˜—œ’‹’•’’Žœǰ Š •˜ Ž› ™›˜™˜›’˜— ˜ ˜–Ž— ‘Š— –Ž— ŠŽ ›˜– ŘŖ ˜ ŜŚ ¢ŽŠ›œ
Ž›Ž ’— Ž–™•˜¢–Ž—ǰ Š ‘’‘Ž› ™›˜™˜›’˜— ˜ ’›•œ ‘Š— ‹˜¢œ Ž›Ž —Ž’‘Ž› ’— Ž–™•˜¢–Ž—
—˜› ’— ŽžŒŠ’˜— Š— ›Š’—’—ǯ — Œ˜—›Šœǰ ‘Ž ˜›œŽ œ’žŠ’˜— ˜› –Ž— Šœ ›ŽŸŽŠ•Ž ’—
Ž›’Š›¢ ŽžŒŠ’˜—ȯ’— Š•• Œ˜ž—›’Žœ Ž¡ŒŽ™ Ž›–Š—¢ǰ ‘Ž ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽ ˜ –Ž— ’— Ž›’Š›¢ ŽȬ
žŒŠ’˜—Š• ŠĴŠ’—–Ž— Šœ •˜ Ž› ‘Š— ‘Ž Œ˜››Žœ™˜—’— ™Ž›ŒŽ—ŠŽ ˜ ˜–Ž—ǯ — –˜œ
Œ˜ž—›’Žœǰ ’‘ ‘Ž Ž¡ŒŽ™’˜— ˜ ˜–Š—’Š Š— £ŽŒ‘’Šǰ ‘Ž œ‘Š›Ž ˜ –Š•Ž ŽŠ›•¢ •ŽŠŸŽ›œ ›˜–
ŽžŒŠ’˜— Š— ›Š’—’— Šœ ‘’‘Ž›ǯ
—˜ž‹Ž•¢ǰ ‘Ž Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‘Š ‘Šœ ›˜ — ˜ž ˜ Ž—Ž› ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ ’œ
Š ›ŽŠ•’¢ Š— —˜ Š –¢‘ǯ œ ‘Ž Ž–™’›’ŒŠ• œž¢ œ‘˜ Žǰ ‘’œ Šœ ‘Ž ŒŠœŽǰ Š•‹Ž’ ˜ ŸŠ›¢Ȭ
’— Ž›ŽŽœǰ ’— Š••  –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœ ’— ŘŖŘŖǯ ’‘ •ŽŸŽ•œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Ž›Ž

101
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

˜ž— ’— ‹˜‘ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ‘˜œŽ ŽŒ˜—˜–’Žœ Š›Ž ŒŠŽ˜›’œŽ Šœ Ž–Ž›’— –Š›”Ž Š— ŽŸŽ•Ȭ
˜™’— ŽŒ˜—˜–’Žœ ǻ˜–Š—’ŠǼ Š— Šœ ŠŸŠ—ŒŽ ŽŒ˜—˜–’Žœ ǻ ›ŽŽŒŽǰ œ˜—’Šǰ Š— £ŽŒ‘’ŠǼǰ
‘’•Ž ‘Ž Œ•Šœœ ˜ Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ’‘ ‘Ž •˜ Žœ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’—Œ•žŽ ˜—•¢ ŠȬ
ŸŠ—ŒŽ ŽŒ˜—˜–’Žœ ǻŽ—–Š›”ǰ Ž‘Ž›•Š—œǰ  ŽŽ—Ǽǯ ŽŠ›•Žœœǰ Š•• Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ’‘ ‘Ž
‘’‘Žœ •ŽŸŽ•œ ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‘Š ‘Ž •˜ Žœ ŸŠ•žŽœ ˜ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› šžŠ•’¢ —Ȭ
Ž¡ ’—’ŒŠ’— ‘Ž ›ŽŠŽœ Ž—Ž› ’—ŽšžŠ•’’Žœǰ ‘’•Ž Œ˜ž—›’Žœ ’‘ ‘Ž •˜ Žœ •ŽŸŽ•œ ˜
Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Ž›Ž •ŽŠŽ›œ ’— ™›˜–˜’— Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ǯ
‘Ž Š›’Œ•ŽȂœ ꗍ’—œ Š›Ž ’—Ž—Ž ˜ œž™™˜› ‘Ž ŠŒ‘’ŽŸŽ–Ž— ˜  ŗ Š—  śǯ
žŽ ˜ ‘Ž Œ›˜œœȬŒžĴ’— —Šž›Ž ˜ ‘Ž ™‘Ž—˜–Ž—˜— ˜ Ž–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ ‘Ž œž¢
Š•œ˜ žœŽ œžœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ’—’ŒŠ˜›œ ›˜– ‘Ž ž›˜œŠ ŠŠ‹ŠœŽ ˜› ˜‘Ž›  œǯ ’–’Š’˜—œ
›Ž•ŠŽ ˜ ‘Ž ŠŸŠ’•Š‹’•’¢ ˜ œŠ’œ’ŒŠ• ŠŠ Ž›Ž Ž—Œ˜ž—Ž›Ž ž›’— ŠŠ Œ˜••ŽŒ’˜—ǯ ˜›
œŽŸŽ›Š• Œ˜ž—›’Žœǰ ŠŠ ˜— ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ™Š¢ Š™ Ž›Ž –’œœ’—ǯ ‘’œ ’–™˜›Š— ŸŠ›’Š‹•Ž Šœ
‘Ž›Ž˜›Ž —˜ ’—Œ•žŽ ’— ‘Ž œž¢ǰ ŽŸŽ— ‘˜ž‘ Š— ž—ŠŸ˜ž›Š‹•Ž Ž—Ž› ™Š¢ Š™ ˜›
˜–Ž— Ž¡’œŽ ’— Š••  –Ž–‹Ž› œŠŽœ ˜› ‘’Œ‘ ŠŠ Ž›Ž ŠŸŠ’•Š‹•Žǯ ’›ŽŒ ŠŠ ˜—
™Ž›’˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Šœ Š•œ˜ —˜ žœŽǰ Šœ ’ ’œ —˜ ’Ž•¢ Œ˜••ŽŒŽ Š— ™ž‹•’œ‘Žǯ

ž‘˜› ˜—›’‹ž’˜—œDZ ˜—ŒŽ™žŠ•’£Š’˜—ǰ ǯǯ Š— ǯ ǯ ǯDz –Ž‘˜˜•˜¢ǰ ǯǯDz œ˜ Š›Žǰ ǯǯDz ŸŠ•’Ȭ
Š’˜—ǰ ǯǯDz ˜›–Š• Š—Š•¢œ’œǰ ǯǯ Š— ǯ ǯ ǯDz ›’’—ȯ˜›’’—Š• ›Š ™›Ž™Š›Š’˜—ǰ ǯǯ Š— ǯ ǯ ǯDz
›’’—ȯ›ŽŸ’Ž Š— Ž’’—ǰ ǯǯ Š— ǯ ǯ ǯDz Ÿ’œžŠ•’£Š’˜—ǰ ǯǯ •• Šž‘˜›œ ‘ŠŸŽ ›ŽŠ Š— Š›ŽŽ ˜
‘Ž ™ž‹•’œ‘Ž ŸŽ›œ’˜— ˜ ‘Ž –Š—žœŒ›’™ǯ
ž—’—DZ ‘Ž ™ž‹•’ŒŠ’˜— Šœ ™Š›’Š••¢ ž—Ž ‹¢ ‘Ž ŠŒž•¢ ˜ Œ˜—˜–’Œœǰ Žœ ˜–Ž›Š—’Š—
—’ŸŽ›œ’¢ ˜ ŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ ’— £Œ£ŽŒ’—DZ ȃ‘Ž —Ž›—Š’˜—Š• Ž—Ž› ˜› —Œ•žœ’ŸŽ Œ˜—˜–’Œ ŽŸŽ•˜™Ȭ
–Ž— ǻ ǼȄǯ
—œ’ž’˜—Š• ŽŸ’Ž ˜Š› ŠŽ–Ž—DZ ˜ Š™™•’ŒŠ‹•Žǯ
—˜›–Ž ˜—œŽ— ŠŽ–Ž—DZ ˜ Š™™•’ŒŠ‹•Žǯ
ŠŠ ŸŠ’•Š‹’•’¢ ŠŽ–Ž—DZ ‘™œDZȦȦŽŒǯŽž›˜™ŠǯŽžȦŽž›˜œŠȦ Ž‹Ȧœ’ȦŠŠ‹ŠœŽ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— Řş ž•¢
ŘŖŘŚǼǯ
˜—Ě’Œœ ˜ —Ž›ŽœDZ ‘Ž Šž‘˜›œ ŽŒ•Š›Ž —˜ Œ˜—Ě’Œœ ˜ ’—Ž›Žœǯ

ŽŽ›Ž—ŒŽœ
ŗǯ ˜Žœǰ ǯǯǯǯ  ›Š“Žó›’Š ˜ Ž—œŠ–Ž—˜ ’Ž—íꌘ ˜‹›Ž ˜‹›Ž£ŠDZ – ’›Ž³ã˜ Š –Š ’œã˜ ˜–™•Ž¡Šǯ ŘŖŖŞǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž
˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ›Ž™˜œ’˜›’˜ǯ’™ŽŠǯ˜Ÿǯ‹›Ȧ‘Š—•ŽȦŗŗŖśŞȦŗŚŞş ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ŘŖ žžœ ŘŖŘŚǼǯ
Řǯ Ž—ǰ ǯDz ’˜•Ž—ŒŽǰ ǯ ˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ ǯ ŽŠŒŽ Žœǯ ŘŖŖŞǰ Śśǰ śȮŗśǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
řǯ ›žœ”¢ǰ ǯǯDz Š—‹ž›ǰ ǯǯDz Ž—ǰ ǯ ǯ ˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— —ŽšžŠ•’¢Dz Š—˜› —’ŸŽ›œ’¢ ›ŽœœDZ Š—˜›ǰ ǰ ǰ ŘŖŖŜǯ
Śǯ ˜›• ˜––’œœ’˜— ˜— —Ÿ’›˜—–Ž— Š— ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—ǯ ž› ˜––˜— žž›ŽDz ¡˜› —’ŸŽ›œ’¢ ›ŽœœDZ ¡˜›ǰ  ǰ ŗşŞŝǯ
śǯ ȂŠ–˜ǰ ǯDz ’ Š›•˜ǰ ǯDz ŠœŠ•’ǰ ǯDz ˜œœ’ǰ ǯǯDz ›’ŒŒ‘’˜ǰ ǯǯ Œ˜—˜–’Œ Ž›˜›–Š—ŒŽǰ —Ÿ’›˜—–Ž—Š• ›˜ŽŒ’˜— Š— ˜Œ’Š•
›˜›ŽœœDZ  •žœŽ› —Š•¢œ’œ ˜–™Š›’œ˜— ˜ Š›œ žœŠ’—Š‹•Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—ǯ žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ śŖŚşǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
Ŝǯ ȂŠ–˜ǰ ǯDz ŠœŠ•’ǰ ǯDz Š••Š™Š—Ž—’ǰ ǯ ǯ ž›˜™Ž ˜ŸŽœ ˜ Š› ›Š–Š’Œ žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢DZ  ˜›Ž ž–Š— Š— ›ŠŽ›—Š•
™™›˜ŠŒ‘ǯ žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŜŗŜŗǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŝǯ ›Š—œ˜›–’— ž› ˜›•DZ ‘Ž ŘŖřŖ Ž—Š ˜› žœŠ’—Š‹•Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—ǯ Ž™Š›–Ž— ˜ Œ˜—˜–’Œ Š— ˜Œ’Š• 슒›œǯ —’Ž
Š’˜—œǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦœœǯž—ǯ˜›ȦŘŖřŖŠŽ—Š ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— Řŗ ž•¢ ŘŖŘŘǼǯ
Şǯ  Ž—Š ŘŖřŖ ž›˜™ŽŠ— ˜––’œœ’˜— Ž•Œ˜–Žœ Ž ŘŖřŖ  Ž—Š ˜› žœŠ’—Š‹•Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—ǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™DZ
ȦȦŽž›˜™ŠǯŽžȦ›Š™’Ȧ™›ŽœœȬ›Ž•ŽŠœŽȏ ȬŗśȬśŝŖŞȏŽ—ǯ‘– ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— Řŗ ž•¢ ŘŖŘŘǼǯ
şǯ ›Šœ‘Š ǰ ǯDz ‘Š—ǰ ǯDz ’——Ž”Ž›ǰ ǯ Ž—Ž› Š— ™˜ŸŽ›¢DZ ‘Š Ž ”—˜ ǰ ˜—Ȃ ”—˜ ǰ Š— —ŽŽ ˜ ”—˜ ˜› Ž—Š ŘŖřŖǯ
Ž—ǯ •ŠŒŽ ž•ǯ ŘŖŗŝǰ ŘŚǰ ŗŜŜŝȮŗŜŞŞǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŗŖǯ ŽŠ›ŒŽǰ ǯ ‘Ž Ž–’—’£Š’˜— ˜ ˜ŸŽ›¢DZ ˜–Ž—ǰ ˜›” Š— Ž•Š›Žǯ ›‹Š— ˜Œǯ ‘Š—Ž ŽŸǯ ŗşŝŞǰ ŗŗǰ ŘŞȮřŜǯ
ŗŗǯ ŽŽ›Š—ǰ ǯ Ž–’—’£Š’˜— ˜ ˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ — ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ¢–™˜œ’ž– ˜ —Ž›—Š’˜—Š• œœ˜Œ’Š’˜— ˜ Œ‘˜˜•œ ˜ ˜Œ’Š• ˜›” ’— ˜—Ȭ
›ŽŠ•ǰ Š—ŠŠǯ ŘŖŖŖǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ ǯ›ŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ŠŽǯ—ŽȦ™ž‹•’ŒŠ’˜—ȦŘŜŞśŖŜŖŞŚȏ   ȏȏ
ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ś Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘřǼǯ
ŗŘǯ ‘Š›”’Ž ’Œ£ǰ ǯ ˜‹’Ž¢ ’ ž‹óœ ˜Ȯ ’£’Š•—Š ›¿”Š —Ž˜•’‹Ž›Š•—Ž˜ ™ŠÚœ Šǯ ˜‹’Ž¢ ’ ž‹óœ ˜ ˜•œŒŽǯ ŠŠ—’Š ’ Š—Š•’£¢ ŘŖŖŞ
ŘŖŗŗǰ ŘŖŗŖǰ ŜȮŘŚǯ
ŗřǯ ˜›–Ž”™˜›ǰ ǯ ˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— Ž—Ž› ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ ’— ŽŸŽ•˜™’— Œ˜ž—›’Žœǯ ŽŸǯ ›¢ǯ žǯ ŘŖŗśǰ śǰ ŝŜȮŗŖŘǯ
ŗŚǯ  ǯ ‘Ž ŠŽ ˜ ‘Ž ˜›•Ȃœ ‘’•›Ž— ŘŖŖŝDZ ˜–Ž— Š— ‘’•›Ž—DZ ‘Ž ˜ž‹•Ž ’Ÿ’Ž— ˜ Ž—Ž› šžŠ•’¢Dz  DZ Ž—ŽŸŠǰ
 ’ĵŽ›•Š—ǰ ŘŖŖŜDz ˜•ž–Ž ŝǯ

102
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

ŗśǯ ˜˜”ǰ ǯ ŠŽ ŠŒ’Œœ ˜ Ž•Š›Ž ‹Ž—Žę –’—’–’œŠ’˜—DZ ‘Ž ™˜ Ž› ˜ ˜ŸŽ›—’— ˜Œž–Ž—œǯ ›’ǯ ˜Œǯ ˜•’Œ¢ ŘŖŘŘǰ ŚŘǰ ŘŚŗȮŘŜŚǯ
ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŗŜǯ •Šžǰ ǯǯDz Š‘—ǰ ǯǯ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ™Š¢ Š™ǯ ‘Ž Œ˜—˜–’œœȂ ˜’ŒŽ ŘŖŖŝǰ Śǯ
ŗŝǯ ’œ‘žǰ ǯ ǯDz •”Š›¢ǰ ǯ ǯ  œ¢œŽ–Š’Œ ›ŽŸ’Ž ˜ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› ™Š¢ Š™ Š— ŠŒ˜›œ ‘Š ™›Ž’Œ ’ǯ –ǯ ˜Œǯ ŘŖŗŝǰ Śşǰ ŜśȮŗŖŚǯ
ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŗŞǯ ›Ší—ǰ ǯDz Ž• í˜ǰ ǯDz Š—óǰ ǯ Ž—Ž› ŠŽ ’œŒ›’–’—Š’˜— Š— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ‘Ž ǯ Ž–ǯ Œ˜—ǯ ŘŖŗŖǰ ŗŜǰ ŝřȮŗŖşǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŗşǯ –Š›˜ǰ ǯDz Šœ˜œǰ ǯDz ›ž£ǰ ǯDz ›˜Ž—³Šǰ ǯ ’— ‘Ž Š™DZ ‘Ž 쎌œ ˜ •’–’—Š’— ‘Ž Ž—Ž› Š¢ Š™ ˜— —Œ˜–Ž Š— ˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ
ǯ ˜ŸŽ›¢ ŘŖŘřǰ ŗȮŗşǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŘŖǯ •Š—Œ¢ǰ ǯǯDz ”žœŒ‘ǰ ǯDz ŠŒ‘Ž•˜›ǰ ǯ ‘Ž Ž—Ž›Ȭ—Ž›¢Ȭ˜ŸŽ›¢ Ž¡žœDZ ’—’— ‘Ž —Ž›¢ ˜ ›Žœœ Ž—Ž› ˜—ŒŽ›—œ ’—
ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—ǯ   ›˜“ŽŒ şşŞśŘŗǯ ŘŖŖřǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ›’œǯž Ž—Žǯ—•Ȧ œȦ™˜›Š•’•ŽœȦ™˜›Š•ȦśŗřŚŘŝŝȦ•Š—Œ¢ş
şŽ—Ž›ǯ™ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ś Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘřǼǯ
Řŗǯ ž¢Ž—ǰ ǯǯDz žǰ ǯǯ ˜Žœ Ž—Ž›¢ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ –ŠĴŽ› ˜› Ž—Ž› ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ǵ •˜‹Š• ŽŸ’Ž—ŒŽǯ —Ž›¢ žœŠ’—ǯ ŽŸǯ ŘŖŘŗǰ ŜŚǰ řśȮŚśǯ
ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŘŘǯ ž—’Ž—ǰ ǯDz ‘–Žǰ ǯ  Ž—Ž›Ž ™Ž›œ™ŽŒ’ŸŽ ˜— Ž—Ž›¢ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— •’ŸŽ•’‘˜˜œȯŸŠ—Œ’— ‘Ž ’••Ž——’ž– ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—
˜Š•œ ’— ŽŸŽ•˜™’— Œ˜ž—›’Žœǯ Ž—Š ŘŖŗŘǰ ŘŜǰ ŗŗŘȮŗŘřǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
Řřǯ žœœ‹Šž–ǰ ǯ ›˜–˜’— ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ŒŠ™Š‹’•’’Žœǯ — •˜‹Š• Ž—œ’˜—œDZ ‘Š••Ž—Žœ Š— ™™˜›ž—’’Žœ ’— ‘Ž ˜›• Œ˜—˜–¢Dz ˜ž•ŽŽDZ
˜—˜—ǰ  ǰ ŘŖŖŚDz ™ǯ ŘŚŗǯ
ŘŚǯ ‘Š—ǰ ǯ ¡™•˜›’— ‘Ž ȃŽ–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ȅ ’— ›Ž•Š’˜— ˜ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ˜›” Š— ‘˜–ŽȬ‹ŠœŽ Ž—Ž›™›’œŽ ’— œ•ž–œ ˜ ‘Ž •˜‹Š•
˜ž‘ǯ —ǯ ǯ Ž—ǯ —›Ž™ǯ ŘŖŗŚǰ Ŝǰ ŘşŜȮřŗŜǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
Řśǯ Š‘Š›ǰ ǯDz Š–ŽŠ—’Š—ǰ ǯDz Š›Š“’‘Šǰ ǯDz ˜•™Š¢Š—’ǰ ǯǯ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ŒŒŽœœ ˜ Š–’•¢ žœ’ŒŽ ’— ›Š—DZ ¡™•˜›’— ‘Ž Š’— Š››’Ž›œǯ
Ž›Š—’”Š ǯ ˜Œǯ Œ’ǯ ž–Š—’ǯ ŘŖŗŞǰ ŘŜǰ ŗŚŝȮŗŜŚǯ
ŘŜǯ ¢Žǰ ǯDz ›ŽŽ—Žǰ ǯǯDz Š›–œŠǰ ǯǯ ’–Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢DZ ‹œŠŒ•Ž ˜ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ‘ž–Š— ›’‘œǰ ‘ŽŠ•‘ Š— œžœŠ’—Š‹•Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—ǯ
ǯ •˜‹ǯ ŽŠ•‘ ŘŖŘŖǰ ŗŖǰ ŖŘŖřŗřǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ ǽž‹ŽǾ
Řŝǯ ‹˜ž›Š‘–Š—ǰ ǯ ǯ ’–Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢DZ  Œ˜—›’‹ž˜› ˜ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ ǯ Šǯ ›ǯ ŘŖŗŖǰ ŗŗǰ ŗŜȮřŜǯ
ŘŞǯ ˜‘ǰ ǯDz ’–ǰ ǯǯ ŽŸ’œ’’— ‘Ž ȁŽ–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ȃ ’— ˜›ŽŠDZ ˜ŒžœŽ ˜— ’–Ž žœŽ Š— ’–Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ œ’Š ŠŒǯ ǯ ˜Œǯ
˜›” ŽŸǯ ŘŖŗśǰ Řśǰ şŜȮŗŗŖǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
Řşǯ ›˜›Šǰ ǯ Ž—Ž› ’쎛Ž—ŒŽœ ’— ’–ŽȬ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ›ž›Š• ˜£Š–‹’šžŽǯ ŽŸǯ ˜Œǯ Œ˜—ǯ ŘŖŗśǰ ŝřǰ ŗşŜȮŘŘŗǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
řŖǯ Š––ŠŽǰ ǯ ’–Ž ™›ŽœœŽ Š— ’–Ž ™˜˜›DZ —™Š’ ‘˜žœŽ‘˜• ˜›” ’— žŠŽ–Š•Šǯ Ž–ǯ Œ˜—ǯ ŘŖŗŖǰ ŗŜǰ ŝşȮŗŗŘǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
řŗǯ ‘Š—ǰ ǯ ‘Ž ȁŽ–’—’œŠ’˜— ˜ ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ȃ Š— ‘Ž ȁŽ–’—’œŠ’˜—Ȃ ˜ Š—’Ȭ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ™›˜›Š––ŽœDZ ˜˜– ˜› ›ŽŸ’œ’˜—ǵ ǯ ŽŸǯ žǯ
ŘŖŖŞǰ ŚŚǰ ŗŜśȮŗşŝǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
řŘǯ Š’Š›Š—ǰ ǯ ǯDz Š›ž™’Š‘ǰ ǯDz ˜™Š•ǰ ǯǯ Ž—Ž› œ˜Œ’Š•’£Š’˜— Š— ŒŠ™Š‹’•’¢ Ž™›’ŸŠ’˜— ˜— Œ‘’• ž›‹Š— ™˜ŸŽ›¢DZ ¡™Ž›’Ž—ŒŽœ
˜ Š•Š¢œ’Š— —’Š— ˜–Ž—ǯ Š•Š¢œǯ ǯ ˜Œǯ ™ŠŒŽ ŘŖŗŞǰ ŗŚǰ řŚŜȮřśŜǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
řřǯ Š›ŒŽ•’—˜ǰ ǯǯDz ž—‘Šǰ ǯǯǯ ž•’’–Ž—œ’˜—Š• ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ›Š£’•DZ Ÿ’Ž—ŒŽœ ˜› ›ž›Š• Š— ž›‹Š— Š›ŽŠœǯ ŽŸǯ Œ˜—ǯ  ˜Œ’˜•ǯ žȬ
›Š• ŘŖŘřǰ ŜŘǰ ŽŘŜŜŚřŖǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
řŚǯ ˜›• ŽŠ•‘ ›Š—’£Š’˜—Dz ž‹•’Œ ŽŠ•‘ Ž—Œ¢ ˜ Š—ŠŠǯ ›ŽŸŽ—’— ‘›˜—’Œ ’œŽŠœŽœDZ  ’Š• —ŸŽœ–Ž—Dz ˜›• ŽŠ•‘
›Š—’£Š’˜—DZ Ž—ŽŸŠǰ  ’ĵŽ›•Š—ǰ ŘŖŖśǯ
řśǯ ž”’—˜ǰ ǯDz ›’ŒŽǰ ǯDz ’”Žǰ ǯ œ’–Š’— ‘Ž ’–™ŠŒ ˜ –Ž—œ›žŠ• ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ˜— Š˜•ŽœŒŽ—œ ’— ˜ŸŠ Œ˜’Šǯ ŠŽ’Š› ‘’• ŽŠ•‘
ŘŖŘŘǰ Řŝǰ ŚŘŗȮŚŘŞǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
řŜǯ Ž—œ›žŠ• ˜ŸŽ›¢ȯ˜›”œ‘˜™ǯ ˜•’Œ¢ Ž™Š›–Ž— ˜› ’’£Ž—œȂ ’‘œ Š— ˜—œ’ž’˜—Š• 슒›œ ˜› ‘Ž ˜––’ĴŽŽ ˜—
˜–Ž—Ȃœ ’‘œ Š— Ž—Ž› šžŠ•’¢ǯ ž›˜™ŽŠ— Š›•’Š–Ž—ǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ ǯŽž›˜™Š›•ǯŽž›˜™ŠǯŽžȦŒ˜––’ŽŽœȦ
Ž—Ȧ–Ž—œ›žŠ•Ȭ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ȭ ˜›”œ‘˜™ȬȦ™›˜žŒȬŽŠ’•œȦŘŖŘŘŗŘŖŘ ŖŚŝŜŗ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ŘŘ žžœ ŘŖŘŚǼǯ
řŝǯ Ž›’˜ ˜ŸŽ›¢ȯ‘¢ ’••’˜—œ ˜ ’›•œ Š— ˜–Ž— Š——˜ 옛 ‘Ž’› Ž›’˜œǯ  ˜–Ž—ǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZ
ȦȦ ǯž— ˜–Ž—ǯ˜›ȦŽ—Ȧ—Ž œȬœ˜›’ŽœȦŽ¡™•Š’—Ž›ȦŘŖŘŚȦŖśȦ™Ž›’˜Ȭ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ȭ ‘¢Ȭ–’••’˜—œȬ˜Ȭ’›•œȬŠ—Ȭ ˜–Ž—ȬŒŠ——˜ȬŠ˜›Ȭ
‘Ž’›Ȭ™Ž›’˜œ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ŘŘ žžœ ŘŖŘŚǼǯ
řŞǯ ˜œœ˜ž ǰ ǯDz ˜œœǰ ǯ —Ž›œŠ—’— Ž›’˜ ˜ŸŽ›¢DZ ˜Œ’˜ȬŒ˜—˜–’Œ —ŽšžŠ•’’Žœ ’— Ž—œ›žŠ• ¢’Ž—Ž Š—ŠŽ–Ž— ’— ’‘
˜ Ȭ Š— ’•ŽȬ —Œ˜–Ž ˜ž—›’Žœǯ —ǯ ǯ —Ÿ’›˜—ǯ Žœǯ ž‹•’Œ ŽŠ•‘ ŘŖŘŗǰ ŗŞǰ Řśŝŗǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
řşǯ ”Š••’ǰ ǯ ǯ ˜–Ž— Š— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ˜›˜ŒŒ˜DZ ‘Ž –Š—¢ ŠŒŽœ ˜ œ˜Œ’Š• Ž¡Œ•žœ’˜—ǯ Ž–ǯ ŽŸǯ ŘŖŖŗǰ Ŝşǰ ŝřȮŞşǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŚŖǯ ›˜ŽŠǰ ǯ  Ȭŗş Š— œ Œ˜—˜–’Œ –™ŠŒ ˜— ˜–Ž— Š— ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ ŘŖŘŗǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ ǯŽž›˜™Š›•ǯ
Žž›˜™ŠǯŽžȦŽŠŠȦŽžŽœȦȦŘŖŘŗȦŜşřŗŞřȦ ȏǻŘŖŘŗǼŜşřŗŞřȏǯ™ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ŘŘ žžœ ŘŖŘŚǼǯ
Śŗǯ ‘Š›Šœǰ ǯDz ˜˜•Ž¢ǰ ǯ ¡›Ž–Ž ˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ‘Ž ’–Ž ˜  Ȭŗşǯ ŘŖŘŗǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ ǯ‹›˜˜”’—œǯŽžȦ ™Ȭ
Œ˜—Ž—Ȧž™•˜ŠœȦŘŖŘŗȦŖŜȦŽ¡›Ž–ŽȬ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ȭž›’—Ȭ‘ŽȬ’–ŽȬ˜ȬŒ˜Ÿ’Ȭŗşǯ™ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ŘŘ žžœ ŘŖŘŚǼǯ
ŚŘǯ 㗳 kŠŸ›Š—ǰ ǯDz žÂž›ǰ ǯ ‘Ž Ž—Ž›Ž ™ŠĴŽ›— ˜  Ȭŗş ™Š—Ž–’Œǯ — ˜Œ’Ž¢ ’— ‘Ž  Ȭŗş Š—Ž–’ŒDZ —ŽšžŠ•’’Žœǰ
‘Š••Ž—Žœǰ Š— ™™˜›ž—’’ŽœDz ŽŽ– ”ŠŽ–’ Š¢Í—ŒÍ•Í”DZ ŠŒž—ǰ ž›”Ž¢ǰ ŘŖŘŗDz ™™ǯ ŗȮŘŜǯ
Śřǯ ˜œŽ•ǰ ǯDz ˜Š—ǰ ǯ ˜–Ž—ǰ ’—Œ˜–Ž Š— ™˜ŸŽ›¢DZ Ž—Ž›Ž ŠŒŒŽœœ ˜ ›Žœ˜ž›ŒŽœ ’— ™˜œȬŠ™Š›‘Ž’ ˜ž‘ ›’ŒŠǯ Ž—Š ŘŖŖşǰ
Řřǰ ŘśȮřŚǯ
ŚŚǯ Š›’œ‘ǰ ǯǯDz ˜œŽǰ ǯǯDz —›Ž œǰ ǯǯ —Œ˜–Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— –ŠŽ›’Š• ‘Š›œ‘’™ Š–˜—  ˜–Ž— ’‘ ’œŠ‹’•’’Žœǯ ˜Œǯ Ž›Ÿǯ
ŽŸǯ ŘŖŖşǰ Şřǰ řřȮśŘǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
Śśǯ Š ‘˜›—Žǰ ǯ ‘Ž ›Š’‘ ŠŒœ ˜— ˜–Ž— ’— ˜ŸŽ›¢Dz Ž—Ž› ˜› –Ž›’ŒŠ— ›˜›ŽœœDZ Šœ‘’—˜—ǰ ǰ ǰ ŘŖŖŞDz ˜•ž–Ž Şǰ
™™ǯ ŗȮřǯ

103
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

ŚŜǯ ŠŠ••Šǰ ǯǯ Ž—Ž› ’쎛Ž—ŒŽœ ’— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ›ŠŽœ ŠŽ› –Š›’Š• ’œœ˜•ž’˜—DZ  •˜—’ž’—Š• œž¢ǯ ǯ ’Ÿ˜›ŒŽ Ž–Š››’ŠŽ ŘŖŖŞǰ Śşǰ
ŘŘśȮŘřŞǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
Śŝǯ –ŽŽ’—ǰ ǯǯDz Š—œ›˜–ǰ ǯ ˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— —Œ˜–Ž Š’—Ž—Š—ŒŽ ’— • ŽDZ  ›˜œœȬŠ’˜—Š• ’Ž ˜ ˜ —Œ˜–Ž •Ž› ˜–Ž—Dz  
˜›”’— Š™Ž› Ž›’ŽœDz ˜ž•ŽŽDZ ˜—˜—ǰ  ǰ ŘŖŖśDz ™ǯ řşŞǯ
ŚŞǯ Š ŠŒ‘’ǰ ǯDz Ž——Ž¢ǰ ǯǯDz ž™Šǰ ǯDz ›˜‘›˜ Ȭ’‘ǰ ǯ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ œŠžœ Š— ‘Ž ‘ŽŠ•‘ ˜ ˜–Ž— Š— –Ž—DZ  Ÿ’Ž ›˜– ‘Ž
ŠŽœǯ ˜Œǯ Œ’ǯ Žǯ ŗşşşǰ ŚŞǰ ŘŗȮřŘǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ ǽž‹ŽǾ
Śşǯ ž”‘˜™Š‘¢Š¢ǰ ǯDz Ž—ž™Šǰ ǯǯ ǻœǯǼ ’—’ —ŽšžŠ•’¢ —Ž¡DZ Ž‘˜œ Š— ™™•’ŒŠ’˜—œDz  ›ŽœœDZ ˜ŒŠ Š˜—ǰ ǰ ǰ ŘŖŘŗǯ
śŖǯ Š–˜œǰ ǯǯDz ’‹Š“ŠȬ˜–Ž›˜ǰ ǯǯDz Œ‘˜Šǰ ǯǯ Ž—Ž› ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ Š— Ž—Ž›Ȭ‹ŠœŽ ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— Ž¡’Œ˜ǯ Ž•’¢˜— ŘŖŘŖǰ Ŝǰ ŽŖřřŘŘǯ
ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
śŗǯ Šœ‘ŠŠǰ ǯǯDz ‘Š›Šǰ ǯǯ —Œ˜–Ž ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ Š— ’—’–ŠŽ ™Š›—Ž› Ÿ’˜•Ž—ŒŽ ŠŠ’—œ ˜–Ž—DZ Ÿ’Ž—ŒŽ ›˜– —’Šǯ — ›Š—”ž›
Œ‘˜˜•Ȭ˜›”’— Š™Ž› Ž›’ŽœDz ›Š—”ž› Œ‘˜˜• ˜ ’—Š—ŒŽ ǭ Š—ŠŽ–Ž—ǰ ›Š—”ž›DZ ›Š—”ž›ǰ Ž›–Š—¢ǰ ŘŖŗŜDz ™ǯ ŘŘŘǯ
śŘǯ ŠŠŠ“Šǰ ǯ —Ž–™•˜¢–Ž—ǰ Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— Š— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ ž›ǯ ˜Œǯ ŗşşşǰ ŗǰ ŗŜşȮŗşŜǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
śřǯ ›–œ›˜—ǰ ǯ ˜–Ž— Š— ž—Ž–™•˜¢–Ž—ǯ •Š—’œDZ ›’’ŒŠ• ž’Žœ ’— Ž—Ž›ǯ ž•ǯ ˜Œǯ žœ’ŒŽ ŗşŞŖǰ Ŝǰ ŗȮŗŝǯ
śŚǯ ›¢Ž›ǰ ǯDz ŠŠ—ǰ ǯ ˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— ž—Ž–™•˜¢–Ž—ǯ — ˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— œ¢Œ‘˜•˜¢DZ ›˜– •˜‹Š• Ž›œ™ŽŒ’ŸŽ ˜ ˜ŒŠ• ›ŠŒ’ŒŽDz ™›’—Ž›DZ
˜œ˜—ǰ ǰ ǰ ŘŖŖřDz ™™ǯ ŞŝȮŗŖŗǯ
śśǯ ’œŠ”ǰ ǯǯDz ž’‘Š›’ǰ ǯ Ž—Ž› ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ Š— ˜–Ž— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— —˜—Žœ’Šǯ —ǯ ǯ ——˜Ÿǯ ›ŽŠǯ ‘Š—ǯ ŘŖŘŖǰ ŗŗǰ řŝśȮřŞŝǯ
śŜǯ •˜¢ǰ ǯǯDz Ž ŽĴǰ ǯ žŒŠ’˜—Š• ’—ŽšžŠ•’’Žœ ’— ‘Ž –’œ ˜ ™Ž›œ’œŽ— ™˜ŸŽ›¢DZ ’ŸŽ›œ’¢ ŠŒ›˜œœ ›’ŒŠ ’— ŽžŒŠ’˜—Š• ˜žȬ
Œ˜–Žœǯ ǯ —ǯ ŽŸǯ ŘŖŖşǰ Řŗǰ ŗŗřŝȮŗŗśŗǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
śŝǯ œ›ã–ǰ ǯ —’ŒŠ˜›œ ˜› ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ŽŠ•‘ ’— ŽŸŽ•˜™’— ˜ž—›’ŽœDZ ‘Š ‘Ž¢ ŽŸŽŠ• Š— ˜—ŒŽŠ• ŗǯ  ž••ǯ ŗşşŘǰ Řřǰ řŞȮŚşǯ
ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
śŞǯ ›’ŒŽǰ ǯDz œŠ›¢ǰ ǯ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ‘ŽŠ•‘ ’œ™Š›’’Žœ ’— ˜—ž›ŠœDZ —’ŒŠ˜›œ Š— ŽŽ›–’—Š—œǯ ǯ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ŽŠ•‘ ŘŖŗŗǰ ŘŖǰ ŗşřŗȮŗşřŝǯ
ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
śşǯ ‹Ž•Š£’£ǰ ǯǯ ˜–Ž—Ȃœ ‘ŽŠ•‘ Š— Žšž’¢ ’—’ŒŠ˜›œǯ —ǯ ǯ ž‹•’Œ ŽŠ•‘ ŘŖŖŝǰ śŘ ǻž™™•ǯ ŗǼǰ ŗȮŘǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŜŖǯ Œ‘û•Ž›ǰ ǯ ‘Ž žœŽœ Š— –’œžœŽœ ˜ ‘Ž Ž—Ž›ȬŽ•ŠŽ ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— —Ž¡ Š— Ž—Ž› –™˜ Ž›–Ž— ŽŠœž›ŽDZ  ›ŽŸ’Ž ˜
‘Ž •’Ž›Šž›Žǯ ǯ ž–ǯ ŽŸǯ ŘŖŖŜǰ ŝǰ ŗŜŗȮŗŞŗǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
Ŝŗǯ ž‘Š›—Š—’”ǰ ǯDz Š›Š‘ǰ ǯDz žžǰ ǯǯǯ —Š•¢œ’œ ˜ Ž—Ž› ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— —Ž¡ ˜ ™›˜ŸŽ ’œ Œ˜››Ž•Š’˜— ’‘ ‘Ž ŽŒ›ŽŠœŽ ˜
™˜ŸŽ›¢ •’—Ž ’— Ž’›’ ’¢ǰ —˜—Žœ’Šǯ ɳʺˑ˧ˆˑŠ ʵ ʇ˓˖˖ˆˇ˖ˊ˓ː ʅʴ˧ʺ˖˘ʵʺ ŘŖŘřǰ Řǰ řŝȮŚŜǯ
ŜŘǯ Š•’”ǰ ǯ  Š— Ž—Ž› ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— —Ž¡DZ ž››Ž— Šžœ ˜ ˜–Ž— ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ’— —’Šǯ   ǯ —’Š— Œ˜—ǯ ŘŖŗŞǰ
śǰ řŖȮŚřǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
Ŝřǯ ’“”œ›Šǰ ǯ ǯDz Š—–Ž›ǰ ǯǯ ŽŠœž›’— œ˜Œ’˜ȬŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ Ž—Ž› ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢DZ ˜ Š› Š— Š•Ž›—Š’ŸŽ ˜ ‘Ž  Ž—Ž›Ȭ›Ž•ŠŽ
ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ’—Ž¡ǯ Ž–ǯ Œ˜—ǯ ŘŖŖŖǰ Ŝǰ ŚŗȮŝśǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŜŚǯ ‘Š›–Žœǰ ǯDz ’Ž›’—Šǰ ǯ ŽŠœž›’— ˜–Ž—Ȃœ Ž–™˜ Ž›–Ž—DZ — ŠœœŽœœ–Ž— ˜ ‘Ž Ž—Ž›Ȭ›Ž•ŠŽ ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ’—Ž¡ Š— ‘Ž
Ž—Ž› Ž–™˜ Ž›–Ž— –ŽŠœž›Žǯ ǯ ž–ǯ ŽŸǯ ŘŖŖřǰ Śǰ ŚŗşȮŚřśǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
Ŝśǯ “Ž’ǰ ǯǯ œœŽœœ’— ˜–Ž— Ž–™˜ Ž›–Ž— ’— ›’ŒŠDZ  Œ›’’ŒŠ• ›ŽŸ’Ž ˜ ‘Ž Œ‘Š••Ž—Žœ ˜ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› Ž–™˜ Ž›–Ž— –ŽŠœž›Ž
˜ ‘Ž ǯ œ¢Œ‘˜•ǯ ŽŸǯ ˜Œǯ ŘŖŗśǰ Řŝǰ śŞȮŞŖǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŜŜǯ ž›‹’—ǰ ǯ ˜ Š›œ Š Ž—Ž›Ž ‘ž–Š— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ –ŽŠœž›Žǯ Ž–ǯ Œ˜—ǯ ŗşşşǰ śǰ ŗŖśȮŗŖŞǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
Ŝŝǯ žĴ—Ž“Šǰ ǯ  ›ŽŸ’Ž ˜ ž–Š— ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— —Ž¡ ǻ  Ǽ Š— ž–Š— ˜ŸŽ›¢ —Ž¡ ǻ  Ǽ ’— ‘Ž —’Š— ™Ž›œ™ŽŒ’ŸŽǯ Œ‘ǯ —ǯ
ǯ Š—Šǯ ŽŸǯ ŘŖŗśǰ Řǰ ŗśǯ
ŜŞǯ ›’—ŒŽǰ ǯ ŠŒ›˜Ȭ•ŽŸŽ• ›’ŸŽ›œ ˜ –ž•’’–Ž—œ’˜—Š• ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— œž‹ȬŠ‘Š›Š— ›’ŒŠDZ ¡™•Š’—’— Œ‘Š—Ž ’— ‘Ž ž–Š— ˜ŸŽ›¢
—Ž¡ǯ ›ǯ ŸŠ•ǯ ǯ ŘŖŗŚǰ Řǰ ŗŗǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
Ŝşǯ   Ž™˜›ȯ Ž—Ž› šžŠ•’¢ —Ž¡ ŘŖŘŖDZ ’’Š•’œŠ’˜— Š— ‘Ž žž›Ž ˜ ˜›”ǰ ž‹•’ŒŠ’˜—œ ĜŒŽ ˜ ‘Ž ž›˜™ŽŠ— —’˜—ǰ
ž¡Ž–‹˜ž›ǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦŽ’ŽǯŽž›˜™ŠǯŽžȦ™ž‹•’ŒŠ’˜—œȦŽ—Ž›ȬŽšžŠ•’¢Ȭ’—Ž¡ȬŘŖŘŖȬ’’Š•’œŠ’˜—ȬŠ—Ȭžž›ŽȬ
˜›” ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ś Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘřǼǯ
ŝŖǯ ž›˜œŠDZ Ž—Ž› Š¢ Š™ Š’œ’Œœǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦŽŒǯŽž›˜™ŠǯŽžȦŽž›˜œŠȦœŠ’œ’ŒœȬŽ¡™•Š’—ŽȦ’—Ž¡ǯ™‘™ǵ’•Žƽ
Ž—Ž›ȏ™Š¢ȏŠ™ȏœŠ’œ’Œœ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ś Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘřǼǯ
ŝŗǯ ’“”œ›Šǰ ǯǯDz Š™Š’–’›’˜žǰ ǯDz ˜›•é—ǰ ǯ ‘Ž ›Ž’˜—Š• Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ –˜—’˜›ǯ — ŽŠœž›’— Ž–Š•Ž ’œŠŸŠ—ŠŽ Š— Œ‘’ŽŸŽȬ
–Ž— ’—  Ž’˜—œDz ž‹•’ŒŠ’˜—œ ĜŒŽ ˜ ‘Ž ž›˜™ŽŠ— —’˜—DZ ž¡Ž–‹˜ž›ǰ ŘŖŗşǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŝŘǯ Œ‘–’ǰ ǯǯDz ••’˜ǰ ǯ ȃ‘¢ Š••  šžŠ•’¢ǵȄ ŽŸ’œ’ŽDZ — ¡Ž—Ž ›’’šžŽ ˜ ‘Ž   Ž—Ž› šžŠ•’¢ —Ž¡ǯ
˜Œǯ —’Œǯ Žœǯ ŘŖŘřǰ ŗŜŞǰ řŞşȮŚŖŞǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŝřǯ 󙎣ȬŠ›í—Ž£ǰ ǯDz ’šžŽ•–Ž Ž›ŽŠǰ ǯ ǯDz Ž Š¢Š ŠŠ••Š—Šǰ ǯ Ž—Ž› ŽšžŠ•’¢ –˜Ž•œ ’— ‘Ž ž›˜™ŽŠ— —’˜—ǯ —ǯ ǯ ˜Œ’˜•ǯ
˜Œǯ ˜•’Œ¢ ŘŖŘŘǰ ŚŘǰ ŜŖśȮŜŘřǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŝŚǯ Ž’Ž—›Ž’Œ‘ǰ ǯ Ž››’˜›’Š• Š— ˜Œ’Š• —ŽšžŠ•’’Žœ ’— ž›˜™ŽDZ ‘Š••Ž—Žœ ˜ ž›˜™ŽŠ— —Ž›Š’˜—Dz ™›’—Ž› Šž›ŽDZ Ž ˜›”ǰ ǰ
ǰ ŘŖŘŘǯ
ŝśǯ ˜›Ž–Š—œǰ ǯDz Š›¡ǰ ǯ ‘˜ž• Ž ŒŠ›Ž Š‹˜ž ™Š›Ȭ’–Ž ˜›” ›˜– Š ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ™Ž›œ™ŽŒ’ŸŽǵ — Š—Š•¢œ’œ ˜ ‘Ž ŗś Œ˜ž—›’Žœǯ
— ˜—ȬŠ—Š› –™•˜¢–Ž— ’— ž›˜™ŽDZ Š›Š’–œǰ ›ŽŸŠ•Ž—ŒŽ Š— ˜•’Œ¢ Žœ™˜—œŽœDz Š•›ŠŸŽ ŠŒ–’••Š—  DZ ˜—˜—ǰ  ǰ ŘŖŗřDz
™™ǯ ŗŜşȮŗŞşǯ
ŝŜǯ ˜›Ž–Š—œǰ ǯDz Š›¡ǰ ǯDz ˜•Š—ǰ ǯ Š—’— ’—ǰ ‹ž ˜—•¢ “žœDZ Š›Ȭ’–Ž Ž–™•˜¢–Ž— Š— ’—Ȭ ˜›” ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ‘›˜ž‘˜ž ‘Ž Œ›’œ’œǯ
 ǯ ž›ǯ Š‹˜› žǯ ŘŖŗŜǰ śǰ ŗȮŗşǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŝŝǯ •Š˜¢Œ‘ŽŸŠǰ ǯ –™•˜¢–Ž— Š— ‘Ž ȃ˜›”’— ˜˜›Ȅ ‘Ž—˜–Ž—˜— ’— ‘Ž ǯ —ǯ ǯ Œ˜—ǯ žœǯ –ǯ ŘŖŗŜǰ Śǰ řȮŗŞǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ

104
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

ŝŞǯ ’• ž’£ǰ ǯǯ Š’œœŽ£ Š’›Žǰ •Š’œœŽ› ™ŠœœŽ›DZ Žœ’žŠ•Š Žœ›žŒž›Š• •Š‹˜›Š• ¢ ›ŽŒ˜›Žœ ™›Žœž™žŽœŠ›’˜œǯ Š’–˜—ȬŽŸǯ —ǯ ’•˜œ˜ęŠǯ
ŘŖŗŝǰ ŗŗŗȮŗŘŚǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŝşǯ 雎£Ȭ˜››Š•ǰ ǯǯDz ˜›Ž—˜ 헐žŽ£ǰ ǯ ’—•ŽȬ™Š›Ž— Š–’•’Žœǰ ŽžŒŠ’˜—Š• ›Š’Ž—ǰ Š— Œ‘’• Ž™›’ŸŠ’˜—DZ ‘Ž ŒŠœŽœ ˜ Š•¢
Š— ™Š’—ǯ ‘’• —’Œǯ Žœǯ ŘŖŘŘǰ ŗśǰ ŗŞŘŗȮŗŞŚŜǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŞŖǯ ž—’””ŠȬ•Š—”ǰ ǯDz Š•Ÿ’—ǰ ǯ ’—•Ž ™Š›Ž—œ ’— Œ˜• ‘˜–Žœ ’— ž›˜™ŽDZ ˜ ’—Ž›œŽŒ’— ™Ž›œ˜—Š• Š— —Š’˜—Š• Œ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œœ
›’ŸŽ ž™ ‘Ž —ž–‹Ž›œ ˜ ‘ŽœŽ Ÿž•—Ž›Š‹•Ž ‘˜žœŽ‘˜•œǯ —Ž›¢ ˜•’Œ¢ ŘŖŘŗǰ ŗśŖǰ ŗŗŘŗřŚǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
Şŗǯ Š—Š£’œǰ ǯDz ˜›˜—ǰ ǯ ˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— ˜Œ’Š• ¡Œ•žœ’˜— ’— ›’Š’—Dz ŽŸ’Šœǰ ǯǰ ǯDz ˜•’Œ¢ ›ŽœœDZ ›’œ˜•ǰ  ǰ ŘŖŖŜDz ™™ǯ ŘřȮŘŚǯ
ŞŘǯ —Ž›œ˜—ǰ ǯ ‘Ž ’ŸŽ›œ’¢ǰ œ›Ž—‘ǰ Š— Œ‘Š••Ž—Žœ ˜ œ’—•ŽȬ™Š›Ž— ‘˜žœŽ‘˜•œǯ — ˜›–Š• Š–’•¢ ›˜ŒŽœœŽœDZ ›˜ ’— ’ŸŽ›œ’¢
Š— ˜–™•Ž¡’¢ǰ ř› ŽǯDz Š•œ‘ǰ ǯǰ ǯDz ‘Ž ž’•˜› ›ŽœœDZ Ž ˜›”ǰ ǰ ǰ ŘŖŖřDz ™™ǯ ŗŘŗȮŗśŘǯ
Şřǯ ˜ —Ž¢ǰ ǯǯDz ’—œ ˜›‘ȬŠ›—Ž••ǰ ǯǯDz žž›ǰ ǯ ǯ Ž¡ ˜ ™Š›Ž— Š— Œ‘’•›Ž—Ȃœ Ž••Ȭ‹Ž’— ’— œ’—•ŽȬ™Š›Ž— ‘˜žœŽ‘˜•œǯ
ǯ Š››’ŠŽ Š–ǯ ŗşşŞǰ ŜŖǰ ŞŝŞȮŞşřǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŞŚǯ ›Šœ‘Š ǰ ǯDz Žž—ǰ ǯDz ‘£‘Ž—ǰ ǯ Šœ‘ ‹Ž—Žęœ Š— ™˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— œ’—•ŽȬ™Š›Ž— Š–’•’Žœǯ — ‘Ž ›’™•Ž ’— ˜ ’—•ŽȬŠ›Ž—
Š–’•’ŽœDz ˜•’Œ¢ ›ŽœœDZ ›’œ˜•ǰ  ǰ ŘŖŗŞDz ™™ǯ řřŝȮřśŞǯ
Şśǯ ›Š£Œ˜£ǰ ǯDz ˜›èœȬ›Š—Œ‘ǰ ǯDz ›ŒŠœǰ ǯǯDz ••éȬœ™•žŠǰ ǯDz 雎£ǰ ǯ ’–Ž ™˜ŸŽ›¢ǰ ‘ŽŠ•‘ Š— ‘ŽŠ•‘Ȭ›Ž•ŠŽ ‹Ž‘ŠŸ’˜ž›œ ’— Š
˜ž‘Ž›— ž›˜™ŽŠ— Œ’¢DZ  Ž—Ž› ’œœžŽǯ ǯ ™’Ž–’˜•ǯ ˜––ž—’¢ ŽŠ•‘ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŝŞǰ ŘŞŚȮŘŞşǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŞŜǯ ˜’’Š—’ǰ ǯDz Š’—˜ǰ ǯ ’—’–ž– ’—Œ˜–Žǰ ŠŒ’ŸŽ ’—Œ•žœ’˜—ǰ Š— ˜›” ›Žšž’›Ž–Ž—œ ’— ž›˜™ŽDZ —œ’‘œ ›˜– Œ˜––ž—’¢ œŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽ
™›˜“ŽŒœ ’—›˜žŒŽ ‹¢ Š•’Š— ’’£Ž—œ‘’™ —Œ˜–Žǯ Š˜  Ž›ŒŠ˜ ŘŖŘŘǰ ŚŘǰ řŜşȮŚŖŜǯ
Şŝǯ ŠŒ˜•’ǰ ǯ ›‹Š—’£Š’˜—ǰ Ž—Ž› Š— ›‹Š— ˜ŸŽ›¢DZ Š’ ˜›” Š— —™Š’ Š›Ž ˜›” ’— ‘Ž ’¢Dz ž–Š— ŽĴ•Ž–Ž—œ ›˜ž™ǰ —Ž›—ŠȬ
’˜—Š• —œ’žŽ ˜› —Ÿ’›˜—–Ž— Š— ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—DZ ˜—˜—ǰ  ǰ ŘŖŗŘDz ™ǯ ŚŞǯ
ŞŞǯ Ž››Š—ǰ ǯDz ŽœŠ—˜ǰ ǯǯDz ˜ ŠŒ”Šǰ ǯ —™Š’ Š›Ž ˜›”DZ ‘Ž ’œœ’— ’—” ’— ‘Ž —Š•¢œ’œ ˜ Ž—Ž› Š™œ ’— Š‹˜ž› žŒ˜–ŽœDz
 ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— Ž—Ž›DZ ˜ž•˜—Ž ’••Š—Œ˜ž›ǰ ›Š—ŒŽǰ ŘŖŗŚǯ
Şşǯ •Š›Œã˜ǰ ǯDz Š—Ž’Šœǰ ǯDz ŽŠ—˜Ÿœ”ŠȬŽ”˜Ÿœ”Šǰ ǯDz ’—Šœœ’•˜ǰ ǯDz ŠŒ‘Š˜ǰ ǯǯDz ’›˜•’—˜ǰ ǯDz Š—˜œǰ ǯ Ž—Š• ŽŠ•‘ Š—
Ž••ȬŽ’— ˜ ’›Š— ˜™ž•Š’˜—œ ’— ˜›žŠ•  ˜ ŽŠ›œ ŠŽ› ‘Ž  Ȭŗş Š—Ž–’Œǯ Ž‘ŠŸǯ Œ’ǯ ŘŖŘřǰ ŗřǰ ŚŘŘǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
şŖǯ Ž—Ž’ Š‘žŽ›Šǰ ǯ  ‘Š˜ Ž™˜› ŘŖŗŖȮŘŖŗŗDZ ŠŒ’œ– Š— Ž•ŠŽ ’œŒ›’–’—Š˜›¢ ›ŠŒ’ŒŽœ ’— ™Š’—ǯ ŘŖŗŘǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž
˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦŽ™›’—œǯœ˜˜—ǯŠŒǯž”ȦřŞśŖřŜȦŗȦŘŚǯȏœ™Š’—ǯ™ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ś Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘřǼǯ
şŗǯ Š‘›Š˜ž’ǰ ǯ ŠŒ’Š•’œŽ ˜›”Ž›œ Š— ž›˜™ŽŠ— •Ž›ȬŽ Š›ŽDz ™›’—Ž› —Ž›—Š’˜—Š• ž‹•’œ‘’—DZ Ž ˜›”ǰ ǰ ǰ ŘŖŗşǯ
şŘǯ ᗌ‘Ž£Ȭ˜™Ž£ǰ ǯDz Ž Š£ áێ£ǰ ǯǯ —šžŽŠž¢ Š— ˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ›ŽŠ ›ŽŒŽœœ’˜—ǯ ’쎛Ž—ŒŽœ ‹Ž ŽŽ—  Œ˜ž—›’Žœǯ ŽŸǯ Œ˜—ǯ
ž—ǯ ŘŖŗŜǰ ŚŚǰ şřȮŗŘŚǯ
şřǯ ŒŽŸ’Ĵǰ ǯ ˜Œ’Š• Ž¡Œ•žœ’˜— ’— ‘Ž ž›˜™ŽŠ— —’˜—DZ — ˜›Š—’£Ž ˜Œžœ ˜› œ˜Œ’Š• ™˜•’Œ¢Ȭ–Š”’—ǯ ˜Œǯ ˜•’Œ¢ ǯ ŘŖŖřǰ Řǰ řȮŗŞǯ
ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
şŚǯ œ—Ž›ǰ ǯDz Ž ’œǰ ǯ Ž—Ž› Š— ‘Ž Ÿ˜•ž’˜— ˜ ž›˜™ŽŠ— ˜Œ’Š• ˜•’Œ’Žœǯ — ž›˜™ŽŠ— ˜Œ’Š• ˜•’Œ¢DZ Ž ŽŽ— ›Š–Ž—Š’˜— Š—
—Ž›Š’˜—Dz Ž’‹›’Žǰ ǯǰ ’Ž›œ˜—ǰ ǯǰ œǯDz ›˜˜”’—œ ž‹•’ŒŠ’˜—œDZ Šœ‘’—˜—ǰ ǰ ǰ ŗşşśDz ™™ǯ ŗśşȮŗşřǯ
şśǯ Š£Ž™˜Ÿǰ ǯ ǻǯǼ ŽœŒŠ•’— ˜Œ’Š• ˜•’Œ’ŽœDZ ˜ Š›œ ž•’•ŽŸŽ• ˜ŸŽ›—Š—ŒŽ ’— ž›˜™ŽDz œ‘ŠŽ ž‹•’œ‘’—ǰ ǯDZ •Ž›œ‘˜ǰ  ǰ
ŘŖŗŖDz ˜•ž–Ž řŞǯ
şŜǯ Žœ”˜ñŽ”ǰ ǯ ’›˜–ŠñŸ˜ œŠ›’“’‘ ċŽ—Š ž •˜ŸŽ—’“’ǯ ŽŸǯ Š ˜Œǯ ˜•’ǯ ŘŖŗşǰ ŘŜǰ ŘŚŖǯ
şŝǯ ’–˜—Ž—ǰ ǯDz ˜¢•Žǰ ǯ ’ŽȬ•˜— œ’—•Ž‘˜˜DZ —Ž›œŽŒ’˜—œ ˜ ‘Ž ™Šœ Š— ‘Ž ™›ŽœŽ—ǯ Ž’— ˜Œǯ ŘŖŗŚǰ řŚǰ ŗŝŚşȮŗŝŝŖǯ
ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
şŞǯ Ž’—‘’•‹Ž›ǰ ǯ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› –™ŠŒ ˜ Ž—œ’˜— Ž˜›–œDZ ŠœŽ ž’Žœ ˜ ‘Ž £ŽŒ‘ Ž™ž‹•’Œǰ ž—Š›¢ǰ Š— ˜•Š—Dz ž‹•’Œ Ž—œ’˜—œDz DZ
Š›’œǰ ›Š—ŒŽǰ ŘŖŖŚDz ™ǯ ŘŚřǯ
şşǯ Šœǰ ǯǯ ‘Ž ’œ’— ’ŽDZ  Ž ˜˜” Š ŠŽ› Š— Ž—Ž›ǯ ˜›• Š—”ǰ Šœ‘’—˜—ǰ ˜›• Š—”ǯ ŘŖŗŝǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ
‘™œDZȦȦ˜™Ž—”—˜ •ŽŽǯ ˜›•‹Š—”ǯ˜›Ȧ‘Š—•ŽȦŗŖşŞŜȦŘŝşŚş ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ś Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘřǼǯ
ŗŖŖǯ Š›Šǰ ǯDz ›˜ —ǰ ǯDz ŽŽ—Ž›ǰ ǯDz Šĵ Ž•ǰ ǯDz ž˜‘ǰ ǯ Ž—œ›žŠ• ŽŠ•‘ Š— ¢’Ž—Ž –™˜ Ž›œ ˜–Ž— Š— ’›•œDZ ˜ ˜
—œž›Ž Ž Ž  ’‘ǯ ŘŖŘŗǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ‹•˜œǯ ˜›•‹Š—”ǯ˜›Ȧ ŠŽ›Ȧ–Ž—œ›žŠ•Ȭ‘ŽŠ•‘ȬŠ—Ȭ‘¢’Ž—ŽȬŽ–™˜ Ž›œȬ
˜–Ž—ȬŠ—Ȭ’›•œȬ‘˜ ȬŽ—œž›ŽȬ ŽȬŽȬ’Ȭ›’‘ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ŗŘ Ž‹›žŠ›¢ ŘŖŘřǼǯ
ŗŖŗǯ Š›”Šǰ ǯ يœ—˜ïŒ’ ŒŽŒ‘ ’Š—˜œ¢Œ£—¢Œ‘ ‹ŠŠ—’ŠŒ‘ ¢™ž Š”œ˜—˜–’Œ£—Ž˜ǯ ”˜—ǯ Š›£­£Š—’Ž ŘŖŗŗǰ Řǰ ŗşŚȮŘŖśǯ
ŗŖŘǯ ŽœŽ››Ž’Œ‘ǰ ǯDz Ž›£¢Úœ”Šǰ ǯDz Š›Ž“Ȭ ŠŒ£–Š›Ž”ǰ ǯ ™™•’ŒŠ’˜— ˜ ‘Ž   ™›˜ŒŽž›Ž ˜› ŽŸŠ•žŠ’˜— ˜ œ˜Œ’˜ȬŽŒ˜—˜–’Œ ŽŸŽ•Ȭ
˜™–Ž— ˜ ‘Ž Žœ ˜–Ž›Š—’Š— ˜’Ÿ˜Žœ‘’™ ’œ›’Œœ ’— ¢ŽŠ›œ ŘŖŖŚȮŘŖŗŝǯ Žœ£ǯ Šž”ǯ —’ ǯ ›£¢›ǯ ž–Š—’œǯ  ’Ž•ŒŠŒ‘ǯ Ž›ǯ
–ǯ Š›£­£Š—’Ž ŘŖŗşǰ Śşǰ ŝşȮŞŞǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŗŖřǯ ­”ǰ ǯDz Ž›£¢Úœ”Šǰ ǯ Ž—Ž› Š•Š—ŒŽ ’— ‘Ž ž›˜™ŽŠ— —’˜— ˜ž—›’Žœ Šœ Š— –™˜›Š— ‘Š••Ž—Ž ˜ ‘Ž –™•Ž–Ž—Š’˜—
˜ ‘Ž žœŠ’—Š‹•Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ˜Š•œȮŠ’œ’ŒŠ• —Š•¢œ’œǯ — ——˜ŸŠ’˜— Š—ŠŽ–Ž— Š— ’—˜›–Š’˜— ŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ ’–™ŠŒ ˜—
•˜‹Š• Œ˜—˜–¢ ’— ‘Ž ›Š ˜ Š—Ž–’ŒDZ ›˜ŒŽŽ’—œ ˜ ‘Ž řŝ‘ —Ž›—Š’˜—Š• žœ’—Žœœ —˜›–Š’˜— Š—ŠŽ–Ž— œœ˜Œ’Š’˜— ˜—Ȭ
Ž›Ž—ŒŽ ǻ  Ǽǰ ˜›˜‹Šǰ ™Š’—ǰ řŖȮřŗ Š¢ ŘŖŘŗDz ŘŖŘŗDz  ŘŝŜŝȬşŜŚŖǯ ™™ǯ şŖŖŝȮşŖŗśǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ’‹’–Šǯ˜›Ȧ
ŠŒŒŽ™ŽȬ™Š™Ž›ȦŽ—Ž›Ȭ‹Š•Š—ŒŽȬ’—Ȭ‘ŽȬŽž›˜™ŽŠ—Ȭž—’˜—ȬŒ˜ž—›’ŽœȬŠœȬŠ—Ȭ’–™˜›Š—ȬŒ‘Š••Ž—ŽȬ˜Ȭ‘ŽȬ’–™•Ž–Ž—Š’˜—Ȭ˜Ȭ‘ŽȬ
œžœŠ’—Š‹•ŽȬŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—Ȭ˜Š•œȬœŠ’œ’ŒŠ•ȬŠ—Š•¢œ’œȦ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— Řş ž•¢ ŘŖŘŚǼǯ
ŗŖŚǯ £Š—žÙŠǰ ǯ  Š’ ˜ ž—’Š›¢£ŠŒ“’ £–’Ž——¢Œ‘ ›ŽŽ›Ž—Œ¢“—¢– œ¢œŽ–’Ž ›Š—’Œ£—¢–ǯ ›£Ž•­ Šǯ ŘŖŗŚǰ Ŝŗǰ ŗŚŝȮŗŜŞǯ
ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŗŖśǯ ˜ Š”ǰ ǯ Ž˜¢ Š”œ˜—˜–’Œ£—Ž •Šœ¢ę”ŠŒ“’ ‹’Ž”ó ™˜ÙŽŒ£—˜Ȭ ˜œ™˜Š›Œ£¢Œ‘Dz DZ Š›œ£Š Šǰ ˜•Š—ǰ ŗşşŖǯ

105
žœŠ’—Š‹’•’¢ ŘŖŘŚǰ ŗŜǰ ŝśşŚ

ŗŖŜǯ ŽŒŠ—Œšǰ ǯDz ˜ŽŽ–éǰ ǯDz Š— Ž— ˜œŒ‘ǰ ǯDz Š—‘’••Žǰ ǯ ‘Ž Ÿ˜•ž’˜— ˜ ˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ‘Ž ž›˜™ŽŠ— —’˜—DZ ˜—ŒŽ™œǰ ŽŠœž›ŽȬ
–Ž— Š— ŠŠǯ –›˜Ÿ ˜›”’— Š™Ž›œǯ Ž‘˜˜•˜’ŒŠ• Š™Ž› ŘŖŗřǯ ™ǯ ŗřȦŗǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ ǯ’–™›˜ŸŽȬŽ—ǯŽžȦ
ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— Ř Š—žŠ›¢ ŘŖŘřǼǯ
ŗŖŝǯ ’ ˜ Š›ǰ ǯDz £’”ž°ǰ ǯ ˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— ˜Œ’Š• ¡Œ•žœ’˜—DZ œ ‘’œ Š ›˜‹•Ž– ’— ž›Š• ›ŽŠœ ’— ‘Ž ’œŽ›Š ›˜ž™ ˜ž—›’Žœǵ
ž›ǯ Žœǯ žǯ ǯ ŘŖŘŖǰ Řřǰ ŚśȮśŚǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŗŖŞǯ ˜–™˜•œ”ŠȬ£ŽŒ‘žÙŠǰ ǯDz ž›¢ïȬ ž“Š œ”Šǰ ǯ œœŽœœ–Ž— ˜ ‘Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ˜ ˜ŸŽ›¢ ’—  ˜ž—›’Žœǯ —ǯ ǯ —Ÿ’›˜—ǯ Žœǯ
ž‹•’Œ ŽŠ•‘ ŘŖŘŘǰ ŗşǰ řşśŖǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŗŖşǯ ­”ǰ ǯDz Ž›£¢Úœ”Šǰ ǯ ˜ŸŽ›¢ Š— œ˜Œ’Š• Ž¡Œ•žœ’˜— ’— ‘Ž Œ˜—Ž¡ ˜ ‘Ž ’–™•Ž–Ž—Š’˜— ˜ ‘Ž œžœŠ’—Š‹•Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ˜Š•œǯ
ž›ǯ Žœǯ žǯ ǯ ŘŖŘŗǰ ŘŚǰ ŜŞȮŞřǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŗŗŖǯ ŸŽ—œœ˜—ǰ ǯǯDz ž——Š›œœ˜—ǰ #ǯ Ž—Ž› šžŠ•’¢ ’— ‘Ž  Ž’œ‘ Ž•Š›Ž ŠŽǯ Ž–’—’œœȓ•Š ǯ ŘŖŗŘǰ ™ǯ Řǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ
‘™œDZȦȦ“˜ž›—Š•œǯ”Ž—ǯŠŒǯž”Ȧ’—Ž¡ǯ™‘™ȦŽ–’—’œœŠ•Š ȦŠ›’Œ•ŽȦŸ’Ž ȦśŗȦŗŜŖ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ş Š›Œ‘ ŘŖŘŘǼǯ
ŗŗŗǯ —Ž›—Š’˜—Š• ˜—ŽŠ›¢ ž—ǯ ˜›• Œ˜—˜–’Œ ž•˜˜”DZ •˜‹Š• Š—žŠŒž›’— ˜ —ž›—ǰ ’œ’— ›ŠŽ Š››’Ž›œǯ Šœ‘’—˜—ǰ
ǯ ŘŖŗşǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ ǯ’–ǯ˜›ȦŽ—Ȧž‹•’ŒŠ’˜—œȦȦ œœžŽœȦŘŖŗşȦŗŖȦŖŗȦ ˜›•ȬŽŒ˜—˜–’ŒȬ˜ž•˜˜”Ȭ˜Œ˜‹Ž›ȬŘŖ
ŗşǛŠ’œ’ŒŠ•ƖŘŖ™™Ž—’¡ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— Ş Š›Œ‘ ŘŖŘŘǼǯ
ŗŗŘǯ ž›˜˜ž— Š—  ǯ ™ Š› ˜—ŸŽ›Ž—ŒŽ ’— Ž—Ž› šžŠ•’¢DZ ˜ •˜œŽ œ ‘Ž —’˜— ˜ šžŠ•’¢ǵ ž‹•’ŒŠ’˜—œ ĜŒŽ ˜ ‘Ž ž›˜Ȭ
™ŽŠ— —’˜—DZ ž¡Ž–‹˜ž›ǰ ŘŖŘŗǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦŽ’ŽǯŽž›˜™ŠǯŽžȦ™ž‹•’ŒŠ’˜—œȦž™ Š›ȬŒ˜—ŸŽ›Ž—ŒŽȬŽ—Ž›ȬŽšžŠ•’¢Ȭ
‘˜ ȬŒ•˜œŽȬž—’˜—ȬŽšžŠ•’¢ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— Řş ž•¢ ŘŖŘŚǼǯ
ŗŗřǯ •’Œ£¢Úœ”’ǰ ǯ ˜•’¢”Š œ™˜ÙŽŒ£—Š ž›˜™’Žȯ ˜•žŒ“Š ’ ›˜£ ’­£Š—’Š –˜Ž•˜ Žǯ žǯ  ŘŖŗŝǰ Řǰ řŝȮśŞǯ
ŗŗŚǯ  ‘Ž ˜––’–Ž— ˜ ŽžŒ’— —ŽšžŠ•’¢ —Ž¡ ŘŖŗŞǯ  •˜‹Š• Š—”’— ˜ ˜ŸŽ›—–Ž—œ ŠœŽ ˜— ‘Š ‘Ž¢ ›Ž
˜’— ˜ ŠŒ”•Ž ‘Ž Š™ ‹Ž ŽŽ— ’Œ‘ Š— ˜˜›ǯ ŘŖŗŞǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ˜¡Š–’•’‹›Š›¢ǯ˜™Ž—›Ž™˜œ’˜›¢ǯŒ˜–Ȧ‹’œ›ŽŠ–Ȧ
‘Š—•ŽȦŗŖśŚŜȦŜŘŖśśřȦ››ȬŒ˜––’–Ž—Ȭ›ŽžŒ’—Ȭ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢Ȭ’—Ž¡ȬŘŖŗŞȬŖşŗŖŗŞȬŽ—ǯ™ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ŗŖ Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘřǼǯ
ŗŗśǯ ˜ŸŽ›¢ ŠŒ‘ ŘŖŗşȯ˜—’˜›’— ‹óœ Š ’—Š—œ˜ Ž˜ ’ ˜•’¢”’ ™˜ÙŽŒ£—Ž“ ›£ŽŒ’ ‹óœ ž ˜•œŒŽǯ  ˜•œ”Šǯ ŸŠ’•Ȭ
Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™DZȦȦ ǯŽŠ™—ǯ˜›ǯ™•ȦŽŠ™—Ȧž™•˜ŠœȦŘŖŗşȦŗŖȦ˜•Š—ȏ˜ŸŽ›¢ȬŠŒ‘ȏŘŖŗşȬ˜œǯ™ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— Ş Š›Œ‘ ŘŖŘŘǼǯ
ŗŗŜǯ ᗌ‘Ž£ ᛊ–˜ǰ ǯDz ’••ǰ ǯDz Ž›œ£˜— Š‘•Ž›ǰ ǯDz Š›Š¢Š—ǰ ǯDz ˜—£Š—ǰ ǯ  Ȭŗş ŽŠŸŽœ Š ŽŠŒ¢ ˜ ’œ’— ˜ŸŽ›¢ Š—
’Ž—’— —ŽšžŠ•’¢ǯ ˜›• Š—” •˜œǯ ŘŖŘŗǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ‹•˜œǯ ˜›•‹Š—”ǯ˜›ȦŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—Š•”ȦŒ˜Ÿ’ȬŗşȬ•ŽŠŸŽœȬ
•ŽŠŒ¢Ȭ›’œ’—Ȭ™˜ŸŽ›¢ȬŠ—Ȭ ’Ž—’—Ȭ’—ŽšžŠ•’¢ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ś Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘřǼǯ
ŗŗŝǯ   ŘŖŘŘ žœŠ’—Š‹•Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ž•˜˜” ŘŖŘŖǯ Œ‘’ŽŸ’—  œ ’— ‘Ž Š”Ž ˜  ȬŗşDZ ŒŽ—Š›’˜œ ˜› ˜•’Œ¢–Š”Ž›œǯ
ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦœœǯž—ǯ˜›Ȧœ’ŽœȦŽŠž•Ȧ’•ŽœȦŘŖŘŖȬŖŝȦŘŖŘŖȏ˜˜”ǯ™ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— Řś ˜ŸŽ–‹Ž› ŘŖŘřǼǯ
ŗŗŞǯ  ‘Ž žœŠ’—Š‹•Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ˜Š•œ Ž™˜› ŘŖŘŘǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦž—œŠœǯž—ǯ˜›ȦœœȦ›Ž™˜›ȦŘŖŘŘȦ‘ŽȬžœŠ’—Š‹•ŽȬ
ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—Ȭ ˜Š•œȬŽ™˜›ȬŘŖŘŘǯ™ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ś Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘřǼǯ
ŗŗşǯ  ‘Ž žœŠ’—Š‹•Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ˜Š•œ Ž™˜› ŘŖŘřDZ ™ŽŒ’Š• ’’˜—ǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦž—œŠœǯž—ǯ˜›ȦœœȦ›Ž™˜›ȦŘŖŘřȦ
ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ŗŖ Š¢ ŘŖŘŚǼǯ
ŗŘŖǯ ‘Ž ›˜›Žœœ ˜— ‘Ž žœŠ’—Š‹•Ž ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž— ˜Š•œDZ ‘Ž Ž—Ž› —Š™œ‘˜ǯ ŘŖŘřǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦž—œŠœǯž—ǯ˜›ȦœœȦ
Ž—Ž›Ȭœ—Š™œ‘˜ȦŘŖŘřȦ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ŗř ž•¢ ŘŖŘŚǼǯ
ŗŘŗǯ ‘–Žǰ ǯDz Š››’˜Ĵǰ ǯDz Š‹’ǰ ǯDz ˜ ‘Ž›œǰ ǯDz Š œ˜—ǰ ǯDz žŽ‘Ž›Šǰ ǯ —ŽšžŠ•’¢ ’••œǯ ‘Ž —™Š›Š••Ž•Ž Œ’˜— ŽŽŽ
˜ ˜–‹Š —™›ŽŒŽŽ—Ž —ŽšžŠ•’¢ ’— ‘Ž Š”Ž ˜  Ȭŗşǯ ŘŖŘŘǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ ǯ˜¡Š–ǯ˜›ȦŽ—Ȧ›ŽœŽŠ›Œ‘Ȧ
’—ŽšžŠ•’¢Ȭ”’••œ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ś Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘřǼǯ
ŗŘŘǯ ¡Š– Ž’Š ›’Žę—ǯ ›˜ę’— ›˜– Š’—ǯ ‘Ž ›Ž—Œ¢ ˜ Š¡’— ‘Ž ’Œ‘ –’ Š ž›Ž ’— ’••’˜—Š’›Ž ŽŠ•‘ Š— Š •˜‹Š• ˜œȬ
˜Ȭ’Ÿ’— ›’œ’œǯ ŘŖŘŘǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ ǯ˜¡Š–ǯ˜›ȦŽ—Ȧ›ŽœŽŠ›Œ‘Ȧ™›˜’’—Ȭ™Š’— ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ŗŖ Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘřǼǯ
ŗŘřǯ ›–œ›˜—ǰ ǯ  ’•• Š”Ž —˜‘Ž› ŗřŜ ŽŠ›œ ˜ •˜œŽ ‘Ž •˜‹Š• Ž—Ž› Š™ǯ ˜›• Œ˜—˜–’Œ ˜›ž–ǯ ŘŖŘŗǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž
˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ ǯ Ž˜›ž–ǯ˜›ȦŠŽ—ŠȦŘŖŘŗȦŖŚȦŗřŜȬ¢ŽŠ›œȬ’œȬ‘ŽȬŽœ’–ŠŽȬ“˜ž›—Ž¢Ȭ’–ŽȬ˜ȬŽ—Ž›ȬŽšžŠ•’¢ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— Ŝ
Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘřǼǯ
ŗŘŚǯ Š•’Úœ”Šǰ ǯDz ‘˜Ùž“ǰ ǯDz Žœ™Ž›Š”ǰ ǯ ˜•’¢”Š ›ó —˜ïŒ’ ™ÙŒ’ǯǰ ˜•œ”Š ŘŖŖŝDz Š™˜›Dz ›˜›Š– Š›˜ó “Ž—˜Œ£˜—¢Œ‘ œǯ ˜£ ˜“ž
ǻǼDZ Š›œ£Š Šǰ ˜•Š—ǰ ŘŖŖŝǯ
ŗŘśǯ Š•Žœ’—’ǰ ǯDz ŽœŠ›’—’Ȭ˜›£Šǰ ǯDz Š‹˜Ÿ’°ǰ ǯDz ŽŽ–”ž’•ǰ ǯDz ŸŽ››’œóĴ’›ǰ ǯDz Š›Ž”˜Ÿáǰ ǯ Ž—Ž› Š— ˜ŸŽ›¢ ’— ž›˜™Žǯ
 ›’Žę— ˜Žǯ ŘŖŗŝǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ ǯŽŠ™—ǯŽžȦ ™ȬŒ˜—Ž—Ȧž™•˜ŠœȦŘŖŗŞȦŖřȦȬŘŖŗŝȬȬ›’Ž’—Ȭ
Ž—Ž›ȬŠ—Ȭ˜ŸŽ›¢Ȭ’—Š•ǯ™ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— Ŝ Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘřǼǯ
ŗŘŜǯ ŠŽŽǰ ǯ ˜ŸŽ›¢ Šœ Š ˜–Š—Ȃœ ŠŒŽǯ Š —ǯ ˜Š¢Ȃœ Š™Ž›ǯ ŘŖŗřǯ ŸŠ’•Š‹•Ž ˜—•’—ŽDZ ‘™œDZȦȦ ǯŠ —ǯŒ˜–Ȧ—Ž œȦŞŖŘřŘś
Ȧ™˜ŸŽ›¢Ȭ‘ŠœȬŠȬ ˜–Š—œȬŠŒŽ ǻŠŒŒŽœœŽ ˜— ŗ Ž™Ž–‹Ž› ŘŖŘŘǼǯ
ŗŘŝǯ ‘Š—ǰ ǯ Š—Ž›˜žœ šžŠ’˜—œǵ ˜ Ž–Š•ŽȬ ŽŠŽ ˜žœŽ‘˜•œ ŽŒŠ–Ž ‘Ž ˜˜›Žœ ˜ ‘Ž ˜˜›ǯ ŠžœŽœǰ ˜—œŽšžŽ—ŒŽœ Š— Šž’˜—œǰ
ǽ DZǾ ǯ ˜›— Š••ǰ ǯ Š››’œ˜—ǰ ǯ ‘’Ž‘ŽŠ ǻ›ŽǯǼǰ Ž–’—’œ–œ ’— ŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—DZ ˜—›Š’Œ’˜—œǰ ˜—ŽœŠ’˜—œ Š— ‘Š••Ž—ŽœDz Ž ˜˜”œDZ
˜—˜—ǰ  Dz Ž ˜›”ǰ ǰ ǰ ŘŖŖŝǯ
ŗŘŞǯ ’œŽ›ǰ ǯ ˜ Œ˜ž— ˜› —˜‘’—DZ ˜ŸŽ›¢ ‹Ž¢˜— ‘Ž œŠ’œ’Œœǯ ǯ ›ǯ ŒŠǯ ŘŖŗśǰ řǰ ŗřşȮŗŜśǯ ǽ›˜œœŽǾ
ŗŘşǯ ’œŽ›ǰ ǯ ˜ŸŽ›¢ǯ — Ž¢ ˜—ŒŽ™œDz ˜•’¢ ›ŽœœDZ Š–‹›’Žǰ  ǰ ŘŖŖŚDz ™ǯ Ŝǯ

’œŒ•Š’–Ž›Ȧž‹•’œ‘Ž›Ȃœ ˜ŽDZ ‘Ž œŠŽ–Ž—œǰ ˜™’—’˜—œ Š— ŠŠ Œ˜—Š’—Ž ’— Š•• ™ž‹•’ŒŠ’˜—œ Š›Ž œ˜•Ž•¢ ‘˜œŽ ˜ ‘Ž ’—’Ÿ’žŠ• ŠžȬ
‘˜›ǻœǼ Š— Œ˜—›’‹ž˜›ǻœǼ Š— —˜ ˜  Š—Ȧ˜› ‘Ž Ž’˜›ǻœǼǯ  Š—Ȧ˜› ‘Ž Ž’˜›ǻœǼ ’œŒ•Š’– ›Žœ™˜—œ’‹’•’¢ ˜› Š—¢ ’—“ž›¢ ˜
™Ž˜™•Ž ˜› ™›˜™Ž›¢ ›Žœž•’— ›˜– Š—¢ ’ŽŠœǰ –Ž‘˜œǰ ’—œ›žŒ’˜—œ ˜› ™›˜žŒœ ›ŽŽ››Ž ˜ ’— ‘Ž Œ˜—Ž—ǯ

106
 sustainability

Article
Does the Inter-Provincial Floating Population Affect Regional
Economic Development in China? An Empirical Analysis
Zhijie Cao 1,2 , Ziao Li 1,2, * and Kexin Zhou 1,2, *

1 School of Public Administration, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China; caozhijie@[Link]

2 Center for Chinese Migration, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China
* Correspondence: 221314010002@[Link] (Z.L.); 230214160004@[Link] (K.Z.)

Abstract: In recent decades, significant changes in the urban–rural structure of population mobility
have profoundly impacted provincial development, urbanization, and population redistribution in
China. Based on China’s fifth, sixth, and seventh national population census datasets, this study
explores the effects of the inter-provincial floating population on regional economic development
through statistical and empirical analysis, identifying both the scale and structural impacts of the
floating population on regional economic development. The results found that while the scale of
China’s floating population has been continuously increasing, the spatial distribution pattern re-
mains relatively unchanged, and the pattern is summed up as low in the middle and high on both
sides. The floating population exerts both scale and structural effects on the economic develop-
ment of both inflow and outflow regions, altering regional populations and production efficiency,
and thereby influencing regional economic outcomes. Specifically, this study finds that the inflow
population has no significant differential impact on high- and low-density regions. In contrast,
the outflow population exhibits a significant differential impact, with the negative impact of the
outflow population on low-density regions being more substantial than that on high-density regions.
Inter-provincial migration supports achieving sustainable development goals (SDG-8 and 11) by
shaping regional economic development. To address these dynamics, the high-density regions of
China should transform and upgrade the industrial and population structure by promoting the trend
of population return to low-density regions. This can be achieved by transferring low-end industries
Citation: Cao, Z.; Li, Z.; Zhou, K. and low-skilled labor, thereby alleviating the pressure of overcrowding. Meanwhile, low-density
Does the Inter-Provincial Floating
regions should seize the opportunities for population return and industrial transfer, implement talent
Population Affect Regional Economic
introduction, and accurately undertake industrial transfer. This approach can foster the in-depth
Development in China? An Empirical
development of new urbanization and rural revitalization initiatives, promoting balanced regional
Analysis. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142.
growth and sustainability.
[Link]

Academic Editors: Idiano D’Adamo, Keywords: floating population; economic development; structure effect; population return; urban
Massimo Gastaldi and Manoj density
Kumar Nallapaneni

Received: 14 June 2024

Revised: 11 August 2024
Accepted: 16 August 2024 1. Introduction
Published: 20 August 2024 Since China’s reform and opening up, large-scale cross-regional population migration
has not only triggered the reshaping of the spatial distribution of the population but also
promoted the reshaping of the regional economic development pattern [1–3]. Population
mobility is an activity that optimizes the spatial allocation of labor factors based on the
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
economic development pattern [4]. The floating population pattern and the economic
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
development pattern interact and promote each other [5]. Meanwhile, the spatial agglom-
This article is an open access article
eration and dispersion of population mobility are affected by socioeconomic development
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
patterns. Similarly, the floating population pattern also affects the socioeconomic devel-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
opment pattern through the spatial optimal allocation of labor factors [6,7]. According to
[Link]/licenses/by/ the National Bureau of Statistics and data from the “China Health and Family Planning
4.0/). Statistical Yearbook”, the size of the floating population in China has stabilized at over

Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142. [Link] 107 [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

200 million people since 2010, reaching a peak of 253 million in 2014, which accounted for
18.5% of the national population. Additionally, data from the seventh national census show
that from 2010 to 2020, the floating population grew at an average annual rate of 5.46%,
rising to 370 million people by 2020, representing 26.5% of the national population. These
figures provide material for examining the issues of population mobility and economic
convergence in the new era [8]. This indicates that the population mobility model, in a
significant period of transformation, is reshaping the current spatial pattern of population
mobility in China and will significantly impact population redistribution, urbanization,
and regional development [9,10]. On the one hand, a large population inflow has caused
tension in infrastructure services and disrupted social and economic life in the cities to
which these people moved [11]. The economic gap between high- and low-density regions
has gradually widened [12].
In recent years, along with the restructuring of the global industrial chain and the
industrial transformation and upgrading of China’s coastal areas, the return of population
from coastal areas to the central and western regions has become a new trend, and the
spatial pattern of economic development has also shown an inland trend [13]. Under the
major trend changes in population development and the new development pattern, the
report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the “Population
Development Plan” (2016–2023) pointed out that there is an urgent need to optimize the
spatial distribution of the population, promote the adaptation of population distribution to
the national regional development strategy, and actively guide the population’s orderly
flow and rational distribution. Straightening out the relationship between China’s floating
population and economic development is the premise and basis for realizing the coordi-
nated development of the population and regions and promoting the national urbanization
and rural revitalization strategy [14]. The movement of people from less developed to more
developed regions can help to alleviate poverty [15]. By migrating to areas with better
economic opportunities, individuals from poorer provinces can increase their incomes,
reducing poverty levels (SDG-1). Empirical analyses have shown that inter-provincial
migration can lead to better employment opportunities and higher migrant wages, con-
tributing to poverty reduction [16]. The floating population often fills labor shortages in
more economically developed regions, contributing to sustained economic growth (SDG-8).
This workforce mobility supports industries in high-demand areas, leading to increased
productivity and economic expansion. Studies indicate that the influx of labor from other
provinces can boost regional economic growth by enhancing labor market flexibility and
efficiency. Regions with a high influx of the floating population tend to invest more in
infrastructure and innovation (SDG-9) to support economic activities. This investment
can lead to improved transportation networks, communication systems, and technological
advancements, fostering overall economic development. The empirical evidence suggests
that inter-provincial migration encourages regions to enhance their industrial capacities
and infrastructural facilities. The floating population influences urbanization patterns and
urban development. Cities that attract large numbers of migrants often need to improve
infrastructure, housing, and services to accommodate the growing population [17,18]. This
urbanization process can drive sustainable urban development if appropriately managed,
leading to more inclusive and resilient cities (SDG-11). Inter-provincial migration can help
to reduce economic disparities between regions. Migrants often send remittances back to
their home provinces, which can improve living standards and stimulate economic activity
in less developed areas. This financial flow helps to balance regional inequalities (SDG-10)
and promotes inclusive economic development [19].
So, what is the relationship between the floating population and economic develop-
ment? Existing studies can be roughly divided into two categories. First, economic factors
are the primary factors driving population migration [20]. In classical theory, the main
motivation for population mobility decisions is economic motivation; that is, a low level
of economic development in the outflow area is conducive to population outflow, while a
high level of economic development in the inflow area is conducive to population inflow.

108
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

This conclusion has been repeatedly proven. Economic development differences are also
considered important factors affecting population mobility [21,22]. The cost–benefit theory
analyzes this phenomenon from the perspective of the benefits and costs of labor transfer,
and states that the decision-making of population mobility is related to the income gap
between regions. Meanwhile, the “push–pull” theory analyzes this issue from the perspec-
tive of kinematics and argues that population migration is affected by the economic factors
of the place of origin [23]. The dominant push (pull) and the immigration-dominated
pull (push) are jointly affected by economic factors [24]. When the push of emigration is
greater than the pull, and the pull of emigration is greater than the push simultaneously,
population migration will occur [25]. A new economic migration theory was developed
based on the “push-pull” theory, which argues that population mobility is affected by
the expected income level of the place of emigration. The second category includes the
research on the coordinated development between the floating population and economic
development. Yang [26] believes that population agglomeration has significant economic
growth benefits, and at the same time, economic growth can further exert the population
agglomeration effect. As a bridge, the flow of labor factors first acts on the industry and
then promotes economic development [27].
The existing literature reveals that researchers have conducted in-depth research on
the relationship between the floating population and economic development, laying a solid
foundation for further research in this paper. However, still, there are some shortcomings
coming into the picture. First, little attention has been paid to quantitative research con-
sidering the structural differences in the impact of the migrant population on economic
growth. Second, there is a lack of research that completely separates the migrant population
from other variables that affect economic growth through theoretical models. This study
considers both the shortcomings and the structural effects of the floating population on
economic growth through empirical models. At the same time, due to the influence of
China’s household registration system, the population transfer includes the population
flow along with and without the change in household registration. The floating population
specifically refers to the second type of temporary population flow when households are
separated. This type of population has a strong connection with both (outflow and inflow)
places when they enter the system to work and do not completely consume and save in the
system decision-making, but transfer capital accumulation back into the economic system
from which it originated. This study examines the socio-economic effects of cross-provincial
migration, highlighting its significant influence on regional economic development [28].
The findings aim to support the advancement of Sustainable Development Goal 8 (Decent
Work and Economic Growth) and Sustainable Development Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities
and Communities).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection and Sources
In this study, the 31 provincial-level administrative units in mainland China were
targeted, except for Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. This study utilizes the data from the
fifth, sixth, and seventh national censuses to subdivide net population flow into population
inflow and outflow, incorporating them into a unified analytical framework. Mathematical
formulas are used to deduce trends in population flow. We examined the temporal and
spatial characteristics of the inter-provincial floating population from 2000 to 2020 and their
differential impact on the economic development of different regions in China. Since the
inter-provincial outflow population data of the seventh census have not yet been released,
this study calculated the inter-provincial outflow population data based on the “China
Census Yearbook 2020” and calculated the inter-provincial outflow rate in 2020 [27,28]. The
statistical yearbook was compiled by the National Bureau of Statistics and the statistical
bureaus of each province and an autonomous region, from which data such as GDP, per
capita GDP, regional average wage level, and the proportion of the tertiary industry were
obtained. Qiao [29] and others [27,30] proposed that the floating population can be obtained

109
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

from the difference between the resident population and the registered population. This
study adopted a net flow rate (registered population of permanent residents). The method
of the registered population was used to obtain the inter-provincial net flow rate [29,30],
and the outflow rate, inflow rate, net flow rate, and the inter-provincial population outflow
rate in the region in the year 2020 were obtained.

2.2. Theoretical Models

The neoclassical economic growth model states that technological progress, capital,
and effective labor are the three main factors that affect economic output. Here, the Douglas
production function was extended, and the model introduced the variable of the floating
population to study the impact of the national inter-provincial population inflow and
outflow on regional economies.

2.2.1. Impact of Inter-Provincial Net Floating Population on Regional

Economic Development

Assumption 1. The Douglas production function is a Haro-neutral production function with

constant returns to scale [29].

Y (t) = K (t)α [ A(t) L(t)]1−α , 0 < α < 1 (1)

where Y (t) represents output, K (t) represents the capital required for production, A(t) represents
technological progress, L(t) represents the effective labor of the system, t represents time, and α is a
parameter of the production function.
Assumption 2. Technological progress is endogenous A(t)and capital stock is exogenous K (t),
consistent with the hypothesis of Lu Fenggang [31].

A(t) = λK (t) ϕ , λ > 0, 0 < ϕ < 1 (2)

where λ is the transformation parameter, representing the impact of increased capital on knowledge,
and ϕ is the return-to-scale property of the knowledge production function. ϕ < 1 which means that
the returns to scale of the knowledge production function is diminishing because with the continuous
accumulation of knowledge, the new knowledge generated from the newly added capital will be more
and more difficult to obtain.
Assumption 3. Assume that there is a floating population in the economic system where l is the
net mobility rate.
L ( t ) = (1 + l ) P ( t ) (3)

The P(t) represents the total population within the economic system
Substituting Formulas (2) and (3) into Formula (1) to obtain the following formula:

Y (t) = K (t)α [ A(t) L(t)]1−α = λ1−α K (t)α+ ϕ(1−α) L(t)(1−α)

(4)
= λ 1− α K ( t ) α + ϕ (1− α ) ( 1 + l ) 1− α P ( t )1− α
Dividing both sides of Formula (5) by the total population P(t) to obtain the Formula (6)
corresponding to per capita output y(t):

Y (t)
y(t) = = λ 1− α K ( t ) α + ϕ (1− α ) ( 1 + l ) 1− α P ( t ) − α (5)
P(t)

Take the natural logarithm of both sides of Formulas (4) and (5) at the same time to
obtain the equations below:

ln Y (t) = (α + ϕ(1 − α)) ln K (t) + (1 − α) ln λ + (1 − α) ln(1 + l ) + (1 − α) ln P(t) (6)

110
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

ln y(t) = (α + ϕ(1 − α)) ln K (t) + (1 − α) ln λ + (1 − α) ln(1 + l ) − αP(t) (7)

In order to more clearly examine the influencing factors of total economic output and
per capita economic output, the terms in Formulas (6) and (7) are expanded ln(1 + l ) by
the third-order Taylor series, and Formulas (8) and (9) are obtained.
1−α
ln Y (t) = (α + ϕ(1 − α)) ln K (t) + (1 − α) ln λ + (1 − α) ln P(t) + (1 − α)(1 + l ) − (1 + l )2 + o (1 + l )3 (8)
2

1−α
ln y(t) = (α + ϕ(1 − α)) ln K (t) + (1 − α) ln λ − (1 − α) P(t) + (1 − α)(1 + l ) − (1 + l )2 + o (1 + l )3 (9)
2
By organizing Formulas (8) and (9), expanding and merging the quadratic terms, and
removing the infinitesimal quantities, Formulas (10) and (11) can be obtained.

ln Y (t) = (α + ϕ(1 − α)) ln K (t) + (1 − α) ln λ + (1 − α) ln P(t) + (1 − α)l + (1 − α) (10)

ln y(t) = (α + ϕ(1 − α)) ln K (t) + (1 − α) ln λ − (1 − α) P(t) + (1 − α)l + (1 − α) (11)

It can be found that changes in regional total output K (t) and per capita output Y (t)
not only depend on asset investment y(t), but also the total population P(t) and net floating
population l. From 0 < α < 1, showing that 1 − α > 0, it is found that (i) the net inflow of
population has a positive impact on regional total output and per capita output; (ii) asset
investment has a certain positive impact on regional total output and per capita output;
and (iii) the total population has a positive impact on regional total output and a negative
impact on per capita output.

2.2.2. Impact of Inter-Provincial Inflows and Outflows on Regional Economic

Development
In order to explore the impact of the out-migration population and the in-migration
population on the regional economy, this study further sub-divided the net migrant pop-
ulation and used the Douglas production function to understand the impact of the na-
tional inter-provincial in-migration population and the out-migration population on the
regional economy.
Assumption 4. The net floating population in this economic system is equal to the incoming
population minus the outgoing population, that is,

l = l1 − l2, 0 < l1 < 1, 0 < l2 < 1 (12)

L(t) = (1 + l ) P(t) = (1 + l1 − l2) P(t) (13)

where P(t) represents the total population within the economic system, l is the net mobility rate, l1 is
the inflow rate, and l2 is the outflow rate. The inflow rate l1 and the outflow rate l2 are, respectively,
obtained by using the ratio of the inter-provincial inflow population and the inter-province outflow
population to the registered population. Substitute Formula (13)’s values into Formulas (8) and (9)
to obtain the following equations:

ln Y (t) = (α + ϕ(1 − α)) ln K (t) + (1 − α) ln λ + (1 − α) ln P(t) + (1 − α)(1 + l1 − l2)

(14)
− 1−2 α (1 + l1 − l2)2 + o (1 + l1 − l2)3

111
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

ln y(t) = (α + ϕ(1 − α)) ln K (t) + (1 − α) ln λ − (1 − α) P(t) + (1 − α)(1 + l1 − l2)

(15)
− 1−2 α (1 + l1 − l2)2 + o (1 + l1 − l2)3

It is found from Formulas (14) and (15) that changes in regional total output and per
capita output not only depend on asset investment K (t), but also on total population P(t),
inflow rate l1, and outflow rate l2. Further, by sorting out Formulas (14) and (15), we obtain
the following equations.

ln Y (t) = (α + ϕ(1 − α)) ln K (t) + (1 − α) ln λ + (1 − α) ln P(t) + (1 − α)l1 − (1 − α)l2 + (1 − α) (16)

ln y(t) = (α + ϕ(1 − α)) ln K (t) + (1 − α) ln λ − α ln P(t) + (1 − α)l1 − (1 − α)l2 + (1 − α) (17)

In Formulas (16) and (17), if 0 < α < 1 can be 1 − α > 0, it can be found that (i) the
inflow rate has a positive promoting effect on the regional total output and per capita
output, and (ii) the outflow rate has a positive effect on the regional total output and per
capita output and further acts as a negative inhibitory effect. This study will verify these
influencing relationships from an empirical perspective.

2.3. Empirical Analysis Model

2.3.1. Regression Analysis
According to the above theoretical derivation process, especially Formulas (10) and
(11), taking into account the endogeneity problems caused by omitted variables and the
inertial effect of economic growth, the first-order lagged explained variable is introduced
into the explanatory variables to construct a dynamic panel of data models (Formulas (18)
and (19)).
ln Yit = β 0 + β 1 ln Yit−1 + β 2 lit + β 3 ln Kit + β 4 ln Pit + ε it (18)

ln yit = γ0 + γ1 ln yit−1 + γ2 lit + γ3 ln Kit + γ4 ln Pit + ε it (19)

The empirical model studies the net floating population to identify and measure the
scale effect and structural effect of the floating population on regional economic growth. The
net mobility parameter β 2 in Formula (18) reflects the scale effect of the floating population
on economic development, and the net mobility parameter γ2 in Formula (19) is used to
identify its structural effect on economic development. When β 2 > 0, it is explained that
the net floating population leads to an increase in the regional population and increases the
total regional output, as a scale effect. When γ2 > 0, it is explained that the net floating
population increases the population base, and the per capita output is due to the increase
in the production efficiency of the inflowing population, reflected as a structural effect.
According to the above theoretical derivation process, especially Formulas (16) and
(17), taking into account the endogeneity problems caused by omitted variables and the
inertial effect of economic growth, the first-order lagged explained variable is introduced
into the explanatory variables to construct a dynamic panel of data models (Formulas (18)
and (19)).

ln Yit = β 0 + β 1 ln Yit−1 + β 2 l1it + β 3 l2it + β 4 ln Kit + β 5 ln Pit + ε it (20)

ln yit = γ0 + γ1 ln yit−1 + γ2 l1it + γ3 l2it + γ4 ln Kit + γ5 ln Pit + ε it (21)

The empirical model studies the variables of the in-migration population and out-
migration population to identify and measure the scale effect and structural effect of the

112
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

floating population on regional economic growth. The inflow rate (β 2 ) and outflow rate (β 3 )
in Formula (20) reflect the scale effect of the floating population on economic development.
Similarly, the inflow rate (γ2 ) and outflow rate (γ3 ) in Formula (21) are also used to identify
its structural effect on economic development. Taking the inter-provincial population
inflow rate as an example, if β 2 > 0, it is explained that the population inflow leads to
an increase in the regional population and a further increase in the total regional output,
revealing a scale effect. If γ2 > 0, it is explained that the population inflow increases the
population base, and the per capita output will be due to the inflow of people. Due to the
increase in production efficiency, this reflects a structural effect.

2.3.2. Analysis of Variance

In order to further examine whether the floating population has a differential im-
pact on targeted areas with different levels of urban density, this study introduces the
intersectional terms of floating population and urban density for analysis. Urban density
refers to the density characteristics and configuration intensity of various urban elements
in spatial distribution. To a certain extent, it not only measures the coordination of land
resource supply and demand, but is also an important indicator of the level of urbanization
to comprehensively evaluate the development trend of a city [32]. This study divided
31 provinces and cities into two types of areas based on measurement indicators such as
population density, economic density, and building density, namely high-density urban
areas and low-density urban areas [33,34]. At the same time, dummy variables were in-
troduced, meaning that that if the province was a high-density area, the value was 1, and
otherwise it was 0. Unbalanced panel data were constructed, and the above empirical
models (Formulas (20) and (21)) were expanded to obtain the following four empirical
models (Formulas (22)–(25)).

ln Yit = β 0 + β 1 l1it + β 2 l1 · densityit + β 3 density + β 4 ln Kit + β 5 ln Pit + ε it (22)

ln Yit = λ0 + λ1 l2it + λ2 l2 · densityit + λ3 density + λ4 ln Kit + λ5 ln Pit + ε it (23)

ln yit = β 0 + β 1 l1it + β 2 l1 · densityit + β 3 density + β 4 ln Kit + β 5 ln Pit + ε it (24)

ln yit = λ0 + λ1 l2it + λ2 l2 · densityit + λ3 density + λ4 ln Kit + λ5 ln Pit + ε it (25)

where ln Yit represents the total regional output, ln yit represents the per capita output,
Kit represents asset investment, Pit represents the total regional population, l1 · densityit
represents the intersection of population outflow rate and urban density, abd l2 · densityit
represents the intersection of population outflow rate and urban density, among which
Formulas (22) and (23) introduce the inflow model and empirical model while
Formulas (24) and (25) introduce the outflow rate and the cross term between the outflow
rate and the development level.

2.4. Statistics and Tools Used

In this study, Figures 1–3 were produced on the Arc-GIS platform. All data were
analyzed using Stata 17 software and Microsoft Office 2010.

113
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

ȱ
Figure 1. Comparison of inter-provincial net population movement rates (%) from 2000 to 2020.

ȱ
Figure 2. Comparison of cross-provincial population inflow rates (%) from 2000 to 2020.

ȱ
Figure 3. Comparison of inter-provincial population outflow rates (%) from 2000 to 2020.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Calculation of Inter-Provincial Floating Population Data
The three-year cross-provincial population net flow, inflow, and outflow distribution
maps were drawn using Arc-GIS 10.8 software. In order to facilitate the comparison
of the temporal and spatial change characteristics of the floating population between
2000 and 2020, the same scale was used for classification, and the inter-provincial net
migration rate, inflow rate, and outflow rate of the three years were classified. The net
population flow rate revealed the indicators of population loss and the net increase in the

114
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

process of population migration in each province. Figure 1 presents the net population
flow of each province separately and provides an overview of the spatial distribution
of the inter-provincial net population flow rate across the country. The 31 provinces
are divided into 6 levels. From 2000 to 2020, China’s inter-provincial population flow
increased from 42.41 million to 124.83 million, indicating that the scale of China’s floating
population is constantly increasing [35]. During this period, the spatial pattern of China’s
population flow did not change significantly, and the overall situation was “low in the
middle and high at both ends”. The net inflow of inter-provincial floating population
is mainly concentrated in two regions: one is the high-density southeast coastal areas,
including Shanghai, Beijing, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Tianjin, Jiangsu, and Fujian, because
population mobility has obvious cohesion, and the attractiveness of the eastern region
to migrant populations still has an absolute advantage [36]; and second is Xinjiang and
Tibet, located in the west. With 2008 as the time node, the implementation of the Western
development policy accelerated the economic growth of the Western region and triggered a
large population inflow [37].
Notably, most of the central regions and provinces show varying degrees of persistent
net population outflow losses, such as Anhui, Jiangxi, and Hunan. The main reason for this
phenomenon is that since the reform and opening up of China, the economic development
gap between regions in China has gradually widened, and the rapid economic development
of the eastern coastal areas has created more employment opportunities and higher wages,
thereby fostering a large population. For the economically less developed central region,
the gap in employment opportunities, wages, education, and healthcare compared to the
eastern region is becoming increasingly evident [14]. The phenomenon of population loss
is serious, and the spatial distribution presents an obvious “central depression”. However,
Xinjiang and Tibet in the west have extremely low population outflow rates and high
population inflow rates, resulting in the highest inter-provincial net population migration
rates in the country. This may be due to the relatively closed traffic environment that caused
a low outflow of residents from Tibet and Xinjiang. At the same time, the implementation
of China’s Western development strategy and the pull of rich natural and mineral resources
attracted population inflows, leading to this phenomenon. At the same time, simply using
the net flow rate to represent the regional population flow is not comprehensive enough to
explore its relationship with economic development. Therefore, this paper divides the net
turnover rate into two parts, the inflow rate and the outflow rate, to further explore the
relationship between spatial patterns and regional economic development. Figure 2 depicts
the inter-provincial population inflow from 2000 to 2020 and divides the 31 provinces into
6 levels.
Figure 2 reveals that Beijing, Tianjin, Zhejiang, Guangdong, and Hainan are the main
choices for population inflows. However, changing trends can also be observed in Hei-
longjiang, Jilin, Liaoning, and other northeastern regions, as well as in Gansu, Sichuan,
Guizhou, Hunan, Jiangxi, Anhui, and Shandong. The inflow rate of the population in
central and western regions such as Hebei and Hebei has increased significantly, which
has played a role in diversion and return. This is reflected in the seventh national popula-
tion dataset. The data of the seventh national census show that China’s inter-provincial
population mobility model is still mainly focused on the eastern region, but the proportion
has decreased from 84.6% (2005) to 73.54% (2020), a decrease of about 11 percentage points,
of which the central region (including the northeast region) and the western region have
absorbed 6.5% and 3.5%, respectively [37]. This is mainly because the adjustment of the
industrial structure in the eastern region has shifted resource-intensive and labor-intensive
industries to the central and western regions, causing this part of the workforce to flow to
the Midwest, forming the role of diversion and return, representing new characteristics of
the return of labor from the eastern coastal areas to the central and western regions [38].
In addition, the calculation shows that the inter-provincial floating population concen-
tration index dropped from 51.73% in 2000 to 46.60% in 2020, which also proves that the
inter-provincial population inflows show a decentralization trend. Figure 3 displays the

115
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

inter-provincial population outflow from 2000 to 2020 and divides the 31 provinces into
5 levels.
Figure 3 reveals that the population loss in inland and some western provinces is
still the most serious and presents a continuous loss situation. Among them, Anhui is the
province with the largest population loss, followed by Jiangxi and Guizhou, but the overall
distribution pattern of the inter-provincial outflow population only changes slightly. The
basic situation of the central and western regions still being the main sources of population
outflow has not changed.
In addition, by comparing Figures 2 and 3, it can be found that the ranges of inter-
provincial inflow rates from 2000 to 2020 were 23.24%, 62.72%, and 69.91%, and the ranges
of outflow rates were 8.17%, 12.99%, and 17.90%, respectively. The extreme difference
between the outflow rate and the inflow rate shows a significant upward trend, indicating
that the inter-provincial population outflow and inflow gap between different regions in
China is increasing year by year. This gap is much larger than the population outflow,
which also shows that the change in China’s net population flow rate depends to a large
extent on the change in the inter-provincial population inflow rate.

3.2. Data Verification

To verify whether the calculation results are in line with the real situation of each
province, this study selects the sixth census dataset and uses the above method to calculate
the inter-provincial outflow population in 2010, and then calculates the difference between
the calculated value and the real value. Through calculation, the total difference between
the real value and the estimated value of the outflow population this year is −6.723%, the
average error of each province is about −0.216%, and the estimated error range is probably
controlled between −8.5% and 5.6%. It can be concluded that the test data error is generally
controlled within the effective range, and the measured data are basically consistent with
the real data as a whole, so the calculation method is practical and effective.

3.3. Impact of Inter-Provincial Floating Population on Regional Economic Development

3.3.1. Descriptive Statistics of Variables
This study provides descriptive statistics on the variables in the measurement model
(Table 1).

Table 1. Descriptive statistical analysis.

Standard Minimum Maximum

Variables Name Mean
Deviation Value Value
Regional total output lnY (CNY) 8.956 1.404 4.766 11.615
Explained variable
Output per capita lny (CNY) 10.088 1.026 7.944 12.013
Fixed asset investment lnK (100 million CNY) 8.369 1.594 4.159 10.989
Explanatory Total regional population lnP (number) 17.288 0.893 14.778 18.651
variables Inter-provincial inflow rate 11 (%) 7.149 9.089 0.390 42.136
Inter-provincial outflow rate 12 (%) 5.741 4.855 0.193 21.521
Instrumental Regional average salary lnw (CNY) 10.788 0.506 10.231 12.091
variables * Industrial structure lns (%) 3.731 0.238 3.242 4.429
* Industrial structure is obtained by the ratio of the output value of the tertiary industry to the total regional
production industry.

3.3.2. Regression Analysis of the Net Floating Population and Economic Development
Comparing the fixed -effect and random-effect methods through the Hausman test, the
p value obtained is 0.6284, which indicates that the random effects method is more effective
than the fixed effects method. However, the LM test is used to differentiate between mixed
regression and random effects. The p-value of the LM test is 0.3409, indicating that the
null hypothesis of “there is no individual random effect” cannot be rejected, i.e., mixed
effects are considered to be chosen between random effects and mixed effects. Similarly,
when comparing fixed effects and mixed regression, the F test p value is 0.447, and the null

116
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

hypothesis cannot be rejected, i.e., mixed regression is considered to be significantly better

than fixed regression. Furthermore, using the clustering robust error LSDV method, we
found that the p-values of most individual dummy variables are large, so mixed regression
should be used.
In order to overcome the endogeneity problem, which leads to biased estimation,
the model is further estimated using the generalized moment estimation method (GMM).
The premise of using the instrumental variable method is that the instrumental variable is
valid. For this purpose, an over-identification test is performed to examine whether the
instrumental variable is exogenous—that is, it has nothing to do with the disturbance term.
The over-identification test shows that the p-value results are 0.6795 and 0.6246, indicating
that the instrumental variables are all exogenous. The specific calculation results of Stata
software are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Regression analysis of net floating population and economic development.

Index lnY lny

0.016 ** 0.015 **
l
(12.549) (10.562)
0.758 ** 0.764 **
ln K (33.987) (33.198)
0.383 ** −0.621 **
ln P (12.924) (−20.622)
ln Yt−1 0.068 * 0.068 *
/ ln yt−1 (−2.521) (2.520)
−4.064 ** 14.096 **
c
(−10.737) (36.410)
R2 0.98 0.964
l is the net population mobility rate, ln K is the fixed asset investment amount, ln P is the total regional population,
c refers to the constant term, ln Yt−1 indicates the GDP, and ln yt−1 represents the GDP per capita. ** and *
indicated in Table 2 represent the significant values at 5% (p < 0.005) and 10% (p < 0.01), respectively, and the t
estimator is in the brackets.

Table 2 reveals that the inter-provincial net mobility rates passed the 5% significance
test and have a positive impact on regional total output. The results are the same as their
theoretical derivation structures. Similarly, the inter-provincial inflow rate also passed
the 5% significance test and has a positive impact on per capita output. The result also
shows that the impact of fixed asset investment on regional total output and per capita
output passed the 5% significance test, and all regression coefficients are significantly
positive, which shows that capital investment has a significant impact on the economy.
Comparing the regression coefficients of all other variables, this study finds that fixed asset
investment has the greatest impact on regional GDP and per capita output. However, fixed
investment has a positive effect on regional economic growth [39]. Moreover, the impact of
the total regional population on regional total output and per capita output passed the 5%
significance test. Likewise, the results are still consistent with the theoretical model. The
total regional population has different effects on regional total output and per capita output.
Analysis shows that the total regional population has a positive impact on the total regional
output, while it has a significant negative impact on per capita output. The first-order
lagged regional total output and per capita output both passed the 10% significance test,
and the influence coefficients were both positive.

3.3.3. The Impact of Inter-Provincial Inflows and Outflows on Regional

Economic Development
Based on the empirical models in Formulas (20) and (21), we employed Stata software
to explore the impact of interprovincial population inflow and outflow rates on regional
economic development. The specific results of Stata software are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 reveals that the inter-provincial inflow rates passed the 1% significance test,
showing a positive impact on the regional total output. The inter-provincial outflow rates

117
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

passed the 10% significance test, showing a negative impact on the regional total output.
The results of the case analysis are consistent with the theoretical derivation structure is
the same. Empirical results based on the assumed parameters of the econometric model
(Formula (15)) identify the scale effect of the floating population on regional economic
growth—that is, population inflow increases the population in the destination, population
agglomeration improves the local labor force structure, improves the stock of human
capital, and promotes the upgrading of the regional industrial structure, thus increasing
the total output of the region [39], while population outflow reduces the population at the
destination, causing the region’s total output to decline.

Table 3. Regression analysis of floating population and economic development.

Index lnY lnry

0.0221 *** 0.0113 ***
l1
(0.00361) (0.00265)
−0.00686 * −0.0110 *
l2
(0.00474) (0.00532)
0.418 *** 0.401 ***
ln K
(0.0612) (0.0667)
0.406 *** −0.318 ***
ln P
(0.0511) (0.0622)
ln Yt−1 0.263 *** 0.305 ***
/ ln yt−1 (0.0511) (0.0562)
−3.648 *** 9.517 ***
c
(0.432) (0.955)
R2 0.9860 0.9505
l1 refers to the population inflow rate, l2 indicates the population outflow rate, ln K is the fixed asset investment
amount, ln P is the total regional population, and ln Yt−1 /ln yt−1 indicates the ratio of GDP/GDP per capita. ***
and * indicated in Table 3 represent the significant values at 1% (p < 0.001) and 10% (p < 0.01), respectively, and
the t estimator is in the brackets.

Similarly, the inter-provincial inflow rates passed the 1% significance test, showing
a positive impact on per capita output. The inter-provincial outflow rates passed the
10% significance test, showing a negative impact on per capita output. The econometric
model (Formula (16)) and empirical results show that population inflow and outflow have
structural effects, i.e., the inflow and outflow of people change the regional population,
causing the total regional output to increase or decrease. At the same time, the structural
differences in the floating population are accurately identified by the example model. An
increase in the inflow population will increase the production efficiency of the place of
origin, resulting in an increase in per capita output, while the outflow population will
reduce the population base of the place of departure, but it will not increase the per
capita output. The structural difference in high production efficiency causes this part of
the outflow population to have a negative impact on the per capita output of the place
of departure.
Table 3 further reveals that the impact of fixed asset investment on regional total
output and per capita output passed the 1% significance test, and all regression coefficients
are significantly positive, which shows that capital investment will have a significant
impact on the economy. Comparing the regression coefficients of all other variables, we
can find that fixed asset investment has the greatest impact on regional GDP and per capita
output. Moreover, the impact of the total regional population on regional total output
and per capita output passed the 1% significance test. The results are still consistent with
the theoretical model. The total regional population has different effects on regional total
output and per capita output. The impact analysis shows that the total regional population
has a positive impact on the total regional output, while it has a significant negative impact
on per capita output. Furthermore, the first-order lagged regional total output and per
capita output both passed the 1% significance test, and the influence coefficients were both
positive. This shows that the higher the total output of the previous period, the higher

118
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

the total output of the current period, which means that the inertial effect of economic
growth is significant, and it also means that the more economically developed regions have
inherent advantages over the economies of backward regions.
There is a certain two-way effect between regional population mobility and economic
development. Population inflow has a significant promotional effect on the economic de-
velopment of the place of inflow. The large-scale population inflow means the complement
and enrichment of human resources in the region, driving regional economic development.
At the same time, Ravenstein [21] proposed the law of population migration and mentioned
that economic reasons are the main causes of population migration, and economic develop-
ment brings a large number of job opportunities and makes it easier to attract population
inflow. This easily creates a siphon effect where more and more people gather in these
high-density urban areas. The lack of human resources caused by population outflow in
the outflow area will inhibit the region’s economic development. There may be a vicious
cycle between continued population outflow and economic development, where the low
capital output rate leads to brain drain, further intensifying the vicious cycle [40].

3.3.4. Differential Impact of Inter-Provincial Floating Population on Regional

Economic Development
In order to further examine whether the floating population has differential impacts on
regions with different levels of economic development [41], this study introduces the cross-
term of mobility variables and urban density for analysis. Based on empirical formulas
(Formulas (22)–(25)), the calculated results using Stata software are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Analysis of cross-terms between floating population and urban density.

lnY lny
Index
Equation (1) Equation (2) Equation (3) Equation (4)
0.398 *** 0.398 *** 0.367 *** 0.373 **
lnK
(0.0641) (0.0798) (0.0622) (0.0985)
0.347 *** 0.319 *** −0.327 *** −0.229 **
lnP
(0.0476) (0.0376) (0.0640) (0.0872)
0.301 *** 0.427 *** 0.328 *** 0.467 ***
lnYt−1 /lnyt−1
(0.0497) (0.0740) (0.0486) (0.0738)
0.0107 0.000223
l1
(0.0701) (0.00660)
−0.0337 *** −0.0334 ***
l2
(0.00701) (0.00617)
0.00715 0.0113
l1density
(0.00681) (0.00609)
0.0189 *** 0.0179 ***
l2density
(0.00109) (0.00458)
−2.347 *** −2.071 *** 9.654 *** 7.692 ***
c
(0.607) (0.545) (0.978) (1.227)
R2 0.981 0.983 0.939 0.921
lnK refers to the fixed asset investment amount, lnP is the total regional population, lnYt−1 /lnyt−1 indicates the
ratios of GDP/GDP per capita, l1 is the population inflow rate, l2 is the population outflow rate, l1density is the
intersection of inflow population and urban density, and l2density is the intersection of outflow population and
urban density. *** and ** indicated in Table 4 represent the significant values at 1% (p < 0.001) and 5% (p < 0.05),
respectively, and the t estimator is in the brackets.

Equations (1) and (3) in Table 4 show the cross-term of the inter-provincial inflow rate
and urban density and indicate whether it is in the model with regional total output as
the explained variable or in the model with per capita output as the explained variable.
Table 4 reveals that there is no significant difference in the impact of population inflow
on economic development between high-density areas and low-density areas. Further,
the results of Equation (2) show that the cross-term between the inter-provincial outflow
rate and urban density is significant both in the model with regional total output as the

119
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

explained variable and in the model with per capita output as the explained variable.
However, there is a significant difference in the impact of population outflow on economic
development between high-density and low-density areas. Among them, the negative
impact of out-migration on low-density areas is greater than that on high-density areas.
The results of Equation (4) show that the inter-provincial outflow rate has a negative impact
on the per capita output level.
The above discussion shows a weak negative impact on high-density areas, and
the impact on low-density areas is greater than that on high-density areas. Analysis of
other variables like capital investment demonstrates that they have a positive impact on
regional total output and per capita output, and an increase in capital will simultaneously
promote regional economic development. The total population has a positive impact on
regional total output, and per capita output has a negative effect. The lag period shows a
significant positive impact on both regional total output and per capita output. Therefore,
the conclusions obtained through empirical analysis in this article are consistent with the
results derived from the previous theoretical model.

4. Discussion
The southeastern coastal regions of China, such as Guangdong, Jiangsu, and Zhe-
jiang, are major population inflow areas, whereas central regions like Henan and Anhui
experience high population outflow. The southeastern regions possess strong economic
capabilities and efficient operations, with economic outputs and per capita GDP leading
the nation. These regions have diversified economies dominated by manufacturing and
services. The Pearl River Delta and Yangtze River Delta are key hubs for manufacturing
and high-tech industries, creating substantial employment opportunities. According to the
China Statistical Yearbook 2020, Guangdong’s tertiary industry employs 60 million people,
accounting for 60% of the province’s total employment. These regions also have higher
wage levels; for instance, the average salary in Guangdong is CNY 89,000, while in Henan,
it is only CNY 55,000 [42]. The significant wage disparity drives the labor force to migrate
to higher-paying areas for better income and living conditions. Additionally, high GDP and
per capita GDP correlate with higher urbanization rates and better urban infrastructure.
According to the “China Statistical Yearbook 2020”, Guangdong’s urbanization rate is
71.03%, Jiangsu’s is 72.63%, while Henan’s is only 51.66%. High urbanization rates mean
better urban infrastructure and public services, such as quality education and healthcare,
which attract large population inflows [43,44].
Conversely, central regions like Henan and Anhui exhibit lower per capita GDP—
approximately CNY 41,000 in Henan and CNY 52,000 in Anhui—reflecting slower economic
development, lower resident income, and poorer living standards. This economic perfor-
mance leads to insufficient economic attractiveness, compelling the workforce in these
regions to migrate to more economically developed areas in search of better opportunities.
The relatively low per capita GDP and lagging economic development in these central
provinces result in high population outflow rates [45]. Notably, the southeastern coastal
regions of China, with their robust economic indicators, diverse industrial structures, high
wage levels, and advanced urbanization, serve as significant population inflow areas. In
contrast, due to their relatively low per capita GDP and slower economic growth, central
provinces like Henan and Anhui experience high population outflow rates.
Interprovincial migrant populations significantly impact the supply and demand dy-
namics of the labor market in China [15]. Cross-provincial migration enhances productivity
and economic efficiency by increasing the labor supply and labor market participation. The
influx of lower-human-capital groups fills gaps in low-skilled and labor-intensive jobs in
high-density urban areas, promoting regional economic growth [16]. Meanwhile, high-
human-capital groups, unable to obtain high wages in low-density urban areas, proactively
migrate to high-density urban areas [17]. The diverse backgrounds and advanced skills
of these migrants contribute to regional technological innovation, particularly in science
and engineering fields, thereby positively impacting economic growth. With favorable eco-

120
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

nomic opportunities and a well-established legal system, human capital significantly boosts
per capita GDP growth [46,47]. However, the influx of large numbers of cross-provincial
migrants poses significant challenges to infrastructure and services in high-density urban
areas. Increased demand for housing, public transportation, and basic services, coupled
with environmental pollution due to high population density, can strain urban resources
and lead to management crises [48,49]. The urban challenges induced by the migrant
population create a “forcing mechanism” that compels local governments to implement
policy interventions. The government leverages think tanks and substantial local finances
to conduct forward-looking research and planning for future urban development. Through
systematic and comprehensive policy measures, the sustainability of urban development
can be enhanced. This includes ensuring basic housing conditions, improving public infras-
tructure services, promoting social inclusion and community integration, and enhancing
environmental risk management. These efforts contribute effectively to the achievement of
SDG-11. Given the above research findings, this paper puts forward the following policy
recommendations:
(1) For the low-density areas in the inland central and western regions, against the back-
ground of the two drivers of urbanization and rural revitalization, the government
should fully seize the opportunity window of population return and industrial gra-
dient transfer and accelerate the transformation of the economic growth mode in
order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG-8) based on improving
development quality. At the same time, the government must also use policies as
“gravity” to implement active and effective talent introduction policies to activate the
talent engine, so that returning talents can settle down and stay stable, and eliminate
the vicious cycle between continuous brain drain and economic development.
(2) For high-density areas along the eastern coast, a two-pronged approach of “introduc-
tion” and “diversion” should be advocated for in population control, transferring
mid- to low-end industries. Further guiding low-skilled labor to flow to low-density
areas with higher environmental carrying capacity to balance population distribu-
tion patterns in encouraged in order to alleviate the pressure of overpopulation and
strained public resources in high-density urban areas. The government should focus
on improving the level of public services, improving urban environmental governance,
optimizing the urban living environment, and striving to create green and livable
modern low-density cities, which will be conducive to realizing SDG-11.
(3) Household registration and social security policies significantly impact population
mobility. Strict household registration systems can restrict the free movement of
people between different regions, while relaxing these restrictions can facilitate popu-
lation mobility. For example, China’s ongoing reforms to its household registration
system are gradually easing settlement conditions in cities, especially in small and
medium-sized cities, to promote population mobility and urbanization. This approach
helps to encourage the return of migrant populations to low-density areas and im-
proves the service management level for migrant populations in high-density areas. It
ensures that migrants enjoy equal rights with local residents regarding employment,
education, healthcare, and housing, thereby reducing institutional barriers.
(4) In the process of policy formulation, the government should thoroughly understand
and respect the regularity of population mobility, avoiding excessive intervention. By
leveraging data analysis and research, the government needs to identify the economic
and social factors influencing population movement and develop policies that align
with these patterns to support and encourage voluntary migration. Additionally,
considering that economic and social environments are dynamic and that the patterns
of population mobility will evolve accordingly, policy formulation must possess
dynamic adaptability. It is essential to establish a regular policy evaluation mechanism
that involves data collection, analysis, and feedback to assess the actual effectiveness
of policies. Based on the evaluation results, policies should be flexibly adjusted to

121
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

ensure alignment with real-world conditions, thereby enhancing the sustainability of

these policies.
To enhance the robustness and comprehensiveness of the analysis, future research
should incorporate policy analysis to examine the impact of specific policy measures on
regional migration and economic development, including both restrictive and supportive
policies. Longitudinal studies are needed to assess the long-term impacts of migration
on regional economies, including the integration of migrants and the sustainability of
economic growth. Utilizing micro-level data to capture individual migrant experiences
and regional variations would provide a more nuanced understanding of migration im-
pacts. Additionally, exploring the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on regional
migration patterns and economic recovery, considering both immediate disruptions and
longer-term adaptations, is crucial [50].

5. Conclusions and Limitations

Based on the data of the fifth, sixth, and seventh national censuses, this paper stud-
ies the temporal and spatial characteristics of the inter-provincial floating population
through theoretical model derivation, a GMM model, and the cross-term method for the 31
provincial-level administrative units in mainland China, except for Hong Kong, Macao,
and Taiwan. Based on the empirical results, the following conclusions have been drawn:
(1) The size of the migrant population under study is constantly increasing, but the spatial
pattern of population mobility has not changed significantly. The overall pattern is
still “low in the middle and high at both ends”, although the central region is still the
main source of population outflow.
(2) The net inflow of inter-provincial migrants is mainly concentrated in two areas—firstly,
the high-density area along the southeastern coast, and secondly, the western regions
such as Xinjiang and Tibet—while most central provinces show varying degrees of
sustained net population outflow losses.
(3) The net migrant population has a significant promoting effect on the total regional
output and per capita output. The inflow population has a significant promoting
effect on the total output and per capita output of the place of inflow.
(4) The outflow population has a significant effect on the total output and per capita
output of the place of outflow. Migration shows a significant inhibitory effect.
(5) The floating population has scale and structural effects on regional economic develop-
ment. It affects regional economic development by changing the regional population
and affecting regional production efficiency.
(6) There is a certain two-way effect between regional population mobility and economic
development. The population inflow has no significant differential impact on high-
density and low-density areas, while the out-migration population has a significant
differential impact.
(7) The negative impact of the out-migration population on low-density areas is greater
than that on high-density areas. Due to the lack of talent attraction in low-density
areas, the outflow of talent reduces human capital. For high-density areas, a small
portion of the out-migration population will appropriately alleviate urban pressure
and reduce local fiscal expenditures, thus causing the out-migration population to
have a weak negative impact on high-density areas.
Overall, the inter-provincial floating population in the studied region of China plays
a crucial role in regional economic development, directly supporting SDG-8 and 11. By
facilitating labor mobility, fostering economic growth, reducing inequalities, promoting
sustainable urban development, and driving infrastructural improvements, this demo-
graphic trend contributes significantly to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
This study has several limitations. Firstly, it does not consider the impact of various policy
measures on regional migration patterns and economic outcomes. Policies like the Hukou
system, urban development strategies, and pandemic-related restrictions can significantly
influence migration flows and regional economic dynamics. Secondly, the analysis pri-

122
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

marily focuses on the immediate effects of inter-provincial migration on economic growth,

without thoroughly examining long-term effects, including the sustainability of growth and
the integration of migrants into urban economies. Thirdly, the study period does not fully
capture the long-term economic and demographic consequences of the COVID-19 pan-
demic, which introduced unprecedented disruptions to population mobility and economic
activities. Finally, using macroeconomic data may overlook micro-level variations and the
individual experiences of migrants, which can provide deeper insights into migration’s
economic and social implications.

Author Contributions: Z.C. and Z.L. were primarily responsible for writing the manuscript and
providing the original data used in this manuscript. K.Z. provided the results of the empirical analysis
for the research in this paper. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted
version. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was funded by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
(B240207112&B240207032).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data and materials are available from the corresponding author
upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References
1. Chen, S.; Cao, Z. An Analysis of the Concept and Types of Climate Migration. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2012, 22, 164–169.
2. Van der Geest, K.; de Sherbinin, A.; Gemenne, F.; Warner, K. Editorial: Climate migration research and policy connections:
Progress since the foresight report. Front. Clim. 2023, 5, 1231679. [CrossRef]
3. Jolivet, D.; Fransen, S.; Adger, W.N.; Fábos, A.; Abu, M.; Allen, C.; Boyd, E.; Carr, E.R.; Codjoe, S.N.; Gavonel, M.F.; et al.
COVID-19 responses restricted abilities and aspirations for mobility and migration: Insights from diverse cities in four continents.
Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 250. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Qing, H.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, A. Climate change and human migration: Perspectives for environmentally sustainable societies.
J. Geochem. Explor. 2023, 256, 107352. [CrossRef]
5. Haas, H.D. Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective1. Int. Migr. Rev. 2010, 1, 227–264. [CrossRef]
6. Yang, C.G.; Zeng, Y.M. Spatial Imbalance, Population Flow and Regional Selection of Foreign Direct Investment—Analysis of
Interprovincial Spatial Panel Data in China from 1995 to 2010. Popul. Res. 2014, 6, 25–39.
7. Mcleman, R. International migration and climate adaptation in an era of hardening borders. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 911–918.
[CrossRef]
8. Jiang, M.; Lu, X. Growth in the Midst of Loss: A Study on Population Mobility and Economic Growth Convergence in Small and
Medium-sized Cities. Mod. Econ. Res. 2024, 7, 17–29. [CrossRef]
9. Duan, C.R.; Xie, D.H.; Lu, L.D. Migration and transformation of China’s population. Popul. Res. 2019, 43, 12–20.
10. Ma, X.H.; Duan, C.R.; Guo, J. Comparative study of four types of floating population. Chin. Popul. Sci. 2014, 5, 36–46, 126–127.
11. Ma, J.L.; Li, L. Empirical analysis of the relationship between population mobility and regional economic development—Taking
Guyuan CNY City, Ningxia as an example. Northwest Popul. 2006, 19–20.
12. Wang, S.B.; Luo, X.L. Population mobility and urbanization effects in underdeveloped areas—Taking Gansu Province as an
example. Urban Probl. 2022, 324, 4–11.
13. Lin, L.Y.; Zhu, Y.; Ke, W.Q. The spatial willingness and policy implications of the return of floating population under the
background of coordinated regional development. Geogr. Res. 2021, 40, 1515–1528.
14. Xiao, J.C.; Hong, H. The evolution trend of my country’s inter-provincial population mobility pattern and its urbanization effect.
Urban Probl. 2020, 8, 22–32.
15. Chen, J.; Fan, C.C. China’s floating population and its implications for regional development. Asian Surv. 2016, 56, 529–557.
16. Cai, F. The growth and structural changes of China’s employment. J. Comp. Econ. 2011, 39, 42–57.
17. Chan, K.W. China: Internal Migration. In The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration; Ness, I., Ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2013. [CrossRef]
18. Zhao, Z. Migration and earnings differences: The case of rural China. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang. 1999, 47, 767–782. [CrossRef]
19. Francesco, C. Drivers of migration: Why do people move? J. Travel Med. 2018, 25, tay040. [CrossRef]
20. D’Adamo, I.; Di Carlo, C.; Gastaldi, M.; Rossi, E.N.; Uricchio, A.F. Economic Performance, Environmental Protection and Social
Progress: A Cluster Analysis Comparison towards Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049. [CrossRef]

123
Sustainability 2024, 16, 7142

21. Ravenstein, E.G. The laws of migration. J. Stat. Soc. Lond. 1885, 48, 167–235. [CrossRef]
22. Lee, E.S. A theory of migration. Demography 1966, 3, 47–57. [CrossRef]
23. Kazlauskiene, A.; Rinkevicius, L. Lithuanian “brain drain” causes: Push and pull factors. Eng. Econ. 2006, 46, 27–37.
24. Khan, I.; Alharthi, M.; Haque, A.; Illiyan, A. Statistical analysis of push and pull factors of migration: A case study of India.
J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2023, 35, 102859. [CrossRef]
25. Hear, V.N.; Bakewell, O.; Long, K. Push- Pull Plus: Reconsidering the Drivers of Migration. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 2018, 6, 927–944.
[CrossRef]
26. Yang, D.L.; Li, P.G. The Economic Effect of Population Agglomeration: An Empirical Study Based on Instrumental Variables.
Popul. Sci. J. 2019, 3, 28–37.
27. Du, X.M.; Chen, J.B. An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Population Migration and Flow on the Economy of Various Regions
in my country. Popul. Res. 2010, 3, 77–88.
28. Yang, L.; Feng, R.; Cai, D. Study on the Spatio-Temporal Convergence Mechanism and Effects of Population Mobility on Regional
High-Quality Economic Development. China Soft Sci. 2024, S1, 172–181.
29. Qiao, X.C.; Huang, Y.H. The Situation of Trans-provincial Floating Population in China—Analysis Based on “Six Census” Data.
Popul. Dev. 2013, 1, 13–28.
30. Sun, J.G.; Shi, T.H.; Xu, Q.Q. Population Migration, Wage Changes and Economic Growth—Spatial Econometric Analysis Based
on Interprovincial Panel Data. Popul. Dev. 2021, 4, 14–23.
31. Lu, F.G. Has Population Loss Affected Economic Growth in Northeast China?—Based on the Estimation Data of Household
Population Loss in Northeast China. Popul. Dev. 2021, 5, 98–110.
32. Wang, H.; Yang, M. Review of high-density urban research and analysis of quantitative indicators. Shandong For. Sci. Technol.
2023, 53, 116–122.
33. Wang, J.J.; Zhang, M.H.; Wang, N.N. Spatial patterns and influencing factors of the distribution of mobile population in China: A
study based on county-level census data. J. Popul. 2023, 45, 82–96. [CrossRef]
34. Wang, G.X.; Li, M. The Spatial Interaction Between Inter-provincial Migration and Manufacturing Industry Transfer. Sci. Geogr.
Sin. 2019, 39, 183–194. [CrossRef]
35. Dou, X.; Arellano, B.; Roca, J. China’s inter-provincial population flow based on the interaction value analysis. Geogr. Res. 2018,
37, 1848–1861.
36. Hou, Y.F.; Chen, Z.C. Population migration-economic growth convergence puzzle’in China: Based on analysis and testing of
neoclassical endogenous economic growth model. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2016, 26, 11–19.
37. Zhou, H. Stability and Enlightenment of China’s Population Mobility Model—Reflections Based on the Data of the Seventh
National Census Bulletin. China Popul. Sci. 2021, 28–41+126–127.
38. He, X.L.; Shi, S.Y. The impact of population mobility on regional economic growth: An empirical analysis based on China’s
prefecture-level city panel data. Financ. Econ. 2021, 3, 63–70. [CrossRef]
39. Su, W.Z.; Shen, H.Y. Empirical test of population mobility on economic growth in provincial regions. Stat. Decis.-Mak. 2017,
106–110. [CrossRef]
40. Huang, R.; Liang, Q.J.; Lu, L.C. The relationship between urban population structure and innovation ability—Based on the
empirical analysis of Chinese cities. Urban Dev. Res. 2014, 21, 84–91.
41. Cai, X.; Wang, D. The Sustainability of China’s Economic Growth and Labor Contribution. Econ. Res. J. 1999, 10, 62–68.
42. Wang, S.J.; Wang, Z.C. Research on the spatial consistency of population agglomeration and economic agglomeration in China.
Demogr. J. 2017, 39, 43–50. [CrossRef]
43. Haider, A.; Jabeen, S.; Rankaduwa, W.; Shaheen, F. The Nexus between Employment and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country
Analysis. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11955. [CrossRef]
44. Fleuret, S.; Atkinson, S. Sustainable Cities, Quality of Life, and Mobility-Related Happiness; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023.
[CrossRef]
45. Borjas, G.J.; Monras, J. Immigration and the Dynamics of Urban Labor Markets. J. Econ. Geogr. 2017, 17, 503–533. [CrossRef]
46. Rodrik, D. Populism and the economics of globalization. J. Int. Bus. Policy 2018, 1, 12–33. [CrossRef]
47. Ali, M.; Egbetokun, A.; Memon, M.H. Human Capital, Social Capabilities and Economic Growth. Economies 2018, 6, 2. [CrossRef]
48. Glaeser, E.L.; Mare, D.C. Cities and Skills. J. Labor Econ. 2001, 19, 316–342. [CrossRef]
49. Florida, R.; Mellander, C.; Rentfrow, P.J. The Happiness of Cities. Reg. Stud. 2011, 47, 613–627. [CrossRef]
50. Yang, M.; Xie, Z.Y. Impacts of Fighting COVlD-19 on China’s Population Flows: An Empirical Study Based on Baidu Migration
Big Data. Popul. Res. 2020, 44, 74–88.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

124
 sustainability

Article
Meaningful Youth Engagement in Sustainability Processes in
Japan and Finland: A Comparative Assessment
Miki Fukuda * and Eric Zusman

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama 240-0115, Japan; zusman@[Link]

* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]

Abstract: In many countries, young people are justifiably viewed as possessing the energy and
ideas required to advance the sustainability agenda. However, the degree to which youth can
influence that agenda depends on how meaningfully they engage in Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) and related processes. Further, the extent to which they can meaningfully engage
may vary across countries. Though studies have shed light on the core elements of meaningful
youth engagement, those insights have not been used to compare how these elements vary across
countries. The paper aims to fill this knowledge gap with a preliminary assessment of youth
engagement in sustainability processes in Finland and Japan. The approach used herein draws upon
relevant literature to construct an analytical framework comprised of four key elements underpinning
meaningful youth engagement: (1) aims and justifications; (2) power-sharing; (3) transparency and
accountability; and (4) support. The study then employs text mining, institutional analysis, and key
informant interviews to offer a preliminary assessment of how meaningfully youth have engaged
in sustainability processes in Finland and Japan. The assessment reveals that youth engagement
mechanisms in Finland more clearly explicate aims and justifications, balance power dynamics, and
enhance transparency and accountability than in Japan. Both countries could do more to offer support
to young people. The article also suggests that additional research is needed on three areas: (1) the
effect of underlying socio-cultural differences on youth engagement; (2) the relationship between
youth engagement and the performance of SDGs 4, 7, and 13; and (3) the role of education as an
upstream enabler of engagement.
Citation: Fukuda, M.; Zusman, E.
Meaningful Youth Engagement in Keywords: sustainability; Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); youth; participation;
Sustainability Processes in Japan and
stakeholder engagement
Finland: A Comparative Assessment.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415. https://
[Link]/10.3390/su16156415

Academic Editors: Idiano D’Adamo, 1. Introduction

Massimo Gastaldi and Manoj
Recent years have made it abundantly clear that the world is not on track to achieve
Kumar Nallapaneni
the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that sit at the heart of the 2030 Agenda for
Received: 9 January 2024 Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda). At the midpoint of the 2030 Agenda, there is
Revised: 18 July 2024 a growing consensus that the world needs a course change to accelerate progress on the
Accepted: 18 July 2024 SDGs. The engagement of multiple, diverse stakeholders could arguably inject the energy
Published: 26 July 2024 and ideas needed to trigger this course change. Among different stakeholders that could
lead this change, much of the attention has rightly focused on meaningfully engaging the
next generation—that is, young people.
Youth participation has been invoked in intergovernmental agreements since the
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989 [1]. That foundational
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
agreement underlined that it is children’s right to be involved in decisions that affect them
This article is an open access article
and their future. Since that agreement, young people have become increasingly viewed as
distributed under the terms and
essential actors and valued participants in advancing the sustainability agenda. Numerous
conditions of the Creative Commons
international forums, programs, and resolutions have underlined the growing need for
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
youth engagement—for example, calling for young people’s or youth-led organizations’
[Link]/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415. [Link] 125 [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

active participation in sustainability processes. Similar calls for the importance of engaging
youth can be found in the academic literature on sustainability [2].
At the same time, some additional reflections should inform discussions of youth
engagement. Among the reasons for more reflection is that there is no consistently agreed
definition of young people; nor are young people a homogenous bloc. On the former
point, biological age is often cited as a determinant of youth at both the national and
international levels. Yet, even in this case, there exists variation in what constitutes being
young—with age cut points ranging from 13 to 35 [3] (p. 17). In addition, young people are
very diverse in their backgrounds and identities. Generalization may lead to overlooking
and failing to capture the differences in opinions and insights from young people with
varying geographical, educational, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
On a related note, there may also be various ways young people participate in sus-
tainability processes. Voting has long been the main means to formally participate in
policymaking processes; however, this once widely held view that voting is the chief chan-
nel for engagement is becoming less relevant in recent years. It is also less applicable to
young people who may be under voting age or more inclined to use other avenues to push
for change, especially in progressive policy realms such as sustainability. Instead, there
could be multiple forms of participation and varying influences on the decision-making
processes in crafting sustainable futures [4,5]. Further, given the diversification of channels,
there is also the question of whether the ways that young people engage can have a mean-
ingful effect on sustainability processes. Another pertinent point is that the degree to which
young people can meaningfully influence these processes may vary from one country to
the next.
The above possibilities suggest a critical question: how do countries compare in terms
of meaningful youth engagement in sustainability processes? This paper answers this
question with a preliminary assessment of two developed democratic countries: Finland
and Japan. This assessment draws on a simple framework comprised of four elements
that arguably sit at the core of meaningful youth engagement: (1) aims and justifications;
(2) power-sharing; (3) transparency and accountability; and (4) support. It then employs
a mixed-method approach to derive some initial insights into how Finland and Japan
compare across those elements. This approach entails the text mining of key documents
followed by a desk study of official descriptions of key institutions and key informant
interviews. The assessment reveals that youth engagement mechanisms in Finland more
clearly explicate aims and justifications, balance power dynamics, and enhance trans-
parency and accountability than in Japan. Both countries could do more to offer support to
young people.
The remainder of the paper is divided into six sections. The next two sections
(Sections 2 and 3) reviews the relevant literature on participation and engagement to de-
velop an analytical framework consisting of four elements: (1) aims and justifications;
(2) power-sharing; (3) transparency and accountability; and (4) support. Sections 4 and 5 use
this framework to compare Finland and Japan. The final section (Section 6) provides a
summary of the paper and recommendations for future work.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Setting the Context
Often, decisions made today affect young people for years to come. In SDG processes,
policymakers and practitioners are increasingly acknowledging that these decisions will
influence young people into the future. At the same time, there is also a realization that
young people are not merely passive supplicants when it comes to those decisions. Rather,
they are key stakeholders and future leaders with the potential to shape their future. This
growing recognition traces back to the notion of intergenerational equity [6]. That notion
was made famous in the 1987 Brundtland Report “Our Common Future” and features in
definitions of sustainable development that offer “development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

126
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

In the years since the release of the Brundtland Report, landmark agreements would
give young people firmer ground to stand upon in sustainability processes. For example,
the 1992 Rio Earth Summit adopted Agenda 21, including Chapter 25, titled “Children and
Youth in Sustainable Development”, which identified young people as pivotal stakeholders
in sustainable development. In underlining the central role of the next generation, the
chapter clarified that “the involvement of today’s youth in environment and development
decision-making is critical to the long-term success of Agenda 21”. Agenda 21 also led
to the creation of nine “Major Groups” that help to organize the different channels for
communication and engagement in UN activities related to sustainable development. The
Major Group for Children and Youth (MGCY) is one officially recognized group, receiving
a mandate from the UN General Assembly and specific entities through agreements and
terms of reference.
The 2030 Agenda and its SDGs also recognize the importance of intergenerational
equity and acknowledge that the future of humanity and the planet lies in the hands of
younger generations. Toward that end, the SDGs developed specific targets relating to youth
empowerment, education, capacity building, and (un)employment (e.g., SDG 4; SDG 8.6) and
emphasized the importance of participatory and inclusive decision-making and societal
development across all ages or other statuses (e.g., SDG 16.7). As implied in the above list
of SDGs, young people are not only influenced by the intergenerational disparities that
need to be narrowed, they are also expected to shape pathways to a sustainable future
or use their unique perspectives to craft creative solutions to thorny problems [7,8]. In
addition, young people may hold broader conceptions of sustainability that can help to pull
communities and even countries closer together [9]. Further, young people, equipped with
sufficient knowledge and skills, can use those broader conceptions to spark positive change
in everything from small towns to global arenas [10,11]. As such, there are a growing
number of positive examples of youth participation contributing to awareness-raising
across generations and community building across regions in sustainability processes [12].
In recent years, the United Nations System has increasingly sought to harness this
potential by involving youth in the SDGs and related processes. For instance, the UN
has established an office called “the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth” to foster a
collaborative and integrated approach to UN initiatives on youth issues. The UN has
supported other similarly focused efforts to expand youth participation, such as “Youth
2030”—an umbrella framework initiated by Secretary-General António Guterres in 2018 to
engage young people and solicit ideas on UN activities across three pillars: peace and
security, human rights, and sustainable development. In doing so, national governments are
urged to make youth participation the norm, rather than the exception, across all decisions,
policies, and investments [13]. In response, Member States have been reported to establish a
variety of forms to engage young people, including participation in national youth councils,
follow-up and review processes, and thematic political consultations. However, there still
remains room for improvement when it comes to meaningful engagement [13,14].

2.2. Meaningful Youth Engagement

Much of the research on participation comes from political science where there is a
long-running emphasis on institutionalized forms of engagement, such as elections. Po-
litical science studies often assume that participation entails activities that are intended
to directly influence the choice of elected representatives or the organizations behind
them [15,16]. However, in recent years, the notion of participation has grown to include
forms of engagement beyond the government or formal political institutions while ques-
tioning boundaries between political and social spheres. This has led to a broader definition
of political participation that stresses activities “indirectly aimed at impacting civil society
or attempting to alter systematic patterns of social behavior” [17].
This more expansive view is important when discussing the engagement of young
people [18–20]. At the national level, the legal voting age often functions as a threshold for
deciding whether young people can participate in activities. Indeed, some young people

127
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

who are not eligible to vote may need other kinds of institutional mechanisms to participate
in public matters. Thus, such a broader view is essential since it is impossible for young
people to vote until they reach legal age (though voting rates have also fallen among
younger generations). While this declining trend might suggest a disinterest in public
affairs, it should not be regarded as prima facie evidence of political apathy [21]. Instead,
sociological research on values and behavior changes has revealed that young people opt
for alternative and new forms of engagement such as protests, demonstrations, utilization
of social networking services (SNSs), consumer actions, and charitable fundraising or
volunteer work [22]. Such activities are forms of participation—a form that is neither
explicitly social nor political but rather socio-political [23]. If expanding youth engagement
is considered a desirable goal, there is also a need to look more at the landscape of means
and channels through which young people actively engage [24].
In a similar vein to opening multiple opportunities, young people may need support
to enable their involvement in key processes. Such support is warranted because, compared
to adult stakeholders, young people may lack confidence and tools or confront barriers
to becoming involved. This support could, for instance, prioritize marginalized and
vulnerable youth to ensure inclusive decision-making, aiming to “reach the furthest behind
first” [25]. Research indicates that active youth are more likely to be from socio-economically
advantageous groups, already equipped with the necessary abilities to participate [26,27].
Therefore, empowering youth with knowledge and skills as well as appropriate support is
crucial to making their participation meaningful [5,28]. Focusing on the essential elements
to make their engagement meaningful is necessary, as surface-level tokenistic participation
may actually do more harm than good.
Building upon the above insights, a few studies have looked at what factors affect
whether young people meaningfully engage on the SDGs in different contexts. For example,
some studies have used survey data from university students in Rome, Italy, to show
that taking classes centered on real-world energy projects can motivate greater youth
involvement in sustainability initiatives [29]. Other studies also underlined that equipping
university students in Malaysia with knowledge of the SDGs increased awareness and
action on sustainability [30]. However, not all of the research has been so optimistic. To
illustrate, research based on interviews again in Malaysia found that even motivated youth
that are working on the SDGs operate in a relatively small circle and have not been able to
reach a wider range of international/government organizations or the private sector [31].
Some studies have taken these findings a step further to suggest how to break through
these barriers. In this connection, some have offered that one of the keys to meaningful
engagement is to enable young people to serve as evaluators of SDG processes, noting that
Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and South America have seen
progress in this regard [32].
Though the above studies help to illustrate some of the promise and challenges for
truly influential or meaningful engagement on the SDGs in particular places, they lack
the kinds of insights needed to determine how meaningful participation varies across
countries. There is, however, a complementary set of studies that can shed light on some of
the core elements of meaningful youth engagement that could be used for a comparative
assessment. The next section reflects on some of the key insights from that literature.

2.3. Toward a Comparative Assessment of Meaningful Youth Engagement

The work that can inform a comparative assessment of meaningful engagement has a
long history that is not only about youth but engagement more generally. In fact, much of
the relevant literature draws upon on the well-known typology known as the “Ladder of
Children’s Participation [33]”. The metaphorical ladder is based on seminal studies from
Arnstein (1969) that argued that citizen (adult) participation could be classified as sitting on
rungs corresponding to actual levels of influence on a plan and/or program [34]. The lowest
three rungs on the more recent “Ladder of Children’s Participation”, (1) manipulation,
(2) decoration, and (3) tokenism, are viewed as forms of “non-participation”; the five rungs

128
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

above, (4) assigned but informed, (5) consulted and informed, (6) adult-initiated, shared
decisions with youth, (7) youth-initiated and directed, and (8) youth-initiated, shared
decisions, suggest young people are granted progressively more responsibility and decision-
making power. Moving up the rungs implies changing power relations and a more equal
distribution of rights between adults and young people [33].
A recent OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 project offered that the “Sun Model
of Co-Agency” has modified this ladder schema yet further. In this useful reformulation,
the emphasis is placed on developing fruitful collaborations with adults across degrees
of “co-agency” (except the newly added degree of zero or silence where neither young
people nor adults believe that young people can contribute and adults lead all activities
and make decisions) [35]. This reformulation is particularly helpful because it implies a
shift towards joint action and decision-making from young people working with adults,
while also recognizing young people can be experts in some areas, especially in youth-
related matters [36]. In suggesting the potential for collaborative partnership while also
underlining the promise for youth agency and expertise, the Sun Model aligns well with the
trends in sustainability processes that began this section. More concretely, it suggests that
young people can be active participants and valuable partners in efforts to institutionalize
initiatives such as the aforementioned “Youth 2030”, as well as to develop specific SDG-
related policies where they have strong relevance and interests. Some examples include
but are not limited to health and well-being (SDG 3) [37,38], education (SDG 4) [39],
employment (SDG 8) [40], and climate change (SDG 13) [41].
Though the Sun Model and some similarly motivated antecedents [42–44] represent
breakthroughs for classifying different forms of partnership and participation, one possible
drawback is they may not be easy to use for a comparative assessment as the flexibility in the
terms used in the model makes comparisons challenging. Simply stated, it can be difficult
to employ a co-agency framework for comparatively assessing how meaningfully youth
engage in SDG processes. In this connection, several studies offer some insights into the core
elements of meaningful youth participation [3,13,37,45,46] or combine several approaches
toward that end [7]. Though it is not possible to bring in insights from all of this above work,
distilling four elements that can be compared across countries as they encourage and empower
young people to participate in mechanisms related to the SDGs: (1) aims and justifications;
(2) power-sharing; (3) transparency and accountability; and (4) support.
1. Aims and Justifications: A clear presentation of aims and justification underlying
youth engagement is arguably essential for meaningful participation. The need for
such a clear presentation stems from the fact that young people have the right to
participate and express their views and opinions freely in all matters affecting them
(rights justification). In so doing, they can offer suggestions that can help to im-
prove policies and services (efficiency justification). Furthermore, young people can
develop knowledge and skills (development justification) and enhance self-esteem
through involvement (empowerment justification). It also merits noting that there
may be several aims and justifications and these could be combined within a single
participatory activity [3,13,47,48].
2. Power-sharing: Another critical dimension of meaningful engagement involves ef-
forts to create balanced power-sharing arrangements. Young people can initiate
activities and make decisions on their own. It is also arguably their choice to work
together and share decisions with adults—provided that different responsibilities and
competencies are clearly stated. It may similarly be important that young people
are considered capable and competent and their views are respected. Under these
conditions, young people can establish partnerships among other relevant stake-
holders, including decision and policy makers. In this context, it merits noting that
engagement mechanisms may aim to position young people as equal partners to
improve the situation—a sentiment that aligns well with the partnership principle of
Agenda 2030 [33,35,42,43,45,46,49,50].

129
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

3. Transparency and Accountability: A third important element of meaningful engage-

ment involves whether the processes involving the SDGs are transparent and clear
to young people and other stakeholders. With open communication channels, young
people can be well-informed on all matters affecting them. For example, they can
know what roles they are expected to play along with other stakeholders and what
competencies are required to move forward. A possible desirable side effect of trans-
parency is strengthening accountability. That is, transparency around the SDGs
will help to allow decision-makers (as well as young people) to be held account-
able for their commitments and actions. Similar to the previous elements, there are
many references to calls for transparency and accountability in an effort to drive
forward implementation [13,14,38,45,46].
4. Support: Last but not least is the issue of support. As noted previously in the article,
young people may need support to safely and continuously participate regardless
of background, status, or identity. Support may be particularly important for young
people from less privileged backgrounds, enabling them to participate with confi-
dence. Such support includes, but is not limited to, financial assistance for travel and
accommodations, economic incentives, psychological and mentorship assistance, as
well as providing learning and capacity development opportunities. The above needs
are embedded in the SDGs No One Left Behind principles, which calls for support to
be provided to those who are vulnerable and excluded [7,10,11,13,14,37,45,51].
The above four key elements are selected because they are viewed as core components
of meaningful youth participation while aligning with principles underpinning the SDGs.
The analytical framework based on these four elements makes it possible to bridging
the theoretical question with the empirical analysis [52]. The next part of this paper
uses this framework to offer an initial assessment of youth engagement mechanisms or
activities related to SDGs’ implementation in Finland and Japan. The four aforementioned
elements will be helpful in comparing engagement mechanisms between two countries:
Japan and Finland.

3. Case Selection and Methods

3.1. Selection of Countries
The four elements described above will be used for a small-n comparison of youth
engagement in Japan and Finland. The selection of the two countries follows assumptions
in comparative case study research that are frequently used in the social sciences to offer
practical policy recommendations. These assumptions highlight the desirability of selecting
cases that are similar across most key dimensions while varying in one or more limited sets
of areas of interest. The reason for selecting cases with many similarities is to control for
the possible confounding effects of issues that may influence a particular policy, program,
or process (including engagement mechanisms) but are not the focus of the research. For
example, if the two cases selected for this study were from countries of different levels
of development and/or had different political systems, one might reasonably argue that
inferences drawn about the variation in the engagement mechanisms are really related to
the development levels or political systems [53].
As such, Finland and Japan were selected because there are many similarities between
the two countries that limit concerns about confounding effects and make them useful
for comparative policy-relevant case study research. In fact, there are at least five general
similarities. First, both Finland and Japan are developed high-income countries [54]. Sec-
ond, both countries are parliamentary democracies. Third, both countries have formulated
and implemented policies to address environmental challenges, mitigate climate change,
and promote sustainable development. Fourth, Finland and Japan are renowned for high-
quality education systems that nurture future generations and consistently perform well in
international assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA). Fifth, the two countries are recognized for promoting environmental education and
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).

130
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

In addition to the five more general similarities, both countries share more specific sets
of traits related to engaging young people in implementing the SDGs. For example, Japan
established the “Japan Next-Generation Platform” in 2018 under the initiative of the Prime
Minister, creating a space for those interested in sustainable development. Similarly, Finland
set up “The 2030 Agenda Youth Group” in 2017 under the Finnish National Commission
on Sustainable Development, led by the Prime Minister. Both initiatives were referred to as
good practices in the Voluntary National Reviews (VNR) shared at the High-level Political
Forum (HLPF) to summarize the progress and achievements in implementing SDGs [55,56].
In addition to these general characteristics and specific traits, there are also similarities
in the kinds of policy documents that have been developed. Table 1 shows the SDGs’
plans and related policy documents that will be used to inform the comparative analysis in
this study. In Japan, the SDGs’ Implementation Guiding Principles (launched in 2016 and
revised in 2019 and 2023) provide an overview of the status of the SDGs as well as its visions,
priorities, institutions, and processes in promoting the SDGs. The guiding principles
are used to develop an annual SDGs Action Plan in Japan. To some extent paralleling
Japan, Finland developed a national 2030 Agenda Roadmap in 2021. That roadmap is a
medium-term plan detailing the actions Finland needs to take to achieve the goals of the
2030 Agenda. The most recent version of the roadmap, adopted in 2022, is used in the
comparative analysis to follow.

Table 1. SDGs-related documents included in the analysis.

Country Document Title

• The 2030 Agenda Roadmap of the Finnish National Commission on

Sustainable Development (2022) [57]
Finland
• Strategy of the National Commission on Sustainable Development
2022–2030 (2022) [58]

• Report on the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development (2020) [55]

• SDGs Implementation Guiding Principles Revised Edition (2019) [59]

Japan
• SDGs Action Plan (2023) * [60]

• Report on the implementation of 2030 Agenda ~Toward achieving the

SDGs in the post-COVID-19 era~ (2021) [56]

* Only available in Japanese.

As seen above, Finland and Japan demonstrate a shared commitment to engaging

young people in the national SDGs’ implementation by, for instance, establishing institu-
tionalized mechanisms for these purposes. While there are general similarities, there may
be particular differences in how much they facilitate or support meaningful engagement.
Further, although a rigorous check of causal claims goes beyond the scope of this article,
those differences may also have implications for performance on the SDGs (see also the con-
clusion of the article). On this point, it should be noted that Japan ranks lower (21st in 2023)
than Finland (1st in 2023) in SDG performance (based on the Sustainable Development
Report from the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN)) [61].
The next subsection describes how to draw out those differences and answer the
aforementioned research questions: How do countries compare in terms of meaningful
youth engagement in sustainability processes?

131
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

3.2. Three Approaches

The paper relies on three different but complementary approaches to compare how
meaningful youth engagement is in sustainability processes in Finland and Japan (see
Figure 1). It merits noting that the approaches build off each other, starting with a rather
general text mining of key words that is then complemented by descriptions of formal
institutions and key informant interviews organized around the four categories in the
literature review. In addition, as is also discussed in the conclusion, these methods can
offer a “preliminary” assessment of engagement and could be further complemented by
a larger sample of survey data or an expanded number of country case studies (see also
Section 6, the Conclusions).

Figure 1. Three research methods.

It is also critical to highlight that, with the exception of the text mining, the data used
for this research are qualitative. The use of qualitative as opposed to quantitative data is
commonly practiced in comparative institutional analysis as a subfield of social science
research. Though not perfect, qualitative data allow for insights into the design of policies
and institutions that might not be visible from a quantitative analysis of key features of
youth engagement mechanisms. It is also arguably more appropriate to use a qualitative
lens for a two-country comparison as it can offer a richer and more nuanced understanding
of the design of policies and institutions.
The first approach used for this comparative assessment involved the text mining of
key words related to youth engagement in the documents in Table 1. The text mining aimed
to gain a first-glance indication of how much youth engage in SDGs and other sustainability
processes. Text mining can offer a useful perspective of whether and to what extent the
formal mechanisms for engagement are meaningful as it can help to illuminate patterns
in language that might not be discernible from a description of institutions. To obtain
these initial insights, the authors went through an iterative process of re-reading key SDG
documents to determine what words might be associated with youth engagement in the
case studies’ countries. After repeated re-readings (and the realization that the coverage of
youth-related issues was a small part of the key documents), it was decided that the key
word list should include a select number of the following admittedly general key words:
• Finland: youth; young people; adolescent(s); education
• Japan: youth; young people; adolescent(s); education; next-generation; wakamono
(youth, adolescent); jisedai (next generation); kyoiku (education)
The key words were then counted based on a simple automated keyword search procedure
with manual coding to check whether the word was used in a way that was relevant to the
scope and substance of the article. This was important because there were some instances
where key terms applied to statements about youth and initiatives taken outside the countries
(e.g., international aid). In most cases, it was possible to conduct the text mining in English. For
Japan’s Action Plan, this was not feasible, and translation from Japanese to English was needed.
Following the text analysis, the article turned to the two additional methods to obtain an

132
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

additional perspective on the meaningfulness of that participation that is more closely aligned
with core elements in the literature: institutional analysis and key informant interviews.
The second approach therefore involved a careful desk study of formal institutions
and policies. Much of the material for this review came from official government and
youth organization websites and/or other publication channels. During the desk study, the
authors aimed to assess how the engagement mechanisms performed on the four analytical
categories detailed in the previous section.
The third and final approach aimed to address concerns that looking only at formal
institutions and policies may miss how they actually work in practice. To address this concern,
key informant interviews were conducted with young people who are members of the Finnish
Agenda 2030 Youth Group and Japan Youth Platform for Sustainability (JYPS), one of Japan’s
Steering Committee Organizations of the Next-Generation Platform. The interviews sought
to obtain perceptions about youth engagement mechanisms and validate or refine some of
the inferences drawn from the desk study. To accommodate the needs of the interviewees, the
discussions consisted of one group interview and three one-to-one interviews.
The interviews were semi-structured, with questions covering themes including the
motivation to participate in the respective platforms and suggestions for better youth
engagement mechanisms. Each interview took around one hour. The interviews were
conducted mostly online, and every interview was recorded with the interviewee’s consent.
Rather than being presented as a standalone section, the results of the interviews are woven
into the desk study description of the formal institutions and policies (see the following
Results Section). Though each of the above approaches has flaws, the combination of
different approaches offers a useful way to obtain some preliminary comparative insights
into the meaningfulness of engagement.

4. Results
As noted in the previous section, the study used three different techniques to determine
whether youth could meaningfully engage in sustainability processes in Finland and Japan.
The first part of this subsection brings in text mining and frequency counts of keywords.
The latter two parts of this subsection draw upon the desk study and complementary
interviews for Finland and Japan, respectively.

4.1. Results of the Text Mining

The text analysis provides an initial indication on how much youth engage in SDG
processes. As illustrated in Table 2, Finland’s key documents generally have more references to
the keywords highlighted in Section 3. This contrast is most apparent when comparing Japan’s
SDG principles and Finland’s roadmap. The former includes 25 references to youth-related
terms, while the latter includes 188 such references. It nonetheless merits noting that much of
the difference is due to references to “education”. In addition, the differences in the number of
references are smaller in the other two sets of analyzed documents, including both country’s
VNRs. To look more closely at whether these first-glance inferences are supported by other
evidence, the study reviews the formal institutions and policies for each country.

Table 2. Frequency counts of key words in the reviewed documents.

Japan Related Terms Finland Related Terms

youth (1), young people (2), youth (9), young people (5), education (168),
SDGs Principles (2019) Roadmap (2022)
education (14), next-generation (8) adolescent (6; all come along with “children”)
Wakamono (11), jisedai (9) *, youth (8), young people (5), education (165),
Action Plan (2023) Strategy (2022)
kyoiku (104) adolescent (6, all come along “children”)
youth (13), young people (20),
VNR (2021) next generation (15), education (127), VNR (2020) youth (35), young people (28), education (118)
adolescent (1)
* There were 24 references, but 9 were only used in the way this research intends.

133
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

4.2. Desk Study and Interviews on Finland’s Youth Participation in Sustainability Processes
To understand how youth engagement works in Finland, it is important to provide
background on sustainable development institutions. That background begins with the
National Commission on Sustainable Development and Development Policy Committee
(hereafter: National Commission). The National Commission has been chaired by the Prime
Minister since 1993 and actively encourages participation. For instance, the National Com-
mission has encouraged a participatory approach to follow-up and review in Finland that
is held in high regard for strengthening stakeholder engagement and policy coherence [62].
The national follow-up and review system also includes innovative participatory elements,
such as a Citizen Panel that assesses the state of sustainable development and provides
information and citizen views to policymakers. Importantly, the citizen panel also reaches
out to and integrates inputs from young people.
There are also other measures taken to expand the involvement of young people in
SDGs’ implementation in Finland. These measures can be divided into two main areas.
One involves promoting forms of education that extend beyond formal schooling to lifelong
learning in an effort to empower young people to contribute to sustainable development.
Initiatives promoting education utilize existing mechanisms to support young people, such
as youth work [58] (p. 30 and p. 70).
While there are several mechanisms that promote engagement generally, the article
focuses chiefly on the Agenda 2030 Youth Group as a mechanism that enables youth
engagement specifically. The Agenda 2030 Youth Group is an institutionalized mechanism
for young representatives to participate in the decision-making process on sustainable
development. The Agenda 2030 Youth Group was established at the initiative of the
then Vice-Chair of the National Commission (Figure 2). It is composed of 12 people
and 2 equal-status chairs aged 15 to 28 years from diverse backgrounds across Finland.
It is intended to expand the involvement of a wide cross-section of young people. The
decision to include multiple youth representatives was based on the belief that appointing
a single youth delegate for sustainable development was not enough to capture the diverse
range of sentiments from young people in different places and stations in life [55] (p. 26).
Table 3 shows the summarized references on the group within the reviewed documents
categorized into four analytical categories.

Figure 2. Illustration of National 2030 Agenda structure in Finland [42] (p. 91).

134
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

Table 3. References to areas in the analytical categories for the 2030 Agenda Youth Group.

Analytical
Relevant References (Summarized)
Categories
• Aim to expand young people’s involvement in SD policy to address
the issues (VNR, p. 14)
Aims and • Two expected roles: (1) to spur the Finnish National Commission
Justifications and bring young people’s voices to SD policy processes and public
debate; (2) to inform other young people of SDGs in their networks,
schools, and leisure activities (VNR, p. 27)
• Sufficient autonomy on what they will do and what matters they
will promote (VNR, p. 27)
• Members’ recognition of a mechanism that brought them to the
Power-sharing center of SD decision-making processes, placing them on equal
footing with other parties as contributors to SD (VNR, p. 27)
• Members participated in the discussion on roadmap development,
and the individual section was developed within (Roadmap, p. 83)
• The group is an institutionalized mechanism in the national SDGs
implementation process (VNR, p. 14)
• The member selection is conducted with the support of Finnish
Youth Cooperation, Alliansi (VNR, p. 27)
Transparency and • The expected roles to play are clear (VNR, p. 27), and opportunities
Accountability for participation (both mandatory and voluntary) are listed (VNR,
p. 27/Roadmap, p. 83)
• The members’ evaluating comments on SDG processes are
integrated into VNR as part of follow-up and review
(VNR, p. 27, 97)
• Finish Youth Cooperation supports the engagement processes,
Support
trying to make better representation within the group (VNR, p. 27)

Regarding the aims and justifications, Finland explicitly aims to establish the Agenda
2030 Youth Group to expand opportunities for young people to express their views in the
sustainable development policy process. The main justifications for creating this mechanism
are that it provides a guarantee on the fundamental right for young people to participate
and thereby improve sustainable development-related policies and services. Having this
justification and their expected roles made explicit is helpful because it firmly established that
young people can contribute substantively to national SDG processes (Group Interview, 2024).
In addition to having a well-defined role, the activities in which young people engage
are based on balanced power-sharing. This balance is achieved in several ways. For
example, it is mandated that the Agenda 2030 Youth Group regularly attends the National
Commission’s meetings to bring messages from different youth perspectives. They are also
invited to participate in critical SDG processes, such as the central government’s policy
development, budgeting, and follow-up and review. While the desk study highlighted these
more formal channels, interviewees further indicated that there are even more opportunities
called by the national government than they attend (Group Interview, 2024).
At the same time, there are guarantees of their autonomy or freedom from political
interference in SDG processes, thereby encouraging participation in public discussions and
dialogue around the SDGs. Some of these signs of balanced power-sharing are evident
in the active participation of young people as panelists or organizers of the stakeholders’
events, posting on social media, and media interviews. Young people also organize events
by themselves to reach a wider range of young people (Group Interview, 2024). Although it
is difficult to pinpoint precisely how an input influences a decision, there are several signs
that young people’s views are respected in critical decision-making processes. There is also
evidence that the effort to share power helps to energize young people to engage in public
discussions on sustainable development in partnership with other stakeholders.
The review of publicly available information suggests that youth engagement in
Finland is supported by relatively high levels of transparency and accountability. For

135
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

instance, an open application process facilitated by the Finish Youth Cooperation called
Allianssi is used to determine who can join the 2030 Agenda Youth Group. The members
are selected to represent diverse backgrounds across Finland, including their interests in
the SDGs. This representativeness, when combined with the ability to participate in the
key processes mentioned above, may also help to increase transparency and accountability.
That is, policymakers may feel the need to share more information with different segments
of the youth population and feel more beholden to the interests of this diverse mix of young
people. While the documents imply this potential on paper, some members “do not feel
that they represent Finnish youth as a whole [55] (p. 28)”. It was also indicated that the
information about this mechanism was easily reachable to those who are in the “circle”,
who were already active and interested, but not “regular youth” (Group Interview, 2024).
The one area where Finland appears to perform less well compared to the other
elements in the framework is support. For this dimension, the allocated government
budget covers the travel, accommodation, and food expenses for the members, although
their work is on a voluntary basis; in other words, they do not receive financial incentives
for activities (Group Interview, 2024). Based on a review of the available documents, most
of the non-material support comes from the aforementioned group, Allianssi. Allianssi
serves as an advocacy organization for the youth sector with over 140 national youth and
education sector organizations. Funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture, Allianssi
endeavors to prevent the exclusion of young people and help young people to develop
into responsible members of society and participate in decision-making [63]. According
to interviews, Allianssi plays a secretariat function in this mechanism, supporting annual
recruitment processes and providing some technical support and advice to their own
initiated activities. Though Allianssi helps to a certain degree, some youth raised the
necessity of capacity development, especially technical and professional knowledge of
sustainability issues. Although potential youth representatives indicate their areas of
interest upon their selection, they still need to be knowledgeable about the field to make
a substantive contribution (Group Interview, 2024). There might be such a space for
improvement to enable their participation with confidence. There are nonetheless limited
details of the type of support provided for youth participation in SDG processes—though
one might presume that this assistance comes from other mechanisms reviewed herein.
In sum, Finland has created relatively well-established mechanisms aimed at enabling
meaningful youth participation in SDG processes. These mechanisms have clear aims and
justification, balanced power-sharing, and relatively high transparency and accountability
(though there may be scope for work in this area). The amount of support provided may
need to be increased.

4.3. Desk Study and Interviews on Japan’s Youth Participation in Sustainability Processes
Since its establishment in 2016, the SDGs Promotion Headquarters (hereafter Head-
quarters), composed of all Cabinet Ministers and led by the Prime Minister, has coordinated
SDGs’ implementation in Japan. As illustrated in Figure 3, the Headquarters promotes
stakeholder consultations through “SDGs Promotion Roundtable Meetings”, including
representatives from related government agencies, civil society, academia, the private sector,
and international organizations. This mechanism also reviews SDG progress, provides
inputs into the SDGs Implementation Guiding Principles (hereafter Principles), and deter-
mines recipients of the “Japan SDGs Award” to recognize best practices. The Headquarters
is responsible for monitoring the progress of measures taken in line with the Principles,
as well as raising awareness of the SDGs to increase public understanding and support
for engagement with the SDGs [64]. To help achieve the SDGs, the Principles set out three
pillars underpinning Japan’s “SDGs Model”: (1) “Promotion of Society 5.0 that corresponds
to the SDGs”, (2) “Regional Revitalization driven by the SDGs”, and (3) “Empowerment of
the next generation and women” [59] (p. 2). Japan has created two main channels to enable
young people with various backgrounds to contribute to achieving the SDGs: enhancement
of education policies and systems and the “Next-Generation Platform”.

136
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

Figure 3. Illustration of the SDG implementation structure in Japan (Source: Authors).

Given the thematic scope of the article, most of the focus is placed on the
“Next-Generation Platform”. The Next-Generation Platform was established in 2018 under
the initiatives of the then Prime Minister. The Platform comprises seven Steering Commit-
tee Organizations: AISEC Japan, ETIC, G7/G20 Youth Japan, Junior Chamber International
Japan (JCI), Japan Disability Forum (JDF), Japan Model United Nations (JMUN), and Japan
Youth Platform for Sustainability (JYPS). These organizations have varied aims and activi-
ties and members. Among them, JYPS is the only organization led by young people under
30 years old to advocate youth engagement in the sustainability field [65]. The Platform
aims to “deepen the involvement of the next generation, who will play a leading role in pro-
moting the SDGs after 2030 [56] (p. 36)”. Table 4 summarizes the Platform’s performance
based on the four key elements in the analytical framework and the reviewed documents.

Table 4. References to areas in the analytical categories in Japan’s Next-Generation Platform.

Analytical
Relevant References (Summarized)
Categories
• “Empowerment of the next generation and women” as one of the
three pillars of Japan’s “SDGs Model” (Principles, p. 2)
Aims and
• Work to accelerate the proactive promotion of SDGs by the next
Justifications
generation and disseminate Japan’s SDGs Model regarding SDGs’
promotion by the next generation (Principles, p. 2)
• One youth from the Platform became a member of the “SDGs
Power-sharing
Promotion Roundtable” (VNR, p. 5)
• The platform is the institutionalized framework for the promotion of
the SDGs (Principles, p. 11)
Transparency and • The activities conducted are showcased, also embedded in the national
Accountability governmental mechanism related to the SDGs process (VNR, p. 14)
• There was a discussion opportunity with the young generation in the
VNR preparation (VNR p. 5)
Support • No description was found related to the support given to the Platform

Regarding the aims and justification, the empowerment of the next generation and
women is listed as one of the key elements to support Japan’s SDGs Model and to achieve
the SDGs. While the importance of young people is recognized, the launch of Japan’s Next-
Generation Platform is offered as a good example of the government’s effort to concretize
that vision. However, there is no apparent justification for this initiative. According to
the Principles, the Platform is intended to let young people “think about how to promote
the SDGs and how to transform society when they become the main players [59] (p. 10)”.
Despite the stated goal of empowering younger generations, the Platform does not seem to

137
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

offer an equally explicit justification for engagement—such as guaranteeing rights, utilizing

ideas for better policies and services, and developing knowledge, skills, and self-esteem.
For some of the same reasons, it is challenging to assess aims and justifications, and it
was also difficult to evaluate power-sharing. The Platform members are likely working on
the activities of each representative organization, but there is no reference to the activities
initiated by the Platform itself. As mentioned previously, one youth representative from
the Platform became a member of the roundtable in December 2021. Their involvement
in the roundtable started after the submission of the latest VNR, to discuss issues related
to the subsequent follow-up and review processes with other stakeholders. According to
the interviews, youth representatives are invited to consultation meetings twice a year to
discuss revising the Principles and Action Plan and are given the same mandate as other
adult members. However, youth stakeholders also find it difficult to influence the decision-
making process. This is because the meetings primarily aim to exchange views between the
Headquarters (government) and the non-government stakeholders, with decision-making
to be made by the government (Individual Interview, 2023). While they enjoy the same
mandate as other adult members, several interviewees suggested that they felt as if they
were less of a priority during consultations with lower-ranked government personnel
compared to other adult stakeholders. Despite the efforts to hear stakeholders’ opinions,
including young people, no information was available about the activities initiated by the
Platform or the extent of its influence on decision-making processes.
Similarly, there are almost no references to transparency and accountability. Although
all the meeting notes of the roundtable discussion are publicly available online, there is no
publicly available information about the Platform’s mechanisms or activities. The lack of
such references is apparent in the limited details on the member selection process: simply
stated, the reasons why some organizations were selected as the Steering Committee are
not laid out clearly, and references to which organizations act as members of the Platform
are also murky. The appointment of one youth representative mentioned may also provide
a relatively narrow base for holding decision-makers accountable to different groups of
young people. Combined with the limited clarity under the power-sharing category, there
may be a need for greater transparency and broader accountability.
Lastly, there is almost no description of the Platform initiatives in terms of support.
According to the one related reference found in the SDGs Action Plan, there is no specific
budget allocation for operating this initiative for the years 2022 and 2023 [60] (p. 94, 95).
The interviews underlined the same point: there is a lack of financial compensation for
their activities. The youth representatives invited to the roundtable meetings receive
compensation with a daily allowance; however, they do not receive any financial support
for their activities. Furthermore, the meetings are often held on weekdays in Tokyo in
an in-person format only, which is preferable for business persons; on the other hand, it
makes it difficult for youth representatives, especially if they live far from the capital. Of
course, financial support is not only a way of enabling young people’s participation but
it also strongly influences their continuous engagement. Another difficulty in sustaining
their activities is member recruitment and capacity development. The vast majority of the
members of the Steering Committee Organizations are college students, who mostly stay
active for two to three years only. For a similar reason, many young people leave their
activities to pursue studies and career development or give up for economic reasons—and
this could prevent the involvement of diverse young people. Informally, one of the steering
committee organizations, the Junior Chamber, consisting of young working professionals
below 40 years old, offered to serve as a quasi-secretariat of the Platform to assist activities
(Individual Interview, 2023). However, more formal and structural support, including
financial assistance or incentives, is likely needed. Otherwise, it may limit the Platform’s
effectiveness, potentially excluding less socially and economically privileged youth.
Though the above review suggests there exists scope for improvement, it merits
highlighting that it was a significant step for Japan to create a mechanism to engage young
people in SDGs’ implementation. Importantly, the review suggests areas in which Japan

138
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

may want to take additional steps. These include making clearer links between aims and
justifications and concrete activities. This would entail going beyond simply “think[ing]
about how to promote SDGs and how to transform society when they become the main
players” to have a right and role to influencing activities now—and into the future. In
a similar vein, though awareness-raising is important, it is arguably just as vital to have
more balance in power dynamics so that people’s views have a discernible impact in the
matters affecting them. A clearer understanding of young people’s competencies and
responsibilities would further lead to more equitable power-sharing while also boosting
transparency and accountability. Last but not least, support, particularly clear budget
lines, and continuous assistance, including secretariat functions and providing capacity
development opportunities, could increase the involvement of young people from more
diverse backgrounds.

4.4. Preliminary Comparative Assessment

Though the picture painted in this section is based chiefly on text mining and descrip-
tions of institutions and complementary interviews, they nonetheless shed some useful
initial light on how meaningful youth engagement is in Japan and Finland. More concretely,
the results suggest that there are differences in how much Finland and Japan support
youth engagement in sustainability processes. Those differences are succinctly summarized
in Table 5 that breaks down the comparison by the analytical categories distilled from
the literature review. Table 5 shows that, by and large, Finland’s aims and justifications,
power-sharing, and transparency and accountability tend be clearer and stronger than
Japan’s. Meanwhile, both countries could do better in offering support for young people.
The next section discusses these findings and their broader implications.

Table 5. Comparison of Finland and Japan.

Analytical Categories Finland Japan

There are clear aims and justifications for Despite its intention to empower the next
establishment. They aim to expand opportunities generation, the Platform lacks a clear justification.
Aims and for young people to express their views in SD The platform encourages young people to think
Justifications policy processes, guarantee their fundamental about promoting SDGs but does not provide
right to participate, and improve SD-related justifications such as guaranteeing their rights or
policies and services. utilizing their ideas for policy improvement.
Group members actively participate in national SDG The activities conducted by the Platform are not
processes, attend government meetings, and engage well-described in the documents, making it difficult
in policy development and budgeting. Autonomy in to assess shared power. Although the representatives
Power-sharing
their activities is guaranteed, and they engage in sent to the roundtable are given the same mandate as
public dialogue, social media, and media interviews other adult stakeholders, structurally, they have no
to inform young people about SDGs. power in the decision-making.
Finland’s member selection process for group
Japan’s reviewed documents lack transparency and
members is relatively open, although there is room
accountability, especially in the selection process and
Transparency and for improvement in extending representation. Youth
representation of the Platform’s members. In
Accountability engagement contributes to government
addition, the Platform’s activities are unclear, as well
accountability, especially in follow-up and
as how influential it is in decision-making processes.
review processes.
Little assistance is provided with Platform activities.
Finland provides some material and non-material
Some non-material support is provided on a
support for youth activities in SDG processes
Support voluntary basis; the lack of financial support,
through the Youth Council. Their necessary expenses
especially, may limit the effectiveness of
are well-covered, but not for their work.
Platform activities.

5. Discussion
Young people’s involvement in SDG processes is important, as it is gaining recognition
at the highest levels in Finland and Japan. This realization has paid some dividends;
there has been progress in involving youth in the SDGs and related processes through the

139
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

creation of the 2030 Agenda Youth Group and the Next-Generation Platform in Japan in
Finland. However, there is arguably a need to dig deeper into the actual operations of these
mechanisms and determine whether they truly facilitate meaningful youth engagement.
In considering ways to dig deeper, it should be noted that analyzing stakeholder
engagement in SDG-related documents such as VNRs is an imperfect science; these docu-
ments do not always fully articulate their goals or outline relevant activities [66]. These
limitations notwithstanding, Finland’s approach appears to cover more of the criteria asso-
ciated with meaningful engagement than Japan’s. While recognizing the four analytical
categories are interrelated and difficult to disentangle, the following discussion divides the
comparison into those categories for ease of presentation.
1. Aims and Justifications: For engagement to be truly meaningful, defining the relevant
aims and supporting justifications for participation is essential. In Japan, the aims and
justification for including youth are short on details and tend to rest chiefly on the
need for information-sharing and awareness—a finding that is not unique to Japan as
many countries tend to focus on information-sharing and SDG promotion. In the case
of Finland, there tends to be not only a more varied set of aims and activities but also
more clearly explicated underlining justifications. The clearer aims and justification
would help to identify the appropriate youth to hear their opinions, especially to make
progress on youth-related SDGs. In doing so, there would be a more deliberate effort
to engage youth from different locations and social segments so as not to simply cater
to, for example, socially advantaged groups [44,67,68].
2. Power-sharing: Similar to the first element, Finland appears to have made greater
efforts to balance power dynamics. To illustrate, young people are regularly invited
to participate in high-level sustainable development meetings while enjoying the
autonomy to conduct pertinent activities. Further, this balance has arguably helped
to build the confidence needed to launch related activities, such as the formation
of a climate-focused sub-group within the Agenda 2030 Youth Group in Finland in
2023 [69]. In Japan, the youth representatives are equally responsible with the adult
stakeholders in the roundtable; they are structurally limited to influencing and shaping
the trajectory of the decisions. Despite the existence of the Platform, Japan has tended
to limit the power and autonomy offered to young people, keeping the scope of those
activities circumscribed within their respective organizations.
3. Transparency and Accountability: As noted previously, transparency and accountabil-
ity are also critical elements to ensuring that young people are meaningfully engaging
in the SDG process. In this case, Finland also tends to demonstrate a clearer commit-
ment to these principles and related practices. This is evident in both the relatively
open selection of multiple youth representatives as well as the role in important pro-
cesses that can boost accountability, such as the follow-up and review. In the case of
Japan, there is more scope for improvement in explaining how youth representatives
are selected and how the mechanism operates, moving from informal agreements to
transparent long-term contracts and arrangements [38].
4. Support: Perhaps more so than other forms of engagement, youth engagement neces-
sitates support. Both countries could improve their engagement mechanisms in this
regard, ensuring varied participation channels to communicate with a wider youth
segment and providing adequate compensation, capacity building, and empowerment,
especially for underrepresented and vulnerable youth. In Finland, the continuous
backing of youth-led initiatives through official platforms, like Alliansi or National
Youth Councils, may offer some forms of support. On the contrary, Japan should take
specific measures to support its activities; otherwise, this could eventually engage the
limited segment of young people who are already capable and socio-economically priv-
ileged. This might inadvertently keep young people who are vulnerable as recipients
of “care” rather than as participants to be empowered.

140
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

6. Conclusions
At the most general level, participation requires a well-designed set of institutions—that
is, a set of rules and structures that continually encourage diverse voices to engage in the
public sphere. Creating these institutions to foster the meaningful participation of young
people in sustainability processes is increasingly viewed as integral to accelerating progress
on the SDGs. Not only can it help to build intergenerational trust and social cohesion, but
it also ensures fresh and forward-looking ideas that inform the policies where youth have
strong interests, including education, clean energy, and climate change.
Many governments have therefore made commendable efforts to engage young people
in these decisions. Some research has developed heuristics to determine the degree to
which engagement matters or is meaningful. There have nonetheless been few efforts to
use insights from that research to compare youth engagement across countries.
This article employs a novel approach to address this gap in understanding and answer
a critical question: how do countries compare in terms of meaningful youth engagement
in sustainability processes? That approach uses a framework based on four analytical
categories that have been argued to underpin meaningful youth engagement: aims and
justification, power-sharing, transparency and accountability, and support. It then employs
the framework to assess how Japan and Finland perform in each of these areas. The
comparison suggests that Finland’s effort to engage youth exhibits greater attention to the
areas highlighted in this framework. This is particularly apparent in the first three elements
of the framework, where there is a clearer presentation of aims and justifications, more
balanced power-sharing, and greater transparency and accountability. Both countries, the
article suggests, may need to do more to extend support to young people.
Expanding upon the conclusion, it warrants highlighting that the article also opens
channels for future inquiry. As previously mentioned, comparative analysis of relevant
policy documents may offer an incomplete picture of how formal institutions actually
operate and how young people actually engage. The article addresses this issue to some
degree by noting that the conclusions drawn herein are still preliminary. In addition, it
also brings in key informant interviews to supplement inferences; however, a clear way
forward is expanding the group of interviewees to include not only youth stakeholders
but also other relevant stakeholders, such as policy and decision-makers, researchers, and
other civil society members.
Another avenue for future exploration lies in examining the influence of demographic
differences on participation. For instance, Finland’s population is approximately 5.5 million,
significantly smaller than Japan’s 122 million. Given these demographic disparities, it may
be beneficial to compare mechanisms across smaller countries like Finland. It may also
be possible to examine differences and similarities with local-level mechanisms in bigger
countries like Japan to discern variations in youth engagement mechanisms/strategies and
their effectiveness. In addition, it may be useful to examine the influence of the regional
level. Not limited to UN initiatives, the Finnish case indicates there might also be some
influences from regional frameworks and cooperation, such as the European Union, the
Council of Europe, and the Nordic Councils.
Another important consideration that has thus far been underemphasized is socio-
cultural differences. Differences in underlying traditions and belief systems may play a
significant role in participation and power-sharing. For instance, the Finnish documents
highlight a strong tradition of participation, whereas social science studies on values
indicate varying preferences for political participation among people across cultures. Com-
paring the approaches of various countries in involving youth can help to shed light on the
reasons for the diverse pathways and effective strategies to enhance youth participation
within different cultural contexts.
Further, it may be necessary to revisit the framework employed in this analysis. This
research has suggested that Finland may place greater emphasis on downstream partic-
ipation opportunities. Instead, Japan’s emphasis appears to lean towards strengthening
upstream formal school education for sustainable development, which was not featured in

141
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

the framework. The framework’s key elements were originally designed to incorporate
various ways of contributing to youth engagement in SDG processes, but it admittedly
downplays the crucial role of education.
Finally, there may be scope to use the analyses offered herein to better understand how
more meaningful youth engagement translates into performance on key SDGs. In this connec-
tion, additional work could look at whether there is a correlation between youth engagement
on SDGs where there are clear benefits for young people such as SDG 4 (education) and areas
where there are clear opportunities to trigger real-world changes such as SDGs 7 (clean
energy) and 13 (climate change). In carrying out this research, one might hypothesize that
more meaningful engagement is correlated with, for instance, quality education (SDG 4)
and a willingness to take concrete actions that conserve energy (SDG 7) and address the
climate crisis (SDG 13). Conducting this kind of study would ideally require expanding the
number of cases and related assessments of youth engagement mechanisms. Importantly,
this study offers a feasible approach for making that comparison.
In sum, there is ample room to delve deeper into the dynamics of youth engagement,
accounting for reporting gaps, demographic influences, and cultural nuances, ultimately
advancing understandings of how to foster effective youth participation in the SDGs in
various contexts. It is also clear that looking more closely at the links between youth
engagement and SDG performance would be mutually beneficial for young people and the
sustainability of the planet.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.F. and E.Z.; methodology, M.F. and E.Z.; investigation,
M.F. and E.Z.; resources, M.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.F.; writing—review and editing,
M.F. and E.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Environment Research and Technology Development
Fund (JPMEERF20221M03) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency provided by
the Ministry of the Environment of Japan.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Relevant ethical considerations were considered and ad-
dressed. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. UN General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of the Child; Treaty Series; United Nation: Geneva, Switzerland, 1989; Volume 1577, p. 3.
2. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.;
et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
3. Bárta, O.; Boldt, G.; Lavizzari, A. Meaningful Youth Political Participation in Europe: Concepts, Patterns and Policy Implications—Research
Study; Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 2021.
4. Willems, H.; Heinen, A.; Meyers, C. Between Endangered Integration and Political Disillusion: The Situation of Young People in Europe;
University of Luxembourg: Luxembourg, 2012.
5. Hwang, S.; Kim, J. UN SDGs and United Nations and Sustainable Development Goals A Handbook for Youth; UNESCAP East and
North-East Asia: Incheon, Republic of Korea, 2017.
6. El Zoghbi, M.B. Conferences as Learning Spaces on Climate Change and Sustainability. In Promoting Climate Change Awareness
through Environmental Education; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2015; pp. 37–59.
7. Singh, A.; Faiqoh; Zuhra; Putu Natalya, N.; Talata Farida, C.; Nugroho, S.; Mujoko, A.; Alfian Novianto, D.; Tabrani Al-Ikhlas, I.;
van Reeuwijk, M. Operations Research on Meaningful Youth Participation in Indonesia; Rutgers: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2016.
8. Fielding, M. Students as Radical Agents of Change. J. Educ. Change 2001, 2, 123–141. [CrossRef]
9. D’Adamo, I.; Di Carlo, C.; Gastaldi, M.; Rossi, E.N.; Uricchio, A.F. Economic Performance, Environmental Protection and Social
Progress: A Cluster Analysis Comparison towards Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049. [CrossRef]
10. Arnold, H.E.; Cohen, F.G.; Warner, A. Youth and Environmental Action: Perspectives of Young Environmental Leaders on Their
Formative Influences. J. Environ. Educ. 2009, 40, 27–36. [CrossRef]

142
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

11. Browne, L.P.; Garst, B.A.; Deborah Bialeschki, M. Engaging Youth in Environmental Sustainability: Impact of the Camp 2 Grow
Program. J. Park Recreat. Adm. Fall 2011, 29, 70–85.
12. Cumiskey, L.; Hoang, T.; Suzuki, S.; Pettigrew, C.; Herrgård, M.M. Youth Participation at the Third UN World Conference on
Disaster Risk Reduction. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2015, 6, 150–163. [CrossRef]
13. United Nations. Our Common Agenda Policy Brief 3 Meaningful Youth Engagement in Policy and Decision-Making Processes; United
Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2023.
14. United Nations Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth. Believe in Better: From Policy to Practice Strengthening Account-
ability Relationships with and for Young People; United Nations Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth: New York, NY,
USA, 2021.
15. Verba, S.; Nie, N.H. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA,
1987; ISBN 9780226852966.
16. Milner, H. The Internet Generation: Engaged Citizens or Political Dropouts. The Internet Generation: Engaged Citizens or Political
Dropouts; Tufts University Press: Medford, MA, USA, 2010.
17. Norris, P. Democratic Phoenix; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002; ISBN 9780521811774.
18. Inglehart, R. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies; Princeton University Press:
Princeton, NJ, USA, 1997.
19. Dalton, R.J. Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation. Political Stud. 2008, 56, 76–98. [CrossRef]
20. Pickard, S. Politics, Protest and Young People; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2019; ISBN 978-1-137-57787-0.
21. London School of Economics and Political Science. Youth Participation in Democratic Life; London School of Economics and Political
Science: London, UK, 2013.
22. Barrett, M. Young People’s Civic and Political Engagement and Global Citizenship. Available online: [Link]
chronicle/article/young-peoples-civic-and-political-engagement-and-global-citizenship (accessed on 28 December 2023).
23. Mannarini, T.; Legittimo, M.; Talò, C. Determinants of Social and Political Participation among Youth. A Preliminary Study. Psicol.
Política 2008, 36, 95–117.
24. Norris, P. Young People & Political Activism: From the Politics of Loyalties to the Politics of Choice? In Proceedings of the Civic
Engagement in the 21st Century: Toward a Scholarly and Practical Agenda, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA,
USA, 1 October 2004.
25. United Nations Sustainable Development Group. Operationalizing Leaving No One Behind: Good Practice Note for UN Country Teams;
United Nations Sustainable Development Group: New York, NY, USA, 2022.
26. Dezelan, T.; Moxon, D. Influencing and Understanding Political Participation: The European Perspective; Publication Office of the
European Union: Luxembourg, 2021.
27. UNICEF. Engaged and Heard! Guidelines on Adolescent Participation and Civic Engagement; UNICEF: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
28. Moxon, D.; Barta, O.; Pasic, L.; Vanhee, J. Evaluation of Participant Inclusion Levels within the EU Youth Dialogue; Publication Office
of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2023.
29. Biancardi, A.; Colasante, A.; D’Adamo, I.; Daraio, C.; Gastaldi, M.; Uricchio, A.F. Strategies for Developing Sustainable
Communities in Higher Education Institutions. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 20596. [CrossRef]
30. Tuan Ismail, T.N.; Mohd Yusof, M.I.; Ab Rahman, F.A.; Dwi, H. Youth and Their Knowledge on the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). Environ. Behav. Proc. J. 2022, 7, 329–335. [CrossRef]
31. Mohd Yusof, M.I.; Ho Nyuk Onn@Ariffin, M.; Dwi, H. Stakeholder Engagement in Implementation of Youth-Led SDG-Related
Programmes in Malaysia. Environ. Behav. Proc. J. 2022, 7, 323–328. [CrossRef]
32. Montrosse-Moorhead, B.; Bitar, K.; Arévalo, J.; Rishko-Porcescu, A. Revolution in the Making: Evaluation “Done Well” in the
Era of the SDGs with a Youth Participatory Approach. In Evaluation for Transformational Change: Opportunities and challenges
for the Sustainable Development Goals; van den Berg, R.D., Magro, C., Mulder, S.S., Eds.; International Development Evaluation
Association: Exeter, UK, 2019; pp. 33–50.
33. Hart, R.A. Children’s Participation; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 9781134172221.
34. Arnstein, S.R. A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 1969, 35, 216–224. [CrossRef]
35. OECD. Future of Education and Skills 2030 Conceptual Learning Framework: Student Agency for 2030; OECD: Paris, France, 2018.
36. Brasof, M. Student Voice and School Governance; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; ISBN 9781315724041.
37. Ndayala, P.; Kuya, J. Exploring the Factors That Influence Meaningful Youth Involvement in the Health Care System Management in
Western Kenya Final Report Empowering Young People for Access to Quality SRH Service in Kenya View Project Sexual and Reproductive
Health and Rights among Adolescents and Youth View Project; Rutgers & GLUK: Kisumu, Kenya, 2016. [CrossRef]
38. World Health Organization. Status of Meaningful Adolescent and Youth Engagement (MAYE): Summary Report of the Results of an
Accountability Survey Submitted by Signatories of the Global Consensus Statement on MAYE; World Health Organization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2021.
39. Anja, H.; Sergeant, L. Planning Education with and for Youth; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2015.
40. International Labour Organization. Global Employment Trends for Youth 2022: Investing in Transforming Futures for Young People
Executive Summary; International Labour Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022.
41. Ingaruca, M.; Richard, N.; Carman, R.; Savarala, S.; Jacovella, G.; Baumgartner, L.; Kurukulasuriya, P.; Lister, S.; Flynn, C. Aiming
Higher: Elevating Meaningful Youth Engagement for Climate Action; United Nations Development Program: New York, NY, USA, 2022.

143
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6415

42. Treseder, P. Empowering Children & Young People: Training Manual: Promoting Involvement in Decision-Making; Smith, P.G., Ed.; Save
the Children Fund (Great Britain): London, UK, 1997; ISBN 9781899120475.
43. Checkoway, B. What Is Youth Participation? Child Youth Serv. Rev. 2011, 33, 340–345. [CrossRef]
44. Mackinnon, M.P.; Pitre, S.; Watling, J. Lost in Translation: (Mis)Understanding Youth Engagement Synthesis Report Charting the Course
for Youth Civic and Political Participation; SoundOut: Reading, UK, 2007.
45. Fletcher, A. Guide to Students as Partners in School Change; CIDA: Hull, QC, Canada, 2005.
46. Kellett, M. Three Children and Young People’s Participation. In Children and Young People’s Worlds: Developing Frameworks for
Integrated Practice; Montgomery, H., Kellett, M., Eds.; Bristol University Press: Bristol, UK, 2009; pp. 43–60. ISBN 9781847429520.
47. Farthing, R. Why Youth Participation? Some Justifications and Critiques of Youth Participation Using New Labour’s Youth
Policies as a Case Study. Youth Policy 2015, 109, 71–97.
48. Lansdown, G. Conceptual Framework for Measuring Outcomes of Adolescent Participation; UNICEF: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
49. Cockburn, G. Meaningful Youth Participation in International Conferences: A Case Study of the International Conference on War-Affected
Children, Winnipeg, Canada, September 2000; CIDA: Hull, QC, Canada, 2001.
50. Shier, H. Pathways to Participation: Openings, Opportunities and Obligations. Child. Soc. 2001, 15, 107–117. [CrossRef]
51. Van Reeuwijk, M.; Singh, A. Meaningful Youth Participation as a Way to Achieving Success. Can. J. Child. Rights Rev. Can. Des
Droits Des Enfants 2018, 5, 200–222. [CrossRef]
52. Coral, C.; Bokelmann, W. The Role of Analytical Frameworks for Systemic Research Design, Explained in the Analysis of Drivers
and Dynamics of Historic Land-Use Changes. Systems 2017, 5, 20. [CrossRef]
53. Plümper, T.; Troeger, V.E.; Neumayer, E. Case Selection and Causal Inferences in Qualitative Comparative Research. PLoS ONE
2019, 14, e0219727. [CrossRef]
54. World Bank. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Available online: [Link]
articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups (accessed on 26 December 2023).
55. Finland Prime Minister’s Office. Finland Report on the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; Finland Prime
Minister’s Office: Helsinki, Finland, 2020.
56. Government of Japan. Report on the Implementation of 2030 Agenda ~Toward Achieving the SDGs in the Post-COVID19 Era~;
Government of Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 2021.
57. Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development. The 2030 Agenda Roadmap of the Finnish National Commission on
Sustainable Development; Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development: Helsinki, Finland, 2022.
58. Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development. Strategy of the National Commission on Sustainable Development
2022–2030: A Prosperous and Globally Responsible Finland That Protects the Carrying Capacity of Nature; Finnish National Commission
on Sustainable Development: Helsinki, Finland, 2022.
59. Government of Japan. SDGs Implementation Guiding Principles Revised Edition; Government of Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 2019.
60. Government of Japan. SDGs Action Plan 2023; Government of Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 2023.
61. SDSN Sustainable Development Report Rankings. Available online: [Link] (accessed
on 26 December 2023).
62. OECD. Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development Country Profiles (Finland). Available online: [Link]
org/2019-03-15/488087-Country%20Profile%[Link] (accessed on 26 December 2023).
63. The Finnish National Youth Council Allianssi Allianssi Promotes the Well-Being of Young People. Available online:
[Link] (ac-
cessed on 26 December 2023).
64. OECD. Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development Country Profiles; OECD: Paris, France, 2019.
65. Japan Youth Platform for Sustainability About JYPS. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 13 May 2024).
66. UNDESA. Multi-Stakeholder Engagement in 2030 Agenda Implementation: A Review of Voluntary National Review Reports (2016–2019);
UNDESA: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
67. Feldmann-Wojtachnia, E.; Gretschel, A.; Helmisaari, V.; Kiilakoski, T.; Matthies, A.-L.; Meinhold-Henschel, S.; Roth, R.; Tasanko, P.
Youth Participation in Finland and in Germany Status Analysis and Data Based Recommendations; Nuorisotutkimusseura ry: Helsinki,
Finland, 2010.
68. Lochocki, T. Trends, Causes and Patterns of Young People’s Civic Engagement in Western Democracies: A Review of Literature; Institute
for Social Research: Oslo, Norway, 2010.
69. Government Communications Department, Ministry of the Environment. Youth Participation in Decision-Making on Climate and
Nature to Be Strengthened by New Young People’s Climate Change and Nature Group; Government Communications Department,
Ministry of the Environment: Helsinki, Finland, 2023.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

144
 sustainability

Article
Methodology for Stakeholder Prioritization in the Context of
Digital Transformation and Society 5.0
Ana M. Osorio 1 , Luisa F. Úsuga 1 , Jaime A. Restrepo-Carmona 2 , Isabel Rendón 1 , Julián Sierra-Pérez 2,3
and Rafael E. Vásquez 2,3, *

1 Sustainability Program, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín 050031, Colombia;

[Link]@[Link] (A.M.O.); [Link]@[Link] (L.F.Ú.); [Link]@[Link] (I.R.)
2 Corporación Rotorr, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Cr. 45 26-85, Bogotá 111311, Colombia;
jarestrepoca@[Link] (J.A.R.-C.); [Link]@[Link] (J.S.-P.)
3 School of Engineering, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín 050031, Colombia
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]; Tel.: +57-4-448-8388

Abstract: This paper addresses a pragmatic and well-articulated qualitative methodology for the
identification, prioritization, and consultation of stakeholder groups for a higher education institution
as a key element for the organization in the context of digital transformation and Industry 5.0. First,
the identification phase required technological surveillance and competitive intelligence, which
allowed for defining the organization’s stakeholders and their characteristics. Then, the prioritization
phase was performed to determine the stakeholders that potentially will have the greatest impact
on achieving the institution’s strategic objectives to the targets of the Sustainable Development
Goals prioritized by the institution, and those who will be most affected (positively or negatively)
by the HEI activities. Finally, different methods and technological tools were used for consulting
internal and external stakeholders, according to the type of relationship with each group, which
allowed the understanding of the perceptions of different stakeholder groups on issues such as
gender equity, mental health, regenerative economy, and diversity training. The results are then
Citation: Osorio, A.M.; Úsuga, L.F.;
presented in terms of organizational context, where the concept of stakeholder group was defined by
Restrepo-Carmona, J.A.; Rendón, I.;
Sierra-Pérez, J.; Vásquez, R.E.
the dynamics of the selected HEI; the prioritized stakeholders include students, employees, academic
Methodology for Stakeholder and research sector, public sector, business sector, social sector, community, archdiocese and diocese,
Prioritization in the Context of alumni, donors, and benefactors. This approach enabled the identification of issues that became a
Digital Transformation and Society priority in the university’s actions towards the future. Although the presented methodology is mainly
5.0. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317. qualitative, which can represent a high degree of subjectivity, the stakeholder prioritization exercise
[Link] provides organizations with inputs for decision making aligned with their needs and expectations.
su16135317 Using such a methodology can help the organization to experience structural changes reflected in
Academic Editors: Manoj Kumar improved strategic alignment, understanding, and satisfaction of stakeholders’ expectations and
Nallapaneni, Idiano D’Adamo and needs, enhancement of reputation, risk and conflict mitigation, and the consolidation of long-term
Massimo Gastaldi healthy and trustworthy relationships, in the context of Society 5.0, where human-centered solutions
are expected.
Received: 24 April 2024
Revised: 25 May 2024
Keywords: stakeholders prioritization; sustainable corporate governance; corporate strategy;
Accepted: 4 June 2024
stakeholder responsibility; Industry 5.0; Society 5.0
Published: 21 June 2024

Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. 1. Introduction

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. In 2015, all the member states of the United Nations (UN) approved the 2030 Agenda
This article is an open access article
for Sustainable Development [1]. The 2030 Agenda aims to end poverty, protect the planet,
distributed under the terms and
and ensure prosperity and peace for all human beings [2,3]. The 2030 Agenda, as a global
conditions of the Creative Commons
purpose, has required the construction and modeling of different mechanisms that link
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
scenarios of environmental and social order to be more precise in fulfilling its objectives and
[Link]/licenses/by/
set goals. The main backbone of the UN Sustainable Development Program is constituted
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317. [Link] 145 [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

by 17 main Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which aim to address current global
issues in the areas of economic, social, environmental, and political security [4,5]. In these
guidelines generated by the UN through the 2030 Agenda for transforming the world, there
is a specific call for the education sector, mainly higher education institutions (HEIs), as
they play a key role in increasing students’ knowledge about sustainability, transforming
their attitudes, and motivating them to promote or participate in sustainable behaviors [6].
The accelerated pace of the world’s growth due to business models, digital trans-
formation (DT), process innovation, and other deployed forms of social, economic, and
environmental dimensions of sustainability, has generated a temporal and functional cate-
gorization of each stage. The term “Industry 5.0” has been included in such sustainable
development dialogue as a concept complementing the well-known term “Industry 4.0”,
since this concept has recently emerged to portray the vision of a future that uses modern
technologies for the benefit of society [7,8]. Advocates of Industry 5.0 believe that Industry
4.0 is not the appropriate framework for achieving sustainable development [9], and the
European Commission has presented a vision for the future of the European industry in
its policy report, named Industry 5.0, which has three central concepts: human-centricity,
sustainability, and resilience. The purpose of such central concepts is to integrate a com-
plementary vision between the digital industry and society. Hence, the concept of Society
5.0 also emerges, which aims to balance economic advancement with the resolution of
social problems [10,11]. The goal of Society 5.0 is to contribute to the development of an
intelligent and human-centric society, allowing all citizens to access a high-quality life, full
of comfort and vitality, providing the necessary goods and services for people through the
fusion of cyberspace and the physical world.
The integration of humanity into different sectoral environments has required trans-
formations that directly impact the conditions of the economy, markets, digital scenarios,
and other structures of social development [12–14]. From here, precise needs arise regard-
ing the effective linkage of new transformation pathways, focusing on the benefits and
possibilities of improving human and natural environments [15]. To achieve this, it is
necessary to transcend the mere adaptation of organizations to present changes and to
generate ecosystems based on a culture of promoting innovation, dynamics of leveraging
the digitization of things, and disruptive leadership focused on human capital. As Khairy
et al. [16] point out, “In today’s accelerated and constantly changing business environment,
characterized by rapid technological advancements, unpredictable market conditions, and
changing customer expectations, organizational agility has become a critical factor for
long-term success”.
The transformation from the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0) to 5.0 is cur-
rently an ongoing process and is characterized by the integration of advanced technologies
such as artificial intelligence, virtual and augmented reality, and advanced robotics, among
others [17]. Industry 5.0 opens a scenario of inclusion in issues that directly contribute to
environmental sustainability, such as efficient waste management, the use of alternative
energies, and the optimization of resource use [18]. Furthermore, it focuses on promoting
the formulation of industrial systems that directly impact improving human conditions in
their individual and collective forms, such as social well-being, the inclusion of governance
principles such as transparency and participation, social appropriation of knowledge, and
the creation of standards for social and environmental development [19]. Hence, Industry
5.0 represents a historical moment where it is essential to ensure that technology is used for
social welfare purposes [20].
Consequently, skills encompassing emotional intelligence, resilience, empathy, cre-
ativity, and critical thinking will emerge as crucial competencies to cultivate a productive
and skilled workforce, prepared to meet future demands that include human–machine
interactions [21]. Humans excel in areas such as interpersonal interactions, intuition, and
complex decision making. Nonetheless, although humans and machines can arrive at the
same answer, their different thinking processes result in different paths to conclusions.
Building on the aforementioned, it is important to identify those stakeholders who have

146
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

direct or indirect links to the actions undertaken in line with the integration between in-
dustry, its innovations, and developments with the fulfillment of the 2030 Agenda [22].
Therefore, identifying expectations and demands of stakeholders, and integrating them
into the strategy of organizations, is a powerful tool for the success of socially responsible
positioning [23–25].
As mentioned by Colle [26], stakeholders are all those identifiable groups or individu-
als on whom an organization depends for its survival, sometimes referred to as primary
stakeholders: shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, and key government agencies.
However, on a broader level, a stakeholder is any identifiable group or individual who
can affect or be affected by the organization’s performance in terms of products, policies,
and work [27]. Colle [26] argues that stakeholder marketing is slowly merging with the
broader thinking that has emerged in stakeholder management and ethics literature over
the past quarter century. However, the prevailing view of stakeholders advocated by many
marketing specialists remains primarily pragmatic and company-centered. The position
advocated here is that stronger forms of stakeholder marketing are needed to reflect more
normative, macro/social, and network-centered orientations [28].
The process of stakeholder prioritization holds pivotal importance in sustainable
development, particularly within the context of digital transformation and the advent of
Society 5.0. Some recent works show how this prioritization process has been conducted
within different contexts, including environmental management [29], circular bioecon-
omy [30], textile industry [31], electric vehicle industry, [32], and research and innovation
projects [33], among others. To understand the needs and expectations of stakeholders in
institutions, it is necessary to establish, according to the dynamics of each organization, the
concept of stakeholder groups and to compile a list of those who are impacted directly or
indirectly by the institution. In the case of HEIs, universities have several stakeholders, and
it is impossible to manage them all in the same way, making stakeholder management a
complex issue to apply in practice [34,35]. After identifying the stakeholder groups, they
should be classified to define consultation strategies and actions.
In this way, this work presents a methodology to show the direct relationship that
exists between Industry 5.0 and the strategies of identification, prioritization, consultation,
and dynamism of stakeholder groups to contribute to the fulfillment of the objectives
and goals proposed in the 2030 Agenda. The proposed methodology has the following
contributions: (i) it allows organizations to prioritize their stakeholders about the fulfillment
of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, (ii) it recognizes organizational strategic
goals according to their stakeholders, (iii) it is adaptable and flexible to various needs
and expectations in different spatial and temporal contexts, and (iv) it is a consultative
methodology that is easy to adopt for stakeholders, incorporating Industry 5.0 into decision
making. The hypothesis of this work is that organizations that prioritize stakeholder
groups using a pragmatic and well-articulated methodology experience structural changes
reflected in improved strategic alignment, understanding, and satisfaction of stakeholders’
expectations and needs, enhancement of reputation, risk and conflict mitigation, and
the consolidation of long-term healthy and trustworthy relationships, in the context of
Society 5.0, where human-centered solutions are expected. The organization of the paper
is as follows: Section 2 contains the process for identifying, prioritizing, and consulting
stakeholders. Section 3 shows the results for a higher education institution. Then, Section 4
contains the discussion, and finally, conclusions are presented in Section 6.

2. Materials and Methods

The process of identifying, prioritizing, and consulting stakeholders of an institution
involves a series of steps that can be consolidated into three phases.

2.1. Phase I. Identification

The identification phase comprises three main components, which are described
as follows.

147
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

• Technological Surveillance and Competitive Intelligence Study. The aim of this study
is to analyze quantitative and qualitative valorization methodologies and identify
the best models for stakeholder identification [36]. Databases, scientific articles, and
company experiences serve as inputs for the first phase.
• Definition of Stakeholders. Based on the results of the technological surveillance and
competitive intelligence study, the institution defines the concept of stakeholders and
describes their characteristics and purpose. The study provides tools and context
for the institution, but the institution formulates the actual concept to describe its
stakeholder relationships [37].
• Stakeholder List. The final outcome of this phase is to create the preliminary stake-
holder list. This list should contain stakeholders impacted by the institution [37]. It is
important that this list includes the institution’s mission and strategic plan, especially
the strategic lines, programs, and plans.

2.2. Phase II. Prioritization

The prioritization of stakeholders is performed by identifying those who potentially
will have the greatest impact on achieving the institution’s strategic objectives and those
who will be most affected—positively or negatively—by its activities.
Understanding stakeholders as counterparts with whom there must be assertive rela-
tionships in favor of a dynamic exchange of ideas and issues to address at the institution,
an analysis exercise must be carried out for each of the prioritized stakeholder groups,
based on two key variables for the identification and validation of their participation in the
institution: contribution and impact. Contribution is the criterion that allows for measuring
how much a stakeholder group influences the strategic lines [38], the relationship, and
the contribution to achieving the prioritized Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs) tar-
gets [39]; on the other hand, the second variable, impact, allows for identifying the benefit
or the impact that stakeholders obtain in the same proposed scope [40].
The stakeholder groups described in the first phase are evaluated based on the vari-
ables: contribution and impact, applied to the strategic lines, the relationship, and the
prioritization of SDGs and their targets. The rating will range from 0 to 1, with 0 being the
value assigned when the criteria have no relationship with the evaluated variables, and
the number 1 is assigned to the stakeholder groups that do have some relationship with
these variables.
The scoring that allows for obtaining the final result of the stakeholder analysis is
defined based on the following percentages:
• Contribution 50%: this percentage corresponds to 20% in strategic lines, 15% in
effectiveness in strategic communication, and 15% in contributions to the targets of
the prioritized SDGs.
• Impact 50%: this percentage corresponds to 20% in strategic lines, 15% in consulta-
tion and relationship, and 15% in incidence of the goals of the prioritized SDGs on
stakeholder groups.
The results of the prioritization of stakeholder groups are visualized through a scatter
plot, which allows for identifying the degree of contribution and the impact of each one by
quadrant. Those groups located in the upper-right quadrant will be selected.

2.3. Phase III. Consultation

To promote the participation of stakeholders, different strategies for internal and
external consultation must be designed. Such strategies include workshops, surveys, focus
groups, meetings, among others; the use of social networks as a communication channel
needs to be promoted to achieve a broader interaction where people can express their ideas
and contributions more dynamically [41].
The definition of stakeholders is a joint construction, in which it is important to
establish a common definition route, where different areas of the institution participate
in all stages of prioritization, from identification and consultation tools to appropriate

148
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

mechanisms for collecting and analyzing results [37]. In line with this, a consultation
exercise needs to be conducted with units that lead relationship matters and that have a
direct impact on stakeholders. In the case of an HEI, for instance, these internal stakeholders
can include Alumni, Institutional Welfare, Extension, Planning, Teaching, Communications,
Marketing, Advanced Training, Research, and Internationalization, among others [42,43];
their opinion on existing stakeholder groups and the consultation methods should be
consulted in this process.

3. Results
The methodology for the identification, prioritization, and consultation of stakeholder
groups was applied by conducting a case study for the Universidad Pontificia Bolivari-
ana (UPB), which is a private non-profit multicampus HEI, with headquarters located at
Medellín, Colombia [44]. Such institution has been promoting the sustainability culture, by
creating the Sustainability Office in 2017, and became the first carbon-neutral university in
Latin America by 2018 [45].

3.1. Phase I. Identification

3.1.1. Technological Surveillance and Competitive Intelligence Study
The surveillance study carried out by the UPB’s Analytics and Context Studies Office
was developed in two stages: in the first one, the methods and criteria for prioritizing
stakeholder groups were addressed, including the qualitative and quantitative assessment
of the criteria and some general guidelines for the analysis of the resulting matrices. The
second stage focused on the identification of processes for prioritizing stakeholder groups in
national and international HEIs in the context of sustainability strategy; the methodologies
of four HEIs were consulted: University of Antioquia [46] (local context), Simón Bolívar
University [47] and EAN University [48] (national context), and Royal Melbourne Institute
of Technology University [49] (international context).
The identification study yielded the following points for the first stage:
(i) Five sets of criteria for prioritizing stakeholder groups were identified: Power/Interest,
Opportunity/Interest, Affectation/Influence, Power/Legitimacy/Urgency (Promi-
nence Matrix), and a criterion integration method.
(ii) The Affectation/Influence matrix was implemented as in [50].
(iii) The criterion integration methodology was applied to the prioritization of stakeholder
groups for environmental management in Sharpe’s study [29], considering 10 criteria:
Level of Interest, Level of Influence, Magnitude of Impact, Probability of Impact,
Urgency/Temporal Immediacy, Proximity, Economic Interest, Rights, Equity, and
Underrepresented/Underserved Populations.
(iv) The quantitative assessment of prioritization factors/criteria varies depending on
the source.
(v) The resulting classification from the assessment process will indicate the level of
appropriate treatment for the stakeholder or stakeholder group, and in general, the
points of their treatment are addressed in this report.
These results represent an outcome aligned with the central proposal of Industry 5.0,
where the inclusion of the human component is prioritized through the identification and
prioritization of stakeholder groups, contributing to the theme of human centrality, which
is one of the three main concepts of Industry 5.0. The human focus, a central value of
Industry 5.0, places humans at the center of production, leading to the prioritization of
human needs, ranging from health and safety to self-realization and personal growth [51].
The second stage of the identification phase yielded the following:
(i) The University of Antioquia [46] applies the Affectation/Influence matrix in its stake-
holder group prioritization process in the sustainability strategy in the way reported
in [50].

149
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

(ii) Simón Bolívar University [47], with the support of ARCO Consultores (a consulting
company), carried out the identification and prioritization of the university’s stake-
holder groups in the context of materiality analysis. The work methodology included
the following steps: (a) identification of university stakeholder groups, (b) validation
of stakeholder groups, and (c) stakeholder group prioritization process.
(iii) The matrix proposed by EAN University [48] considers five criteria: decision making,
income generation, business operation, organizational strategy, and reputation.
(iv) The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology [49] includes the following criteria in its
annual sustainability report: representation, dependency, responsibility, and influence.
The attributes related to the effect and influence of stakeholder groups are drivers
of an inclusion strategy that takes into account all the components identified in the envi-
ronment. In this way, resilience patterns were identified, one of the three central concepts
of Industry 5.0, thus integrating the human component and the impacts of the industry
and the various economic sectors. The main argument of the stakeholder theory is that an
organization has relationships with various constituent groups (both internal and external)
and can generate and maintain their support by considering and balancing their relevant
interests [52].

3.1.2. Sectoral Analysis

An analysis of management and sustainability reports was conducted on various
companies and universities to identify the most representative stakeholder groups and the
most used prioritization methodologies, supplementing the results of the technological
surveillance study. The selected companies are recognized for their sustainability reputation
and their national leadership in stakeholders’ engagement. The chosen universities were
the top 5 of the QS “Universities for Environmental and Social Sustainability” ranking for
2023 [53]. The analyzed organizations and universities include Argos, Bavaria, Enka, AES,
Cerrejón, Nutresa, ISA, Postobón, XM, and Uniban, University of California, University
of Toronto, University of British Columbia, University of Edinburgh, and University of
New South Wales (UNSW). The details of this review and analysis exercise are presented
as follows.
The analysis of companies allows for the identification of various strategies they apply
to characterize their stakeholder groups. These strategies include the incorporation of Envi-
ronmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria; the establishment of internal committees;
and the creation of strategic maps from sustainable value perspectives, including share-
holder value, social and environmental impact, and corporate validity. These companies
periodically produce sustainability reports and validate the stakeholder groups every 3
years through materiality analysis.
• Argos: it uses specialized software to monitor external risks and opportunities related
to ESG issues across different industries and peers in the construction sector. Through
this process, priority stakeholder groups were identified [54].
• AES Colombia: in 2013, AES Colombia identified the most relevant stakeholder groups
for the organization through a strategic work session with the AES Colombia Manage-
ment Committee. During this session, each stakeholder was analyzed, focusing on
the impact of the company’s operations on them and their impact on the company’s
operations. This prioritization of stakeholder groups is validated every 3 years by
conducting a materiality analysis, during which it is assessed whether there is a need
to add or remove any specific group due to the impact of the company’s operations
and the impact these groups have on the operations [55].
• Cerrejón: it does not specify how stakeholder groups are prioritized. They have
identified the following groups: employees and contractors, union members, sup-
pliers, shareholders, customers, governmental and regulatory entities, communities,
traditional authorities, non-governmental organizations, trade associations, opinion
leaders, civil society, and the media. Annually, they conduct a corporate reputation
study [56].

150
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

• ISA: for ISA companies, stakeholder groups consist of individuals, organizations, and
institutions with whom they build and share common interests and who could be
affected by the company’s services or activities. The relationship between these groups
and the companies is clear, visible, and legitimate [57].
• XM: their direction is based on the company’s strategic map, which outlines the
organization’s objectives from the perspectives of sustainable value: shareholder value,
social and environmental impact, and corporate validity. This is achieved through
the pillars of its VIDA strategy, which stands (in Spanish) for Green, Innovation,
Development, and Articulation. The impacted stakeholder groups include customers,
employees, the state, suppliers, and society [58].
• Bavaria: in 2020, the parent company AB InBev conducted a materiality analysis in
which they identified key social, environmental, and economic themes prioritized by
their stakeholder groups. These were classified in a materiality matrix according to the
degree of interest and the potential impact on the business. Civil organizations, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), buyers (retailers), and consumers, regulators,
suppliers, investors, and partners are among the external actors considered in the
global-level analysis. Bavaria recognizes the importance of working hand in hand
with its internal and external stakeholder groups to create high-impact and sustainable
projects over time. Currently, they are developing a specific materiality analysis for the
operation in Colombia, which will precisely understand the interests and expectations
of the stakeholder groups [59].
• Enka: the last update of the Materiality Matrix was carried out in 2021, when the most
important issues for our stakeholder groups and the company were defined, which
remain valid. It will be reviewed again in 2023, with the aim of including not only the
issues that impact the company in its current environment but also those that could
affect its future financial performance, in accordance with the new requirements of the
Financial Superintendence of Colombia [60].
• Nutresa: the Corporate Governance, Risk Management, and Compliance models of
Grupo Nutresa are constantly challenged by the social, political, and economic dy-
namics of the countries where the organization operates. Therefore, it is fundamental
to have an appropriate definition and implementation of controls for the identified
risks that, given the environment, could materialize and result in ethical breaches or
inappropriate behaviors by third parties and the organization’s personnel. This can
impact the reputation, the relationship with stakeholder groups, market loss, and legal
sanctions [61].
• Postobón: it understands stakeholder groups as representative sets of individuals,
groups, or organizations with whom it maintains relationships of trust and credibility,
in addition to commitments, in order to achieve its strategic goal of being a sustainable
company [62].
• Uniban: for the consultation process, they took a sample of 509 contacts from different
stakeholders and received 445 responses, representing an overall participation rate
of 87%. Twenty-four percent of the surveys were conducted via email, and 76% by
telephone. In these latter cases, some stakeholder groups, such as the community and
banana workers, appreciated that Uniban included them in these processes [63].
The analysis of the universities reveals the positioning of the sustainability offices and
the integrated work with teaching and research, and highlights the real need to produce
reports using international methodologies or, alternatively, prioritize goals with a short-
and medium-term scope, in line with global objectives.
• The University of California, Berkeley (UCB), has a sustainability office. The report is
available on the website (it is not GRI standard) and does not present a methodology
for the identification, consultation, and prioritization of stakeholder groups [64].
• The University of Toronto has a sustainability office and a 10-year strategic plan.
It does not produce sustainability reports and lacks a methodology for prioritizing
stakeholder groups [65].

151
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

• The University of British Columbia has a sustainability strategy based on academic

offerings and research. There is a dedicated sustainability team, but they do not
produce reports [66].
• The University of Edinburgh has a strategy up to 2030 and a plan that includes 32 com-
mitments to impact the surrounding communities. They do not have a sustainability
report or a differentiated strategy for stakeholder groups [67].
• The University of New South Wales (UNSW) has an environmental plan for the period
2022–2024 focused on climate change, physical infrastructure, and efficient use of
resources. They have prioritized 9 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
There is no information related to stakeholder groups provided [68].

3.1.3. Definition of Stakeholders

In accordance with the results of the technological surveillance and sector analysis
study, the UPB consolidated the definition of its stakeholder groups; such definition was
provided by the Sustainability Office, as follows: “For the University, stakeholders are the
actors in the ecosystem of which the UPB is part, with whom it must relate and attend in a
strategic and differentiated way through the development and transfer of its value offer,
aiming to contribute to transformation, sustainability, and the achievement of everyone’s
purposes”. This redefinition allows for considering individuals and organizations with
which the UPB has a direct relationship, in accordance with its mission axes and macro-
processes outlined in the Institutional Development Plan.

3.1.4. Stakeholder´s List

The university has been developing for 87 years with the work of those who have
made their contributions from different and relevant roles. For this reason, the identification
of UPB’s stakeholders has been an exercise valued from the methodology and recognized
by its role in the university. Stakeholders have been categorized as internal or external
(Figure 1). In this way, a bidirectional relationship of participation has been generated, and
different alternatives of communication and consultation methods have been used to allow
a continuous, effective, and close dialogue.

Community Students

Donors and
benefactors
Employees and
Executives

Alumni Academic
and research
sector

STAKEHOLDERS Public
Archdiocese sector
and dioceses

Media,
Valuable Business
content generators sector
and influencers.

International Social sector

Organizations Union

Figure 1. University stakeholders.

152
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

3.2. Phase II. Prioritization

As mentioned in the previous chapter, to prioritize stakeholder groups, evaluation
criteria were specified. First, the concept of contribution and impact was defined. Following
this, the university’s four strategic lines were identified, and finally, the goals contributing
to the sustainable SDGs prioritized by the UPB were established.

3.2.1. Contribution and Impact

Contribution is the criterion that allows for measuring how much a stakeholder group
influences the strategic lines, the relationship, and the contribution to achieving the goals
of the prioritized Sustainable Development Goals. On the other hand, the second variable,
impact, identifies the benefit or detriment that stakeholder groups receive within the same
proposed scopes.
The concept of sustainable development has been adopted by governments worldwide
and has deeply rooted itself in the public psyche since its introduction in the report “Our
Common Future”, proposed by the United Nations World Commission on Environment
and Development, often referred to as the Brundtland Commission, over 30 years ago [69].
The incorporation of criteria for achieving the SDGs’ targets, based on the identification
of stakeholder impacts and contributions, is a strategic mechanism that boosts sustainability
as one of the central concepts of Industry 5.0. This is achieved through the actual analysis
of contexts in the development of innovation and technological growth, pillars of human
centrality and resilience. Although sustainable development is a global cause and society
is becoming increasingly sensitive to it, there are many complex challenges, such as the
need to align the expectations of various stakeholders, the growing need for innovations in
sustainability, implementing social responsibility strategies, and defining and assessing
sustainability performance. Furthermore, sustainable development requires collaboration
in the form of integrative thinking and action [70,71].

3.2.2. Strategic Lines

The UPB has four strategic lines that were evaluated to identify how they impact
and are impacted by different stakeholder groups. First, Institutional Identity strengthens
the identity by developing human capabilities and competencies that inspire and guide
its actions towards its purpose of social and human transformation. Second, Integral
Formation achieves human development based on the values and principles of Christian
humanism, covering life’s dimensions, ethics, and aesthetics; it promotes scientific train-
ing with autonomous, reflective, and critical thinking for integrating care with the world.
Third, Creation of Value and Social Impact generates, applies, transfers, and appropriates
scientific and social knowledge in a co-creative manner with various actors to effectively
contribute to solving contextual problems from local to global levels. Lastly, Sustainabil-
ity ensures institutional performance based on governance and the value expectations of
stakeholder groups in economic, social, and environmental fields, securing the institu-
tion’s permanence through management founded on the principles of an intelligent and
original organization.

3.2.3. SDG Prioritization

As it has been defined by the United Nations [72], “the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) represent the universally agreed roadmap to overcome economic and geopolitical
divisions, restore trust, and rebuild solidarity. Many proposals are aimed at facilitating the
achievement of these goals, such as reforming the international architecture, developing pa-
rameters different from Gross Domestic Product (GDP), strengthening digital cooperation,
encouraging youth participation in decision-making, transforming education, creating an
emergency platform, and promoting a new peace agenda”.

153
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

To fulfill this roadmap, the UPB carried out a prioritization exercise in 2019 that
precisely identified which of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals it impacts directly, in
line with its status as a HEI (Figure 2). In this exercise, SDGs 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13, 16, and 17 were
prioritized. For each SDG prioritized by the university, an exhaustive evaluation of the
goals to which it directly contributes was carried out. For example, it was identified that,
for SDG 3, the university directly contributes to 6 out of the 13 targets declared in the 2030
Agenda, contributing 46 % towards its fulfillment. Following this prioritization, in 2022, an
approach was made to the targets of the prioritized SDGs to determine the institution’s
contributions to the fulfillment of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

UPB Targets / SDG Targets % Contribution to the SDG targets prioritized by the UPB

46%

70%

50%

80%

48%

80%

42%

21%

Figure 2. SDG targets prioritized by the UPB.

3.2.4. Internal Consultation

The definition of stakeholder groups is a joint construction in which it is important
to establish a common route of definition, where different areas of the university partic-
ipate in all the prioritization stages, from identification, through consultation tools, to
the appropriate mechanisms for the collection and analysis of results. In line with this, a
consultation exercise was conducted with the leading units in relationship matters and
with a direct impact on stakeholder groups, such as Alumni, Institutional Well-Being,
Extension, Planning, Teaching, Communications, Marketing, Advanced Training, Center
for the Development of Research and Innovation (CIDI), and Internationalization Office,
with the goal of knowing their opinion about the existing stakeholder groups and the
consultation methods implemented with them. From this consultation exercise, six re-
sponses were obtained to the question, would you add any other stakeholder group? The
consulted leaders unanimously responded no. For the other two questions about removing
any stakeholder group, responses are shown in Figure 3, and responses on proposals for
consultation methods to implement are shown in Figure 4. This last figure shows that the
most appropriate consultation mechanisms for the stakeholders are consultation surveys
and workshops, followed by a relevance validation exercise, with digital media and focus
groups being the last option.

154
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

Would you eliminate any of the prioritized groups of interest?

No Students Union

Figure 3. Results of proposal to eliminate interest groups.

Would you eliminate any of the prioritized groups of interest?

Digital media Focus groups

Validate according to relevance

Consultation and workshops
of stakeholders

Figure 4. Results with different consultation mechanisms.

3.2.5. Scatter Chart and Interest Groups

With the results obtained from the contribution and impact analysis, using the per-
centages defined in the methodology, and the questions asked to the units described in
the previous section, a scatter plot was generated (Figure 5). The stakeholder groups that
were positioned in the upper-right quadrant were selected as priorities. Likewise, a final
grouping process was carried out, resulting in the definitive list of stakeholder groups for
the UPB.
• Students (undergraduate, graduate, initial education, basic and secondary education,
continuing education, and technical and technological training);
• Employees (faculty, administrative staff, and associations);
• Academic and research sector (HEIs, universities, international institutes and academies,
research centers and agencies, academic and scientific associations, innovation centers,
and public sector);
• Public sector (international governments, national government, and departmental and
local governments);
• Business sector (business groups and associations, multilatinas, business groups,
companies and international companies, clusters, suppliers, and concessionaires);
• Social sector (NGOs, community organizations, charitable organizations, and media);
• Community (parents of students and applicants, professionals, and professional asso-
ciations);
• Archdiocese and diocese;

155
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

• Alumni;
• Donors and benefactors.

Figure 5. Groups of interest for the UPB.

3.3. Phase III. Consulting

Once the stakeholder groups were identified, different methods and technological
tools were defined for consulting them, according to the type of relationship with each
group. To establish a bidirectional relationship with the stakeholder groups identified and
prioritized by the university, the following roadmap was created:
1. Definition of questions related to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) priori-
tized by the university;
2. Identification of communication channels, methods, and technological tools for con-
sultation;
3. Systematization of the results.
For the student stakeholder group, the consultation was carried out through the
university’s banner system during the pre-registration process. For employees, a Microsoft
Forms questionnaire was created and distributed through all institutional channels. For
the other stakeholder groups, mass emails were sent, and targeted approaches were made
using Microsoft Forms questionnaires and QR codes.
The result of the systematization provided a broad overview of issues that impact the
dimensions of sustainability and become actions of the university. Issues related to gender
equity, mental health, regenerative economy, social impact, infrastructure, and safety are
highly relevant for stakeholder groups.

4. Discussion
Regarding the fulfillment of the 2030 Agenda, the results evidenced the key role of
educational institutions in achieving the SGD’s targets, not only in terms of the global
challenges in the utilization, demand, and use of natural resources, but also in the consoli-
dation of a critical mass that reflects on its role in society. This supports the idea reported
by Filho [73], who stated that universities have a great opportunity to “support the im-
plementation of the SDGs agenda” through teaching, research, and transfer. In his study,
Filho points out that universities have revised their curricula and research topics, among
other reasons, due to the “increasing demand from students to research and learn about
sustainability”, making higher education “a key player in promoting engagement on the

156
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

SDGs across different sectors and in training students to practice sustainability in their
personal and professional lives” [73].
The results obtained with the methodology for the identification, prioritization, and
consultation of stakeholder groups for a higher education institution have impacts on
sustainable education toward sustainable community development [14,21] as opening a
permanent communication channel not only makes them feel relevant and important for
the organization’s decision making but also ensures that they demand appropriate training
in these topics. This allows their positions and initiatives to be considered, creating a long-
term critical mass based on global sustainability challenges. For example, students, who
are consulted annually, request training through the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Chair of Sustainability to have solid arguments
and participate in all conversation scenarios. This allows the methodology to serve as
an example of how the adoption of new communication forms ensures the success of
its implementation.
We conducted a benchmarking exercise on the most representative universities in
sustainability worldwide, as per the QS Sustainability Ranking. However, we noticed
that these universities do not have any stakeholder definition methodology in their com-
munication channels. This presents an opportunity for our presented methodology to
establish long-term strategies that align with stakeholders’ needs and expectations. Our
approach aligns with the concept of collective intelligence, as defined by Longoria et al. [74],
which emphasizes “collaboration and competition among individuals to gather commu-
nity insights and stimulate designers’ creativity. The combination of collective human
brain power and modern information technology can be a useful tool for developing
sustainable projects”.
The presented work emphasizes the importance of establishing reference models
with tactical and strategic criteria that allow for the delimitation and consolidation of the
definition of stakeholder groups and their long-term impact on the sustainable development
of higher education institutions. As mentioned by Srivastava et al. [75], “to maintain
sustainability, organizations need to integrate the efforts of all the stakeholders and drive
them towards one direction to ensure effective implementation of practices and policies.
Since in academic institutions, teachers are key players, the authorities need to focus on their
understanding of brand values and commitment towards organizational sustainability”.
Defining and prioritizing stakeholder groups is crucial for the development of the
idea of human-centricity, which has become a focus in the transition from Industry 4.0 to
Industry/Society 5.0. This concept should take into account the organizational, regional,
and strategic contexts, and should promote a model where stakeholder groups are central
to decision making. In this way, the concept of Industry 5.0 can be integrated into orga-
nizational decisions, enhancing transparency and participation. This approach is in line
with Srivastava’s statement [75]: “Proper training and leadership opportunities can enable
employees to participate in decision-making. This can provide more clarity to employees
regarding organizational goals and the background behind decisions. Additionally, it can
direct their activities towards a common purpose”.
Finally, the results obtained by using the stakeholder’s prioritization methodology are
aligned with the findings the reported by Ghobakhloo et al. [7], which stated, “Scholars
believe that the newly introduced Industry 5.0 has the potential to move beyond the profit-
centered productivity of Industry 4.0 and to promote sustainable development goals such
as human-centricity, socioenvironmental sustainability, and resilience. However, little
has been done to understand how this ill-defined phenomenon may deliver its indented
sustainability values despite these speculative promises”.

5. Limitations and Future Research

Among the most relevant limitations presented by the methodology, it is noteworthy
that the results are mainly qualitative and the importance rating has a high degree of sub-
jectivity, depending on the evaluator. This represents a challenge that involves conducting

157
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

a consultation with hyper-segmented results to a representative sample of the organization,

along with a quantitative analysis to facilitate decision making.
The stakeholder prioritization exercise provides organizations with inputs for decision
making aligned with their needs and expectations. However, the methodology does not
address historical or underlying issues related to information access. To design relevant
offers that ensure the closing of gaps, this exercise is consolidated as a starting point for the
collection and analysis of information in the digital era.
The methodology has limitations in terms of context and temporality, which requires
organizations to update it based on new goals and strategies. Likewise, the prioritiza-
tion exercise must be accompanied by an analysis of the environment, trends, strengths,
and weaknesses, as organizations learn, act, and co-evolve through interaction with
their stakeholders.
Although several advantages were identified when prioritizing stakeholders at the
UPB, risks must also be considered in future studies, since stakeholders are heterogeneous
and changing, which forces the organization to establish expeditious and structured com-
munication routes and to make prioritizations in short periods. Furthermore, it is feasible
that, in the long term, value judgments about the importance of one group or another will
be involved; hence, quantitative measures are required in future studies. If prioritization
does not align with the organization’s objectives and strategies, there may be a mismatch
between what is prioritized and what is needed to achieve the objectives. Assessing the
impact and importance of each stakeholder quantitatively can be complicated, making it
difficult to make informed decisions.

6. Conclusions
The prioritization of stakeholders in organizations, and in particular in universities,
is a strategic approach that recognizes the importance of identifying and addressing the
needs and expectations of the various stakeholders involved in the academic institution.
These stakeholders include, but are not limited to, students, faculty, administrative staff,
alumni, donors, the local community, governmental bodies, and the industry.
Gathering information and data at universities can be a fundamental task, but it can
also present a series of challenges. Some of the most common difficulties organizations
face when collecting information and data are related to the lack of access to adequate data
sources, as well as the availability and accessibility of the necessary data sources. In many
cases, higher education institutions (HEIs) may have difficulty accessing external or internal
data, making it challenging to collect verifiable and measurable information. Additionally,
the typology of stakeholders determines the difficulty in accessing information, as it is
evident that, with some of them, a sensitization and cultural effort is necessary regard-
ing the collection of relevant data and information. For example, efficient consultation
mechanisms exist for students, thanks to permanent interaction tools. However, with a
stakeholder group like suppliers, the mechanisms are specific and inefficient, often limited
to a commercial relationship in some cases.
The relationship between stakeholders and the 2030 Agenda mainly concerns how
various interested parties, such as governments, companies, non-governmental organiza-
tions (NGOs), civil society, and individual citizens, contribute to the implementation of the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set out in the 2030 Agenda. In this regard, there
are several ways in which stakeholders are linked to this agenda, such as participation
and collaboration in defining those material issues relevant to HEIs. Stakeholders play
a fundamental role in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda by collaborating in the
formulation of policies, programs, and projects that promote sustainable development.
Governments, for example, can involve businesses, NGOs, and other actors in the planning
and execution of initiatives related to the SDGs.
With the exercise of prioritizing and consulting stakeholders, a direct contribution
is made to SDG 17 “Partnerships to achieve the SDG”, recognizing the importance of
collaborative work, dialogue, and participation; the consolidation of partnerships; shared

158
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

responsibility; joint learning; and the fulfillment of the central and transformative promise
of the 2030 Agenda: “Leave No One Behind” (LNOB).
The humanization of stakeholders, in the context of Industry 5.0, refers to the trend
of treating the interested parties in the business and technological environment in a more
people-centered manner, taking into account not only economic and technical aspects
but also social, ethical, and human ones. Industry 5.0, as an evolution of Industry 4.0, is
characterized by the integration of cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence,
advanced robotics, the Internet of Things, and cybersecurity into industrial processes. The
humanization of stakeholders in Industry 5.0 involves aspects such as ethics and social
responsibility, from which organizations and companies strive to adopt ethical and socially
responsible practices in their decision making and operations. They consider not only the
economic benefit but also the social and environmental impact of their actions.
The commitments that must be undertaken with stakeholders are related to open
and transparent communication, providing relevant information regularly, and ensuring
that the interested parties are informed about important decisions and developments.
The most relevant aspects of the relationship between the institution and stakeholders, in
light of what is proposed by Industry 5.0, are related to listening to and understanding
needs, including them in decision making, fulfilling the commitments made, and being
very precise in accountability and transparency in the material matters presented to the
interest groups.
Prioritizing interest groups within organizations can lead to significant long-term
advantages. This involves focusing efforts on building strong relationships, practicing
assertive communication, and allocating resources more effectively. Moreover, understand-
ing the influence or dependence of these groups enables us to anticipate and proactively
manage potential risks associated with them. This can help mitigate potential conflicts,
address concerns promptly, and gain valuable insights into market trends, customer needs,
and innovation opportunities.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.M.O., L.F.Ú., J.A.R.-C., I.R., J.S.-P. and R.E.V.; method-
ology, A.M.O., L.F.Ú. and I.R.; validation, J.A.R.-C., J.S.-P. and R.E.V.; formal analysis, A.M.O.,
L.F.Ú., J.A.R.-C., I.R., J.S.-P. and R.E.V.; investigation, A.M.O., L.F.Ú., J.A.R.-C., I.R., J.S.-P. and R.E.V.;
writing—original draft preparation, A.M.O., L.F.Ú. and I.R.; writing—review and editing, J.A.R.-C.,
J.S.-P. and R.E.V.; supervision, A.M.O., J.A.R.-C., J.S.-P. and R.E.V. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was developed with the funding of the Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana (UPB)
and with the support of the Universidad Nacional de Colombia in association with the Comptroller
General of the Republic in the frame of Contract CGR-373-2023.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are available on request from the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

DT digital transformation
ESG Environmental, Social, and Governance
HEIs higher education institutions
IoT Internet of Things (IoT)
NGOs non-governmental organizations
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

159
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

References
1. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2023. Available online: https:
//[Link]/2030agenda (accessed on 31 October 2023 ).
2. Graf, A.; Konou, A.A.; Meier, L.; Brattig, N.W.; Utzinger, J. More than seven decades of Acta Tropica: Partnership to advance the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Acta Trop. 2022, 225, 106175. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.; et
al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443 . [CrossRef]
4. Lukin, E.; Krajnović, A.; Bosna, J. Sustainability Strategies and Achieving SDGs: A Comparative Analysis of Leading Companies
in the Automotive Industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4000. [CrossRef]
5. Perevoznic, F.M.; Dragomir, V.D. Achieving the 2030 Agenda: Mapping the Landscape of Corporate Sustainability Goals and
Policies in the European Union. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971. [CrossRef]
6. Leiva-Brondo, M.; Lajara-Camilleri, N.; Vidal-Meló, A.; Atarés, A.; Lull, C. Spanish University Students’ Awareness and
Perception of Sustainable Development Goals and Sustainability Literacy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4552. [CrossRef]
7. Ghobakhloo, M.; Iranmanesh, M.; Mubarak, M.F.; Mubarik, M.; Rejeb, A.; Nilashi, M. Identifying industry 5.0 contributions to
sustainable development: A strategy roadmap for delivering sustainability values. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 33, 716–737.
[CrossRef]
8. Ghobakhloo, M.; Iranmanesh, M.; Foroughi, B.; Rejeb, A.; Nikbin, D.; Tseng, M.L. A practical guide on strategic roadmapping
for information and operations technology management: A case study on industry 5.0 transformation. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2024,
41, 397–421. [CrossRef]
9. Leng, J.; Zhong, Y.; Lin, Z.; Xu, K.; Mourtzis, D.; Zhou, X.; Zheng, P.; Liu, Q.; Zhao, J.L.; Shen, W. Towards resilience in Industry
5.0: A decentralized autonomous manufacturing paradigm. J. Manuf. Syst. 2023, 71, 95–114. [CrossRef]
10. Huang, S.; Wang, B.; Li, X.; Zheng, P.; Mourtzis, D.; Wang, L. Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0—Comparison, complementation and
co-evolution. J. Manuf. Syst. 2022, 64, 424–428. [CrossRef]
11. Slavic, D.; Marjanovic, U.; Medic, N.; Simeunovic, N.; Rakic, S. The Evaluation of Industry 5.0 Concepts: Social Network Analysis
Approach. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1291. [CrossRef]
12. Kraus, S.; Jones, P.; Kailer, N.; Weinmann, A.; Chaparro-Banegas, N.; Roig-Tierno, N. Digital Transformation: An Overview of the
Current State of the Art of Research. Sage Open 2021, 11, 21582440211047576. [CrossRef]
13. Sun, Z.; Wang, W.; Wang, W.; Sun, X. How does digital transformation affect corporate social responsibility performance? From
the dual perspective of internal drive and external governance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2024, 31, 1156–1176.
[CrossRef]
14. Leal-Filho, W.; Salvia, A.L.; Beynaghi, A.; Fritzen, B.; Ulisses, A.; Avila, L.V.; Shulla, K.; Vasconcelos, C.R.; Moggi, S.; Mifsud, M.;
et al. Digital transformation and sustainable development in higher education in a post-pandemic world. Int. J. Sustain. Dev.
World Ecol. 2024, 31, 108–123. [CrossRef]
15. Ordonez-Ponce, E. Exploring the Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on Sustainability Trends. Sustainability 2023, 15,
16647. [CrossRef]
16. Khairy, H.A.; Baquero, A.; Al-Romeedy, B.S. The Effect of Transactional Leadership on Organizational Agility in Tourism and
Hospitality Businesses: The Mediating Roles of Organizational Trust and Ambidexterity. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14337. [CrossRef]
17. Musarat, M.A.; Irfan, M.; Alaloul, W.S.; Maqsoom, A.; Ghufran, M. A Review on the Way Forward in Construction through
Industrial Revolution 5.0. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13862. [CrossRef]
18. van Erp, T.; Carvalho, N.G.P.; Gerolamo, M.C.; Gonçalves, R.; Rytter, N.G.M.; Gladysz, B. Industry 5.0: A new strategy framework
for sustainability management and beyond. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 461, 142271.
[CrossRef]
19. Lu, Y.; Zheng, H.; Chand, S.; Xia, W.; Liu, Z.; Xu, X.; Wang, L.; Qin, Z.; Bao, J. Outlook on human-centric manufacturing towards
Industry 5.0. J. Manuf. Syst. 2022, 62, 612–627. [CrossRef]
20. Poláková, M.; Suleimanová, J.H.; Madzík, P.; Copuš, L.; Molnárová, I.; Polednová, J. Soft skills and their importance in the labour
market under the conditions of Industry 5.0. Heliyon 2023, 9, e18670. [CrossRef]
21. Thornhill-Miller, B.; Camarda, A.; Mercier, M.; Burkhardt, J.M.; Morisseau, T.; Bourgeois-Bougrine, S.; Vinchon, F.; El Hayek,
S.; Augereau-Landais, M.; Mourey, F.; et al. Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment,
Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education. J. Intell. 2023, 11, 54. [CrossRef]
22. Pactwa, K.; Woźniak, J.; Jach, K.; Brdulak, A. Including the social responsibility of universities and sustainable development
goals in the strategic plans of universities in Europe. Sustain. Dev. 2024 . [CrossRef]
23. Castaño-Quintero, C.A.; Díaz-Cáceres, N.; Lozano-Correa, J. Manual para la Gestión del Relacionamiento con los Grupos de Interés;
Universidad EAN: Bogotá, Colombia, 2012.
24. Taghian, M.; D’Souza, C.; Polonsky, M. A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility, reputation and business
performance. Soc. Responsib. J. 2015, 11, 340–363. [CrossRef]
25. ElAlfy, A.; Palaschuk, N.; El-Bassiouny, D.; Wilson, J.; Weber, O. Scoping the Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Research in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Era. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5544. [CrossRef]
26. Colle, S.D. A stakeholder management model for ethical decision making. Int. J. Manag. Decis. Mak. 2005, 6, 299. [CrossRef]

160
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

27. Mu, H.L.; Xu, J.; Chen, S. The impact of corporate social responsibility types on happiness management: A stakeholder theory
perspective. Manag. Decis. 2024, 62, 591–613. [CrossRef]
28. Laczniak, G.R.; Murphy, P.E. Stakeholder Theory and Marketing: Moving from a Firm-Centric to a Societal Perspective. J. Public
Policy Mark. 2012, 31, 284–292. [CrossRef]
29. Sharpe, L.M.; Harwell, M.C.; Jackson, C.A. Integrated stakeholder prioritization criteria for environmental management. J.
Environ. Manag. 2021, 282, 111719. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Santos, J.M.; Fernandes, G. Prioritizing stakeholders to boost collaborative R&I projects benefits: An analytic network process
approach. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2023, 219, 1660–1669 [CrossRef]
31. Singhal, N. Stakeholders sustainable development goals (SDGs) prioritization. Bus. Strategy Dev. 2023, 6, 986–990. [CrossRef]
32. van der Koogh, M.; Chappin, E.; Heller, R.; Lukszo, Z. Stakeholder prioritizations for electric vehicle charging across time periods.
Transp. Policy 2023, 142, 173–189. [CrossRef]
33. Santos, J.M.R.C.A.; Fernandes, G. Prioritizing Stakeholders in Collaborative Research and Innovation Projects Toward Sustain-
ability. Proj. Manag. J. 2024, 87569728241231266. [CrossRef]
34. Aerts, G.; Cauwelier, K.; de Pape, S.; Jacobs, S.; Vanhondeghem, S. An inside-out perspective on stakeholder management in
university technology transfer offices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 175, 121291. [CrossRef]
35. Brdulak, A.; Stec, B. Concept of sustainable development at Wrocław University of Science and Technology based on the
perspective of selected stakeholder groups. Oper. Res. Decis. 2024, 34, 61–89. [CrossRef]
36. López-Robles, J.R.; Otegi-Olaso, J.R.; Porto-Gomez, I.; Gamboa-Rosales, H.; Gamboa-Rosales, N.K. Understanding the intellectual
structure and evolution of Competitive Intelligence: A bibliometric analysis from 1984 to 2017. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag.
2020, 32, 604–619. [CrossRef]
37. Dmytriyev, S.D.; Freeman, R.E. (Eds.) R. Edward Freeman’s Selected Works on Stakeholder Theory and Business Ethics; Springer Nature:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023. [CrossRef]
38. Falqueto, J.M.Z.; Hoffmann, V.E.; Gomes, R.C.; Onoyama Mori, S.S. Strategic planning in higher education institutions: What are
the stakeholders’ roles in the process? High. Educ. 2020, 79, 1039–1056. [CrossRef]
39. Silva, S. Corporate contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals: An empirical analysis informed by legitimacy theory. J.
Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 125962. [CrossRef]
40. Pedro, E.d.M.; Leitão, J.; Alves, H. Stakeholders’ perceptions of sustainable development of higher education institutions: An
intellectual capital approach. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2020, 21, 911–942. [CrossRef]
41. Talbot, D.; Raineri, N.; Daou, A. Implementation of sustainability management tools: The contribution of awareness, external
pressures, and stakeholder consultation. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 71–81. [CrossRef]
42. Caeiro, S.; Sandoval Hamón, L.A.; Martins, R.; Bayas Aldaz, C.E. Sustainability Assessment and Benchmarking in Higher
Education Institutions—A Critical Reflection. Sustainability 2020, 12, 543. [CrossRef]
43. Núnez Chicharro, M.; Mangena, M.; Alonso Carrillo, M.I.; Priego De La Cruz, A.M. The effects of stakeholder power, strategic
posture and slack financial resources on sustainability performance in UK higher education institutions. Sustain. Accounting,
Manag. Policy J. 2024, 15, 171–206. [CrossRef]
44. Osorio, A.M.; Úsuga, L.F.; Vásquez, R.E.; Nieto-Londoño, C.; Rinaudo, M.E.; Martínez, J.A.; Leal Filho, W. Towards Carbon
Neutrality in Higher Education Institutions: Case of Two Private Universities in Colombia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1774. [CrossRef]
45. Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana. Sostenibilidad UPB. 2024. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 30 April 2024).
46. Universidad de Antioquia. UdeA Sostenible. 2023. Available online: [Link]
institucional/udea-sostenible (accessed on 15 December 2023).
47. Universidad Simón Bolívar. Planeación. 2023. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 15 December 2023).
48. Universidad EAN. EAN Sostenibilidad. 2023. Available online: [Link]
emprendimiento-sostenible (accessed on 15 December 2023).
49. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. Sustainability RMIT. 2023. Available online: [Link]
values/sustainability (accessed on 15 December 2023).
50. Espinal-Ospina, L. Orientaciones Hacia la Formulación de la Estrategia de Sostenibilidad de la Empresa INTEINSA: Gobernanza
y Grupos de Interés. Master’s Thesis, Master’s Program in Sustainability, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Medellín, Colombia,
2023.
51. Wang, B.; Zhou, H.; Li, X.; Yang, G.; Zheng, P.; Song, C.; Yuan, Y.; Wuest, T.; Yang, H.; Wang, L. Human Digital Twin in the context
of Industry 5.0. Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 2024, 85, 102626. [CrossRef]
52. Morkan, B.; Bertels, H.M.; Sheth, A.; Holahan, P.J. Building megaproject resilience with stakeholders: The roles of citizenship
behavior and critical transition mechanisms. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2023, 41, 102485. [CrossRef]
53. QS Top Universities. Top Universities for Environmental and Social Sustainability 2023. 2023. Available online:
[Link]
sustainability-2023 (accessed on 30 April 2024).
54. Argos. Reporte Integrado 2022. Cementos Argos. 2023. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 30
October 2023).

161
Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317

55. AES. Informe de Sostenibilidad 2022. 2023. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 30
September 2023).
56. Cerrejón. Informe de Sostenibilidad 2022. Cerrejón 2023. Available online: [Link]
de-sostenibilidad (accessed on 30 March 2023).
57. ISA. Reporte Integrado de Gestión 2022. 2023. Available online: [Link]
gestion-isa-2022/ (accessed on 30 October 2023).
58. XM. Reporte Integral de Sostenibilidad, Operación y Mercado 2021. 2022. Available online: [Link]
informe/pages/xm/[Link] (accessed on 30 September 2023).
59. Bavaria. Informe Desarrollo Sostenible 2022. 2023. Available online: [Link]
de-desarrollo-sostenible-bavaria (accessed on 30 October 2023).
60. ENKA. Informe de Sostenibilidad 2021. 2022. Available online: [Link] (accessed
on 30 October 2023).
61. Nutresa. Informe Integrado 2022. 2023. Available online: [Link]
sostenibilidad/informes-de-sostenibilidad/ (accessed on 30 October 2023).
62. Postobon. Informe de Sostenibilidad 2022. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 30 October 2023).
63. Uniban. Informe de Sostenibilidad 2021. 2022. Available online: [Link]
GRI_2021.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2023).
64. University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley Annual Sustainability Report. 2022. Available online: [Link]
edu/plans-reports/sustainability-reports (accessed on 30 September 2023).
65. University of Toronto. Sustainability Strategic Plan. 2021. Available online: [Link]
progress-report (accessed on 30 September 2023).
66. University of British Columbia. Climate & Sustainability Report. 2021. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 30 September 2023).
67. University of Edinburgh. Community Plan 2020–2025. 2020. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 30 September 2023).
68. University of New South Wales. Environmental Sustainability Plan 2022–2024. 2022. Available online: [Link]
[Link]/our-plan (accessed on 30 September 2023).
69. Huang, R. SDG-oriented sustainability assessment for Central and Eastern European countries. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2023,
19, 100268. [CrossRef]
70. d Keeys, L.A.; Huemann, M. Project benefits co-creation: Shaping sustainable development benefits. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017,
35, 1196–1212. [CrossRef]
71. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M. Monitoring the Performance of Sustainable Development Goals in the Italian Regions. Sustainability
2023, 15, 14094. [CrossRef]
72. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023; Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA,
2023. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 15 December 2023).
73. Filho, W.L.; Salvia, A.L.; Eustachio, J.H.P.P. An overview of the engagement of higher education institutions in the implementation
of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 386, 135694. [CrossRef]
74. Longoria, L.C.; López-Forniés, I.; Sáenz, D.C.; Sierra-Pérez, J. Promoting sustainable consumption in Higher Education Institutions
through integrative co-creative processes involving relevant stakeholders. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 445–458. [CrossRef]
75. Srivastava, A.P.; Mani, V.; Yadav, M. Evaluating the implications of STAKEHOLDER’S role towards sustainability of higher
education. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 118270. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

162
 sustainability

Article
Achieving the 2030 Agenda: Mapping the Landscape of
Corporate Sustainability Goals and Policies in the
European Union
Florentina Madalina Perevoznic and Voicu D. Dragomir *

Faculty of Accounting and Management Information Systems, Bucharest University of Economic Studies,
010374 Bucharest, Romania; perevoznicflorentina17@[Link]
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]

Abstract: The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) were introduced in 2015
to advance the 2030 Agenda of sustainable development in all supporting countries. The SDGs are
applicable to countries, non-governmental organizations, industries, and companies. In this article,
we focus on the contribution of listed companies headquartered in the European Union (EU) to
the SDGs. The EU intends to be the front-runner in the race for sustainable development and has
adopted comprehensive strategies that mirror the UN SDGs. For this reason, we collected relevant
data points from the Refinitiv Eikon database for 1156 companies headquartered in EU countries for
the financial year 2022. The data collected refer to contributions to each SDG and the adoption of
corporate sustainability policies. Data were statistically analyzed per country and sector to generate
a comprehensive image of industry contributions to the SDGs in the EU. By applying a comparative
analysis of country-level achievements and policies, the results point to four EU countries that are
significant contributors to the SDGs through their economic activities. At the same time, other EU
countries are still facing significant challenges in this domain. The socioeconomic considerations for
these cases are laid out in the Discussion section. The present article offers a snapshot of corporate
contributions to the SDGs as climate and geopolitical challenges become more prominent.

Citation: Perevoznic, F.M.; Dragomir,

Keywords: sustainable development goals; European Union; corporate policy; Agenda 2030;
V.D. Achieving the 2030 Agenda:
sustainability goals
Mapping the Landscape of Corporate
Sustainability Goals and Policies in
the European Union. Sustainability
2024, 16, 2971. [Link]
10.3390/su16072971
1. Introduction
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted by the United Nations
Academic Editors: Idiano D’Adamo,
(UN) in late September 2015 and became effective in January 2016 [1]. However, the Sustain-
Massimo Gastaldi and Manoj
able Development Goals (SDGs) had been proposed in 2012. The adoption year represents
Kumar Nallapaneni
a milestone as 13% of policies issued by 71 countries as of 2016 were linked to the SDGs.
Received: 4 February 2024 By 2021, the percentage increased to 52% in 84 countries [2]. The commitment to the 2030
Revised: 17 March 2024 Agenda was undertaken by 193 UN member countries dedicated to transforming and
Accepted: 25 March 2024 addressing global challenges for a more sustainable and equitable future [2,3]. The 2030
Published: 2 April 2024 Agenda encompasses 17 SDGs and 169 specific targets providing guidance across environ-
mental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions for nations seeking a more sustainable
development.
The SDGs represent a universal call to action, recognizing five concepts referred
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
to as the 5Ps: people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnerships [4]. This call requires
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
collective efforts to eradicate poverty and hunger, promote prosperity for all, ensure good
distributed under the terms and
health and well-being, provide quality education, achieve gender equality, and protect
conditions of the Creative Commons
the planet through climate action. The SDGs were created as a result of negotiations
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// between stakeholders and governmental entities [5], and there may be overlaps or potential
[Link]/licenses/by/ contradictions between some of the targets associated with the SDGs. However, mappings
4.0/). between the SDGs and economic, social and environmental (ESG) factors demonstrate

Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971. [Link] 163 [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

the relevance and urgency of the SDGs [6]. Organizations are important actors in the
implementation of sustainable business practices to create value for investors, but also
stakeholders, with the aim of limiting the effects of climate change and facilitating the
transition to a greener economy [7].
The European Union (EU) has sought the position of the frontrunner in the sustain-
ability race. The European Commission and the European Parliament adopted a series of
strategies in several domains of sustainable development. Some of these strategies include
the European Green Deal [8,9], aiming to make the EU climate-neutral by 2050 through
policies across industries that support the Farm to Fork strategy [10]; the Circular Economy
Action Plan [11,12] that focuses on promoting sustainable practices in waste management;
and the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 [13], outlining actions to protect nature and restore
biodiversity. These strategies are closely coordinated with the corresponding SDGs and are
significant for various industries.
The most recent literature (2021–2023) comprises various topics such as sustainability
during the COVID-19 pandemic and how this affected the pursuit of the SDGs [14,15];
the analysis of a limited number of SDGs in and outside the European Union [16,17]; and
the sustainability-related impacts of specific industries [18]. Our article responds to the
call [19] for research to clarify the responsibilities of large multinationals in the domain of
energy transition, decarbonization, and environmental protection, as well as in the social
realm, in areas such as gender equality and education. We have identified a research gap
in the specificity of SDG adoption in each industrial sector in relation to country-specific
conditions. This research gap represents a challenge, prompting us to explore the dynamics
and corporate behaviors associated with SDG adoption.
While there is a growing recognition of the importance of achieving the SDGs [20,21],
a more granular analysis is required to discern the specific factors that influence the
successful implementation of sustainable practices. Sector-specific research facilitates the
understanding of different development strategies and policies linked to the characteristics
of each industry, taking into consideration factors such as available resources and the
complexity of the industry in connection to the regulatory frameworks at the national level.
The present research analyzes the applicability of the SDGs and sustainability policies
among companies headquartered in each EU member country. The article uses a dual
framework that encompasses both country- and industry-based perspectives. The investi-
gation aims to determine to what extent the SDGs align with the various socioeconomic
contexts within the EU states. The paper provides insights into national and sectoral
dynamics, observing the challenges and opportunities associated with the integration of
SDGs and sustainability policies. This granularity allows for the analysis of the different
roles of industries in supporting sustainable development. By identifying the countries
that significantly contribute to the SDGs, we envisage a wider dissemination of knowledge
and an adaptation of effective business models, leading to progress among all nations. The
present article enriches academic understanding of SDG implementation by providing an
analysis of the national and industry contexts within the European Union.
The structure of the present article is as follows. The literature review is divided
between studies approaching SDG implementation at the country level and those focusing
on implementation at the industry level, also identifying general research questions. The
Materials and Methods section presents the process of collecting data from the Refinitiv
Eikon database representative of the 2022 financial year for 1156 companies. The binary
data collected represent the status of adherence of EU companies to each of the 17 SDGs,
as well as 24 sustainability policies. The analytical questions are discussed in the Results
section of the article. Furthermore, in the Discussion section, we adopt a comparative
perspective and highlight the best practices of the top countries contributing to the SDGs,
versus the situation of the least-contributing countries. The final section identifies the
limitations of the research and proposes avenues for future investigation.

164
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

2. Literature Review and Research Questions

2.1. SDGs at the Country Level
The UN’s 2030 Agenda serves as a common language for all the participating nations
and presents a roadmap for companies and non-governmental organizations [22]. To
monitor the progress on sustainability aspects, the UN Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (UNDESA) proposed sustainable development (SD) indicators based on the 17
SDGs [23]: no poverty; zero hunger; good health and well-being; quality education; gender
equality; clean water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic
growth; industry, innovation, and infrastructure; reduced inequalities; sustainable cities and
communities; responsible consumption and production; climate action; life underwater and
life on land; peace, justice, and strong institutions; and partnership for the goals.
Most countries have already begun the implementation of the SDGs and are monitored
through an SDG progress index grouped by regional dimension [24]. In this regard, social
inclusion represents a global challenge. Based on this premise, social inclusion extends
beyond interpersonal relations, having implications at the macro level in the form of decreased
poverty and positive ecological impacts. As observed by Mosse [25], adversities in the field of
sustainable development are not isolated events but rather outcomes of strategic decisions.
Within the framework of the SDGs, addressing these challenges is critical for sustainable and
inclusive development. Poverty, insufficient education, and ecological concerns underscore
the pressing need to adjust corporate strategies to achieve the SDGs.
Initial reviews showed slow progress at the national level in setting targets and evalu-
ating policies as there was limited experience of national governments in this domain [26].
The positive impact lies in the integration of the SDGs into national policies that align with
one of the 169 specified targets [27]. The previous literature [28] revealed that of the 169
targets, 49 targets (29%) were well-developed, 91 targets (54%) could benefit from increased
specificity, and 29 targets (17%) required substantial improvement. The main weaknesses
included the inadequate alignment of targets and goals with existing international agree-
ments and political processes, ineffective implementation, and potential conflicts between
goals and targets.
In Europe, North America, and Asia, the SDG scores trended toward high and ex-
tremely high levels [6]. Before the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, in 2017, the
European Commission created a reference framework to monitor the applicability of the
SDGs in the European context. The SDG indicator set was created in alignment with the
UN’s list of global sustainability indicators [23]. Based on the SDG index [24], Finland,
Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, Norway, Czechia, Poland, and Estonia are
the ten most developed countries. Due to the danger posed by climate change [29], Finland
set ambitious climate targets, with significant progress [30]. Sweden has a rich history of
sustainable development, such as being the frontrunner of Agenda 21 [31], and acted as a
role model for the Arctic countries, including Norway, in order to reach the UN goals by
2030 together [32]. Czechia also has a vast knowledge of sustainable development, being a
model for other Central and Eastern European countries in achieving the SDGs [33].
Previous results point to the fact that the level of SDG implementation varies widely:
higher sustainability is observed in the Nordic and Baltic states, the Netherlands, and Aus-
tria, and lower goal achievement is present in southern and eastern countries, especially
Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece [34,35]. Researchers have completed country-level sustain-
ability assessments for Romania [36], the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and
other countries within the European Union [37,38]. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland,
and Slovakia, referred to as the V4 (Visegrád Group) countries, have implemented sustain-
able development strategies and are significantly improving their domestic environmental
policies—for example, the Strategy for Responsible Development was implemented by
Poland as a response to the 2030 Agenda [39]. For Central and Eastern Europe, an aggregate
sustainability index was created as a comparison tool, using multiple methods and various
indexes that measure sustainability performance in several areas [40].

165
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

2.2. SDGs at the Company Level

Sustainability reporting involves the public disclosure of companies’ economic, en-
vironmental, and social impacts, along with their adherence to the SDGs and related
policies [41]. The Non-financial Reporting Directive (2014/95/EU) [42] required the prepa-
ration of non-financial statements in conjunction with the annual reports of EU companies.
The non-financial statements must present companies’ policies on environmental and social
impacts, alongside information on the respect for human rights, diversity on the company’s
board, anti-corruption, and bribery prevention. The updated Corporate Sustainability
Reporting Directive (2022/2464) [43] extended the scope of existing legislation and made
reference to the UN SDGs. The newer directive introduces stronger disclosure requirements,
with quantitative indicators on progress towards sustainability targets and clear policies
on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) aspects. On the other hand, companies
are aware that the reporting of sustainability policies, programs, and projects can generate
negative feedback from the community due to increased transparency and comparabil-
ity [44]. For this reason, sustainability reporting is often accused of greenwashing [45] or
pinkwashing [46].
Companies that contribute to the SDGs consider that this process is supported by
good governance practices such as the presence of independent directors and experts in
non-financial reporting [47]. Organizations align with SDG targets that are directly related
to their activities in the value chain and tend to focus on those that minimize negative
impacts [48,49]. For greater coverage of the SDGs, it is important that researchers observe
them beyond the industry-specific objectives [50]. The potential of sustainable supply
chain management (SSCM) to contribute to the adoption of the SDGs is realized through
optimized processes, the reduction of environmental impacts, the lowering of operational
costs, and the promotion of responsible consumption and production.
Previous research on factors that influence non-financial disclosure refers to voluntary
disclosure theory, legitimacy theory, and stakeholder theory to elucidate the voluntary
non-financial reporting behavior of companies [51]. SDG indicators were identified to
monitor existing policies and forecast trends until 2030 based on a data set available for
the period 2007–2018 [52]. For the period 2015–2018, the SDG disclosure increased to
58% in Europe for a population of 1732 companies. A sample of 652 enterprises provided
information on the SDGs, with a great proportion represented by France and the United
Kingdom (UK) [53]. The UK was excluded in the present research as it has not been part
of the European Union since 2020. The goals most often prioritized were SDGs 3, 8, 9, 12,
and 13 [53]. At the European level, there is no country on track to achieve all the targets and
SDGs related to well-being and health, but achieving half of the proposed targets within
the 2030 Agenda is feasible if the current level of engagement is maintained [52].

2.3. SDGs at the Industry Level

In 2018, it was difficult for companies to identify the SDGs to which they contributed
directly and indirectly. Most companies in the utilities (58%), automotive (58%), retail (57%),
and technology (56%) sectors were more likely to report on the SDGs, with the healthcare
industry (47%) in the top five contributing industries. In contrast, the financial services
(37%), industrials (30%), and oil and gas (28%) industries were less likely to report on the
SDGs [54]. The significance of SDG reporting in environmentally sensitive industries (e.g.,
oil and gas, heavy metals, paper, chemicals, and utilities) has become more pronounced
as these industries face increased stakeholder and social pressure and might use SDG
reporting as a strategy to repair their reputation [55].
Regarding the metals and mining industry, the most pursued goals are SDGs 3, 8, and
12, which are directly linked to the activities of the companies [56]. As an energy-intensive
sector, it is important to understand how companies in this industry reduce costs and
increase energy efficiency. In addition to the 2030 Agenda, companies in this sector should
consider that the global steel demand will increase by 2050, together with greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions [57]. The researchers found that only 26% of companies in the steel

166
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

industry based in China made the connection between the company’s activity and SDG
compliance [56].
Another important actor is the automotive industry, which can easily reach certain
goals but at the same time is responsible for severe environmental issues such as air
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, mainly downstream in the value chain [58].
Automotive manufacturers face increasing challenges as the European Parliament approved
a strategy to phase out combustion engines in new passenger vehicles starting in 2035 [59].
This approach demands technological advancement in battery production for electric
vehicles to make them competitive in the market.
The construction industry is of great importance for the achievement of the SDGs
in the EU [60] because it generates large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions from the
processing of raw materials [61]. Regarding the construction industry, specific policies have
been developed to promote sustainable business models in this sector, namely the European
Commission’s Construction Products Regulation (CPR) [62]. As indicated in the literature,
the construction sector can contribute to SDGs 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 [60]. The procurement
process for non-renewable resources during construction projects has an impact on the
achievement of the SDGs, especially SDG 12 [63,64].
SDGs 1, 2, 5, 8, 13, and 15 are extremely relevant to the food industry, especially
“eradicating poverty” and “zero hunger” [65,66]. Researchers have observed that, for
the social dimension, there is high employment for women in the agricultural industry,
especially in regions with low food security. On the contrary, in regions that have sufficient
food security, women can work outside the agriculture industry and increase their income.
On the other hand, in terms of sustainability, food security does not pose a threat to
biodiversity [65]. Together with the food industry, the agriculture sector aims to satisfy the
demand for food in a sustainable way, to enhance resource allocation and promote equal
access [67]. Sustainable agriculture constructs the base for SDGs 3 and 13 [68] but also for
the most relevant SDGs identified by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN
(FAO): SDGs 2, 6, 8, 12, 14, and 15 [67].
The financial sector has focused on SDG 3 through partnerships with companies in the
healthcare industry; SDG 7 through investments related to environmental challenges; SDG 8
through creating space for career and skill development; SDG 9 through the digitalization of
internal processes and the development of sustainable services; and SDG 13 by supporting
climate research and clients willing to change their business models towards sustainable
and eco-friendly activities [69].
As the previous literature has not focused sufficiently on the overall adoption of the
SDGs in specific industries, we propose the following research questions, which will be
operationalized in more detail:
Q1. How many companies headquartered in the EU apply each SDG and related
sustainability policies?
Q2. How many companies in each EU country follow the SDGs and implement
sustainability policies?
Q3. Which SDGs and corporate sustainability policies are applied in each industry
and EU country?
Q4. What is the relationship between the SDGs and the corresponding policies as
applied by the sample companies?

3. Materials and Methods

The research sample for the study comprises publicly traded companies in the
27 European member states. The member states are characterized by the geographic
scope and diversity inherent in the European Union, which ensures a comprehensive
representation of various economic, cultural, and regulatory environments [70]. The data
set was compiled from the Refinitiv Eikon database, which is part of the London Stock Ex-
change Group (LSEG). Refinitiv is known for its detailed ESG data set, which contains over
450 metrics with a high level of granularity on various dimensions of sustainability [71].

167
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

This includes coverage of dimensions such as environmental strategies, resource use effi-
ciency, pollution abatement, waste reduction, environmental innovation, human rights, and
product responsibility, among others. Data availability over more than a decade facilitates
longitudinal studies and has become an important tool for researchers [71–73]. Refinitiv
applies a transparent methodology to collect and verify ESG metrics, with frequent updates
that ensure access to the latest and most relevant information. Furthermore, the data set is
suitable for conducting cross-country and cross-industry comparative analyses.
The collected data set is cross-sectional for the 2022 financial year, which is the most
recent period for analysis at the time of download (end of November 2023). This creates
a very recent background for our research. The database comprises 7015 companies, as
observed in Table 1, allowing a better understanding of trends and patterns within the
European Union business landscape. The results presented in Table 1 are an overview
of the availability of data on listed companies in European countries. The sample data
complement the series of research papers investigating the role of European companies in
advancing SDG adherence within the EU [74,75]. Our study analyzes companies operating
within the EU, which, as members of the UN, play an important role in global sustainability
efforts. Through our analysis, we provide an enhanced perspective on the contributions
made by EU-based companies towards the 2030 Agenda. The focus of data collection
was to identify and analyze Boolean data (TRUE or FALSE) representing the adherence or
nonadherence of each company to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well
as information on 24 distinct policies conceptually related to the SDGs.

Table 1. The number and proportion of sample companies with data available in the Refinitiv
database, as of November 2023.

Total Number of Percentage of

Total Number of
Country Companies with Companies with
Listed Companies
Available Data Available Data
Austria 91 29 31.87%
Belgium 206 44 21.36%
Bulgaria 253 1 0.40%
Croatia 86 0 -
Cyprus 108 0 -
Czech Republic 28 2 7.14%
Denmark 164 61 37.20%
Estonia 32 0 -
Finland 184 69 37.50%
France 950 149 15.68%
Germany 1291 226 17.51%
Greece 154 12 7.79%
Hungary 120 5 4.17%
Ireland 23 12 52.17%
Italy 459 107 23.31%
Latvia 13 0 -
Lithuania 31 0 -
Luxembourg 24 2 8.33%
Malta 33 0 -
Netherlands 149 48 32.21%
Poland 775 26 3.35%
Portugal 53 11 20.75%
Romania 359 5 1.39%
Slovak Republic 43 2 4.65%
Slovenia 116 3 2.59%
Spain 253 45 17.79%
Sweden 1017 297 29.20%
Total 7015 1156 100%

168
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

During data collection, we implemented a screening process to safeguard the integrity

of data and the validity of our research. Two types of data that were considered not valid for
further analysis were: (a) 761 companies lacking industry classification, as this information
was absent from the Refinitiv Eikon database, resulting in a sample of 6254 valid records;
and (b) “missing” information, i.e., data that were not collected by Refinitiv analysts at the
end of November 2023—the timestamp for exporting data for our research.
Consequently, a final sample of 1156 listed companies with valid data was further
analyzed. Valid data incorporate companies for which the Boolean data were collected
from Refinitiv, fulfilling our objective of comprehensive data collection, including industry
classification, total assets of the companies, and data collected for all 17 SDGs and 24 policies
relevant to the SDGs. This approach was essential to enhance the reliability and precision
of our findings by eliminating potential sources of bias and ensuring that the analyzed data
set was representative of companies with available financial and sustainability information.
Additional data collected for analysis incorporate fundamental information such as
the names of the companies and their TRBC (Thomson Reuters Business Classification)
industry classifications, which were subsequently correlated with NACE [76] industry
codes (rev. 2.0) to streamline and enhance the categorization process. This approach aims
to create a more compact and coherent framework for analysis. Additionally, the data set
includes the total assets reported by the companies, providing the financial context. This set
of variables facilitates a detailed exploration of their commitment to sustainability through
the lens of both specific SDGs and policies [77,78].
To address research questions Q1–Q4, data transformations and statistical procedures
were applied in SPSS. Specifically, we transformed the data downloaded as “TRUE” or
“FALSE” into 1 and 0 values to perform different calculations. We created another variable
that computes the number of SDGs applied per company and a check variable to mark
which company applies at least one SDG. This is also a Boolean value where 1 means the
company applies at least one SDG and 0 means the company does not apply any SDG.
Subsequently, we created a correspondence table between the SDGs and sustainability poli-
cies. To answer the research objectives, we used frequencies and correlations. Frequencies
were calculated to observe policy and SDG adherence. Furthermore, descriptive statistics
were generated in relation to minimum and maximum values, as well as mean and median
values, to provide insights into the applied SDGs and policies. The calculations were car-
ried out considering industry- and country-specific contexts, facilitating the comparative
analysis to better understand corporate policies and sustainability goals.
Relevant corporate policies, along with their descriptions, were extracted from the
Refinitiv Eikon database. The mapping between the 24 distinct policies and the 17 SDGs
is presented in Table A1 (Appendix A). The identification of policies from the Refinitiv
database was carried out in response to the research question, based on the assumption that
companies are pursuing a specific SDG or the corresponding policy. During the mapping
process, key terms and formulations in the policy description were identified and used
to create the “word search” column in Table A1. This column served as a tool to identify
specific words and concepts within the context of specific targets pertaining to each SDG,
thereby establishing an effective mapping process. As a result, the cross-check of policies
with the SDGs is based on the identifiers of specific targets. For example, the policies linked
to SDG 3 are summarized as p_SDG3 and can be any of the following: p_PER (product
environmental responsible use), p_WEF (policy water efficiency), p_EHS (employee health
safety policy), and p_SHS (supply chain health and safety).
The mapping approach was introduced to analyze the correlations between the adher-
ence to the SDGs and the policy implementation of the sample companies. This multifaceted
data set is a representative instrument of analysis of the intersection between sustainable
practices and company self-regulation within the complex setting of the EU economic
environment.
To enhance data visualization and pursue a comparative analysis, we created two
types of figures. The first type represents the geographical map of the number of companies

169
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

that apply at least one SDG and one sustainability policy, respectively. The geographical
maps were created using the R software environment (version 4.3.2). Specifically, we used
the ggplot2 library (version 3.5.0) in conjunction with the Natural Earth database [79].
For the second type of figure, we present heatmaps for the number of companies in each
country that apply each SDG and each sustainability policy, respectively. In this regard, we
constructed tables in Excel, as presented in the figures, and used the tool named “Conditional
Formatting”, keeping the main settings for the “Green-Yellow-Red color scale”.

4. Results
4.1. Statistical Results on the Application of Each SDG and Sustainability Policy by
EU Companies
The present section explores research question Q1 in multiple facets. We start by
answering the following detailed questions on the application of SDGs:
• Q1a. How many companies in the EU apply each SDG?
• Q1b. What is the proportion of companies in the EU (in total) that apply each SDG?
In Table 2, we observe that the level of application of the SDGs varies between different
goals, with SDGs 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13 having the highest application percentages ranging
from 50.3% to 68.3%, with SDG 8 regarding decent work and economic growth at the top
of the list. These are the dimensions that are incorporated into most of the companies’
operations. The percentages indicate a strong commitment of the companies in our sample
to health and safety at work, clean energy, responsible consumption, and climate action. At
the opposite pole, SDGs 1, 2, and 14 have the lowest number of companies pursuing these
goals, meaning 13.7%, 11.0%, and 14.4%, respectively, of the 1156 companies. The results
for SDGs 1 and 2 are similar as there are few companies that pursue these goals. This is
because the specific targets allocated to SDG 2—meaning T2.1., T2.2., and T2.3 (related to
access to food and nutritional needs for poor and vulnerable people, and the agricultural
productivity of small-scale producers)—are interlinked with T1.1., T1.2. and T1.3 (related to
reducing poverty, especially for vulnerable people, through social protection systems) [80].

Table 2. The number and proportion of sample companies applying each SDG.

Companies Not Applying the

Companies Applying Each SDG
SDG Respective SDG
Count (N) Proportion Count (N) Proportion
SDG 1 158 13.7% 998 86.3%
SDG 2 127 11.0% 1029 89.0%
SDG 3 582 50.3% 574 49.7%
SDG 4 468 40.5% 688 59.5%
SDG 5 649 56.1% 507 43.9%
SDG 6 274 23.7% 882 76.3%
SDG 7 519 44.9% 637 55.1%
SDG 8 789 68.3% 367 31.7%
SDG 9 597 48.4% 559 51.6%
SDG 10 383 33.1% 773 66.9%
SDG 11 407 35.2% 749 64.8%
SDG 12 740 64.0% 416 36.0%
SDG 13 781 67.6% 375 32.4%
SDG 14 166 14.4% 990 85.6%
SDG 15 286 24.7% 870 75.3%
SDG 16 441 38.1% 714 61.9%
SDG 17 390 33.7% 766 66.3%
Note. Total sample N = 1156.

The data in Table 2 highlight the most pursued SDGs [81]. Our article builds on
previous results to highlight the various ways EU companies engage with each of the SDGs.
Unlike previous studies that evaluated national performance [82], our analysis represents a
more granular approach, identifying specific areas of underperformance within countries

170
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

and empowering policymakers to incentivize the adoption of relevant and effective policies.
Furthermore, our study represents an overview of all 17 SDGs, rather than being restricted
to industry-specific goals, as observed in earlier literature [16,17,83,84]. There is room for
improvement in the pursuit of all goals for the 2030 Agenda, as even the goals with the
highest adoption rate do not reach 70% of the application within this sample.
The following two related questions refer to the adoption of relevant sustainability
policies by EU-based companies:
• Q1c. How many companies in the EU apply each type of sustainability policy?
• Q1d. What is the proportion of companies in the EU that apply each type of sustain-
ability policy?
Building on the existing literature [85], we identify relevant sustainability policies
and elucidate their relationship with the SDGs, thus improving our understanding of the
policy landscape in the context of sustainable development. Furthermore, our study goes
beyond identifying the presence of these policies by examining the level of commitment
and adherence to the SDGs among companies and providing valuable insights on the extent
to which policies translate into actions aligned with the SDGs. As shown in Table 3, several
policies show high adoption rates, indicating a strong commitment from a significant
proportion of companies. Such policies refer to resource reduction (p_ARR, 91.4%), mapped
in our research to targets 11.4, 12.2, 14.7, and 15.5; human rights (p_AHR, 90.2%), mapped
to targets 1.4, 8.7, and 16.2; energy efficiency (p_EEF, 84.9%). mapped to targets 7.3 and 13.2;
and waste reduction initiatives (p_WRI, 83.1%), mapped to targets 6.A, 11.6, 12.4, and 14.1.
The high percentages of policy adoption suggest that a substantial number of companies
are actively incorporating policies related to energy efficiency, human rights, and resource
reduction, linked to SDGs 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.

Table 3. The number and proportion of sample companies applying each policy.

Sample Companies Applying Each Sample Companies Not Applying the

Policies Policy Respective Policy
Count (N) Proportion Count (N) Proportion
p_ANT (animal testing) 90 7.8% 1066 92.2%
p_ARR (resource reduction) 1057 91.4% 99 8.6%
p_AWB (animal well-being) 65 5.6% 1091 94.4%
p_EEF (energy efficiency) 981 84.9% 175 15.1%
p_EMS (emissions) 994 86.0% 162 14.0%
p_ESC (environmental supply chain) 864 74.7% 292 25.3%
p_FFD (fossil fuel divestment) 29 2.5% 1127 97.5%
p_GBD (green buildings) 283 24.5% 873 75.5%
p_LBW (labeled wood) 54 4.7% 1102 95.3%
p_PER (product environmental
727 62.9% 429 37.1%
responsible use)
p_PNS (nuclear safety) 8 0.7% 1148 99.3%
p_SPK (sustainable packaging) 320 27.7% 836 72.3%
p_TRI (takeback and recycling) 151 13.1% 1005 86.9%
p_WEF (water efficiency) 642 55.5% 514 44.5%
p_WRI (waste reduction) 961 83.1% 195 16.9%
p_AHR (human rights) 1043 90.2% 113 9.8%
p_CDL (child labor) 918 79.4% 238 20.6%
p_CDV (career development) 974 84.3% 182 15.7%
p_DOP (diversity and opportunity) 1104 95.5% 52 4.5%
p_EHS (employee health and safety) 1071 92.6% 85 7.4%
p_FAS (freedom of association) 719 62.2% 437 37.8%
p_FLB (forced labor) 900 77.9% 256 22.1%
p_SHS (supply chain health and safety) 610 52.8% 546 47.2%
p_STR (skills training) 987 85.4% 169 14.6%
Note. Total sample N = 1156.

171
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

Low application percentages are notable for the fossil fuel divestment policy (p_FFD,
2.5%), nuclear safety policy (p_PNS, 0.7%), and take-back and recycling initiatives (p_TRI,
13.1%) as companies may find these policies less relevant to their operations or there may
be challenges in implementing and adhering to these specific types of policies. These policy
areas may be relevant to companies that want to improve their commitment to certain
goals. In summary, companies prioritize and apply policies differently depending on their
industry, size, and strategies.
• Q1e. Is there a relationship between company size and the number of SDGs applied or
if a company applies the SDGs?
In our study, we performed a correlation analysis to understand the relationship
between adherence to SDGs and company size. This analytical approach can provide
valuable insights for stakeholders and policymakers seeking to navigate the interaction
between sustainability actions and the economic impact of sample companies. Furthermore,
the correlation analysis builds upon previous research [86–88] by offering an examination
within the specific context of our sample. The results in Table 4 suggest that there is a
positive relationship between company size (total assets) and the number of SDGs applied
or if the company applies the SDGs. The correlation coefficient between total assets and the
number of SDGs applied is 0.259. This correlation suggests a weak positive relationship
between the total assets of a company and the number of SDGs pursued by the sample
companies.

Table 4. Correlation between company size (total assets) and the number of applied SDGs or if the
company applies any SDGs.

Pearson Correlations Total Assets Number of Applied SDGs Company Applies SDGs
Total Assets 1 0.259 ** 0.132 **
Number of Applied SDGs 0.259 ** 1 0.730 **
Company Applies SDGs 0.132 ** 0.730 ** 1
Note. ** p < 0.01. N = 997.

The correlation coefficient between total assets and the binary variable indicating
whether the SDGs are applied is 0.132. This very weak positive correlation suggests a
slight positive relationship between the total assets of a company and whether it pursues
any SDGs. Larger companies are slightly more likely to apply some SDGs. Other factors
not considered in the analysis can influence the observed relationships. The conclusion
is that companies, regardless of size, can choose to apply the SDGs or not based on their
sustainable development strategies and business models. While larger companies may be
under more peer pressure and stakeholder scrutiny, their public visibility is not enough to
convince the board of directors to pursue the relevant SDGs.
• Q1f. Is there a relationship between company size and the number of policies applied,
or if the company applies any sustainability policy?
In parallel with our previous correlation analysis that examined the relationship be-
tween SDG adherence and company size, we extended our inquiry to explore the correlation
between the economic contribution of a company and the application of sustainability
policies. This approach allows us to investigate the impact of policy implementation on
financial outcomes independently of SDG alignment. Our research builds on the existing
literature [89–92] by uncovering patterns or associations between policy implementation
and financial outcomes, thus enriching the understanding of the mechanism that drives
sustainable development and economic success.
The correlation coefficient of 0.171 between total assets and the number of policies
applied indicates a weak positive association (see Table 5). This implies that there is a
tendency for companies with higher total assets to have a greater number of applied
policies, but the relationship is weak. The coefficient of 0.171 signifies a positive but
relatively low correlation (very small statistical effect). As the total assets increase, there

172
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

is a slight motivation for company boards to adopt multiple policies to deal with higher
operational complexity. However, the correlation coefficient of 0.024 suggests that there is
no relationship between sustainability commitment and company size. In conclusion, larger
companies tend to have more sustainability policies in place, but increased operational
complexity is not a sufficient motivation for boards to implement sustainability policies.

Table 5. Correlation between company size (total assets) and the number of applied policies or if the
company applies any sustainability policy.

Sustainability Policies Applied

Pearson Correlations Total Assets Number of Applied Policies
(Binary Variable)
Total Assets 1 0.171 ** 0.024
Number of Applied Policies 0.171 ** 1 0.292 **
Policies Applied 0.024 0.292 ** 1
Note. ** p < 0.01. N = 1153.

4.2. Statistical Results on the Application of SDGs and Corporate Sustainability Policies in each
EU Country
In this section, we focus on countries of incorporation. We reformulate the analysis in
terms of how many companies in each country pursue the SDGs and apply sustainability
policies. This analysis addresses research question Q2. We start by investigating the
countries in which companies apply at least one SDG. The following question is relevant in
this regard:
• Q2a. How many companies in each EU country pursue at least one SDG?
The total number of companies with valid data in each country provides context for the
overall size of the business landscape in these nations (see Table 6). Companies incorporated
in several countries, such as Austria (93.11%), Czechia (100%), Denmark (90.16%), Ireland
(91.67%), the Netherlands (91.67%), Portugal (90.91%), Slovenia (100%), and Spain (91.11%),
have high application rates, indicating a significant commitment of most companies to
apply at least one SDG. On the other hand, companies from several countries (Bulgaria,
Romania, Luxembourg) have a less-pronounced interest in the SDGs. Variations may be
influenced by cultural and regulatory differences, even within the European Union, due
to distinct national policies and the level of awareness and engagement in sustainability
initiatives, influencing companies’ propensity to address the SDGs.
A visual representation of the results is provided in Figure 1. The map allows us
to understand the patterns of SDG contributions in different geographical regions [93]
within the European Union. The observed pattern is defined by a color spectrum from
red to green. Figure 1 confirms the results of previous studies on the limited adoption
of sustainability initiatives in Eastern Europe [94,95], as evidenced by the prevalence of
red or near-red hues on the map, which signal countries where SDG targets are applied
by fewer companies. Using color mapping can offer significant decision-making support
by fostering a comparative viewpoint across SDG indicators, pinpointing the geographies
requiring attention for sustainable development efforts and enabling the prioritization and
allocation of resources to specific EU regions in alignment with SDG objectives.
The following question focuses on the application of sustainability-related policies
by country:
• Q2b. How many companies in each EU country apply at least one sustainability policy?
Almost all companies in EU countries apply at least one sustainability policy. The
uniformity in policy adoption throughout the business landscape observed in Table 6 shows
the corporate commitment to responsible business practice. Sweden stands out with a
slightly lower application percentage (97.98%) compared to the 100% application rates
seen in several other countries. This indicates that a very small proportion of companies
in Sweden have not adopted any policy. However, Sweden has the highest proportion of
companies in the sample. The highest number of companies that do not apply any policy

173
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

can be observed again in Sweden, meaning that 6 Swedish companies out of the 297 do not
apply any policy.

Table 6. The number and proportion of companies in each country that pursue at least one SDG and
adopt at least one sustainability-related policy (N = 1156 companies).

Companies Adopting at Least One Sustainability

Companies Applying at Least One SDG
Country Policy
Count Proportion Count Proportion
Austria 27 93.11% 29 100.00%
Belgium 38 86.37% 43 97.73%
Bulgaria 0 0.00% 1 100%
Czechia 2 100.00% 2 100%
Denmark 55 90.16% 60 98.36%
Finland 57 82.61% 69 100%
France 111 74.5% 148 99.33%
Germany 145 64.16% 225 99.56%
Greece 8 66.67% 12 100%
Hungary 3 60.00% 5 100%
Ireland 11 91.67% 12 100%
Italy 92 85.98% 107 100%
Luxembourg 0 0.00% 2 100%
Netherlands 44 91.67% 48 100%
Poland 21 80.77% 26 100%
Portugal 10 90.91% 11 100%
Romania 1 20.00% 5 100%
Slovakia 1 50.00% 2 100%
Slovenia 3 100.00% 3 100%
Spain 41 91.11% 45 100%
Sweden 228 76.77% 291 97.98%
Total 898 77.68% 1146 99.13%

Figure 1. Geographical map of the number of companies in the European Union pursuing at least
one SDG. Source: Table 6.

A visual representation of these results is shown in Figure 2, facilitating an under-

standing of patterns in sustainability policies in diverse geographical regions within the

174
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

EU. These policies are crucial to addressing the multifaceted challenges outlined in sustain-
ability agendas. Figure 2 reinforces previous research findings that highlight the varying
degrees of implementation of sustainability policies, particularly in certain regions (Eastern
Europe), indicated by red or near-red hues, where policy uptake may be lacking [96–98].
Sustainability policies are the internal mechanism by which companies implement the
SDGs and other requirements, such as the due diligence process mandated by the Corporate
Sustainability Reporting Directive [43]. In this respect, the adoption of sustainability poli-
cies is more relevant to the sustainability strategy of EU companies than the self-declared
contributions to the SDGs. Policies create a substantive obligation for company managers
to prevent harm or facilitate environmental protection and social welfare, as a reflection of
EU-level policies [99].

Figure 2. Geographical map of the number of companies in the European Union applying at least
one sustainability policy. Source: Table 6.

We continue the exploration of SDGs and policies by country by calculating the

descriptive statistics of the extent to which SDGs are applied in each EU country. We will
answer the following question:
• Q2c. What are the average and range of the number of SDGs applied per country?
The total number of companies (1156) considered in the analysis provides context
for the overall sample size and the breadth of the study (see Table 7). The mean number
of SDGs applied per country is calculated as the average number of SDGs adopted by
companies within each country. The overall mean across all countries is 6.68, indicating
that, on average, companies in EU countries apply approximately six or seven SDGs. There
is considerable variation between countries in the mean number of SDGs applied. The
means are found in the interval from 0 (e.g., Bulgaria, Luxembourg) to 11.50 (Czechia).
In countries with many companies containing valid data (France, Germany, Italy, and
Sweden), we can observe that the means lie between 5 and 9. Romania has a relatively low
mean (2.60), suggesting that, on average, companies in Romania apply a smaller number of
SDGs. This may be due to specific challenges or less emphasis on sustainability practices
within the business landscape [100].

175
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

Table 7. The mean, median, and range of SDGs applied per country.

SDGs Applied per Country Total Number

Country
Min Max Mean Median Weighted Mean of Companies
Austria 0.00 17.00 9.17 10.00 0.23 29
Belgium 0.00 17.00 7.61 7.00 0.29 44
Bulgaria 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1
Czechia 10.00 13.00 11.50 11.50 0.02 2
Denmark 0.00 15.00 6.61 6.00 0.35 61
Finland 0.00 17.00 5.70 6.00 0.34 69
France 0.00 17.00 8.05 9.00 1.04 149
Germany 0.00 17.00 5.52 6.00 1.08 226
Greece 0.00 17.00 8.50 10.50 0.09 12
Hungary 0.00 17.00 7.20 3.00 0.03 5
Ireland 0.00 17.00 7.34 7.00 0.08 12
Italy 0.00 17.00 8.89 9.00 0.82 107
Luxembourg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2
Netherlands 0.00 14.00 6.00 6.00 0.25 48
Poland 0.00 17.00 6.85 7.00 0.15 26
Portugal 0.00 15.00 8.91 9.00 0.08 11
Romania 0.00 13.00 2.60 0.00 0.01 5
Slovakia 0.00 7.00 3.50 3.50 0.01 2
Slovenia 5.00 13.00 10.34 13.00 0.03 3
Spain 0.00 17.00 10.20 11.00 0.40 45
Sweden 0.00 17.00 5.39 5.00 1.38 297
Total 0.00 17.00 6.68 7.00 - 1156

All EU countries have companies that do not apply any SDGs, except Czechia (with
two listed companies that apply at least ten SDGs) and Slovenia (with three listed companies
applying a minimum of five SDGs). The maximum number of SDGs applied is 17, for
most of the countries, while companies in Slovakia apply the least SDGs, with a maximum
of 7. The median value of the sample (seven) is close to the mean, indicating a relatively
symmetric distribution of the number of SDGs applied per country. Some countries, such as
Sweden, have means that are close to their respective medians, suggesting a more balanced
distribution of the SDG application. Other countries, such as Greece and Spain, have means
that are slightly higher than their medians, indicating a positively skewed distribution,
with prominent companies adopting a higher number of SDGs.
The weighted mean of each country is calculated by multiplying the mean number
of SDGs pursued by the proportion of companies in the total sample. This indicator
shows the contribution of the respective countries to the SDGs in the European Union. In
our sample, Sweden has the largest weighted mean, followed by France and Germany.
Not surprisingly, these countries also have many companies that pursue the SDGs and
contribute to sustainable development.
• Q2d. What are the average and range of the number of sustainability policies applied
by companies in each country?
The following analysis delves into the application of sustainability policies by com-
panies in each EU country, mirroring the previous analysis concerning the SDGs in each
country. The results are presented in Table 8. The overall mean across all countries is
13.45, indicating that, on average, companies in these countries apply approximately 13 to
14 policies out of the 24 analyzed. The mean values range from 7.00 (Bulgaria, Luxembourg)
to 15.91 (Spain). This indicates a considerable variation in the average number of policies
adopted by companies in different countries. In many cases, the mean values are close to
the median values, suggesting a relatively symmetric distribution of policy adoption.

176
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

Table 8. The mean, median, and range of the number of sustainability policies applied by sample
companies, per country.

Policies Applied by Sample Companies Total Number of

Country
Min Max Mean Median Weighted Mean Companies
Austria 11.00 18.00 15.00 15.00 0.38 29
Belgium 0.00 19.00 14.23 15.50 0.54 44
Bulgaria 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.01 1
Czechia 14.00 17.00 15.50 15.50 0.03 2
Denmark 0.00 21.00 14.21 15.00 0.75 61
Finland 2.00 19.00 14.52 15.00 0.87 69
France 0.00 21.00 14.54 16.00 1.87 149
Germany 0.00 20.00 13.71 15.00 2.68 226
Greece 3.00 17.00 13.17 15.50 0.14 12
Hungary 10.00 18.00 13.80 13.00 0.06 5
Ireland 12.00 18.00 14.42 14.00 0.15 12
Italy 3.00 19.00 14.22 15.00 1.32 107
Luxembourg 3.00 11.00 7.00 7.00 0.01 2
Netherlands 5.00 19.00 15.04 16.00 0.62 48
Poland 10.00 20.00 15.08 15.00 0.34 26
Portugal 7.00 18.00 15.18 16.00 0.14 11
Romania 8.00 16.00 11.40 11.00 0.05 5
Slovakia 3.00 17.00 10.00 10.00 0.02 2
Slovenia 10.00 15.00 13.00 14.00 0.03 3
Spain 5.00 21.00 15.91 16.00 0.62 45
Sweden 0.00 20.00 11.01 12.00 2.83 297
Total 0.00 21.00 13.45 15.00 - 1156

The minimum and maximum values represent the range of policy adoption within
each country. For example, in Belgium, the minimum is 0, indicating that some companies
have not adopted any policy, while the maximum is 19, indicating a high level of policy
adoption by some Belgian companies. Some countries, such as Bulgaria and Luxembourg,
have relatively lower mean values of 7.00, indicating a lower average level of policy
adoption with minimum and maximum ranging between 3 and 11. There are companies in
Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and Sweden that do not have any policy, according to
Refinitiv. However, these countries have several companies that apply a very large number
of policies, ranging from 19 to 21. Companies in Denmark, France, and Spain apply a
maximum of 21 out of the 24 policies analyzed.
For countries where the mean is lower than the median (e.g., Belgium, Hungary, Ro-
mania, Slovakia, and Sweden), there is a potential skewness toward lower policy adoption.
Policymakers may explore strategies to encourage wider policy adoption among companies
in these countries.
The weighted mean of each country is calculated by multiplying the mean number of
policies applied by the proportion of companies in the total sample. This indicator shows
the commitment of companies in each country to the implementation of sustainability
policies in the EU. In our sample, Sweden has the largest weighted mean, closely followed
by Germany. France and Italy occupy the third and fourth positions, respectively. Not
surprisingly, these countries also have numerous companies that implement sustainability
policies and contribute to sustainable development.

4.3. Statistical Results on the Application of Each SDG and Sustainability Policy per Industry
The following analysis discusses the application of SDGs and sustainability policies
per industry (classified using the NACE codes rev. 2.0). This is relevant to this investigation
because industries have different impacts, risks, and opportunities related to sustainabil-
ity [43]. The first point refers to the extent to which the SDGs are applied in each industry.
The following question is relevant to this analysis:
• Q3a. What are the average and range of the number of SDGs applied per industry?

177
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

There is considerable variation in the mean number of SDGs applied in different

industries, ranging from 4.38 in the administrative and support services industry (N) to 12 in
the public administration and defense industry and the compulsory social security industry
(O). This variation suggests that industries differ in their commitment to and alignment
with the SDGs. Table 9 offers more details. Industries such as public administration and
defense, compulsory social security (O), and financial and insurance activities (K) have
relatively higher mean values of 12.00 and 7.91, respectively. This indicates that companies
within these industries, on average, adopt a larger number of SDGs. This may be attributed
to regulatory requirements, industry norms, and a strong emphasis on sustainability in
these sectors [101]. Industries such as professional, scientific, and technical activities (M)
and administrative and support services (N) have lower mean values of 4.50 and 4.38,
respectively. In many cases, the mean values are close to the median values, indicating a
relatively symmetric distribution of SDG applications within each industry.

Table 9. The mean, median, and range of SDGs applied per industry.

SDGs Applied per Industry Total Number

Industry
Min Max Mean Median Weighted Mean of Companies
A (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) 0.00 12.00 5.46 6.00 0.06 13
B (Mining and Quarrying) 0.00 14.00 6.24 7.00 0.11 21
C (Manufacturing) 0.00 17.00 6.81 6.00 2.49 422
D (Electricity, Gas, Steam and Air
0.00 17.00 8.49 8.00 0.35 47
Conditioning Supply)
E (Water Supply; Sewerage, Waste
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Management and Remediation Activities)
F (Construction) 0.00 17.00 8.07 7.5 0.31 44
G (Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of
0.00 17.00 5.78 6.00 0.73 146
Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles)
H (Transportation and Storage) 0.00 17.00 6.90 7.00 0.24 40
I (Accommodation and Food Service
0.00 17.00 6.19 7.00 0.17 32
Activities)
J (Information and Communication) 0.00 17.00 6.63 7.00 0.45 79
K (Financial and Insurance Activities) 0.00 17.00 6.97 7.00 0.96 159
L (Real Estate Activities) 0.00 17.00 7.91 7.50 0.30 44
M (Professional, Scientific and Technical
0.00 17.00 5.09 4.00 0.24 55
Activities)
N (Administrative and Support Service
0.00 9.00 4.50 4.50 0.02 6
Activities)
O (Public Administration and Defense;
0.00 13.00 4.37 4.50 0.06 16
Compulsory Social Security)
P (Education) 7.00 17.00 12.00 12.00 0.02 2
Q (Human Health and Social Work
0.00 16.00 6.10 5.50 0.05 10
Activities)
R (Arts, Entertainment and Recreation) 0.00 14.00 6.50 6.50 0.11 20
S (Other Service Activities) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
T (Activities of Households as Employers;
Undifferentiated Goods and Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Producing Activities of Households for
Own Use)
U (Activities of Extraterritorial
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Organizations and Bodies)
Total 0.33 12.62 5.43 5.38 0.32 1156

The maximum number of SDGs applied is 17, which is common in most indus-
tries. Companies in the professional, scientific, and technical activities sector (M) apply
a maximum of nine SDGs—the least number of SDGs in the present sample. The public
administration and defense industry (O) applies a minimum of seven SDGs, compared to
all other industries, where the minimum number of applied SDGs is zero.

178
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

• Q3b. What are the average and range of the number of sustainability policies applied
per industry?
There is considerable variation in the mean number of policies applied across different
industries (see Table 10), ranging from 8.50 (education—P) to 14.51 (manufacturing—C).
Industries such as manufacturing (C), mining and quarrying (B) and construction (F) have
relatively higher mean values of policies applied, indicating a stronger commitment to
adopting a larger number of policies on average. Education (P), professional, scientific, and
technical activities (M), and administrative and support service activities (N) have lower
mean values, suggesting a comparatively weaker adoption of policies within these sectors.
Industries such as manufacturing (C), information and communication (J), financial and
insurance (K), professional, scientific, and technical activities (M), and arts, entertainment,
and recreation (R) include some companies that do not apply any policy. There is no
industry with at least 1 company that implemented all 24 policies.

Table 10. The mean, median, and range of policies applied per industry.

Policies Applied per Industry Total Number

Industry
Min Max Mean Median Weighted Mean of Companies
A (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) 10.00 17.00 14.38 15.00 0.1618 13
B (Mining and Quarrying) 3.00 18.00 14.48 15.00 0.2630 21
C (Manufacturing) 0.00 21.00 14.51 15.50 5.2976 422
D (Electricity, Gas, Steam and Air
1.00 18.00 13.43 16.00 0.5458 47
Conditioning Supply)
E (Water Supply; Sewerage, Waste
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0
Management and Remediation Activities)
F (Construction) 3.00 17.00 14.02 15.00 0.5337 44
G (Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of
1.00 21.00 13.12 15.00 1.6566 146
Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles)
H (Transportation and Storage) 3.00 18.00 13.47 14.00 0.4663 40
I (Accommodation and Food Service
4.00 20.00 13.06 14.00 0.3616 32
Activities)
J (Information and Communication) 0.00 19.00 12.63 14.00 0.8633 79
K (Financial and Insurance Activities) 0.00 19.00 12.65 14.00 1.7396 159
L (Real Estate Activities) 8.00 17.00 13.48 14.00 0.5130 44
M (Professional, Scientific and Technical
0.00 18.00 9.84 11.00 0.4680 55
Activities)
N (Administrative and Support Service
5.00 15.00 9.67 10.00 0.0502 6
Activities)
O (Public Administration and Defense;
2.00 18.00 13.19 14.50 0.1825 16
Compulsory Social Security)
P (Education) 8.00 9.00 8.50 8.50 0.0147 2
Q (Human Health and Social Work
8.00 19.00 13.40 13.50 0.1159 10
Activities)
R (Arts, Entertainment and Recreation) 0.00 18.00 12.70 13.50 0.2197 20
S (Other Service Activities) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
T (Activities of Households as Employers;
Undifferentiated Goods and Services
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Producing Activities of Households for
Own Use)
U (Activities of Extraterritorial
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Organizations and Bodies)
Total 2.67 14.38 10.31 11.07 0.64 1156

In many cases, the mean values are close to the median values, indicating a relatively
symmetric distribution of policy adoption within each industry. Across all industries, the
overall mean number of policies applied is 12.74, suggesting that, on average, companies
across various industries have aligned their practices with an average of 13 policies out of
24 analyzed, with a minimum of 3 policies applied and a maximum of 18 policies applied.

179
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

• Q3c. How many companies apply the SDGs in each industry and country (cross-
tabulation)?
In Table A2 (Appendix A), the last column on the right provides the overall count
of companies applying the SDGs, broken down by industry and EU country. Industries
with higher counts indicate a greater prevalence of companies adopting the SDGs. For
example, manufacturing (C) and wholesale and retail trade (G) have relatively high counts,
suggesting widespread adoption in these sectors. Industries with lower counts have fewer
companies actively applying SDGs. For example, mining and quarrying (B) and education
(P) have lower counts. The frequencies for each country provide insights into the level of
adoption of the SDGs. For instance, Germany (DEU) and Sweden (SWE) have relatively
higher counts compared to other countries. Low values for the adoption of SDGs can be
observed in Czechia, Hungary, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
• Q3d. How many companies apply sustainability policies in each industry and country
(cross-tabulation)?
In Table A3 (Appendix A), each column represents a country, and the numbers indicate
the frequency with which companies in that country apply policies in each sector. Industries
with higher counts indicate a greater prevalence of companies adopting sustainability
policies. For instance, manufacturing (C) and wholesale and retail trade (G) have relatively
high counts, suggesting widespread adoption in these sectors. Some industries such
as agriculture (A) and mining and quarrying (B) have lower counts, indicating lower
adoption and/or fewer companies in these sectors applying policies. The frequencies for
each country provide insights into the level of adoption of sustainability policies. For
instance, Sweden (SWE) and Germany (DEU) have a relatively higher count compared to
other countries, considering that the most advanced industry in terms of sustainability
policies is manufacturing (C). The lowest counts on corporate policies between countries
are represented by Bulgaria, Czechia, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
• Q3e. How many companies apply the SDGs in each industry?
In Table A4 (Appendix A), each row corresponds to a specific SDG, and the columns
represent different industries. For example, in manufacturing (C), there are 228 companies
applying SDG 3, which is related to good health and well-being. Industries such as
manufacturing (C), wholesale and retail trade (G), and financial and insurance activities (K)
have relatively high counts across multiple SDGs, indicating a comprehensive approach to
sustainability. The most pursued SDGs (8, 12, 13, 5, 3, 7, and 9, in descending frequency
of application) refer to job creation and economic development, inclusivity and social
responsibility, resource efficiency and waste reduction, regulatory compliance and risk
mitigation, environmental responsibility, and market demand and consumer preferences. A
survey conducted by KPMG in 2022 on 12 countries, territories, and jurisdictions observed
that the frequency of prioritized SDGs follows the same pattern; SDG 8 (72%), SDG 12
(58%), SDG 13 (63%), followed by SDG 5 (43%), SDG 3 (49%), SDG 7 (50%) and SDG 9
(50%) [102].
Some industries, like agriculture (A) and mining and quarrying (B), have lower counts
for certain SDGs, possibly reflecting the need to focus more on specific sustainability goals
within these sectors. Industry-specific challenges and characteristics are linked to resource-
intensive practices, economic dependence on the exploitation of natural resources, or the
fragmentation of the industry [103].
We analyzed the literature by searching Clarivate Web of Science and Scopus using
keywords from the industry’s name and “SDGs” (e.g., “Agriculture SDG”, “Mining SDGs,”
etc.). We performed textual analysis to identify the SDGs correlated with the results of the
present study. Table A5 (Appendix A) includes the correspondence between the previous
literature and the present results. We have identified common contributions to the SDGs
for each industry, except water supply, sewerage waste management, and remediation
activities (E), as the companies in this industry in our sample did not present adherence
to any of the 17 SDGs. Higher SDG matching is observed in agriculture (A), electricity

180
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

and gas (D), financial (K), education (P), and arts and recreation (R). We identified less
SDG matching in wholesale and retail (G), transportation and storage (H), accommodation
and food service activities (I), real estate activities (L), professional (M), administrative
and support services (N), and human health and social work activities (Q). Table A5 also
indicates future research opportunities in the investigation of the SDGs by industry to
increase the matching between what companies consider relevant and what researchers
consider relevant in terms of corporate contributions to the SDGs.
• Q3f. How many companies apply sustainability policies in each industry?
In Table A6 (Appendix A), each row corresponds to a specific policy, and the columns
represent different industries. For example, in manufacturing (C), there are 402 compa-
nies applying the policy labeled p_ARR. Policies referring to resource reduction (p_ARR),
human rights (p_AHR), diversity and equal opportunity (p_DOP), and employee health
and safety (p_EHS) have relatively high frequencies across multiple industries. Similarly,
with the pursuit of SDGs across industries, there is a high degree of adoption of policies
in manufacturing (C), wholesale and retail trade (G), and financial services (K). In manu-
facturing (C) and wholesale and retail trade (G), there is a significant focus on the supply
chain, leading to a greater adoption of sustainability policies in the process of sourcing raw
materials, manufacturing, and distribution.
Integrating sustainable practices can be a competitive advantage in attracting envi-
ronmentally conscious consumers. On the other hand, financial institutions (K), including
banks and investment firms, recognize the financial risks associated with environmental,
social, and governance (ESG) factors [71]. As sustainability issues can pose risks to long-
term business viability, financial institutions are incorporating sustainability policies to
assess and manage these risks in their investment portfolios and help their clients achieve
the SDGs [104].
Some policies, like the fossil fuel divestment policy (p_FFD) and labeled wood
(p_LBW), are applied by fewer companies, possibly reflecting industry-specific require-
ments. The lowest value observed is related to nuclear safety policy (p_PNS), which is
applied in the electricity supply sector (D) and the construction sector (F) in relation to
facility construction or materials for nuclear facilities.

4.4. Statistical Results on the Relationship between SDGs and the Corresponding Policies
The final section of the results proposes an exploration of the relationship between the
SDGs and p_SDGs based on the SDG versus policies matrix (Table A1). The correlation
is based on mapping the SDGs to corporate policies related to the SDGs. This correlation
analysis answers Q4, which was formulated as:
• Q4. What is the relationship between the SDGs and the corresponding policies as
applied by the sample companies?
In Table A7 (Appendix A), each cell in the table contains a correlation coefficient be-
tween each SDG and its corresponding p_SDG composed of mapped policies (in Table A1).
For example, p_SDG1 is based on the occurrence of p_AHR (analytic human rights policy).
Based on the mapping in Table A1, correlation coefficients were calculated between the
SDG frequencies in columns and the aggregated p_SDG frequencies in rows. Specifically,
the correlation coefficient between SDG 1 and its corresponding policy (p_SDG1) is 0.122
(significant at the 0.05 threshold). The positive value (0.122) suggests a very weak positive
correlation between SDG 1 and p_SDG1.
The highest correlation can be observed between SDG 13 and the sustainability policies
associated with this SDG (p_SDG13). Many of the coefficients are positive and statistically
significant, indicating a general positive correlation between the implementation of SDGs
and their corresponding policies aggregated by the p_SDGs. However, for most relation-
ships, the statistical effect is either small or medium, but it is not strong. This indicates that
the policies adopted by the respective companies are not entirely aligned with the SDGs

181
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

pursued and reported by the same companies. This is an important result, which will be
discussed in the next section.

5. Discussion
5.1. Comparative Perspective on SDG Adoption in the European Union Countries
The data collected from Refinitiv describe not only the parent company from the
country of origin but also the application of policies and SDGs to the entire group of com-
panies. Multinational corporations apply their SDGs and sustainability policies throughout
the consolidation perimeter, leading to various business behaviors and progress toward
the SDGs at various rates [105]. In other words, the sample companies—most of which are
multinational enterprises—disseminate their policies in all countries of operation and pursue
their underlying SDGs. The following discussion presents the notable contributions of the top
performers in our sample, according to the results summarized in the previous tables.
Figure 3 provides a quantitative overview of the engagement of different companies
in achieving specific SDGs using the number of companies applying each SDG. Red and
orange hues indicate little contribution to the SDGs. Green hues indicate a substantial
contribution to the SDGs. Sample companies from Bulgaria and Luxembourg had not re-
ported contributions to any SDG. Companies in Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
and Malta did not have data collected by the Refinitiv analysts (as of November 2023), as
observed in Table 1. In this sense, they appear in Figure 3 as lacking participation.

ŽƵŶƚƌLJͬ^' ^'ϭ ^'Ϯ ^'ϯ ^'ϰ ^'ϱ ^'ϲ ^'ϳ ^'ϴ ^'ϵ ^'ϭϬ ^'ϭϭ ^'ϭϮ ^'ϭϯ ^'ϭϰ ^'ϭϱ ^'ϭϲ ^'ϭϳ
ƵƐƚƌŝĂ ϳ Ϯ ϮϬ ϭϴ ϮϮ ϭϯ ϭϵ Ϯϰ ϭϵ ϭϭ ϭϱ Ϯϱ Ϯϲ ϲ ϭϭ ϭϴ ϭϬ
ĞůŐŝƵŵ ϲ ϳ Ϯϵ Ϯϯ ϭϵ ϭϮ Ϯϰ ϯϭ Ϯϱ ϭϰ ϭϴ ϯϯ ϯϲ ϭϭ ϭϯ ϭϰ ϮϬ
ƵůŐĂƌŝĂ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
ƌŽĂƚŝĂ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
LJƉƌƵƐ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
njĞĐŚZĞƉƵďůŝĐ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϭ ϭ Ϯ Ϯ
ĞŶŵĂƌŬ Ϭ ϰ ϯϮ ϮϮ ϰϭ ϭϮ Ϯϲ ϰϱ ϭϵ ϭϵ ϭϳ ϱϭ ϰϲ ϭϬ ϭϭ Ϯϴ ϮϬ
ƐƚŽŶŝĂ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
&ŝŶůĂŶĚ Ϯ ϯ Ϯϲ ϭϳ ϯϯ ϭϱ ϮϮ ϰϴ ϯϭ ϭϱ ϭϳ ϰϴ ϱϰ ϰ ϭϰ Ϯϯ Ϯϭ
&ƌĂŶĐĞ ϯϱ Ϯϱ ϴϳ ϴϮ ϵϯ ϱϮ ϳϱ ϭϬϭ ϳϱ ϳϱ ϲϮ ϵϲ ϭϬϳ ϯϯ ϲϯ ϳϴ ϲϭ
'ĞƌŵĂŶLJ ϮϮ ϮϬ ϵϯ ϵϯ ϭϬϱ ϰϱ ϴϰ ϭϮϴ ϭϬϰ ϲϭ ϱϴ ϭϭϭ ϭϯϱ Ϯϯ ϰϭ ϱϱ ϲϵ
'ƌĞĞĐĞ ϱ ϯ ϳ ϱ ϳ ϯ ϲ ϴ ϳ ϲ ϳ ϴ ϴ ϰ ϲ ϴ ϰ
,ƵŶŐĂƌLJ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ ϯ Ϯ ϯ ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ ϭ
/ƌĞůĂŶĚ ϯ ϰ ϳ ϲ ϴ ϭ ϱ ϵ ϲ ϱ ϳ ϴ ϭϬ ϭ ϰ ϭ ϯ
/ƚĂůLJ Ϯϰ ϮϮ ϳϬ ϲϲ ϳϰ ϯϰ ϲϴ ϴϵ ϳϭ ϰϴ ϲϬ ϴϯ ϴϮ Ϯϱ ϯϱ ϱϰ ϰϲ
>ĂƚǀŝĂ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
>ŝƚŚƵĂŶŝĂ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
>ƵdžĞŵďŽƵƌŐ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
DĂůƚĂ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
EĞƚŚĞƌůĂŶĚƐ ϱ ϰ Ϯϯ ϭϱ ϮϮ ϴ Ϯϱ ϯϱ Ϯϭ ϭϭ ϭϱ ϯϲ ϯϰ ϰ ϭϬ ϴ ϭϮ
WŽůĂŶĚ ϲ ϰ ϭϰ ϭϲ ϭϭ ϱ ϭϮ ϭϲ ϭϰ ϵ ϵ ϭϲ ϭϵ ϰ ϵ ϱ ϵ
WŽƌƚƵŐĂů Ϯ ϭ ϲ ϲ ϵ Ϯ ϵ ϭϬ ϲ ϰ ϲ ϭϬ ϭϬ Ϯ ϴ ϯ ϰ
ZŽŵĂŶŝĂ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ
^ůŽǀĂŬZĞƉƵďůŝĐ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
^ůŽǀĞŶŝĂ ϭ Ϭ ϯ Ϯ Ϯ ϭ ϯ ϯ Ϯ Ϯ ϭ ϯ ϯ ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϭ
^ƉĂŝŶ ϭϴ ϵ ϯϬ ϯϭ ϯϰ ϭϳ ϯϭ ϰϬ ϯϰ Ϯϴ Ϯϴ ϯϯ ϯϴ ϭϬ ϭϯ Ϯϵ ϯϲ
^ǁĞĚĞŶ ϭϵ ϭϲ ϭϯϭ ϲϯ ϭϲϱ ϰϵ ϭϬϰ ϭϵϳ ϭϭϴ ϳϬ ϴϭ ϭϳϯ ϭϲϳ Ϯϲ ϰϭ ϭϭϭ ϳϬ

Figure 3. Heatmap of the number of companies applying each SDG per country.

Swedish companies have outstanding participation in numerous SDGs; French and

German companies demonstrate substantial engagement across most SDGs; and Italian
companies engage significantly across multiple SDGs, approaching the level of sustainable
development in France and Germany. On the other hand, there is minimal participation of
companies in Romania and Bulgaria. More research is needed to understand the reasons
behind the lack of participation in these countries.

182
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

On the same note, we observe in Figure 4 the heat map of the number of companies
that apply each policy per country. Red and orange hues indicate lower adoption of sus-
tainability policies. Green hues indicate a substantial adoption of corporate sustainability
policies in the respective countries. Similar to the contributions towards the SDGs, French,
German, Italian, and Swedish companies are the ones that engage more with sustainability
policies. Policies most frequently applied by the companies are p_PER (product environ-
mental responsible use), p_ARR (analytic resource reduction), p_WEF (water efficiency),
p_EEF (energy efficiency), p_ESC (environmental supply chain), p_EHS (employee health),
p_STR (skills training), p_CDV (career development), p_DOP (diversity and opportunity),
p_FAS (freedom of association), p_CDL (prevention of child labor), p_AHR (human rights
policy), and p_FLB (prevention of forced labor).

ŽƵŶƚƌLJͬƉŽů ŝ ĐLJ Ɖͺ,Z ƉͺEd ƉͺZZ Ɖͺt Ɖͺ> Ɖͺs ƉͺKW Ɖͺ& Ɖͺ,^ ƉͺD^ Ɖͺ^ Ɖͺ&^ Ɖͺ&& Ɖͺ&> Ɖͺ' Ɖͺ>t ƉͺWZ ƉͺWE^ Ɖͺ^,^ Ɖͺ^W< Ɖͺ^dZ ƉͺdZ/ Ɖͺt& ƉͺtZ/
ƵƐ ƚƌŝ Ă Ϯϵ Ϭ Ϯϵ ϭ Ϯϴ Ϯϳ Ϯϵ Ϯϵ Ϯϵ Ϯϴ Ϯϰ Ϯϰ ϭ Ϯϴ ϴ Ϯ Ϯϲ Ϭ ϭϯ ϳ Ϯϴ ϭ ϭϲ Ϯϴ
Ğů Őŝ Ƶŵ ϯϵ ϳ ϰϯ Ϯ ϯϱ ϰϮ ϰϯ ϯϵ ϰϮ ϰϮ ϯϮ Ϯϵ ϯ ϯϱ ϭϭ Ϯ ϯϭ Ϭ ϮϮ ϭϰ ϰϭ ϳ Ϯϱ ϰϬ
Ƶů ŐĂ ƌŝ Ă ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ
ƌŽĂ ƚŝ Ă Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
LJƉƌƵƐ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
njĞĐŚZĞƉƵďů ŝ Đ Ϯ Ϭ Ϯ Ϭ ϭ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ Ϯ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϭ Ϭ Ϯ ϭ Ϯ Ϯ
ĞŶŵĂ ƌŬ ϱϴ ϭϮ ϱϳ ϯ ϱϭ ϱϮ ϲϬ ϱϱ ϱϳ ϱϲ ϱϬ ϰϯ Ϯ ϰϵ ϭϭ Ϯ ϯϱ Ϭ ϰϯ Ϯϰ ϰϳ ϭϯ ϯϱ ϱϮ
Ɛ ƚŽŶŝ Ă Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
&ŝ Ŷů Ă ŶĚ ϲϳ ϯ ϲϳ ϳ ϲϰ ϲϬ ϲϵ ϲϮ ϲϲ ϲϱ ϱϲ ϱϭ Ϭ ϲϯ ϭϱ ϲ ϰϭ Ϭ ϰϰ Ϯϯ ϲϮ ϴ ϯϵ ϲϰ
&ƌĂ ŶĐĞ ϭϯϰ ϭϱ ϭϰϭ ϭϯ ϭϮϰ ϭϯϯ ϭϰϰ ϭϯϲ ϭϯϵ ϭϯϰ ϭϮϮ ϭϬϲ Ϯ ϭϮϰ ϱϳ ϵ ϵϳ ϯ ϳϳ ϰϳ ϭϯϳ Ϯϲ ϭϬϵ ϭϯϴ
'ĞƌŵĂ ŶLJ ϮϬϲ ϭϱ ϮϭϮ ϭϰ ϭϴϵ ϮϬϵ Ϯϭϰ ϭϵϵ Ϯϭϰ ϮϬϬ ϭϲϳ ϭϯϬ ϰ ϭϴϯ ϱϮ ϳ ϭϱϱ ϭ ϭϭϳ ϲϲ ϮϬϳ ϯϱ ϭϮϱ ϭϳϴ
'ƌĞĞĐĞ ϭϬ Ϭ ϭϭ Ϭ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϭ ϭϭ ϵ ϭϬ ϴ Ϭ ϭϬ Ϯ Ϭ ϳ Ϭ ϴ Ϯ ϵ Ϭ ϵ ϭϭ
,ƵŶŐĂ ƌLJ ϱ Ϭ ϱ Ϭ ϰ ϰ ϱ ϰ ϱ ϯ ϯ Ϯ Ϭ ϰ ϯ Ϭ ϱ Ϭ ϯ Ϭ ϰ ϯ Ϯ ϱ
/ƌĞů Ă ŶĚ ϭϮ ϭ ϭϮ Ϯ ϵ ϭϮ ϭϮ ϭϮ ϭϮ ϭϮ ϭϬ ϰ Ϭ ϭϭ ϯ ϭ ϱ Ϭ ϳ ϱ ϭϮ Ϭ ϳ ϭϮ
/ƚĂ ů LJ ϵϵ Ϯ ϭϬϯ ϲ ϴϴ ϵϴ ϭϬϰ ϵϴ ϭϬϳ ϵϯ ϵϬ ϱϵ ϭ ϴϯ Ϯϴ ϭ ϲϵ ϭ ϲϲ ϯϱ ϭϬϰ ϭϮ ϳϱ ϭϬϬ
>Ă ƚǀŝ Ă Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
>ŝ ƚŚƵĂ Ŷŝ Ă Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
>ƵdžĞŵďŽƵƌŐ ϭ ϭ Ϯ Ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ϭ
DĂ ů ƚĂ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ
EĞƚŚĞƌů Ă ŶĚƐ ϰϳ ϱ ϰϲ ϯ ϰϮ ϰϱ ϰϴ ϰϱ ϰϲ ϰϳ ϯϲ ϯϯ ϰ ϰϮ ϮϬ ϭ ϯϱ Ϭ ϯϬ ϭϴ ϰϲ ϭϬ Ϯϵ ϰϰ
WŽů Ă ŶĚ Ϯϲ Ϭ Ϯϲ ϭ Ϯϯ Ϯϲ Ϯϲ Ϯϱ Ϯϲ Ϯϱ ϭϵ ϭϴ Ϯ ϮϮ ϭϮ ϭ ϭϲ Ϭ ϭϯ ϭϬ Ϯϲ ϰ ϮϬ Ϯϱ
WŽƌƚƵŐĂ ů ϭϭ Ϭ ϭϭ Ϭ ϭϭ ϵ ϭϬ ϭϬ ϭϭ ϭϬ ϭϭ ϲ Ϭ ϵ Ϯ ϯ ϴ Ϭ ϵ ϰ ϭϬ Ϯ ϭϬ ϭϬ
ZŽŵĂ Ŷŝ Ă ϰ Ϭ ϱ Ϭ ϯ ϱ ϱ ϰ ϱ ϯ ϰ Ϯ Ϭ ϯ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ Ϯ Ϭ ϱ Ϭ Ϯ ϰ
^ů ŽǀĂ ŬZĞƉƵďů ŝ Đ ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϭ Ϯ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ ϭ Ϭ Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϭ ϭ
^ů ŽǀĞŶŝ Ă ϯ Ϭ ϯ Ϭ Ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ ϯ Ϯ Ϭ ϭ Ϯ Ϭ Ϭ Ϯ Ϭ ϭ Ϭ ϯ ϭ Ϯ Ϯ
^ƉĂ ŝ Ŷ ϰϰ ϰ ϰϰ ϯ ϰϭ ϰϰ ϰϱ ϰϯ ϰϱ ϰϯ ϰϮ ϰϭ ϰ ϰϭ ϮϮ ϭ ϯϱ Ϯ ϯϯ ϳ ϰϱ Ϯ ϰϬ ϰϱ
^ǁĞĚĞŶ Ϯϰϰ Ϯϱ Ϯϯϲ ϭϬ ϭϵϭ ϭϵϭ Ϯϳϭ ϮϬϯ Ϯϰϴ Ϯϭϳ ϭϴϭ ϭϲϬ ϰ ϭϴϴ ϯϱ ϭϴ ϭϱϱ Ϭ ϭϮϬ ϱϴ ϭϵϳ Ϯϲ ϵϯ ϭϵϴ

Figure 4. Heatmap of the number of companies applying each policy per country.

Based on our research, SDG 1 (“end poverty”) is approached mainly in the manufac-
turing (C) and financial (K) industries. The contribution of the manufacturing sector to
this SDG is characterized by high values due to the strong focus of companies on product
development for a low-income population [81]. Observing the heatmap in Figure 3, compa-
nies in France, Germany, Italy, and even Spain and Sweden are the ones that approach this
goal more. SDG 2 (“zero hunger”) has a similar scope in all sectors as it is closely linked to
SDG 1, with high values in the manufacturing sector (C). The most significant contribution
belongs to manufacturing companies that focus on their value chain. Other industries
could adhere to this SDG by supporting organizations such as the World Food Programme.
SDG 3 (“good health and well-being”) continues the interlinkage with SDG 2 since
hunger can cause diseases and affect the health of the population [81]. The manufacturing
sector (C) and the wholesale and retail industry (G) have a high interest in SDG 3, implicitly
seeking to attract and retain their personnel. Health should be a subject of interest for
all companies by ensuring a safe work environment. Companies investing in education
(SDG 4—“quality education”) could also target SDG 8 (“decent work”) by developing a
skilled workforce through their investment in education before hiring and on the job. We
observed that companies in sectors such as manufacturing (C), wholesale and retail (G),
and financial services (K) apply SDG 4 to a larger extent, but companies in other industries

183
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

could be more engaged and implement appropriate training programs for their workforce
or participate in training partnerships [81].
SDG 5 (“gender equality”) creates benefits for the entire economy, as we observe
an increase in the country’s GDP when the employment gap is reduced [106]. SDG 5 is
highly applied by French, German, and Swedish companies, as shown in Figure 3. More
companies in various industries should be aware of the gender equality policies.
SDG 6 (“access to water”) is mainly applied by the manufacturing (C) industry as
water usage levels are higher in cooling and cleaning processes [107]. It is important for
companies to track their water consumption and discharge in business activities and in
providing sanitation to employees [81].
SDG 7 (“affordable and clean energy”) represents a new challenge for all companies as
fossil fuels are phased out in the EU [108]. This sustainability goal is relevant not only to the
manufacturing sector (C) but also to industries such as electricity and gas (D), construction
(F), wholesale and retail (G), information and communication (J), financial services (K), and
real estate (L). As in the case of SDG 6, companies should understand their energy usage
patterns, especially in the manufacturing industry. In recent years, the hospitality industry
(I) has demonstrated greater social and environmental responsibility as it seeks solutions
to provide green accommodation practices that could be used as a marketing instrument
toward the responsible consumer [109]. Organizations should seek to disseminate their
clean energy practices throughout the supply chain when selecting and auditing suppliers.
SDG 8 (“decent work and economic growth”) reflects more dimensions, combining
SDG 4, SDG 5, and access to finance [81], providing a specific link to SDGs 1 and 3. SDG
8 reflects the challenges related to unemployment and the risk of forced labor. During
our research, we observed the applicability of SDG 8 in manufacturing (C) and wholesale
and retail (G), as both industries are based on human labor. SDG 9 (“industry, innovation
and infrastructure”) was approached by the same sectors mentioned above, in addition to
information and communication (J), which deals mainly with the innovation side of this
specific goal. SDG 10 (“reduced inequalities”) is relevant for manufacturing (C), wholesale
and retail (G), and financial services (K), mainly as a consequence of their compliance
efforts [42,81]. The three mentioned industries also seek continuous innovation, and the
diversity of the workforce is a key factor in achieving SDG 10.
As the SDGs are interconnected [77], urban and rural life is supported by agriculture
(A), manufacturing (C), and transportation (H). In our research, we observed a high interest
in SDG 11 (“sustainable cities and communities”) in the manufacturing industry (C).
Agriculture (A) and transportation (H) are not significant contributors, although they
should diminish their negative effects by pursuing the targets associated with SDG 11. On
the other hand, SDG 12 (“responsible consumption and production”) is approached by the
same industries discussed above, with very high participation from the manufacturing
industry (C) as it seeks to become carbon neutral [81]. SDG 13 (“climate action”), based
on the Paris Agreement [110], puts pressure on revenue streams and relationships with
suppliers and distributors, as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive demands
carbon accounting across the value chain [43].
SDG 14 (“life below water”) refers to the pollution of the seas directly or indirectly
generated by companies in any industry, with a direct impact on the health of the pop-
ulation (SDG 4). High polluters should seek to identify plastic use and toxic substances
in their production processes. Sustainable partnerships are needed to implement circular
solutions in different value chains [111]. SDG 15 (“life on land”) is of great relevance
to companies in the manufacturing industry (C) as they recognize “natural capital” as
scarce [81]. SDG 15 is considered a challenge for companies as biodiversity is threatened in
many parts of the world. SDG 16 (“peace and justice”) is linked to corporate transparency
that helps policymakers and the public understand firm behavior. Multinational companies
should disseminate their codes of conduct in the supply chain to ensure best practices
and transparency with respect to their sustainable actions. Finally, SDG 17 (“partnerships
for the goals”) has no homogenous applicability in the present sample, although it sup-

184
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

ports partnerships between the private and public sectors to solve complex problems and
overcome challenges regarding funding, technology, or transition events.
Looking at the European Union as a whole in relation to the 17 SDGs, and under-
standing the role of the EU in setting the trend for all member states [52], researchers
have concluded that the implementation of the SDGs can be carried through a collective
approach, not limited to a particular industry. The following subsections analyze the
“leaders” and “laggers” in the sustainability landscape of the European Union, based on
the results discussed above. We seek to describe the socioeconomic context of the countries
where companies have the highest contribution to the SDGs versus the countries where
companies do not yet seem interested in applying the SDGs.

5.2. Contribution of Swedish Companies to the SDGs

In our study, we observed significant participation from Swedish companies; Sweden
was the country with the highest share of valid data, as detailed in Table 1. In 2022, the
services sector, including wholesale and retail trade (G), hotels and restaurants (I), transport
(H), government (N, O), financial services (K), professional services (M), education (P),
health care (Q), and real estate (L) contributed 63.5% to the total GDP. Industrial activity
contributed 24% to GDP, with manufacturing taking 13% and construction 11%, while
agriculture (A) contributed a share of 1.5%. According to the Sustainable Development
Report 2023 [112], Sweden scored 85.98%, ranking in the second position.
Swedish companies focus their efforts on achieving SDGs 7, 12, 13, and 14 [113], which
are primarily prevalent in the manufacturing (C), financial (K), and wholesale and trade
(G) industries. Table A2 indicates that Swedish companies focus their efforts on the SDGs
in these sectors. Sweden excels in domains such as the circular economy, eco-friendly
agriculture, green infrastructure, an eco-friendly lifestyle, and sustainable living, aiming to
become a fossil-fuel-free nation by 2050 through its commitment under the Roadmap 2050
initiative [114].
Currently, Sweden is recognized as an extensively documented innovator and con-
tributor with a high adaptive capacity to address climate change [115]. The ranking comes
as a result of environmental protection regulations and policies that are primarily applied
in the manufacturing industry (C), which has the highest contribution to SDG 7. Sweden
has already achieved the target for 2020 regarding 50% of energy from renewable sources
(SDG 7) [116] by investing in hydropower and biomass [117]. Due to its northern geograph-
ical location, companies and the population are large consumers of energy. In this regard,
Swedish companies have invested more in renewable energy sources than companies in
other countries, making a greater step toward clean energy [116,118–120]. Regarding air
pollution, the metropolitan population’s exposure to PM2.5 is below the WHO thresh-
old [121] and is continuously decreasing (SDG 11). Climate change vulnerabilities, such as
surface run-off and marine debris (SDG 14), consisting of industrial pellets, plastic, cigarettes,
and paraffin pieces [122], are observed in the Baltic Sea [123] and linked to various industries,
mainly manufacturing (C), retail and wholesale (G), and construction (F).
Companies headquartered in Sweden actively promote gender policies [124], bene-
fiting from the most comprehensive legal framework for gender equality (SDG 5) [112].
Women hold 47% of parliamentary seats, as well as more than 40% of management posi-
tions, and SDG 5 is generally observed in every industry analyzed, with more focus on
manufacturing (C) and financial services (K). Together with Sweden, European developed
countries that are part of the G7, including France, Germany, and Italy, maintain a strong
position regarding the applicability of SDGs [125].

5.3. Contribution of German Companies to the SDGs

Based on our research, in the list of countries with more than 100 companies with avail-
able data, Germany is the second country, as seen in Table 6. According to the Sustainable
Development Report [112], Germany holds the fourth position in terms of sustainability
performance, achieving an index of 83.36. In Germany, companies in the services sector

185
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

account for 62.7% of GDP, which includes wholesale and retail trade (G), hotels and restau-
rants (I), transport (H), government services (N, O), financials (K), professional services (M),
education (P), health care (Q), and real estate (L) [126]. In Germany, services also include the
information and telecommunication sector (J) [127]. The second largest category is industry
(26.9% of the GDP), which is divided between manufacturing (C), with a proportion of
18%, and construction (F), with 8.9%. Agriculture (A) contributes 0.9% to Germany’s GDP.
The German labor market has excelled in effectively utilizing the skills of its workforce.
It is observed that SDG 8 is tackled in construction (F), wholesale and retail (G), information
and telecommunication (J), and agriculture (A)—industries that have a high contribution to
the GDP. In this regard, companies in these sectors provide substantial hourly wages, while
the unemployment rate is less than half of the OECD average. Although there is room
for enhancement, efforts have been made to improve educational results and significantly
increase childcare enrollment (SDG 4). There is a high level of proficiency, above the OECD
average, in functional skills such as numeracy, literacy, and digital skills (SDG 4) [128].
Engagement in lifelong learning surpasses the OECD average but has the potential for
further improvement (SDG 4). The vocational education and training system facilitates
the integration of young people into the labor market, with the majority of German youth
either employed, pursuing education, or undergoing training (SDG 8) [129]. However,
women are still underrepresented in decision-making positions, but there is a positive trend
in this regard [128,130]. Women spend more time in unpaid care and domestic work than
men, with a gap lower than the OECD average [128].
Germany has established ambitious sustainability goals for 2030 [129]. These goals
include a minimum reduction of 65% in GHG emissions and the goal of reaching carbon
neutrality by 2045 [129]. Although currently recognized by the OECD as a leader in waste
management, Germany is above the average in retail food waste (SDG 2). Manufacturing
(C), real estate (L), and agriculture (A) contribute to proficient waste management and
support Germany’s leading position in recycling (SDGs 11 and 12). However, around 80%
of freshwater, terrestrial, mountain, and marine areas, deemed crucial for biodiversity, lack
protection (SDGs 14 and 15), although German companies implement policies regarding
environmental and biodiversity protection.

5.4. Contribution of French Companies to the SDGs

In our study, France holds the third place as seen in Table 1. France holds the sixth
position according to the Sustainable Development Report 2023 with an overall SDG
adoption score of 82.05 [112]. It has a high standard of living and quality of life supported by
social security systems and access to healthcare, as well as essential goods and services [124].
In France, companies in the services sector account for 70.7% of GDP [131]. This sector
includes wholesale and retail trade (G), hotels and restaurants (I), transport (H), government
(N, O), financials (K), professional services (M), education (P), health care (Q), and real
estate (L). Industry accounts for 16.8% of the total GDP, specifically manufacturing (C) and
construction (F). We identified in Table 6 that, from a total of 149 companies that contained
valid data, 74.50% apply at least one SDG, especially in the two mentioned categories:
services and industry, which represent 82.88% of the total number of companies that apply
at least one SDG.
France is committed to implementing education policies within the curriculum (SDG 4).
However, certain challenges persist. Based on the OECD, French students’ proficiency in
reading and mathematics falls below the minimum target levels (SDG 4), registering an
indicator of 26.9 [128]. Labor market challenges (SDG 8) faced by France come as a result
of the situation in the construction, wholesale and retail, transport, education, and health-
care industries, due to the slow growth in labor productivity and high unemployment
rate [124]. The professions in these types of industries are considered difficult by 61% of
recruitment companies due to a lack of candidates, inadequate professional preparation of
candidates, work conditions, lack of financial motivation, or difficult access to the work-

186
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

place [132]. Despite this fact, France maintains an income poverty rate below the OECD
average (SDG 1).
Gender inequality is also lower than the OECD average, supported by legal frame-
works that promote gender equality (SDG 5). However, concerns arise regarding the time
women spend on unpaid care and housework compared to men, although the gap is below
the OECD average [133]. Additionally, one-third of management positions are occupied by
women. SDG 5 is specifically addressed in government services (N, O), with an increase in
the indicator related to seats held by women in the national parliament [124].
France’s environmental performance is sustained by self-owned nuclear electricity,
leading to a decrease in GHG emissions (SDGs 9 and 13). In particular, in France, protected
areas cover one-third of terrestrial regions and half of territorial waters, surpassing the
2020 Aichi biodiversity targets [134]. Moreover, beyond 80% of freshwater, terrestrial, and
marine areas are considered protected areas (SDGs 14 and 15). However, companies in the
manufacturing industry (C) are significant contributors to domestic material use (SDG 12).
The manufacturing industry (C) contributes negatively to the SDGs by increasing marine
pollution, exceeding the OECD average in terms of marine debris and nutrient pollution
(SDG 14), as well as air pollution (SDGs 11 and 12).

5.5. Contribution of Italian Companies to the SDGs

As observed in Table 1, Italy is the fourth among the countries with over 100 com-
panies that had available ESG data in Refinitiv Eikon. Italy ranks 24th in the Sustainable
Development Report [112] with an index of 78.80. Since 3 February 2016, Italy has estab-
lished the Italian Alliance for Sustainable Development (ASviS), comprising 270 member
organizations [135]. This alliance plays a vital role in raising awareness and mobilizing
stakeholders to achieve the SDGs. Italian companies show positive trends toward achieving
SDGs 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 17, while SDGs 11, 13, 4, and 1 present worsening trends [136].
Companies in the services sector contribute to 64.3% of the Italian GDP. This sector
includes wholesale and retail trade (G), hotels and restaurants (I), transport (H), government
services (N, O), financial services (K), professional services (M), education (P), health
care (Q), and real estate (L) [126]. Industry accounts for 23.8% of Italy’s GDP, of which
manufacturing (C) represents 15% and construction (F) represents 8.8%. Agriculture
represents 1.8% of GDP.
The growth of GDP and labor productivity (SDG 8) have been low or negative in the
last 10 years [137], with a decrease in GDP for the year 2022 compared to 2021. Economic
recovery is attributed to the construction industry (F) and the manufacturing industry
(C), as well as certain services such as accommodation and food service activities (I) and
transport and storage (H), which increased the value added per person employed [136]. The
employment rate has increased, approaching the OECD average, but the unemployment
rate remains high [112,136]. The proportion of young people (between 15 and 29 years of
age) who are not engaged in any level of education or employment (SDG 8) is above the
OECD average and exceeds the values reported by Spain and Germany [128].
Italy excels in waste management, witnessing a decline in the share of municipal waste
sent to landfills in 2022 [112]. Italian companies lead in the OECD ranking on recycling
(SDGs 11 and 12) [128], especially in the manufacturing sector (C), as shown in Table A4
(Appendix A). Italy falls below the OECD average on food waste from households and
retailers (G), especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic period, making it comparable to
major European countries, but it is close to the OECD average when it comes to restaurants
(I) (SDG 12).
Approximately 25% of terrestrial, mountain, and marine areas, along with 15% of fresh-
water areas crucial to biodiversity, remain unprotected (SDGs 14 and 15), and the IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species [138] confirms a decline in biodiversity (SDG 15). While
air pollution is decreasing in general, emissions in large cities remain high
(SDG 11) due to industries such as transport (H), wholesale and retail (G), manufacturing (C),
construction (F), and agriculture (A) in the metropolitan area (Table A2). This poses a health

187
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

threat to the population (SDG 3) [139] since Italy, similar to France and Germany, registers
high values of PM 2.5 pollution (SDG 11) [121,140]. Italy experiences lower mortality from
non-communicable diseases compared to the OECD average (SDG 3), reflecting an effective
healthcare system [112].
Social challenges in Italy are related to adults not having minimum proficiency in
numeracy and literacy (SDG 4), as well as low participation in learning, compared to the
OECD average and countries such as Spain and Sweden [128]. Low labor productivity
values and high unemployment rates are also linked to the deficiency in digital skills
of Italian adults and young people (SDG 4). Gender equality (SDG 5) in Italy is below
average [112], and women are underrepresented in the parliament and managerial positions.
The gender gap in unpaid work also exceeds the OECD average [112]. In summary, Italy’s
economic and social environment is characterized by contrasting aspects and uneven
contributions to the SDGs.

5.6. The Case of Romanian Companies Regarding the SDGs

Romania and Bulgaria (in the next section) are EU countries with valid data but with
very little contribution to the SDGs. They are ranked at the end of the scale of countries
whose companies issue sustainability reports (analyzed by Refinitiv) but have little progress
towards the SDGs and apply relatively few sustainability policies. According to the Sus-
tainable Development Report 2023, Romania ranks 35th with a percentage of progress of
77.5 [112]. In 2022, the GDP of Romania was shared between services (57.6%) including
hotels and restaurants (I), transport (H), government services (N, O), financials (K), profes-
sional services (M), education (P), health care (Q), and real estate (L), complemented by
industry (28.9%) and agriculture (4.5%) [141].
Romania has the potential to make significant contributions to SDG 1, as agriculture
(A) has well-developed supply chains [81]. This would also contribute to the fight against
poverty (SDG 1) outside the European Union as the United Nations considers agriculture to
be the best opportunity to reduce poverty. Improvements in food accessibility are necessary
to reduce poverty [142]. Romania has a high rate of poverty (16.2%) [143], with only
one more EU member—Bulgaria—registering a higher rate (16.5%). There is also a high
proportion of malnutrition (SDG 2). Companies’ indifference to SDG 2 is compensated by
the existence of the Romanian Food Bank [144], which helps food chain actors, specifically
in the wholesale and retail industry (G), to improve the economic value of different types
of products by minimizing their storage and disposal costs.
There is a significant link between agriculture (A) and SDG 2. Our sample includes
13 companies in agriculture (A), but none of them are in Romania. Agriculture (A) in Roma-
nia employs approximately 26.7% of the working population (SDG 8)—one of the highest
rates in Europe [145]—as Romania focuses on the promotion of sustainable agriculture.
Efforts towards SDG 3 are seen in high-polluter industries such as electricity and gas (D),
agriculture (A), wholesale and retail trade (G), the food industry (I), transport (H), and
construction (F) [146].
The education system ranks well below the EU average (SDG 4) due to school abandon-
ment, poor infrastructure, and lack of investment in sustainable education [147]. Variations
depend on the region and whether they are urban or rural [148]. In rural areas, the main
reasons for school dropout are linked to the lack of construction or modernization of educa-
tional buildings, purchase of IT equipment, free transportation to and from school, and the
existence of after-school programs.
Romania has a competitive position as energy-intensive companies benefit from a low
dependence on imported energy resources. Romania’s geographical position and natural
resources facilitate the use of wind and solar power, as well as hydropower [149]. Small
and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Romania face challenges in finding partners that share
sustainability values and actions.
Despite the existence of legal norms related to social protection expenditure, social
services, and poverty prevention, Romania is often found at the bottom of the EU charts,

188
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

revealing substantial gaps in these areas [150]. While there are favorable results for several
key indicators, Romania still has a significant journey before reaching the level of achieve-
ment seen in the world’s most advanced nations [151]. In the corporate environment, SDG 4
is approached through training sessions for skills related to sustainable development [152].

5.7. The Case of Bulgarian Companies Regarding the SDGs

Bulgaria ranks 44th, with a percentage of progress of 74.6%, according to the Sus-
tainable Development Report 2023 [112]. Bulgaria’s GDP in 2022 was divided between
services (59.6%) including hotels and restaurants (I), transport (H), government services
(N, O), financial services (K), professional services (M), education (P), health care (Q), and
real estate (L) [153], followed by industry (25.5%) and agriculture (3.9%). In Bulgaria, the
private sector has the resources to contribute significantly to the SDGs through improved
access to quality education (SDG 4) [154].
A survey conducted by CSR AdviceBox observed that in a sample of 300 compa-
nies, two-thirds of companies are aware of the SDGs, and more than half are promoting
the SDGs through corporate events. The most relevant SDGs for these companies were
SDGs 4 and 13 [154]. Companies offering goods and services in a B2B transaction iden-
tified climate change as a greater risk, while companies offering products to end-users
are more accountable with regard to SDGs 1, 2, and 3. As a general matter, Bulgarian
companies focus on environmental actions linked to air quality (SDG 3 and 11), water man-
agement (SDG 6), marine protection (SDG 14), and the protection of nature and biodiversity
(SDG 15). Bulgarian companies observe progress related to SDGs 4, 8, and 10 [155].
Bulgaria stands out in Europe with a prominent presence of women in the information
and communication industry (J), reaching 27% [154]. Additionally, 53% of scientists and
engineers in Bulgaria are women. Efforts are underway to reduce the gender pay gap
(SDG 5), promote equality in decision-making processes, and combat gender-based violence.
The challenges related to poverty and inequality, both within and between regions, hinder
progress in the implementation of the SDGs [156]. Relatively poor performance in reading,
mathematics, and science [157] underscores the need to increase efforts to provide quality
education (SDG 4) to everyone [128].
Considering a different survey based on 30 Bulgarian companies, it is observed that
most companies are aware of the SDGs but implementation is lacking due to challenges
created by bureaucracy and insufficient financial resources in the company’s budget [158].
Lack of financial allocation and subsidies for sustainable development could be another
reason for Bulgaria and Romania lagging behind the EU cohort [154].

5.8. Comparing the Rankings of European Union Countries on SDG and Policy Adoption
In Table 11 we present a comparison of the rankings of European Union countries
regarding their SDGs and policy adoption. Weighted mean rankings are derived from the
present research, specifically from Tables 7 and 8. These are compared to the rankings
derived from the Sustainable Development Report 2023 [112] for this subsample of EU
countries only. In the cited report, the data on which the scoring methodology is based
are drawn from international organizations (OECD, UNICEF, WHO, etc.) and civil society
organizations and networks. The report data [112] are relevant at the country level and do
not directly reflect the contribution of (multinational) companies to the achievement of the
SDGs. However, it is relevant to compare these rankings to discover whether companies
headquartered in a certain country follow the national trend in pursuing the SDGs.
The impact of EU leader countries on progress toward the SDGs is significant, with
Sweden emerging as a consistent frontrunner, often ranking within the top three performers.
Table 11 confirms the prominence of Swedish companies in their commitment to the SDGs,
reflecting the nation’s proactive stance on sustainability initiatives. Furthermore, previous
research [159] has highlighted several other leading countries within the EU, such as
Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Belgium, Austria,
and Finland, each demonstrating notable contributions to SDG adherence. Our study

189
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

contributes new insights to the existing literature by delving deeper into the behavior of
companies headquartered in the EU and validating the high rankings of Sweden, Germany,
France, Italy, and Spain. However, it should be noted that Luxembourg, while recognized
for its overall consistency in SDG adherence, does not rank as highly in our results, with
the difference being attributed to the dynamics of Luxembourg’s corporate landscape.
Despite the country’s efforts toward alignment with the SDGs, individual companies do
not consistently report or prioritize sustainability initiatives. As such, our study sheds light
on the relationship between national policy frameworks and corporate practices, offering
various perspectives to policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers.

Table 11. Comparison of the rankings of EU countries regarding their SDGs and policy adoption.

Rank by Weighted Rank by Weighted Rank According to the

Country Mean on SDG Mean on Policy Sustainable Development
Adoption Adoption Report [112]
Austria 10 10 5
Belgium 8 9 19
Bulgaria 20 20 44
Croatia - - 12
Cyprus - - 59
Czech
17 17 8
Republic
Denmark 6 6 3
Estonia - - 10
Finland 7 5 1
France 3 3 6
Germany 2 2 4
Greece 12 13 28
Hungary 15 15 22
Ireland 13 12 17
Italy 4 4 24
Latvia - - 14
Lithuania - - 37
Luxembourg 21 21 33
Malta - - 41
Netherlands 9 7 20
Poland 11 11 9
Portugal 14 14 18
Romania 18 16 35
Slovak
19 19 23
Republic
Slovenia 16 18 13
Spain 5 8 16
Sweden 1 1 2

There is a strong correlation between the SDG adoption by companies and the SDG
rank of the country of incorporation (Spearman’s rho = 0.644, p < 0.01, based on the data
from Table 11). Similarly, there is a strong correlation between the companies’ policy
adoption and the SDG rank of the country of incorporation (Spearman’s rho = 0.642,
p < 0.01). The correlations between these ranks are not perfect, but they validate the
results of the present article. It is apparent that companies with headquarters in a certain
country largely follow government policies in terms of sustainable development and social
welfare. However, the European Union is based on the principle of economic integration,
so multinational companies disseminate their goals and policies in all countries in which
they are active, without restrictions. Therefore, there are positive spillover effects from
companies in high-ranking countries (such as Sweden) that disseminate their sustainability
policies and practices in other EU countries where they have subsidiaries and perform
economic activities. Multinational companies can contribute to the SDGs in any of the
countries in which they operate.

190
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

6. Conclusions
This article makes several contributions to the scientific literature and EU policy. Our
research describes the business landscape of the European Union in relation to the appli-
cability of the SDGs. Relying on high-quality data from the Refinitiv Eikon database, we
analyzed the differences between EU countries with respect to the contribution of listed
companies to each SDG. The results are very relevant to national and supranational regu-
lators (like the European Commission). As observed in the macroeconomic reports from
Eurostat [23], the differences between EU member states are profound and far-reaching.
While it is true that multinational companies apply their sustainability practices and pursue
their goals in the value chain and multiple countries, it is also true that some countries have
an economic landscape that is actively engaged with the SDGs, while other countries are
lagging in the EU cohort. For example, Romania has 85 companies listed on the Bucharest
Stock Exchange [160] but only 5 are analyzed by Refinitiv (as of November 2023) and only
1 is reported to pursue any SDG. At the other end of the spectrum, Sweden has the largest
share of companies with valid ESG data in the Refinitiv database and makes the most
significant contribution to the SDGs at the EU level.
The present research has implications for companies but also governments and sectoral
organizations. By conducting a comparative analysis of policy commitments and alignment
with the SDGs, our research sheds light on the efficacy of existing policies in driving sustain-
able development outcomes. Our paper creates an avenue for policy frameworks that help
companies adhere to the SDGs. By identifying gaps in corporate policy implementation,
policymakers, corporate stakeholders, and NGOs can improve regulatory interventions
and promote sustainable development objectives. The pragmatic view of sustainability
encapsulates the current representation of adherence to the SDGs among companies in the
EU and creates an understanding of sustainable business models. Governments can put
pressure on companies (specifically large corporations and multinational enterprises) to
improve their corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental policies. The ESG
scores of companies should align with the SDGs to provide a tool for managers and boards
to measure their progress and facilitate the adoption of sustainable business models [161].
The pragmatic development of ESG scoring systems promotes a higher level of responsibil-
ity and encourages managers to better disclose information on how each company plans to
achieve the relevant SDGs.
Multinational corporations must adhere to sustainable development goals and policies,
as outlined in the OECD Guidelines, within the nations they operate [162]. These policies
emphasize crucial aspects of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental contribu-
tions. It is important for companies to uphold human rights, fulfill obligations to those
impacted by their operations, foster collaborations with communities by promoting local
capacity building and development, advocate for education and skill enhancement through
employment, raise awareness among employees, eliminate discriminatory practices, and
apply corporate governance principles [163]. The SDGs are explicitly mentioned in the
Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive [43], which encourages large companies to
report their contribution to each SDG. This article offers a different perspective of the EU
landscape regarding sustainable development in the economic domain.
We observed the trend in the EU, illustrated in this paper in Figures 1 and 2, indicating
that companies in Eastern Europe exhibit lesser adherence to SDGs and sustainability
policies compared to leading contributors like Sweden, Germany, France, or Italy. To
achieve the common sustainability objectives among nations, the European Commission
created various tools to “leave no one behind”. The EU “Whole-of-Government” [164]
refers to legislative acts implemented by member states through their ministries, public
administrations, or other agencies to achieve the application of policies through better
regulation and engagement with stakeholders. Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) of
SDGs represent how EU countries assess their progress and share their experience and
challenges faced in the implementation of SDGs [23]. The European Commission engages
numerous stakeholders in the process. In this regard, the European Commission encour-

191
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

ages stakeholders to actively participate and submit their opinions, in line with SDG 16,
providing feedback to policymakers via an online portal. These reviews are used for VNRs,
and for the discussion in the present paper. The other relevant tool to understand the
contribution to each SDG is the statistics database published by Eurostat, which offers users
access to comprehensible data to monitor the SDGs and compare the evolution throughout
the European Union.
Several limitations must be highlighted. First, the analysis is limited to the sample of
companies reviewed by Refinitiv. The present results are not representative of other EU
companies that may contribute to the SDGs but have not been reviewed by Refinitiv. The
analysis captures the contribution of certain very large companies headquartered in each EU
country to achieving the SDGs. At the same time, the results do not capture the contribution
of large but unlisted companies or SMEs. At the same time, it is known that companies may
be supported by NGOs (foundations) and state institutions to contribute to the SDGs, but
this is not captured in this analysis. Second, the sample is cross-sectional for 2022, so it does
not capture an evolution of the phenomenon; it only presents a snapshot of the contribution
of EU companies to the SDGs in 2022. Third, the quantitative analysis describes the status
of a socioeconomic phenomenon but does not infer causalities. The causal links between
various factors and the contributions to the SDGs require the application of other methods
of investigation and longitudinal analysis over a longer period. Finally, the equivalence
matrix between the SDGs and sustainability policies does not suggest a perfect conceptual
equivalence between the SDGs and the respective policies. Also, it cannot be said that the
implementation of these policies within the analyzed companies contributes to achieving
the corresponding SDGs.
The present investigation opens several avenues for future studies. Researchers can
turn directly to sustainability reports, using automated data collection methods, to extract
and synthesize disclosures that relate to companies’ contributions to the SDGs. In this way,
a much larger sample of listed and unlisted companies compliant with the Corporate Sus-
tainability Reporting Directive can be covered. Using a different methodological approach,
a qualitative analysis of the link between sustainability policies and SDGs can be carried
out at the level of a sample of large companies. Researchers can investigate whether the
contribution to the SDGs is made by explicitly applying sustainability policies so that the
mapping of the SDGs to policies is explicit and relevant. The contribution of companies
can be determined on each SDG or on certain SDGs grouped thematically by analyzing
sustainability policies. This type of analysis should discuss the sectoral specificities and
corporate factors of the adoption of certain SDGs.
Country-level or regional analyses can provide insight into socioeconomic and reg-
ulatory factors for adopting SDGs and corporate sustainability policies. In this sense,
institutional theory [165] can provide a conceptual foundation on which to explain why cer-
tain sustainability concerns are more prevalent in some countries and sectors. Stakeholders
can monitor progress toward the SDGs using external indexes that would evaluate business
models, corporate strategies, and managerial behaviors under national circumstances and
within each industry.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.M.P. and V.D.D.; methodology, F.M.P. and V.D.D.; soft-
ware, F.M.P. and V.D.D.; validation, V.D.D.; formal analysis, F.M.P.; investigation, F.M.P.; resources,
F.M.P.; data curation, F.M.P.; writing—original draft preparation, F.M.P. and V.D.D.; writing—review
and editing, V.D.D.; visualization, V.D.D.; supervision, V.D.D. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data available from Refinitiv Eikon.

192
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

Acknowledgments: F.M.P. is grateful for the kind support of the Doctoral School of Accounting,
Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania. The authors would like to thank the Editors and
Reviewers for their kind consideration of this article and the numerous comments which significantly
improved each version.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acronym List
ASviS Alleanza Italiana per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile
CPR Construction Products Regulation
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
ESG Environmental, Social and Governance
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHG(s) Greenhouse Gas(es)
IEA International Energy Agency
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
LSEG London Stock Exchange Group
MDG Millennium Development Goals
NACE Nomenclature statistique des Activités économiques dans la Communauté
Européenne (the European Nomenclature of Economic Activities)
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
SD Sustainable Development
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
SMEs Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
SSCM Sustainable Supply Chain Management
TRBC Thomson Reuters Business Classification
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNDESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
V4 Visegrád Group countries
WHO World Health Organization

193
 Appendix A

Table A1. Matrix of sustainability policies linked to SDGs.

Index SDG and Related Targets

Policy Word Search
(Refinitiv) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

p_ANT Animal Testing “animal”, “test” 2.5 12.3

Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

Analytic Resource “natural”,

p_ARR 11.4 12.2 14.7 15.5
Red Policy “resources”
p_AWB Animal Well-being “animal” 15.C
Policy Energy
p_EEF “energy” 7.3
Efficiency
p_EMS Policy Emissions “emission” 9.4
Policy Env Supply “impact”, “supply”,
p_ESC 7.B 12.3 14.2
Chain “chain”
Fossil Fuel
p_FFD “fossil”, “fuel” 7.A 12.C
Divestment Policy
“green”, “office”
p_GBD Green Buildings 11.7
“building”
p_LBW Labeled Wood “forest”, “wood” 6.6 15.1
“product”,

194
“responsible”,
Product
“cost”, “effective”
p_PER Environmental 3.9 6.3 9.4 14.1
“emissions”,
Responsible Use
“pollution”
“noise”
Policy Nuclear “nuclear”,
p_PNS 11.5
Safety “disaster”
“pack *”,
Policy Sustainable
p_SPK “containers”
Packaging
“biodegradable”
Takeback Recycling “take back”, “recyc
p_TRI 12.5
Initiatives *”
Policy Water
p_WEF “water” 3.9 6.4 12.4
Efficiency
“waste”, “recycle”,
Waste Reduction “reduce”
p_WRI 6.A 11.6 12.4 14.1
Initiatives “reuse”,
“substitute”, “treat”
 Table A1. Cont.

Index SDG and Related Targets

Policy Word Search
(Refinitiv) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

“child”, “labor”,
Analytic Human
p_AHR “forced” 1.4 8.7 16.2
Rights Policy
“vulnerable”
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

p_CDL Policy Child Labor “child”, “labor” 8.7 16.2

Policy Career “skills”, “training”,
p_CDV 4.4 8.6
Development “career”
“diversity”,
“equality”,
Policy Diversity
p_DOP “minorities”, “race” 5.C 10.2
Opportunity
“ethnicity”,
“religion”
“health”, “safety”,
Employee Health
p_EHS “accidents” “employ 3.8 8.8 12.4
Safety Policy
*”
Policy Freedom of “freedom”,
p_FAS 16.10
Association “association”
p_FLB Policy Forced Labor “forced”, “labour” 8.7
Supply Chain HS

195
p_SHS “health”, “safety” 3.8 8.8
Policy
Policy Skills
p_STR “skills”, “training” 4.4 8.6
Training
Note. Asterisks (*) are used to format the search phrase to take into account word suffixes.
 Table A2. Number of companies that apply the SDGs in each country and industry.

Industry AUT BEL BGR CZE DNK FIN FRA DEU GRC HUN IRL ITA LUX NLD POL PRT ROU SVK SVN ESP SWE Total

A 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 12
B 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 15
C 10 15 0 0 21 29 36 58 2 2 4 36 0 17 3 3 1 0 1 6 89 333
D 1 1 0 1 2 1 4 6 2 0 0 7 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 4 2 36
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F 2 2 0 0 4 3 7 2 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 12 40
G 0 3 0 0 4 6 14 24 0 0 0 11 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 3 32 104
H 1 2 0 0 7 1 3 6 1 0 0 4 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 33
I 1 1 0 0 1 1 6 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 24
J 2 2 0 0 4 7 5 11 0 1 0 7 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 13 60
K 6 12 0 1 6 4 15 15 2 0 4 15 0 11 7 0 0 1 1 9 18 127
L 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 23 40
M 0 0 0 0 3 1 8 3 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 13 36
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
O 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10
P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Q 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8

196
R 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 14
S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 27 38 0 2 55 57 111 145 8 3 11 92 0 44 21 10 1 1 3 41 228 898
Note. Industries are expressed as NACE codes rev.2.0. Country abbreviations follow the ISO country codes (three letters).
 Table A3. Number of companies that adopted sustainability policies in each country and industry.

Industry AUT BEL BGR CZE DNK FIN FRA DEU GRC HUN IRL ITA LUX NLD POL PRT ROU SVK SVN ESP SWE Total

A 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
B 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 7 20
C 10 17 0 0 21 27 49 85 2 1 3 39 0 12 3 1 2 0 1 8 110 391
D 1 1 0 1 2 1 5 9 2 0 0 7 0 1 1 3 1 0 0 4 3 42
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F 2 2 0 0 7 4 9 5 1 1 1 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 16 57
G 0 2 0 0 1 4 5 8 0 0 0 7 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 2 9 43
H 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 17
I 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 8
J 1 2 0 0 5 11 15 28 0 1 0 12 1 1 3 2 1 0 1 3 30 117
K 6 5 1 1 5 3 8 21 3 1 3 14 1 4 9 0 0 2 1 9 25 122
L 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 23 44
M 0 2 0 0 3 2 12 7 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 18 52
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 11
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10

197
R 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 18
S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 29 43 1 2 60 69 148 225 12 5 12 107 2 48 26 11 5 2 3 45 291 1146
Note. Industries are expressed as NACE codes rev.2.0. Country abbreviations follow the ISO country codes (three letters).
 Table A4. Number of companies that apply SDGs for each industry.

SDG/
A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R Total
Industry

SDG
0 1 58 13 7 15 3 3 6 35 5 7 0 1 1 1 2 158
1
SDG
5 0 58 9 6 16 2 5 4 13 2 4 0 1 1 1 0 127
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

2
SDG3 6 10 228 18 19 76 20 12 34 79 29 27 2 2 1 8 11 582
SDG
1 7 147 19 16 62 19 13 42 83 12 20 4 5 2 6 10 468
4
SDG
5 12 226 26 26 76 21 18 51 97 29 33 4 8 2 4 11 649
5
SDG
2 9 137 17 13 27 5 5 7 25 11 5 0 2 1 2 6 274
6
SDG
5 10 183 36 30 48 19 9 29 85 33 13 1 3 1 3 11 519
7
SDG
10 12 292 35 36 94 30 21 54 110 33 28 4 7 2 8 13 789
8
SDG
5 11 209 32 31 55 21 12 50 70 20 20 1 8 1 5 8 559
9

198
SDG
0 3 128 18 14 46 18 15 33 52 18 16 3 4 2 2 11 383
10
SDG
1 4 125 27 32 28 11 10 35 75 38 12 1 1 2 1 4 407
11
SDG
10 14 300 32 32 85 26 17 49 92 31 26 1 7 1 5 12 740
12
SDG
9 15 297 36 32 86 30 21 50 116 36 24 2 8 2 6 11 781
13
SDG
0 3 83 15 7 14 8 4 4 15 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 166
14
SDG
6 5 117 25 17 29 5 6 10 39 16 4 0 1 1 1 4 286
15
SDG
3 10 146 19 23 47 16 16 36 67 16 19 1 9 1 5 7 441
16
SDG
3 5 138 22 14 40 22 11 30 56 16 19 2 2 2 2 6 390
17

TOTAL 71 131 2872 399 355 844 276 198 524 1109 348 280 27 70 24 61 130 -
Note. Industries are expressed as NACE codes rev.2.0.
 Table A5. SDGs observed in previous studies versus the current study.

Most Prominent SDGs

Industry SDGs Identified in Previous Studies Matching SDGs
Identified in the Current Study

SDG 2 [18,166], 12 [166,167], 13 [167], 14

A (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) [166,168], SDG 2, 8, 12, 13, 15 SDG 2, 12, 13, 15
15 [166,167]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

B (Mining and Quarrying) SDG 3 [169], 8 [169], 13 [169] SDG 5, 8, 12, 13 SDG 8, 13
SDG 1 [170], 2 [170], 3 [171], 6 [172], 8 [171–173],
C (Manufacturing) SDG 3, 5, 8, 12, 13 SDG 3, 8, 12
9 [171,172], 10 [172], 11 [172], 12 [171–174]
SDG 1 [175], 3 [175], 4 [175], 6 [175], 7 [175–178],
D (Electricity, Gas, Steam and Air Conditioning
9 [175,176,178], 11 [176], 12 [175,176,178], 13 SDG 7, 9, 12, 13 SDG 7, 9, 12, 13
Supply)
[176,177]
E (Water Supply; Sewerage, Waste Management
SDG 6 [179–181], 7 [182], 11 [182], 12 [182,183] - SDGs not identified in our study
and Remediation Activities)
F (Construction) SDG 12 [184], 13 [184] SDG 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 SDG 12, 13
G (Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of Motor
SDG 12 [84,185] SDG 8, 12, 13 SDG 12
Vehicles and Motorcycles)
H (Transportation and Storage) SDG 3 [186], 7 [186], 11 [186], 12 [186,187] SDG 8, 12, 13, 17 SDG 12
I (Accommodation and Food Service Activities) SDG 12 [188] SDG 5, 8, 12, 13 SDG 12
J (Information and Communication) SDG 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17 [189] SDG 5, 8, 9, 12, 13 SDG 5, 8

199
SDG 1 [190], 3 [190,191], 4 [190,191], 5 [190],
K (Financial and Insurance Activities) SDG 5, 8, 12, 13 SDG 5, 8, 13
8 [190,191], 9 [191], 10 [191], 13 [190], 16 [191]
L (Real Estate Activities) SDG 11 [192] SDG 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 SDG 11
M (Professional, Scientific and Technical
SDG 4, 8, 9, 10 [193] SDG 3, 5, 8, 12 SDG 8
Activities)
N (Administrative and Support Service SDG 5 [194], 6 [194], 10 [194], 11 [195], 13 [194],
SDG 4, 5, 8 SDG 5
Activities) 16 [195], 17 [195]
O (Public Administration and Defense;
SDG 5 [194], 6 [194], 10 [194], 11 [196], 13 [194] SDG 5, 9, 13, 16 SDG 5, 13
Compulsory Social Security)
P (Education) SDG 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 [197] SDG 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17 SDG 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17
Q (Human Health and Social Work Activities) SDG 3 [105,198], 10 [199], 16 [200] SDG 3, 4, 8, 13 SDG 3
SDG 2 [201], 3 [201,202], 4 [201,202], 5 [201,202],
R (Arts, Entertainment and Recreation) 8 [201,202], 10 [201,202], 11 [201,203], 12 [202], SDG 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 SDG 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13
13 [201,202], 16 [201,203], 17 [202]
 Table A6. Number of companies that apply sustainability policies for each industry.

Policy/
A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R Total
Industry

p_ANT 0 0 49 0 0 11 0 0 0 7 0 20 0 0 0 3 0 90
p_ARR 13 20 402 40 42 128 37 30 70 142 42 42 5 14 2 10 18 1057
p_AWB 1 0 33 1 0 17 0 7 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 65
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

p_EEF 13 19 384 36 40 115 35 25 61 133 41 36 4 13 1 9 16 981

p_EMS 12 20 374 40 42 116 37 28 62 139 43 34 5 13 2 10 17 994
p_ESC 11 18 350 37 37 104 32 24 58 97 34 28 1 12 0 8 13 864
p_FFD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
p_GBD 1 2 71 8 13 39 13 9 22 71 12 11 2 3 0 2 4 283
p_LBW 0 0 34 0 2 9 1 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 54
p_PER 7 14 294 40 36 85 11 10 48 107 32 17 0 11 0 3 12 727
p_PNS 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
p_SPK 4 4 181 2 2 67 9 9 19 7 0 2 0 1 0 3 10 320
p_TRI 2 1 77 2 1 26 1 3 26 4 0 3 0 1 1 1 2 151
p_WEF 11 19 286 35 21 58 22 14 30 71 29 19 1 10 0 5 11 642
p_WRI 10 18 372 39 40 114 33 27 64 125 39 39 2 14 1 9 15 961
p_AHR 13 20 399 40 41 133 38 27 69 139 41 36 5 15 2 9 16 1043

200
p_CDL 13 19 370 36 38 114 35 24 59 112 31 27 3 15 0 6 16 918
p_CDV 11 19 356 40 42 119 38 30 65 136 38 35 6 13 2 9 15 974
p_DOP 13 21 410 46 43 137 39 32 74 150 44 45 6 15 2 9 18 1104
p_EHS 13 21 400 43 44 133 40 31 69 140 41 47 5 15 2 10 17 1071
p_FAS 8 16 299 31 30 80 26 16 40 93 27 21 4 12 0 7 9 719
p_FLB 13 19 366 37 34 111 34 23 58 111 31 26 3 14 0 5 15 900
p_SHS 8 15 260 30 25 71 22 17 41 58 25 14 0 8 0 6 10 610
p_STR 10 19 357 42 42 128 36 31 63 135 41 36 6 12 2 10 17 987

TOTAL 187 304 6124 631 617 1915 539 418 998 2011 593 541 58 211 17 134 254 -
Note. Industries are expressed as NACE codes rev.2.0. Policy abbreviations are included in Table A1.
 Table A7. Pearson correlation matrix between the frequencies of SDGs (columns) and p_SDGs (corresponding sustainability policies on rows).

SDG SDG SDG SDG SDG SDG SDG

Correl. SDG 1 SDG 2 SDG 3 SDG 4 SDG 5 SDG 6 SDG 7 SDG 8 SDG 9 SDG 11
10 12 13 14 15 16 17

0.122
p_SDG1 0.106 ** 0.221 ** 0.182 ** 0.243 ** 0.149 ** 0.203 ** 0.326 ** 0.208 ** 0.176 ** 0.169 ** 0.324 ** 0.313 ** 0.110 ** 0.162 ** 0.187 ** 0.179 **
**
0.151 −0.069
p_SDG2 0.077 ** 0.120 ** −0.020 0.014 0.145 ** −0.048 −0.022 0.005 −0.110 ** 0.039 0.011 0.135 ** 0.092 ** −0.023 0.034
** *
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

0.152
p_SDG3 0.071 * 0.046 0.156 ** 0.177 ** 0.117 ** 0.164 ** 0.235 ** 0.169 ** 0.121 ** 0.137 ** 0.245 ** 0.258 ** 0.086 ** 0.111 ** 0.139 ** 0.150 **
**
0.252
p_SDG4 0.105 ** 0.086 ** 0.198 ** 0.274 ** 0.160 ** 0.257 ** 0.304 ** 0.218 ** 0.167 ** 0.179 ** 0.299 ** 0.333 ** 0.094 ** 0.147 ** 0.220 ** 0.224 **
**
0.212
p_SDG5 0.086 ** 0.076 ** 0.177 ** 0.170 ** 0.111 ** 0.188 ** 0.282 ** 0.185 ** 0.144 ** 0.125 ** 0.263 ** 0.295 ** 0.089 ** 0.124 ** 0.153 ** 0.155 **
**
0.182
p_SDG6 0.126 ** 0.121 ** 0.189 ** 0.182 ** 0.200 ** 0.234 ** 0.266 ** 0.189 ** 0.150 ** 0.165 ** 0.303 ** 0.335 ** 0.116 ** 0.188 ** 0.154 ** 0.171 **
**
0.235
p_SDG7 0.109 ** 0.100 ** 0.202 ** 0.179 ** 0.238 ** 0.161 ** 0.310 ** 0.206 ** 0.128 ** 0.189 ** 0.319 ** 0.358 ** 0.130 ** 0.167 ** 0.165 ** 0.198 **
**
0.247
p_SDG8 0.075 * 0.067 * 0.153 ** 0.156 ** 0.195 ** 0.094 ** 0.161 ** 0.155 ** 0.123 ** 0.140 ** 0.213 ** 0.213 ** 0.051 0.098 ** 0.139 ** 0.135 **
**
0.237
p_SDG9 0.122 ** 0.106 ** 0.192 ** 0.236 ** 0.249 ** 0.177 ** 0.274 ** 0.339 ** 0.176 ** 0.218 ** 0.330 ** 0.369 ** 0.102 ** 0.168 ** 0.211 ** 0.192 **
**
0.144
p_SDG100.086 ** 0.076 ** 0.177 ** 0.170 ** 0.212 ** 0.111 ** 0.188 ** 0.282 ** 0.185 ** 0.125 ** 0.263 ** 0.295 ** 0.089 ** 0.124 ** 0.153 ** 0.155 **
**
p_SDG110.092 ** 0.091 ** 0.181 ** 0.162 ** 0.227 ** 0.127 ** 0.204 ** 0.301 ** 0.185 ** 0.113 ** 0.145 ** 0.292 ** 0.303 ** 0.106 ** 0.131 ** 0.166 ** 0.154 **

201
0.236
p_SDG120.063 * 0.067 * 0.165 ** 0.149 ** 0.208 ** 0.085 ** 0.154 ** 0.271 ** 0.167 ** 0.125 ** 0.132 ** 0.257 ** 0.079 ** 0.099 ** 0.141 ** 0.137 **
**
0.362
p_SDG130.096 ** 0.116 ** 0.190 ** 0.198 ** 0.250 ** 0.154 ** 0.252 ** 0.323 ** 0.212 ** 0.130 ** 0.208 ** 0.317 ** 0.116 ** 0.173 ** 0.170 ** 0.161 **
**
0.092
p_SDG140.089 ** 0.079 ** 0.176 ** 0.151 ** 0.212 ** 0.125 ** 0.194 ** 0.275 ** 0.184 ** 0.097 ** 0.156 ** 0.264 ** 0.270 ** 0.119 ** 0.142 ** 0.134 **
**
0.154
p_SDG150.104 ** 0.108 ** 0.197 ** 0.177 ** 0.228 ** 0.149 ** 0.220 ** 0.303 ** 0.197 ** 0.130 ** 0.180 ** 0.312 ** 0.336 ** 0.125 ** 0.170 ** 0.192 **
**
0.187
p_SDG160.122 ** 0.106 ** 0.221 ** 0.182 ** 0.243 ** 0.149 ** 0.203 ** 0.326 ** 0.208 ** 0.176 ** 0.169 ** 0.324 ** 0.313 ** 0.110 ** 0.162 ** 0.179 **
**
Notes. * p ≤ 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Correlation coefficients in bold are on the diagonal line of this matrix and represent the relationship between each SDG and
the corresponding policy, as mapped in Table A1.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

References
1. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available
online: [Link] (accessed on 12 February 2023).
2. Chalmers, A.W.; Klingler-Vidra, R.; van de Wijs, P.P.; van der Lugt, C.; Bailey, T. Carrots & Sticks: Beyond Disclosure in ESG and
Sustainability Policy. Annual Report. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 12 February 2023).
3. Fukuda-Parr, S.; McNeill, D. Knowledge and Politics in Setting and Measuring the SDG s: Introduction to Special Issue.
Glob. Policy 2019, 10, 5–15. [CrossRef]
4. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. The 5Ps of the Sustainable Development Goals. Available on-
line: [Link] (accessed
on 12 February 2023).
5. Tosun, J.; Leininger, J. Governing the Interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals: Approaches to Attain Policy
Integration. Glob. Chall. 2017, 1, 1700036. [CrossRef]
6. Bali Swain, R.; Yang-Wallentin, F. Achieving Sustainable Development Goals: Predicaments and Strategies. Int. J. Sustain. Dev.
World Ecol. 2020, 27, 96–106. [CrossRef]
7. Jimenez, D.; Franco, I.B.; Smith, T. A Review of Corporate Purpose: An Approach to Actioning the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). Sustainability 2021, 13, 3899. [CrossRef]
8. European Commission. The European Green Deal. Available online: [Link]
priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed on 31 January 2024).
9. European Council. European Green Deal. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 31 January 2024).
10. European Commission. Farm to Fork Strategy. Available online: [Link]
strategy_en (accessed on 31 January 2024).
11. European Commission. Circular Economy Action Plan. Available online: [Link]
economy-action-plan_en (accessed on 31 January 2024).
12. European Commission. A New Circular Economy Action Plan for a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe. Available online:
[Link] (ac-
cessed on 31 January 2024).
13. European Commission. Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Available online: [Link]
biodiversity-strategy-2030_en (accessed on 3 January 2024).
14. Zhang, D.; Wang, C.; Dong, Y. How Does Firm ESG Performance Impact Financial Constraints? An Experimental Exploration of
the COVID-19 Pandemic. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2023, 35, 219–239. [CrossRef]
15. Ranjbari, M.; Shams Esfandabadi, Z.; Zanetti, M.C.; Scagnelli, S.D.; Siebers, P.-O.; Aghbashlo, M.; Peng, W.; Quatraro, F.;
Tabatabaei, M. Three Pillars of Sustainability in the Wake of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda for
Sustainable Development. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126660. [CrossRef]
16. Bereczk, A.; Hodine, B.H.; Sasvari, P. Prevalence of the Sustainable Cities and Communities Goal (SDG-11) in the Research
Activity of V4 Countries. In Proceedings of the Central and Eastern European eDem and eGov Days 2023, Budapest, Hungary,
14–15 September 2023; ACM: New York, NY, USA; pp. 125–131.
17. Grzebyk, M.; Stec, M.; Hejdukova, P. Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 8 in European Union Countries—
A Measurement Concept and a Multivariate Comparative Analysis. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 31, 2758–2769. [CrossRef]
18. Craparo, G.; Cano Montero, E.I.; Santos Peñalver, J.F. Trends in the Circular Economy Applied to the Agricultural Sector in the
Framework of the SDGs. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023. ahead of print. [CrossRef]
19. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.;
et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
20. Kleespies, M.W.; Dierkes, P.W. The Importance of the Sustainable Development Goals to Students of Environmental and
Sustainability Studies—A Global Survey in 41 Countries. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2022, 9, 218. [CrossRef]
21. Cernev, T.; Fenner, R. The Importance of Achieving Foundational Sustainable Development Goals in Reducing Global Risk.
Futures 2020, 115, 102492. [CrossRef]
22. Delabre, I.; Alexander, A.; Rodrigues, C. Strategies for Tropical Forest Protection and Sustainable Supply Chains: Challenges and
Opportunities for Alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1637–1651. [CrossRef]
23. Eurostat. Sustainable Development in the European Union: Monitoring Report on Progress towards the SDGs in an EU Context, 2023rd
ed.; European Union: Luxembourg, 2023.
24. Sachs, J.D.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Drumm, E. Implementing the SDG Stimulus: Sustainable Development Report 2023; Dublin
University Press: Dublin, Ireland, 2023.
25. Mosse, D. A Relational Approach to Durable Poverty, Inequality and Power. J. Dev. Stud. 2010, 46, 1156–1178. [CrossRef]
26. Allen, C.; Metternicht, G.; Wiedmann, T. Initial Progress in Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Review
of Evidence from Countries. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1453–1467. [CrossRef]
27. Breuer, A.; Janetschek, H.; Malerba, D. Translating Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interdependencies into Policy Advice.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2092. [CrossRef]

202
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

28. Hák, T.; Janoušková, S.; Moldan, B. Sustainable Development Goals: A Need for Relevant Indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 565–573.
[CrossRef]
29. Wang, Y.; Adebayo, T.S.; Ai, F.; Quddus, A.; Umar, M.; Shamansurova, Z. Can Finland Serve as a Model for Other Developed
Countries? Assessing the Significance of Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, and Country Risk. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 428, 139306.
[CrossRef]
30. International Trade Administration. Finland—Country Commercial Guide. Available online: [Link]
commercial-guides/finland-energy (accessed on 28 December 2023).
31. Eckerberg, K.; Forsberg, B. Implementing Agenda 21 in Local Government: The Swedish Experience. Local Environ. 1998, 3,
333–347. [CrossRef]
32. Bie, Q.; Wang, S.; Qiang, W.; Ma, X.; Gu, Z.; Tian, N. Progress toward Sustainable Development Goals and Interlinkages between
Them in Arctic Countries. Heliyon 2023, 9, e13306. [CrossRef]
33. Šebestová, J.; Sroka, W. Sustainable Development Goals and SMEs Decisions: Czech Republic vs. Poland. J. East. Eur. Cent. Asian
Res. 2020, 7, 39–50. [CrossRef]
34. Fura, B.; Wojnar, J.; Kasprzyk, B. Ranking and Classification of EU Countries Regarding Their Levels of Implementation of the
Europe 2020 Strategy. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 968–979. [CrossRef]
35. Lazăr, D.; Minea, A.; Purcel, A.-A. Pollution and Economic Growth: Evidence from Central and Eastern European Countries.
Energy Econ. 2019, 81, 1121–1131. [CrossRef]
36. Benedek, J.; Ivan, K.; Török, I.; Temerdek, A.; Holobâcă, I. Indicator-based Assessment of Local and Regional Progress toward the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG S): An Integrated Approach from Romania. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 29, 860–875. [CrossRef]
37. Bompard, E.F.; Corgnati, S.P.; Grosso, D.; Huang, T.; Mietti, G.; Profumo, F. Multidimensional Assessment of the Energy
Sustainability and Carbon Pricing Impacts along the Belt and Road Initiative. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 154, 111741.
[CrossRef]
38. Saladini, F.; Betti, G.; Ferragina, E.; Bouraoui, F.; Cupertino, S.; Canitano, G.; Gigliotti, M.; Autino, A.; Pulselli, F.M.; Riccaboni, A.;
et al. Linking the Water-Energy-Food Nexus and Sustainable Development Indicators for the Mediterranean Region. Ecol. Indic.
2018, 91, 689–697. [CrossRef]
39. Sobczak, E.; Bartniczak, B.; Raszkowski, A. Implementation of the No Poverty Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) in Visegrad
Group (V4). Sustainability 2021, 13, 1030. [CrossRef]
40. Lamichhane, S.; Eğilmez, G.; Gedik, R.; Bhutta, M.K.S.; Erenay, B. Benchmarking OECD Countries’ Sustainable Development
Performance: A Goal-Specific Principal Component Analysis Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 287, 125040. [CrossRef]
41. Rosati, F.; Faria, L.G.D. Addressing the SDGs in Sustainability Reports: The Relationship with Institutional Factors. J. Clean. Prod.
2019, 215, 1312–1326. [CrossRef]
42. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 22 October 2014 Amending Directive 2013/34/EU as Regards Disclosure of Non-Financial and Diversity Information
by Certain Large Undertakings and Groups. Off. J. Eur. Union 2014, L330, 1–9.
43. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 14 December 2022 Amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and
Directive 2013/34/EU, as Regards Corporate Sustainability Reporting (Text with EEA Relevance). Off. J. Eur. Union 2022, L322, 15.
44. Fonseca, L.; Ferro, R. Influence of Firms’ Environmental Management and Community Involvement Programs in Their Employees
and in the Community. FME Trans. 2015, 43, 370–376. [CrossRef]
45. Inês, A.; Diniz, A.; Moreira, A.C. A Review of Greenwashing and Supply Chain Management: Challenges ahead. Clean. Environ.
Syst. 2023, 11, 100136. [CrossRef]
46. De Gennaro, D.; Piscopo, G. Pinkwashing and Mansplaining: Individual and Organizational Experiences of Gender Inequality at
Work during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Cult. Organ. 2023, 29, 298–314. [CrossRef]
47. Pizzi, S.; Del Baldo, M.; Caputo, F.; Venturelli, A. Voluntary Disclosure of Sustainable Development Goals in Mandatory
Non-financial Reports: The Moderating Role of Cultural Dimension. J. Int. Financ. Manag. Account. 2022, 33, 83–106. [CrossRef]
48. Van Zanten, J.A.; Van Tulder, R. Multinational Enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: An Institutional Approach to
Corporate Engagement. J. Int. Bus. Policy 2018, 1, 208–233. [CrossRef]
49. Nilsson, M.; Chisholm, E.; Griggs, D.; Howden-Chapman, P.; McCollum, D.; Messerli, P.; Neumann, B.; Stevance, A.-S.; Visbeck,
M.; Stafford-Smith, M. Mapping Interactions between the Sustainable Development Goals: Lessons Learned and Ways forward.
Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1489–1503. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Leal Filho, W.; Viera Trevisan, L.; Paulino Pires Eustachio, J.H.; Dibbern, T.; Castillo Apraiz, J.; Rampasso, I.; Anholon, R.; Gornati,
B.; Morello, M.; Lambrechts, W. Sustainable Supply Chain Management and the UN Sustainable Development Goals: Exploring
Synergies towards Sustainable Development. TQM J. 2023 ahead of print. [CrossRef]
51. Christensen, H.; Hail, L.; Leuz, C. Mandatory CSR and Sustainability Reporting: Economic Analysis and Literature Review; National
Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; p. w26169.
52. Ionescu, G.H.; Firoiu, D.; Tănasie, A.; Sorin, T.; Pîrvu, R.; Manta, A. Assessing the Achievement of the SDG Targets for Health and
Well-Being at EU Level by 2030. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5829. [CrossRef]
53. Hummel, K.; Szekely, M. Disclosure on the Sustainable Development Goals—Evidence from Europe. Account. Eur. 2022, 19,
152–189. [CrossRef]

203
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

54. KPMG. How to Report on the SDGs. Available online: [Link]

[Link] (accessed on 18 December 2023).
55. Emma, G.-M.; Jennifer, M.-F. Is SDG Reporting Substantial or Symbolic? An Examination of Controversial and Environmentally
Sensitive Industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126781. [CrossRef]
56. Hatayama, H. The Metals Industry and the Sustainable Development Goals: The Relationship Explored Based on SDG Reporting.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 178, 106081. [CrossRef]
57. IEA. Iron and Steel Technology Roadmap. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 4 March 2024).
58. Lisowski, S.; Berger, M.; Caspers, J.; Mayr-Rauch, K.; Bäuml, G.; Finkbeiner, M. Criteria-Based Approach to Select Relevant
Environmental SDG Indicators for the Automobile Industry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8811. [CrossRef]
59. European Parliament Fit for 55: Zero CO2 Emissions for New Cars and Vans in 2035. Available online: [Link]
[Link]/news/en/press-room/20230210IPR74715/fit-for-55-zero-co2-emissions-for-new-cars-and-vans-in-2035 (accessed on
8 March 2024).
60. Diaz Gonçalves, T.; Saporiti Machado, J. Origins of the Sustainability Concept and Its Application to the Construction Sector in
the EU. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13775. [CrossRef]
61. Alawneh, R.; Mohamed Ghazali, F.E.; Ali, H.; Asif, M. Assessing the Contribution of Water and Energy Efficiency in Green
Buildings to Achieve United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in Jordan. Build. Environ. 2018, 146, 119–132. [CrossRef]
62. European Commission. Construction Products Regulation (CPR). Available online: [Link]
eu/sectors/construction/construction-products-regulation-cpr_en (accessed on 1 March 2024).
63. Opoku, A.; Deng, J.; Elmualim, A.; Ekung, S.; Hussien, A.A.; Buhashima Abdalla, S. Sustainable Procurement in Construction
and the Realisation of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 376, 134294. [CrossRef]
64. Yu, A.T.W.; Yevu, S.K.; Nani, G. Towards an Integration Framework for Promoting Electronic Procurement and Sustainable
Procurement in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119493. [CrossRef]
65. Ghufran, M.; Aldieri, L.; Pyka, A.; Ali, S.; Bimonte, G.; Senatore, L.; Vinci, C.P. Food Security Assessment in the Light of
Sustainable Development Goals: A Post-Paris Agreement Era. Environ. Dev. Sustain.. [CrossRef]
66. Agovino, M.; Cerciello, M.; Gatto, A. Policy Efficiency in the Field of Food Sustainability. The Adjusted Food Agriculture and
Nutrition Index. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 218, 220–233. [CrossRef]
67. Pânzaru, R.L.; Firoiu, D.; Ionescu, G.H.; Ciobanu, A.; Medelete, D.M.; Pîrvu, R. Organic Agriculture in the Context of 2030
Agenda Implementation in European Union Countries. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10582. [CrossRef]
68. Bennetzen, E.H.; Smith, P.; Porter, J.R. Agricultural Production and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from World Regions—The Major
Trends over 40 Years. Glob. Environ. Change 2016, 37, 43–55. [CrossRef]
69. Li, Y.; Rockinger, M. Unfolding the Transitions in Sustainability Reporting. Sustainability 2024, 16, 809. [CrossRef]
70. Robaina, M.; Villar, J.; Pereira, E.T. The Determinants for a Circular Economy in Europe. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27,
12566–12578. [CrossRef]
71. Bătae, O.M.; Dragomir, V.D.; Feleagă, L. The Relationship between Environmental, Social, and Financial Performance in the
Banking Sector: A European Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 290, 125791. [CrossRef]
72. Pozzoli, M.; Pagani, A.; Paolone, F. The Impact of Audit Committee Characteristics on ESG Performance in the European Union
Member States: Empirical Evidence before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 371, 133411. [CrossRef]
73. Disli, M.; Yilmaz, M.K.; Mohamed, F.F.M. Board Characteristics and Sustainability Performance: Empirical Evidence from
Emerging Markets. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2022, 13, 929–952. [CrossRef]
74. Krasodomska, J.; Zieniuk, P.; Kostrzewska, J. Reporting on Sustainable Development Goals in the European Union: What Drives
Companies’ Decisions? Compet. Rev. Int. Bus. J. 2023, 33, 120–146. [CrossRef]
75. Rosati, F.; Rodrigues, V.P.; Cosenz, F.; Li-Ying, J. Business Model Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals. Bus. Strategy
Environ. 2023, 32, 3752–3765. [CrossRef]
76. Eurostat. NACE Rev. 2—Statistical Classification of Economic Activities. Available online: [Link]
products-manuals-and-guidelines/-/ks-ra-07-015 (accessed on 1 November 2023).
77. Bennich, T.; Weitz, N.; Carlsen, H. Deciphering the Scientific Literature on SDG Interactions: A Review and Reading Guide.
Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138405. [CrossRef]
78. Ronzon, T.; Sanjuán, A.I. Friends or Foes? A Compatibility Assessment of Bioeconomy-Related Sustainable Development Goals
for European Policy Coherence. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 119832. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
79. Natural Earth Data Natural Earth. Free Vector and Raster Map Data at 1:10 m, 1:50 m, and 1:110 m Scales. Available online:
[Link] (accessed on 7 March 2024).
80. Mainali, B.; Luukkanen, J.; Silveira, S.; Kaivo-oja, J. Evaluating Synergies and Trade-Offs among Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs): Explorative Analyses of Development Paths in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 2018, 10, 815. [CrossRef]
81. Deloitte. Sustainable Development Goals A Business Perspective. Available online: [Link]
Deloitte/nl/Documents/risk/[Link] (accessed on 31 January 2024).
82. Murphy, E.; Walsh, P.P.; Murphy, E. Nation-Based Peer Assessment of Europe’s Sustainable Development Goal Performance.
PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0287771. [CrossRef]

204
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

83. Chen, J.; Huang, S.; Kamran, H.W. Empowering Sustainability Practices through Energy Transition for Sustainable Development
Goal 7: The Role of Energy Patents and Natural Resources among European Union Economies through Advanced Panel. Energy
Policy 2023, 176, 113499. [CrossRef]
84. Amos, R.; Lydgate, E. Trade, Transboundary Impacts and the Implementation of SDG 12. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1699–1710.
[CrossRef]
85. Correa-Mejía, D.A.; Correa-García, J.A.; García-Benau, M.A. Analysis of Double Materiality in Early Adopters. Are Companies
Walking the Talk? Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2024, 15, 299–329. [CrossRef]
86. Al Lawati, H.; Hussainey, K. Does Sustainable Development Goals Disclosure Affect Corporate Financial Performance? Sustain-
ability 2022, 14, 7815. [CrossRef]
87. Martí-Ballester, C.-P. Analysing the Financial Performance of Sustainable Development Goals-Themed Mutual Funds in China.
Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 858–872. [CrossRef]
88. Khan, P.A.; Johl, S.K.; Akhtar, S. Firm Sustainable Development Goals and Firm Financial Performance through the Lens of Green
Innovation Practices and Reporting: A Proactive Approach. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2021, 14, 605. [CrossRef]
89. Abughniem, M.S.; Aishat, M.A.H.A.A.A.; Hamdan, A.H. Corporate Sustainability as an Antecedent to the Financial Performance:
An Empirical Study. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2019, 20, 35–44. [CrossRef]
90. Siedschlag, I.; Yan, W. Do Green Investments Improve Firm Performance? Empirical Evidence from Ireland. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Chang. 2023, 186, 122181. [CrossRef]
91. Qalati, S.A.; Barbosa, B.; Iqbal, S. The Effect of Firms’ Environmentally Sustainable Practices on Economic Performance.
Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja 2023, 36, 2199822. [CrossRef]
92. Pham, D.C.; Do, T.N.A.; Doan, T.N.; Nguyen, T.X.H.; Pham, T.K.Y. The Impact of Sustainability Practices on Financial Performance:
Empirical Evidence from Sweden. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1912526. [CrossRef]
93. Song, L.; Zhan, X.; Zhang, H.; Xu, M.; Liu, J.; Zheng, C. How Much Is Global Business Sectors Contributing to Sustainable
Development Goals? Sustain. Horiz. 2022, 1, 100012. [CrossRef]
94. Fortea, C.; Zlati, M.L.; Lazarescu, I. Analysis of the Sustainable Development of the Eastern European Countries from the
Perspective of the Transition to the Green Economy. Ovidius Univ. Ann. Econ. Sci. Ser. 2023, 23, 914–922.
95. Huang, R. SDG-Oriented Sustainability Assessment for Central and Eastern European Countries. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2023, 19,
100268. [CrossRef]
96. Jakovljevic, M.; Cerda, A.A.; Liu, Y.; García, L.; Timofeyev, Y.; Krstic, K.; Fontanesi, J. Sustainability Challenge of Eastern
Europe—Historical Legacy, Belt and Road Initiative, Population Aging and Migration. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11038. [CrossRef]
97. Markowski, Ł.; Kotliński, K.; Ostrowska, A. Sustainable Consumption and Production in the European Union—An Attempt to
Assess Changes and Convergence from the Perspective of Central and Eastern European Countries. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16485.
[CrossRef]
98. Bălăcescu, A.; Zaharia, M.; Gogonea, R.-M.; Căruntu, G.A. The Image of Sustainability in European Regions Considering the
Social Sustainability Index. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13433. [CrossRef]
99. Ahlström, H.; Sjåfjell, B. Why Policy Coherence in the European Union Matters for Global Sustainability. Environ. Policy Gov.
2023, 33, 272–287. [CrossRef]
100. Rădoiu, A. Romania’s Challenges and Perspectives in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals. Int. Conf. Knowl.-Based Organ.
2020, 26, 251–256. [CrossRef]
101. United Nations Global Compact; KPMG SDG Industry Matrix. Available online: [Link]
xx/pdf/2017/05/sdg-fi[Link] (accessed on 31 January 2024).
102. KPMG. Reporting on the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: [Link]
/09/survey-of-sustainability-reporting-2022/[Link] (accessed on 22 January 2024).
103. United Nations. Development Programme Global Trends: Challenges and Opportunities in the Implementation of the SDGs.
Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 2 February 2024).
104. Boffo, R.; Patalano, R. ESG Investing: Practices, Progress and Challenges. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 31 January 2024).
105. Yang, S.; Zhao, W.; Liu, Y.; Cherubini, F.; Fu, B.; Pereira, P. Prioritizing Sustainable Development Goals and Linking Them to
Ecosystem Services: A Global Expert’s Knowledge Evaluation. Geogr. Sustain. 2020, 1, 321–330. [CrossRef]
106. The Economist. Closing the Gap. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 1 February 2024).
107. Förster, J. Cooling for Electricity Production Dominates Water Use in Industry. Available online: [Link]
statistics-explained/[Link]?title=Archive:Water_use_in_industry (accessed on 1 February 2024).
108. Covert, T.; Greenstone, M.; Knittel, C.R. Will We Ever Stop Using Fossil Fuels? J. Econ. Perspect. 2016, 30, 117–138. [CrossRef]
109. Abdou, A.H.; Hassan, T.H.; El Dief, M.M. A Description of Green Hotel Practices and Their Role in Achieving Sustainable
Development. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9624. [CrossRef]
110. United Nations. Paris Agreement. Available online: [Link]
pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2024).

205
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

111. Deloitte. Professionalising the Ocean Cleanup. Available online: [Link]

articles/[Link] (accessed on 3 February 2024).
112. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Sustainable Development Report 2023. Available online: [Link]
com/[Link]/2023/[Link] (accessed on 19 January 2024).
113. United Nations. Towards Sustainable Welfare—The 2030 Agenda. Available online: [Link]
sustainability-transitions/sustainable-development-goals-and-the/country-profiles/sweden-country-profile-sdgs-and
(accessed on 25 January 2024).
114. Government of Sweden. The Global Goals and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https:
//[Link]/government-policy/the-global-goals-and-the-2030-Agenda-for-sustainable-development/ (accessed on
27 March 2024).
115. Saeed, S.; Makhdum, M.S.A.; Anwar, S.; Yaseen, M.R. Climate Change Vulnerability, Adaptation, and Feedback Hypothesis:
A Comparison of Lower-Middle, Upper-Middle, and High-Income Countries. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4145. [CrossRef]
116. Sweden Sverige. Energy Use in Sweden. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 5 January 2024).
117. Insightful Team. How Sweden Continues to Set the Benchmark as One of the World’s Most Sustainable Countries. Available
online: [Link] (accessed on 5 January 2024).
118. Hexagon. Hexagon’s R-Evolution Launches Its Renewable Energy Project Portfolio with a Focus on Digitalising Solar Production.
Available online: [Link]
project (accessed on 1 January 2024).
119. Vattenfall. Sustainable Production. Available online: [Link]
sustainable-production (accessed on 31 January 2024).
120. Scania. Renewable Fuels. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 31 January 2024).
121. World Health Organization. WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines: Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10), Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur
Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide; WHO European Centre for Environment and Health: Bonn, Germany, 2021; ISBN 978-92-4-003422-8.
122. Haseler, M.; Balciunas, A.; Hauk, R.; Sabaliauskaite, V.; Chubarenko, I.; Ershova, A.; Schernewski, G. Marine Litter Pollution in
Baltic Sea Beaches—Application of the Sand Rake Method. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 599978. [CrossRef]
123. Neste. The Baltic Sea—Vulnerable and Unique. Available online: [Link]
sea-vulnerable-and-unique#dc90d05a (accessed on 25 January 2024).
124. OECD. The Short and Winding Road to 2030: Measuring Distance to the SDG Targets; OECD: Paris, France, 2022; ISBN 978-92-64-
34190-6.
125. Die Bundesregierung G7: The Group of the Seven. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 19 January 2024).
126. The World Bank. Value Added (% of GDP)—Germany. Available online: [Link]
ZS?locations=DE (accessed on 22 January 2024).
127. Statista. Germany: Share of Economic Sectors in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2022. Available online: [Link]
com/statistics/295519/germany-share-of-economic-sectors-in-gross-domestic-product/ (accessed on 22 January 2024).
128. Eurostat. Sustainable Development Indicators. Available online: [Link]
eu?lang=en&subtheme=sdg&display=list&sort=category (accessed on 19 January 2024).
129. Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform. Germany. Available online: [Link]
memberstates/germany (accessed on 19 January 2024).
130. European Institute for Gender Equality Gender Equality Index. Available online: [Link]
2023/country (accessed on 27 February 2024).
131. The World Bank. Services, Value Added (% of GDP)—France. Available online: [Link]
[Link]?end=2022&locations=FR&start=2022&view=chart (accessed on 19 January 2024).
132. République Française. Pôle Emploi: BMO 2023. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 19
January 2023).
133. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Employment: Time Spent in Paid and Unpaid Work, by Sex. Available
online: [Link] (accessed on 5 January 2024).
134. Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Available online: [Link] (accessed on
13 January 2024).
135. Alleanza Italiana per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile. ASviS—Who We Are. Available online: [Link] (accessed on
25 January 2024).
136. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. 2022 SDGs Report. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 25 January 2024).
137. The World Bank. GDP—Italy. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 25 January 2024).
138. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The Mediterranean Red List of Species. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 25 January 2024).

206
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

139. European Commission. Air Quality: Commission Urges Italy to Take Action against Small Particulate Matter (PM10) to Safeguard
Public Health. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 25 January
2024).
140. Jaume, T.; Ripoll, A.; Banyuls, L.; Ortiz, A.G.; Soares, J. Status Report of Air Quality in Europe for Year 2022, Using Validated and
up-to-Date Data (ETC-HE Report 2023/2); European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2023.
141. HitHorizons. Industry Breakdown of Companies in Romania. Available online: [Link]
country-statistics/romania (accessed on 26 January 2024).
142. Christiaensen, L.; Demery, L.; Kuhl, J. The (Evolving) Role of Agriculture in Poverty Reduction—An Empirical Perspective. J. Dev.
Econ. 2011, 96, 239–254. [CrossRef]
143. OECD. Poverty Rate; OECD: Paris, France, 2021.
144. Federatia Bancilor pentru Alimente din Romania Banca Pentru Alimente Bucuresti. Available online: [Link]
[Link]/ (accessed on 27 January 2024).
145. Eurostat. Annual National Accounts. Available online: [Link]
lang=en&subtheme=na10.nama10&display=list&sort=category (accessed on 26 January 2024).
146. Climate Trade. The World’s Most Polluting Industries. Available online: [Link]
industries/ (accessed on 29 January 2024).
147. The Department of Sustainable Development, as Part of the Working Apparatus of the Romanian Government Romania’s
Sustainable Development Strategy 2030. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 5 January 2024).
148. Stănescu, I.; Bilan, A. Voluntary Subnational Review 2023: Localising the UN 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals in
Romanian Municipalities and Communes. Available online: [Link]
%20Romania%20Report%20Subnational%[Link] (accessed on 27 January 2024).
149. Sustainable Development. Goals Knowledge Platform Romania. Available online: [Link]
memberstates/romania (accessed on 29 January 2024).
150. Eurostat. Expenditure on Social Protection (2010–2021). Available online: [Link]
view/spr_exp_sum (accessed on 2 February 2024).
151. Firoiu, D.; Ionescu, G.H.; Băndoi, A.; Florea, N.M.; Jianu, E. Achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDG): Implementation of
the 2030 Agenda in Romania. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2156. [CrossRef]
152. Radu, O.-M.; Dragomir, V.D.; Ionescu-Feleagă, L. The Link between Corporate ESG Performance and the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. Proc. Int. Conf. Bus. Excell. 2023, 17, 776–790. [CrossRef]
153. World Bank. Bulgaria. Available online: [Link] (accessed on
29 January 2024).
154. United Nations. Economic and Social Affairs Voluntary National Review: Sustainable Development Goals—Bulgaria. Avail-
able online: [Link] (accessed on
29 January 2024).
155. Batembergska, L.; Dimitrova, N.; Georgiev, Y. The Link between the Implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals in
Bulgaria and the Migration; Bulgarian Platform for International Development: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2020; Available online: https:
//[Link]/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/[Link] (accessed on 29 January 2024).
156. Ionescu, G.H.; Jianu, E.; Patrichi, I.C.; Ghiocel, F.; T, enea, L.; Iancu, D. Assessment of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
Implementation in Bulgaria and Future Developments. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12000. [CrossRef]
157. OECD. PISA 2022 Results. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 2 February
2024).
158. Dimitrov, I. Challenges for the Bulgarian Companies in the Implementation of Sustainability Practices. Eur. J. Mark. Econ. 2023, 6,
1–14. [CrossRef]
159. Kuc-Czarnecka, M.; Markowicz, I.; Sompolska-Rzechuła, A. SDGs Implementation, Their Synergies, and Trade-Offs in EU
Countries—Sensitivity Analysis-Based Approach. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 146, 109888. [CrossRef]
160. CEIC Data. Romania Number of Companies: Bucharest Stock Exchange (BVB): Listed. Available online: [Link]
com/en/romania/bucharest-stock-exchange-number-of-companies/number-of-companies-bucharest-stock-exchange-bvb-
listed (accessed on 4 February 2024).
161. Markopoulos, E.; Barbara Ramonda, M. An ESG-SDGs Alignment and Execution Model Based on the Ocean Strategies Transition
in Emerging Markets. In Proceedings of the 13th AHFE International Conference on Creativity, Innovation Entrepreneurship,
New York, NY, USA, 24–28 July 2022.
162. OECD. OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct; OECD: Paris, France, 2023; ISBN 978-92-64-
60598-5.
163. Global Reporting Initiative Synergies between the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) and the GRI 2002
Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Available online: [Link] (accessed on
19 January 2024).
164. European Commission. EU ‘Whole-of-Government’ Approach. Available online: [Link]
policy/sustainable-development-goals/eu-whole-government-approach_en (accessed on 16 March 2024).

207
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

165. Avram, V.; Calu, D.A.; Dumitru, V.F.; Dumitru, M.; Glăvan, M.E.; Jinga, G. The Institutionalization of the Consistency and
Comparability Principle in the European Companies. Energies 2018, 11, 3456. [CrossRef]
166. Miglietta, P.P.; Coluccia, B.; Pacifico, A.M.; Malorgio, G. Tracking on Food and Agriculture-Related SDG Indicators in the
Mediterranean Region. New Medit 2023, 4, 56–71. [CrossRef]
167. Högbom, L.; Abbas, D.; Armolaitis, K.; Baders, E.; Futter, M.; Jansons, A.; Jõgiste, K.; Lazdins, A.; Lukminė, D.; Mustonen, M.;
et al. Trilemma of Nordic–Baltic Forestry—How to Implement UN Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5643.
[CrossRef]
168. Johnson, A.F.; Lidström, S.; Kelling, I.; Williams, C.; Niederműller, S.; Poulsen, K.V.; Burgess, S.; Kent, R.; Davies, W. The European
Union’s Fishing Activity Outside of European Waters and the Sustainable Development Goals. Fish Fish. 2021, 22, 532–545.
[CrossRef]
169. Ivic, A.; Saviolidis, N.M.; Johannsdottir, L. Drivers of Sustainability Practices and Contributions to Sustainable Development
Evident in Sustainability Reports of European Mining Companies. Discov. Sustain. 2021, 2, 17. [CrossRef]
170. Marchetti, S.; Secondi, L. The Economic Perspective of Food Poverty and (In)Security: An Analytical Approach to Measuring and
Estimation in Italy. Soc. Indic. Res. 2022, 162, 995–1020. [CrossRef]
171. Mancini, L.; Valente, A.; Barbero Vignola, G.; Sanyé Mengual, E.; Sala, S. Social Footprint of European Food Production and
Consumption. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 35, 287–299. [CrossRef]
172. Perello-Marin, M.R.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, R.; Alfaro-Saiz, J.-J. Analysing GRI Reports for the Disclosure of SDG Contribution in
European Car Manufacturers. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 181, 121744. [CrossRef]
173. Malik, A.; Lafortune, G.; Carter, S.; Li, M.; Lenzen, M.; Kroll, C. International Spillover Effects in the EU’s Textile Supply Chains:
A Global SDG Assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 295, 113037. [CrossRef]
174. Caldeira, C.; De Laurentiis, V.; Corrado, S.; Van Holsteijn, F.; Sala, S. Quantification of Food Waste per Product Group along the
Food Supply Chain in the European Union: A Mass Flow Analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 479–488. [CrossRef]
175. Vögele, S.; Govorukha, K.; Mayer, P.; Rhoden, I.; Rübbelke, D.; Kuckshinrichs, W. Effects of a Coal Phase-out in Europe on
Reaching the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 25, 879–916. [CrossRef]
176. Momete, D.C. Salient Insights on the Performance of EU Member States on the Road towards an Energy-Efficient Future. Energies
2023, 16, 925. [CrossRef]
177. Zhao, X.; Ramzan, M.; Sengupta, T.; Deep Sharma, G.; Shahzad, U.; Cui, L. Impacts of Bilateral Trade on Energy Affordability and
Accessibility across Europe: Does Economic Globalization Reduce Energy Poverty? Energy Build. 2022, 262, 112023. [CrossRef]
178. Aydin, M.; Erdem, A. Analyzing the Impact of Resource Productivity, Energy Productivity, and Renewable Energy Consumption
on Environmental Quality in EU Countries: The Moderating Role of Productivity. Resour. Policy 2024, 89, 104613. [CrossRef]
179. Cai, J.; Zhao, D.; Varis, O. Match Words with Deeds: Curbing Water Risk with the Sustainable Development Goal 6 Index. J. Clean.
Prod. 2021, 318, 128509. [CrossRef]
180. Dilekli, N.; Cazcarro, I. Testing the SDG Targets on Water and Sanitation Using the World Trade Model with a Waste, Wastewater,
and Recycling Framework. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 165, 106376. [CrossRef]
181. Ezbakhe, F.; Giné-Garriga, R.; Pérez-Foguet, A. Leaving No One behind: Evaluating Access to Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for
Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 683, 537–546. [CrossRef]
182. Caglar, A.E.; Gökçe, N.; Şahin, F. Sustaining Environment through Municipal Solid Waste: Evidence from European Union
Economies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 31, 6040–6053. [CrossRef]
183. Halkos, G.E.; Aslanidis, P.S.C. Promoting Sustainable Waste Management for Regional Economic Development in European
Mediterranean Countries. Euro-Mediterr. J. Environ. Integr. 2023, 8, 767–775. [CrossRef]
184. Poranek, N.; Łaźniewska-Piekarczyk, B.; Lombardi, L.; Czajkowski, A.; Bogacka, M.; Pikoń, K. Green Deal and Circular Economy
of Bottom Ash Waste Management in Building Industry—Alkali (NaOH) Pre-Treatment. Materials 2022, 15, 3487. [CrossRef]
185. Corrado, S.; Rydberg, T.; Oliveira, F.; Cerutti, A.; Sala, S. Out of Sight out of Mind? A Life Cycle-Based Environmental Assessment
of Goods Traded by the European Union. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 246, 118954. [CrossRef]
186. Onat, N.C.; Abdella, G.M.; Kucukvar, M.; Kutty, A.A.; Al-Nuaimi, M.; Kumbaroğlu, G.; Bulu, M. How Eco-efficient Are Electric
Vehicles across Europe? A Regionalized Life Cycle Assessment-based Eco-efficiency Analysis. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 29, 941–956.
[CrossRef]
187. Barona, J.; Ballini, F.; Canepa, M. Circular Developments of Maritime Industrial Ports in Europe: A Semi-Systematic Review of
the Current Situation. J. Shipp. Trade 2023, 8, 25. [CrossRef]
188. Beretta, C.; Hellweg, S. Potential Environmental Benefits from Food Waste Prevention in the Food Service Sector. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2019, 147, 169–178. [CrossRef]
189. Lyulyov, O.; Pimonenko, T.; Saura, J.R.; Barbosa, B. How Do E-Governance and e-Business Drive Sustainable Development Goals?
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2024, 199, 123082. [CrossRef]
190. Gutiérrez-Fernández, M.; Gallego-Sosa, C.; Fernández-Torres, Y. Commitment to Sustainability in Large European Banks and Its
Relationship with Board Gender Diversity: A 2030 Agenda Perspective. J. Manag. Organ. 2023, ahead of print, 1–27. [CrossRef]
191. Sardianou, E.; Stauropoulou, A.; Evangelinos, K.; Nikolaou, I. A Materiality Analysis Framework to Assess Sustainable Develop-
ment Goals of Banking Sector through Sustainability Reports. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1775–1793. [CrossRef]
192. Kovalivska, S.; Shcherbyna, A.; Nikolaiev, V. Intensification of Investment in the Renovation of Residential Real Estate in the
Context of the Sustainable Development Goals. Balt. J. Econ. Stud. 2020, 6, 184–195. [CrossRef]

208
Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971

193. Cucco, P.; Maselli, G.; Nesticò, A.; Ribera, F. An Evaluation Model for Adaptive Reuse of Cultural Heritage in Accordance with
2030 SDGs and European Quality Principles. J. Cult. Herit. 2023, 59, 202–216. [CrossRef]
194. Bisogno, M.; Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B.; Rossi, F.M.; Peña-Miguel, N. Sustainable Development Goals in Public Administrations:
Enabling Conditions in Local Governments. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2023, 89, 1223–1242. [CrossRef]
195. Meuleman, L. Public Administration and Governance for the SDGs: Navigating between Change and Stability. Sustainability
2021, 13, 5914. [CrossRef]
196. Bielecka, E.; Calka, B. Towards Sustainable Development Exemplified by Monitoring Land Use Efficiency in Europe Using SDG
11.3.1. Misc. Geogr. 2022, 26, 208–214. [CrossRef]
197. Malešević Perovic, L.; Mihaljević Kosor, M. The Efficiency of Universities in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals. Amfiteatru
Econ. 2020, 22, 516–532. [CrossRef]
198. Pereira, M.A.; Marques, R.C. The ‘Sustainable Public Health Index’: What If Public Health and Sustainable Development Are
Compatible? World Dev. 2022, 149, 105708. [CrossRef]
199. Peña-Sánchez, A.R.; Ruiz-Chico, J.; Jiménez-García, M. Dynamics of Public Spending on Health and Socio-Economic Development
in the European Union: An Analysis from the Perspective of the Sustainable Development Goals. Healthcare 2021, 9, 353. [CrossRef]
200. Bickler, G.; Morton, S.; Menne, B. Health and Sustainable Development: An Analysis of 20 European Voluntary National Reviews.
Public Health 2020, 180, 180–184. [CrossRef]
201. Dai, J.; Menhas, R. Sustainable Development Goals, Sports and Physical Activity: The Localization of Health-Related Sustainable
Development Goals through Sports in China: A Narrative Review. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 2020, 13, 1419–1430. [CrossRef]
202. Baena-Morales, S.; Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Delgado-Floody, P.; Martínez-Martínez, J. Sustainable Development Goals and Physical
Education. A Proposal for Practice-Based Models. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2129. [CrossRef]
203. Quinn, B.; Colombo, A.; Lindström, K.; McGillivray, D.; Smith, A. Festivals, Public Space and Cultural Inclusion: Public Policy
Insights. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 1875–1893. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

209
 sustainability

Article
Fuzzy Logic Method for Measuring Sustainable Decent Work
Levels as a Corporate Social Responsibility Approach
Alma Nataly Abundes-Recilla 1 , Diego Seuret-Jiménez 2 , Martha Roselia Contreras-Valenzuela 1, *
and José M. Nieto-Jalil 3, *

1 Faculty of Chemical Sciences and Engineering (FCQeI), Autonomous University of Morelos State (UAEM),
Avenida Universidad 1001, Colonia Chamilpa, Cuernavaca, Morelos CP 62209, Mexico;
[Link]@[Link]
2 Research Centre in Engineering and Applied Sciences, Autonomous University of Morelos State (UAEM),
Avenida Universidad 1001, Colonia Chamilpa, Cuernavaca, Morelos CP 62209, Mexico; dseuret@[Link]
3 Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Engineering and Sciences, Reserva Territorial Atlixcáyotl,
Puebla CP 72453, Mexico
* Correspondence: marthacv@[Link] (M.R.C.-V.); jnietoj@[Link] (J.M.N.-J.); Tel.: +52-7773297039 (M.R.C.-V.);
Tel.: +52-2229090496 (J.M.N.-J.)

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to propose an interactive computer system that utilises the
MATLAB Fuzzy Logic Designer to measure the level of implementation of SDG 8, which focuses
on sustainable decent work (SDW) and economic growth. This study used policies and laws as
parameters to determine the presence or absence of SDW. The fuzzy method was implemented in
car windshield manufacturing in the auto parts industry as a case study to define and quantify
work conditions and to determine the level of sustainable decent work (SDWL). The study described
environmental conditions, such as noise, lighting, and heat stress; ergonomic factors, such as exposure
time, the mass of the object manipulated, and lifting frequency; and organisation at work, such as
workplace violence, salary, and workday, as linguistic variables. The level of the presence or absence
Citation: Abundes-Recilla, A.N.; of SDW was defined as their membership functions. The resulting vectors determined the absence
Seuret-Jiménez, D.; of SDW with a score of 1.5 in two linguistic variables: environmental conditions and ergonomic
Contreras-Valenzuela, M.R.; factors. Some features of SDW in the linguistic variable organisation at work had an SDW score
Nieto-Jalil, J.M. Fuzzy Logic Method of 5. The SDWL vector determined a final score of 1.24, indicating the absence of decent work in
for Measuring Sustainable Decent production areas. This study found that the workers suffer a lack of long and healthy lives and a
Work Levels as a Corporate Social
bad standard of living without economic growth due to work-related musculoskeletal disorders and
Responsibility Approach.
work illnesses, increasing their out-of-pocket spending and catastrophic health expenses. As a CSR
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791. https://
approach, assessing SDWLs helped managers improve policies and work conditions.
[Link]/10.3390/su16051791

Academic Editors: Manoj Kumar Keywords: corporate social responsibility; fuzzy logic; decent work; ergonomic risk evaluation;
Nallapaneni, Massimo Gastaldi and work conditions
Idiano D’Adamo

Received: 11 January 2024

Revised: 5 February 2024
Accepted: 8 February 2024
1. Introduction
Published: 22 February 2024 Measuring the level of sustainable and decent work (SDW) in industrial processes can
be challenging due to several factors. Firstly, the concept of SDW is multifactorial, making
it difficult to measure. Secondly, the lack of information on the subject further complicates
the measurement. Finally, each industrial process has different work safety parameters,
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. which makes it difficult to establish universal standards for measuring SDW. Addressing
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. these issues, a method for measuring sustainable decent work levels (SDWLs) that utilises
This article is an open access article
fuzzy logic is proposed in this paper. The SDWL interactive computer system was built
distributed under the terms and
using MATLAB Fuzzy Logic Designer. It was tested to validate its performance in a case
conditions of the Creative Commons
study to determine the level of SDW engaged in producing car windshields in the auto
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
parts industry. Many firms do not currently have formal Corporate Social Responsibility
[Link]/licenses/by/
(CSR) policies and programs implemented as a part of their value chain [1] because they
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791. [Link] 210 [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

contain features that require firms to have and maintain a sustainable production process
and that creates firstly external constraints (environmental government policies), which
influence their competition in the market trend, and secondly, domestic pressures, such
as excessive yields of manufacture and extra-economic support in measuring process and
operation improvements [2], thus the firms neglect their responsiveness about the work
conditions under which personnel perform their tasks.
In general, work is any activity, whether intellectual or material, that people do to
achieve a desired outcome, regardless of the level of technical expertise required for a
particular profession or trade [3]. Thus, a worker is an individual who provides personal
work to an entity in a subordinate position, and this employment normally is the means by
which society allocates and utilises limited resources for a better quality of life, reallocating
funds to meet present and future needs [4,5]. However, the concept of SDW does not apply
to this study in cases where resources are obtained through unemployment subsidies or
social subsidies for people who are unable to work because the subordinate position does
not exist. Besides protecting the planet, sustainable development promotes prosperity in
education, health, social protection, and job opportunities [6]. Protecting workers’ rights
and encouraging safe and secure working places and environments is part of economic
growth [7]. The United Nations (UN) proposed SGD 8 as part of their 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development [8], which focuses on “Decent Work and Economic Growth”. This
goal aims to promote sustainable decent work (SDW) by allowing individuals to engage in
productive activities that offer reasonable income, workplace security, and social protection
for their families. SDW also encourages personal development and social integration.
Employees of any workplace, including men and women, people with or without disabil-
ities, and minors, interact with the physical conditions of their workplace environment.
Therefore, measuring the absence or presence of SDW in workplaces must be essential
for guaranteeing families’ economic growth. Unsafe and insecure working places and
environments cause occupational illness, which reduces the economic growth of workers
and their families because they cannot work due to the consequences of disease or accident,
increasing out-of-pocket spending and catastrophic health expenses like outpatient care,
hearing equipment, wheelchairs, therapy for musculoskeletal disorders, and unsubsidised
medications, among others [9]. Unfortunately, many organisations and countries fail to
consider the impact of work conditions on health and the expenses associated with it as part
of SDW. Therefore, companies play a significant role in advancing sustainable development
if they adopt voluntary actions to implement the three sustainability dimensions (economic,
environmental, and social) in their organisations [10]. Voluntary sustainability standards
are crucial to ensure that fundamental human rights, worker health and safety, and environ-
mental impacts are considered. However, a clear governance framework must be in place
to enhance the credibility of voluntary efforts and promote coordination and alignment
across initiatives. Unfortunately, not all countries have established such a framework [11].
The evaluation of the presence or absence of SDW has been present in some way
in the research literature; the most representative works for this article are described as
follows: Barford et al. [12] focus on group surveys and statistics in low-income countries to
identify empirical and conceptual drivers of youth perspectives on SDW scarcity; however,
implications about the work were not considered. A qualitative approach to validate
the decent work scale (DWS) in French society was proposed by Vignoli et al. [13], but
only some components of SDW (life satisfaction, family–work conflict, and meaningful
work) were considered; nonetheless, job safety and health were not included in their study.
The links between three components of health (general health, symptoms, and healthy
behaviours) concerning work-generated fatigue were examined by Duffy et al. [14], i.e., they
determined the presence or absence of SDW through fatigue. One of the dimensions
established by Yildirim et al. [15] that adds value to SDW is safe working conditions,
which positively impact the motivation of workers; nevertheless, industrial conditions
were not defined. Lout et al. [16] establish safety at work as one of the main elements
in measuring the absence of SDW. Finally, Yan et al. [17] select a scale to measure the

211
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

perception of decent work by measuring the well-being of workers in the workplace. The
International Labour Organization (ILO) has devised a global measurement of decent
work using questionnaires, but it does not include information about work conditions
or suggestions for improving them. As a result, the ILO recommended developing an
investigation into unsafe industrial work conditions [18]. Few works directly address
work conditions related to SDW and CSR. The three most relevant for this investigation
include the one developed by Raufflet et al. [19], who acquired and described the concept
of “regulatory scripts”, defined as the practices proportioned by a group of enterprises in
mining and oil in response to international CSR standards; their study includes an analysis
of work environmental systems and safety and health conditions from an index control
point of view. The other work, by Kwon and Park [20], proposed a quantitative method of
realising the responsible development of emerging technologies via text analysis of future-
oriented web data and scientific publication data; this technique allows developers of
emerging technologies to consider social concerns and human norms alongside more typical
engineering ideals. Finally, Hadj [21] analysed the role played by CSR in improving the
responsible innovation and the competitiveness of North African small and medium-sized
enterprises by focusing on the commitments toward internal and external stakeholders and
environmental management and formulating a sustainable development model based on
responsible innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises. The works in this section
considered the voices of stakeholders, and some considered CSR policies; they proposed
decision-making based on user requirements considering SDW with a CSR focus. Analysing
the information described above, it was possible to establish that previous investigations
have not addressed fuzzy logic methods in combination with labour environmental factors
to develop a new SDW evaluation method as a CSR approach. In their work, Ali S. et al. [22]
highlight the need to ensure the robustness of results obtained through alternative scenarios.
Therefore, this paper proposes new scenarios for SDG 8. Thus, this article sets a new
frame of reference in studying sustainable decent work. Considering that, through a solid
evaluation of data, fuzzy logic allows the incorporation of a technique that minimises
the differences in point of view during decision-making. Using the fuzzy method to
determine the level of SDW during the evaluation of work task conditions makes it possible
to define the level of a presence or absence of SDW. Consequently, it was possible to
determine whether the physical work environment complies with the sustainable decent
work concept. This article reports a proposed method for evaluating the presence or absence
of SDW inside workplaces by analysing three main groups of conditions: environmental
conditions, ergonomic factors, and organisation at work, which directly impact the quality
of the working lives and personal lives of occupationally exposed personnel (OEP). The
application was developed in the MATLAB Fuzzy Logic Toolbox (FLT) [23] and applied
to evaluate six areas in the production of car windshields in the auto parts industry. This
paper’s contribution and research’s novelty lie in:
1. The design of a fuzzy logic method to define and quantify work conditions to deter-
mine the level of sustainable decent work as a CSR approach.
2. The definition of the presence or absence of sustainable decent work using policies
and laws relating to sustainability and safety and health in work.
3. A proposed CSR approach tool that establishes a multivariable record for measuring
and monitoring the level of sustainable decent work in the workplace.
This hypothesis will demonstrate that the fuzzy logic tool is helpful as a CSR approach
in the results and discussion sections.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows: The materials and methods are described
in detail in Section 2. The results of this study are presented in Section 3. The discussion
and conclusion of the investigation are presented in Sections 4 and 5, respectively.

2. Materials and Methods

As was mentioned above, SDW and economic growth promote and allow individuals
to engage in productive activities that offer three features: reasonable income, workplace

212
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

security, and social protection for their families. They also encourage personal development
and social integration [8]. Their definitions are extensive and multifactorial, so in this
research, the scope will be limited only to evaluations in industries that seek to comply
with SDG 8 guidelines. In this context, three variables representative of these features were
defined: environmental conditions, ergonomic factors, and organisation at work. To deeply
measure workplace security, environmental conditions and ergonomic factors were chosen
because they represent the characteristics of the process that directly affect the workers’
health and cause work-related illnesses and musculoskeletal disorders impacting their
standard of living and well-being, sometimes forever. Organisation at work measures
reasonable income and personal development through salary per day; social integration
was measured through hours per workday and violence at work. In the case of formal
work, all employees have social protection for their families; consequently, this feature was
not considered for measurement in this study.
In the language of sustainability, some concepts are imprecise or vague (fuzziness); for
example, how do we measure “responsibility” or the quality of being “decent”? Usually,
a company can be defined as highly responsible with their employees or not, or a work
can be decent or not; in both cases, the meaning depends on who expresses the sentence
and the expertise in the topic. Therefore, the main concern of fuzzy logic is representing,
manipulating, and drawing inferences from such imprecise statements [24]. For this study,
the term decent was defined as fuzzy in the sentence, so it cannot be determined with
absolute precision. However, it is used in SDW and CSR decision-making. Representing
the sentence “it is a sustainable decent work” was difficult to assert whether it was true
or false. Thus, SDW was defined as a function and its components as variables (Xs). The
relationship between SDW and Xs becomes a matter of degree and depends on policies
and laws relating to sustainability, safety, and health in work to create different subsets,
which can be represented as follows:
⎧
⎨ 1 i f x ∈ SDW presence
SubsetSDW ( x ) = 0.5 x ∈ SDW some presence (1)
⎩
0 if x ∈/ SDW absence

The individual mathematical fuzzy models for the presence or absence of SDW were
determined by its components XSDW in Equations (2)–(11) during the fuzzification process.
The methodology proposed for the research is divided into two stages: Phase I defines
the fuzzy rules based on three groups of fuzzy sets. Phase II involves programming the
Fuzzy Logic Toolbox to determine the SDWL.

2.1. Problem Description

Recent research has focused on applying surveys and developing statistics to identify
perspectives on SDW and classify the relationship between components of health and
poor motivation. However, the relationship between environmental conditions, ergonomic
factors, and organisation at work to determine SDW level is often neglected. This study
has applied a fuzzy logic method as a socially responsible approach. This has resulted
in a significant problem: defining the degree of membership in a set of work conditions
to express the degree to which some condition exists (in our case, SDW), despite its
vagueness/fuzziness, in decision-making. To address this issue, we have developed a
fuzzy logic method that considers the relationship between safety and health risk levels and
workstation conditions. We first specify in advance parameters for the fuzzy variables that
define risks and hazards for workers in industrial workplaces. Then, we define membership
rules as elements of association and segmentation. Finally, an SDWL is introduced by
adding a socially responsible point of view. In subsequent sections, we describe this fuzzy
process to better understand how it works.

213
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

2.2. Case Study

The case study was developed in a company in Mexico; therefore, the applicable
salaries and regulations correspond to this country. In manufacturing car windshields,
the production process imposes safety conditions and risks that can harm workers’ health;
therefore, direct labour workers were considered major internal stakeholders for this
study. To identify whether tasks were carried out in a socially responsible environment,
a fuzzy logic method for measuring sustainable decent work levels was developed and
implemented in six production departments (laminating, tempering, post glass, supply
chain, and quality control). For developing the evaluation, only a sample of 10% of workers
were interviewed due to the process involving a total of 3000 workers divided into three
work shifts. Tasks in all departments require manual material handled with a mass of
windshields from 11 kg to 26 kg and a quota of 2100 pieces per shift. The daily salary varies
from USD 12 to USD 18, depending on the work department. Tasks involve overtime and
high stress.

2.3. Phase I: Fuzzification

To apply fuzzy logic (FL) methods, it was necessary to declare the SDW variables
and safety and health parameters that should be measured. Next, the parameters for
measurement were converted into appropriate fuzzy sets to define their vagueness; this
step is called fuzzification [25]. FL is a mathematical formalism used in this investigation to
emulate the ability to correctly evaluate work conditions based on linguistic data. Therefore,
FL admits information regarding variables (environmental conditions, ergonomic factors,
and organisation at work) to build the fuzzy sets. The relationships between sets of variables
were combined to determine decisions [26]. Fuzzy degrees are membership percentages
in a fuzzy set. Vagueness/fuzziness expresses a degree of some condition that exists and
represents the “level” of presence or absence of SDW.

2.3.1. Defining Fuzzy Models and Fuzzy Sets

Levels of Risk in the Fuzzy Model: As fuzzy choices, the membership functions with three
levels of presence of SDW were determined in Equation (2) using the following parameters:
• Low level of risk—presence of SDW—environmental conditions, ergonomic factors,
and organisation at work in workplaces which generate minimum fatigue or stress
and lead to work-related illnesses in the long term—scored between 0 and 3;
• Medium level of risk—some presence of SDW—environmental conditions, ergonomic
factors, and organisation at work in workplaces which generate fatigue and stress and
lead to work-related illnesses in the medium term—scored between 2 and 7;
• High level of risk—absence of SDW—environmental conditions, ergonomic factors,
and organisation at work in workplaces which generate extreme fatigue and stress
and lead to work-related illnesses in the short term—scored between 6 and 10.
⎧
⎨ 1 i f 6 points ≤ x ≤ 10 points
Level o f RiskSDW ( x ) = 0.5 i f 2 points ≤ x ≤ 7 points (2)
⎩
0 i f 0 points ≤ x ≤ 3 points
To define the parameters for the environmental conditions used as fuzzy sets, interna-
tional safety and health parameters were considered as follows:
Noise Fuzzy Model: The European, Asian, and Latin American legislation establishes
that for an 8 h workday, the levels of noise exposure without protection before damage
is produced must be less than 80 dB [27–29]. The ILO states that the levels workers are
exposed to in an 8 h workday should not exceed 90 dB and defines that the maximum
permissible exposure, in terms of average daily noise levels, can vary, depending on the
country, from 80 to 85 or 90 dBA, with accumulation factors of 3, 4, or 5 dBA [30]. In some
countries, such as Japan, permissible noise levels are set between 50 and 85 dBA, depending
on the type of work performed and considering the physical and mental workload [31]. In
the case of pregnant female workers, the protection of the unborn baby’s hearing organ

214
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

must also be included; according to the Spanish Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
(SEGO), tasks should not be carried out in excessive-noise conditions (more than 80 dB)
after the 20th–22nd week of gestation [32]. Therefore, the fuzzy model was determined in
Equation (3) with the following parameters:
• Low level of risk—presence of SDW—noise less than 80 dB;
• Medium level of risk—some presence of SDW—noise between 80 dB and 90 dB;
• High level of risk—absence of SDW—noise higher than 90 dB.
⎧
⎨ 1 i f x < 80 dB
NoiseSDW ( x ) = 0.5 i f 80 dB ≤ x ≤ 90 dB (3)
⎩
0 i f 90 dB ≤ x
Lighting Fuzzy Model: In some Latin American countries, it is established that a
minimum of 200 lux is required to perform a task with a simple vision [33]. The ILO has
established a comprehensive reference framework by defining lighting levels depending on
the type of task being performed: for example, for tasks with limited visual requirements:
from 200 lux to 300 lux; for tasks with normal visual requirements: from 500 lux to
1000 lux; and for special or high-precision work: from 1000 lux to 20,000 lux (for example,
surgeries) [34]. In Japan, the illuminance of working conditions was defined per the type
of work: for example, 300 lux or more for precision work, 150 lux for ordinary work, and
70 lux for rough work [35]. Therefore, the fuzzy parameters for the lighting of machinery,
office spaces, and inspection were set as follows:
• Low visual requirement: low level of risk—presence of SDW—lighting from 70 lux to
300 lux;
• Normal: medium level of risk—some presence of SDW—lighting from 200 lux to
750 lux;
• Demanding: high level of risk—absence of SDW—lighting higher than 500 lux.
⎧
⎨ 1 i f 70 lux ≤ x ≤ 300 lux
LightingSDW ( x ) = 0.5 i f 200 lux ≤ x ≤ 750 lux (4)
⎩
0 i f 500 lux ≤ x
Heat Stress Fuzzy Model: The ILO Encyclopaedia considers a cold work environment
to be where the temperature is below 20 ◦ C and a sensation of thermal neutrality to be
between 20 and 26 ◦ C [36] in light or sedentary work conditions, wherein the estimation of
the thermal stress that a worker is subjected to is made through the WBGT index (wet bulb
and black globe) [36,37]. Therefore, the fuzzy parameters for hot or cold environmental
conditions measured via the WBGT index indoors at workplaces were:
• Cold: low level of risk—presence of SDW—heat stress from 10 ◦ C and under to 23 ◦ C;
• Thermal neutrality: medium level of risk—some presence of SDW—heat stress be-
tween 20 ◦ C and 30 ◦ C;
• Hot: high level of risk—absence of SDW—heat stress from 27 to 45 ◦ C, considering
that from values close to 40 ◦ C, heat disorders begin to occur in humans.
⎧
⎨ 1 i f 10 ◦ C ≤ x ≤ 23 ◦ C
Heat stressSDW ( x ) = 0.5 i f 20 ◦ C ≤ x ≤ 30 ◦ C (5)
⎩
0 i f 27 ◦ C ≤ x ≤ 45 ◦ C
In the case of ergonomic parameters defined according to the standard ISO 11228-
1:2021 [38], in a task related to manual material handling, the time of exposition is consid-
ered an unfavourable condition when the mass of the handled object is over 25 kg and the
frequency of lifting is above 900 movements per shift. A cumulated mass of 6500 kg in a
shift of 8 h should not be exceeded. Thus, the fuzzy sets were defined as follows [39]:
Time of Exposition Fuzzy Model:
• Low level of risk—presence of SDW—exposition time of 0 min to 80 min;

215
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

• Medium level of risk—some presence of SDW—exposition time between 60 min and

120 min;
• High level of risk—absence of SDW—exposition time of 100 min to 180 min or more.
⎧
⎨ 1 i f 0 min ≤ x ≤ 80 min
Time o f expositionSDW ( x ) = 0.5 i f 60 min ≤ x ≤ 120 min (6)
⎩
0 i f 100 min ≤ x ≤ 180 min or more
Mass of the Handled Object Fuzzy Model
• Low level of risk—presence of SDW—mass of 0 kg to 10 kg;
• Medium level of risk—some presence of SDW—mass between 7 kg and 15 kg;
• High level of risk—absence of SDW—mass of 13 kg to 25 kg or more.
⎧
⎨ 1 i f 0 kg ≤ x ≤ 10 kg
Mass o f the objectSDW ( x ) = 0.5 i f 7 kg ≤ x ≤ 15 kg (7)
⎩
0 i f 13 kg ≤ x ≤ 25 kg
Frequency of Handling Fuzzy Model
• Low level of risk—presence of SDW—handling frequency of 0 movements to 700
movements;
• Medium level of risk—some presence of SDW—handling frequency between 600 move-
ments and 1100 movements;
• High level of risk—absence of SDW—handling frequency of 900 to 1800 movements
or more.
⎧
⎨ 1 i f 6 movements ≤ x ≤ 10 movements
Frequency o f handlingSDW ( x ) = 0.5 i f 2 movements ≤ x ≤ 7 movements (8)
⎩
0 i f 900 movements ≤ x ≤ 1800 movements or more

To define the organisation at work, the parameters contained in the Mexican standard
NOM 035 STPS:2018 were used as a score from 0 to 13 points for evaluating psychosocial
factors concerning workplace violence, salary, and the workday [40].
Workplace Violence Fuzzy Model
• Low level of risk—presence of SDW—workplace violence score of 0 points to 8 points;
• Medium level of risk—some presence of SDW—workplace violence score between
9 points and 12 points;
• High level of risk—absence of SDW—workplace violence score of more than 13 points.
⎧
⎨ 1 i f 0 points ≤ x ≤ 8 points
Workplace violenceSDW ( x ) = 0.5 i f 9 points ≤ x ≤ 12 points (9)
⎩
0 i f 13 points ≤ x
Salary (in México) Fuzzy Model
• Low level of risk—presence of SDW—salary of more than USD 30 per day;
• Medium level of risk—some presence of SDW—salary between USD 12 and USD 30 per day;
• High level of risk—absence of SDW—salary of USD 6 to USD 12 per day.
⎧
⎨ 1 i f 30 USD ≤ x
SalarySDW ( x ) = 0.5 i f 12 USD ≤ x ≤ 30 USD (10)
⎩
0 i f 6 USD ≤ x ≤ 12 USD
Workday Fuzzy Model
• Low level of risk—presence of SDW—workday between 4 h and 8 h;
• Medium level of risk—some presence of SDW—workday between 7 h and 10 h;
• High level of risk—absence of SDW—workday between 9 h and 12 h or more.

216
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

⎧
⎨ 1 if 4 h ≤ x ≤ 8 h
WorkdaySDW ( x ) = 0.5 i f 7 h ≤ x ≤ 10 h (11)
⎩
0 i f 9 h ≤ x ≤ 12 h or more

2.3.2. Defining Linguistic Variables and Fuzzy Rules

Our objective is to predict the different levels of SDW from the following three vari-
ables: environmental conditions, ergonomic factors, and organisation at work. To build the
linguistic model, it was necessary to define fuzzy IF–THEN rules, and input variables and
consequent sentences were defined as linguistic variables as follows:
• Variable → Environmental conditions. Linguistic variables → Noise, Lighting,
and Heat_Stress;
• Variable → Ergonomic factors. Linguistic variables → Exposition_Time, Mass_Object,
Lifting_Frequency;
• Variable → Organisation at work. Linguistic variables → Workplace_Violence,
Salary, Workday;
• Membership function → absence of SDW;
• Membership function → some features of SDW;
• Membership function → presence of SDW.
Because FL is an intuitive model used for determining the level of the presence of
sustainable decent work, two ranges of evaluation were needed. First, an assessment of risk
in SDW with a score from 1 to 10 points was defined, considering 1 as the absence of SDW
and 10 as the presence of SDW. The second was for the SDWL, with a score given from 1
to 10, where 1 defines the absence of SDW, and 10 establishes the presence of SDW. The
fuzzification of variables to conform to the universe of discourse and linguistic variables,
fuzzy choices, and consequent sentences to define the SDWL is presented in Figure 1 and
was used to determine the fuzzy rules.

Figure 1. Universe of discourse between linguistic variables, fuzzy choices, and membership func-
tions to define SDWLs.

217
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

Considering the rule that if N is the number of linguistic variables and S is the number
of linguistic values, then the possible number of fuzzy rules will be S raised to N as
indicated by Equation (12).
Number o f FR = S N (12)
Therefore, 108 rules were determined, 27 for each variable, including the resulting
evaluation, as is shown in Table 1. All combinations of the linguistic variables through
the IF, AND, and THEN represent the inference stage to define the level of SDW for each
work condition.

2.4. Phase II: Defuzzification

Programming the Fuzzy Rules in the Fuzzy Logic Designer
Mathematically, a fuzzy set is one in which the contra-domain is the interval (0, 1),
and the domain is the universe [39]. Thus, if the degree of membership is closer to 1, the
more included the element will be in each set, i.e., there is a level of presence of SDW. If the
degree of membership is closer to 0, fewer elements will be included in each set [41], and
there is the absence of SDW. Therefore, FL determines the inferential mechanism needed
to reach the output value related to the SDW level, numerically determining its presence
or absence. The fuzzy sets define the universe of discourse (universe of possible actions).
They can be represented graphically as a function when the universe of discourse X (or
underlying domain) is continuous (not discrete), as is shown in Figure 2. Once the fuzzy
set was defined, the groups of 27 rules defined in Table 1 for each linguistic variable were
entered into the Mamdani-type inference in the Fuzzy Logic Toolbox; an example is shown
in Figure 3, and the rest of the rules are shown in the figures of Appendix A.

ȱ
Figure 2. Example of a graphic representation of a membership function built by the Fuzzy Logic
Designer: (1) fuzzy sets for each risk level of decision, (2) domain for each fuzzy set, (3) linguistic
variable, and (4) membership score. The red line identifies the selected fuzzy set, and the black boxes
are positioned in the parameter limits of the function. The black lines in the membership function
plot indicate unselected fuzzy sets.

Finally, the defuzzification consists of converting the fuzzy sets into a crisp single value
that is the precise representation of the fuzzy sets [25]. The defuzzified values represent the
level of sustained decent work in any workplace, ranging from 1 to 10.

218
 Table 1. Fuzzy rules. We have made a change to the letter style by using italics for variables.

Environmental Conditions Ergonomic Factors Organisation at Work

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF
AND AND THEN AND AND THEN AND AND THEN
Rule Noise Lighting Heat_Stress SWD Exposition_Time Mass_Object Lifting_Frequency SDW Workplace_Violence Salary Workday SDW Risk
No. Risk Risk
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

1 Low Low Low Absence High High High Absence Low Low Low Some
2 Medium Low Low Absence High High Medium Absence Low Low Medium Some
3 High Low Low Absence High High Low Absence Low Low High Absence
4 Low Low Medium Some High Medium High Absence Low Medium Low Presence
5 Medium Low Medium Some High Medium Medium Absence Low Medium Medium Presence
6 High Low Medium Absence High Medium Low Absence Low Medium High Some
7 Low Low High Absence High Low High Absence Low High Low Presence
8 Medium Low High Absence High Low Medium Some Low High Medium Presence
9 High Low High Absence High Low Low Presence Low High High Presence
10 Low Medium Low Absence Medium High High Absence Medium Low Low Absence
11 Medium Medium Low Absence Medium High Medium Absence Medium Low Medium Absence
12 High Medium Low Absence Medium High Low Some Medium Low High Absence
13 Low Medium Medium Presence Medium Medium High Some Medium Medium Low Absence
14 Medium Medium Medium Presence Medium Medium Medium Some Medium Medium Medium Absence
15 High Medium Medium Some Medium Medium Low Some Medium Medium High Absence
16 Low Medium High Absence Medium Low High Some Medium High Low Absence
17 Medium Medium High Absence Medium Low Medium Some Medium High Medium Absence
18 High Medium High Absence Medium Low Low Presence Medium High High Absence

219
19 Low High Low Absence Low High High Some High Low Low Absence
20 Medium High Low Absence Low High Medium Some High Low Medium Absence
21 High High Low Absence Low High Low Presence High Low High Absence
22 Low High Medium Presence Low Medium High Some High Medium Low Absence
23 Medium High Medium Presence Low Medium Medium Some High Medium Medium Absence
24 High High Medium Some Low Medium Low Presence High Medium High Absence
25 Low High High Absence Low Low High Presence High High Low Absence
26 Medium High High Absence Low Low Medium Presence High High Medium Absence
27 High High High Absence Low Low Low Presence High High High Absence
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

ȱ
Figure 3. Fuzzy rules for the linguistic variable SDWL in the module Rule Editor of the Fuzzy Logic
Toolbox Designer.

3. Results
This section presents the results of this fuzzy logic method for measuring sustainable
decent work levels (SDWLs) applied to a case study in the auto parts industry. It considers
three essential assumptions: (1) The evaluation is restricted to three variables: environmen-
tal conditions, ergonomic factors, and organisation at work. (2) Each variable was assessed
by three membership functions that represent, respectively, the absence of SDW, some
features of SDW, or the presence of SDW. (3) The evaluation result represents the level that
defines the absence or presence of SDW. To define out-of-pocket spending, a questionnaire
was applied only to 330 direct labour workers (66 workers from each department) but not
to middle managers. To identify whether there is a presence or absence of SDW in their
environmental conditions, five production departments (laminating, tempering, post glass,
supply chain, and quality control) were measured. The frequency of conditions found is
presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Frequency of environmental conditions organised by membership function.

Departments
Linguistic Membership Supply Quality
Ranks Laminating Tempering Post Glass Total
Variables Functions Chain Control
Low_Risk <80 db 2 10 0 1 13
Noise Medium_Risk 80–90 db 39 35 16 10 100
High_Risk >90 db 6 2 0 1 9
Low_Risk 70–300 lux 43 55 42 0 1 42
Lighting Medium_Risk 200–750 lux 92 91 7 49 23 262
High_Risk >600 lux 0 0 0 0 0
Low_Risk 10–23 ◦C 0 0 0 10 10
Heat_Stress Medium_Risk 20–30 ◦ C 7 10 0 40 57
High_Risk 27–45 ◦ C 15 8 50 3 25 101
Total 594

220
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

To define the level of SDW for the set environmental condition, the three highest
frequencies were evaluated with the following parameters: Noise 90 db, Lighting 500 lux,
and Heat_Stress 32 ◦ C. This fuzzy evaluation is shown in Figure 4a. The columns in yellow
are the membership vectors, which represent graphically the rules for each membership
function, and the column in blue represents the evaluation result. For example, in the
Heat_Stress membership vector equal to 32 ◦ C, the rules 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, and 27
were activated in the high-risk zone; in the Lighting membership vector equal to 500 lux,
the rules 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 were activated in the low-risk zone; and in
the Noise membership vector equal to 90 db, the rules 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, and 27
were activated in the high-risk zone. Considering that the solution does not represent a
direct relationship between columns and rows but evaluates memberships between rules
is important. The resultant vector establishes that degree of membership. Therefore, the
combination of all memberships activates rule 18 with a score of 1.5 in Absence_SDW, as
shown in the membership function plots at the top of Figure 4a. To evaluate the ergonomic
factors, the highest mass manipulated was considered to be 26 kg (windshield mass), with
a frequency of 2100 liftings and an exposition time of 300 min per shift. The evaluation
results are shown in Figure 4b and indicate the absence of SDW with a score of 1.5.

ȱ. ȱ
(a)ȱ (b)ȱ

Figure 4. Individual evaluation by a set of linguistic variables: (a) ruler viewer for environmental
conditions, with an SDW resultant score of 1.5; (b) ruler viewer for ergonomic factors, with an SDW
resultant score of 1.5. Both cases indicate the absence of SDW. The yellow vectors indicate the rules
that have been activated for each linguistic set, while the blue vector represents the SDW level
(the resulting evaluation). The red line on the vectors corresponds to the value inputted for each
linguistic variable.

A salary of USD 12 per day for direct labour workers was considered to evaluate
the set organisation at work. The result from the evaluation of violence at work was
positive with 10 points; twenty-one per cent of workers reported having suffered violence
at work (see Table 3). Finally, the weekday was 12 h each third day, totalling 48 h per week.

221
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

The evaluation results are shown in Figure 5a and indicate some features of SDW with a
resulting score of 5. Finally, the individual scores from each set were evaluated to define a
final SDWL (see Figure 5b). The resulting score for the SDWL was 1.24, indicating that the
production process of car windshields is carried out under conditions where there is an
absence of sustained decent work.

ȱ ȱ
(a)ȱ (b)ȱ

Figure 5. Individual evaluation by a set of linguistic variables: (a) ruler viewer for the organisation at
work with an SDW resultant score of 5, indicating some features of SDW; (b) ruler viewer for the
final SDWL, with a resultant score of 1.24, indicating the absence of sustainable decent work. The
yellow vectors indicate the rules that have been activated for each linguistic set, while the blue vector
represents the SDW level (the resulting evaluation). The red line on the vectors corresponds to the
value inputted for each linguistic variable.

Consequently, the company is required to modify its internal socially responsible

policies. An example of an evaluation for the departments is presented in Appendix B.
The results of 33 individual evaluations of workstations are shown in Table 4, wherein in
14 cases, there was an absence of SDW; in the other 14 cases, there were some features of
SDW, and only 4 cases showed the presence of SDW.
The resulting score of 1.24 for SDWL negatively impacts each worker’s family economy,
as was observed in the results of the out-of-pocket spending and catastrophic health expense
interviews for 330 workers (see Table 3). For example, at some point in their life, 70% of the
interviewed workers had paid between USD 1 and USD 50 for health expenses out of pocket
due to work at least once per month; 31% had paid between USD 101 and USD 500 for
health expenses out of pocket due to work at least once per month; and almost 3% had paid
more than USD 500 for health expenses out of pocket due to work at least once per month.
In the case of violence at work, only 18 workers stated that they had suffered violence at
work; however, 45 workers refused to answer the questionnaire for fear of repression from
their immediate boss: both cases were considered as violence, totalling 21%.

222
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

Table 3. Responses from 330 workers interviewed across 33 workstations and three shifts regarding
their out-of-pocket spending, catastrophic health expenses, and violence at work.

Unanswered
Questions Answered Questions Answered
Question Question for Fear of
with “Yes” with “No”
Reprisals
1. Have you ever developed any work-related
illnesses like back pain, loss of hearing, or a 78 188 45
respiratory illness?
2. Have you experienced any work-related
86 180 45
accident that temporarily prevents work?
3. Have you experienced any work-related pain
169 97 45
or injuries that temporarily prevent work?
4. Have you been treated for occupational
diseases by public health services (free 185 81 45
of charge)?
5. Have you received treatment for work-related
injuries or illnesses from a private healthcare
150 116 45
provider in addition to the treatment you had
already received?
6. Have you ever paid for out-of-pocket health
expenses due to work at least once per month, 223 43 45
between USD 1 and USD 50?
7. Have you ever paid for out-of-pocket health
expenses due to work at least once per month, 43 233 45
between USD 51 and USD 100?
8. Have you ever paid for out-of-pocket health
expenses due to work at least once per month, 105 161 45
between USD 101 and USD 500?
9. Have you ever paid for out-of-pocket health
expenses due to work at least once per month 9 246 45
for more than USD 500?
10. Have you ever suffered any type of abuse or
threats from a superior that you consider to be 18 267 45
violence at work?

223
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

Table 4. Results of 33 evaluations of individual workstations.

Workstation Environmental Conditions Ergonomics Factors Organisation at Work SDWL Results

1 Laminating 5 5 5 5.84 Some features of SDW
2 Laminating 3 6 7 5.8 Some features of SDW
3 Laminating 7 4 5 5.81 Some features of SDW
4 Laminating 8 6 8 1.78 Absence of SDW
5 Laminating 7 4 7.5 3.23 Absence of SDW
6 Laminating 7 6 5 5.8 Some features of SDW
7 Laminating 4 4 4 5.84 Some features of SDW
8 Quality Control 8 3 8 1.78 Absence of SDW
9 Quality Control 8 3 3 5.8 Some features of SDW
10 Quality Control 8 2 2 8.84 Presence of SDW
11 Quality Control 10 1 1 8.9 Presence of SDW
12 Quality Control 7 3 3 5.8 Some features of SDW
13 Quality Control 7 2 2 5.81 Some features of SDW
14 Supply Chain 1.5 7.69 1.5 1.59 Absence of SDW
15 Supply Chain 4.53 3.79 4.03 5.83 Some features of SDW
16 Supply Chain 4 1.34 5 5.84 Some features of SDW
17 Supply Chain 4.04 2.38 5.67 5.79 Some features of SDW
18 Tempering 2.35 1.06 3.38 2.69 Absence of SDW
19 Tempering 1.5 3.85 7.32 1.81 Absence of SDW
20 Tempering 5 7.12 8.5 1.71 Absence of SDW
21 Tempering 8.69 8.22 1.5 1.53 Absence of SDW
22 Tempering 3.45 4.5 1.5 5.83 Some features of SDW
23 Tempering 2.35 1.24 5 2.69 Absence of SDW
24 Tempering 8.74 6.63 3.5 3.2 Absence of SDW
25 Post Glass 3.48 1.4 4 5.83 Some features of SDW
26 Post Glass 8.69 1.24 6.5 8.87 Presence of SDW
27 Post Glass 1.5 3.88 7 1.74 Absence of SDW

Table 4. Cont.

Workstation Environmental Conditions Ergonomics Factors Organisation at Work SDWL Results

28 Post Glass 5 1.06 8.5 1.54 Absence of SDW
29 Post Glass 8 2.35 1.5 8.82 Presence of SDW
30 Post Glass 7 8.47 3 1.74 Absence of SDW
31 Post Glass 3.5 1.07 1.5 5.84 Some features of SDW
32 Post Glass 2.3 8.23 5 1.65 Absence of SDW
33 Post Glass 1.5 3.85 2.32 1.81 Absence of SDW

4. Discussion
This section discusses the results obtained from the fuzzy logic method for measuring
sustainable decent work levels (SDWLs) applied to a case study in the production of car
windshields as a validation. First, the theoretical implications are discussed to analyse the
impact of the SDWLS and compare them with the current situation to define this study’s
contributions to the existing literature and how it will be helpful for managers as a socially
responsible approach, especially in the auto parts industry. Then, practical implications
were defined to establish its contribution to real industrial situations.
The SDWL can classify information from each workstation and organise memberships
between linguistic variables and risk levels to define the presence or absence of sustainable
decent work. Comparing the linguistic variables of environmental conditions, ergonomics,
and organisation at work with the variables defined in [10]—quality of life, equal opportu-
nity, and workers’ rights—the proposed SDWL added an alternative way to analyse the
social component of sustainability. Regarding the current situation in fuzzy logic models,
Parra-Dominguez et al. [42] found that there are voices in the scientific community con-
sidering whether sustainable decent growth is suitable for measuring the progress of the
2030 Agenda and providing models for the pursuit of a long and healthy life, access to
knowledge, and a good standard of living; in this context, the SDWL defines new criti-
cal criteria establishing 10 fuzzy models based on measurable international parameters,
which impact important human aspects like violence at work and work-related illnesses.
However, comparing results from vectors was not possible because the variables and their
fuzzy models were not the same. In the case of the auto parts industry, the study proposed

224
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

in [43] included ergonomic factors and organisation at work as variables to analyse Volvo’s
production system. Compared with that study, the SDWL incorporates new parameters
for work conditions and organisation at work with a sustainable emphasis rather than a
production focus. Therefore, SDWLs can be used by the industry as a tool to meet voluntary
sustainability standards like the proposals in [11].
The Equations (2) to (11) generate the resulting vectors which determine the absence
of SDW with a score of 1.5 in two linguistic variables (see Figure 4a,b): environmental
conditions and ergonomic factors; although these results vary marginally, in general, the
models solves adequately. Having the same value in these results was unexpected, given
that these linguistic variables include evaluation parameters that are very different. This
allows us to assume that the sensitivity of the method requires improvement. On the other
hand, the result of some features of SDW in the organisation at work sector having an SDW
score of 5 was expected because the salary range is suitable for a company located in Mexico
despite the work conditions. However, the resulting vector determines that the production
of car windshields with a score of 1.24 has a poor SDWL. In the current case study, the
effects of the poor SDW were supported by the results of the out-of-pocket spending and
catastrophic health expenses interviews applied to 330 workers (see Table 4). The economic
impact on workers occurs because public health is deficient in rehabilitation after accidents
or musculoskeletal disorders. Therefore, workers must go to private means to achieve
adequate rehabilitation and return to work. Considering both the workers’ salary and the
sample size of interviewed workers, we can infer that these workers suffer a lack of a long
and healthy life and a bad standard of living without economic growth due to a poor SDW
(the cause of work-related musculoskeletal disorders and work illnesses), increasing their
out-of-pocket spending and catastrophic health expenses.
Therefore, these findings contribute to defining the most suitable task conditions and
their parameters using policies and laws relating to sustainability to explain correctly the
presence or absence of sustainable decent work. As a practical implication, the SDWL
is helpful for managers in real-life situations, particularly in the case of producing car
windshields in the auto parts industry (as shown in the case study). For example, from the
economic implications, it was possible to identify safety and health parameters and safety
costs by focusing on the linguistic rules highlighted in the resultant vectors. For example,
in the noise vector, ergonomic factors vector, and workday vector, the rules over the safety
conditions were activated; this allows for identifying improvements for the prevention
program. This promotes establishing better CSR policies for places with identical risk
conditions, saving time and implementation costs.
Finally, it is crucial to note that the outcomes of the SDWL evaluation are not definitive.
Thus, further tests by supplementing more linguistic variables will be necessary to define
new fuzzy rules and membership functions to determine the mathematical sensibility and
method behaviour. In future research, the case study results will be classified according
to gender to define if there are differences in SDW regarding work conditions, ergonomic
factors, and organisation at work between males and females who work in the auto parts
industry. Moreover, a new study will be implemented in cardboard manufacturing to
define the SDWL’s usability as a CSR tool to meet voluntary sustainability standards.

5. Conclusions
In conclusion, a fuzzy logic method built in MATLAB Fuzzy Logic Designer was
proposed in this work. This interactive computer system considers the relationship be-
tween safety and health risk levels and workstation conditions to identify the level of
sustainable decent work in the production of car windshields in the auto parts industry.
The method included environmental conditions, ergonomic factors, and organisation at
work as linguistic variables related to three membership functions: the absence of SDW,
some features of SDW, and the presence of SDW. The resulting vector determined there
to be an absence of SDWL in the production of car windshields with a score of 1.24. Our
evaluation indicates that workers in the production of car windshields suffer a lack of a

225
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

long and healthy life and a bad standard of living without economic growth. Therefore,
the SDWL can help managers implement voluntary sustainability standards and improve
CSR policies, as was established in SDG 8. However, the outcomes of the SDWL are not
conclusive. Moreover, further tests could be limited if more linguistic variables are added
due to that fact that exponentially increasing the rules can be challenging to program,
affecting the mathematical sensibility and method behaviour.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, methodology, writing—original draft preparation, and

writing—review and editing: M.R.C.-V.; Conceptualisation, methodology, and Software: D.S.-J.;
software and formal analysis and investigation: A.N.A.-R.; methodology, writing—original draft
preparation, and writing—review and editing: J.M.N.-J. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Section A include the dataset generated and analysed during the
present research.
Acknowledgments: The authors of this work thank Instituto Tecnológico de Monterrey (ITESM)
and Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos (UAEM) for supporting the development of
this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Fuzzy Rules

Figure A1. Fuzzy rules for the linguistic variable of environmental conditions.

226
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

ȱ
Figure A2. Fuzzy rules for the linguistic variable of ergonomic factors.

ȱ
Figure A3. Fuzzy rules for the linguistic variable of organisation at work.

227
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

Appendix B. Examples of Evaluations by Department

ȱ
Figure A4. Individual evaluation for the laminating department: environmental conditions with a
score of 1.5, ergonomic factors with a score of 1.5. The organisation at work has a score of 4. The
final SDWL, with a score of 1.3, indicates the absence of sustainable decent work. The yellow vectors
indicate the rules that have been activated for each linguistic set, while the blue vector represents the
SDW level (the resulting evaluation). The red line on the vectors corresponds to the value inputted
for each linguistic variable.

ȱ
Figure A5. Individual evaluation for the quality control department: environmental conditions with
a score of 5, ergonomic factors with a score of 2. The organisation at work has a score of 6. The final
SDWL, with a score of 4.81, indicates some presence of sustainable decent work. The yellow vectors
indicate the rules that have been activated for each linguistic set, while the blue vector represents the
SDW level (the resulting evaluation). The red line on the vectors corresponds to the value inputted
for each linguistic variable.

228
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

References
1. Zadjafar, M.A.; Gholamian, M.R. A Sustainable Inventory Model by Considering Environmental Ergonomics and Environmental
Pollution, Case Study: Pulp and Paper Mills. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 199, 444–458. [CrossRef]
2. Sánchez-Infante Hernández, J.P.; Yañez-Araque, B.; Moreno-García, J. Moderating Effect of Firm Size on the Influence of Corporate
Social Responsibility in the Economic Performance of Micro-, Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
2020, 151, 119774. [CrossRef]
3. Congress of the United Mexican States. Federal Labor Law of the United Mexican States; Diario Oficial de la Federación, CDMX:
Mexico City, Mexico, 2024.
4. Larrouyet, M.C. Desarrollo Sustentable: Origen, Evolución y Su Implementación Para el Cuidado del Planeta. Master’s Thesis,
Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, Bernal, Argentina, 2015.
5. Plata De Plata, D.; Plata Díaz, O. Ambiente, Economía, Tecnología y Sociedad: Componentes Clave Para El Desarrollo Sostenible.
Multiciencias 2009, 9, 7–12.
6. The United Nations. 17 Goals to Transform Our World. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 24 November 2023).
7. United Nations. Decent Work and Economic Growth: Why It Matters. Available online: [Link]
wp-content/uploads/2018/09/[Link] (accessed on 26 July 2023).
8. United Nations. Goal 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth. Promote Inclusive and Sustainable Growth, Employment and Decent
Work for All. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 27 July 2023).
9. Rodríguez, M. Gasto de Bolsillo y Gastos Catastróficos En Salud En Hogares Mexicanos. Carta Económica Reg. 2021, 0, 59–83. [CrossRef]
10. Mensah, J. Sustainable Development: Meaning, History, Principles, Pillars, and Implications for Human Action: Literature
Review. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2019, 5, 1653531. [CrossRef]
11. Balderas, A.; Luna, E.; Voora, V.; Larrea, C. Voluntary Standards and Initiatives for Carbon Management: Navigating the Landscape;
IISD: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2024.
12. Barford, A.; Coombe, R.; Proefke, R. Against the Odds: Young People’s High Aspirations and Societal Contributions amid a
Decent Work Shortage. Geoforum 2021, 121, 162–172. [CrossRef]
13. Vignoli, E.; Prudhomme, N.; Terriot, K.; Cohen-Scali, V.; Arnoux-Nicolas, C.; Bernaud, J.L.; Lallemand, N. Decent Work in France:
Context, Conceptualization, and Assessment. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 116, 103345. [CrossRef]
14. Duffy, R.D.; Prieto, C.G.; Kim, H.J.; Raque-Bogdan, T.L.; Duffy, N.O. Decent Work and Physical Health: A Multi-Wave Investiga-
tion. J. Vocat. Behav. 2021, 127, 103544. [CrossRef]
15. Yildirim, U.; Toygar, A.; Çolakoğlu, C. Compensation Effect of Wages on Decent Work: A Study on Seafarers Attitudes. Mar.
Policy 2022, 143, 105155. [CrossRef]
16. Lout, G.; Fitzpatrick, J.; Garcia Lozano, A.J.; Finkbeiner, E. Decent Work in a Seascape of Livelihoods: Regional Evaluation of the
Shrimp and Groundfish Fishery of the Guianas-Brazil Shelf. Mar. Policy 2022, 144, 105231. [CrossRef]
17. Yan, Y.; Geng, Y.; Gao, J. Measuring the Decent Work of Knowledge Workers: Constructing and Validating a New Scale. Heliyon
2023, 9, e17945. [CrossRef]
18. International Labour Organizatio. Measurement of Decent Work: Discussion Paper for the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the
Measurement of Decent Work; International Labour Organizatio: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
19. Raufflet, E.; Barin Cruz, L.; Bres, L. An Assessment of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices in the Mining and Oil and Gas
Industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 84, 256–270. [CrossRef]
20. Kwon, H.; Park, Y. Proactive Development of Emerging Technology in a Socially Responsible Manner: Data-Driven Problem
Solving Process Using Latent Semantic Analysis. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2018, 50, 45–60. [CrossRef]
21. Hadj, T.B. Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility towards Stakeholders and Environmental Management on Responsible
Innovation and Competitiveness. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119490. [CrossRef]
22. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin,
M.A.; et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
23. The MathWorks Inc. Fuzzy Logic Toolbox Diseñe y Simule Sistemas de Lógica Difusa. Available online: [Link]
com/products/[Link] (accessed on 19 July 2023).
24. Nguyen, H.T.; Walker, C.L.; Walker, E.A. A First Curse in Fuzzy Logic, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; Taylor & Francis
Group: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
25. Klir, G.J.; Yuan, B. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic. Theory and Applications, 1st ed.; Prentice Hall PTR: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1995.
26. Díaz-Contreras, C.A.; Aguilera-Rojas, A.; Guillén-Barrientos, N. Lógica Difusa vs. Modelo de Regresión Múltiple Para La Selección de
Personal Fuzzy Logic vs. Multiple Regression for Selection Personnel. Ingeniare Rev. Chil. Ing. 2014, 22, 547–559. [CrossRef]
27. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work: An Introduction to Noise at Work. Factsheet 56—CE_2004_2169_EN.Indd.
Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 10 January 2024).
28. Official Journal of the European Union. On the Minimum Health and Safety Requirements Regarding the Exposure of Workers to the
Risks Arising from Physical Agents (Noise); Official Journal of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2003; pp. 4238–4244.
29. Secretaria del Trabajo y Previsión Social. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-011-STPS-2001, Condiciones de Seguridad e Higiene En Los
Centros de Trabajo Donde Se Genere Ruido; STPS (Secretarïa del Trabajo y Previsión Social): Ciudad de México, México, 2002.

229
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1791

30. Suter, A.H. Noise. Standards and Regulations. In Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety—Part VI. General Hazards;
International Labour Organization (ILO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2011; p. 47.
31. Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan. Cabinet Order for Implementation of the Noise Regulation Law. Appendix I.
Available online: [Link] (accessed on 26 July 2023).
32. Näf Cortés, R.R. Guía Práctica Para El Análisis y La Gestión Del Ruido Industrial, 1st ed.; FREMAP Government of Spain, Ed.;
FREMAP Government of Spain: Madrid, Spain, 2013.
33. Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-025-STPS-2008, Condiciones de Iluminación En Los Centros
de Trabajo; Diario Oficial de la Federación: Ciudad de México, México, 2008.
34. Hernández Calleja, A.; Ramos Pérez, F. Lighting, Conditions Required for Visual Comfort. In Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health
and Safety—Part VI. General Hazards; International Labour Organization (ILO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2011; p. VI.
35. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Ordinance on Industrial Safety and Health; Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare: Tokyo,
Japan, 2006. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 10
January 2024).
36. Parsons, K.C. Heat and Cold. Assessment of Heat Stress and Heat Stress Indices. In Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and
Safety—Part VI. General Hazards; International Labour Organization (ILO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2011; p. 42.
37. Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-015-STPS-2001, Condiciones Térmicas Elevadas o Abatidas-
Condiciones de Seguridad e Higiene; Diario Oficial de la Federación: Ciudad de México, México, 2001.
38. ISO 11228-1:2021(E); Ergonomics-Manual Handling—Part 1: Lifting, Lowering and Carrying. International Standard
Organization—ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
39. Contreras-Valenzuela, M.R.; Seuret-Jiménez, D.; Hdz-Jasso, A.M.; León Hernández, V.A.; Abundes-Recilla, A.N.; Trutié-Carrero,
E. Design of a Fuzzy Logic Evaluation to Determine the Ergonomic Risk Level of Manual Material Handling Tasks. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6511. [CrossRef]
40. Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-035-STPS-2018, Factores de Riesgo Psicosocial en el
Trabajo-Identificación, Análisis y Prevención; STPS: Mexico City, Mexico, 2018.
41. Ghasemi, F.; Mahdavi, N. A New Scoring System for the Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) Based on Fuzzy Sets and Bayesian
Networks. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2020, 80, 103058. [CrossRef]
42. Parra-Domínguez, J.; Alonso-García, M.; Corchado, J.M. Fuzzy Logic to Measure the Degree of Compliance with a Target in an
SDG—The Case of SDG 11. Mathematics 2023, 11, 2967. [CrossRef]
43. Neumann, W.P.; Ekman, M.; Winkel, J. Integrating Ergonomics into Production System Development—The Volvo Powertrain
Case. Appl. Ergon. 2009, 40, 527–537. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

230
 sustainability

Article
A Business Case for Climate Neutrality in Pasture-Based Dairy
Production Systems in Ireland: Evidence from Farm Zero C
Theresa Rubhara 1, *, James Gaffey 1,2, *, Gavin Hunt 2 , Fionnuala Murphy 2,3 , Kevin O’Connor 2,4 , Enda Buckley 5
and Luis Alejandro Vergara 2,3

1 Circular Bioeconomy Research Group, Munster Technological University, V92 HD4V Tralee, Ireland
2 BiOrbic Bioeconomy SFI Research Centre, University College Dublin, Belfield, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland;
[Link]@[Link] (G.H.); fi[Link]@[Link] (F.M.); [Link]@[Link] (K.O.);
[Link]@[Link] (L.A.V.)
3 School of Biosystems and Food Engineering, University College Dublin, Belfield, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland
4 School of Biomolecular and Biomedical Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland
5 Carbery Group, Ballineen Co., P47 YW77 Cork, Ireland
* Correspondence: theresarubhara@[Link] (T.R.); [Link]@[Link] (J.G.)

Abstract: Agriculture in Ireland is responsible for producing and exporting healthy, nutritional food
pivotal for meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) such as global food security, economic
development and sustainable communities. However, the agricultural sector, dominated by a large
bovine population, faces the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to reach climate
neutrality by 2050. The objective of the current study was to model the environmental and economic
impact of simultaneously applying farm-level climate change mitigation strategies for a conventional
grass-based dairy farm in Ireland. An average farm of 52 ha with a spring-calving herd of 93 was used
as a reference scenario to create a business case. Partial budgeting was used to calculate the annual
net benefit. A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to model the reduction in GHG
emissions, which was expressed as kg of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram of fat- and protein-
Citation: Rubhara, T.; Gaffey, J.; corrected milk (kg CO2 -eq/kg FPCM). The baseline for average emissions was 0.960 kg CO2 -eq/kg
Hunt, G.; Murphy, F.; O’Connor, K.; FPCM. An average farm would reduce its annual emissions by 12% to 0.847 kg CO2 -eq/kg FPCM
Buckley, E.; Vergara, L.A. A Business in Scenario 1, where climate change mitigation strategies were applied on a minimal scale. For
Case for Climate Neutrality in
Scenario 2, the emissions are reduced by 36% to 0.614 kg CO2 -eq/kg FPCM. In terms of annual
Pasture-Based Dairy Production
savings on cash income, an increase of EUR 6634 and EUR 18,045 in net savings for the farm are
Systems in Ireland: Evidence from
realised in Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. The business case provides evidence that farms can move
Farm Zero C. Sustainability 2024, 16,
towards climate neutrality while still remaining economically sustainable.
1028. [Link]
su16031028
Keywords: climate-neutral agriculture; greenhouse gases; net benefit; global warming
Academic Editors: Manoj Kumar
Nallapaneni, Idiano D’Adamo
and Massimo Gastaldi

Received: 28 November 2023 1. Introduction

Revised: 15 January 2024 Irish agriculture has the potential to become a global leader in sustainable food systems
Accepted: 16 January 2024 through the production, marketing and management of low-carbon food. According to
Published: 25 January 2024 Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine [1], the agricultural sector
contributed 9.5% of Irish merchandising exports and approximately EUR 18.7 billion to the
value of agri-food exports in 2022. The sector underpins much of rural Ireland, with over
170,400 (7.1% of total employment) people employed in the agri-food sector [1]. Ireland
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
exports 90% of its food products to 160 countries worldwide, contributing directly to
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) of global food security (SDG2) and economic
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
development [1]. Despite such a positive economic contribution, the agricultural sector,
conditions of the Creative Commons
is, however, associated with negative environmental impacts, such as greenhouse gas
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// (GHG) emissions, loss of natural habitats and diversity due to intensive agriculture and
[Link]/licenses/by/ monoculture, a decline in air and water quality and deforestation. This poses a threat
4.0/). to the achievement of the SDG13, SDG14 and SDG15 targets of ensuring environmental

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028. [Link] 231 [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

sustainability. As consumers become more aware of the various production systems and
how their consumer choices can have an impact on the environment [2], the demand for
products that are sustainably produced will continue to increase. Farmers could integrate
greater innovation in the production of food products to ensure that food is produced in an
environmentally sustainable manner. Currently, Ireland produces approximately 1.1 million
tonnes of food waste each year, which results in a carbon footprint of 3.6 Mt CO2 eq [3]. As
such, increasing production to feed the world, is not, in and of itself, sustainable. It should
be noted that the SDGs towards sustainability, previously listed, are all interlinked and not
always antagonistic. For instance, with responsible production and consumption (SDG12),
food losses can be minimized, natural resources less depleted and greater food security can
be achieved [4].
Unlike other European countries where transport and energy industries are the major
GHG emitters, in Ireland, agriculture accounted for about 37.5% of the nation’s total
GHG emissions in 2021 [5], approximately double the emissions from the energy industry.
The fact that agriculture continues to contribute the largest sectoral percentage of GHG
emissions to the national inventory is a major cause for concern for such an important
industry. Ireland has regularly fallen short of its climate change emission targets and
currently faces a very challenging target of reducing overall emissions by 51% by 2030 and
achieving net zero emissions by 2050 [6,7]. The largest share of GHG emissions in Irish
agriculture relates to ruminant production and is predominantly a result of rumen methane
and nitrous oxide from soils. The 2021 Irish Farm Sustainability Report [8] indicated that
the amount of GHG emissions from an average Irish farm rose in 2020, largely due to an
increase in herd size, in addition to a 3.3% and 6.2% increase in fertiliser use and liming,
respectively [5].
With over 80% of the agricultural land in Ireland being grassland [9], the grass-based
nature of livestock production in the country offers positive environmental opportunities
in terms of manure recycling, the integration of livestock and crops for feed, low feed–food
competition, biodiversity, soil quality and organic carbon content [10]. Grass, a relatively
cheap but abundant feed source, also gives Irish dairy farmers a competitive edge in terms
of lower costs and higher profits [11]. Results from the National Farm Survey (NFS) [12]
show that dairy remains the most economically and socially sustainable farming system in
Ireland; however, the continuous expansion of the bovine population has resulted in higher
agricultural GHG at the national level due to higher methane emissions. Ireland aims to
achieve a climate-neutral food system by 2050 [13]. Climate-neutral agriculture is defined as
net zero emissions of agricultural GHG emissions, implying that the total GHGs (expressed
in the carbon dioxide equivalent) released into the atmosphere by sources are equal to or
less than the carbon absorbed by carbon sinks [14,15]. In grass-fed systems like Ireland, such
as Australia [16–18] and New Zealand [19], much of the research towards climate-neutral
agriculture has put a major emphasis on carbon sequestration modelling or strategies that
require major land use changes and capital investment. To reduce emissions in agriculture,
robust but practical measures are required to be implemented at the farm level. In previous
research in Ireland, strategies such as clover, multispecies swards, slurry management and
the use of protected urea have shown positive environmental impacts [20–22]. However,
such research and analyses of the impact of the mitigation strategies have largely been
conducted in isolation. In contrast, the Farm Zero C (FZC) initiative, which is the basis
for the current paper, combines at least 15 strategies at once. FZC uses a holistic and
pragmatic approach to transform a conventional farm into a more sustainable farm, with
the overall aim of achieving a climate-neutral dairy farm. To achieve this, FZC undertakes
an interdisciplinary program of work to reduce emissions, targeting several areas:
I. Soil and grassland management: measuring and increasing soil carbon organic
stocks through soil and grassland management practices such as incorporating
clover and growing multispecies swards;

232
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

II. Animal diet and breeding: trialling different types of diets and anti-methane
additives that can alter animal digestion, reducing the amount of methane emitted
by cows;
III. Renewable energy: producing and using renewable energy on the farm where
possible to reduce the farm’s reliance on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.
The research completed to date has demonstrated that the combined strategies can
significantly reduce the emissions at Farm Zero C as the life cycle assessment (LCA) mod-
elling of GHG emissions has shown a decrease in emissions from 0.86 kg CO2 -eq/kg FPCM
in 2018 to 0.66 kg CO2 -eq/kg FPCM in 2022. Previous studies have shown that adoption
decisions for climate change mitigation practices among farmers are not based solely on the
environmental impact of the strategies [23]. Farmers are likely to adopt innovations which
they perceive to have economic returns [24]; for instance, those arising from increased
efficiencies, economies of scale and financial incentives [23]. Various economic-oriented
studies have been published focusing on the costs of climate change mitigation in Ireland;
however, most of these either used input-output models or policy analysis to provide a
broad perspective on the economic impacts of climate change mitigation at the national
or regional level [25,26]. For instance, The Irish Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC)
study provides a detailed cost analysis of the climate mitigation strategies across all farming
systems with the absolute emission reduction pathways at the national level [26]. This
current paper, on the other hand, builds on data arising from Farm Zero C combined with
available information on climate change mitigation costs to provide a case study on how a
combination of strategies can be applied for economic and environmental sustainability
at the farm level. A business case, based on the implementation of a selection of the Farm
Zero C climate-neutral strategies, is modelled under specified assumptions to determine
the economic and environmental impact of a set of mitigation measures applied at different
levels. The objective of this paper is to provide evidence that climate neutrality at the farm
level produces opportunities for cost reduction and revenue growth, thus contributing
positively to SDG13’s targets of combating climate change.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Farm
A case study dairy farm in Ireland which closely resembles an average Irish dairy
farm adopted from the National Farm survey data and agricultural factsheet [1,12] was
used for formulating the Holistic FZC business case scenarios. The business case assumes
that the case study farm reduces its emissions to a certain level year on year until it reaches
climate neutrality by 2050. The physical farm components are important for evaluating
the economic and environmental analysis and these are summarized in Table 1 below. An
average dairy farm of 52 ha located in the southern part of Ireland stocked at 2.2 LU/ha,
which currently uses none of the FZC climate mitigation strategies is presented as the
baseline scenario. This represents a typical Irish pasture-based, spring-calving dairy farm
where cows spend an average of 241 days on grass.

Table 1. Values used to describe case study farm.

Variable Description
Farm Size 52 ha
Soil drainage Average
Herd size 93 dairy cows
Replacement rate 22%
5700 L/cow/yr @4.21% fat and 3.57% protein
Productivity
KG MS/Cow—455

233
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

Table 1. Cont.

Variable Description
Chemical nitrogen fertiliser use 220 kg/ha (50% Urea & 50% CAN)
Concentrate 1100 kg/cow/yr
Grazing management 241 days per annum
Animals culled 20 Mature heads @ 550 kg live weight
Slurry spreading method Splash plate
Slurry spreading season 50% in Summer 50% in Spring
Pit storage for the mature herd and heifers, solid storage
Manure storage
for calves

2.2. Mitigation Measure Selection

Since June 2021, the FZC holistic climate-neutral strategies have been tested and
demonstrated on a commercial dairy farm, Shinagh Farm, at Bandon, Co., Cork, Ireland.
The selected mitigation strategies, for the current business case, were based on the findings
from these research, demonstration and analysis activities. Table 2 presents a summary
of the assumptions made, and economic and environmental impacts based on evidence
from the FZC trials and other research outcomes. It should be noted that Shinagh farm
is not representative of the conventional farm in Ireland, as it is highly resource efficient
with a relatively low carbon footprint of 0.66 kg CO2 -eq/kg FPCM as compared to 0.96 kg
CO2 -eq/kg FPCM for an average farm in 2022.
The information in Table 2 includes all trials and strategies implemented at FZC ex-
cept for green biorefinery and soil carbon sequestration. Holistic livestock management
strategies which have been shown to increase technical efficiencies including maximiz-
ing utilisation of grass, improving grassland management by incorporating clover and
MSS, optimising slurry for organic nitrogen, and improving the economic breeding index
were implemented based on previous trials, and assumptions were made based on this
work [22,27,28]. Innovative technologies such as feed and slurry additives were trialled at
FZC and the results were used to model the conventional farm. The strategies were chosen
on the basis that they are both practical to implement in the short run and effective in re-
ducing GHG emissions. Whilst the use of the green biorefinery for grass has demonstrated
a high potential for reducing emissions from imported feed, it may be more challenging to
implement in the short term, as proper planning is required to address issues relating to
the initial investment cost and the ownership of equipment [29]. One option would be for
farmers to come together as a cooperative and purchase a biorefinery where they would
process their own grass. Similarly, without evidence-based measurement, reporting and
verification (MRV) of carbon sequestration it is difficult to model the level of soil organic
carbon and the associated costs [30]. The FZC is taking steps to implement MRV, but more
data are required to include it in the model.
The mitigation measures included were aimed at reducing emissions per unit of
output (CO2 -eq/kg FPCM), rather than absolute farm emissions. This approach allows the
inclusion of strategies which increase production and sometimes the farm’s emissions such
as the economic breeding index (EBI) and extending the grazing season but significantly
reduce emissions per kg of product [31]. Where available, costs of inputs such as fertiliser
were adopted from the central statistics office; however, for novel technologies such as feed
and slurry additives which are not readily available on the market, the FZC prices were
used, which may be more or less the same as commercial prices.

234
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

Table 2. Summary of mitigation strategies and assumptions.

Target Emission
Strategy Environmental Impacts Economic Impacts Assumptions
Source
Reduces nitrous oxide
Reduce chemical N
emissions and nitrate Reduction of Nitrogen fertiliser reduction to
use through
losses to water fertiliser costs 150 kg/ha [22]
White clover, Fertiliser use
Reduces the upstream Incremental No changes to Dry Matter (DM)
Red clover
impacts associated with reseeding costs yield [21,32]
and Multispecies swards
fertiliser production
Farmer either reduces concentrate or
Manure left on pasture Savings from less silage
Manure increases productivity
Grazing management which has lower methane and less concentrate feed
management An extra week on grass reduces total
emissions than stored [33] Higher milk solids
GHG by 1% [31]
Protected urea is cheaper
per kg N than calcium Cost is based on nitrogen value only;
Reduces N2 O and NH3
Protected Urea Fertiliser use ammonium nitrate (CAN) phosphorous (P) and potassium (k)
losses [20]
though slightly more costs remain constant
expensive than urea
The value of N retained only is
Approximately
considered, P&K values
Slurry management Spreading slurry in Spring 0.4 kgN/m3 more is saved
remain constant
through: ensures less N is lost in Spring than in Summer
Extra spreading cost EUR 20/h when
Spreading all slurry as NH3 thus reducing total
LESS is used instead of Splash plate,
in Spring Manure Reduces N losses fertiliser costs [34]
assuming splash plate spreads @
Use of Low Emission management through NH3 Reduces demand for
34 m3 /h and trailing shoe @
Slurry Spreading (LESS) Reduces ammonia and chemical fertiliser thus
28 m3 /h [27,35]
Chemically methane emissions during reducing N2 O losses [34]
Chemical amendment cost was
amend slurry slurry storage slurry The extra cost of the
estimated at EUR 2/m3 slurry
chemical amendment
(estimates from FZC trials)
Reduces GHG emissions The cost of native Native feeds cost EUR 25 more per
Use native feeds Feed production associated with imported ingredients is higher than tonne than conventional feeds
soya and grain conventional feed (estimates from FZC)
Dietary additives cost approximately
Anti-methane The extra cost of the
Animal digestion Reduces CH4 emissions EUR 75/cow/yr (estimates from FZC)
additives (Bovaer) dietary additive
Milk yield remains constant
Costs are reduced as the Rearing a heifer from the calf for
Reduce replacement rate All hotspots farmer has less young 24 months costs approximately EUR
stock to rear 1500 [36]
Potential savings or costs were not
Investment costs for
Use renewable sources included in the analysis as they
Farm Energy Reduces CO2 emissions the renewable
to reduce energy inputs represent an investment cost which
energy equipment
differs across different technologies
For every EUR 10 increase The total farm, emissions do not
Increase productivity by Increases farm revenue
in EBI, GHG emissions decrease but as productivity
5% (EBI and All hotspots from sales of extra
decline by 1% per unit of increases the quantity of GHG per kg
management) milk solids
product [28] of FPCM reduces

2.3. Modelling Different Scenarios

Two scenarios were used to model the likely impacts of different levels of application
for several mitigation strategies when applied simultaneously. Scenario 1 (S1) represents the
minimal implementation case option which includes strategies that can be implemented in
the short term at a low scale without major costs (low-hanging fruit) usually adopted by the
risk-averse farmers, as shown in Table 3. These include reducing fertiliser use, incorporating
clover and MSS in grasslands, slurry management, and reducing feed concentrate and
replacement rate. Reducing chemical fertiliser use and switching to protected urea has
been estimated to reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 5.4% for the Irish agricultural sector
in the MACC [35]. However, reducing the quantity of chemical fertiliser on its own can
result in low productivity and creates a risk of the grassland being less self-sufficient
to feed the animals [37]. White clover incorporation in grassland has been shown to
reduce chemical fertiliser requirement to 150 kg/ha [22,38,39] and using red clover in silage

235
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

can completely replace chemical fertiliser requirements [32]. The modelling for the FZC
business case considered the area required for grass-clover swards and MSS to maintain
sward productivity, which would result in a 16% and 46% reduction in fertiliser use for
S1 and S2, respectively, as shown in Table 3. Scenario 2 (S2), on the other hand, involves
a larger scaling of immediate technologies as well as the adoption of innovations such as
the use of additives, representing a model that would be more likely to be adopted by a
risk-tolerant farmer. The Bovaer (3NOP) additive has been trialled at FZC for methane
reduction, and based on these results and the results of previous studies, a 28% reduction
was estimated during housing with a 10% reduction throughout the grazing period [40–42].
The environmental impact is limited to GHG emissions (carbon footprint) only. The
description of the strategies employed in the baseline and the two scenarios (S1 and S2) is
summarised in Table 3.

Table 3. Scenarios under consideration.

Strategy Baseline S1 S2
To 185 kg N/ha (16%) To 150 kg N/ha (45%) -Include
-Include white clover on 25% of white clover on 50% of
pasture area pasture area
Reduce Chemical N No change (220 kgN/ha) -Include red clover on 10% of -Include red clover on 25% of
silage area silage area
-Include MSS on 10% of -Include MSS on 20% of
pasture area pasture area
Grazing management 235 Days grazing Season Extend grazing season by 7 days Extend grazing season by 14 days
Protected urea 0% of chemical N 50% of chemical N 100% of chemical N
Slurry spreading season 50% Summer, 50% Spring 50% in Summer, 50% in Spring 80% in Spring, 20% in Summer
Slurry spreading method Splash plate LESS LESS
Chemically amend slurry 0% Slurry 0% of slurry 100% of slurry
Native feeds 0% of feed 50% of the diet is native 100% of the diet is native
Reduce feed concentrate No change By 5% By 10%
Throughout the year—housing + gra-
Anti-methanogenic
No change No change zing (28% reduction during
feeds (Bovaer)
housing and 10% when grazing).
Reduce replacement rate No change (22%) To 20% To 18%
Use renewable sources to
No change By 25% By 50%
reduce energy inputs
Increase production of milk
solids (EBI—manage- No change No changes By 5%
ment practices)

2.4. Economic Impact Analysis

The scenarios were modelled to determine the changes in net profit under different
levels of mitigation. Firstly, a whole farm budget was prepared for a typical average dairy
farm using farm-level data and the 2022 National Farm Survey (NFS) results to create a
baseline [12]. The basic components of the dairy budget were adopted from the Teagasc
Profit Monitor tool, which is a digital tool used by farmers to assess their profit/loss over a
period of time [43]. Components of the data include the revenue, variable costs, fixed costs
and net profit as presented in Equation (1).

Profit or loss = Total Revenue − Total Cost (1)

where profit or loss is the amount remaining after removing total costs from the gross total
revenue [44].

236
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

Farm gross revenue was calculated by combining milk sales receipts, cow sales, and
the average value of calves sold. Market values for revenue items were adopted from [45]
and [46] as follows: farm gate milk price of EUR 0.41/L of milk, EUR 1300/culled cow
and EUR 169/calf. Costs were split into variable costs and fixed costs. Variable costs are
those costs that vary per scale of production [47,48]. The major variable costs were fertiliser,
concentrates, reseeding, replacement rearing, and contractor costs. Fixed costs are costs
which do not vary with the level of production ha [43]. Fixed costs include machinery
running and lease costs, hired labour, repairs and maintenance and overheads. Expenses
such as depreciation and loan repayment were not included in order to simplify the model.

Partial Budget Analysis

A partial budget was then used to check the overall changes in net profit under the two
scenarios. The changes resulting from adopting and implementing the mitigation strategies
only affect a part of the business and mostly the direct costs, as such, a partial budget
was applicable for the analysis of the impact of such changes [49]. Using a partial budget,
one can evaluate whether a change in management will increase or decrease profit [50].
The method does not determine profit; rather, it checks the changes in net profit which is
recorded as net benefit:

Net benefit = Total benefit change − Total cost change (2)

Total benefit Change = Extra revenue + Cost saved (3)

Total cost change = Total cost increased + Revenue forgone (4)

where total benefit change is the summation of extra revenue increased plus cost saved,
and total cost change is the total cost increased plus the revenue forgone [49].
The partial budget economic analysis involves understanding the changes in costs
and/or revenues associated with various climate change mitigation strategies demonstrated
through FZC. The net benefit, expressed in EUR/Farm/year, can also be referred to as
net annual profit, which is the total of the marginal benefits accruing from the net savings
on each strategy. A positive margin implies an increase in net profits, whereas a negative
figure implies that the introduction of the mitigation strategies reduces net farm profit.

2.5. Environmental Impact Analysis

To quantify the environmental footprint of a conventional farm, a LCA model was
initially developed for the FZC farm using 2018 and 2022 data, and subsequently, data
were adapted for the average farm. The LCA methodology, guided by the International
Standardization Organization’s (ISO) framework of goal and scope definition, inventory
analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation (ISO 14040:2006) was used to calculate
the global warming potential [51]. The cradle-to-farm gate system boundary was used,
and the functional unit was the kg carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram of fat- and
protein-corrected milk (kg CO2 -eq/kg FPCM). The methodology and functional unit used
measured the GHG intensity rather than absolute emissions. In essence, a reduction in
kg CO2 -eq/kg FPCM means the kg of milk on the dairy farm was produced with a lower
carbon footprint [5]. The life cycle inventory analysis was carried out using the LCA
model developed at FZC (yet to be published) and average figures from the 2022 National
Farm Survey data (highlighted in Table 1) were used to simulate the baseline farm. The
model was populated using data on animal performance, fertiliser application, manure
management, forage production and energy consumption. The calculations are based
on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tier 2 and tier 3 by using
country-specific emissions factors from different sources including Ireland’s National
Inventory Report 2022 [52], Ireland’s Informative Inventory Report 2018 [53], the European

237
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

Environment Agency’s 2019 Air Pollutants Report [54], and the IPCC’s 2019 updates to its
2006 publication [55,56].

3. Results
3.1. Baseline
Using the variables described in Table 1 the baseline scenario was first modelled to
find the net profit and GHG emissions of the farm before any climate change mitigation
measure was applied. Table 4 provides a major summary of the costs, revenue and profit
from the case study farm. Total revenue from the sale of milk, culled cows and calves was
EUR 255,678. Total variable costs were calculated as EUR 116,087 with the high costs of
fertiliser and concentrate the major factor in the high variable costs. The net profit was
estimated to be EUR 84,265 for the baseline. Similarly, the net profit for S1 and S2 was
estimated as EUR 90,900 and EUR 102,311, respectively.

Table 4. Dairy enterprise budget.

Baseline S1 S2
Annual concentrates fed (kg/cow) 1100 kg 1045 kg 990 kg
Milk yield (L/cow) 530,100 L 530,100 L 556,605 L
Milk sales (EUR) 12,337 EUR 12,506 EUR 12,844 EUR
Meat sales (EUR) 38,337 EUR 38,506 EUR 38,844 EUR
Total Sales(EUR) 255,678 EUR 255,847 EUR 267,052 EUR
Variable costs
Concentrates (EUR) 43,682 EUR 41,491 EUR 39,145 EUR
Fertiliser (EUR) 18,533 EUR 14,574 EUR 10,998 EUR
Reseeding (EUR) 1633 EUR 2163 EUR 2799 EUR
Additives (EUR) - - 8079 EUR
Replacements rearing (EUR) 21,769 EUR 20,269 EUR 17,269 EUR
Contractor costs (EUR) 15,874 EUR 16,529 EUR 16,529 EUR
Veterinary and breeding (EUR) 14,596 EUR 14,596 EUR 14,596 EUR
Total variable costs (EUR) 116,087 EUR 109,622 EUR 109,416 EUR
Gross margin (EUR) 139,591 EUR 146,225 EUR 157,636 EUR
Fixed costs
Total fixed costs (EUR) 55,325 EUR 55,325 EUR 55,325 EUR
Net Income(cash) (EUR) 84,266 EUR 90,900 EUR 102,311 EUR
Net Savings(cash) (EUR) - 6634 EUR 18,045 EUR

For the environmental metrics, only the GHG emissions were considered and the
absolute farm emissions for the baseline was 534 tonnes CO2 . The emission intensity
expressed per unit of product using LCA was modelled to be 0.96 kgCO2 eq/kg FPCM,
before any form of intervention as shown in Figure 1. The main emission sources were
animal digestion (0.505 kg), manure management (0.130 kg) and fertiliser use (0.155 kg).
Animal digestion constitutes 52% of the farm emissions.

238
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

Figure 1. Baseline GHG emissions.

3.2. Changes in Net Profit under Different Scenarios

The partial budget results are shown in Table 5. Savings were realised from fertiliser
savings, savings in concentrate and the reduced cost of rearing heifers for replacement.
Incremental costs were also realised for reseeding and contractors’ costs for both scenarios.
The cost of slurry and anti-methanogenic additives were the major costs of the mitigation
strategies employed. Extra revenue was realised from extra milk sales, replacement sales
and fertiliser savings.

Table 5. Net benefit from different scenarios.

Cost/Benefit (EUR) S1 S2
Cost saved
Fertiliser savings (EUR) 3959 EUR 7535 EUR
Concentrate (EUR) 2191 EUR 4537 EUR
Replacement rate (EUR) 1500 EUR 4500 EUR
Extra revenue(EUR)
Extra sales (EUR) 169 EUR 11,374 EUR
Extra costs incurred
Reseeding (EUR) −530 EUR −1166 EUR
Additives (EUR) 0 EUR −8079 EUR
Contractor costs (EUR) −655 EUR −655 EUR
Net Benefit 6634 EUR 18,045 EUR
All costs and benefits are expressed in euros (EUR). The negative sign represents a loss or cost.

3.2.1. Costs Saved

Major costs forgone were the reduced fertiliser, concentrate and replacement heifer
rearing costs. Fertiliser reduction was due to the use of clover and MSS swards to reduce

239
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

the need for chemical N fertiliser. The switching from calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN)
to protected urea also resulted in large savings because 1 kg of protected urea would cost
EUR 0.18 less than CAN. Generally, large savings of EUR 3959 and EUR 7535 were realised
in S1 and S2, respectively. This could be attributed to higher fertiliser prices experienced in
2022 and 2023. The reduction in concentrate resulted in net savings of EUR 3649 and EUR
4536, respectively, in S1 and S2. Extra savings were also realised from the reduced cost of
rearing replacement heifers.

3.2.2. Extra Revenue

For Scenario 2, extra sales were recognized from increased productivity, as annual
milk yield per cow increased from 530,100 L to 556,605 L due to a higher EBI and improved
management. This results in an increase of EUR 11,374 in revenue under S2.

3.2.3. Extra Costs

Under Scenario 2, feed and slurry additives were the major costs amounting to EUR 8079.
The reseeding costs were the common costs in both S1 and S2, as clover and MSS
would need more frequent reseeding than the grass swards. However, these reseeding
costs were offset by the large fertiliser savings.

3.2.4. Net Profit/Loss

The economic modelling showed an increase in net farm profit in both Scenarios 1 and
2. Under S1, where the farmer applied minimum measures for climate change mitigation, a
net farm profit increase of EUR 6634 was achieved, and a larger profit (EUR 18,045) was
realised for S2. Though high costs were realised for the use of additives, these costs were
neutralised by savings from reduced fertiliser use and increased productivity. A positive
figure shows that the overall impact of the intervention provides a profit rather than a loss.
Farmers may be more willing to adopt the interventions modelled in both scenarios as they
have a positive net economic benefit.

3.3. Environmental Impact

Following LCA modelling of climate change mitigation strategies for both scenar-
ios, changes were noted across the main categories of emission sources as shown in
Figure 2. The GHG emissions were reduced to 0.847 kg of CO2 -eq/kgFPCM and 0.614 kg
of CO2 -eq/kgFPCM, in S1 and S2, respectively.

3.3.1. Animal Digestion

Methane emissions from enteric fermentation were the dominant source of GHG
emissions, contributing 56% (0.458 kg of CO2 -eq) of the total GHG emissions under S1
and 62% (0.409 kg of CO2 -eq) per kilogram of FPCM under S2. A 28% methane emission
reduction during the housing period and a 10% reduction during the grazing season were
assumed for S2, where anti-methane additives were used. This resulted in a 12% emission
reduction from animal digestion in S2.

3.3.2. Manure Management

As compared to the baseline, manure accounted for a greater percentage of total emis-
sions than fertiliser, after climate change mitigation strategies were applied. By extending
the grazing season and applying manure management of chemically amending slurry,
applying slurry during favourable weather conditions and using LESS for spreading slurry,
the emissions from manure decreased from 0.13 to 0.122 and 0.073 kg CO2 -eq/kgFPCM, in
S1 and S2, respectively.

3.3.3. Fertiliser Use

Nitrogen fertiliser use is responsible for nitrous oxide emissions during the fertiliser
application and production processes. The use of protected urea and a reduction in the

240
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

quantity of nitrogen fertiliser applied saw the fertiliser emissions drop by 3.3% and 7.1%
for S1 and S2, respectively.

Figure 2. Changes in GHG emissions under different scenarios.

3.3.4. Feed Production

Ireland mainly depends on feed imports such as soya from Brazil and grain from
America for concentrate ingredients, which have higher GHG emissions from land use
changes and transport than local ingredients. A reduction in feed concentrates and sourcing
of EU-produced feed ingredients had a significant reduction in emissions from feed pro-
duction, with a decrease from the baseline of 0.124 to 0.083 and 0.44 kg CO2 -eq/kgFPCM,
in S1 and S2, respectively.

3.3.5. Other
The category “other” represented all emissions from the farm which may not fall into
the broader categories, for example, farm energy use. Energy demand reductions for farm
applications, such as manure spreading and fertiliser applications, would result in lower
on-farm CO2 emissions.

3.3.6. Net Environmental Impact

The overall results show a net reduction in GHG emissions of 12% from 0.96 kg of
CO2 -eq/kgFPCM to 0.847 under S1, and in S2 where the farm-level strategies are employed
at a larger scale there was a 36% reduction in emissions the final footprint was 0.614 kg
CO2 -eq/kgFPCM.

4. Discussion
Irish farmers need to move towards climate neutrality by adopting robust but practical
technologies which ensure both the environmental and economic sustainability of dairy
farms. The national emission reduction target of 25% is based on absolute farm emissions
using the IPCC methodology [5]. In the FZC case study, the LCA methodology, which con-
siders emissions from upstream processes such as fertiliser and feed production, was used.
The results show the reduction in emissions per kilogram of milk, which is an important
measure at the farm level for farmers to be able to understand how their environmental
decisions affect the farm profit.

241
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

4.1. Economic Impact

The baseline represents an average commercial dairy farm which is economically
sustainable, as evidenced by a net profit of EUR 84,265. The higher revenues, as compared
to the previous seasons, can be attributed to higher farmgate milk prices [12]. According to
the NFS results, fertiliser and concentrate feeds are the major variable costs, with fertiliser
contributing almost 20% to the total variable costs [12]. The results are in line with [11],
which indicates that more grass in the diet increases the profitability of the farming system,
and increasing more concentrate feeds is not always the most economically rational choice.
The reduction in the quantity of concentrate feeds is not expected to reduce the productivity
of the farm, as the assumption is that any dry matter shortfall is compensated for by
grassland management practices such as extending the grazing season [44]. Farmers are
expected to reduce their concentrate feed not only due to the environmental benefits but
also the realisation of cost reduction opportunities. This is in line with evidence from
an online survey of 396 Irish farmers, which showed 73% support for the paradigm of
maximizing milk from forage and minimizing concentrate use [57] for both environmental
and economic gains. Major incremental gains were also realised from increasing the EBI of
the herd. The EBI is an efficiency tool which aims to improve the genetic merit of animals
for increased profitability. In line with [24], the increase in dairy productivity would result
in reduced emission intensity but absolute farm emissions may not drop.
Though large methane emission reductions were realised from the anti-methane
additives in S2, it was determined from this analysis that the additives were the major
incremental costs in the dairy system under S2. The costs of anti-methane additives
represent a major challenge to the adoption of the strategy, as previous research has shown
that costly mitigation strategies are a huge disincentive [23].

Other Opportunities for Revenue Generation

The partial budget results in Section 3 indicate the likely increase in net profit by
adopting the current farm-level FZC mitigation opportunities; however, by following
specific MRV standards, the products can be certified as “carbon reduced” or “carbon free”.
Where an MRV procedure can be established and the emission abatement can be attributed
to specific strategies, the farmers can potentially obtain money from carbon credits or
market premiums. In the EU, a tonne of CO2 is expected to cost EUR 140 by 2030 [58];
hence, under the S2 scenario, farmers have the potential to earn up to EUR 20,580 from
abating 147 tonnes of CO2 . A recent Irish consumer survey of 1500 adults showed that 72%
of respondents were willing to pay more for dairy products, provided they see the evidence
that the increase is going to embed the latest environmental initiatives in production [59].
This view is reiterated by [60]’s findings on consumers’ perceptions of carbon footprint
labels for dairy products in Italy, which shows that consumers would be willing to pay extra
when they are fully aware of the products and claims made about the carbon footprint.

4.2. Environmental Impact

In contrast to indoor systems where manure is the largest contributor to GHG emis-
sions, in grass-based systems, total emissions consist mainly of methane emissions from
enteric fermentation [33]. Scenario 2 resonates with target resource use efficiency systems
simulated by [61,62] whose results concur with the current study. Both studies found that
methane emissions in target farms would contribute a larger percentage to overall GHG
than the baseline current farm with lower efficiency. The results highlight the need to
reduce methane emissions in grass-based systems. The additive Bovaer (3NOP) has shown
consistency in methane reduction with an average of 30% reduction when administered in
feed for dairy cows [42,63,64]. However, there are practical issues around administration of
the additives in grass-based systems. The adoption rate of additives in general is expected
to be low, as there are issues regarding social acceptance and the cost of the additives [65].
Previous studies have suggested the use of slow-release bolus to incorporate the additives
in pasture-based systems where 95% of the animals’ diet is from grazed forage [41,63].

242
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

The reduction in fertiliser emissions in both S1 and S2 is a result of nitrous oxide

reduction. Nitrous oxide emissions account for 25% of the agricultural sector’s emissions
in Ireland [35]. In line with [22,37], the FZC case study highlights the importance of
incorporating clover and minimising chemical fertiliser for grassland productivity. This
also concurs with [33], who showed that nitrogen surplus from chemical nitrogen per
hectare was positively correlated to the GHG emission intensity of milk. According to [66],
animal excreta and urine are the biggest sources of N2 O per year in grasslands, followed
by manure applications. Manure acts as an emission source for both methane and nitrous
oxide, and the quantity emitted is linked to environmental conditions, type of management
and composition of the manure [67]. By extending the grazing season and applying manure
management strategies, fewer emissions are released from the storage and application of
manure. The overall reduction in emissions from manure management in both S1 and S2
results shows that though extending the grazing season results in more N emissions from
excreta deposited on grassland, the reduction in emissions from stored manure will be
higher than the marginal increase from manure deposits [33]. In contrast to confinement
systems, in grass-based systems, the total GHG emissions associated with feed production
are predominantly from grass [61].
The results show that to achieve climate neutrality in dairy systems by 2050, a holistic
approach which combines different mitigation strategies at significant but reasonable
levels (e.g., S2) of application is required. Farmers are still able to achieve a notable
emission reduction of 12% under S1 without incorporating new technologies such as
anti-methane additives. The results concur with studies by [62], in Ireland and [19] in
New Zealand, which showed that combining climate mitigation strategies that increase
production efficiencies, resulted in substantial emission reduction for grass-based systems.
The business case underlines the significance of using multiple measures in reducing climate
change as there are no quick fixes to achieving net zero emissions [68]. It is important to
highlight that efficient use of resources can offer additional benefits, other than reducing
costs and carbon dioxide emissions. A study by [62] has already shown that moving to
a target-efficient system would reduce freshwater eutrophication, acidification, and non-
renewable energy depletion in Irish dairy. As more consumers become more responsible
for their purchasing behaviour by purchasing environmentally friendly products [59,60],
and reducing food waste and losses, this case study shows that there are potential positive
ripple effects of holistic sustainable production [69]. Such solutions are important to achieve
all three dimensions of environmental, economic and social sustainability [69].

Opportunities for Further Emission Reduction

While work remains to further reduce the emission footprint of the farm towards net
zero, Shinagh Farm has several planned activities which can help to improve these scenarios.
The project plans to implement a grass biorefinery and anaerobic digestion plant in 2024.
The benefits of grass biorefinery to improve the use of grassland on dairy farms have
previously been highlighted in Ireland through projects such as Biorefinery Glas and FZC. In
this approach, fresh grass can be converted into multiple protein sources, including a press
cake which is suitable for feeding ruminants and a leaf protein concentrate (LPC) which is
suitable for feeding monogastric animals, such as pigs and poultry. Previous work from [70]
has highlighted the potential for press cake to replace silage in dairy cow diets, achieving
comparable milk yields, while offering a reduction in nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus)
excrement losses and delivering a higher nitrogen use efficiency. Work by [71,72] has
shown that the extracted protein LPC can serve as a suitable replacement for imported soya
bean meal in the diets of pigs. By creating “off-farm” products, the biorefinery approach
can help the farm to achieve further environmental benefits by enabling a redistribution
of the environmental impacts associated with grassland production. The inclusion of
anaerobic digestion to produce biogas using farm residual streams is also expected to add
further improvements to the current scenario. For example, ref. [73] has previously shown
that small-scale anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry, co-digested with some grass from

243
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

Irish farms, can meet the farm’s energy needs with surplus energy exported, representing
between 73% and 79% of the total energy generated, with all scenarios investigated offering
a net CO2 emission reduction of approximately 173,237 kg CO2 -[Link]− 1 . In addition to the
slurry, the residual streams or by-products such as grass whey and press cake from the
grass biorefinery can also be utilised as a feedstock for biogas production, helping to further
improve the sustainability and circularity of the farm model [72]. It is anticipated that a
further 0.3 to 1.1 tonne CO2 /ha/yr reduction can be obtained from carbon sequestration
from grassland management practices already employed at FZC as well as hedgerows.

5. Conclusions
To meet the GHG targets at the national and EU level without jeopardizing the eco-
nomic viability of the sector, Irish agriculture needs to adopt practical climate mitigation
strategies. Using partial budget analysis and LCA assessment to measure the change in
farm profit and GHG emissions under different scenarios, the business case for an average
Irish dairy farm was formed based on the FZC holistic approach. The FZC approach
reiterates the importance of adopting win–win approaches also highlighted in the Teagasc
MACC curve, such as the inclusion of clover, protected urea, slurry management and
reducing feed concentrates immediately, as they result in lower operational costs. Evidence
from S1 shows that by implementing these win–win solutions even at a small scale, a
16% reduction in GHG emissions can be achieved. Incremental costs are realised especially
from methane additives, slurry amendments and the use of native feeds. Biogenic methane
is the major GHG in grass-based systems; therefore, the use of methane additives for
emission reduction should be considered a priority. As highlighted by the business case,
anti-methane additives are costly. Subsidies or other financial policy incentives should be
considered to foster the uptake of additives, especially during the period when the animals
are housed as the additives are most effective.
While significant sustainability improvements can be achieved by implementing the
current farm-level mitigation strategies at a higher scale (S2), these steps alone may not be
sufficient to achieve climate neutrality, as shown by the reduction to 0.614 kg CO2 -eq/kg
FPCM in S2. This means that there is a need for more research into additional climate
mitigation measures in order to reach net zero emissions on the farm. Targeting net zero
ensures that the environmental sustainability goals are achieved without compromising
food security. More research should be invested towards the MRV of soil carbon sequestra-
tion potential of grasslands and hedgerows so that the contribution of soil organic carbon
could be incorporated in future business cases. Other ways to further reduce the emissions
include anaerobic biodigesters for renewable energy, and the implementation of biorefiner-
ies to improve the efficiency of grassland use. Consumers will also be crucial in driving the
demand for climate-neutral agriculture; therefore, consumer-side policies should be aimed
at increasing awareness of the climate change challenge. In addition, multi-actor partner-
ships would be crucial in the dissemination of information on climate change mitigation
across the agricultural sector. Stakeholders like producer associations, dairy companies,
cooperatives and advisory organisations should continue to advise farmers on low-carbon
farming. The holistic approach to sustainable agricultural production can be instrumental
in achieving other SDGs including food security, responsible production and consumption,
and life in water and on the ground.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.O., J.G., E.B. and F.M.; methodology, L.A.V., F.M., T.R.
and G.H.; validation, K.O., J.G., F.M., E.B. and G.H.; formal analysis, T.R. and L.A.V.; investigation,
data curation, G.H., T.R. and L.A.V.; writing—original draft preparation, T.R., L.A.V. and G.H.;
writing—review and editing, K.O., J.G., F.M. and E.B.; visualization, L.A.V.; supervision, J.G.; project
administration, G.H. and J.G.; funding acquisition, K.O., F.M., J.G. and E.B. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

244
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

Funding: This research was funded through the Farm Zero C project by Science Foundation Ire-land’s
Zero Emissions Challenge, grant number 19/FIP/ZE/7558. The authors would like to acknowledge
this funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data is available upon a formal request.
Conflicts of Interest: Author E.B. is employed by Carbery group and the company was a partner in
the FZC [Link] authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine. Fact Sheet on Irish Agriculture. 2023. Available online: [Link]
6024/[Link] (accessed on 11 September 2023).
2. Gaffey, J.; McMahon, H.; Marsh, E.; Vehmas, K.; Kymäläinen, T.; Vos, J. Understanding Consumer Perspectives of Bio-based
Products—A Comparative Case Study from Ireland and the Netherlands. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6062. [CrossRef]
3. Department of the Environment, Climate and Communication. A Waste Action Plan for a Circular Economy. 2020. Available
online: [Link] (accessed on 15 January 2024).
4. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.;
et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9943. [CrossRef]
5. Duffy, P.; Black, D.; Fahey, B.; Hyde, A.; Kehoe, E.; Kent, T.; MacFarlane, B.; Monoghan, J.; Murphy, J.; Ponzi, J.; et al. Ireland’s
National Inventory Report 2023. 2023. Available online: [Link]
change/air-emissions/NIR-2023-Final_v3.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2023).
6. Government of Ireland. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2021 Securing Our Future. 2021. Available online: [Link]
46/[Link] (accessed on 4 April 2023).
7. Department of Environment, Climate and Communication. Ireland’s Long-Term Strategy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Reduction. 2023. Available online: [Link] (accessed on
12 October 2023).
8. Buckley, C.; Donnellan, T.; Moran, B.; Lennon, J.; Brennan, J.; Colgan, J.; Curley, A.; Deane, L.; Doyle, T.; Harnett, P.; et al. Teagasc
National Farm Survey 2021 Sustainability Report; Teagasc, Athenry, Co.: Galway, Ireland, 2022.
9. Central Statitics Office. Environmental Indicators Ireland: Irish Land Use Categories 1990–2020. Available online: https:
//[Link]/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/environmentalindicatorsireland2022/landuse/ (accessed on 2 July 2023).
10. O’Mara, F.; Richards, K.G.; Shalloo, L.; Donnellan, T.; Finn, J.A.; Lanigan, G. Sustainability of Ruminant Livestock Production in
Ireland. Anim. Front. 2021, 11, 32–43. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Ramsbottom, G.; Horan, B.; Pierce, K.M.; Berry, D.P.; Roche, J.R. A Case Study of Longitudinal Trends in Biophysical and Financial
Performance of Spring-Calving Pasture-Based Dairy Farms. Int. J. Agric. Manag. 2020, 9, 33–44.
12. Dillon, E.; Donnellan, T.; Moran, B.; Lennon, J. Teagasc National Farm Survey 2022. 2023. Available online: [Link]
ie/publications/2023/[Link] (accessed on 3 October 2023).
13. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Fact Sheet on Irish Agriculture Key Indicators for Agri-Food Sectors. 2020.
Available online: [Link] (accessed on 5 November 2023).
14. Chen, R.; Zhang, R.; Han, H. Climate Neutral in Agricultural Production System: A Regional Case from China. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 33682–33697. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Searchinger, T.; Zionts, J.; Wirsenius, S.; Peng, L.; Beringer, T.; Dumas, P.; Rahbek, C.; Kvist Johannsen, V.; Jacobesen, B.; Bredahl, J.;
et al. A Pathway to Carbon Neutral Agriculture in Denmark. 2021. Available online: [Link]
public/uploads/PDFs/[Link] (accessed on 3 August 2023).
16. Kingwell, R. Making agriculture Carbon Neutral amid a Changing Climate: The Case of South-Western Australia. Land 2021,
10, 1259. [CrossRef]
17. Sanderman, J. Can Management Induced Changes in the Carbonate System Drive Soil Carbon Sequestration? A Review with
Particular Focus on Australia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 155, 70–77. [CrossRef]
18. Kragt, M.E.; Pannell, D.J.; Robertson, M.J.; Thamo, T. Assessing Costs of Soil Carbon Sequestration by Crop-Livestock Farmers in
Western Australia. Agric. Syst. 2012, 112, 27–37. [CrossRef]
19. Yang, W.; Rennie, G.; Ledgard, S.; Mercer, G.; Lucci, G. Impact of Delivering ‘Green’ Dairy Products on Farm in New Zealand.
Agric. Syst. 2020, 178, 102747. [CrossRef]
20. Forrestal, P.; Somers, C.; Plunkett, M.; Wall, D.; O’dwyer, T. Protected Urea: What Is It, Does It Work, and Is It Cost Effective?
2019. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 2 April 2023).
21. Mccarthy, K.; Mcaloon, C.; Lynch, B.; Pierce, K.; Mulligan, F.; Totty, V.; Greenwood, S.; Bryant, R.; Edwards, G. The effect of a
zero-grazed perennial ryegrass, perennial rye-grass and white clover, or multispecies sward on the dry matter intake and milk
production of dairy cows. Anim. Sci. Proc. 2021, 12, 96. [CrossRef]

245
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

22. Egan, M.; Galvin, N.; Hennessy, D. Incorporating White Clover (Trifolium Repens L.) into Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium Perenne L.)
Swards Receiving Varying Levels of Nitrogen Fertilizer: Effects on Milk and Herbage Production. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 3412–3427.
[CrossRef]
23. Farstad, M.; Melås, A.M.; Klerkx, L. Climate Considerations aside: What Really Matters for Farmers in Their Implementation of
Climate Mitigation Measures. J. Rural. Stud. 2022, 96, 259–269. [CrossRef]
24. Läpple, D. Information about Climate Change Mitigation: What Do Farmers Think? EuroChoices 2023, 22, 74–80. [CrossRef]
25. Geoghegan, C.; O’donoghue, C.; Loughrey, J. The Local Economic Impact of Climate Change Mitigation in Agriculture. Bio-Based
Appl. Econ. 2022, 11, 323–337. [CrossRef]
26. Lanigan, G.J.; Hanrahan, K.; Richards, K.G.; Lanigan, G.; Black, K.; Donnellan, T.; Crosson, P.; Beausang, C.; Buckley, C.;
Lahart, B.; et al. MACC 2023: An Updated Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Potential of the Irish Agriculture and Land-Use
Sectors between 2021 and 2030 Prepared by Teagasc Climate Centre; Teagasc: Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland, 2023.
27. Lalor, S.T.J.; Schröder, J.J.; Lantinga, E.A.; Oenema, O.; Kirwan, L.; Schulte, R.P.O. Nitrogen Fertilizer Replacement Value of Cattle
Slurry in Grassland as Affected by Method and Timing of Application. J. Environ. Qual. 2011, 40, 362–373. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Lahart, B.; Shalloo, L.; Herron, J.; O’Brien, D.; Fitzgerald, R.; Boland, T.M.; Buckley, F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Nitrogen
Efficiency of Dairy Cows of Divergent Economic Breeding Index under Seasonal Pasture-Based Management. J. Dairy Sci. 2021,
104, 8039–8049. [CrossRef]
29. Biorefinery Glas. Grass Biorefinery. 2020. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 27 November 2023).
30. Visser, S.; Lhermite, E.; Keesstra, S. The Innovation Potential for the Irish Agri-Food Sector 2. Carbon Farming. 2023. Available
online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 30 June 2023).
31. Cahill, L.; Patton, D.; Reilly, B.; Pierce, K.M.; Horan, B. Grazing Season Length and Stocking Rate Affect Milk Production and
Supplementary Feed Requirements of Spring-Calving Dairy Cows on Marginal Soils. J. Dairy Sci. 2023, 106, 1051–1064. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
32. Johnston, D.J.; Laidlaw, A.S.; Theodoridou, K.; Ferris, C.P. Performance and Nutrient Utilisation of Dairy Cows Offered Silages
Produced from Three Successive Harvests of Either a Red Clover–Perennial Ryegrass Sward or a Perennial Ryegrass Sward.
Ir. J. Agric. Food Res. 2020, 59, 42–55. [CrossRef]
33. O’Brien, D.; Hennessy, T.; Moran, B.; Shalloo, L. Relating the Carbon Footprint of Milk from Irish Dairy Farms to Economic
Performance. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 7394–7407. [CrossRef]
34. Forrestal, P. Manure and It’s Management-Focus on Cattle Slurry. In Proceedings of the Soil Fertility Conference: Optimising Soil
and Fertiliser for Sustainable Grassland Management, Kilkeny, Ireland, 17 October 2018.
35. Lanigan, G.J.; Donnellan, T.; Lanigan, G.; Hanrahan, K.; Paul, C.; Shalloo, L.; Krol, D.; Forrestal, P.; Farrelly, N.; O’brien, D.; et al.
An Analysis of Abatement Potential of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Irish Agriculture 2021–2030 Prepared by the Teagasc Greenhouse Gas
Working Group Authors; Teagasc: Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland, 2019.
36. [Link]. Prepare for Calving 2023. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 3 August 2023).
37. Ruelle, E.; Delaby, L.; Shalloo, L.; O’Donovan, M.; Hennessy, D.; Egan, M.; Horan, B.; Dillon, P. Modelling the Effects of Stocking
Rate, Soil Type, Agroclimate Location and Nitrogen Input on the Grass DM Yield and Forage Self-Sufficiency of Irish Grass-Based
Dairy Production Systems. J. Agric. Sci. 2022, 160, 235–249. [CrossRef]
38. McClearn, B.; Shalloo, L.; Gilliland, T.J.; Coughlan, F.; McCarthy, B. An Economic Comparison of Pasture-Based Production
Systems Differing in Sward Type and Cow Genotype. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 4455–4465. [CrossRef]
39. Yan, M.J.; Humphreys, J.; Holden, N.M. The Carbon Footprint of Pasture-Based Milk Production: Can White Clover Make a
Difference? J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 857–865. [CrossRef]
40. Martinez-Fernandez, G.; Duval, S.; Kindermann, M.; Schirra, H.J.; Denman, S.E.; McSweeney, C.S. 3-NOP vs. Halogenated
Compound: Methane Production, Ruminal Fermentation and Microbial Community Response in Forage Fed Cattle. Front.
Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1582. [CrossRef]
41. Cummins, S.; Lanigan, G.J.; Richards, K.G.; Boland, T.M.; Kirwan, S.F.; Smith, P.E.; Waters, S.M. Solutions to Enteric Methane
Abatement in Ireland. IJAFR 2022, 61, 353–371. [CrossRef]
42. Melgar, A.; Lage, C.F.A.; Nedelkov, K.; Räisänen, S.E.; Stefenoni, H.; Fetter, M.E.; Chen, X.; Oh, J.; Duval, S.; Kindermann, M.;
et al. Enteric Methane Emission, Milk Production, and Composition of Dairy Cows Fed 3-Nitrooxypropanol. J. Dairy Sci. 2021,
104, 357–366. [CrossRef]
43. Hanrahan, L.; McHugh, N.; Hennessy, T.; Moran, B.; Kearney, R.; Wallace, M.; Shalloo, L. Factors Associated with Profitability in
Pasture-Based Systems of Milk Production. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 5474–5485. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Ramsbottom, G.; Horan, B.; Berry, D.P.; Roche, J.R. Factors Associated with the Financial Performance of Spring-Calving,
Pasture-Based Dairy Farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 3526–3540. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Board Bia. Export Performance and Prospects Report 2022–2023. 2023. Available online: [Link]
[Link]/industry/2022---2023-export-performance--prospects-fi[Link] (accessed on 21 June 2023).
46. National Dairy Council. Dairy in a Healthy and Sustainable Irish and European Food System. Dairy Sustainability Newsletter. Issue
No 003. 2022. Available online: [Link] (accessed on
17 August 2023).

246
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

47. Dillon, E.; Donnellan, T.; Moran, B.; Lennon, J. Teagasc National Farm Survey 2020 Results Rural Economy Development Programme;
Teagasc: Athenry, Galway, Ireland, 2021.
48. Ramsbottom, G.; Cromie, A.R.; Horan, B.; Berry, D.P. Relationship between Dairy Cow Genetic Merit and Profit on Commercial
Spring Calving Dairy Farms. Animal 2012, 6, 1031–1039. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Soha, M.E.D. The Partial Budget Analysis for Sorghum Farm in Sinai Peninsula, Egypt. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2014, 59, 77–81. [CrossRef]
50. Jerlström, J.; Huang, W.; Ehlorsson, C.J.; Eriksson, I.; Reneby, A.; Comin, A. Stochastic Partial Budget Analysis of Strategies to
Reduce the Prevalence of Lung Lesions in Finishing Pigs at Slaughter. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 957975. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. ISO 14040:2006; Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework. Environmental Management
System Requirements. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
52. Duffy, P.; Black, K.; Fahey, D.; Hyde, B.; Kehoe, A.; Monoghan, S.; Murphy, J.; Ryan, A.M.; Ponzi, J. Ireland’s National Inventory
Report 2022; The Environemntal Protection Agency; Johnstown Castle, Co.: Wexford. Ireland, 2022; Available online: https://
[Link]/publications/monitoring--assessment/climate-change/air-emissions/Ireland-NIR-2022_Merge_v2..pdf (accessed
on 12 April 2023).
53. Duffy, P.; Hyde, B.; Ryan, A.M.; Alam, M.S. Ireland’s Informative Inventrory Report 2018; The Environemntal Protection Agency;
Johnstown Castle, Co.: Wexford, Ireland, 2018; Available online: [Link]
climate-change/air-emissions/Ireland-IIR-2018_Final.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2023).
54. European Environment Agency. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2019: Technical Guidance to Prepare
National Emission Inventories; Publications Office of the European Union: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2019; Available online: https:
//[Link]/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2019/download (accessed on 6 April 2023).
55. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Chapter 11 N2O Emissions from Managed Soils and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application. 2019. Available online: https:
//[Link]/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O&[Link] (accessed on 13 April 2023).
56. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Inventories, Chapter 10
Emissions from Livestock and Manure Management 2019. 2019. Available online: [Link]
19rf/pdf/4_Volume4/19R_V4_Ch10_Livestock.pdf (accessed on 13 April 2023).
57. Shortall, O.K.; Lorenzo-Arribas, A. Dairy Farmer Practices and Attitud es Relating to Grass-Based, High-Feed-Input, and Indoor
Production Systems in Ireland. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 375–388. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. KPMG. Agri-Food 2030: How the Sector Can Turn Disruption into Opportunity Your Partner for What’s Next. 2022. Available online:
[Link] (accessed on 4 September 2023).
59. Board Bia. Buyer Guide: Grass Fed Dairy from Ireland Buyer Guide: Grass Fed Dairy from Ireland 2. 2022. Available
online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 4 September 2023).
60. Canavari, M.; Coderoni, S. Consumer Stated Preferences for Dairy Products with Carbon Footprint Labels in Italy. Agric. Food
Econ. 2020, 8, 1–16. [CrossRef]
61. O’Brien, D.; Shalloo, L.; Patton, J.; Buckley, F.; Grainger, C.; Wallace, M. A Life Cycle Assessment of Seasonal Grass-Based and
Confinement Dairy Farms. Agric. Syst. 2012, 107, 33–46. [CrossRef]
62. Herron, J.; O’Brien, D.; Shalloo, L. Life Cycle Assessment of Pasture-Based Dairy Production Systems: Current and Future
Performance. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 5849–5869. [CrossRef]
63. Van Wesemael, D.; Vandaele, L.; Ampe, B.; Cattrysse, H.; Duval, S.; Kindermann, M.; Fievez, V.; De Campeneere, S.; Peiren,
N. Reducing Enteric Methane Emissions from Dairy Cattle: Two Ways to Supplement 3-Nitrooxypropanol. J. Dairy Sci. 2019,
102, 1780–1787. [CrossRef]
64. Yu, G.; Beauchemin, K.A.; Dong, R. A Review of 3-Nitrooxypropanol for Enteric Methane Mitigation from Ruminant Livestock.
Animals 2021, 11, 3540. [CrossRef]
65. Beauchemin, K.A.; Ungerfeld, E.M.; Eckard, R.J.; Wang, M. Review: Fifty Years of Research on Rumen Methanogenesis: Lessons
Learned and Future Challenges for Mitigation. In Animal; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020; Volume 14,
pp. S2–S16. [CrossRef]
66. Rivera, J.E.; Chará, J. CH4 and N2 O Emissions From Cattle Excreta: A Review of Main Drivers and Mitigation Strategies in
Grazing Systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 657936. [CrossRef]
67. Misselbrook, T.; Hunt, J.; Perazzolo, F.; Provolo, G. Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions from Slurry Storage: Impacts
of Temperature and Potential Mitigation through Covering (Pig Slurry) or Acidification (Cattle Slurry). J. Environ. Qual. 2016,
45, 1520–1530. [CrossRef]
68. Emmet-Booth, J.P.; Dekker, S.; O’brien, P. Climate Change Mitigation and the Irish Agriculture and Land Use Sector. 2019.
Available online: [Link]
%[Link] (accessed on 6 February 2023).
69. D’Adamo, I.; Desideri, S.; Gastaldi, M.; Tsagarakis, K.P. Sustainable Food Waste Management in Supermarkets. Sustain. Prod.
Consum. 2023, 43, 204–216. [CrossRef]
70. Serra, E.; Lynch, M.B.; Gaffey, J.; M Sanders, J.P.; Koopmans, S.; Markiewicz-Keszycka, M.; McKay, Z.C.; Pierce, K.M. Biorefined
Press Cake Silage as Feed Source for Dairy Cows: Effect on Milk Production and Composition, Rumen Fermentation, Nitrogen
and Phosphorus Excretion and in Vitro Methane production. Livest. Sci. 2022, 267, 105135. [CrossRef]

247
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1028

71. Gaffey, J.; O’Donovan, C.; Murphy, D.; O’Connor, T.; Walsh, D.; Vergara, L.A.; Donkor, K.; Gottumukkala, L.; Koopmans, S.;
Buckley, E.; et al. Synergetic Benefits for a Pig Farm and Local Bioeconomy Development from Extended Green Biorefinery Value
Chains. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8692. [CrossRef]
72. Ravindran, R.; Koopmans, S.; Sanders, J.P.M.; McMahon, H.; Gaffey, J. Production of Green Biorefinery Protein Concentrate
Derived from Perennial Ryegrass as an Alternative Feed for Pigs. Clean Technol. 2021, 3, 656–669. [CrossRef]
73. O’Connor, S.; Ehimen, E.; Pillai, S.C.; Lyons, G.; Bartlett, J. Economic and Environmental Analysis of Small-Scale Anaerobic
Digestion Plants on Irish Dairy Farms. Energies 2020, 13, 637. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

248
 sustainability

Article
Exploring the Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on
Sustainability Trends
Eduardo Ordonez-Ponce

Faculty of Business, Athabasca University, Athabasca, AB T9S 3A3, Canada; [Link]@[Link]

Abstract: The SDGs have made a significant contribution to the sustainability movement, being used by
many organisations from across sectors all over the world as their sustainability framework. However,
have they impacted the previous trend of sustainability challenges just because of their existence?
This article aims to contribute to answering this question by statistically comparing the trends in the
sustainability performance of the SDGs before and after they were launched in 2015. Data were collected
for every SDG and their trends were quantitatively assessed using non-parametric tests, finding that
most of the SDGs have not significantly improved and that most of the sustainability indicators are
still performing poorly in developing countries. While this research is exploratory and does not assess
the direct impact of the SDGs on sustainability, it suggests that for the most part, the SDGs have not
significantly changed sustainability trends since they were launched in 2015, which is a concerning
finding. This article should serve as a wake-up call to design more suitable sustainability frameworks
as the SDGs expire in 2030, and for those using them to be more critical of their reach rather than being
satisfied with a framework that although helping will not achieve its main goal.

Keywords: SDGs; sustainability trends; SDG progress

1. Introduction
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), launched in 2015 by the United Na-
Citation: Ordonez-Ponce, E. tions in agreement with 195 countries, have been classified as the greatest agreement ever
Exploring the Impact of the achieved [1], and many academics, universities, corporations, governments and NGOs are
Sustainable Development Goals on
following their lead under the seeming assumption that by doing so they are contributing
Sustainability Trends. Sustainability
to local and global sustainability. For some, there has been a shift in the sustainability
2023, 15, 16647. [Link]
movement since the SDGs were launched [2,3], as an important milestone in the sustain-
10.3390/su152416647
ability journey. However, even though a responsibility cannot be directly assigned to them,
Academic Editors: Idiano D’Adamo, it is important to assess how successful they have been in contributing to addressing the
Massimo Gastaldi and Manoj sustainability challenges they have identified as being crucial to be tackled. How much has
Kumar Nallapaneni really changed since the SDGs were launched? How have the previous trends in poverty
Received: 10 November 2023
reduction, economic output or biodiversity loss, to name a few, been impacted by the
Revised: 30 November 2023
implementation of the SDGs? While the direct relationship between the existence of the
Accepted: 5 December 2023 SDGs and any progress or deterioration in sustainability challenges cannot be established,
Published: 7 December 2023 finding that things have not really improved would stain the impact and importance that
many of us have assigned to the SDGs. Certainly, any sustainability challenge cannot
be overcome just because the SDGs were launched, have been promoted and are widely
used as a sustainability framework. But also, since they are ubiquitous nowadays, it is
Copyright: © 2023 by the author. fair to ask if sustainable development has really improved thanks, although in part, to
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. their existence. Answering this question is the objective of this article. By not knowing
This article is an open access article
this, there is a serious risk of using their name as a way to greenwash our actions [4,5],
distributed under the terms and
and as stated by Ali and colleagues, “sustainable washing does not solve problems” but
conditions of the Creative Commons
integrated solutions are what is required [6] (p. 3). This is one of the reasons why answering
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
the simple question of whether they have shifted the trend in sustainable development
[Link]/licenses/by/
is necessary. This research aims to explore this question and assess whether there have
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647. [Link] 249 [Link]

Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

been significant changes in sustainability challenges thanks to the existence of the SDGs
and their implementation. Furthermore, this article is a humble invitation to carefully
assess the real weight of the SDGs in the sustainability journey, which is subject to their
value and limitations. It is an invitation to those of us conducting research, developing
policies, designing strategies or undertaking simple but honest actions to realise that their
existence is not enough to contribute to sustainable development and that we must stay
away from any potential “SDG washing” if we really want to make deep contributions
to our development. This can be considered the immediate implication of this research,
but perhaps more importantly, the aim is to use these findings and the discussion we hope
to create with them to think ahead of time about the future sustainability framework or
strategy we will aim to implement starting in 2030, when the SDGs expire, leaving, most
likely, a lot of work still to do.
While the question proposed by this article may seem an obvious one to address,
academic work has been mostly focused on the positive value of the SDGs trying to
understand how helpful they and every one of them has been in achieving their aim, how
they have been used, where and by whom. All certainly contribute to sustainability science
and knowledge [6]. However, although it is hard to justify the limited existence of other
studies like this, which take a broader and more critical approach, it is crucial to question
our own approaches and the frameworks we use so we do not become unconsciously
trapped in our own beliefs and short-term agendas, but look to the future and contribute to
real change.

2. Literature
The SDGs are about halfway through their span, so it is a good moment to assess
whether there have been any changes in sustainability trends since their launch in September
2015. Indeed, assessing their impact on improving the current state of the identified goals
can only be made indirectly, since these are such complex challenges that no organisation
would be able to tackle alone successfully [7,8]. However, they have been identified as
crucial [1] and as causing a shift in the sustainability journey [2], but it cannot be argued
that just by their existence that things have changed, just as it is hard to directly link what
organisations have done, or declare doing, in terms of contributing to these achievements,
with any potential progress [9]. Despite that, partly due to the gap in the literature it is
necessary to explore what has happened with the identified sustainability challenges once
the SDGs were launched versus what was happening with them before 2015. As their
deadline approaches and indicators show that they will not be reached by 2030 [10,11],
assessing the success of their existence would help us and local and global policymakers to
prepare for 2030 and replace them with a more appropriate and realistic approach.

2.1. SDG Research and Practice

The literature shows that the SDGs have been studied widely in specific and general
terms, with a constantly growing number of articles being published on the topic over the
years [6]. Across continents, types of organisations and their relevance, there is a global
agreement on and a desire to achieve sustainable development [6]. Although some have
already argued that they will hardly be achieved by 2030 and provide recommendations
to shift route [10], which was probably expected due to the major endeavour they still
represent, certainly some improvements at least are expected. But not only that, despite
some initial optimism [10] and all the good parts of the SDGs [3,12], including how they
could allow corporations to shift their strategies towards specific goals [13], many have
highlighted their complexities, limitations and contradictions, e.g., [14–18]. Among them,
scholars highlight that they are not legally binding without presenting any obligations,
are voluntary so self-interest may be a driver leading to their selection and engagement
and that there are no mechanisms for any organisation to innovate in their sustainability
agenda [19,20]. Perhaps more challenging are what some have called their inherent con-
tradictions between achieving economic growth (SDG#8) and good health and well-being

250
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

(SDG#3), climate action (SDG#13) or protecting life on land (SDG#14), if we continue fol-
lowing the same socio-economic paradigm [21]. On top of these, we cannot forget the
impact that the COVID-19 pandemic had on their progress [22,23], along with other crises
we are still facing, e.g., the climate crisis, immigration, wars and political polarisation [11].
These have made things even more challenging, as the same challenges we are trying to
address hinder the achievement of the SDGs.
Despite the impression that the SDGs have been adopted by many organisations across
the world, it is hard to assess the extent of their contributions and the impact of their actions.
For example, it is relatively easy to find multinational corporations referring to the SDGs
as a strategic framework to structure their sustainability actions [9,24,25], governments
at different levels informing how they have incorporated the SDGs into their agendas,
e.g., [26–28], collaborative academic initiatives integrating the SDGs into their teaching
and research programs, e.g., [29,30] and several other organisations who have adjusted
their work in line with the SDGs, e.g., [31–33]. While these are presented as independent
initiatives, they depend on each other to ensure some kind of progress and impact on
sustainability [34,35]. While the SDGs seem to be everywhere nowadays, the real impact of
organisations declaring them as a priority can hardly be measured.

2.2. SDG Impact and Progress

As mentioned, the literature is limited with respect to measuring and monitoring
not only the impact of the SDGs on sustainability but the SDGs’ general impact, which
is still a necessity [36]. When addressing these areas, what is found is mostly at the
initial stage of the process and not measuring concrete impact, but rather proposing
tools, frameworks or ideas for organisations to operationalise their potential impact on
the SDGs, which again speaks to their complexity. For example, B Lab created an SDG
Action Manager to help organisations measure their progress [35], although according to
Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. [37], it has been limited in its use; SDGs-IAE was developed to
qualitatively assess SDG targets on energy projects [38]; van Zanten and van Tulder [39]
proposed a nexus approach for companies to manage and assess their contributions to
the SDGs in an integrated manner and not in silos; and the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development [33] developed the initiative SDG Sector Roadmaps to support
businesses in optimising their contributions to the SDGs. Research that has focused on
measuring the performance of the SDGs has done so, for example, at the country level,
highlighting how their relative position against others is subject to the selected methods
and indicators [40], in particular sectors such as manufacturing [41], with respect to firms’
ESG performance indicators [42], versus multinationals’ GRI disclosure standards [43] or
relative to their organisational profile according to whether they focus on environmental or
social goals [44].
As stated in the literature, if we aim to contribute to the design of better instruments
or frameworks to contribute to sustainable development, measuring and monitoring not
only the progress of the SDGs but their progress towards sustainability are crucial [45,46].
However, this type of work has been limited to our knowledge. One of the few articles
that tries to understand whether firms changed their practices’ breadth and depth due to
the SDGs is that of Whittingham et al. [9], who found a “clear but nuanced yes” to their
question. However, this is based on an analysis of corporate sustainability reports without
any verification of what they found in them. Another recent work is that of D’Adamo
and Gastaldi [47] who used a methodological approach to evaluate the SDGs focusing
on monitoring their outcomes. While this presents a useful methodological design, its
scope is the performance of Italian regions, with relevant contributions to their particular
sustainability challenges.
Not surprisingly then, the sustainability challenges highlighted by the SDGs have
poorly progressed since they were launched in 2015. According to the latest Sustainable
Development Report, not a single SDG is on track to be achieved by 2030, there has been
limited progress on environmental and biodiversity goals, health-related goals are off-track,

251
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

as well as those concerning housing and institutions [11]. Some progress has been made
though with respect to infrastructure, including water and energy; however, this varies
largely across countries [11]. According to the UN, less than 20% of the SDG targets have
been achieved, with about 15% in reversal progress and the rest having limited or no
progress at all. Hence, what has been the real value of the SDGs other than being a common
framework we use to position and talk about sustainability?

2.3. SDG Progress and Data Selection

Identifying which targets to address to assess progress on the SDGs is certainly chal-
lenging, especially when we aim to measure their performance globally, whereas countries
are prioritising actions towards certain SDGs according to their own challenges [12]. Ac-
cording to scholars, another important challenge is how to consider the existing range
of approaches and tools, including indicator-based assessments, benchmarking, target
mapping or systems analysis techniques [48–50], to support a coherent analysis towards
evidence-based decision making when they inform different stages of policy again based
on country-level goals [51]. The challenge of which targets to prioritise under the statement
that the SDGs and their targets are interconnected has been addressed by some scholars
but, as expected, this is always context-specific through analyses in a particular country,
not globally [51–54]. Furthermore, while for countries there is a risk in their priorisation
techniques due to potentially arbitrary or politically motivated decisions [51], this article
does not aim to provide hard conclusions from its findings but to shed some light into
sustainability progress, accepting that assessing progress on the SDGs is subject to the
selection of targets and assessment methods [52]. Finally, there is the practical component
since the SDG targets are 169, which makes it an extensive number to manage and for many
of them there is just none or not enough data from reliable sources to determine whether
their trends have significantly changed from before the SDGs were launched to now [55],
which is the aim of this article.

3. Methods
To achieve the purpose of this article and answer the proposed research question,
the SDGs were considered as a framework and, based on their targets, specific variables
were identified and assessed to determine progress or failures on the goals, similar to
what D’Adamo and Gastaldi carried out in Italy [47]. Following this rationale, secondary
data were collected from various reliable sources that presented information from the
year 2000 to 2022 as a way to assess the periods pre- and post-launch of the SDGs. Addi-
tionally, since the SDGs are measured at the country level [16], the data had to be organised
per country and then clustered into geographic regions to make numbers more manage-
able. Then, two groups of data were prepared for analysis, the pre-SDG (2000–2015) and
post-SDG datasets (2016–2022), similar to what Whittingham and colleagues did [9]. For
example, to assess the progress of SDG#1—No Poverty, poverty rate per country was se-
lected as the variable to be assessed. SDG#17—Partnerships for the Goals was not included
in the assessment since this is not a sustainability goal per se but an approach to achieve
the other sixteen goals [47,56].
The general hypothesis is that significant statistical changes have not occurred since
the SDGs were launched with respect to the trends those goals followed before. Since tests
showed that the data were not normally distributed, non-parametric paired tests (Wilcoxon
Signed Ranked Tests) were used to determine whether statistically significant differences
existed between the two proposed periods [57]. Table 1 shows a summary of the dataset and
the selected variables for analysis. As stated above, results from this and any other analysis
on SDGs’ progress depend on the selected targets [52], so the targets selected in this case
were the ones that to the best of our knowledge best represent the respective SDGs.

252
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

Table 1. The SDGs, assessed variables, and sources of data.

Assessed Variables—Associated SDG

SDG Source
Target
1—No Poverty Poverty rate (%)—1.1 [58]
Prevalence of undernourishment rate (% of
2—Zero Hunger [59]
population)—2.1.1
Maternal mortality rate per 100,000 live
3—Good Health and Well-Being [60]
births—3.1.1
4—Quality Education Out-of-school children rate—4.1 [61]
5—Gender Quality Female education (%) Higher Level—5.1 [62]
Drinking water safely managed service
6—Clean Water and Sanitation [63]
(%)—6.1
Share of modern renewables in total final
7—Affordable and Clean Energy [64]
energy consumption (%)—7.2.1
8—Decent Work and Economic GDP annual growth per capita
[58]
Growth (USD)—8.1.1
9—Industry, Innovation and Research and Development expenditure as
[65]
Infrastructure a percentage of GDP—9.5.1
10—Reduced Inequalities Gini index—10.3 [58]
11—Sustainable Cities and Population living in slums (% of urban
[66]
Communities population)—11.1.1
12—Responsible Consumption and
Fossil fuels consumption (tons)—12.2.2 [67]
Production
CO2 emissions (metric tons per
13—Climate Action [68]
capita)—13.2
Mean percentage of each marine key
14—Life Below Water biodiversity area covered by protected [69]
area—14.5
15—Life On Land Tree cover loss (ha)—15.2 [70]
16—Peace, Justice and Strong
Rule of law index—16.3 [71]
Institutions

4. Results
As seen from Table 2 and Figure 1, the results suggest that most of the sustain-
ability goals (10/16) have not significantly improved after the SDGs were launched
(2000–2015 vs. 2016–2022), indicating that there has not been significant progress on most
of the goals since the SDGs were launched in 2015. While six sustainability goals were
found to have statistically significant improvements (p < 0.05), namely SDG#2—Zero
Hunger, SDG#3—Good Health and Well-Being, SDG#6—Clean Water and Sanitation,
SDG#7—Affordable and Clean Energy, SDG#11—Sustainable Cities and Communities,
and SDG#14—Life Below Water; eight goals did not change significantly (p > 0.05), despite
most of them having improved; and two goals showed a statistically significant decline
(SDG#8—Decent Work and Economic Growth, and SDG#15—Life on Land), which is very
concerning. When crossing these findings with how the SDGs are organised in the wedding
cake proposed by Rockström and Sukhdev [56] so we can understand them better, it can be
seen that while economic sustainability has progressed (the top layer of the cake), this has
not been statistically significant (industry and inequalities) and decent work and economic
growth has significantly decreased; social sustainability (middle layer) shows half of its
SDGs with significant progress (hunger, health, energy and cities), whereas the other 50%
were found to have improved but not significantly (poverty, education, gender equality
and peace); and environmental sustainability (bottom layer of the cake) shows half of
those SDGs significantly improving (water and oceans), but land biodiversity decreased
significantly and climate did not improve. Figure 1 shows the SDGs and their progress,
stagnation or decline. Details of test results can be found in Appendix A.

253
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

Table 2. Results on SDG progress.

Improvement Sig Dif

SDG Assessed Variable Exception (Regions)
(Global Level) (p < 0.05)
Middle East and
1—Poverty Poverty rate Yes No
Northern Africa
Undernourishment Middle East and
2—Hunger Yes Yes
rate Northern Africa
Maternal mortality
3—Health Yes - Yes
rate
East Asia and the
Pacific, Eastern
Out-of-school
4—Education Yes Europe and Central No
children rate
Asia, Latin America
and the Caribbean
Female education
Latin America and the
5—Gender rate (tertiary Yes No
Caribbean
education)
Drinking water
6—Water Yes - Yes
safely managed
Modern renewable
Middle, Northern and
energy
7—Energy Yes Western Africa, and Yes
consumption
Western Asia
share
GDP per capita
8—Economy No Sub-Saharan Africa Yes
annual growth
East Asia and the
Research and
Pacific, Europe and
development
9—Innovation Yes Central Asia, No
expenditure (% of
European Union, and
GDP)
South Asia
10—Inequality Gini index Yes South Asia No
Population living
11—Cities in slums (% of Yes - Yes
urban population)
12—Consumption
Fossil fuels use No Europe No
and Production
Central Europe and
the Baltics, Europe
CO2 emissions per
13—Climate No and Central Asia, No
capita
European Union,
North America
Protected marine
14—Oceans Yes - Yes
areas
15—Land
Tree cover loss No North America Yes
Biodiversity
East Asia and the
Pacific, Eastern
16—Justice Rule of law index Yes No
Europe and Central
Asia

With respect to where the SDGs are performing better or worse, in general terms,
the developing world is struggling, which is where sustainability challenges are most
severe [16]. When assessing the SDGs that have significantly improved (SDG#2—Hunger,
SDG#3—Health, SDG#6—Water, SDG#7—Energy, SDG#11—Cities, and SDG#14—Oceans),
results suggest some exceptions in the Middle East and Northern and Western Africa,
although these are significantly better on water, cities and oceans. Similarly, countries from
East Asia and the Pacific, and Eastern Europe and Central Asia do not show significant
improvements in quality of education (SDG#4), industry and innovation (SDG#9) or justice
(SDG#16); and countries from Latin America and the Caribbean have not significantly

254
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

improved their education (SDG#4) nor their gender equality levels (SDG#5), just like South
Asian nations on inequality (SDG#10). On the contrary, Europe has improved, although
not significantly, its fossil fuel use (SDG#12) and its CO2 emissions per capita (SDG#13) as
North American countries have, which have also reduced their tree cover loss (SDG#15).
Details are in Appendix A.

Figure 1. SDGs organised according to their significance of progress (based on Rockström and
Sukhdev (2016) SDG wedding cake [56]).

5. Discussion
The purpose of this article is to assess whether the trend that sustainability challenges
followed before the SDGs were launched in 2015 has significantly changed over the years.
According to some, the SDGs have changed the discourse around sustainability, but has that
been enough to modify the trend of development for the better? Indeed, since the SDGs
were launched, we have seen companies of all sizes, governments, universities and civil
society organisations using the SDGs as the framework to consider when referring to their
sustainability policies and practices. However, it is still not clear whether the trends followed
by the sustainability challenges have significantly changed due to the very existence of the
SDGs, or if these have been used just as a way to organise what organisations do, present it
more clearly, and somehow continue doing what they were doing without any emphasis
nor accepting the urgency that Agenda 2030 and the SDGs posess.
In general terms, results from this exploratory analysis suggest that most of the
sustainability challenges have not significantly progressed since the SDGs were launched,
confirming what others have stated in terms of their limited progress and low probability
of success [10,11], which is an alarming finding. Following the rationale proposed by
Rockström and Sukhdev [56], we see that only half of the SDGs for the supporting system,
i.e., the biosphere, have improved significantly (SDG#6—Clean Water and Sanitation,
and SDG#14—Life Below Water), while the other two have deteriorated—life on land
significantly so, putting at risk not only the accomplishment of the societal and economic
SDGs that these are supporting but also the sustainability of the planet and our ways of life.
In this respect, we found that the trend of tree cover loss has significantly increased, along

255
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

with all the impact that it has on terrestrial biodiversity, and that CO2 emissions per capita
have increased despite global agreements such as the Paris Accord, although the latter not
significantly. These results are aligned with the latest version of the planetary boundaries,
which shows that by now, we have passed not three, like in 2009, nor four, as in 2015, but
six of the nine identified boundaries to continue living on a safe planet [72].
Results also suggest that while half of the SDGs focused on the economy have im-
proved, none of them have changed significantly. Conversely, SDG#8—Decent Work and
Economic Growth and SDG#12—Responsible Consumption and Production have not im-
proved as measured through GDP annual growth per capita and fossil fuel use, respectively.
The former has actually decreased significantly globally. These findings question why the
improvements made by industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG#9) have not led to
an increase in decent work and economic growth (SDG#8) as well as the development of
more responsible consumption and production practices (SDG#12). The lack of statistical
significance of the improvements made by the industry, innovation and infrastructure
(SDG#9) is a way to explain the poor performance of SDG#8 on decent work and economic
growth and SDG#12 on responsible consumption and production. It seems that the increase
made in R&D expenditure has not yet translated into economic growth, nor a reduction
or shift from fossil fuel consumption. Perhaps more time is needed for these to further
complement and affect each other. However, due to the complexity of these challenges, if
positive results are reached, they may come well after 2030 when the SDGs were supposed
to be accomplished. This is a task left for the new framework.
Finally, hopeful news is that four out of the eight SDGs that are society-focused have
significantly improved, namely a reduction in the undernourishment rate (SDG#2) and the
maternal mortality rate (SDG#3), a higher share of modern renewable energy consumption
(SDG#7) and a reduction of slums (SDG#11). However, these improvements are not aligned
with significant advancements in reducing poverty (SDG#1), improving the quality of
education (SDG#4), progress in gender equality (SDG#5) or the betterment of justice across
the world (SDG#16). Again, the limited and challenging timeline set to achieve the SDGs
is not helping, as we hope to see, for example, how better nutrition and living conditions
should positively impact poverty and education. These are results we hope to see within the
timeline of the next sustainability framework, but we at least hoped to find positive trends.
These are examples of how the three dimensions of sustainability are not independently
progressing, which should be directly related. But perhaps more important and challenging
is how all the SDGs are coherently integrated into a successful process that allows them
all to flourish, which is one of the criticisms they have faced as they aim to accomplish
goals that seem contradictory [21], which is an even tougher challenge and something also
confirmed in these results. How to tackle the contradictions presented by some SDGs is
one of the biggest tests to address.
Undoubtedly, all the SDGs are complex challenges that not only need the collective
participation of all actors to be accomplished, but they also need time, and 15 years does
not seem to be enough for them to be reached, let alone half that time. However, whether
we achieve them or not by 2030, positive trends were expected to be found due to the
urgency of addressing them for the betterment of humanity. All the actions performed by
diverse organisations across the world on the SDGs can be hardly monitored or measured,
other than referring to what they say they do towards the SDGs, so this research aims
to shed some light on that and indirectly determine whether we as humanity have been
doing more than what we were doing before the SDGs were launched in 2015 to reach our
sustainability challenges, or we have just followed the same approach or even declined in
our efforts. However, despite that challenge, measuring and monitoring our performance
on sustainability goals remains a need [36], which, although subject to selected methods
and indicators [40,52], will be a key consideration [45,46] as we start thinking about the
new sustainability framework to take place when the SDGs expire in 2030.
From this analysis, the findings and discussion a few practical implications can be pre-
sented for policymakers designing new sustainability frameworks, practitioners working

256
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

on organisational strategies and plans to tackle sustainability challenges, and academics

aiming not only to understand how this evolves but also to contribute to that goal. First, it
is not enough to have a communicationally successful framework, but concrete actions and
progress must be achieved, otherwise we all risk contributing to SDG washing more than
to sustainable development. Second, while the dimensions of sustainable development
are hardly progressing coherently and consistently, it is even harder to accomplish an
integrated sustainability approach as the SDG contradictions highlighted by many [14–18]
seem to be playing a crucial role in the lack of progress we have made so far. This needs to
be well-considered in the design of new sustainability frameworks. That said, this does not
suggest avoiding conflicting challenges such as economic development and the protection
of nature but finding smart, innovative and feasible ways to accomplish both and make
them work together. Third, despite the bias that selecting some assessment methods or
indicators may bring to a determined analysis [52], measuring and monitoring as well as
reporting, as we mostly see nowadays, are crucial to understanding where we are at, how
we are doing, what to fix and whether we will reach our goals. These three points must be
considered when thinking about any framework or strategy to achieve sustainability.

6. Conclusions
The SDGs are a useful framework to promote and position sustainability that has
become enormously relevant as society faces extreme social, economic and environmental
challenges. Sustainability has gained from the SDGs and organisations from all sectors
using them have placed the topic at the top of local and international agendas. However,
understanding whether sustainability has progressed thanks to the existence of the SDGs is
still an open and relevant question to be answered. This is the first aim of this article.
Findings show that only some social (SDGs#2, 3, 7 and 11) and environmental (SDGs#6
and 14) goals have significantly improved since the SDGs were launched, suggesting that
their existence does not imply sustainability progress nor success, which is important to
keep in mind as we move forward in the sustainability journey and, as the SDGs expire
in a few years, start thinking about a new framework. Furthermore, as highlighted by
many, the contradictions that seem to be integral to their design play a role in the lack of
progress they have achieved. While this is an intrinsic limitation of what the SDGs actually
are and this article does not tackle that challenge directly, it is important to understand the
type of effect they have had, although indirectly, so that all of us who use the SDGs as a
sustainability framework are well aware of their strengths and limitations. Moreover, while
the communications component of the SDGs has been extremely successful not only for the
sustainability movement but for all those positioning their actions under the SDG frame-
work, it is crucial to keep an eye on using them, or any other sustainability framework, as a
way to consciously or unconsciously greenwash our actions without deeply contributing to
the final overarching goal. Certainly, this risk of SDG washing must be contemplated when
considering the contradicting features of some sustainable development goals. Finally, as
a local and global goal, measuring and monitoring mechanisms must be put in place to
objectively assess our performance. This not only should show the path we are following
but also keep us away from greenwashing our actions. All of this should be particularly rel-
evant for practitioners and policymakers involved in the design of sustainability strategies
and frameworks.
Along with the practical implications discussed above, this article also has some
theoretical implications for researchers. First, most of the SDG research has focused on
what organisations are doing and whether they are contributing or not to some or all of the
SDGs. This article presents an overall perspective on SDGs’ progress with a critical analysis
on the impact the SDGs have had on sustainable development. While this does not deny
that there have been some improvements in some areas, it shows that, versus the trends of
sustainable development before the SDGs were launched in 2015, in general things have
not significantly improved, which is something that has been intentionally or involuntarily
assumed by many of us assigning that power to the SDGs. Second, frameworks such as the

257
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

SDGs must be carefully considered as a powerful tool to achieve goals. Although they are
probably the greatest agreement ever achieved, they have mainly been useful to highlight
what we do to make us look like we are doing a lot, but they have not been able to help
us accomplish what they were supposed to. Their contradictions certainly do not help,
but also our own responsibility is at play when aiming to achieve them independently
and in an integrated manner. We refer to them without going further and assessing their
impact critically. This article is an invitation to follow that important path. Third, this
article highlights the importance of assessing these instruments through monitoring and
measuring mechanisms, not only reporting, so that as academics we can contribute to more
appropriate and tough decisions to be discussed and made.
Certainly, this research has its limitations. As can be seen, it is exploratory and it
attempts to assess whether the trends of improvement or deterioration around sustainability
challenges have changed since the SDGs were launched in 2015. To make that assessment,
specific targets associated with every SDG were selected, one per SDG, and based on their
performance conclusions were made. Indeed, this is a limited approach, since other targets
associated with the SDGs may have performed differently. However, the selected variables
are among the key dimensions to determine the improvement or deterioration of the SDGs,
so it can be argued that if any of them fails the SDGs are not performing as required by
the sustainability agenda. However, we understand that assessing progress on the SDGs
and their targets is subject to the selection of those targets and the used methods. Another
limitation that is surely associated with the SDGs is the short period of assessment, i.e., just
6 to 7 years or even less in some cases since the SDGs were launched depending on the
available data, which is a very short period to see significant changes. However, absolute
changes were not sought but variations in the respective trends. These limitations are also
invitations for other researchers to continue understanding this phenomenon.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Table A1. SDG#1—No Poverty.

Region Before After Reduced Poverty Rate? *

East Asia and Pacific 19.00 1.74 Yes
Europe and Central Asia 5.29 2.47 Yes
Latin America and Caribbean 8.40 4.33 Yes
Middle East and North Africa 2.84 7.85 No
South Asia 28.24 11.78 Yes
Sub-Saharan Africa 46.17 35.98 Yes
World 19.39 9.43 Yes
Test Statistic: 3.000; p > 0.05; * Assessed variable: poverty rate (%); Source: The World Bank; Range: 2000–2021.

Table A2. SDG#2—Zero Hunger.

Reduced
Region Before After
Undernourishment? *
East Asia and Pacific 7.59 4.08 Yes
Europe and Central Asia 2.98 2.59 Yes
High-income countries 2.69 2.65 Yes
Latin America and Caribbean 8.01 6.99 Yes
Middle East and North Africa 8.02 8.72 No
South Asia 17.27 13.92 Yes

258
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

Table A2. Cont.

Reduced
Region Before After
Undernourishment? *
Sub-Saharan Africa 20.78 18.98 Yes
World 10.35 8.08 Yes
Test Statistic: 3.000; p < 0.05; * Assessed variable: prevalence of undernourishment (% of the population); Source:
The World Bank; Range: 2001–2020.

Table A3. SDG#3—Good Health and Well-being.

Region Before After Reduced Mortality? *

Africa 674.75 554.56 Yes
Americas 62.47 61.59 Yes
Eastern Mediterranean 266.88 186.98 Yes
Europe 18.10 11.96 Yes
South-East Asia 247.73 131.48 Yes
Western Pacific 56.50 40.69 Yes
World 1326.43 987.26 Yes
Test Statistic: 0.000; p < 0.05; * Assessed variable: maternal mortality rate per 100,000 live births; Source: WHO;
Range: 2000–2020.

Table A4. SDG#4—Quality Education.

Region Before After Fewer Children out of School? *

East Asia and Pacific 3.94 5.83 No
Eastern Europe and Central Asia 1.99 2.32 No
Eastern and Southern Africa 21.25 9.98 Yes
Latin America and Caribbean 1.98 2.23 No
Middle East and North Africa 9.50 3.07 Yes
South Asia 22.45 8.50 Yes
West and Central Africa 31.88 22.02 Yes
Europe and Central Asia n/a 1.80 n/a
World 15.01 7.17 Yes
Test Statistic: 6.000; p > 0.05; * Assessed variable: out-of-school children rate; Source: UNICEF; Range: 2010–2020.

Table A5. SDG#5—Gender Equality.

Region Before After Increased Female Education? *

East Asia and Pacific 15.58 17.33 Yes
Europe and Central Asia 21.96 37.7 Yes
Latin America and Caribbean 17.71 7.3 No
Middle East and North Africa 17.88 35.8 Yes
South Asia 5.33 10.92 Yes
Sub-Saharan Africa 3.71 4.87 Yes
World 11.97 12.02 Yes
Test Statistic: 23.000; p > 0.05; * Assessed variable: female education (%) higher level; Source: WHO; Range:
2000–2019.

Table A6. SDG#6—Clean Water and Sanitation.

More Drinking Water Safely

Region Before After
Managed? *
Central and Southern Asia 51.91 60.60 Yes
Europe and Northern America 93.03 95.43 Yes
Latin America and the Caribbean 73.80 75.32 Yes
Northern Africa and Western Asia 72.64 78.19 Yes
Sub-Saharan Africa 21.32 28.96 Yes
World 62.54 67.70 Yes
Test Statistic: 21.000; p < 0.05; * Assessed variable: drinking water safely managed service (%); Source: United
Nations; Range: 2000–2020.

259
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

Table A7. SDG#7—Affordable and Clean Energy.

Region Before After Increased Renewable Energy? *

Australia and New Zealand 11.01 12.63 Yes
Central Asia 3.19 3.39 Yes
Eastern Africa 11.46 11.74 Yes
Eastern Asia 4.43 8.87 Yes
Europe 9.74 13.70 Yes
Latin America and the Caribbean 23.56 25.36 Yes
Middle Africa 17.34 14.23 No
North America 8.70 11.51 Yes
Northern Africa 4.35 3.86 No
Oceania (exc. Australia and New
10.42 10.74 Yes
Zealand)
Southern Africa 4.39 5.71 Yes
Southern Asia 9.13 10.88 Yes
South-eastern Asia 8.70 11.92 Yes
Western Asia 4.71 4.01 No
Western Africa 6.57 6.01 No
World 8.33 10.90 Yes
Test Statistic: 108.000; p < 0.05; * Assessed variable: share of modern renewables in total final energy consumption
(%); Source: IEA; Range: 2000–2019.

Table A8. SDG#8—Decent Work and Economic Growth.

Region Before After Larger GDP Annual Growth? *

Africa Eastern and Southern 4.03 1.86 No
Africa Western and Central 7.95 -2.18 No
Central Europe and the Baltics 5.85 1.94 No
East Asia and Pacific 7.19 −1.54 No
Europe and Central Asia 4.48 3.04 No
Latin America and Caribbean 1.71 0.90 No
Middle East and North Africa 4.17 1.18 No
North America 4.89 1.28 No
Pacific Island small states 2.72 −0.57 No
South Asia 6.94 3.17 No
Sub-Saharan Africa −0.75 −0.55 Yes
World 1.98 0.91 No
Test Statistic: 1.000; p < 0.05; * Assessed variable: GDP annual growth per capita; Source: The World Bank; Range:
2000–2021.

Table A9. SDG#9—Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

Region Before After Increase in R&D? *

Central Europe and the Baltics 0.86 1.44 Yes
East Asia and Pacific 2.34 1.65 No
Europe and Central Asia 1.75 1.50 No
European Union 1.92 1.45 No
Latin America and Caribbean 0.64 0.67 Yes
Middle East and North Africa 0.91 1.57 Yes
North America 2.59 2.97 Yes
South Asia 0.72 0.63 No
World 2.02 2.27 Yes
Test Statistic: 24.500; p > 0.05; * Assessed variable: research and development expenditure (% of GDP); Source:
The World Bank; Range: 2000–2020.

Table A10. SDG#10—Reduced Inequality.

Region Before After Reduced Inequality? *

East Asia and Pacific 3.39 2.84 Yes

260
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

Table A10. Cont.

Region Before After Reduced Inequality? *

Europe and Central Asia 8.40 6.85 Yes
Latin America and Caribbean 7.27 6.07 Yes
Middle East and North Africa 0.94 0.76 Yes
South Asia 0.85 1.64 No
Sub-Saharan Africa 3.25 2.51 Yes
World 4.53 3.66 Yes
Test Statistic: 4.000; p > 0.05; * Assessed variable: Gini Index; Source: The World Bank; Range: 2000–2021.

Table A11. SDG#11—Sustainable Cities and Communities.

Reduction in People Living in

Region Before After
Slums? *
Africa Eastern and Southern 57.99 54.80 Yes
Africa Western and Central 62.67 48.69 Yes
Latin America and Caribbean 25.00 16.38 Yes
South Asia 55.02 50.91 Yes
Sub-Saharan Africa 60.28 51.90 Yes
World 260.97 211.77 Yes
Test Statistic: 0.000; p < 0.05; * Assessed variable: people living in slums (% of urban population); Source: The
World Bank; Range: 2000–2020.

Table A12. SDG#12—Responsible Consumption and Production.

Region Before After Less Fossil Fuels? *

Africa 383,991,855 396,224,729 No
Asia and the Pacific 3,306,638,570 3,789,079,737 No
Europe 1,409,854,499 1,335,227,496 Yes
Latin America and the Caribbean 454,981,983 455,914,025 No
North America 1,766,377,903 1,871,667,759 No
World 8,553,931,287 10,062,117,427 No
Test Statistic: 31.000; p > 0.05; * Assessed variable: fossil fuels consumption (tons); Source: UNEP; Range:
2000–2019.

Table A13. SDG#13—Climate Action.

Region Before After Reduced Fossil Fuels? *

Central Europe and the Baltics 6.70 6.45 Yes
East Asia and Pacific 4.68 6.05 No
Europe and Central Asia 7.47 4.33 Yes
European Union 7.47 6.39 Yes
Latin America and Caribbean 2.59 2.62 No
Middle East and North Africa 4.98 5.44 No
North America 17.91 5.82 Yes
South Asia 1.02 1.46 No
Sub-Saharan Africa 0.78 3.63 No
World 4.40 4.59 No
Test Statistic: 27.000; p > 0.05; * Assessed variable: CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita); Source: The World
Bank; Range: 2000–2019.

Table A14. SDG#14—Life Below Water.

Region Before After More Protected Areas? *

Oceania (exc. Australia and New Zealand) 17.82 20.65 Yes
Northern Africa and Western Asia 21.97 25.02 Yes
Eastern and South-Eastern Asia 28.59 32.61 Yes
Central and Southern Asia 33.98 34.28 Yes
Sub-Saharan Africa 38.06 41.12 Yes

261
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

Table A14. Cont.

Region Before After More Protected Areas? *

Latin America and the Caribbean 37.74 41.48 Yes
Australia and New Zealand 51.48 54.48 Yes
Europe and Northern America 61.80 64.36 Yes
World 43.17 46.03 Yes
Test Statistic: 45.000; p < 0.05; * Assessed variable: mean percentage of each marine key biodiversity area covered
by protected areas; Source: United Nations; Range: 2010–2019.

Table A15. SDG#15—Life on Land.

Region Before After Less Tree Cover Loss? *

East Asia and Pacific 3,430,732 4,737,269 No
Europe and Central Asia 3,942,659 6,926,284 No
Latin America and the Caribbean 4,706,182 6,274,758 No
Middle East and North Africa 10,846 23,717 No
North America 4,362,358 4,255,521 Yes
South Asia 96,642 186,419 No
Sub-Saharan Africa 1,954,293 4,102,907 No
World 18,503,712 26,506,875 No
Test Statistic: 33.000; p < 0.05; * Assessed variable: tree cover loss (hectares); Source: Global Forest Watch; Range:
2001–2022.

Table A16. SDG#16—Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

Region Before After Improved Justice? *

East Asia and Pacific 9.046 8.997 No
Eastern Europe and Central Asia 8.280 6.798 No
EU + EFTA + North America 15.741 19.459 Yes
Latin America and Caribbean 8.541 16.312 Yes
Middle East and North Africa 3.706 3.828 Yes
South Asia 2.513 2.684 Yes
Sub-Saharan Africa 8.527 12.787 Yes
World 56.353 70.866 Yes
Test Statistic: 31.000; p > 0.05; * Assessed variable: Rule of Law Index; Source: World Justice Project; Range:
2014–2018.

References
1. George, G.; Howard-Grenville, J.; Joshi, A.; Tihanyi, L. Understanding and Tackling Societal Grand Challenges through Manage-
ment Research. Acad. Manag. J. 2016, 59, 1880–1895. [CrossRef]
2. Biermann, F.; Kanie, N.; Kim, R.E. Global Governance by Goal-Setting: The Novel Approach of the UN Sustainable Development
Goals. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26–27, 26–31. [CrossRef]
3. Caiado, R.G.G.; Filho, W.L.; Quelhas, O.L.G.; de Mattos Nascimento, D.L. A Literature-based Review on Potentials and Constraints
in the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 1276–1288. [CrossRef]
4. Munro, V. The Universal Sustainable Development Goals for Purpose and Change. In CSR for Purpose, Shared Value and Deep
Transformation. The New Responsibility; Munro, V., Ed.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2020; pp. 85–117. [CrossRef]
5. Van Zanten, J.A.; van Tulder, R. Multinational Enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: An Institutional Approach to
Corporate Engagement. J. Int. Bus. Policy 2018, 1, 208–233. [CrossRef]
6. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.;
et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
7. Bryson, J.M.; Crosby, B.C.; Stone, M.M. The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the
Literature. Public Adm. Rev. 2006, 66, 44–55. [CrossRef]
8. Selsky, J.W.; Parker, B. Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory and Practice. J. Manag. 2005,
31, 849–873. [CrossRef]
9. Whittingham, K.L.; Earle, A.G.; Leyva-De la Hiz, D.I.; Argiola, A. The Impact of the United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals on Corporate Sustainability Reporting. Bus. Res. Q. 2023, 26, 45–61. [CrossRef]
10. Leal Filho, W.; Trevisan, L.V.; Rampasso, I.S.; Anholon, R.; Dinis, M.A.P.; Brandli, L.L.; Sierra, J.; Salvia, A.L.; Pretorius, R.; Nicolau,
M.; et al. When the alarm bells ring: Why the UN sustainable development goals may not be achieved by 2030. J. Clean. Prod.
2023, 407, 137108. [CrossRef]

262
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

11. Sachs, J.D.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Drumm, E. Sustainable Development Report 2023; Dublin University Press: Dublin, Ireland, 2023.
[CrossRef]
12. Allen, C.; Metternicht, G.; Wiedmann, T. Initial Progress in Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Review
of Evidence from Countries. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1453–1467. [CrossRef]
13. Sullivan, K.; Thomas, S.; Rosano, M. Using Industrial Ecology and Strategic Management Concepts to Pursue the Sustainable
Development Goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 237–246. [CrossRef]
14. Hák, T.; Janoušková, S.; Moldan, B. Sustainable Development Goals: A Need for Relevant Indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 565–573.
[CrossRef]
15. Hickel, J. The Contradiction of the Sustainable Development Goals: Growth versus Ecology on a Finite Planet. Sustain. Dev. 2019,
27, 873–884. [CrossRef]
16. Salvia, A.L.; Filho, W.L.; Brandli, L.L.; Griebeler, J.S. Assessing Research Trends Related to Sustainable Development Goals: Local
and Global Issues. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 841–849. [CrossRef]
17. Spaiser, V.; Ranganathan, S.; Swain, R.B.; Sumpter, D. The Sustainable Development Oxymoron: Quantifying and Modelling the
Incompatibility of Sustainable Development Goals. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2017, 24, 457–470. [CrossRef]
18. Stafford-Smith, M.; Griggs, D.; Gaffney, O.; Ullah, F.; Reyers, B.; Kanie, N.; Stigson, B.; Shrivastava, P.; Leach, M.; O’Connell, D.
Integration: The Key to Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 12, 911–919. [CrossRef]
19. Jones, P.; Hillier, D.; Comfort, D. The Sustainable Development Goals and Business. Int. J. Sales Retail. Mark. 2016, 5, 38–48.
20. Spangenberg, J.H. Hot Air or Comprehensive Progress? A Critical Assessment of the SDGs. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 25, 311–321.
[CrossRef]
21. Rockström, J. 5 Transformational Policies for a Prosperous and Sustainable World. 7 November 2018. Available online: https:
//[Link]/watch?v=Rv-tDrv__mc (accessed on 18 July 2023).
22. Nundy, S.; Ghosh, A.; Mesloub, A.; Albaqawy, G.A.; Alnaim, M.M. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Socio-Economic, Energy-
Environment and Transport Sector Globally and Sustainable Development Goal (SDG). J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127705.
[CrossRef]
23. Shulla, K.; Voigt, B.-F.; Cibian, S.; Scandone, G.; Martinez, E.; Nelkovski, F.; Salehi, P. Effects of COVID-19 on the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). Discov. Sustain. 2021, 2, 15. [CrossRef]
24. Ordonez-Ponce, E.; Talbot, D. Multinational Enterprises’ Sustainability Practices and Focus on Developing Countries: Contribu-
tions and Unexpected Results of SDG Implementation. J. Int. Dev. 2023, 35, 201–232. [CrossRef]
25. Van Tulder, R.; Rodrigues, S.B.; Mirza, H.; Sexsmith, K. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals: Can Multinational Enterprises
Lead the Decade of Action? J. Int. Bus. Policy 2021, 4, 1–21. [CrossRef]
26. Brisbane City Council. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Vision and Strategy. Available online: https:
//[Link]/about-council/governance-and-strategy/vision-and-strategy/united-nations-sustainable-
development-goals (accessed on 1 July 2023).
27. Gobierno de Perú. Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) [Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)]. Available online: https:
//[Link]/34191-objetivos-de-desarrollo-sostenible-ods (accessed on 1 July 2023).
28. Gouvernement du Québec. Sustainable Development. Policies and Orientations. Available online: [Link]
government/policies-orientations/sustainable-development (accessed on 1 July 2023).
29. PRME. Management Education and the Sustainable Development Goals: Transforming Education to Act Responsibly and Find
Opportunities. PRME Secretariat. 2016. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 1 July 2023).
30. SDSN. SDSN Canada. Networks. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 1 July 2023).
31. GRI. Integrating SDGs into Sustainability Reporting. Available online: [Link]
partnerships/sustainable-development/integrating-sdgs-into-sustainability-reporting/ (accessed on 1 July 2023).
32. OECD. OECD and the Sustainable Development Goals: Delivering on Universal Goals and Targets. Available online: https:
//[Link]/dac/[Link] (accessed on 1 July 2023).
33. WBCSD. SDG Sector Roadmap. Available online: [Link]
Development-Goals/SDG-Sector-Roadmaps (accessed on 1 July 2023).
34. Clarke, A.; MacDonald, A. Outcomes to Partners in Multi-Stakeholder Cross-Sector Partnerships: A Resource-Based View. Bus.
Soc. 2019, 58, 298–332. [CrossRef]
35. Park, K.; Grimes, M.G.; Gehman, J. Becoming a Generalized Specialist: A Strategic Model for Increasing your Organizations SDG
Impact while Minimizing Externalities. In Handbook on the Business of Sustainability; George, G., Haas, M., Joshi, H., McGahan, A.,
Tracey, P., Eds.; Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2022. [CrossRef]
36. Liu, Y.; Huang, B.; Guo, H.; Liu, J. A Big Data Approach to Assess Progress Towards Sustainable Development Goals for Cities of
Varying Sizes. Commun. Earth Environ. 2023, 4, 66. [CrossRef]
37. Heras-Saizarbitoria, I.; Urbieta, L.; Boiral, O. Organizations’ Engagement with Sustainable Development Goals: From Cherry-
Picking to SDG-Washing? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 316–328. [CrossRef]
38. Castor, J.; Bacha, K.; Nerini, F.F. SDGs in Action: A Novel Framework for Assessing Energy Projects against the Sustainable
Development Goals. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 68, 101556. [CrossRef]

263
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

39. Van Zanten, J.A.; van Tulder, R. Improving Companies’ Impacts on Sustainable Development: A Nexus Approach to the SDGS.
Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 3703–3720. [CrossRef]
40. Apollonia, M.; Schiltz, F. Measuring Sustainable Development Goals Performance: How to Monitor Policy Action in the 2030
Agenda Implementation? Ecol. Econ. 2019, 164, 106373. [CrossRef]
41. Chand, M. Strategic Assessment and Mitigation of Risks in Sustainable Manufacturing Systems. Sustain. Oper. Comput. 2021,
2, 206–213. [CrossRef]
42. Khaled, R.; Ali, H.; Mohamed, E.K.A. The Sustainable Development Goals and Corporate Sustainability Performance: Mapping,
Extent and Determinants. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 311, 127599. [CrossRef]
43. Ordonez-Ponce, E.; Khare, A. GRI 300 as a Measurement Tool for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: Assessing
the Impact of Car Makers on Sustainability. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021, 64, 47–75. [CrossRef]
44. Vílchez, V.F.; Carrasco, P.O.; Bernardo, F.A.S. SDGwashing: A Critical View of the Pursuit of SDGs and its Relationship with
Environmental Performance. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2022, 65, 1001–1023. [CrossRef]
45. Huan, Y.; Liang, T.; Li, H.; Zhang, C. A Systematic Method for Assessing Progress of Achieving Sustainable Development Goals:
A Case Study of 15 Countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 752, 141875. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. De Neve, J.-E.; Sachs, J.D. The SDGs and Human Well-Being: A Global Analysis of Synergies, Trade-Offs, and Regional Differences.
Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 15113. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M. Monitoring the Performance of Sustainable Development Goals in the Italian Regions. Sustainability
2023, 15, 14094. [CrossRef]
48. International Council for Science (ICSU). A Guide to SDG Interactions: From Science to Implementation; International Council for
Science: Paris, France, 2017.
49. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Getting Started with the Sustainable Development Goals: A Guide for Stakeholders.
Sustainable Development Solutions Network. 2015. Available online: [Link]
uploaded/[Link] (accessed on 2 November 2023).
50. United Nations Development Group. Mainstreaming the 2030 Agenda—Reference Guide to United Nations Country Teams.
United Nations Development Group. 2016. Available online: [Link]
reference-guide-united-nations-country-teams (accessed on 2 November 2023).
51. Allen, C.; Metternicht, G.; Wiedmann, T. Prioritising SDG Targets: Assessing Baselines, Gaps and Interlinkages. Sustain. Sci. 2019,
14, 421–438. [CrossRef]
52. Allen, C.; Reid, M.; Thwaites, J.; Glover, R.; Kestin, T. Assessing National Progress and Priorities for the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs): Experience from Australia. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 521–538. [CrossRef]
53. Bandari, R.; Moallemi, E.A.; Lester, R.E.; Downie, D.; Bryan, B.A. Prioritising Sustainable Development Goals, Characterising
Interactions, and Identifying Solutions for Local Sustainability. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 127, 325–336. [CrossRef]
54. Weitz, N.; Carlsen, H.; Nilsson, M.; Skånberg, K. Towards Systemic and Contextual Priority Setting for Implementing the 2030
Agenda. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 531–548. [CrossRef]
55. Nilashi, M.; Keng Boon, O.; Tan, G.; Lin, B.; Abumalloh, R. Critical Data Challenges in Measuring the Performance of Sustainable
Development Goals: Solutions and the Role of Big-Data Analytics. Harv. Data Sci. Rev. 2023, 5. [CrossRef]
56. Rockström, J.; Sukhdev, P. The SDGs Wedding Cake. Stockholm Resilience Centre. Available online: [Link]
[Link]/research/research-news/[Link] (accessed on 3 February 2022).
57. Bailey, C. Quantitative Analysis in Exercise and Sport Science; University of North Texas Libraries: Denton, TX, USA, 2021; Available
online: [Link] (accessed on 3 February 2022). [CrossRef]
58. The World Bank. Poverty and Inequality Platform. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 1 July 2023).
59. The World Bank. Prevalence of Undernourishment (% of Population). Data. Available online: [Link]
indicator/[Link] (accessed on 1 July 2023).
60. WHO. Maternal Mortality Ratio (Per 100 000 Live Births). The Global Health Observatory. Available online: https:
//[Link]/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/maternal-mortality-ratio-(per-100-000-live-births)
(accessed on 1 July 2023).
61. UNICEF. Education Overview. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 1 July 2023).
62. WHO. Integrated WHO Nutrition Global Databases. NLiS Data Search. Available online: [Link]
nlis/data-search (accessed on 1 July 2023).
63. United Nations. UN Water. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 1 July 2023).
64. EIA. World Energy Balances. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 10 November 2023).
65. The World Bank. Research and Development Expenditure (% of GDP). Data. Available online: [Link]
indicator/[Link] (accessed on 1 November 2023).
66. The World Bank. Population Living in Slums (% of Urban Population). Data. Available online: [Link]
indicator/[Link] (accessed on 1 November 2023).
67. UNEP. Global Material Flows Database. International Resource Panel. Available online: [Link]
material-flows-database (accessed on 7 July 2023).

264
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16647

68. The World Bank. CO2 Emissions (Metric Tons per Capita). Data. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 7 July 2023).
69. United Nations Statistics Division. UN Data. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 1 July 2023).
70. Global Forest Watch. Forest Monitoring Designed for Action. Available online: [Link]
?mapMenu=eyJtZW51U2VjdGlvbiI6InNlYXJjaCJ9 (accessed on 7 July 2023).
71. World Justice Project. Rule of Law Index 2022. World Justice Project. 2022. Available online: [Link]
rule-of-law-index/downloads/[Link] (accessed on 7 July 2023).
72. Richardson, K.; Steffen, W.; Lucht, W.; Bendtsen, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Donges, J.F.; Drüke, M.; Fetzer, I.; Bala, G.; von Bloh, W.; et al.
Earth Beyond Six of Nine Planetary Boundaries. Sci. Adv. 2023, 9, eadh2458. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

265
 sustainability

Article
Advancing Biodiesel Production System from Mixed Vegetable
Oil Waste: A Life Cycle Assessment of Environmental and
Economic Outcomes
Farayi Musharavati 1 , Khadija Sajid 2 , Izza Anwer 3 , Abdul-Sattar Nizami 2, *, Muhammad Hassan Javed 2 ,
Anees Ahmad 2 and Muhammad Naqvi 4

1 Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Qatar University, Doha 2713, Qatar; farayi@[Link]
2 Sustainable Development Study Centre, Government College University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan;
khadijahsajid1998@[Link] (K.S.); hassanjavedduggal@[Link] (M.H.J.);
aneesjamal180@[Link] (A.A.)
3 Department of Transportation Engineering and Management, University of Engineering and Technology,
Lahore 54890, Pakistan; engr-izza@[Link]
4 College of Engineering and Technology, American University of the Middle East, Egaila 54200, Kuwait;
[Link]@[Link]
* Correspondence: asnizami@[Link]

Abstract: This study aims to evaluate the environmental and economic performance of biodiesel
production from mixed vegetable oil waste using the life cycle assessment (LCA) model. Due to
its huge potential, Pakistan is taken as a case study. It produces 468,842 tons of vegetable oil waste
annually. As no biodiesel production plant exists to process it, the environmental performance
of biodiesel prototypes has not been investigated. Therefore, the current study is conducted to
support the design of a plant to produce biodiesel from mixed oil waste. An attributional LCA was
conducted using ReCiPe (H) and found that 400 kg of biodiesel can be produced from 1 t of mixed oil
Citation: Musharavati, F.; Sajid, K.; waste. The results, based on a functional unit of 1 ton, showed that biodiesel production from mixed
Anwer, I.; Nizami, A.-S.; Javed, M.H.; vegetable oil waste is more eco-friendly than the existing landfilling practices with a global warming
Ahmad, A.; Naqvi, M. Advancing potential of 1.36 × 10−4 kg CO2 eq, human toxicity of 5.31 kg 1.4 DB eq, ozone depletion potential of
Biodiesel Production System from 0.00271 kg CFC-11 eq, eutrophication potential of 0.0118 kg P eq, acidification potential of 123 kg
Mixed Vegetable Oil Waste: A Life
SO2 eq, and photochemical ozone formation of 51.4 kg NOx eq. Scenario modelling was conducted
Cycle Assessment of Environmental
using electricity from photovoltaic solar cells, which decrease fine particulate matter formation from
and Economic Outcomes.
44.5 to 0.725 kg PM2 .5 eq, instead of using electricity from a grid to the plant. Hotspot identification
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550.
was carried out to highlight the effects of individual impact categories. An economic analysis showed
[Link]
su152416550
that 638,839 USD/year revenue would be generated. Generating energy from discarded vegetable oils
through biodiesel production presents a sustainable and economically viable approach. This process
Academic Editors: Marc A. Rosen,
benefits the environment and contributes to cost savings by reducing waste disposal in landfills.
Manoj Kumar Nallapaneni, Idiano
Furthermore, it aligns with the principles of a circular economy, in which resources are reused and
D’Adamo and Massimo Gastaldi
recycled. It also supports the pursuit of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
Received: 8 November 2023 particularly SDG-7, which focuses on affordable and clean energy, and SDG-12, which emphasizes
Revised: 28 November 2023 responsible consumption and production.
Accepted: 1 December 2023
Published: 5 December 2023 Keywords: vegetable oil; biodiesel production; waste-to-energy (WtE); life cycle assessment (LCA);
sustainable development goals (SDGs)

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article 1. Introduction
distributed under the terms and Pakistan generates 49.6 million tons of solid waste annually, with a yearly increase of
conditions of the Creative Commons 2.4% [1]. The government of Pakistan estimates that over 16,500 tons of municipal waste
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// is generated every day, resulting in a weekly total of 87,000 tons of solid waste [2]. Addi-
[Link]/licenses/by/ tionally, the current solid waste management system is facing significant challenges due to
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550. [Link] 266 [Link]

Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

inadequate equipment, low public awareness, and a lack of urban planning. Thus, the lack
of sound waste management practices creates serious environmental issues threatening the
population’s welfare and health. A total of 60–70% of the country’s solid waste is collected,
dumped, buried, or burned on vacant lots [3]. Reusing mixed vegetable oil waste instead
of disposing it can create more mixed oil waste. This increase in the generation of such
waste poses several challenges to its efficient management. Moreover, kitchens and food
industries produce about 16.5 million tons of vegetable oil waste annually. This waste
is usually disposed of in landfills and municipal solid waste or discharged into sewage
systems [4].
At the start of the Industrial Revolution (the 20th century), energy utilization rapidly
increased due to the increasing population and better living standards. In 2030, a 53%
increase in global energy consumption is expected [5]. Currently, energy is primarily
derived from natural gas (24%), coal (30%), and crude oil (33%), which are all fossil
fuels [6,7]. The excessive use of non-renewable fossil fuels puts the energy security of
people with limited access to these resources at risk, leading to climate change. Therefore,
there is a need to find alternative energy sources to fossil fuels to guarantee energy security
and tackle climate change [8].
In terms of economic development, energy is essential as it provides some necessary
services to maintain the quality of human life and economic activity [9]. Pakistan’s crude
oil production in 2019 was 4.3 million metric tons, satisfying only 20% of the country’s
total petroleum needs. Alternatives to petroleum-based crude oil for diesel fuel are a
major consideration. Hence, biodiesel production is gaining more attention as a direct
replacement for crude oil petroleum as a blended component that is 100% renewable and
biodegradable, as well as produces lower exhaust emissions compared to conventional
diesel fuels [10]. In 2018–2019, Pakistan imported fossil fuels and imported 17.20 million
tons of crude oil [3]. In this country, the electricity and transport sectors are the key users of
fossil fuels. About 50% more energy is required for the transport and electricity sectors [11].
Moreover, Pakistan needs 10% blended biodiesel in fossil diesel by 2025 [12]. Therefore,
lab-scale research on biodiesel production has frequently been conducted by organizations
and universities in the country [1]. According to [13], various organizations in Pakistan
have been developing biodiesel prototypes from diverse biomass sources. Moreover, many
universities of the country have prepared biodiesel prototypes mainly from non-edible
waste oils such as those from Jatropha seed oil.
Solid waste, including 4000 tons/day and 32.6 Mt/year of municipal solid waste
(MSW), is appropriate for transformation into various waste-to-energy (WtE) forms [14].
Waste-to-energy is a process that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, recovers metals, and
generates clean energy from waste materials. One form of material and energy recovery
from waste is biodiesel production, mainly from mixed vegetable oil waste that reduces
the burden on landfills and helps in energy recovery. Therefore, it is a secondary fuel
that can manage various forms of urban and municipal waste, thereby improving waste
handling [15]. In addition, waste is passed through a series of processes in which all the
non-combustibles are removed for its production as follows: oil extraction, pretreatment,
esterification, transesterification, and biodiesel refining, which can be applied after the
process of purification to obtain biodiesel with a purity of 98% [16].
An optimized approach is used to check the sustainability of the process by performing
a life cycle assessment (LCA), which is one of the most common sustainability assessment
decision-making tools for assessing the impacts of different products or processes and
environmental performance [17]. A product’s life cycle starts with raw material extraction,
then it is produced, transported, used, consumed, and disposed of, and finally its emissions
and waste management are considered [18,19]. The LCA is a suitable tool for identifying a
current project’s environmental benefits and drawbacks and comparing them with those
of conventional systems. Therefore, it helps policy and decision makers implement the
process with minimal environmental impacts [20]. Environmental applications of LCA have
increased worldwide over the last few years because it assesses the environmental impacts

267
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

of a current project throughout its life cycle. Although all processes result in resource
consumption, emissions, and environmental impacts, an LCA looks at the process of the en-
vironment as a sink and a source and assesses the impact of different environmental impact
categories such as human toxicity (HTP), global warming potential (GWP), ozone depletion
potential (ODP), eutrophication potential (EP), and acidification potential (AP) [21]. In
addition, it is the key factor for developing bioenergy support policies, including GHG
savings, energy savings, and environmental and social acceptability [22].
This study examines the current generation and composition of mixed vegetable oil
waste along with management practices and presents a design for the line production
of biodiesel that can convert mixed oil waste into the formation of biodiesel. However,
biodiesel production shows the potential and feasibility of biofuel as a substitute energy
source and replacement for crude oil in the transportation sector. The goal is to reduce 10%
of landfilled waste and 65% of MSW to be recycled by 2030. This study supports two UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Firstly, it aligns with SDG 7 for affordable and
clean energy by showing how biodiesel from vegetable oil waste can be a practical and
sustainable alternative to conventional energy. Secondly, our research supports SDG 12 for
responsible consumption and production by recycling waste into energy, thus reducing
environmental impacts and advancing sustainable practices. These two SDGs highlight
the importance of our work, as emphasized in a recent editorial on sustainable energy
research [23]. This study aims to evaluate a biodiesel production system’s environmental
and economic outcomes, utilizing mixed vegetable oil waste through a comprehensive
LCA. This study thoroughly analyses material and energy flows and soil, water, and air
emissions. The sustainability of the entire process was evaluated through an LCA using
Gabi software (Version [Link]). A techno-economic analysis was also conducted to
determine the economic feasibility of producing biodiesel for use as a fuel.

2. Materials and Methods

Section 2, ‘Materials and Methods’, is divided into four subsections: ‘Section 2.1. Waste
Characterization’, ‘Section 2.2. Study Design’, ‘Section 2.3. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)’,
and ‘Section 2.4. Economic Assessment’. These subsections provide information about
the composition of mixed vegetable oil waste, the methodology of biodiesel production,
the LCA’s objectives and boundaries, and the financial aspects of biodiesel production,
respectively.
The oil extraction phase includes different steps such as seed decortications, the
filtering of oil, and the expulsion of oil from seeds as shown in Figure 1.
Moreover, the processes of transesterification and esterification, which need numerous
inputs, such as catalysts in the form of the acid H2 SO4 , the alkali NaOH/KOH, alcohol in
the form of methanol, and electricity.

2.1. Waste Characterization

In Pakistan, biodiesel from non-edible vegetable oil yields 0.09 thousand barrels daily.
The physical characterization of the major components of mixed oil waste includes rapeseed
oil (44.5%), castor oil (23.0%), waste cooking oil (11.5%), and Jatropha oil (21.0%). Moreover,
out of every 100 tons of mixed oils processed, a portion is used to produce crude glycerol
while the remainder can be used to make biodiesel.

2.2. Study Design

This study consists of a design for the line production of an extensive-scale biodiesel
production plant from mixed vegetable oil waste as shown in Figure 2.
Soybean, palm, and peanut oils are vitally utilized in food industries and planted
crops in Pakistan. These edible oils have enriched sources and a strong potential to produce
biodiesel in large amounts. Thus, 1.25 of palm oil produces 1 L of biodiesel, and 1 L of
biodiesel is produced from 1.3 L of soybean oil. Jatropha oil is the main source of biodiesel
from Jatropha seeds in Africa and Asia. Jatropha seeds contain 30–35 wt.% oil which can

268
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

be converted into biodiesel. Waste cooking oil also has the highest capacity to produce
biodiesel, and 89% of biodiesel is produced from WCO in the UK, similarly to many
other countries.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of biodiesel production line.

Biodiesel production includes the following processes. The first step to produce
biodiesel is the extraction of oil, in which the oil filtration, seed pressing, and decortica-
tion steps are carried out. The next step is the pretreatment, which is required to process
feedstocks prior to their alteration into biodiesel. This step minimizes negative impacts
on biodiesel production, such as suspended particles, polymers, FFAs, water, and gums.
The pretreatment of oil has been shown to avoid soap formation during transesterification,
eventually leading to an increased biodiesel yield. The third process involves two-step
transesterification. Most non-edible oils have a higher content of FFAs from the pretreat-
ment step; this amount must be reduced to 0.5–1% using an esterification reaction with
an acid catalyst. The acid catalyst H2 SO4 with methanol reduces the amount of FFAs.
Hence, the transesterification process is carried out with the alkali catalysts NaOH or KOH
with methanol. In this process, KOH is mostly preferred because of its low price, great
productivity, and moderate yield. Therefore, KOH also decreases the oil’s tendency to
form soap. When KOH is used as a catalyst, it produces crude glycerol, and it is easier to
separate this from the produced biodiesel using NaOH. Base transesterification produces a
98% biodiesel yield. Crude glycerol is generated as a byproduct that accounts for 10–12%
of biodiesel. It is used as a processed industrial raw material that plays an important role
in biodiesel chain sustainability and is the major bottleneck in producing biodiesel chains.

269
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

Therefore, crude biodiesel is subjected to wet washing to remove further impurities, such
as catalysts, glycerol, soap, and residual alcohol, to obtain a purified biodiesel.

Figure 2. Various feedstock used to produce biodiesel.

2.3. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

An LCA is a method used to evaluate the sustainability of a product, process, or
service by assessing its environmental impacts and benefits throughout its entire life cycle.
Examining biodiesel production and consumption helps us to understand their ecological
consequences. This study follows a standardized LCA approach in line with ISO 14040
guidelines and uses the Gabi LCA software (Version [Link]) as the primary tool for our
analysis. The LCA process encompasses four fundamental stages: the goal and scope, life
cycle inventory, life cycle impact assessment, and interpretation of the results, as outlined
by [18,19].

2.3.1. Goal and Scope

Our research aims to evaluate how producing biodiesel from various vegetable oils
affects the environment, and this evaluation is conducted through an LCA. From an envi-
ronmental standpoint, this study aims to determine the feasibility of producing biodiesel
using various vegetable oils, following the methodological framework outlined in ISO as
in [18,19]. One of the primary goals of the LCA process is to assess the environmental
impacts associated with biodiesel production from diverse vegetable oil sources. However,
this study evaluates the environmental assessment using an attributional LCA approach,
which focuses on quantifying the hotspots and key environmental issues at various stages
of biodiesel production. Moreover, system boundaries and functional units are both part of
the goal and scope. Figure 3 shows the process of an LCA of biodiesel production.

System Boundaries
The scope of this study is gate-to-gate, along with system boundaries that consist of
the following:
• The zero-burden assumption is selected, indicating that the biodiesel plant sources
its inputs from various vegetable oils, including palm, soybean, castor, and waste
cooking oils, which are all considered to have no environmental impact.

270
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

• The biodiesel production process considers both direct emissions generated on site
and indirect emissions resulting from the use of electricity and fuel.
• The system boundary encompasses the collection of various vegetable oils from multi-
ple sites and their transportation to the central facility. It extends through the biochem-
ical treatment processes within a biodiesel production facility.

Figure 3. The life cycle assessment (LCA) of biodiesel production.

Functional Unit
The functional unit (FU) is a vital foundational standard for calculations and compar-
isons in LCA. One of the distinguishing features of LCA within environmental assessment
methodologies is the selection of an FU. FU is an essential element in LCA analyses, allow-
ing the comparison of results across different studies. It measures the system’s function
under study and establishes a reference point to normalize all inputs and outputs.
In the context of waste management systems, the choice of FU is closely linked to the
system’s inputs, goal and scope, and system boundaries, particularly how waste quantities
are managed and processed. When assessing the environmental impact of biodiesel produc-
tion from mixed vegetable oil waste sources, different FUs may be considered depending
on specific factors like mass balance, transport distances, and energy considerations. In
this study, the selected FU is 1 ton (1000 kg) of vegetable oil waste utilized in biodiesel
production. All inputs and outputs in the analysis are standardized to this 1 ton functional
unit, ensuring consistency and comparability across the study.

2.3.2. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)

Life cycle inventory (LCI) is the second step in the analysis of LCA, which consists of
measuring field data for which all the inputs and outputs of the system are considered and
calculated. The data needed for biodiesel production include the production and composi-
tion of mixed vegetable oil, emission factors, fuel needs, and electricity requirements. In
addition, the data obtained from the Gabi software serve as a basis for building the system
model of the process. The system boundary, waste flow with mass balance, electricity
consumption, and fuel requirements are shown in Figure 4.

271
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

Figure 4. System boundary, vegetable oil waste stream flow with mass balance, electricity, and
fuel consumption.

Table 1 presents a mass balance for the biodiesel production process. It lists the
inputs, such as different oil wastes, amounting to 1 ton and energy consumption, which
is measured in kWh per ton for electricity and litres for fuel. The final products include
400 kg of biodiesel, by-products such as metals and steam, and losses due to material losses
and recycled waste. Additionally, the table attributes emissions into air, including NOx and
CO2 , and emissions into water, such as NO3 , as a result of the production process.

272
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

Table 1. Mass balance for the biodiesel production process.

Category Quantities Units Amount

Inputs
Material Different Oils’ Waste ton 1
Energy Consumption Electricity kWh/ton 20.278
Fuel L 12
Outputs
Main products Biodiesel kg 400
Other products Metals kg 0.08
Steam kg 0.009
Material Losses kg 2.2
Landfill Recycled Waste kg 45.3
Emissions into air NOx kg 0.003405
N2 O kg 2.94 × 10−5
CH3 kg 3.25 × 10−7
CO2 kg 0.00895
NMVOC kg 0.01
Emissions into water NO3 kg 3.00 × 10−5

2.3.3. Production and Composition of Mixed Vegetable Oil Waste

In Pakistan, 80% of the total consumption of edible vegetable oil stems from imports,
while the remaining is produced locally. In 2022, the total consumption of edible vegetable
oil, including palm, soybean, and peanut oils, was predicted to be approximately 3.9 million
tons annually. However, domestic edible oil production was predicted to increase to
1 million tons in 2022. Palm oil accounts for a major portion of total domestic consumption
(71%). Soybean oil accounts for 24% of total edible oil consumption.
LESCO (Lahore Electric Supply Company) is an electricity distributor in Lahore, Kasur,
Okra, and Sheikhupura regions. The company’s main objective is to ensure that the people
in these areas can access a consistent and reliable electricity supply. To meet growing
demand, LESCO uses a diverse mix of energy from various sources to supply electricity to
the plant. According to [14], the breakdown of electricity sources is as follows: 29% hydro,
24% LNG, 14% furnace oil, 10% imported coal, 11% natural gas, 6% renewables, 4% nuclear,
and 2% local. The electricity bills from WAPDA (Water and Power Development Authority)
were assessed to determine the plant’s power requirements for 2022. WAPDA has been
assigned the duties of planning, executing, and investigating projects and schemes for
generation, transmission, and distribution of power, as well as the water supply and
prevention of water logging. This analysis calculated the electricity needs for each specific
process within the plant. The plant operates for a total of 250 days a year, 5 days a week with
8 h of operation each day. On average, the plant consumes 20.27 kWh per ton of production.

2.3.4. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is the most important stage of any LCA study.
Many impact indicators, like inflows, outflows, mass, and energy consumption, are merged
into LCIA to produce a single number for environmental performance. Human toxicity
(carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic), photochemical ozone formation, resource depletion,
acidification, ozone depletion, eutrophication, and global warming are some environmental
impact categories. As a result, the four steps of the LCIA standard approach are nor-
malization, weighting, characterization, and classification. However, ReCiPe (H) is the
methodology utilized in the current study to evaluate the effects of LCIA.

2.4. Economic Assessment

The economic evaluation of this study takes operational costs and the returns on capital
investment into account. Therefore, byproduct glycerol, material recovery, a reduction in

273
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

landfill costs, and scrap metals are all advantages of biodiesel production. Tangible and
intangible benefits include preventing infections and odors from landfills and leachate
poisoning of groundwater. Additionally, the annual cost is subtracted from the benefits
received to determine the net benefit annually obtained from the method. Equation (1)
is used to calculate the net benefits. In the meantime, Equations (2) and (3) compute the
overall costs and benefits.
Economic indicators such as payback period (PB) and net present value (NPV) are
used to determine a process’s economic viability [24]. The difference between cash inflows
and outflows of PV over a specific period of time is referred to as NPV. Moreover, it is a
method used to determine a project’s economic feasibility in terms of capital costs as well
as the suitability of capital budgeting and investments.
Equations (1)–(3) are as follows.

Net Benefits = Total Benefits − Total Cost (1)

Total Benefits = Biodiesel + Metals + MR (2)

Total Cost = LC + UC + EC + MC (3)

In this equation, MR stands for material recovery, LC for labor cost, UC for utility cost,
EC for energy consumption cost, and MC for maintenance cost. However, as capital costs
are one-time expenses for a project, they are not considered in Equation (3). Therefore,
Equation (4) can be used to calculate NPV.

Ct
NPV = ∑t=1 n (1 + k)t − Co (4)

where, Ct = Net cash inflow

Co = Capital cost
n = project lifespan
k = discount
t = time
The PP includes the net cash inflows generated from the initial investment because it
is the expected time for the initial investment recovery. It is calculated via Equation (5).

Capital investment or initial investment cost

PP = (5)
Net Cash inflows(per year)

2.4.1. Life Cycle Costing (LCC)

Internal and external costs are considered in life cycle costing (LCC). Internal costs
include the price of biodiesel l production, while external costs are the emissions during a
process’s life cycle stages [25]. Equation (6) is used to calculate LCC.

Life cycle costing (LCC) = Internal cost (IC) + External cost (EC) (6)

2.4.2. Internal and External Costs

Operational and capital expenses are included in internal costs [26]. Maintenance,
electricity, utility, and labor expenditures are all included in the operational costs of a
plant. On the other hand, capital costs are associated with the plant’s building, installation,
equipment, and shipping. All associated costs of the current plants with similar facilities in
other countries were also researched to obtain a reliable capital cost estimate. Equation (7)
is used to determine the IC.

IC = Cl + Cu + Cr + Cm + CM (7)

274
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

where Cl , Cu , Cr , Cm , and CM stand for labor, utility, raw material, maintenance, and
management costs, respectively.
External cost is the damage cost that is linked with environmental emissions. It can be
calculated via Equation (8).
7
EC = ∑k=1 Ck × Ek,lc (8)

where Ek, lc represents the emissions as determined via Gabi software. The coefficient
values for Ck, which includes CO, CO2 , NOx , SO2 , CH4 , PM, and NMVOC emissions, are
obtained from the literature [21]. Table 2 shows the emissions values.

Table 2. Life cycle emissions and external cost coefficient of the biodiesel production process.

Pollutants Coefficient a Emissions b

CO2 44 5.85 × 10−12
CH4 305 18.1
CO 828 10.3
SO2 7485 104
NOx 4712 49.7
NMVOC 2352 19.5
PM 8574 0.01209
a USD/ton; b Gabi (kg).

3. Results and Discussions

This section has four subsections, covering biodiesel production from mixed vegetable
oil waste (Section 3.1), an environmental assessment (Section 3.2) of the impacts of biodiesel
production through a life cycle approach, scenario modelling and assumptions (Section 3.3)
considering different scenarios, and an in-depth economic evaluation (Section 3.4) of
biodiesel production.

3.1. Biodiesel Yield and Properties

The present study’s first step is identifying the percentage recovery of biodiesel based
on the country’s sources of mixed vegetable oil waste. Considering the quantity and
composition of different types of vegetable oil production waste, a biodiesel production
line for a large-scale plant is designed. The characterization and composition of different
types of vegetable oil waste were taken from secondary data. The composition of mixed
vegetable oil waste is mainly complex, and biodiesel is formed by a chain of hydrocarbons
formed with two oxygen atoms, making it biologically active.
Biodiesel is an alternative fuel that can be derived from vegetable oils. Other alter-
native fuels include vegetable oil micro-emulsions, pyrolysis products of vegetable oils,
and vegetable oils mixed with diesel oil. Methyl and ethyl esters can also be produced
from vegetable oil or animal fat. In addition, biodiesel can also be produced from mixed
vegetable oil, such as waste cooking oil, palm oil, Jatropha seed oil, castor oil, peanut oil,
soybean oil, and algal oil [27]. Moreover, biodiesel can be used pure, as B100, or blended
with diesel fuel with the blend denoted as BXX, in which XX is the biodiesel percentage in
the blend. Hence, the most common ratio is B20, which is 80% diesel and 20% biodiesel [21].
One of the major benefits of biodiesel production is the low content of sulphur. In its
chemical composition, oxygen is present, so its combustion is complete and reduces carbon
monoxide, unburnt hydrocarbons, and particulate emissions, among with other contami-
nants [28]. Meanwhile, biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine without modifications
and blended with fossil diesel in any proportion since they share similar properties [29].
Compared to fossil diesel, biodiesel has a lower calorific value of about 10% and performs
worse at low temperatures. It also tends to solidify in extremely cold conditions, requiring

275
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

specific additives. In addition, a byproduct, glycerin, is obtained during its production

process, which can be used in cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries after purification [30].
Biodiesel from different vegetable oil feedstocks is produced in many countries, in-
cluding the USA, Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, China, Indonesia, and
India [28]. The USA produces 1.6 billion gallons of biodiesel, mainly from soybean (40%),
canola (20%), palm (20%), and tallow (20%) oils. Brazil produces 6.8 million cubic meters of
biodiesel from soybeans (80%), tallow (10%), and other vegetable oils (10%) [31]. China pro-
duces 2.43 billion liters of biodiesel from cooking vegetable waste (100%). India produces
185 million liters of biodiesel from cooking oil waste. The Philippines produces 203 million
liters of biodiesel from coconut oil (100%) [6].
Some studies have shown that the calorific values of mixed vegetable oil seeds meet
the energy demands to produce biodiesel. Non-edible vegetable oil results in a higher
production of biodiesel. Jatropha seed oil has a calorific value of 37.27 KJ. Castor oil and
cooking oil waste have calorific values of 35.50 KJ and 35.7 KJ, respectively [26]. On the
other hand, edible vegetable oils, including palm, coconut, and jojoba oils, show calorific
values of 37.30 KJ, 38.10 KJ, 39.86 KJ, respectively, and peanut and soybean oils have higher
energy contents [32]. However, several methods exist in the literature for theoretically
calculating biodiesel yields [33]. When calculating the theoretical amount of biodiesel that
can be produced, it is assumed that one mole of mixed vegetable oil waste will yield three
moles of biodiesel, with a 100% yield. However, the actual amount of biodiesel produced
is determined using the density, volume, and molar weight. The density of mixed oils is
calculated based on the weight and volume as follows:
moil
ρoil = (9)
voil

ρ is the density, m is the mass, and v is the volume of oil.

Hence, the real amount produced by biodiesel is calculated by measuring the produced
volume of oil, density of the biodiesel, and mass of biodiesel.

ρbiodiesel × Vbiodiesel
= real amount of produced biodiesel (10)
Mbiodiesel

Therefore, to obtain a 100% yield of biodiesel, the equation is as follows:

real amount of produced biodiesel

n= (11)
therotical amount of biodiesel
The benefits of the production of biodiesel include a decrease in the environmental im-
pacts of MSW, its stable thermal and energy properties, a reduction in the share of landfilled
waste, lower leachate production, the conservation of fossil fuels, decreased GHG emis-
sions, and lower pollutant content [34]. However, despite its benefits, its challenges include
high capital costs, landfilling options, unstable market conditions, and the availability of
industries for co-combustion [1]. Meanwhile, another application of biodiesel production is
in the transportation sector because it is a clean, renewable, and biodegradable alternative
to conventional fossil diesel. Biodiesel produces fewer pollutants and a lower carbon output
than other petroleum products. Compared to petroleum diesel, biodiesel produces less
sulfur dioxide, fewer soot particles, and fewer unburnt hydrocarbons. By using biodiesel,
people can realize health benefits because they need to spend less on healthcare products.
Moreover, biodiesel can also be used to generate energy and electricity and provide heat.
Nowadays, the concept of bioheat has continued to grow and depend on biofuels such
as biodiesel being used as a source of energy [21]. In addition, a comparison of different
studies for the line production of biodiesel is given in Table 3. Through different assessment
models, the life cycle of biodiesel production is assessed by using different system inputs
and outputs with different system boundaries and functional units. It is as follows.

276
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

Table 3. Different studies on the environmental impact assessment of biodiesel production.

Functional Assessment
System Boundaries System Outputs Highlights Reference
Unit Method
Gate-to-gate, waste
pretreatment, oil Waste (solid and
Biodiesel production is
extraction, liquid), heat,
promising, leading to
esterification, electricity 1 ton ReCiPe 2016 Present study
lower levels of
transesterification, and biodiesel,
carbon dioxide
commercial biodiesel and glycerol
transportation
Emissions from
combustion and
Cradle-to-gate, oil Potassium sulfate,
certain chemicals are
waste collection, and distillation residue, 1 ton ReCiPe 2008 [35]
major environmental
oil waste pretreatment and wastewater
issues in biodiesel
production.
Gate-to-gate,
Sensitivity analysis
pretreatment,
Biodiesel, glycerol, showed neutralizing
transesterification,
electricity, heat, crude oil, consumption
biodiesel washing,
phosphate, free 1 MJ IMPACT 2002+ of electricity, and [36]
biodiesel dehydration,
fatty acids, methanol impact
crude glycerol
and dipotassium human health and
neutralization, and
climate change
methanol recovery
Transesterification by
Cradle-to-gate, waste
alkali catalyst
collection, Biodiesel 1 ton CML [37,38]
contributes to environ-
and transportation
mental burdens.
Due to sulfur
Cradle-to-grave, fresh compounds in WCO
oil production, and contaminants
pretreatment, Biodiesel, released during the
collection, methanol, 1 kg - cooking process, the [39]
transportation, and glycerol resulting biodiesel
combustion, produces more sulfur
and transesterification dioxide emissions
than diesel.
Cradle-to-cradle, Transesterification
Gas emissions
pretreatment, process had a
(waste), heat, CML with all
collection, significant
wastewater, 1 ton categories and [40]
transportation, oil, and environmental impact
glycerol, Eco-indicator 99
transesterification due to increased elec-
and biodiesel
process tricity consumption.
When a territory is
small, centralized
Oil waste collection
production is more
and transportation, Waste disposal,
eco-friendly, but as the
waste esterification, glycerol, 1 kg Eco-indicator 99 [41,42]
territory increases,
transesterification, and and biodiesel
decentralization
pure biodiesel
becomes
more advisable.

3.2. Environmental Assessment Using LCA

In this context, the study’s system boundary is gate-to-gate, and the FU is set at 1 ton
of mixed vegetable oil waste. Our analysis of the results employs the ReCiPe Midpoint
(H) LCIA method. The data on the quantity, materials, fuel, and energy consumption
of the mixed vegetable oil waste were collected from the published literature on the

277
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

country’s overall production of biodiesel [43]. However, the other data (the electricity
emissions) were taken from the database. Hence, the LCIA results are converted into
impact categories (classification). The classified results are collected for each category
indicator (characterization). The ReCiPe methodology used in this study is the follow-up
of CML 2002 and Eco-indicator 99 methodologies. The indicator scores are measured in
the same way as the Eco-indicator 99 methodology, and this approach uses both midpoint
and endpoint modelling [11]. In addition, it is a coordinated LCIA method at a midpoint
level [23]. It covers 18 midpoint impact categories, including ozone formation (terrestrial
ecosystems, human health), ozone depletion, marine ecotoxicity, freshwater ecotoxicity,
human toxicity (cancer, non-cancer), terrestrial acidification, terrestrial ecotoxicity, land
use and water consumption, fossil depletion, climate change, ionizing radiation, resource
depletion, fine particulate matter formation, and marine eutrophication. The endpoint
indicators are mainly grouped into three main categories: ecosystems, resources, and
human health.

3.2.1. Midpoint Assessment

The environmental categories in which the substances are released into the environ-
ment are determined by the changes made to the natural environment and are included in
the midpoint assessment. These are also known as impact categories. Table 4 summarizes
the midpoint results for biodiesel production. Overall, our findings showed that biodiesel
production has huge potential to enhance the environment in terms of all effect categories.
The highest reduction is found in global warming potential (1.36 × 10−4 kg CO2 eq.),
fossil depletion (3.29 × 10−3 kg oil eq.), ozone depletion (0.00271 kg CFC-11 eq.), and all
ecotoxicity impacts (freshwater: 0.647 kg 1.4 DB eq., freshwater eutrophication: 0.0118 kg
P eq., marine eutrophication: 0.134 kg N eq., and marine ecotoxicity: 9.07 kg 1.4 DB eq.).
The following categories are covered under the LCIA: photochemical ozone formation,
ozone depletion, human toxicity, ecotoxicity (terrestrial, freshwater, and marine), the deple-
tion of fossils, acidification, the potential for global warming, eutrophication (marine and
freshwater), ionizing radiation, resource depletion, and particle formation. The findings of
the biodiesel production’s midpoint assessment are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Midpoint assessment of biodiesel production.

Impact Categories Unit Values

Climate change, default, excl. biogenic carbon kg CO2 eq. 1.36 × 104
Fine particulate matter formation kg PM2.5 eq. 44.5
Fossil depletion kg oil eq. 3.29 × 103
Freshwater consumption m3 326
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1.4 DB eq. 0.647
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq. 0.0118
Human toxicity, cancer kg 1.4-DB eq. 5.31
Human toxicity, non-cancer kg 1.4-DB eq. 1.29 × 103
Ionizing radiation kBq Co-60 eq. to air 27.4
Land use Annual crop eq. per year 287
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq. 9.07
Marine eutrophication kg N eq. 0.134
Metal depletion kg Cu eq. 2.8
Photochemical ozone formation, ecosystems kg NOx eq. 51.5
Photochemical ozone formation, human health kg NOx eq. 51.4
Stratospheric ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq. 0.00271
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq. 123
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq. 1.2 × 104

Biodiesel production contributes to a decrease in pollutant emissions without causing

an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Consequently, several studies have
indicated that burning can elevate the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. However,

278
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

carbon absorption throughout a plant’s life cycle can offset this increase in emissions [33].
The GWP of the biodiesel process is 136 × 10−4 kg CO2 eq. Eutrophication (freshwater
or marine) is aquatic nutrient enrichment brought on by H3 PO4 and PO4 3− ; it causes
environmental deterioration. The NP is measured in kg P or N eq. and primarily from
landfill or diesel emissions. As a result, open burning emits pollutants into the atmosphere,
which eventually settle with rain [44]. Emissions from sedimentation raise the productivity
and nutrient levels in water bodies. Thus, algae absorb nutrients that are needed by other
aquatic organisms [45]. Eventually, they are decomposed by bacteria and all die. This
situation leads to a decrease in the level of DO as the amount of oxygen available to living
aquatic organisms decreases [8]. The marine eutrophication of the process is 0.134 kg N eq.,
and the freshwater eutrophication is 0.0118 kg P eq.
The production of biodiesel is a feasible option for reducing the potential for terrestrial
acidification because it results in fewer emissions of NOx and NH3 during the processing
stage. It is expressed in kg SO2 eq. as the unit of terrestrial acidification. The decrease in
emissions harms plant and animal life and causes the acidity of soil or aquatic ecosystems
to decrease. Thus, one effective method for reducing the potential effects of terrestrial
acidification is the manufacture of biodiesel. In addition, the terrestrial acidification po-
tential of biodiesel was 123 kg SO2 eq. Human toxicity is classified into effects that cause
cancer and effects that do not cause cancer, and it is related to the maximum daily intake
for human toxicity. It is mainly caused by heavy metals, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen oxides,
and formaldehyde and is measured in kg 1.4 DB eq [46]. In the current study, the human
toxicity potential (non-cancer) was 1.29 × 10−3 kg 1.4 DB eq and the HTP (cancer) was
5.31 kg 1.4 DB eq.
Ozone layer depletion causes damage to human health and ecosystems. However,
more Ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation is now at the Earth’s surface, which is bad for ecosys-
tems and human health. Natural elements, including methane, water, nitrogen dioxide,
and halogenated components, are the main contributors to ozone depletion [47]. Ozone
depletion has significantly impacted the ecosystem. Thus, the industrial use of very stable
halocarbon gases has led to the formation of halogen compounds in the stratosphere. These
gases are found in landfills, and their presence poses a sepulcher environmental threat [48].
The ozone depletion potential of biodiesel was calculated as 0.00271 kg CFC-11 eq.
Compounds that are reactive in the atmosphere and the photochemical ozone for-
mation process can harm human health and the environment. Moreover, various volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) produced by activities; the use solvents and motor vehicles
are significant sources of this type of pollution. The main contributors to its creation are
NOx , NMVOC, and CH4 , while NOx is generated during transportation. The value of
photochemical ozone formation for human health is 51.4 kg NOx eq. The particles released
into the atmosphere are referred to as the particulate matter formation. PM10 is the term
for any organic and inorganic compounds with a diameter of less than 10 m, such as SOx ,
NOx , NH3 , and VOCs [49]. It negatively affects health, leading to respiratory disorders.
Therefore, because it necessitates more energy-intensive waste collection and treatment
processes, the landfill is the least preferable alternative in terms of air pollution [50]. The
PMF in this study was 44.5 kg PM2 .5 eq. Ecotoxicity refers to the effect of toxic substances
on wetland ecosystems and forests. The effect on oceans is known as marine ecotoxicity,
while the effect of toxic substances on freshwater bodies like rivers and lakes is known
as freshwater ecotoxicity [51]. According to the current study, the marine and freshwater
ecotoxicity values were about 9.07 and 0.647 kg 1.4 DB eq, respectively.
Ionization is the environmental release of radioactive elements that cause a higher
radiation potential. A significant amount can result in immediate fatalities, severe radiation
burns, or acute consequences. This is a result of the radioactive elements found in rocks
and soils of landfills [7]. The ionizing radiation potential of the current model was 27.4 kBq
Co-60 eq. to air. Resource depletion is the consumption of natural resources. The electricity
consumption for 1 t biodiesel production is 21.75 kWh. Studies indicate a decrease in
fossil fuels that are mostly used in the power sector [52]. The generation of biodiesel was

279
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

3.29 × 10−3 oil eq., which is essentially no fossil depletion. The electricity generated from
biodiesel can balance out the electricity used to produce biodiesel [32]. The metal depletion
potential was 2.8 kg Cu eq.
While LCAs have been used in South Africa, India, Russia, and Brazil over the past
15 years, they have also been extensively used in several European nations [53]. The pro-
duction line for mixed vegetable oil waste biodiesel, its composition, and its percentage
recovery affects the fuel’s economic and environmental advantages. Biodiesel has many
uses, and its manufacturing characteristics vary depending on location [17]. Furthermore,
the direct emissions of WtE facilities and the LC performance of biodiesel are the waste
composition, recovery efficiency, and type of biological treatment. Since biodiesel may
be used as a substitute for petroleum diesel, it boosts energy security, improves the envi-
ronment and air quality, and uses less energy during production than conventional fossil
fuels [54]. Therefore, decreased eutrophication and acidification are brought on by the
reduction in NOx emissions [55]. The current study carried out an LCA of the generation
of biodiesel from mixed vegetable oil waste.

3.2.2. Normalized Results

The environmental category units are different for each category. Hence, they cannot
be compared. The results are normalized, in which the category indicators are divided by a
reference value. Moreover, normalized results signify the average environmental impact
that a single statistical person exerts, and they are expressed in person equivalent (PE)
units [17]. The normalized results are shown in Table 5. The current research paper utilizes
the reCiPe 2016 V1.1 (H), global (PE) eliminating biogenic carbon, midpoint normalization
built-in Gabi program. Human toxicity (non-cancer), ozone formation, and particulate
matter formation have proportionately bigger contributions to the production of biodiesel,
while ecotoxicity and climate change have moderate effects. The impacts of land use on
eutrophication are minimal.

Table 5. Normalized LCIA results of the biodiesel production process.

Categories Unit Values

Ecosystems
Climate change freshwater ecosystems species. yr 4.17 × 10−7
Climate change terrestrial ecosystems species. yr 0.0153
Freshwater consumption, freshwater ecosystems species. yr 2.27 × 10−7
Freshwater consumption, terrestrial ecosystems specie. yr 0.0016
Freshwater ecotoxicity species. yr 1.8 × 10−7
Freshwater eutrophication species. yr 3.17 × 10−6
Land use species. yr 0.00102
Marine ecotoxicity species. yr 3.81 × 10−7
Marine eutrophication species. yr 8.84 × 10−8
Photochemical ozone formation, ecosystems species. yr 0.00266
Terrestrial acidification species. yr 0.0104
Terrestrial ecotoxicity species. yr 5.49 × 10−5
Human Health
Climate change human health DALY 3.8
Fine particulate matter formation DALY 8.39
Freshwater consumption, human health DALY 0.184
Human toxicity, cancer DALY 0.00529

280
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

Table 5. Cont.

Categories Unit Values

Human Health
Human toxicity, non-cancer DALY 0.0886
Ionizing radiation DALY 6.98 × 10−5
Photochemical ozone formation, human health DALY 0.014
Stratospheric ozone depletion DALY 0.000431
Resources
Metal depletion $ 420
Fossil depletion $ 7.4 × 10−4

3.2.3. Hotspot Identification

To regulate the main contributors’ stages in the life cycle of biodiesel production, a
comparison of the contributions of the individual processes of biodiesel production is
shown in Figure 5. This shows a comparison between the involvement of individual
processes and landfills. The impact of oil extraction on the overall impact categories is
minimal and hence considered negligible. The impact of the pretreatment stage on all
the impact categories is very low and almost the same for each. However, the impacts of
the esterification and transesterification processes on freshwater, terrestrial, and marine
ecotoxicity are almost the same and account for <20%. The stage of biodiesel refinery
has the highest contribution, primarily on the global warming potential, human toxicity
potential, eutrophication, and acidification potential. In addition, along with the refining
process, landfills account for 45% of human toxicity and marine ecotoxicity. The major
reason for their higher impacts is the consumption of electricity and heat. Therefore, these
two processes are more fuel-intensive than those in the biodiesel production system. The
modelling results highly stimulate the data on electricity consumption. Electricity is a
cleaner technology, but the emissions from it are at the time of production. The electricity
supplied to a plant by LESCO is from the grid mix, and it mostly involves non-renewables.
Our overall results show that the impacts are the same across the categories considered.
Hence, the system boundary of the present study is from gate to gate; only biodiesel-
obtaining processes were considered. Thus, for a plant, only collection and transportation
are considered. Another study also shows the usage of electricity and transportation as the
dominant stages [4].

3.2.4. Endpoint Assessment

The term “endpoint assessment” (also known as “damage categories”) refers to how
much of a material is released into the environment before it causes harm. These categories
also cover the environment. Endpoint indicators combined all effect subcategories into three
major categories: ecosystems, human health, and resources. The results of the biodiesel
production of our endpoint assessment are shown in Table 6.

3.3. Scenario Modeling and Assumptions

The midpoint results of the LCA of the current model (Figure 6) show that the electric-
ity supplied to the plant by LESCO is from a grid mix, in which the major contribution is
from non-renewables. Therefore, all the secondary emissions of electricity are considered
in the LCA. However, in scenario modelling, the electricity supply is assumed to be from
photovoltaic solar cells instead of the grid mix. A comparison of scenario modelling and
the current model is shown in Figure 6.

281
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

Figure 5. Role of individual processes in the overall environmental impact of the biodiesel production
process to midpoint categories linked to landfill emissions.

Table 6. Endpoint results of life cycle characterization of the biodiesel production line.

Categories Unit Values

Ecosystems
Climate change terrestrial ecosystems species. yr 3.82 × 10−5
Climate change freshwater ecosystems species. yr 1.04 × 10−9
Photochemical ozone formation, ecosystems species. yr 6.64 × 10−6
Freshwater consumption, freshwater ecosystems species. yr 5.68 × 10−10
Freshwater consumption, terrestrial ecosystems species. yr 4.01 × 10−6
Land use species. yr 2.55 × 10−6
Marine ecotoxicity species. yr 9.52 × 10−10
Marine eutrophication species. yr 2.21 × 10−10
Freshwater ecotoxicity species. yr 4.5 × 10−10
Freshwater eutrophication species. yr 7.93 × 10−9
Terrestrial acidification species. yr 2.61 × 10−5
Terrestrial ecotoxicity species. yr 1.37 × 10−7

282
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

Table 6. Cont.

Categories Unit Values

Human health
Climate change, human health DALY 0.0127
Human toxicity, cancer DALY 1.76 × 10−5
Human toxicity, non-cancer DALY 0.000295
Fine particulate matter formation DALY 0.028
Freshwater consumption, human health DALY 0.000614
Ionizing radiation DALY 2.33 × 10−7
Stratospheric ozone depletion DALY 1.44 × 10−6
Photochemical ozone formation, human health DALY 4.67 × 10−5
Resources
Fossil depletion $ 247
Metal depletion $ 1.4

Figure 6. Comparison of current model versus scenario model of biodiesel production process. (In
the current model, electricity is supplied from the grid mix, while in the scenario model, it is supplied
from photovoltaic solar cells).

Thus, it is apparent that the fine particle matter formation decreases from 44.5 to
0.725 kg PM2.5 eq., and the fossil depletion increases from 3.29 × 10−3 to 196 kg oil eq. The
effect on freshwater consumption in the current model is 326 m3 , while it slightly decreased
to 279 m3 in the scenario model. Similarly, the terrestrial acidification decreases from 123 to
2.15 kg SO2 eq., and human toxicity and cancer decrease from 5.31 to 0.405 kg 1.4 DB eq.,
respectively. In addition, the effect on metal depletion increases from 2.8 to 12.6 kg Cu eq.
The midpoint results for the biodiesel production of the scenario model are in Table 7.

283
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

Table 7. Midpoint results of life cycle characterization of biodiesel production line of the sce-
nario model.

Impact Categories Unit Values

Climate change, default, excl. biogenic carbon kg CO2 eq. 654
Fine particulate matter formation kg PM2.5 eq. 0.725
Fossil depletion kg oil eq. 196
Freshwater consumption m3 279
Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1.4 DB eq. 0.136
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq. 0.00111
Human toxicity, cancer kg 1.4-DB eq. 0.405
Human toxicity, non-cancer kg 1.4-DB eq. 194
Ionizing radiation kBq Co-60 eq. to air 8.05
Land use Annual crop eq. per year 30.2
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq. 4.33
Marine eutrophication kg N eq. 0.00765
Metal depletion kg Cu eq. 12.6
Photochemical ozone formation, ecosystems kg NOx eq. 2.68
Photochemical ozone formation, human health kg NOx eq. 2.62
Stratospheric ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq. 0.000159
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq. 2.15
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1.4-DB eq. 1.33 × 104

Biodiesel production from mixed vegetable oil waste reduces the problems of the
waste disposal/handling of waste, reduces emissions by avoiding them, and provides
economic benefits. There are some weaknesses in current SWM practices, such as waste
handling and the local fleet industry for handling waste. The lack of coordination among
stakeholders, including municipalities and the informal sector, treatment technology and
management, and initial capital investments are the main difficulties in implementing a
sound SWM model [56]. Moreover, there is a dire need to improve the SW sector through
proper stakeholder management and coordination. In addition, economic incentives should
be given to level up applicable enterprises and implement a sound solid waste management
model [57].
Biodiesel produces a clean-burning, renewable alternative fuel to conventional petroleum-
based fuels [58]. It improves energy balance and security. Thus, locally manufactured
biodiesel can be directly substituted for conventional diesel fuels. Biodiesel produced from
soybeans has a positive energy balance that shows a higher yield in a higher amount of
energy for every unit of fossil fuel consumed [59]. Moreover, biodiesel production also
reduces emissions and improves air quality because of its lower life cycle rating and overall
lower emissions which improve air quality. Other biodiesel applications include its use as
fuel filters, in oil spill cleanups, as heating oil, and in biodiesel electricity generators.
In Pakistan, vegetable oil is mainly used to treat biodiesel, either with ethanol or
methanol to synthesize it. The basic reason for using methanol worldwide is its lower price;
coal is the main production source. Around 180 billion tons of coal reserves are in Pakistan,
the fifth largest in the world. However, in Pakistan, ethanol production is also higher
because its 76 operational sugar mills produce 300,000 tons of cane daily. Some distillery
units have a capacity to produce 2 million tons of molasses to form 400,000 tons of ethanol.
Excess ethanol can either be used for gasohol or to produce biodiesel. The production
capacity of these units is approximately 400,000 tons. The country needs to export up to
80,200 tons, after which about 318,000 tons of ethanol would remain and could be used for
biodiesel synthesis. Therefore, this stock is necessary to increase biodiesel production in
Pakistan. In 2021, biodiesel production in the country was 0.09 thousand barrels per day;
still, the country has a high feasibility of producing biodiesel in large amounts [4].
According to the Alternative Renewable Energy Policy of 2019, by 2025, Pakistan will
generate 20% of its energy from renewables, and by 2030, it will generate 30%, promoting
the use of alternative energy resources. In recent years, thermal energy has comprised 63%

284
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

of the energy mix, while renewable energy has suitably contributed 1.1% [60]. Contrary
to the above policy, the current scenario does not contribute to either meeting the target
by 2025 or reducing emissions. Furthermore, Pakistan can reach this goal sustainably by
exploiting the potential of renewable energy. As a result, the biodiesel production model
will support this policy, as well as waste management firms and municipalities, while
taking financial limits into account. The government should also provide incentives in the
form of subsidies to encourage stakeholders to participate in the execution of the program.

3.4. Life Cycle Cost and Economic Assessment

The economic assessment results show the viability of biodiesel production from
mixed vegetable oil waste. The benefits of biodiesel production include biodiesel, material
(glycerol), and metal recovery, as well as the conservation of land in terms of landfilling.
Table 8 shows the revenue generation from a biodiesel production plant. Biodiesel is
traded at 0.83 USD/kg, generating 2460.67 USD/day in revenue. Recovered materials and
metals are traded at 0.755 USD/bag and 0.672 USD/kg, generating 224.380 USD/day and
199.721 USD/day in revenue, respectively. The total income generation by the biodiesel
production plant is 1821.46 USD/day for 1 ton of processed mixed oil waste. Moreover,
the biodiesel production plant produces 22 kg each month. Per day, the production cost
is 2135.460 USD, and the monthly income generated by the plant is 57,796.617 USD. The
yearly income generation by the plant is 638,839.631 USD. The income generated by the
biodiesel plant is shown in Table 8.

Table 8. The production, working days, total waste processed, and income generated by the
biodiesel plant.

Mixed Oil Material

Product Type Metal Total
Waste Recovery
Total waste (kg) 1000 - - 1000
Working Days 22 22 22
Percentage in waste 66.25 33.67 0.08 100
Per-day production (kg) 2534 2800 75 5229
Per-day cost ($) 2001.681 98.44258 35.33681 2135.460
Per-month income ($) 55,045.43 1995.776 755.41101 57,796.617
Per-year income ($) 596,443.87 33,428.841 8966.920 638,839.631
Biodiesel = 0.83 USD/kg, Material Recovery = 0.755 USD/bag, Metals= 0.672 USD/kg.

The 20 USD/ton operational cost is considered excellent, and the 3–4 year payback
period is economically feasible. The operational cost of the current study is 20 USD/ton,
significantly closer than that, and the PP of the initial capital investment is 4 years. As men-
tioned in Section 2.4, the LCC includes external and internal costs. Equation (7) was used
to calculate the internal cost of biodiesel, which was calculated to be 24.33 USD/ton. The
external cost was calculated using Equation (8), estimated at 3558.16 USD/ton. Therefore,
the LCC of biodiesel calculated via Equation (6) was 3634.9 USD/ton. Table 8 shows the
economic assessment results. Moreover, the overall economic assessment results are shown
in Table 9.

285
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

Table 9. Results of economic assessment.

Costs USD/Year
Capital Costs
Capital cost 878,665.35
Installation cost 25,065.85
Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance cost 3387.61
Utility cost 30,037.31
Labor cost 50,827.92
Electricity cost 19,981.72
Total cost 104,234.56
Benefits
Biodiesel 596,443.87
Recovery 33,428.84
Metals 8966.920
Total benefits 638,839.631
LCC (USD/ton) 3634.9
NPV 4,648,132.82
PB 4 Years

3.5. Energy Resource for Achieving Sustainable Production

A comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts of gasoline, diesel, and
biodiesel using the LCA reveals that biodiesel significantly reduces greenhouse gas emis-
sions compared to traditional fuels. However, it also increases particulate matter (PM10)
emissions, nitrous oxide, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and nutrients that contribute to eutrophi-
cation [61]. This balanced view is essential for planning a sustainable transportation system,
considering both the environmental benefits and the challenges of biodiesel. Transportation
companies in Malaysia need help for adopting biodiesel [62]. A differentiation strategy
could help policymakers promote biodiesel usage more effectively by addressing identified
barriers [63].
Consumer attitudes towards cellulosic ethanol, another renewable energy source, were
explored in the United States. The survey data analysis revealed strong public support and
willingness to pay more for cellulosic ethanol. This highlights the significance of consumer
perceptions in the adoption of sustainable fuels [64]. The findings indicate a significant
interest in alternative fuels, with the environment, energy consumption, climate change
concerns, and gasoline prices being key determinants of one’s willingness to pay [65,66].
These regional insights reveal the complex interplay between environmental impacts, policy
challenges, and consumer attitudes in the context of sustainable biodiesel and renewable
resource mobility initiatives [67].
The current study’s findings provide key information about the environmental and
economic aspects of biodiesel production from mixed vegetable oil waste. The conversion
of mixed and different vegetable (edible and non-edible) oils in the production of biodiesel
leads to huge benefits in terms of energy generated, reductions in emissions, and reductions
in the amount of waste sent to landfills [68]. Biodiesel can be produced locally from a
variety of feedstock, reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels. This can enhance
energy security and promote local economic development [69]. However, it also helps in
achieving a circular economy and our sustainability goals.

4. Conclusions and Future Directions

Pakistan’s energy needs can be met, and indigenous renewable energy sources in
Pakistan are highly significant. Furthermore, additional research and development on
renewable energies are needed to improve the effects of consumption. Considering a

286
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

country’s economic and environmental conditions, this study was designed to investigate
the feasibility of biodiesel production from mixed vegetable oil waste. A medium-scale
1 t (1000 kg) biodiesel plant was designed, and from 1000 kg of mixed vegetable oil waste,
400 kg of biodiesel can be produced. Pakistan can address its energy supply disparities by
effectively implementing biodiesel in energy production. This would require supplying
energy for household cooking, powering vehicles, and supporting industrial processes,
including electricity generation. Nonetheless, a more comprehensive and thoughtful ap-
proach to research is needed to promote renewable energy technologies and establish clear
biodiesel policies for the government. This should not be marginal but rather a deliberate
focus on strengthening initial local research initiatives. Our research highlights the signifi-
cance of aligning with the United Nations’ SDGs. In particular, our work contributes to
the progress of SDG-7, which stresses the importance of accessible and clean energy, and
SDG-12, which promotes responsible consumption and production.
An LCA was performed to estimate the current project’s environmental impacts. The
functional unit was 1 t. Thus, three steps (classification, characterization, and normalization)
were performed. In addition, midpoint and endpoint assessments were also conducted.
The calculated midpoint impacts were CC: 1.36 × 10−5 kg CO2 eq, HT: 5.31 kg 1.4 DB eq,
OD: 0.00271 kg CFC-11 eq, AP: 123 kg SO2 eq, and POF: 51.4 kg NOx eq. To determine the
main contributors’ stages in the life cycle of biodiesel, the relative contribution by individual
biodiesel type was calculated. The percentage share of ecotoxicity is greater and has an
impact, particularly on marine ecotoxicity and human toxicity. Thus, its collection and
transportation at plants show that usage and transportation are leading stages. This process
is more fuel-intensive than other processes. To further alleviate the impacts, scenario
modelling was conducted, in which the electricity supply was from photovoltaic solar cells.
As a result, the global warming potential increases from 1.36 × 10−5 to 2.91 × 10−5 kg CO2
eq., and the fine particle matter formation and freshwater ecotoxicity also decrease from 44.5
to 0.725 kg PM2 .5 eq. and 0.647 to 0.136 kg 1.4 DB eq., respectively. Furthermore, the effect
on freshwater consumption in the current model is 326 m3 , which decreased to 279 m3 in
the scenario model. Likewise, human toxicity (cancer) and marine eutrophication decreased
from 5.31 to 0.405 kg 1.4 DB eq. and 0.134 to 0.00765 kg N eq., respectively. The economic
analysis showed that biodiesel is traded at 0.83 USD/kg, generating 2460.67 USD/day
(753,132.84 PKR/day). Recovered materials and metals are traded at 0.755 USD/bag and
0.672 USD/kg, generating 224.380 USD/day and 199.721 USD/day in revenue, respectively.
Furthermore, the total income generated by the biodiesel plant is 1821.46 USD per day
(0.6 million PKR/day) for 100 tons of processed mixed vegetable oil waste. The yearly
income generated by the plant is 0.6 million USD (195 million PKR). The payback period of
the initial capital investment is four years.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.M.; methodology, K.S.; data curation, I.A.; review and
editing, A.-S.N.; software, M.H.J. and A.A.; final editing, M.N. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. International Trade Administration (2022). Pakistan—Country Commercial Guide. Available online: [Link]
country-commercial-guides/pakistan-waste-management (accessed on 15 October 2023).
2. Irfan, M.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Panjwani, M.K.; Mangi, F.H.; Li, H.; Jan, A.; Ahmad, M.; Rehman, A. Assessing the energy dynamics of
Pakistan: Prospects of biomass energy. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 80–93. [CrossRef]

287
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

3. Anwar, J. Analysis of energy security, environmental emission and fuel import costs under energy import reduction targets: A
case of Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 65, 1065–1078. [CrossRef]
4. Kumar, B.; Verma, P. Life cycle assessment: Blazing a trail for bio resources management. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 10, 100063.
5. IEA CEM. Global energy outlook: International Energy Agency. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 13, 903–909.
6. Mofijur, M.; Masjuki, H.H.; Kalam, M.A.; Atabani, A.E.; Fattah, I.R.; Mobarak, H.M. Comparative evaluation of performance
and emission characteristics of Moringa oleifera and Palm oil-based biodiesel in a diesel engine. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 53, 78–84.
[CrossRef]
7. Nejat, P.; Jomehzadeh, F.; Taheri, M.M.; Gohari, M.; Majid, M.Z.A. A global review of energy consumption, CO2 emissions and
policy in the residential sector (with an overview of the top ten CO2 emitting countries). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 43,
843–862. [CrossRef]
8. Yusuf, N.N.; Kamarudin, S.K.; Yaakub, Z. Overview on the current trends in biodiesel production. Energy Convers. Manag. 2011,
52, 2741–2751. [CrossRef]
9. Mahesh, S.E.; Ramanathan, A.; Begum, K.M.S.; Narayanan, A. Biodiesel production from waste cooking oil using KBr impregnated
CaO as catalyst. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 91, 442–450. [CrossRef]
10. Khan, N.A.; Dessouky, H. Prospect of biodiesel in Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 1576–1583. [CrossRef]
11. Rafique, M.M.; Rehman, S. National energy scenario of Pakistan–Current status, future alternatives, and institutional infrastruc-
ture: An overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 156–167. [CrossRef]
12. Chakrabarti, M.H.; Ali, M.; Baroutian, S.; Saleem, M. Techno economic comparison between B10 of Eruca Sativa L. and other
indigenous seed oils in Pakistan. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2010, 89, 165–171. [CrossRef]
13. Chakrabarti, M.H.; Usmani, J.N.; Ali, M.A. Techno-economic evaluation of two non-edible vegetable oil based biodiesel in
Pakistan. NED Univ. J. Res. 2010, 7, 43–54.
14. Prasoulas, G.; Gentikis, A.; Konti, A.; Kalantzi, S.; Kekos, D.; Mamma, D. Biodiesel Production from Food Waste Applying the
Multienzyme System Produced On-Site by Fusarium oxysporum F3 and Mixed Microbial Cultures. Fermentation 2020, 6, 39.
[CrossRef]
15. Rupani, P.F. Current status and future perspectives of solid waste management in Iran: A critical overview of Iranian metropolitan
cities. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 32777–32789. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Kaisan, F.O.; Anafi, J.; Nuszkowski, D.M.; Kulla, D.M. Calorific value, flash point and cetane number of biodiesel from cotton,
Jatropha and neem binary and multi-blends with diesel. Biofuels 2017, 11, 321–327. [CrossRef]
17. Dastjerdi, B.; Strezov, V.; Rajaeifar, M.A.; Kumar, R.; Behnia, M.A. systematic review on life cycle assessment of different waste to
energy valorization technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 290, 125747. [CrossRef]
18. ISO 14040:1997; Life Cycle Assessment-Principle and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 1997.
19. ISO 14040:2006; Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework. International Organization for
Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
20. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Tabatabaei, M.; Aghbashlo, M.; Rehan, M.; Nizami, A.S. Determining key issues in life-cycle
assessment of waste biorefineries. In Waste Biorefinery; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 515–555.
21. Ahmad, M.; Khan, M.; Sultana, S. Systematic studies of Oil yielding Plants and their applications as a Bio-diesel resource in
Pakistan. In Proceedings of the CSF-HEC Workshop on Promoting Industry Academia Linkages for Developing the Knowledge
Based Enterprise Sector in Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan, 31 January 2007.
22. Bali, J.S.; Sankanna, C. Performance and emission characteristics of waste cooking oil as biodiesel in CI Engine. Int. J. Curr. Eng.
Technol. 2017, 4, 38–42.
23. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.;
et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
24. Bozbas, K. Biodiesel as an alternative motor fuel: Production and policies in the European Union. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2008, 12, 542–552. [CrossRef]
25. Yang, J.; Xu, M.; Zhang, X.; Hu, Q.; Sommerfeld, M.; Chen, Y. Life-cycle analysis on biodiesel production from microalgae, water
footprint and nutrients balance. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 102, 159–165. [CrossRef]
26. Zhang, Z.; Liu, H.; Tang, Y.; Xiang, Y.; Gao, W. Design of a comprehensive experiment of the synthesis of biodiesel catalyzed by
CaO. In IOP Conference Series: Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 450, 012055. [CrossRef]
27. Ibrahim, H.; Ahmed, A.S.; Bugaje, I.M.; Ugwumma, C.D. Optimized Biodiesel Production from Waste Cooking Oil (WCO) using
Calcium Oxide (CaO) Nano-catalyst and its Efficacy for Biodiesel Production. Sci. Rep. 2019, 3, 90–93.
28. Musa, I.A. The effects of alcohol to oil molar ratios and the type of alcohol on biodiesel production using transesterification
process. Egypt. J. Pet. 2016, 25, 21–31. [CrossRef]
29. Marchetti, J.M.; Errazu, A.F. Technoeconomic study of supercritical biodiesel production plant. Energy Convers. Manag. 2008, 49,
2160–2164. [CrossRef]
30. Hossain, T. Production of Biodiesel Using Alkaline Based Catalysts from Waste Cooking Oil: A Case Study. Procedia Eng. 2015,
105, 638–645.
31. Meng, X.; Chen, G.; Wang, Y. Biodiesel production from waste cooking oil via alkali catalyst and its engine test. Fuel Process
Technol. 2008, 89, 851–857. [CrossRef]

288
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

32. Wendi, W. Effect of Reaction Temperature and Catalyst Concentration. In Proceedings of the 5th Sriwijaya International Seminar
on Energy-Environmental Science and Technology, Palembang, Indonesia, 10–11 September 2014; Volume 1, pp. 32–37.
33. Verma, P.; Sharma, M.P.; Dwivedi, G. Impact of alcohol on biodiesel production and properties. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015,
56, 319–333. [CrossRef]
34. Steenblik, R. Liberalization of Trade in Renewable Energy and Associated Technologies: Biodiesel, Solar Thermal and Geothermal
Energy. In OECD Trade and Environment Working Paper; OECD: Paris, France, 2004.
35. Foteinis, S.; Chatzisymeon, E.; Litinas, A.; Tsoutsos, T. Used-cooking-oil biodiesel: Life cycle assessment and comparison with
first-and third-generation biofuel. Renew. Energy 2020, 153, 588–600. [CrossRef]
36. Aghbashlo, M.; Almasi, F.; Jafari, A.; Nadian, M.H.; Soltanian, S.; Lam, S.S.; Tabatabaei, M. Describing biomass pyrolysis kinetics
using a generic hybrid intelligent model: A critical stage in sustainable waste-oriented biorefineries. Renew. Energy 2021, 170,
81–91. [CrossRef]
37. Liang, S.; Ming, X.; Tianzhu, Z. Life cycle assessment of biodiesel production in China. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 129, 72–77.
[CrossRef]
38. Bradley, T.; Rajaeifar, M.A.; Kenny, A.; Hainsworth, C.; Del Pino, V.; Del Valle Inclán, Y.; Heidrich, O. Life cycle assessment of
microalgae-derived biodiesel. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2023, 28, 590–609. [CrossRef]
39. Siregar, K. Study of life cycle assessment in biodiesel production from crude palm oil and its benefits for the sustainability of oil
palm industry in Aceh province Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 644, 012017. [CrossRef]
40. Gholami, A.; Fathollah, P.; Akbar, M. Recent advances of biodiesel production using ionic liquids supported on nanoporous
materials as catalysts: A review. Front. Energy Res. 2020, 8, 144. [CrossRef]
41. Akram, F.; Ul Haq, I.; Raja, S.I.; Mir, A.S.; Qureshi, S.S.; Aqeel, A.; Shah, F.I. Current trends in biodiesel production technologies
and future progressions: A possible displacement of the petro-diesel. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 370, 133479. [CrossRef]
42. Maheshwari, P. A review on latest trends in cleaner biodiesel production: Role of feedstock, production methods, and catalysts.
J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 355, 131588. [CrossRef]
43. Wang, Z.; Wang, Q.; Jia, C.; Bai, J. Thermal evolution of chemical structure and mechanism of oil sands bitumen. Energy 2022,
244, 1. [CrossRef]
44. Tshizanga, N.; Funmilayo, E. Optimization of biodiesel production from waste vegetable oil and eggshell ash. S. Afr. J. Chem. Eng.
2017, 23, 145–156.
45. Yano, J.; Aoki, T.; Nakamura, K.; Yamada, K.; Sakai, S.-I. Life cycle assessment of hydrogenated biodiesel production from waste
cooking oil using the catalytic cracking and hydrogenation method. Waste Manag. 2015, 38, 409–423. [CrossRef]
46. Silitonga, A.S.; Masjuki, H.H.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Ong, H.C.; Atabani, A.E.; Chong, W.T. A global comparative review of biodiesel
production from jatropha curcas using different homogeneous acid and alkaline catalysts: Study of physical and chemical
properties. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 24, 514–533. [CrossRef]
47. Cheng, Z.; Guo, Z.; Fu, P.; Yang, J.; Wang, Q. New insights into the effects of methane and oxygen on heat/mass transfer in
reactive porous media. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 2021, 129, 105652. [CrossRef]
48. Li, H.; Li, G.; Li, L. Comparative investigation on combustion characteristics of ADN-based liquid propellants in inert gas and
oxidizing gas atmospheres with resistive ignition method. Fuel 2023, 334, 126742. [CrossRef]
49. Liu, L.; Wu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wu, J.; Fu, S. Exploration of environmentally friendly marine power technology -ammonia/diesel
stratified injection. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 380, 135014. [CrossRef]
50. Yang, X.; Liu, K.; Han, X.; Xu, J.; Bian, M.; Zheng, D.; Xie, H.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, X. Transformation of waste battery cathode material
LiMn2 O4 into efficient ultra-low temperature NH3 -SCR catalyst: Proton exchange synergistic vanadium modification. J. Hazard.
Mater. 2023, 459, 132209. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Colombo, K.; Ender, L. The study of biodiesel production using CaO as a heterogeneous catalytic reaction. Egypt. J. Pet. 2017, 26,
341–349. [CrossRef]
52. Liu, Z.; Tang, P.; Hou, K.; Zhu, L.; Zhao, J.; Jia, H.; Pei, W. A Lagrange-multiplier-based Reliability Assessment for Power Systems
Considering Topology and Injection Uncertainties. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2023, 1–11. [CrossRef]
53. Sajid, Z.; Khan, F.; Zhang, Y. Process simulation and life cycle analysis of biodiesel production. Renew. Energy 2016, 85, 945–952.
[CrossRef]
54. Kawentar, W.A.; Budiman, A. Synthesis of Biodiesel from Second-Used Cooking Oil. Energy Procedia 2013, 32, 190–199. [CrossRef]
55. Karolline, J.; Cruzeira, S.; Freitas, C. Organic, conventional and sustainable palm oil (RSPO): Formation of 2- and 3-MCPD esters
and glycidyl esters and influence of aqueous washing on their reduction. Food Res. Int. 2021, 102, 1407–1414.
56. Wang, Y.; Wang, Q.; Li, Y.; Wang, H.; Gao, Y.; Sun, Y.; Wang, B.; Bian, R.; Li, W.; Zhan, M. Impact of incineration slag co-disposed
with municipal solid waste on methane production and methanogens ecology in landfills. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 377, 128978.
[CrossRef]
57. Wang, B.; Gupta, R.; Bei, L.; Wan, Q.; Sun, L. A review on gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW): Syngas production, tar
formation, mineral transformation and industrial challenges. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 26676–26706. [CrossRef]
58. Liu, L.; Tang, Y.; Liu, D. Investigation of future low-carbon and zero-carbon fuels for marine engines from the view of thermal
efficiency. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 6150–6160. [CrossRef]
59. Kan, Y.; Li, J.; Zhang, S.; Gao, Z. Novel bridge assistance strategy for tailoring crosslinking networks within soybean-meal-based
biocomposites to balance mechanical and biodegradation properties. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 472, 144858. [CrossRef]

289
Sustainability 2023, 15, 16550

60. Tan, Y.; Abdullah, M.O.; Hipolito, C.N. Comparison of Biodiesel Production between Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Base
Catalysts. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2016, 833, 71–77. [CrossRef]
61. Koroneos, C. Comparative LCA of the use of biodiesel, diesel and gasoline for transportation. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 20, 14–19.
62. Zailani, S.; Iranmanesh, M.; Sean Hyun, S.; Ali, M.H. Barriers of Biodiesel Adoption by Transportation Companies: A Case of
Malaysian Transportation Industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 931. [CrossRef]
63. Dias, L.C.; Passeira, C.; Malça, J.; Freire, F. Integrating life-cycle assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis to compare
alternative biodiesel chains. Ann. Oper. Res. 2016, 312, 1359–1374. [CrossRef]
64. Johnson, D.M.; Halvorsen, K.E.; Solomen, B.D. Upper Midwestern US consumers and ethanol: Knowledge, beliefs and consump-
tion. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 1454–1464. [CrossRef]
65. Ma, Z.; Zhang, C.; Chen, C. Analyzing the factors that influence Chinese consumers’ adoption of the biodiésel: The private
vehicles owner’s investigating in Beijing. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 37, 199–206. [CrossRef]
66. Demirbas, A. Importance of biodiesel as transportation fuel. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 4661–4670. [CrossRef]
67. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Piccioni, J.; Rosa, P. The role of automotive flexibility in supporting the diffusion of sustainable
mobility initiatives: A stakeholder attitudes assessment. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2023, 24, 459–481. [CrossRef]
68. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Nizami, A.S.; Kalogirou, S.A.; Gupta, V.K.; Park, Y.K.; Fallahi, A.; Sulaiman, A.; Ranjbari, M.;
Rahnama, H.; Aghbashlo, M.; et al. Environmental life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from waste cooking oil: A
systematic review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 161, 112411. [CrossRef]
69. Carneiro, M.L.N.; Pradelle, F.; Braga, S.L.; Gomes, M.S.P.; Martins, A.R.F.; Turkovics, F.; Pradelle, R.N. Potential of biofuels from
algae: Comparison with fossil fuels, ethanol and biodiesel in Europe and Brazil through life cycle assessment (LCA). Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 73, 632–653. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

290
 sustainability

Article
A Bibliometric Analysis of Circular Economies through
Sustainable Smart Cities
Ernesto D. R. Santibanez Gonzalez 1, *, Vinay Kandpal 2 , Marcio Machado 3,4 , Mauro Luiz Martens 3
and Sushobhan Majumdar 5

1 CES4.0 and Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Universidad de Talca,

Los Niches s/n, Edificio I+D, Room 13, Curicó 3340000, Chile
2 Department of Management Studies, Graphic Era Deemed to be University, Dehradun 248002, India;
vinayaimca@[Link]
3 Graduate Program in Business Administration, Paulista University—UNIP, São Paulo 04026-002, Brazil;
marciocmachado@[Link] or [Link]@[Link] (M.M.);
[Link]@[Link] (M.L.M.)
4 Department of Business Administration—Pontifícia, Universidade Católica de, São Paulo 05014-901, Brazil
5 Former Research Fellow, Department of Geography, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700054, India;
sushobhan91@[Link]
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]

Abstract: The rapid pace of urbanization has presented cities worldwide with a range of complex
issues pertaining to the management of resources, reduction of waste, and promotion of sustainable
practices. The concepts of circular economies and sustainable smart cities have arisen as viable
solutions, converging to establish a revolutionary framework for the future of urban living. This
study conducts a bibliometric analysis using literature focusing on the past ten years (2013–2022) of
research on the circular economy and smart cities using VOSviewer. The most frequently used Scopus
database was used to extract bibliometric data. 163 articles were considered for the analysis. This
study utilizes co-authorship, co-occurrence, citation analysis and bibliographic coupling of author
Citation: Santibanez Gonzalez, keywords while grap0hically mapping the bibliographic material using VOS viewer software Version
E.D.R.; Kandpal, V.; Machado, M.; 1.6.19. The bibliographic analysis reveals that the significant themes published in journals revolve
Martens, M.L.; Majumdar, S. A
around “circular economy”, “Sustainable development”, “sustainability”, “smart city”, “waste
Bibliometric Analysis of Circular
management”, “recycling”, “Sustainability”, “climate change”, “smart technologies”, “municipal
Economies through Sustainable
solid waste”, “renewable energy”, and “planning”. The results would provide a robust base for more
Smart Cities. Sustainability 2023, 15,
research in this area. The research work paves the way for future research in the related areas and
15892. [Link]
su152215892
issues of the domain, as it is an emerging issue in research, and many problems are untapped.

Academic Editors: Manoj Kumar Keywords: bibliometric analysis; circular economy; smart cities; urbanization; smart technologies;
Nallapaneni, Idiano D’Adamo,
VOSviewer
Massimo Gastaldi and
Claudio Sassanelli

Received: 29 August 2023

Revised: 1 November 2023 1. Introduction
Accepted: 3 November 2023 Recently, the issues of smart cities, climate change, and the circular economy have
Published: 13 November 2023 attracted extensive scientific research on a global scale. According to predictions from the
United Nations, 68% of the world’s population will reside in cities by the year 2050, up
from around 55%. More than 70% of the world’s CO2 emissions are produced by industrial
and motorized transportation systems, which use fossil fuels and are dependent on distant
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
infrastructure made of carbon-intensive materials. Cities and metropolitan areas account for
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
approximately 70% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product [1–4]. This urbanization process
distributed under the terms and
creates Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) issues, stressing the significance
conditions of the Creative Commons of developing environmentally sound methods to reduce resource consumption, such as
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// urban mining. Smart cities use technology and data to optimize resource allocation and
[Link]/licenses/by/ reduce waste and energy consumption. For example, smart cities can use sensors and
4.0/). analytics to monitor and manage energy consumption in buildings, optimize traffic flow to

Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892. [Link] 291 [Link]

Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

reduce fuel consumption and emissions, and use data to identify areas where waste can be
reduced and recycled. The concept of the “circular city” is a recent addition to a series of
urban sustainability concepts that advocate for fundamental alterations in urban planning,
construction, and city development. Nevertheless, this aspect frequently receives criticism
due to its inherent ambiguity. Experimentation is a commonly employed approach to urban
government to achieve revolutionary goals amid significant uncertainty and ambiguity.
However, it is important to note that experimentation is susceptible to manipulation by
many stakeholders with different and sometimes self-interested agendas [5]. On the other
hand, the goal of a circular economy is to move away from the traditional “take-make-
dispose” linear paradigm and towards a more sustainable one where resources are used for
as long as feasible while waste and pollution are reduced. This involves designing products
for reusability, recyclability, and repair ability and creating closed-loop systems where waste
from one process becomes a resource for another. The adoption of sustainable practices has
emerged as a strategic approach to gain a competitive edge in the marketplace. The effect
of this phenomenon has resulted in significant changes to organizations’ behavior in the
market, internal organizational structures, interactions with suppliers and customers, as
well as the innovation of their product and service offerings [6]. Considering the ongoing
process of global urbanization, it becomes imperative to discern and use novel urban
development paradigms and tactics to effectively address the complexities associated with
sustainable development. The increasing complexity of urban environments necessitates
the development of a comprehensive framework for assessing the circular economy in
cities, as they grapple with ongoing obstacles in achieving full circularity [7,8].
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) serve as a collective agenda for nations
and serve as a focal point for progressive policy discussions. The analysis and monitoring
of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are crucial measures in assessing potential
remedial actions [9]. The primary goal of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is
to foster the attainment of a society that is characterized by inclusivity, resilience, safety,
and sustainability. Policy makers, entrepreneurs, and residents are tasked together with
a significant endeavor to maximize the efficiency of land utilization. The pursuit of sus-
tainability in urban development poses a multifaceted challenge due to its intricate nature,
characterized by a network of interdependent linkages. Determining the best equilibrium
point within this system presents practical obstacles [10].
The concepts of “Smart Cities and Circular Economies” can be complementary by
facilitating more effective resource use, lowering waste and emissions, and enhancing
the tracking and management of resources across the metropolitan system. Smart city
technology can also assist in the transition towards circular economy practices. For ex-
ample, smart city technologies can help track and trace materials throughout the supply
chain and create more effective waste management systems that reduce the amount of
waste sent to landfills. Similarly, circular economy principles can help guide the devel-
opment of smart city technologies by emphasizing the need for sustainable, long-lasting,
and resource-efficient solutions. A “Smart City” is a well-developed urban area that uses
cutting-edge, integrated infrastructure, sensors, electronics, and networks interfaced with
computerized systems made up of databases, tracking, and decision-making algorithms to
be efficient, safe, and environmentally friendly. All structures are developed, constructed,
and maintained, whether they are used for power, water, transportation, energy efficiency,
etc. Smart city policies encourage innovative ways of planning, organizing, and adminis-
tering cities and their flows on the one hand while also imposing a new moral order on
the city by establishing technical criteria to discriminate between “good” and “bad” cities.
The implementation of sustainable urban logistics is crucial to achieve urban sustainability
objectives. Within the European context, the European Union (EU) established a notably
ambitious objective in 2011, aiming to achieve urban logistics that are essentially devoid of
carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions by the year 2030. Nevertheless, the extent to which these
European Union (EU) aims have influenced the development of policies at the national and
metropolitan levels remains uncertain [11].

292
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

A smart city is one where information and communications technology (ICT) and
traditional infrastructure are coordinated and integrated using new and innovative digital
technologies [12]. The circular economy (C.E.) may benefit from new digital technologies
such as Big Data, Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence (A.I.), Internet of things (I.O.T.)
and Blockchain. Several global issues are believed to have solutions in these digital tech-
nologies and sustainable business models, especially those related to the circular economy’s
transition [13]. A circular economy is a crucial sustainability strategy to fight against climate
change. Several governments at various levels have been establishing a long-term circular
economy vision. The growth of circular economy capabilities depends on digital progress.
Artificial intelligence fueled by big data analytics has recently gained importance [14]. The
adoption of a circular economy (CE) is becoming more widely acknowledged as a viable
approach to address urgent sustainability issues at the urban level. Indicator-based frame-
works, also known as integrated systems of indicators, are widely recognized as valuable
instruments for monitoring the process of this shift. It is noteworthy that the majority of
frameworks primarily comprise environmental indicators, with only three frameworks in-
corporating indicators that encompass the various dimensions of sustainable development,
namely environmental, social, economic, and governance aspects [15]. The management
of electronic waste, commonly referred to as e-waste, has emerged as a pressing concern
in the contemporary era characterized by rapid technological advancements. Despite the
identification and development of several methods aimed at enhancing e-waste recycling
efficiency, the improper disposal of outdated items by end users remains a prevalent issue,
as observed in different studies [16].
Cities can become less resilient due to flooding, water pollution, adverse health
consequences, inadequate repair and maintenance of water and wastewater systems, rapid
urbanization, climate change, poor solid waste management, and water scarcity and
pollution [17]. A revolutionary idea called “smart cities” is quickly gaining acceptance
since it offers solutions to severe urban problems such as traffic, pollution, energy use,
and waste management. “Digital cities”, “green cities”, and “knowledge cities” are a few
examples of older urban planning ideas that have been combined to create “smart city”
ideas. Thus, a smart city is a progressive, long-term vision of an enhanced metropolitan
area that seeks to reduce its implications on the environment and develop the quality of
life for its citizens. It is critical to take the necessary steps to protect our world and modify
our wasteful approach to natural resources since the world is continually being pushed to
adapt to global climate change and new foreign and internal dangers. Many municipalities
worldwide have already started moving in this direction, offering everything from smart
parking places to smart benches for solar-powered charging of portable electronics.
The potential of smart cities to address environmental challenges and waste manage-
ment represents a serious issue that necessitates more profound academic research and
policy makers [18]. Modern cities aim to become smarter, yet one of the biggest obstacles is
how to process trash effectively. Citizens must be encouraged to interact with modern tech-
nology and utilize it daily, especially in emerging economies. The growth of IoT technology
has enhanced the need for designing and implementing waste management systems that
engage and include the public in the waste management process [19]. The construction
industry has a detrimental impact on the environment because of the resources it uses,
the energy it consumes, and the waste it produces. The “Circular Economy” (C.E.) is a
new paradigm that has the potential to dramatically improve the sustainability of this
sector [20].
The amount of Green House Gases (GHGs) discharged by each organization or activ-
ity is measured by carbon footprints (CFs). A starting step towards adopting sustainable
educational practices could be to report the number of CFs in CO2 from educational cam-
puses [21]. Smart technology can significantly solve today’s major population problems
and lay the groundwork for a sustainable future. Today’s key challenges are ensuring
balanced economic development of society and reducing the effects of global warming.
Much research should be performed on topics such as efficient energy conversion tech-

293
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

nologies, integrating renewable energy systems, enabling the circular economy framework,
integrating processes effectively, and other concerns crucial to the public [22]. Ref. [23]
demonstrated a statistically significant association that was the contrary. According to their
findings, the analysis sample’s plastic recycling rate decreases as educational attainment
rises. The authors attribute the result to higher opportunity costs for households with
higher levels of education. The concept of smart cities has become a prominent subject
of scholarly investigation, with a significant focus on technological aspects in the gener-
ated knowledge. In this context, the absence of social intelligence, cultural artefacts, and
environmental qualities necessary for ICT-related urban innovation is highlighted by the
research being advocated [24].
The delivery of public services and the transition from a “take-make-dispose” to a
“circular economy” are two areas where current socio demographic expansion poses new
challenges for Czech cities. We must introduce new policies to increase city residents’
participation, awareness of the issue, and support for the reforms. It is fascinating that
younger individuals make more plastic waste than older people do. Two possibilities
are possible: either these groups consume differently, with younger consumers buying
more plastic packaging products, or younger consumers are more eager to sort and recycle
plastic garbage [25]. Since only 42% of post-consumer plastic packaging waste is recycled
in Europe, European Regulation 2018/852 set the crucial target of a 55% plastic packag-
ing waste recycling rate by 2030. Plastic Circle was developed as a project supported by
the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation as an initiative to promote
packaging recycling, improve all stages of garbage pickup, and encourage responsible
consumption [26]. Stakeholder Value Creation (SVC) is a fundamental theoretical concept
under Stakeholder Theory, as stakeholder-oriented management is primarily concerned
with fulfilling the needs of stakeholders [27,28]. The concept of Stakeholder Value Cre-
ation (SVC) has the potential to contribute to the promotion of urban sustainability. The
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) serve as effective instruments for examining and
evaluating sustainable development processes. The relationship between social value
creation (SVC) and urban sustainability is evident, but the specific impact of SVC on the
achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) remains unclear. Social value
creation (SVC) plays a significant role in advancing several Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) inside urban areas, particularly SDGs 11, 17, 9, and 8. The contribution of smart
sustainable cities (SVC) to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is primarily centered
around consensus building, as well as the establishment of innovative ecosystems. These
key elements play a crucial role in advancing the objectives of the SDGs [29]. The inte-
gration of social, economic, and institutional dimensions within the framework of urban
sustainability is comprehensive. However, there is a need for improved integration of the
Environmental Dimension. Hence, the present dyadic phenomenon might be categorized
as either unsustainable or characterized by weak sustainability [30].
The recycling of end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) and the associated methods for assessing
their quality in Malaysia are subject to limitations and face numerous significant obstacles.
The obstacles encompass the absence of suitable recycling procedures that fully optimize
material recovery, as well as concerns regarding the quality and dependability of com-
ponents utilized in the implementation of circular economy principles [31]. Promoting
recycling and reuse methods at the household level can also significantly impact waste
creation. Paper, plastic, glass, metal, textile, kitchen, and garden garbage are just a few of
the nine material types of waste that have had waste practices related to generation, reuse,
and recycling documented and examined [32]. The literature on a crucial area such as
smart cities contributing to the circular economy is relatively limited. From the researcher’s
point of view, much work needs to be conducted in this area. There is a necessity for
a study abroad that reviews the available literature and organizes the knowledge and
conclusions from past studies. Thus, this research will provide significant awareness of
the concept of smart cities and circular economies and cover how smart cities contribute
to circular economies. It will also include other vital areas addressed in the literature and

294
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

suggest untouched areas for future research. Readers will gain an up-to-date perspective
on the circular economy by reading this paper, which will also identify the most prominent
authors, publications, and theme structure output relevant to the circular economy. The
establishment of a robust collaboration between individuals with social and technological
expertise poses a novel and significant undertaking for academics across various disciplines.
The management of product end-of-life has garnered significant attention, with a focus on
developing technologies that effectively handle this waste. This approach aims to assess
the economic and environmental advantages via the lens of the circular economy idea [33].
The purpose of this bibliometric analysis is to comprehensively examine the scholarly
terrain concerning the incorporation of circular economies in sustainable smart cities.
This analysis aims to provide stakeholders with a structured overview of this intricate
and dynamic field, facilitating their understanding and navigation within it. This study
covers data of 10 years. The remaining part of this study addresses various sections. The
following section addresses the research methodology, and the next section addresses the
data analysis; the next section addresses discussions and findings leading to the scope for
further research directions, implications of the study, and conclusions.

2. Materials and Methods

The current study uses bibliometric analysis to assess the literature’s effectiveness and
intellectual and social structure on sustainable cities and the circular economy. Bibliometric
analysis is a scientific method for analyzing literature in which publication and citation data
are analyzed using quantitative methods [34–36]. The current study explicitly follows [35] a
four-step method for bibliometric analysis, which entails defining the objectives and scope
of the study, selecting the appropriate analytical techniques, gathering the necessary data,
conducting the research, and summarizing the results. The technique’s ability to manage
enormous amounts of bibliographic information is its vital benefit [37]. Similarly, it helps
in analyzing a significant amount of data for decision-making that researchers may have
ignored. It helps in the exploration and analysis of past data related to a research topic,
with the help of which investigators can identify concealed patterns in their studies [38].
Appendix A shows Top Cited 15 Articles Included for Bibliometric Analysis.
The research performs a bibliometric analysis to analyze the dispersed work in the
smart city area and its impact on creating a circular economy and assess the significant
trends in its theoretical and intellectual association. The work attempts to answer the
subsequent research questions, which translate the scope of the research work.
(RQ1) How has the research publication productivity in smart cities and circular
economies evolved?
(RQ2) Which journals and researchers are the top performers in the field of smart cities
and circular economies?
(RQ3) What are the collaborative networks in smart cities and circular economies?
(RQ4) What are the most searchable topics and themes on smart cities in becoming
circular economies?
The dataset for the analysis was extracted using “Smart city” and “Circular Economy”
as keywords. After fetching the results, the following filters were applied to refine the
results: information related to these documents in the title, authors, abstracts, and keywords
was extracted after using the above filters. After the extraction, the file was exported in
plain text format, and then search result extraction was performed using VOSviewer. The
file was imported in the same format for further processing.
A total of 163 articles were found in the Scopus database accessed on 21 December
2022. The search was limited to document type (research article and review), source type
(journal), language (English), and year of publication (2013 to 2022). Full-text articles were
considered for analysis. The data for the bibliometric analysis were collected from the
Scopus database and exported in a “.csv” (Microsoft Excel) format for use [39]. Scopus was
selected as the database for extracting the articles for this study because it is the largest

295
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

database of intellectual papers and is considered the most acceptable choice among the
various multidisciplinary databases [35,40,41].

3. Bibliometric Analysis and Findings

According to the research questions, we conducted an in-depth analysis of the pub-
lication trend over ten years related to Circular Economy and Smart City with the help
VOSviewer. In particular, results about influential articles, publication productivity, promi-
nent themes and keywords, and promising application areas are related to the first, second,
third, and fourth research questions.
The scientific output of this study is described in this section, with the results broken
down into co-occurrence mapping, co-authorship mapping, bibliographic coupling, citation,
and co-citation analysis. The findings from the bibliometric analysis are presented based
on the research questions they address.

3.1. Publication Output

The bibliometric data frame, comprising the period from 2013 to 2022, as no time filter
was used while fetching the database. This shows that this area lacked research work in the
last ten years with only 163 articles during the above period, and improvement is required
in the amount of collaboration among the authors.
The study of smart cities and circular economies has garnered considerable attention
in recent times because of the worldwide focus on sustainability, the complexities of
urbanization, and improvements in technology. To offer a comprehensive analysis of the
progression of research publishing production in these respective domains, it is possible
to categorize it both chronologically and thematically. The origins of smart cities and
circular economies can be attributed to the discourse surrounding sustainability and urban
development throughout the latter part of the 20th century.
Although the specific terminology of “smart cities” and “circular economies” may not
have been widely used, scholarly investigations commenced to prioritize sustainable urban
design, effective resource allocation, and the utilization of technology to augment urban
living conditions. The concepts of “smart cities” and “circular economies” were formally
introduced and distinguished in the academic literature throughout the early 2000s.
The proliferation of the Internet and digital technologies has had a significant impact
on the development of cities that utilize technology to enhance governance, infrastructure,
and services for their citizens. Simultaneously, there emerged apprehensions regarding the
depletion of resources, management of waste, and damage of the environment, prompting
the formulation of the circular economy framework. This framework places emphasis on
the principles of recycling, reusing, and waste reduction. During the 2010s, there was a
notable increase in scholarly investigations centered on smart city solutions and circular
economy concepts, driven by the rapid growth of urban populations and the escalating
effects of climate change. The fields under consideration experienced a significant surge
in publication output during the latter half of the 2010s, which can be attributed to the
heightened worldwide concern and fascination around these domains. Research has
explored the potential of data analytics, the Internet of Things (IoT), and smart governance
to facilitate circularity within urban contexts. The research productivity in this convergence
field had significant growth, as evidenced by several publications that concentrated on
case studies, best practices, and technology breakthroughs aimed at advancing smart and
sustainable urban settings.
The emergence of technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and 5G is
expected to contribute to the ongoing expansion of research productivity, enabling the explo-
ration of novel aspects pertaining to intelligent, sustainable, and circular urban environments.
Annual Scientific Production and Growth Trend:
The number of publications on Smart City contribution towards Circular Economy is
shown in Figure 1. The annual scientific output in the research domain shows an upward
trend from 2013–2022. We have seen a good number of publications in this domain between

296
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

2018 and 2021, reaching a level of 48 in 2021. It reflects a growing interest among researchers
globally, and it’s gradually emerging as an upcoming field of interest.

Figure 1. Scientific output.

3.2. Co-Occurrence Mapping

3.2.1. Analysis Based on All Keywords
With the help of the full counting method, all keywords were considered as the
analysis unit in the co-occurrence mapping. This study also imposed some restrictions on
the field of investigation. For instance, a limiting factor was established as a minimum of
five (5) instances of a keyword. Therefore, only 47 keywords out of 1401 from 163 articles
met the criterion. The links refer to the occurrence of two items together (for example,
two keywords). The total number of cited references between any two items is represented
by the overall link strength [42]. The occurrences represent the number of articles in which
the keyword was found [4].
Figure 2 illustrates the keywords most frequently used by the authors and the most
critical topics in this research area. The keywords that appeared most were “Circular Econ-
omy” (total link strength 343), which had the highest frequency of appearance, followed by
“Sustainable Development (total link strength 253), “Smart cities” (total link strength 244),
“Waste Management” (total link strength 132), “recycling” (total link strength 131) and
“Sustainability” (total link strength 131) and “climate change” (total link strength 84) as
shown in Table 1.
Network visualization was also used to show how often the terms occurred to-
gether [43]. Figure 2 illustrates how 1401 keywords were able to group into 5 clusters
and 560 links: cluster 1 (red) had 14 items, cluster 2 (green) had 13, cluster 3 (blue) had
11, cluster 4 (yellow) had 7, and cluster 5 (purple) had 2. The size of the circles and texts
in each cluster indicates how frequently they occur alongside other keywords. The lines
and item distances simultaneously display the relatedness and connections between the
keywords. Three distinct visualizations—network visualization, overlay visualization and
density visualization—can be used by VOSviewer to depict bibliometric maps.
The overlay visualization in smart cities and circular economies is shown in Figure 3.
The update for each phrase is displayed in the visualization overlay. The uniqueness of each
phrase is indicated by its color. The area’s level of impact increases with color brightness.
Circular economies and smart cities are the current research hot topics. Consequently, this
could be a crucial subject for future research to identify various themes associated with
smart cities and the circular economy.

297
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

ȱ
Figure 2. Network analysis with keywords (VOSviewer software).

Table 1. Top Keywords.

Item Total Link Strength

Circular Economy 343
Sustainable Development 253
Smart City 244
Waste Management 132
Recycling 131
Sustainability 131
Climate Change 84
Municipal Solid Waste 69
Internet of Things 66
Industry 4.0 54

ȱ
Figure 3. Overlay analysis with keywords (VOS viewer software).

298
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

According to the density visualization shown in Figure 4, the more frequently a

term appears, the darker or brighter the yellow hue is, and the larger the diameter of
the term’s circle. This indicates that there are more studies being conducted on relevant
topics. There will be fewer studies on a phrase as its color ages and becomes more similar
to the background color. According to Figure 4, many studies have been conducted on
smart cities, the circular economy, sustainability, waste management, recycling, climate
change, artificial intelligence, blockchain, Internet of Things, and their economic and social
implications. According to the results of the data mapping of the articles gathered, the
keywords that most frequently appeared are the circular economy, smart city, recycling,
waste management, Internet of Things, blockchain, and sustainability. We can use this
information to search for smart cities and circular economy studies.

ȱ
Figure 4. Density Visualization of Keywords.

3.2.2. Co-Occurrence Network of Most Frequently Used Author Keywords

A total of 550 keywords from 163 research publications were given a threshold of 2,
resulting in 78 distinct keywords that were used more than twice as shown in Figure 5. The
number of highly referenced articles overall is represented by the bubble size, while link
strength and clustering are indicated by the line thickness and color, respectively.

Figure 5. Co-occurrence network of most frequently used author keywords.

299
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

3.3. Co-Authorship Visualization Analysis

The authors, connected institutions, and countries that publish on circular economies
and smart cities were examined using the function module of VOS viewer’s coauthorship
visualization. The threshold value for the minimum number of documents was set at two,
and the minimum citation was left at one to make it simple to identify the well-known
authors who had made contributions in the form of publications in this field. Some of the
551 authors, however, were not linked to the other writers in the network. Only 26 authors
met the criteria as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Co-Authorship Analysis of Collaboration of Author (Overlay Visualization).

Based on the bibliographic data collected from the Scopus database, a country co-
authorship network visualization map was created (Figure 7) with VOSviewer. In the
process of mapping Figure, the minimum document threshold of a nation was set at two,
and the minimum number of citations of a country was set at one. Thirty-nine countries out
of fifty-seven countries met the thresholds. Figure 7 shows seven clusters between countries
involved in smart cities and circular economy research. Researchers from Italy, United
Kingdom, China, Romania, and the US are prominently networking countries working in
this area.

ȱ
Figure 7. Coauthor network visualization analysis of countries/regions.

The northern regions of Italy exhibit superior performance, with the province of Trento
ranking at the forefront. This is followed by the region of Valle d’Aosta and the province of
Bolzano, so reaffirming the triumvirate that had already emerged in the preceding year.

300
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

An intriguing observation pertains to the expansion of central regions, which exhibit a

tendency to approach a value similar to that of the northern regions. Notably, the regions of
Toscana, Marche, and Lazio exhibit commendable performance. Furthermore, it has been
verified that the southern areas consistently occupy the lowest positions in the ranking,
with the sole exception of Abruzzo. Italy presents itself as a strategic focal point for the
promotion and advancement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to transform
the Mediterranean region into a pivotal hub within the future global economy [9].
Regarding the obstacles impeding the implementation of Circular Economy (CE) prac-
tices, three distinct categories have been identified: financial, bureaucratic, and regulatory.
Companies believe that besides enhancing their brand name and practices, this approach
has resulted in advantageous outcomes, including decreasing carbon dioxide emissions
and regenerating components within a perpetual cycle. The transition towards a long-term
perspective and mindset involves considering not just the economic impact but also the
overall performance of the organisation and the consequences of each action. It is impor-
tant to acquire a circular mindset that can effectively guide the transition to a Circular
Economy (CE) or the creation of a Circular Supply Chain (CSC) rather than solely focusing
on individual circular initiatives [44].
Italy has been a key contributor to the advancement and advocacy of the circular
economy, both domestically and within the European context. The ability of small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to adopt a circular business model and achieve success
is contingent upon the level of support provided by various factors. These include the
establishment of a company culture that embraces environmental sustainability, with both
staff and managers demonstrating a “green” mindset. Additionally, the presence of a local
or regional network comprising other SMEs and supporting entities plays a crucial role
in facilitating information sharing and raising awareness. Lastly, the advantages derived
from cultivating a “green” image and being acknowledged as a supplier committed to
sustainability by customers contribute significantly to the overall success of SMEs in
transitioning to a circular business model [45]. The nation actively encourages innovation
by providing financial resources and assistance to startups and businesses that prioritize
circular economy ideas and solutions [46].

3.4. Citation Analysis

3.4.1. Most Cited Authors
Citation is the most frequent method for assessing the influence of an author, journal,
and country since it allows for the quick identification of significant works in the chosen
area. By taking 1 document and 1 citation as a minimum number of papers and citations of
an author as a criterion for citation analysis, we have 444 authors meeting the thresholds
out of 551 authors of 163 articles as shown in Table 2. A research paper written by [17] has
372 citations, followed by researchers such as [18,20,22,34,47–50].

Table 2. Most Cited Authors.

Name of Author/s Documents Citations

Koop et al. 1 372
Esmaelian et al. 1 232
Nizetic et al 1 234
Hens et al. 1 259
Pencarelli 1 171
Fatimah et al. 1 243
Chauhan et al. 1 146
Sodiq et al. 1 148
Norouzi et al. 1 118

301
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

3.4.2. Most Cited Countries

Figure 8 and Table 3 shows that Italy leads the number of publications and United
States lead in the number of citations. United Kingdom leads the total link strength. Coun-
tries such as India, China, Romania, Colombia, Cuba, Chile, and Belgium are connected, as
reflected in Cluster 1. Cluster 2 includes Australia, Iran, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, South Africa,
and Spain. The third cluster comprises the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Indonesia,
Slovakia, and Ukraine. The fourth cluster includes Brazil, Germany, Malaysia, Singapore,
and the United States. Canada, Croatia, Greece, Russia, and the UK are significant collab-
orators in Cluster Five. Researchers from India has 13 documents with 187 citations and
Researchers from Spain has 11 documents with 171 citations.

ȱ
Figure 8. Citation Analysis of Most Cited Countries.

Table 3. Country-wise Production.

Country Documents Citations Total Link Strength

United Kingdom 15 119 22
China 11 215 16
Brazil 10 504 13
Greece 7 249 13
Italy 23 241 13
Malaysia 5 110 11
United States 7 530 10
Cyprus 4 20 9
France 3 55 9
Netherlands 6 260 9

Taking 1 document and 1 citation as a minimum number of papers and citations of an

author as a criterion for citation analysis, we have 77 journals meeting the threshold out
of 117 journals. Figure 9 reflects the top cited journals. The Journal of Cleaner Production,
Sustainability, Waste Management, Environment, Development and Sustainability tops the
list of most cited sources as shown in Table 4.

302
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

ȱ
Figure 9. Analysis of Most Cited Sources/Journals.

Table 4. Most Cited Sources/Journals.

Source Documents Citations

Journal of Cleaner Production 13 851
Sustainability 9 137
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 7 9
Circular Economy and Sustainability 2 2
Environment, Development and Sustainability 2 372
Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal 2 17

3.5. Bibliometric Analysis of Bibliographic Coupling of Authors, Institutions and Countries

Bibliographic coupling is something that is observed when two authors make refer-
ences to a shared collection of prior works, so suggesting a certain degree of thematic or
topical affinity in their respective research endeavors. Bibliographic coupling pertaining
to older works may suggest that the writers have established a distinct expertise within a
specific field of research. This particular area of expertise, which is grounded in extensive
historical or foundational knowledge, enables individuals to conduct more thorough inves-
tigations into subjects and generate more profound understandings. When two documents
cite the same source, this is known as “bibliographic coupling” [51–53]. The bibliographic
coupling map of authors is shown in Figure 10. Citations are used in bibliographic coupling
to describe the similarities between two texts, authors, institutions, or nations. This method
is grounded on the notion that two papers citing a third paper are highly connected and
should be grouped in the visualization map’s cluster solution. Using a criterion of a mini-
mum of 1 citation of 163 documents, a total of 108 met the threshold. Eleven clusters were
obtained from the analysis. Cluster 1 includes 13 items, and the research area is the circular
economy (shown in red). The Red Cluster was anchored by [54], whose research focuses
on how automated smartphone recycling could be supported by Artificial Intelligence
(A.I.) and could also act as an enabler for Circular Smart Cities (C.S.C.). Research work
conducted by researchers [55] from the same cluster considers the circular economy from
the perspective of sustainable development, which is one of the main goals of contempo-
rary societies. The main characteristic of a circular economy is the requirement to increase
resource efficiency through waste reduction and recycling.

303
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

Figure 10. Bibliometric Coupling of Authors (Authors Own Work).

The other clusters are anchored by Arias (green) with 12 items, anchored by Benltoufa
(blue) with 11 items, and anchored by Andrade (yellow) with 11 items. The green cluster
mainly focuses on research work related to green infrastructure [56] and the environment,
highlighting nature and biodiversity [57,58] circular strategies and urban regeneration [59]
and the Internet of Things [60]. The blue cluster focuses on smart cities, waste man-
agement [48,61], the circular economy, urban branding [48,62], smart technology, and
sustainable development [63]. The yellow cluster focuses on smart cities and the circular
economy [64], sustainable consumption and the sharing economy [65], municipal solid
waste and energy recovery [66], and sustainable business [67].
The analysis of bibliographic coupling among universities with respect to older publi-
cations demonstrates a common focus on fundamental knowledge and research approaches.
The aforementioned concentration of efforts, together with the advantages derived from
extensive immersion in well-established knowledge, can elucidate the exceptional perfor-
mance of these establishments within their respective fields. Researchers can gain a more
comprehensive perspective by actively engaging with non-recent scholarly works. The use
of a holistic perspective enables researchers to establish linkages between historical and
contemporary discoveries, so cultivating a more comprehensive comprehension of their
own discipline. A comprehensive understanding of existing research and scholarship is
essential to prevent institutions from duplicating efforts in areas that have already under-
gone extensive investigation. Alternatively, individuals have the capacity to expand upon
preexisting knowledge, so challenging conventional limits while maintaining a foundation
in established ideas. Bibliographic coupling of institutions occurs when publications from
two institutions reference publications from a third common institution. Figure 11 shows
the bibliographic coupling of the institutions with network visualization. The minimum
number of publications for an organization was one, and the minimum number of citations
was one. Of the 360 organizations, 280 met the thresholds. For each of the 280 organizations,
the total strength of the bibliographic coupling links with other organizations was calcu-
lated. The organizations with the highest total link strength were selected. Key Laboratory
of Poyang Lake Environment and Resource.
Utilization, Ministry of Education, China, was at the top of this list with two publica-
tions, 17 citations, and a network strength of 2289. We can observe some other institutions
that are contributing to the field and dominate the coupling and anchor its most significant
clusters: Academy of Romanian Scientist, Bucharest, Romania), University of Buffalo (New
York, NY, USA), Western New England University (Springfield, MA, USA), Georgia Insti-
tute of Technology (Atlanta, GA, USA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge,
MA, USA), and Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná, Curitiba, (Paraná, Brazil).

304
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

ȱ
Figure 11. Bibliographic coupling of institutions (network visualization).

Figure 12 presents the bibliographic coupling of countries. Bibliographic coupling of

countries occurs when publications from two countries reference publications from a third
country. According to this graph, scholars from Brazil make a substantial contribution to
this field of study, along with those from Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland, and Greece.
Figure 12 also shows how frequently coupling occurs among other nations, including
Australia, Finland, Germany, India, Mexico, and Romania.

ȱ
Figure 12. Bibliographic coupling of countries.

4. Conclusions
This study highlights the scope of smart cities and circular economy research using
bibliometric analysis, collecting datasets from 2003 to 2022. It further portrays the research
topic’s theoretical, intellectual, and community structure. The present study tries to in-
tegrate the fragmented literature on the topic with the help of VOSviewer. The dataset
for this study was extracted from the Scopus database due to its extensive coverage and
quality. The dataset shows that the research domain shows an upward trend. Even though
it is still in its initial stage, the circular economy is a crucial sustainability strategy that
global and corporate leaders use in the battle against climate change. By incorporating
relevant elements of the economy, technology, mobility, quality of life, and other areas that
contribute to the well-being of its citizens, a smart city is highly developed, inventive, and

305
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

environmentally friendly [68]. Rapid environmental degradation, a growing number of

cars on the road, and a shortage of resources are issues that circular cities and a circular
economy can resolve. Our cities are developing into more livable and sustainable places. It
is essential to emphasize the value of smart cities through pilot projects that will serve as
the testing grounds for the later expansion of CE concepts on a broader, more global scale.
The phenomena of urbanization and climate change are compelling cities to navigate
unexplored trajectories to achieve sustainable outcomes. Numerous urban areas are em-
bracing the captivating notion of the ‘Circular Economy’ (CE) as a guiding principle for
this shift. The concept of the Circular Economy (CE) proposes a novel approach to the
management of resource flows within economies, aiming to create a closed-loop system [69].
The circular economy aims to shift away from a linear economy to one that is more circular
and turns waste into resources. All interested parties, including the public sector, business
sector, and public, must work together and be willing to do this. Many European Union
member states currently lack the requisite waste-handling infrastructure. It is crucial to
establish precise long-term policy goals to direct actions and expenditures, create systems
and methods for waste treatment, and prohibit recyclable materials from being used at
the bottom of the waste hierarchy [70]. A circular economy in cities will require unprece-
dented levels of cross-sector and public–private cooperation in the twenty-first century.
The time has come to make the most of the numerous opportunities circular cities offer and
establish a system that will benefit the environment, society, and economy over the long
run. The circular economy has emerged as one of the most widely used theories to address
environmental problems. However, research on the circularity subject is still developing,
particularly at the firm level [71]. Cities and metropolitan areas can lead circular economies
while supporting the use of renewable energy, energy efficiency, sustainable production
and consumption, sustainable transportation, resource conservation, and sustainable waste
management. Goal 11 of the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 Agenda was to “Make
cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable” to achieve these
objectives. Research is required to determine how sustainable finance may improve the
circular economy and investment opportunities. The circular economy exhibits consid-
erable potential in facilitating the attainment of various Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs), encompassing SDG 7 pertaining to Affordable and Clean Energy, SDG 8 concerning
decent work and economic growth, SDG 11 addressing sustainable cities and consumption,
SDG 12 focusing on responsible consumption and production, SDG 13 targeting climate
action, SDG 14 emphasizing life below water, and SDG 15 centering on life on land [6].
The term “smart city” was first introduced in the 1990s, but research started gaining
momentum in the early 2010s. The circular economy as a concept has been around for
decades, but research on the topic has increased in recent years, particularly since the pub-
lication of the [72] report “Towards the Circular Economy” in 2012. Technology is a crucial
part of the global endeavor to reach net zero, but as we move from our current behaviors to
a more climate-friendly society, its adoption necessitates practical sacrifices [73].
There are several journals and researchers that are top performers in the field of
Smart Cities and Circular Economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, Waste Management,
Sustainability, Environment, Development and Sustainability are the journals with the
maximum contribution to smart cities and circular economies. Overall, these journals
and researchers represent some of the top performers in the field of smart cities and
circular economy and have contributed significantly to the knowledge and understanding
of these topics. Research publication productivity in both smart cities and the circular
economy has experienced significant growth in recent years, reflecting the increasing
interest and importance of these fields in addressing environmental and social challenges.
The study found that there is a growing body of research on smart and circular cities,
with a steady increase in research publications and citations over the past decade. The
study also found that research on smart cities and the circular economy is becoming
increasingly interconnected, with more studies exploring the potential synergies between
the two concepts. The United States, Brazil, China, and Italy have the most citations

306
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

and research publications. Countries such as India, China, Romania, Colombia, Cuba,
Chile, and Belgium have a good collaboration network. Taking a circular approach can
also tackle many other socio-economic problems afflicting cities, for example, providing
access to affordable accommodation, expanding and diversifying the economic base, and
building more engaged and collaborative communities in cities [74]. Cleaner Production
(CP) entails the reduction of energy and materials consumption, as well as the replacement
of environmentally and health-hazardous products with less damaging alternatives [47].
In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics, difficulties, and
facilitators of sustainable consumer behaviour within the circular economy, it is imperative
to conduct longitudinal studies [75].
The analysis revealed that the research on smart cities and the circular economy is
multidisciplinary, involving researchers from various fields, including urban planning, en-
gineering, economics, and environmental science. The most common research topics were
“Circular Economy”, “Sustainable Development”, “Smart cities”, “Waste Management”,
“recycling”, “Sustainability” and “climate change”. Refs. [18,22,34,48–50,76,77] were the
top cited researchers. The study suggests that there is a growing recognition of the potential
for smart cities and the circular economy to work together to create more sustainable and
livable urban environments. The research in this area is becoming more integrated and
sophisticated over time. The intersection of smart cities and the circular economy has
generated interest and study in recent years, and several topics and themes have emerged
as the most searchable. Here are some examples:
• Smart and circular infrastructure: This involves using smart technologies to optimize
the use of infrastructure and resources in a circular economy context. Examples include
the use of sensor networks and data analytics to improve energy efficiency, waste
management, and mobility.
• Circular business models: This focuses on the development of business models that
enable circularity in the city, such as product-as-a-service, sharing economy, and
closed-loop systems. Smart technologies such as blockchain and IoT can facilitate
implementing and scaling these models.
• Circular design and manufacturing: This involves the integration of circular principles
into the design and manufacturing of products and materials, such as using recycled or
renewable materials and designing for disassembly and repair. Smart technologies can
support the implementation of circular design principles, such as digital fabrication
and 3D printing.
• Circular supply chain management: This topic involves using smart technologies
to optimize the circular supply chain, such as real-time tracking of materials and
products and using data analytics to improve resource efficiency and reduce waste.
• Circular and smart governance: This topic focuses on the role of governance in en-
abling and supporting the transition to a circular and smart city. Examples include poli-
cies and regulations promoting circular business models and smart technologies and
using open data and citizen engagement to support circular and smart city initiatives.

4.1. Potential Areas for Future Research

The bibliometric analysis shows that smart cities and circular economies are emerging
areas for policymakers and researchers. In the last ten years, less research has been con-
ducted, and keyword analysis shows that the research primarily focused on smart cities,
circular economies, waste management, climate change, technology, and sustainability. The
research study also depicts numerous studies on the adoption and diffusion of mobile bank-
ing. One should consider including alternative metrics, sometimes referred to as altmetrics,
in addition to standard citation counts. Altmetrics encompass a broader range of indicators,
such as online mentions, social media shares, and other forms of digital engagement.
The integration of bibliometric analysis with qualitative research methodologies allows
for a more comprehensive exploration of the content within publications, enabling the
examination of nuanced conversations, case studies, and contextual factors.

307
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

In light of potential geographical variations in the adoption of circular economies

within smart cities, it is advisable to conduct distinct bibliometric analysis for different
areas or nations. This approach can yield more context-specific insights.
To enhance the comprehensiveness of data sources, it is recommended to include gray
literature, conference proceedings, and non-academic publications. By incorporating these
sources, a broader spectrum of discussions can be captured.

4.2. Implications of the Study

The current study will help marketers’ practitioners frame and implement various
plans and policies related to smart cities and build a circular economy covering issues such
as climate change, energy efficiency, climate change, and waste management. By identify-
ing the most frequently cited authors, publications, and keywords, this analysis can help
researchers to understand the research landscape and to identify gaps and opportunities
for further research. This can help to identify potential collaborators and opportunities for
joint research initiatives and highlight gaps in the collaboration that need to be addressed.
By identifying the most highly cited publications and the most frequently used keywords,
policymakers and practitioners can better understand the key concepts and approaches in
this field and use this information to inform their work. Overall, a bibliometric analysis
of smart cities and the circular economy can provide valuable insights for researchers,
policymakers, and practitioners, helping to identify trends and gaps in research, highlight-
ing opportunities for collaboration, and informing policy and practice in this critical and
rapidly evolving field.
As urban areas embark on the process of enhancing their services to tackle urgent
sustainability concerns, policymakers and urban planners encounter the task of compre-
hending intricate, multifaceted systems and assessing the potential impact of proposed
investments or policies on these systems [78]. Digital technology has the potential to
decrease the quantity of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) that is not recycled, while also
preserving natural resources and lowering both operational expenses and Green House Gas
(GHG) emissions. The process of digitalization enhances the resilience of cities by reinforc-
ing local waste management practices in order to effectively address the global COVID-19
pandemic [79]. According to the bibliometric analysis, policymakers and scholars are
increasingly interested in circular economies and smart cities. Little research has been con-
ducted in the last ten years. A keyword analysis reveals that this study mainly concentrated
on smart cities, circular economies, waste management, climate change, technology, and
sustainability. It is nevertheless easy to overlook significant articles despite efforts to mark
at a base as complete as possible, particularly those that are not peer-reviewed or published
in less accessible places, such as conference proceedings. Circular economies and smart
cities are still relatively fresh and developing ideas. Because of this, there can be variations
in how authors define and use these terms, which could cause problems with comparison
and interpretation. This research paves the way for future research in the related areas
and issues of the domain, as it is an emerging issue in research, and many problems are
untapped. Additionally, it highlights the emerging themes of the field on which future re-
search can be conducted. Pragmatic sustainability presents a practical and flexible strategy
for attaining a sustainable future, whereas sustainable education equips individuals with
the requisite knowledge and resources to actively contribute to this overarching goal. The
simultaneous integration of these principles has the potential to guide society towards a
state of enhanced equilibrium and a more mutually beneficial cohabitation with our planet.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.D.R.S.G., V.K., M.M., M.L.M. and S.M.; Methodology,
E.D.R.S.G., V.K. and S.M.; Validation, V.K.; Formal analysis, V.K. and S.M.; Writing—original draft,
V.K. and S.M.; Writing—review & editing, E.D.R.S.G., V.K., M.M., M.L.M. and S.M. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

308
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: Data sharing is not applicable—no new data are generated, or the
article describes entirely theoretical research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Top Cited 15 Articles Included for Bibliometric Analysis.

S. No Title Journal Citations Reference No

Environment,
The challenges of water, waste and
1 Development and 372 2017, 19(2), 385–418
climate change in cities
Sustainability
On the evolution of “Cleaner Production” Journal of
2 259 2018, Volume 172, 3323–3333
as a concept and a practice Cleaner Production
Industry 4.0-based sustainable circular
economy approach for smart waste
Journal of
3 management system to achieve 364 2020, Volume 269, 122263
Cleaner Production
sustainable development goals: A case
study of Indonesia
The future of waste management in smart
4 and sustainable cities: A review and Waste Management 232 2018, 81, 177–195
concept paper
Smart technologies for promotion of
Journal of
5 energy efficiency, utilization of sustainable 234 2019, Volume 231, 565–591
Cleaner Production
resources and waste management
The digital revolution in the travel and Information
6 171 2020, 22(3), 455–476
tourism industry Technology & Tourism
The interplay of circular economy with
Journal of
7 industry 4.0 enabled smart city drivers of 146 2021, Volume 279, 123854
Cleaner Production
healthcare waste disposal
Towards modern sustainable cities:
Journal of
8 Review of sustainability principles 148 2019, Volume 227, 972–1001
Cleaner Production
and trends
Circular economy in the building and
Journal of Building
9 construction sector: A scientific 118 2021, 44, 102704
Engineering
evolution analysis
Promoting digital transformation in waste
collection service and waste recycling in
Journal of
10 Moscow (Russia): Applying a circular 57 2022, Volume 354, 131604
Cleaner Production
economy paradigm to mitigate climate
change impacts on the environment
The First Two Decades of Smart-City Journal of
11 607 2017, 24(2), 3–27
Research: A Bibliometric Analysis Urban Technology
Circular economy business models: The Business Strategy and
12 195 2020, 29, 3006–3024.
state of research and avenues ahead the Environment
Linking circular economy and
Technological
digitalization technologies: A systematic
13 Forecasting and 185 2022, 177, 121508
literature review of past achievements
Social Change
and future promises
14 Circular cities Urban Studies 134 2019, 56(13), 2746–2762
The European Physical
15 Smart cities of the future 2806 2012, 214, 481–518
Journal Special Topics

309
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

References
1. Dasgupta, S.; Lall, S.; Wheeler, D. Cutting Global Carbon Emissions: Where Do Cities Stand? Available online: [Link]
[Link]/sustainablecities/cutting-global-carbon-emissions-where-do-cities-stand (accessed on 17 September 2022).
2. United Nations 68% of the World Population Projected to Live in Urban Areas by 2050, Says UN. Available online: https:
//[Link]/development/desa/en/news/population/[Link] (accessed on 21
July 2022).
3. Farhadi, E.; Pourahmad, A.; Ziari, K.; Faraji Sabokbar, H.; Tondelli, S. Indicators Affecting the Urban Resilience with a Scenario
Approach in Tehran Metropolis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12756. [CrossRef]
4. Wang, J.; Chen, L.; Chen, L.; Zhao, X.; Wang, M.; Ju, Y.; Xin, L. City-Level Features of Energy Footprints and Carbon Dioxide
Emissions in Sichuan Province of China. Energies 2019, 12, 2025. [CrossRef]
5. Winslow, J.; Coenen, L. Sustainability Transitions to Circular Cities: Experimentation between Urban Vitalism and Mechanism.
Cities 2023, 142, 104531. [CrossRef]
6. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.;
et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
7. Birgovan, A.-L.; Lakatos, E.; Cioca, L.-I.; Pacurariu, R.; Ciobanu, G.; Rada, E. How Should We Measure? A Review of Circular
Cities Indicators. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5177. [CrossRef]
8. Kurniawan, T.A.; Maiurova, A.; Kustikova, M.; Bykovskaia, E.; Othman, M.H.D.; Goh, H.H. Accelerating Sustainability Transition
in St. Petersburg (Russia) through Digitalization-Based Circular Economy in Waste Recycling Industry: A Strategy to Promote
Carbon Neutrality in Era of Industry 4.0. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132452. [CrossRef]
9. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M. Monitoring the Performance of Sustainable Development Goals in the Italian Regions. Sustainability
2023, 15, 14094. [CrossRef]
10. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Ioppolo, G.; Morone, P. An Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in Italian Cities: Performance
Measurements and Policy Implications. Land Use Policy 2022, 120, 106278. [CrossRef]
11. Shrestha, S.; Haarstad, H. Do EU Goals Matter? Assessing the Localization of Sustainable Urban Logistics Governance Goals in
Norwegian Cities. Cities 2023, 137, 104317. [CrossRef]
12. Batty, M.; Axhausen, K.W.; Giannotti, F.; Pozdnoukhov, A.; Bazzani, A.; Wachowicz, M.; Ouzounis, G.; Portugali, Y. Smart Cities
of the Future. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 2012, 214, 481–518. [CrossRef]
13. Chauhan, C.; Parida, V.; Dhir, A. Linking Circular Economy and Digitalisation Technologies: A Systematic Literature Review of
Past Achievements and Future Promises. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 177, 121508. [CrossRef]
14. Bag, S.; Pretorius, J.H.C.; Gupta, S.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Role of Institutional Pressures and Resources in the Adoption of Big Data
Analytics Powered Artificial Intelligence, Sustainable Manufacturing Practices and Circular Economy Capabilities. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 163, 120420. [CrossRef]
15. Papageorgiou, A.; Henrysson, M.; Nuur, C.; Sinha, R.; Sundberg, C.; Vanhuyse, F. Mapping and Assessing Indicator-Based
Frameworks for Monitoring Circular Economy Development at the City-Level. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103378. [CrossRef]
16. Jabbour, C.J.C.; Colasante, A.; D’Adamo, I.; Rosa, P.; Sassanelli, C. Comprehending E-Waste Limited Collection and Recycling
Issues in Europe: A Comparison of Causes. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 427, 139257. [CrossRef]
17. Koop, S.H.A.; van Leeuwen, C.J. The Challenges of Water, Waste and Climate Change in Cities. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2017, 19,
385–418. [CrossRef]
18. Esmaeilian, B.; Wang, B.; Lewis, K.; Duarte, F.; Ratti, C.; Behdad, S. The Future of Waste Management in Smart and Sustainable
Cities: A Review and Concept Paper. Waste Manag. 2018, 81, 177–195. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Al-Jabi, M.; Diab, M. IoT-Enabled Citizen Attractive Waste Management System. In Proceedings of the 2017 2nd International
Conference on the Applications of Information Technology in Developing Renewable Energy Processes & Systems (IT-DREPS),
Amman, Jordan, 6–7 December 2017; pp. 1–5.
20. Norouzi, M.; Chàfer, M.; Cabeza, L.F.; Jiménez, L.; Boer, D. Circular Economy in the Building and Construction Sector: A Scientific
Evolution Analysis. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102704. [CrossRef]
21. Kulkarni, S.D. A Bottom up Approach to Evaluate the Carbon Footprints of a Higher Educational Institute in India for Sustainable
Existence. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 633–641. [CrossRef]
22. Nižetić, S.; Djilali, N.; Papadopoulos, A.; Rodrigues, J.J.P.C. Smart Technologies for Promotion of Energy Efficiency, Utilization of
Sustainable Resources and Waste Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 565–591. [CrossRef]
23. Hage, O.; Söderholm, P. An Econometric Analysis of Regional Differences in Household Waste Collection: The Case of Plastic
Packaging Waste in Sweden. Waste Manag. 2007, 28, 1720–1731. [CrossRef]
24. Mora, L.; Bolici, R.; Deakin, M. The First Two Decades of Smart-City Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. J. Urban Technol. 2017,
24, 3–27. [CrossRef]
25. Rybová, K.; Slavík, J. Ageing Population of Cities—Implications for Circular Economy in the Czech Republic. In Proceedings of
the 2017 Smart City Symposium Prague (SCSP), Prague, Czech Republic, 25–26 May 2017; pp. 1–5.
26. Roche Cerasi, I.; Sánchez, F.V.; Gallardo, I.; Górriz, M.; Torrijos, P.; Aliaga, C.; Franco, J. Household Plastic Waste Habits and
Attitudes: A Pilot Study in the City of Valencia. Waste Manag. Res. 2021, 39, 679–689. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Bridoux, F.; Stoelhorst, J.W. Microfoundations for Stakeholder Theory: Managing Stakeholders with Heterogeneous Motives.
Strateg. Manag. J. 2014, 35, 107–125. [CrossRef]

310
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

28. Tantalo, C.; Priem, R.L. Value Creation through Stakeholder Synergy. Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 314–329. [CrossRef]
29. Beck, D.; Ferasso, M.; Storopoli, J.; Vigoda-Gadot, E. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals through Stakeholder Value
Creation: Building up Smart Sustainable Cities and Communities. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 399, 136501. [CrossRef]
30. Beck, D.; Ferasso, M. Bridging ‘Stakeholder Value Creation’ and ‘Urban Sustainability’: The Need for Better Integrating the
Environmental Dimension. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 89, 104316. [CrossRef]
31. Molla, A.H.; Moghtaderi, S.H.; Harun, Z.; Jedi, A.; Manoj Kumar, N. Insights into End-of-Life Vehicle Recycling and Its Quality
Assessment Systems in Malaysia Reveals the Need for a New Stakeholder-Centric Approach for Vehicle Waste Management.
Prod. Manuf. Res. 2023, 11, 2236676. [CrossRef]
32. Pandey, R.U.; Surjan, A.; Kapshe, M. Exploring Linkages between Sustainable Consumption and Prevailing Green Practices in
Reuse and Recycling of Household Waste: Case of Bhopal City in India. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 173, 49–59. [CrossRef]
33. D’Adamo, I. Adopting a Circular Economy: Current Practices and Future Perspectives. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 328. [CrossRef]
34. Pencarelli, T. The Digital Revolution in the Travel and Tourism Industry. Inf. Technol. Tour. 2020, 22, 455–476. [CrossRef]
35. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and
Guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [CrossRef]
36. Mukherjee, D.; Kumar, S.; Donthu, N.; Pandey, N. Research Published in Management International Review from 2006 to 2020: A
Bibliometric Analysis and Future Directions; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; Volume 61, ISBN 0123456789.
37. Ramos-Rodrígue, A.R.; Ruíz-Navarro, J. Changes in the Intellectual Structure of Strategic Management Research: A Bibliometric
Study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strateg. Manag. J. 2004, 25, 981–1004. [CrossRef]
38. Daim, T.U.; Rueda, G.; Martin, H.; Gerdsri, P. Forecasting Emerging Technologies: Use of Bibliometrics and Patent Analysis.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2006, 73, 981–1012. [CrossRef]
39. Nobanee, H.; Al Hamadi, F.Y.; Abdulaziz, F.A.; Abukarsh, L.S.; Alqahtani, A.F.; Alsubaey, S.K.; Alqahtani, S.M.; Almansoori, H.A.
A Bibliometric Analysis of Sustainability and Risk Management. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3277. [CrossRef]
40. Bartol, T.; Budimir, G.; Dekleva-Smrekar, D.; Pusnik, M.; Juznic, P. Assessment of Research Fields in Scopus and Web of Science in
the View of National Research Evaluation in Slovenia. Scientometrics 2014, 98, 1491–1504. [CrossRef]
41. Norris, M.; Oppenheim, C. Comparing Alternatives to the Web of Science for Coverage of the Social Sciences’ Literature. J.
Informetr. 2007, 1, 161–169. [CrossRef]
42. Guo, Y.M.; Huang, Z.L.; Guo, J.; Li, H.; Guo, X.R.; Nkeli, M.J. Bibliometric Analysis on Smart Cities Research. Sustainability 2019,
11, 3606. [CrossRef]
43. Hossain, S.; Batcha, M.S.; Atoum, I.; Ahmad, N.; Al-Shehri, A. Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Research on Sustainability in
the Impact of Social Media on Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16388. [CrossRef]
44. Carissimi, M.C.; Creazza, A.; Fontanella Pisa, M.; Urbinati, A. Circular Economy Practices Enabling Circular Supply Chains: An
Empirical Analysis of 100 SMEs in Italy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 198, 107126. [CrossRef]
45. Rizos, V.; Behrens, A.; Van der Gaast, W.; Hofman, E.; Ioannou, A.; Kafyeke, T.; Flamos, A.; Rinaldi, R.; Papadelis, S.; Hirschnitz-
Garbers, M.; et al. Implementation of Circular Economy Business Models by Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs):
Barriers and Enablers. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1212. [CrossRef]
46. Colombi, C.; D’Itria, E. Fashion Digital Transformation: Innovating Business Models toward Circular Economy and Sustainability.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4942. [CrossRef]
47. Hens, L.; Block, C.; Cabello-Eras, J.J.; Sagastume-Gutierez, A.; Garcia-Lorenzo, D.; Chamorro, C.; Herrera Mendoza, K.;
Haeseldonckx, D.; Vandecasteele, C. On the Evolution of “Cleaner Production” as a Concept and a Practice. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,
172, 3323–3333. [CrossRef]
48. Fatimah, Y.A.; Govindan, K.; Murniningsih, R.; Setiawan, A. Industry 4.0 Based Sustainable Circular Economy Approach for
Smart Waste Management System to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of Indonesia. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,
269, 122263. [CrossRef]
49. Chauhan, A.; Jakhar, S.K.; Chauhan, C. The Interplay of Circular Economy with Industry 4.0 Enabled Smart City Drivers of
Healthcare Waste Disposal. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123854. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Sodiq, A.; Baloch, A.A.B.; Khan, S.A.; Sezer, N.; Mahmoud, S.; Jama, M.; Abdelaal, A. Towards Modern Sustainable Cities: Review
of Sustainability Principles and Trends. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 972–1001. [CrossRef]
51. Fujita, K.; Kajikawa, Y.; Mori, J.; Sakata, I. Detecting Research Fronts Using Different Types of Weighted Citation Networks. J. Eng.
Technol. Manag. 2014, 32, 129–146. [CrossRef]
52. Kessler, M.M. Bibliographic Coupling between Scientific Papers. Am. Doc. 1963, 14, 10–25. [CrossRef]
53. Shibata, N.; Kajikawa, Y.; Takeda, Y.; Matsushima, K. Comparative Study on Methods of Detecting Research Fronts Using
Different Types of Citation. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2009, 60, 571–580. [CrossRef]
54. Abou Baker, N.; Szabo-Müller, P.; Handmann, U. A Feature-Fusion Transfer Learning Method as a Basis to Support Automated
Smartphone Recycling in a Circular Smart City. In Proceedings of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social
Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, Virtual, 18–19 December 2021; Paiva, S., Lopes, S.I., Zitouni, R., Gupta, N.,
Lopes, S.F., Yonezawa, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 422–441.
55. Aceleanu, M.; Serban, A.C.; Suciu, M.-C.; Biţoiu, T. The Management of Municipal Waste through Circular Economy in the
Context of Smart Cities Development. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 133602–133614. [CrossRef]

311
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15892

56. Puppim de Oliveira, J.A.; Bellezoni, R.A.; Shih, W.; Bayulken, B. Innovations in Urban Green and Blue Infrastructure: Tackling
Local and Global Challenges in Cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 362, 132355. [CrossRef]
57. Arias, A.; Otamendi-Irizar, I.; Grijalba, O.; Oregi, X.; Hernandez-Minguillon, R.J. Surveillance and Foresight Process of the
Sustainable City Context: Innovation Potential Niches and Trends at the European Level. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8795. [CrossRef]
58. Fortes, S.; Hidalgo-Triana, N.; Sánchez-la-Chica, J.-M.; García-Ceballos, M.-L.; Cantizani-Estepa, J.; Pérez-Latorre, A.-V.; Baena, E.;
Pineda, A.; Barrios-Corpa, J.; García-Marín, A. Smart Tree: An Architectural, Greening and ICT Multidisciplinary Approach to
Smart Campus Environments. Sensors 2021, 21, 7202. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Cappellaro, F.; Cutaia, L.; Innella, C.; Meloni, C.; Pentassuglia, R.; Porretto, V. Investigating Circular Economy Urban Practices in
Centocelle, Rome District. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2019, 18, 2145–2153.
60. Damianou, A.; Khan, M.A.; Marios Angelopoulos, C.; Katos, V. Threat Modelling of IoT Systems Using Distributed Ledger
Technologies and IOTA. In Proceedings of the DCOSS 2021: The 17th Annual International Conference on Distributed Computing
in Sensor Systems, Virtual, 14–16 July 2021; pp. 404–413. [CrossRef]
61. Benltoufa, A.N.H.S.; Jaafar, F.; Maraoui, M.; Said, L.; Zili, M.; Hedfi, H.; Labidi, M.; Bouzidi, A.; Jrad, B.B.; Belhadj Salah, H. From
Smart Campus to Smart City: Monastir Living Lab. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Engineering and
Technology (ICET 2017), Antalya, Turkey, 21–23 August 2017; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
62. Crippa, J.; Silva, M.G.; Ribeiro, N.D.; Ruschel, R. Urban Branding and Circular Economy: A Bibliometric Analysis. Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 2023, 25, 2173–2200. [CrossRef]
63. Gebhardt, C. Humans in the Loop: The Clash of Concepts in Digital Sustainability in Smart Cities. In Sustainability in a Digital
World: New Opportunities through New Technologies; Osburg, T., Lohrmann, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham,
Switzerland, 2017; pp. 85–93. ISBN 978-3-319-54603-2.
64. Andrade, R.O.; Yoo, S.G. A Comprehensive Study of the Use of LoRa in the Development of Smart Cities. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4753.
[CrossRef]
65. Corsini, F.; Laurenti, R.; Meinherz, F.; Appio, F.P.; Mora, L. The Advent of Practice Theories in Research on Sustainable
Consumption: Past, Current and Future Directions of the Field. Sustainability 2019, 11, 341. [CrossRef]
66. Dashti, A.; Noushabadi, A.S.; Asadi, J.; Raji, M.; Chofreh, A.G.; Klemeš, J.J.; Mohammadi, A.H. Review of Higher Heating Value
of Municipal Solid Waste Based on Analysis and Smart Modelling. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 151, 111591. [CrossRef]
67. Khan, I.S.; Ahmad, M.O.; Majava, J. Industry 4.0 and Sustainable Development: A Systematic Mapping of Triple Bottom Line,
Circular Economy and Sustainable Business Models Perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126655. [CrossRef]
68. Tahir, Z.; Malek, J.A. Main Criteria in the Development of Smart Cities Determined Using Analytical Method. Plan. Malays. 2016,
14, 59373340. [CrossRef]
69. Prendeville, S.; Cherim, E.; Bocken, N. Circular Cities: Mapping Six Cities in Transition. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2018, 26,
171–194. [CrossRef]
70. Dincă, G.; Milan, A.A.; Andronic, M.L.; Pasztori, A.M.; Dincă, D. Does Circular Economy Contribute to Smart Cities’ Sustainable
Development? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7627. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Afum, E.; Agyabeng-Mensah, Y.; Baah, C.; Agyapong, G.K.Q.; Lascano Armas, J.A.; Al Farooque, O. Prioritizing Zero-Waste
Performance and Green Differentiation Advantage through the Prism of Circular Principles Adoption: A Mediated Approach. J.
Clean. Prod. 2022, 361, 132182. [CrossRef]
72. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Transitioning to a Circular Economy. 2022. Available online: [Link]
evaluations/transitioning-circular-economy (accessed on 21 July 2023).
73. Dwivedi, Y.K.; Hughes, L.; Kar, A.K.; Baabdullah, A.M.; Grover, P.; Abbas, R.; Andreini, D.; Abumoghli, I.; Barlette, Y.; Bunker, D.;
et al. Climate Change and COP26: Are Digital Technologies and Information Management Part of the Problem or the Solution?
An Editorial Reflection and Call to Action. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2022, 63, 102456. [CrossRef]
74. Williams, J. Circular Cities. Urban Stud. 2019, 56, 2746–2762. [CrossRef]
75. Ferasso, M.; Beliaeva, T.; Kraus, S.; Clauss, T.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D. Circular Economy Business Models: The State of Research and
Avenues Ahead. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 3006–3024. [CrossRef]
76. Shojaei, A.; Ketabi, R.; Razkenari, M.; Hakim, H.; Wang, J. Enabling a Circular Economy in the Built Environment Sector through
Blockchain Technology. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126352. [CrossRef]
77. Lakatos, E.S.; Yong, G.; Szilagyi, A.; Clinci, D.S.; Georgescu, L.; Iticescu, C.; Cioca, L.I. Conceptualizing Core Aspects on Circular
Economy in Cities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7549. [CrossRef]
78. Damianou, A.; Vayona, A.; Demetriou, G.; Katos, V. An Actionable Maturity Planning Model for Smart, Circular Cities. Cities
2023, 140, 104403. [CrossRef]
79. Maiurova, A.; Kurniawan, T.A.; Kustikova, M.; Bykovskaia, E.; Othman, M.H.D.; Singh, D.; Goh, H.H. Promoting Digital
Transformation in Waste Collection Service and Waste Recycling in Moscow (Russia): Applying a Circular Economy Paradigm to
Mitigate Climate Change Impacts on the Environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 354, 131604. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

312
 sustainability

Article
How to Shape Local Public Acceptance of Not-in-My-Backyard
Infrastructures? A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective
Wenling Bao 1 , Yu Chen 1 , Caiyun Cui 2 , Bo Xia 3 , Yongjian Ke 4 , Martin Skitmore 5 and Yong Liu 1, *

1 School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou 310018, China;
blh20190421@[Link] (W.B.); chenyuu021@[Link] (Y.C.)
2 School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, North China Institute of Science and Technology,
Langfang 065201, China; cuicaiyun@[Link]
3 School of Architecture and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology (QUT),
Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia; [Link]@[Link]
4 School of Built Environment, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia;
[Link]@[Link]
5 Faculty of Society and Design, Bond University, Robina, QLD 4229, Australia; [Link]@[Link]
* Correspondence: jhly1007@[Link]

Abstract: Acceptance by the local public is the key determinant for the successful implementation of
NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) infrastructures and may be shaped in different ways among different
infrastructure types. Based on social cognitive theory (SCT), this study clarifies the specific mechanism
shaping local public acceptance of NIMBY facilities with two types of hazardous effects (i.e., pollution
and psychological exclusion) using a large-scale questionnaire survey and structural equation model.
The results reveal that, firstly, SCT provides a solid theoretical basis for exploring the mechanism
under the joint action of environmental and personal factors. Secondly, it is verified that self-efficacy
indirectly predicts local public acceptance by influencing perceived risk. The effect of the positive
affect tag is mediated by perceived risk in shaping acceptance of polluting facilities but not of
psychologically excluded facilities. In general, people tend to have a lower perceived risk, higher
Citation: Bao, W.; Chen, Y.; Cui, C.;
Xia, B.; Ke, Y.; Skitmore, M.; Liu, Y.
perceived benefit, stronger sense of self-efficacy, and more positive attitude when faced with the
How to Shape Local Public siting of psychologically excluded NIMBY facilities over polluting ones. These findings are helpful
Acceptance of Not-in-My-Backyard for planning and decision-making of NIMBY facilities with different types of hazardous impacts,
Infrastructures? A Social Cognitive reducing NIMBY conflicts and promoting the construction of NIMBY infrastructures. Furthermore, it
Theory Perspective. Sustainability contributes to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 (promoting peaceful and
2023, 15, 15835. [Link] inclusive societies for sustainable development) and (SDG) 11 (building inclusive, safe, resilient and
10.3390/su152215835 sustainable cities and human settlements).
Academic Editors: Manoj
Kumar Nallapaneni, Keywords: NIMBY facilities; public acceptance; social cognitive theory; polluting; psychologically
Idiano D’Adamo and excluded
Massimo Gastaldi

Received: 7 October 2023

Revised: 7 November 2023
1. Introduction
Accepted: 8 November 2023
Published: 10 November 2023
The editorial in the Sustainable Development Goals states that “Inclusive and partic-
ipatory governance is a cornerstone of sustainable development, ensuring that decision-
making processes are transparent, accountable, and responsive to the needs of all stake-
holders” [1]. The siting, construction, and operation of NIMBY facilities are a complex
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. process involving multiple stakeholders, including the government, the local public and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. relevant experts. Therefore, based on the specific mechanism in shaping local residents’
This article is an open access article acceptance towards NIMBY facilities, the corresponding governance methods are discussed
distributed under the terms and to ensure a transparent decision-making process in the site selection, construction, and
conditions of the Creative Commons operation of NIMBY facilities, enhance public participation and responsive to the needs of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
all stakeholders. This is a concrete response to the idea of achieving sustainability presented
[Link]/licenses/by/
in the editorial.
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835. [Link] 313 [Link]

Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

Local residents are worried that the construction of some high-pollution and high-
energy projects will bring great pressure on the local environment, leading to the deteri-
oration of air, water, soil, and other environmental qualities, as well as potential health
risks, so they take a highly emotional and collective opposition or even resistance behavior,
which is called the NIMBY phenomenon [2]. As SDG 16 refers to “promoting peaceful and
inclusive societies for sustainable development” and SDG 11 refers to “building inclusive,
safe, resilient and sustainable cities and human settlements”, NIMBY conflicts can lead to
social discord and hinder the construction of NIMBY facilities, which is not conducive to
the achievement of the SDGs. Therefore, exploring the specific mechanism in shaping local
residents’ acceptance towards NIMBY infrastructures, enhancing public acceptance, and
reducing NIMBY conflicts will help achieve SDG 16 and SDG 11.
NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) facilities (e.g., nuclear power plants, waste-to-energy
facilities, etc.) face considerable and strong opposition from the local communities in which
they are situated [3,4] because they have a potentially negative impact (e.g., smell and
illness) on the local environment and health of the public, even though their development
can enhance the comprehensive carrying capacity of cities. NIMBY infrastructures can
be divided into polluting facilities and psychologically excluded facilities, the former
impacting human physiological health (e.g., waste incineration power plants and sewage
treatment plants). Polluting facilities will produce a lot of harmful gases during operation,
affecting carbon emissions. According to existing research, the increase in carbon emissions
is a threat to human health and safety [5]. And the latter concerns human mental health
(e.g., funeral homes and prisons) [6,7]. NIMBY facilities with different types of hazardous
effects have different public acceptability [8,9].
Previous studies show that the mechanism shaping local public acceptance of NIMBY
facilities (hereinafter termed “the mechanism”) is related to many factors, including per-
ceived risk, perceived income, social trust, fairness/justice, and transparency in decision-
making [10,11]. For example, [12,13] show public acceptance of nuclear energy to be
positively correlated with perceived benefits and [14] finds the public acceptance of waste-
to-energy (WTE) projects depends on the perceived potential danger. Other studies show
public acceptance of nuclear power plants to be significantly influenced by ecological prob-
lems, geographical location, and the perceived benefits involved [3], while Li et al., (2019)
indicate that the three main aspects affecting public acceptance of dangerous chemical
factories to be perceived risk, distrust of the government, and the “positive affect tag” of
social cognitive theory (SCT) [15]. More recently, other researchers have also established an
extended SCT model based on the benefit-risk perception trade-off of public acceptance
of electric power NIMBY facilities [16]. Emotional dependence (e.g., local dependence,
place identification, and place dependence) on the local area also seriously affects public
acceptance [17,18]. The detailed influencing factors and related conclusions are shown in
Table 1.

Table 1. Brief summary of factors affecting public acceptance towards NIMBY facilities.

Factors Findings Literature

Higher level of perceived risk leads to lower level of Liu et al., 2018 [4]
Perceived risk
acceptance Wang et al., 2021a [16]
Higher level of perceived benefit leads to higher level of Chung and Kim, 2009 [2]
Perceived benefit
acceptance Ong et al., 2022 [19]
Higher level of perceived fairness leads to higher level of Wolsink et al., 2010 [11]
Perceived fairness
acceptance Liu et al., 2018 [4]
Zhou et al., 2022 [20]
Public trust Higher level of public trust leads to higher level of acceptance
Chung and Kim, 2009 [2]
Li et al., 2019 [15]
Emotional state More positive emotions lead to higher level of acceptance
Wang et al., 2021a [16]
Local residents who are male, elder, or highly educated hold Ren et al., 2016 [21]
Demographic characteristics
higher level of acceptance Finucane et al., 2013 [22]

314
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

From social, psychological, and cultural perspectives, different theories have been
applied for a long time to seek the determinants of the public’s willingness to accept
NIMBY facilities and explore the mechanism involved. For example, people with dif-
ferent demographic characteristics have different subjective conscious judgments and
acceptance [21,22].
However, research into this issue is currently insufficient. First, many theories have
been applied to describe the mechanism; for example, research based on stakeholder theory
shows that effective public participation can reduce NIMBY conflicts, but does not take
into account the social impact [19,23,24]. Studies based on affective heuristic theory show
that personal perception and emotion can effectively control public acceptance, but ignore
the role of external factors [15]. Some scholars combined the theory of planned behavior
and the theory of protective motivation to prove that public acceptance is controlled by an
individual’s perceived behavior [19,23]; in addition, under the perspective of values theory,
previous studies have explored the influence of personal values, beliefs, and emotions on
public acceptance of nuclear power and nuclear energy, only considering the influence
of personal factors [25–27]. Nevertheless, such theories often only consider the influence
of personal factors on the mechanism, including personal emotion, personal perception,
subjective norms, perceived behavior control, etc., but rarely focus on the mechanism under
the joint action of personal and environmental factors.
Second, previous studies have pointed out that people have different degrees of
acceptance of NIMBY facilities with different types of hazardous effects [28]. However, no
detailed analysis has been made of the mechanism.
Third, studies normally focus on single facilities, such as nuclear power plants and
WTE incineration facilities [29,30], with little attention paid to multi-case studies.
To bridge these research gaps, the present study is conducted within a viable and
classic analytical framework from the perspective of SCT for understanding the mech-
anism under different types of hazardous effects involving the joint action of personal
and environmental factors. Social cognitive theory is a powerful theory of human intent
and behavior that does a good job of extending internal determinants to the outside and
is recognized as the established theory for exploring patterns of behavior [28]. It points
out that people’s behavior intention or behavior pattern is controlled and shaped by per-
sonal factors and environmental factors [30–32]. From the perspective of social cognitive
theory, public acceptance is a decision jointly affected by personal cognition and social
environment, which can provide a solid theoretical basis for studying the mechanism in
shaping local residents’ public acceptance of NIMBY infrastructures under the joint action
of personal factors and environmental factors. In contrast with previous work, multi-case
studies are also undertaken to enable more general and persuasive research conclusions to
be made.
In the following chapters, Section 2 presents the relevant literature review and the
corresponding research hypothesis. Section 3 reports on the research design, including re-
search framework, questionnaire design and sample data collection and analysis. Section 4
describes the research results, including descriptive analysis, t-test analysis, and struc-
tural equation analysis. Section 5 provides a discussion of the research results. Section 6
summarizes the overall research content, practical significance and shortcomings of the
study.

2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses

2.1. NIMBY Facilities
O’hare put forward the concept of NIMBY facilities in 1977, which refers to those
having a positive effect on society and generating benefits for the public to share, while
their costs tend to be localized and have certain negative externalities [33]. Previous
studies have shown that the urban resilience index system consists of four dimensions,
including infrastructure resilience [34], and the development of infrastructure can promote
the acceleration of urbanization. Although NIMBY facilities can increase a city’s capacity,

315
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

the negative impacts on the environment, reputation, and property values often generate
strong opposition, with people questioning why they should be burdened by problems
caused by others [27,35]. The negative externalities associated with NIMBY facilities
have triggered many well-known conflicts in China, such as the Yuhang Jiufeng waste
incineration plant incident in Zhejiang Province [10], the Maoming PX project incident in
Guangdong Province [10], and the Lianyungang nuclear cycle project incident in Jiangsu
Province [36].
NIMBY facilities include not only risk-gathering amenities (nuclear power plants,
substations, etc.) and polluting facilities (garbage incineration power plants, sewage
treatment plants, etc.), but also those that create a sense of unhappiness, such as funeral
homes, drug rehabilitation centers, prisons, etc. [9,37]. At the same time, risk-gathering
NIMBY facilities are characterized by having a high risk, large scale, and being small in
number, which have an obvious industrial nature.

2.2. Formation of Public Acceptance

Public acceptance plays a pivotal role in the construction and operation of large-scale
urban infrastructures and affects whether or not NIMBY facilities can be smoothly built and
put into operation [15]. The mechanism is also complex [3] and has been the subject of many
long-term studies, revealing the involvement of such factors as trust, public perception,
and self-efficacy [3].
In WTE facilities, the researchers demonstrated that public acceptance of NIMBY
facilities is not only related to how well the public knows about the facility [38], but also is
related to perceived physical and psychological distance [20]. Junjun et al. (2021) propose
a model called cognition and emotion coupling to explain how individual behavior is
influenced and, by using a structural equation model (SEM) to measure the interdependence
and causal relationships between different factors, establish the mechanism for shaping
local public acceptance [39]. For NIMBY risk perception, Kraft and Clary (1991) introduce
a basic model that indicates there to be a positive correlation between public attitudes
towards NIMBY facilities and the perceived risks associated with their proximity [40]. For
nuclear power generation projects, Park et al., (2014) point out that the importance of trust
in the inspectorate is emphasized as a factor influencing the public’s decision to oppose or
reluctantly accept such projects [41]. Additionally, a comparison between the health risks
and benefits of nuclear power reveals that developing nuclear energy within the framework
of risk-benefit analysis is feasible [42]. In a survey of public perceptions of biomass energy
projects in the UK, the key determinant of public acceptance is identified as public trust [43].
Furthermore, for nuclear power, the public’s acceptance of nuclear energy is positively
correlated with the perceived benefit [16].

2.3. Social Cognitive Theory

In the late 1970s, SCT was introduced by the American psychologist Bandura as a
classic theory in pedagogy and social psychology. Building upon social learning theory
(SLT), Bandura emphasizes the concept of self-efficacy and proposes that individual beliefs
in their own abilities are a crucial factor influencing their motivational behavior [44]. SCT
encompasses several key components, including ternary reciprocal determinism, obser-
vational learning, and self-efficacy, among which ternary reciprocal determinism is the
central focus [31]. Bandura extensively researched the dynamic and mutually influential
relationship between individuals, environment, and behaviors. He conceptualized personal
factors, environmental factors, and behavioral factors as theoretical entities that are both
independent and interconnected, leading to a mutual determination [45], as shown in
Figure 1. Of these, personal factors include self-efficacy, self-control, and result expecta-
tion; environmental factors include social environment, social fairness, and social trust;
and behavioral factors include individual acceptance, rejection, and choice [32]. Research
into SCT is currently more in-depth and extensive, which has been widely applied to
knowledge-sharing management, enterprise management, behavioral willingness to partic-

316
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

ipate, information system acceptance behavior, innovation and entrepreneurship behavior,

education, human resources, and other fields [46,47]. Bandura proposes a five-factor struc-
ture model in his subsequent studies of SCT, pointing out that self-efficacy can act on
outcome expectations and thus interfere with the occurrence of behavioral patterns [48].
Outcome expectation, a common psychological determinant, usually represents an individ-
ual’s anticipation of certain behavioral consequences, including perceived risks, benefits,
rewards, and sanctions [49].

Figure 1. Three-way interaction diagram of social cognitive theory.

2.4. Perceived Risk, Perceived Benefit, and Public Acceptance

As a crucial psychological factor in behavioral research, perceived risk is considered to
be a reaction to psychological activities and a subjective judgment of the negative impacts of
potentially dangerous things or behaviors [50]. Due to the lack of knowledge, the public’s
risk cognitive judgment of some unfamiliar or potentially dangerous risk sources is mostly
based on emotion and lacks objective understanding [51]. Previous studies have shown
that a high-risk perception of NIMBY facilities will lead to lower public acceptance [2,52].
Perceived benefit refers to the perceived possibility that the measures taken positively
impact the results [53]. Specifically, when people act in ways they think will benefit
them, the result is expected to remain positive for a long time [31]. Although NIMBY
facilities pose threats to the physical and mental health, living environment, and social
reputation of the local public, their development creates society management benefits, social
benefits, economic benefits, etc. [15]. The perceived benefit is regarded as a critical factor
in determining the public acceptance of NIMBY facilities [54,55]. In previous studies of
the public’s attitude towards potentially dangerous facilities or things (e.g., nuclear energy,
nuclear power facilities), it has been confirmed that perceived benefits are significantly
positively correlated with public acceptance [23,55,56], prompting these hypotheses:

H1. Perceived risk has a negative impact on the public acceptance of NIMBY facilities.

H2. Perceived benefit has a positive impact on the public acceptance of NIMBY facilities.

2.5. Positive Affect Tag

SCT provides a profound theoretical perspective for understanding the role of emo-
tional experience. As a sign or information for judging one’s own ability, emotional state
is one of the four key sources of self-efficacy [57]. Studies have shown that people can
measure their self-confidence by their emotional state when participating in an action [58].
When individuals experience positive emotional states, such as happiness, they are more
inclined to anticipate success than when they experience negative emotional states, such
as anxiety or stress. This positive emotional state tends to result in higher levels of self-
efficacy [59,60]. Affect heuristic theory holds that emotion can be understood as a feeling
state [61]. During the site selection, construction, and operation of NIMBY facilities, the
public primarily relies on its subjective feelings and perceptions. It has been demonstrated

317
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

that there is a higher perception of benefit and a lower perception of risk when people have
positive emotions [62,63], prompting these hypotheses:

H3a. A positive affect tag has a negative impact on perceived risk.

H3b. A positive affect tag has a positive impact on perceived benefit.

H3c. A positive affect tag has a positive impact on self-efficacy.

2.6. Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to perform a certain behavior
in a certain situation, which is a key internal force driving the occurrence of behavior
patterns [64,65]. It is defined as the local public’s self-assurance to improve the efficiency
of the construction and operation of the NIMBY facilities and to avoid the risks they
create [16].
Studies indicate that people are more likely inclined to refuse to perform a certain
behavior when they lack confidence in themselves to perform it; in contrast, they are often
willing to accept such behavior when they can guarantee their ability to avoid the risks and
enjoy the benefits [66]. In other words, self-efficacy can directly affect behavior patterns
and guide the occurrence of behaviors [67]. On the other hand, the influence of self-efficacy
on behavior patterns is mediated by outcome expectations (e.g., perceived risk, perceived
income) [68]. Self-efficacy can significantly affect perceived risks and perceived benefits [53].
Research into the public acceptance of NIMBY facilities has verified that those with high
self-efficacy can see a greater perceived benefit [68], while the perceived risks of people
with low self-efficacy are amplified, leading to lower acceptance of NIMBY facilities [68],
prompting these hypotheses:

H4a. Self-efficacy has a negative impact on perceived risk.

H4b. Self-efficacy has a positive impact on the public acceptance of NIMBY facilities.

H4c. Self-efficacy has a positive impact on perceived benefits.

2.7. Social Environment

According to SCT, behavior is influenced by personal factors and restricted by ex-
ternal environmental factors. Individuals in different situations have different behavior
patterns [69,70]. As an inseparable part of SCT, the social environment potentially impacts
individual perception and behavior patterns [71]. Within the SCT framework, on the one
hand, the social environment directly affects behavior and guides people’s behavioral
intentions or choices [31,68]. On the other hand, environmental reactions cause changes in
individual subjective emotions and cognition (self-efficacy), which further affect behavioral
intention. In other words, the behavioral pattern results from the interaction of individual
cognition (self-efficacy) and the social environment [64]. In addition, the latter can also
interfere with behavioral intention, attitudes, and choices by adjusting the expectation of
results, such as perceived risk and perceived benefit [28,41], prompting these hypotheses:

H5a. The social environment has a positive impact on self-efficacy.

H5b. The social environment has a negative impact on perceived risk.

H5c. The social environment has a positive impact on perceived benefits.

H5d. The social environment has a positive impact on the public acceptance of NIMBY facilities.

318
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

Figure 2 shows the final conceptual framework. Based on SCT, self-efficacy and
outcome expectation (perceived risk and perceived benefit) are chosen as personal factors,
social environment as environmental factors, and public acceptance as behavioral patterns,
which constitute the basic framework of this study. Moreover, it has been shown that
public acceptance of NIMBY facilities can be regarded as the behavioral pattern in SCT [16].
Moreover, the positive affect tag is extended outside the basic framework of SCT as another
control variable. The assumed relationships between public acceptance of NIMBY facilities,
perceived risk, perceived benefit, positive affect tag, self-efficacy, and social environment
are integrated.

Figure 2. Conceptual framework.

3. Research Design
3.1. Research Framework
The traditional hypothesis testing method is adopted. Firstly, the conceptual model
was established based on SCT, and the corresponding assumptions and variable measure-
ments were identified by a large literature search and content analysis. Secondly, according
to the geographical location and population distribution of Zhejiang Province, residents
within 3 km of polluting facilities and psychologically excluded facilities were investigated
by a questionnaire in Hangzhou, Taizhou, Quzhou, and Shaoxing to obtain data relating to
the social environment, self-efficacy, positive affect tag, perceived risk, perceived benefit,
and public acceptance. Finally, an SEM was used to compare the mechanism in terms
of polluting and psychologically excluded facilities, as well as a t-test to compare the
difference in the local public’s views of different types of hazardous effects from different
dimensions.

3.2. Questionnaire Design

The research questionnaire comprises two parts. The first involves such demographic
information as gender, age, and education level, and the second part is used to measure the
six dimensions constructed in the model. The measurement items of the questionnaire are
all taken from previous studies. The items relating to perceived risk and public acceptance
are derived from [4], while items concerning perceived benefit, self-efficacy, and social
environment are derived from [16] and three positive affect tag measurement items are
raised by [15]. Participants are asked to rate their level of agreement with the statements
on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (“extremely disagree”) to 5 (“extremely agree”).
To ensure the reliability and validity of the questionnaire, a small-scale pilot survey
was conducted in Hangzhou. A total of 100 respondents around the facility were involved,
and a total of 86 valid questionnaires were collected. Then, Cronbach’s alpha was used to
analyze the reliability and validity of the resulting data. The results showed that Cronbach’s

319
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

alpha of each dimension was between 0.871 and 0.908, and the KMO was between 0.707
and 0.875, indicating the designed questionnaire had good reliability and validity.

3.3. Sample and Data Collection

According to data analysis and news reports, there have been several NIMBY conflicts
in Zhejiang Province, such as the Yuhang Jiufeng waste incineration plant incident, the
Ningbo PX project incident, and the Haiyan waste incineration plant incident. Due to their
anticipated huge negative impact on the local public, these NIMBY projects were strongly
resisted, and construction was forced to stop. Therefore, Zhejiang Province was selected
as the research city. According to the geographical distribution of Zhejiang Province,
four prefecture-level cities (Hangzhou, Shaoxing, Quzhou and Taizhou) were randomly
selected as specific research sites by a random sampling method in accordance with the
four directions of east, south, west, and north. According to existing studies, polluting
facilities mainly affect people’s living environment and physical health, typically including
waste incineration power plants, sewage treatment plants, etc; psychologically excluded
facilities mainly have potential threats to people’s mental health, such as funeral homes,
drug rehabilitation facilities, and other facilities [6,7]. So, in the current study, for polluting
facilities, WTE incineration facilities, waste transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, etc.,
were chosen because such facilities are more likely to pose threats to the human living
environment and health. As for psychologically excluded facilities, such facilities as funeral
homes, prisons, and drug rehabilitation centers, were chosen for their potential to harm
people’s mental health and make them feel rejected.
The questionnaire was conducted from 15 June 2022 to 18 September 2022. A polluting
and a psychologically excluded facility were randomly selected in each prefecture-level
city. Therefore, eight facilities were finally selected, including four polluting and four
psychologically excluded facilities. According to previous research, respondents living
farther than 3 km from a NIMBY facility were unlikely to show much interest in the facilities
or would even be aware of [21]. Therefore, defining the research area as within 3 km of the
selected facilities is more appropriate. Potential target respondents for the survey were
identified as local residents residing in the selected survey areas. The respondents were
selected by a stratified random sampling process. A total of 600 questionnaires (300 for both
polluting and psychologically excluded facilities) were dispatched to selected respondents.
After eliminating responses with missing items and multiple options, 513 valid question-
naires (246 and 267 for polluting and psychologically excluded facilities, respectively)
were collected—a final response rate of 85%. Compared with traditional social surveys,
although the overall efficiency of 85% is clearly very high, previous studies have shown
that face-to-face field surveys can substantially increase the response rate, especially in
China [21]. Present research refers to the previous studies of scholars [9] and drew the
regional distribution of sample data in this survey, as shown in Figure 3.
Table 2 provides details of the survey and socio-demographic data of the respondents.
The present study conducted a survey in Zhejiang Province, so we selected the demographic
data to be investigated according to the demographic information released in the latest
statistical yearbook of Zhejiang Province. Gender, age and education level were selected
as survey indicators. Following the data published in the Statistical Yearbook of Zhejiang
Province in 2022, the gender and age distribution of the respondents indicates the sample
of respondents to be reasonably representative of the population in Zhejiang Province.
Regarding education level, most of the psychologically excluded facilities are located
in urban areas, since the sites of such facilities are far less remote than those of polluting
facilities. As a result, the proportion of respondents with postgraduate education in the
survey samples of psychologically excluded facilities is much higher than that of polluting
facilities.

320
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

Figure 3. Regional distribution of sample data.

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Frequency (%)
Profile Category
Type A Type B Zhejiang
Male 122 (49.6%) 130 (48.7%) 33.7 million (52.1%)
Gender
Female 124 (50.4%) 137 (51.3%) 30.9 million (47.8%)
18–34 56 (22.8%) 66 (24.7%) 9.8 million (23.2%)
Age 35–59 118 (47.9%) 131 (49.1%) 20.4 million (48.3%)
≥60 72 (29.3%) 70 (26.2%) 12.1 million (28.5%)
≤Junior High School 132 (53.6%) 124 (46.4%)
Senior High School 51 (20.7%) 60 (22.5%)
Education
Junior College 34 (13.8%) 35 (13.1%)
Level
Undergraduate 27 (11.0%) 32 (12.0%)
≥Graduate 2 (0.8%) 16 (6.0%)
Note: Types A and B denote polluting and psychologically excluded NIMBY facilities, respectively.

3.4. Data Analysis

The data analysis process is divided into three steps. Firstly, the respondents’ attitudes
towards polluting and psychologically excluded facilities are assessed using descriptive
statistical analysis. Secondly, SEM is used as it is a widely utilized statistical method
in academic and professional domains and is employed in numerous research studies,
including those examining contractor’s construction waste management behaviors [72], as
well as individual’s food waste behaviors [73], which is well suited to empirically test the
hypothesized relationships and compare the mechanism with different types of hazardous
effects. Finally, the t-test is used to compare the differences in local public opinions of
facilities with different types of negative effects because it measures the significance of the
differences in mean values between the two data groups.

4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
Table 3 summarizes the results of the descriptive statistical analysis of the survey
data of polluting and psychologically excluded facilities. For polluting facilities, the mean

321
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

scores of perceived risk and perceived benefit are 3.21~3.50 and 1.74~2.20, respectively,
indicating the local residents’ perceived risk degree to polluting facilities is relatively high,
yet the perceived benefit is very low. The average score range of self-efficacy, positive affect
tag, social environment, and public acceptance is between one and three, which means
that people hold a quite negative attitude toward polluting facilities. For psychologically
excluded facilities, the perceived risk and perceived benefit scores range from 2.26 to
2.69 and 2.23 to 2.42, respectively, revealing that local residents believe such facilities
may not bring them much risk and benefit. Moreover, the mean scores of the other four
control variables, including self-efficacy, positive affect tag, social environment, and public
acceptance, are higher than three, which suggests the local residents have a relatively
greater positive attitude to psychologically excluded facilities, with stronger inclusiveness
and higher acceptance.

Table 3. Statistical results of the descriptive variables.

Type A Type B
Variables Item Mean Std. Dev Mean Std. Dev
Q1 3.50 1.038 2.38 1.144
Q2 3.21 1.052 2.46 1.153
Perceived risk
Q3 3.44 1.069 2.69 1.292
Q4 3.23 1.045 2.26 1.020
Q5 1.95 0.848 2.23 0.985
Q6 2.20 0.986 2.42 1.094
Perceived benefit Q7 1.96 0.880 2.33 1.077
Q8 2.00 0.872 2.33 0.996
Q9 1.74 0.765 2.25 1.041
Q10 2.29 0.977 3.09 0.930
Self-efficacy Q11 2.15 0.960 3.13 1.001
Q12 1.93 0.915 2.74 0.920
Q13 2.12 1.004 2.90 0.871
Positive affect tag Q14 2.12 0.972 2.96 0.858
Q15 2.40 1.080 3.35 0.830
Q16 2.42 1.124 3.12 1.081
Social environment Q17 2.26 0.958 3.10 1.014
Q18 2.51 0.996 3.19 0.923
Q19 2.49 1.023 3.21 0.968
Public acceptance Q20 2.12 0.969 3.01 0.964
Q21 1.97 0.956 2.97 1.023

4.2. t-Test Analysis

Table 4 shows the t-test results, indicating that there are certain differences in the
mechanism with different types of hazardous effects. From the perspective of perceived
risk, perceived benefit, self-efficacy, positive affect tag, social environment, and public
acceptance, the p values are all less than 0.001, which indicates that there are significant
differences in the mechanism shaping the acceptance of facilities with different types of
hazardous effects: polluting and psychologically excluded facilities. At the same time, the
standard deviations are all between zero and two, and most of them are between zero and
one, which indicates that the data are small in dispersion, close in aggregation, and close to
the true value. In general, the acceptance of polluting facilities is much lower than that of
psychologically excluded facilities.

4.3. Structural Equation Analysis

Table 5 shows, through SEM analysis, the model fitting indices for the total sample
and two kinds of sub-samples for polluting and psychologically excluded facilities. These
show that the indices of all samples have reached the recommended values except for the
psychologically excluded facilities sample, in which the GFI is slightly less than 0.9, which
indicates that the survey data fit the model sufficiently well.

322
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

Table 4. Comparison of public acceptance mechanism of different types of NIMBY facilities.

Item Type Average Value Standard Deviation t-Value Sig

type A 3.35 0.889 10.626 ***
PR
type B 2.45 1.022
type A 1.97 0.675 −4.865 ***
PB
type B 2.31 0.906
type A 2.12 0.844 −11.653 ***
SE
type B 2.98 0.831
type A 2.21 0.913 −11.835 ***
PAT
type B 3.07 0.723
type A 2.40 0.896 −9.209 ***
SEN
type B 3.14 0.923
type A 2.19 0.840 −11.484 ***
PA
type B 3.06 0.873
Note: *** p < 0.001.

Table 5. Recommended value of fit indices and actual value.

Fitness Index χ2 /df RMR RMSEA GFI NFI IFI TLI CFI
Recommended value <3 <0.08 <0.08 ≥0.9 ≥0.9 ≥0.9 ≥0.9 ≥0.9
Model A 1.761 0.040 0.054 0.902 0.910 0.959 0.951 0.959
Model B 1.889 0.055 0.059 0.892 0.911 0.956 0.947 0.955
Total 2.120 0.041 0.047 0.936 0.953 0.956 0.947 0.955
Note: See Table 2 note.

It can be seen from the above analysis that the SCT provides a solid theoretical basis
for exploring the mechanism under the joint action of personal factors and environmental
factors, with the latter having a significant influence.
As Figure 4 shows, all the hypothetical relationships are well supported except for
H2 and H3b in Model A (polluting facilities) and H2, H3a, H3b, and H4a in Model B
(psychologically excluded facilities). In addition, perceived risk is significantly positively
correlated with self-efficacy and significantly negatively correlated with the positive affect
tag for polluting facilities but not significantly so for psychologically excluded facilities.

Figure 4. Standardized path coefficients. Notes: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.

5. Discussion
The present study shows that, firstly, SCT provides a solid theoretical basis for ex-
ploring the specific mechanism shaping local public acceptance of NIMBY facilities under
the joint action of personal and environmental factors. Secondly, there is a significant
difference in the mechanism with different types of hazardous effects. Compared with
polluting facilities, the local public has a more positive attitude towards psychologically

323
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

excluded facilities. Although nimbyism is usually regarded as negative, it is interesting that

the public seems more accepting of psychologically excluded nimbyism than of polluting
nimbyism.
According to the SEM analysis, three important findings are obtained. First, a per-
ceived benefit is not an important determinant of local public acceptance of NIMBY facilities,
which is quite different from most previous research results [56,63,74]. On the one hand,
NIMBY facilities have created a series of hazards to the local public. They are so unbearable
and have expressed strong concerns about the negative external effects and pay more atten-
tion to the risk. In particular, it will be difficult for people to change their attitude towards
NIMBY facilities when they have already formed a fixed perception that they threaten
them [75]. On the other hand, studies have confirmed that it is only when local people
are experiencing serious economic difficulties that they can change their attitudes [76].
However, in the context of rapid economic development, the benefits that NIMBY facilities
can create are negligible. Consequently, public acceptance is mainly controlled by perceived
risk rather than perceived benefit.
Second, the positive affect tag indirectly predicts public acceptance through perceived
risk for polluting facilities, which corresponds with existing studies [15,77]. However,
strangely, no similar results have been found in terms of psychologically excluded facilities,
and the role of the positive affect tag on perceived risk is not significant. Studies have
shown that emotion plays a key role in determining the public’s attitude toward NIMBY
facilities [78]. Due to the lack of relevant professional knowledge or information, emotion
can become the main source of the public’s risk perceptions. In our research, local public
risk perception of polluting NIMBY facilities mainly depends on emotional judgment
because of the lack of relevant professional knowledge. As for the psychologically excluded
facilities, most of the surrounding NIMBY staff residents have more professional knowledge
about the facilities and the degree of threat involved, which leads to many local residents
tending not to rely entirely on emotional judgment of the risks involved.
Finally, the influence of self-efficacy on the perceived risk is confirmed in terms of
polluting NIMBY facilities, but such an effect is not significant in terms of psychologically
excluded facilities. A previous study has shown that self-efficacy may not be consistently
associated with perceived risk: even if people believe they can manage to avoid the risks
associated with the facility, they can still be convinced that the facility poses a significant risk
to their mental health, living environment, etc. [79]. In addition, perceived risk is usually
influenced by factors other than personal self-efficacy, such as community participation,
trust in facility operators, and the perceived benefit of facilities [4,41], which may even
affect people with a high sense of self-efficacy. Another explanation is that the relationship
between self-efficacy and perceived risk may be related to the specific characteristics of
NIMBY facilities. The project’s success depends on the perceived benefits involved and a
comprehensive understanding of their characteristics [80]. In other words, psychologically
excluded NIMBY facilities themselves may not be seriously harmful, leading to the public’s
low level of perceived risk despite a low sense of self-efficacy.
The t-test results raise three main issues. First, the local public’s perceived risk of
polluting NIMBY facilities is much greater than that of the psychologically excluded
facilities. In contrast, the perceived benefit is much weaker. People tend to think more
about physical health than mental health when considering the potential benefits and
risks associated with each facility. Polluting NIMBY facilities create more obvious and real
risks to the local public than psychological exclusion. For example, odors and pollutants
discharged from landfill sites or waste treatment plants will affect air quality and harm
human health [4,10]. But drug rehabilitation centers and prisons may not have any direct
physical impact on the surrounding environment. Moreover, the operation of polluting
NIMBY facilities is usually more difficult for laypeople to understand. Studies have
shown that people are often afraid of what they do not understand, and for unfamiliar or
potentially threatening technologies or facilities, a lack of expertise usually leads to a higher
perception of risk [41,81]. In addition, environmental issues have become more prominent

324
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

over time, while mental health has only recently begun to receive more attention from
society [82]. People may be more aware of the risks related to pollution because they have
been exposed to pollution for a long time through news reports and social media platforms.
Second, from the two dimensions of self-efficacy and positive affect tag, the public
has lower self-efficacy and more negative emotions towards polluting NIMBY facilities. It
has been shown that people tend to experience lower self-efficacy when they think that
threats are difficult to manage and uncontrollable [83]. The risks created by polluting
NIMBY facilities are tangible and uncontrollable, for example, the pollutants such as sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter produced by garbage incineration. These
pollutants lead to respiratory diseases, including asthma and bronchitis [10]. Moreover,
people are usually faced with unknown and ambiguous problems owing to the complicated
operations and management procedures of polluting NIMBY facilities, often leading to
lower self-efficacy and increased negative emotions [84].
Thirdly, when the public considers psychologically excluded NIMBY facilities, the
social environment is perceived to be less disrupted. Previous studies have shown that
a credible and fair social environment can improve the public’s judgment of the value of
NIMBY facilities and enhance public acceptance [11,28]. Polluting NIMBY facilities are
usually opposed by local communities because most of their costs tend to be localized [4].
Therefore, the local government is more inclined to avoid opposition through opaque
and unfair decision-making procedures (e.g., the decision-announcement-defense (DAD)
model) [85]. As a part of the social environment, distributive justice also causes different
public views of the social environment and affects the acceptance of NIMBY facilities [16].
Compared with psychologically excluded NIMBY facilities, polluting facilities create a
stronger sense of unfair cost-benefit distribution to the local public. It may be an important
reason for the public to show the otherness in the social environment dimension when they
faced NIMBY facilities with different types of hazardous effects.
In nimbyism, the construction of NIMBY facilities will not only be resisted by the local
public, but also by local administrators or politicians [86]. “NIMBY being accompanied by
NIMTO” is a common phenomenon, especially in urban planning and development. The
NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) term is generally given a negative connotation regarding
all types of local opposition led by opportunistic behavior of residents, while NIMTO
(Not-In-My-Term-Of-Office) is the opposition of local administrators or politicians, they are
reluctant to approve the construction of these facilities during their term of office because
they fear it will affect their political future [87,88]. Additionally, nimbyism may, in some
cases, be used by powerful groups to preserve the status quo, prevent social and economic
change, and use their wealth and influence on lobby governments against changes to the
status quo, even if those changes are socially and environmentally beneficial [89].
These research findings not only have profound theoretical significance but also have
certain practical application value. The research results are conducive to the planning
and decision-making of NIMBY facilities with different types of hazardous effects and
the formulation of related policies and provide certain practical references for relevant
government departments and decision-makers in the siting, construction, and operation of
NIMBY facilities, so as to better deal with potential environmental or health risks, improve
public satisfaction, and maintain social order and stability, and to promote the high-quality
and sustainable development of NIMBY infrastructure projects in China.

6. Conclusions
Given the key role of public acceptance in the successful incorporation of NIMBY
facilities into a community, the present study conducts a viable and classic analytical frame-
work for understanding the specific mechanism involved in shaping this acceptance under
the joint action of personal and environmental factors from the perspective of SCT and
further analyzes the differences in the mechanism with different types of negative effects by
SEM and t-tests. The results reveal that, firstly, SCT does provide a solid theoretical basis
for exploring the mechanism under the joint action of personal and environmental factors.

325
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

Secondly, self-efficacy indirectly predicts public acceptance by influencing perceived risk.

The effect of the positive affect tag on public acceptance is mediated by the perceived
risk in shaping the local public’s acceptance of polluting NIMBY facilities, but not for
psychologically excluded facilities. Moreover, the public acceptance of NIMBY facilities
with different types of hazardous effects is mainly affected by the perceived risk but not con-
trolled by a perceived benefit. In general, the public tends to possess lower perceived risk,
higher perceived benefit, a stronger sense of self-efficacy, and a more positive attitude than
polluting NIMBY facilities when faced with the siting of psychologically excluded facilities.
Based on these findings, this study has the following practical significance and appli-
cation value. The research results are helpful for decision-makers, relevant governments,
and enterprises to reasonably introduce relevant policies and measures, provide practical
references, and better deal with potential risks in the location, construction, and operation
of NIMBY infrastructures. In addition, it can help contain NIMBY conflicts, maintain social
stability and harmony, and contribute to the achievement of Sustainable Development
Goal (SDG) 16 (promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development)
and (SDG) 11 (Building inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities and human settle-
ments). In practical applications, we can formulate different plans for different types of
NIMBY facilities, take different benefit compensation measures, risk response measures,
etc., to promote the sustainable and high-quality development of different types of NIMBY
facilities.
Although this study counters the deficiency of previous research into the public ac-
ceptance of NIMBY infrastructures by exploring the differences in the mechanism shaping
the local public’s acceptance of NIMBY facilities with different types of hazardous effects,
it has certain practical significance to promote the high-quality development of NIMBY
infrastructures in China; there are also some limitations. The research data are restricted to
Zhejiang province and the influence of regional differences is not considered. Moreover,
the applicability of these research conclusions in other countries has not been verified, and
extrapolating the research conclusions to other countries and contexts requires us to have
a deep understanding of the cultural and social background of other countries, consider
cultural differences, and conduct localized research to ensure that our research conclusions
can be effectively applied to other countries. On the one hand, specific regions or popu-
lations that future research could focus on, for example, the central region, the western
region, and even in the whole country, can turn this limitation into an opportunity for
further study. On the other hand, further work is needed to explore how cross-culturalism
affects the shaping of local public acceptance of NIMBY infrastructures and to establish the
extent to which the findings generalize to other parts of China and similarly placed regions
worldwide.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed to this study’s conception and design. Material prepa-
ration, data collection and analysis were performed by W.B. and Y.C. Conceptualization, methodology,
and project administration were performed by C.C. and Y.K. Critical revision of the content of the
paper is performed by B.X., Y.K., Y.L. and M.S.; funding acquisition was performed by Y.L. The first
draft of the manuscript was written by W.B. and all authors commented on previous versions of the
manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)
(Grant Nos. 72072165 and 72001079), and the Hangzhou Philosophy and Social Science Planning
Project (Grant No. M22JC105).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable, no human or animal concerned.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study.
Data Availability Statement: Data available on request due to restrictions, e.g., privacy or ethical,
the data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

326
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the experts for their time and the frank discus-
sions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; Adamo, I.D.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.;
et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
2. Chung, J.B.; Kim, H. Competition, economic benefits, trust, and risk perception in siting a potentially hazardous facility. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 2009, 91, 8–16. [CrossRef]
3. Jenkins Smith, H.C.; Silva, C.L.; Nowlin, M.C.; DeLozier, G. Reversing nuclear opposition: Evolving public acceptance of a
permanent nuclear waste disposal facility. Risk Anal. 2011, 31, 629–644. [CrossRef]
4. Liu, Y.; Sun, C.; Xia, B.; Cui, C.; Coffey, V. Impact of community engagement on public acceptance towards waste-to-energy
incineration projects: Empirical evidence from China. Waste Manag. 2018, 76, 431–442. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Wang, X.; Shen, Y.; Su, C. Spatial—Temporal evolution and driving factors of carbon emission efficiency of cities in the Yellow
River Basin. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 1065–1070. [CrossRef]
6. Simsek, C.; Elci, A.; Gunduz, O.; Taskin, N. An improved landfill site screening procedure under NIMBY syndrome constraints.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 132, 1–15. [CrossRef]
7. Vrijheid, M. Health effects of residence near hazardous waste landfill sites: A review of epidemiologic literature. Environ. Health
Perspect. 2000, 108, 101–112.
8. Chen, Y.; Yazdani, M.; Mojtahedi, M.; Newton, S. The impact on neighbourhood residential property valuations of a newly
proposed public transport project: The Sydney Northwest Metro case study. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2019, 3, 100070.
[CrossRef]
9. Shan, S.; Duan, X.; Ji, W.; Zhang, T.; Li, H. Evolutionary game analysis of stakeholder behavior strategies in ‘Not in My Backyard’
conflicts: Effect of the intervention by environmental Non-Governmental Organizations. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 829–847.
[CrossRef]
10. Liu, Y.; Ge, Y.; Xia, B.; Cui, C.; Jiang, X.; Skitmore, M. Enhancing public acceptance towards waste-to-energy incineration projects:
Lessons learned from a case study in China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 48, 101582. [CrossRef]
11. Wolsink, M. Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste
facilities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2010, 30, 302–311. [CrossRef]
12. Wang, Y.; Li, H.; Zuo, J.; Wang, Z. Evolution of online public opinions on social impact induced by NIMBY facility. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 2019, 78, 106290. [CrossRef]
13. Chung, J.; Kim, E. Public perception of energy transition in Korea: Nuclear power, climate change, and party preference. Energy
Policy 2018, 116, 137–144. [CrossRef]
14. Davies, A.R. Environmental justice as subtext or omission: Examining discourses of anti-incineration campaigning in Ireland.
Geoforum 2006, 37, 708–724. [CrossRef]
15. Li, W.; Zhong, H.; Jing, N.; Fan, L. Research on the impact factors of public acceptance towards NIMBY facilities in China-A case
study on hazardous chemicals factory. Habitat Int. 2019, 83, 11–19. [CrossRef]
16. Wang, Y.; Shen, C.; Bartsch, K.; Zuo, J. Exploring the trade-off between benefit and risk perception of NIMBY facility: A social
cognitive theory model. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 87, 106555. [CrossRef]
17. Ho, S.S.; Oshita, T.; Looi, J.; Leong, A.D.; Chuah, A.S. Exploring public perceptions of benefits and risks, trust, and acceptance of
nuclear energy in Thailand and Vietnam: A qualitative approach. Energy Policy 2019, 127, 259–268. [CrossRef]
18. Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 1–10.
[CrossRef]
19. Ong, A.K.S.; Prasetyo, Y.T.; Salazar, J.M.L.D.; Erfe, J.J.C.; Abella, A.A.; Young, M.N.; Chuenyindee, T.; Nadlifatin, R.; Redi, A.A.N.P.
Investigating the acceptance of the reopening bataan nuclear power plant: Integrating protection motivation theory and extended
theory of planned behavior. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2022, 54, 1115–1125. [CrossRef]
20. Zhou, Q.; Xu, M.; Liu, Y.; Cui, C.; Xia, B.; Ke, Y.; Skitmore, M. Exploring the effects of spatial distance on public perception of
waste-to-energy incineration projects. Waste Manag. 2022, 143, 168–176. [CrossRef]
21. Ren, X.; Che, Y.; Yang, K.; Tao, Y. Risk perception and public acceptance toward a highly protested Waste-to-Energy facility. Waste
Manag. 2016, 48, 528–539. [CrossRef]
22. Finucane, M.L.; Slovic, P.; Mertz, C.K.; Flynn, J.; Satterfield, T. Gender, Race and Perceived Risk: The ‘White-Male’ Effect. In The
Feeling of Risk; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 125–139.
23. Zhang, T.; Shen, D.; Zheng, S.; Liu, Z.; Qu, X.; Tao, D. Predicting unsafe behaviors at nuclear power plants: An integration of
Theory of Planned Behavior and Technology Acceptance Model. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2020, 80, 103047. [CrossRef]
24. Sun, L.; Yung, E.H.; Chan, E.H.; Zhu, D. Issues of NIMBY conflict management from the perspective of stakeholders: A case
study in Shanghai. Habitat Int. 2016, 53, 133–141. [CrossRef]

327
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

25. Bidwell, D. The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy. Energy Policy 2013, 58, 189–199.
[CrossRef]
26. Whitfield, S.C.; Rosa, E.A.; Dan, A.; Dietz, T. The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception. Risk Anal.
2009, 29, 425–437. [CrossRef]
27. Xia, D.; Li, Y.; He, Y.; Zhang, T.; Wang, Y.; Gu, J. Exploring the role of cultural individualism and collectivism on public acceptance
of nuclear energy. Energy Policy 2019, 132, 208–215. [CrossRef]
28. Wang, Y.; Shen, C.; Zuo, J.; Rameezdeen, R. Same tune, different songs? Understanding public acceptance of mega construction
projects: A comparative case study. Habitat Int. 2021, 118, 102461. [CrossRef]
29. Hou, G.; Chen, T.; Ma, K.; Liao, Z.; Xia, H.; Yao, T. Improving social acceptance of waste-to-energy incinerators in China: Role of
place attachment, trust, and fairness. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1727. [CrossRef]
30. Huang, L.; Ban, J.; Sun, K.; Han, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Bi, J. The influence of public perception on risk acceptance of the chemical industry
and the assistance for risk communication. Saf. Sci. 2013, 51, 232–240. [CrossRef]
31. Schunk, D.H.; DiBenedetto, M.K. Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 60, 101832. [CrossRef]
32. Beauchamp, M.R.; Crawford, K.L.; Jackson, B. Social cognitive theory and physical activity: Mechanisms of behavior change,
critique, and legacy. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2019, 42, 110–117. [CrossRef]
33. O’Hare, M. “Not on My Block You Don’t”—Facilities Siting and the Strategic Importance of Compensation; Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Laboratory of Architecture and Planning: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1977.
34. Shi, Y.; Zhang, T.; Jiang, Y. Digital Economy, Technological Innovation and Urban Resilience. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9250.
[CrossRef]
35. Wu, Y.; Wang, J.; Hu, Y.; Ke, Y.; Li, L. An extended TODIM-PROMETHEE method for waste-to-energy plant site selection based
on sustainability perspective. Energy 2018, 156, 1–16. [CrossRef]
36. Huang, L.; He, R.; Yang, Q.; Chen, J.; Zhou, Y.; Hammitt, J.K.; Lu, X.; Bi, J.; Liu, Y. The changing risk perception towards nuclear
power in China after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. Energy Policy 2018, 120, 294–301. [CrossRef]
37. Zhao, H.; Ge, Y.; Zhang, J. Evaluation on the implementation effect of public participation in the decision-making of NIMBY
facilities. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e263842. [CrossRef]
38. Schively, C. Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research.
J. Plan. Lit. 2007, 21, 255–266. [CrossRef]
39. Junjun, Z.; Liukai, Y.; Gang, M.; Huixin, M.; Yangyang, J. Residents’ acceptance towards waste-to-energy facilities: Formation,
diffusion and policy implications. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 287, 125560.
40. Kraft, M.E. Citizen Participation and the Nimby Syndrome: Public Response to Radioactive Waste Disposal. West. Political Q.
1991, 44, 299–328. [CrossRef]
41. Park, E.; Ohm, J.Y. Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: Effects of the
Fukushima nuclear accident. Energy Policy 2014, 65, 198–211. [CrossRef]
42. Dai, J.; Li, S.; Bi, J.; Ma, Z. The health risk-benefit feasibility of nuclear power development. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 224, 198–206.
[CrossRef]
43. Upreti, B.R.; Horst, D.V.D. National renewable energy policy and local opposition in the UK: The failed development of a biomass
electricity plant. Biomass Bioenergy 2004, 26, 61–69. [CrossRef]
44. Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 21–41. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 248–287. [CrossRef]
46. Lent, R.W.; Brown, S.D. Social cognitive career theory at 25: Empirical status of the interest, choice, and performance models. J.
Vocat. Behav. 2019, 115, 103316. [CrossRef]
47. Eccles, J.S.; Wigfield, A. From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive,
and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 61, 101859. [CrossRef]
48. Bandura, A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ. Behav. 2004, 31, 143–164. [CrossRef]
49. Lowry, P.B.; Zhang, J.; Wu, T. Nature or nurture? A meta-analysis of the factors that maximize the prediction of digital piracy by
using social cognitive theory as a framework. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 68, 104–120. [CrossRef]
50. Moyer, R.M.; Song, G. Cultural predispositions, specific affective feelings, and benefit—Risk perceptions: Explicating local policy
elites’ perceived utility of high voltage power line installations. J. Risk Res. 2019, 22, 416–431. [CrossRef]
51. Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236, 280–285. [CrossRef]
52. Ross, V.L.; Fielding, K.S.; Louis, W.R. Social trust, risk perceptions and public acceptance of recycled water: Testing a social-
psychological model. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 137, 61–68. [CrossRef]
53. Tumlison, C.; Song, G. Cultural values, trust, and benefit-risk perceptions of hydraulic fracturing: A comparative analysis of
policy elites and the general public. Risk Anal. 2019, 39, 511–534. [CrossRef]
54. Liu, T.; Yau, Y. Institutional inadequacies and successful contentions: A case study of the LULU siting process in Hong Kong.
Habitat Int. 2014, 44, 22–30. [CrossRef]
55. Jang, Y.; Park, E. Social acceptance of nuclear power plants in Korea: The role of public perceptions following the Fukushima
accident. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 128, 109894. [CrossRef]
56. Guo, Y.; Ru, P.; Su, J.; Anadon, L.D. Not in my backyard, but not far away from me: Local acceptance of wind power in China.
Energy 2015, 82, 722–733. [CrossRef]

328
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

57. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Freedom and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1997.
58. Britner, S.L.; Pajares, F. Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2006, 43, 485–499.
[CrossRef]
59. Medrano, L.A.; Flores-Kanter, E.; Moretti, L.; Pereno, G.L. Effects of induction of positive and negative emotional states on
academic self-efficacy beliefs in college students. Psicol. Educ. 2016, 22, 135–141. [CrossRef]
60. He, W.; Wong, W. Affective state contributes to creative self-efficacy: Evidence from an experimental study of emotion induction.
Think. Ski. Creat. 2022, 45, 101061. [CrossRef]
61. Finucane, M.L.; Alhakami, A.; Slovic, P.; Johnson, S.M. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Mak.
2000, 13, 1–17. [CrossRef]
62. Ascher, T.J.; Wilson, R.S.; Toman, E. The importance of affect, perceived risk and perceived benefit in understanding support for
fuels management among wildland—Urban interface residents. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2012, 22, 267–276. [CrossRef]
63. Visschers, V.H.; Keller, C.; Siegrist, M. Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of
nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 3621–3629. [CrossRef]
64. Lin, H.; Chang, C. What motivates health information exchange in social media? The roles of the social cognitive theory and
perceived interactivity. Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 771–780. [CrossRef]
65. Nazari, L.N.; Reisi, M.; Tahmasebi, R.; Javadzade, H. The effect of web-based educational intervention on physical activity-related
energy expenditure among middle-aged women with overweight and obesity: An application of social cognitive theory. Obes.
Med. 2020, 18, 100181. [CrossRef]
66. Thøgersen, J.; Grønhøj, A. Electricity saving in households—A social cognitive approach. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7732–7743.
[CrossRef]
67. Jani, A. Escalation of commitment in troubled IT projects: Influence of project risk factors and self-efficacy on the perception of
risk and the commitment to a failing project. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2011, 29, 934–945. [CrossRef]
68. Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Citizen’s adoption of an e-government system: Validating extended social cognitive theory (SCT). Gov.
Inf. Q. 2015, 32, 172–181. [CrossRef]
69. Font, X.; Garay, L.; Jones, S. A social cognitive theory of sustainability empathy. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016, 58, 65–80. [CrossRef]
70. Boudreaux, C.J.; Nikolaev, B.N.; Klein, P. Socio-cognitive traits and entrepreneurship: The moderating role of economic institutions.
J. Bus. Ventur. 2019, 34, 178–196. [CrossRef]
71. Boateng, H.; Adam, D.R.; Okoe, A.F.; Anning-Dorson, T. Assessing the determinants of internet banking adoption intentions: A
social cognitive theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 65, 468–478. [CrossRef]
72. Wu, Z.; Yu, A.T.W.; Shen, L. Investigating the determinants of contractor’s construction and demolition waste management
behavior in China’s mainland. Waste Manag. 2017, 60, 290–300. [CrossRef]
73. Abdelradi, F. Food waste behaviour at the household level: A conceptual framework. Waste Manag. 2018, 71, 485–493. [CrossRef]
74. Walker, B.J.; Wiersma, B.; Bailey, E. Community benefits, framing and the social acceptance of offshore wind farms: An
experimental study in England. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2014, 3, 46–54. [CrossRef]
75. Tanaka, Y. Major psychological factors determining public acceptance of the siting of nuclear facilities. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2004,
34, 1147–1165. [CrossRef]
76. Lindén, A.; Rapeli, L.; Brutemark, A. Community attachment and municipal economy: Public attitudes towards wind power in a
local context. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 10–14. [CrossRef]
77. Midden, C.J.; Huijts, N.M. The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: The case of CO2 storage. Risk Anal. 2009, 29,
743–751. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
78. Slovic, P.; Finucane, M.L.; Peters, E.; MacGregor, D.G. The affect heuristic. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2007, 177, 1333–1352. [CrossRef]
79. Ozer, E.M.; Bandura, A. Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-efficacy analysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 58,
472. [CrossRef]
80. Arning, K.; Offermann-van Heek, J.; Sternberg, A.; Bardow, A.; Ziefle, M. Risk-benefit perceptions and public acceptance of
Carbon Capture and Utilization. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2020, 35, 292–308. [CrossRef]
81. Chen, M.; Lin, Y.; Cheng, T. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology applications in Taiwan. Technovation 2013, 33, 88–96.
[CrossRef]
82. Conway, M.; Connor, D.O. Social media, big data, and mental health: Current advances and ethical implications. Curr. Opin.
Psychol. 2016, 9, 77–82. [CrossRef]
83. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. Anxiety Res. 1988, 1, 77–98. [CrossRef]
84. Bandura, A. Reflections on self-efficacy. Adv. Behav. Res. Ther. 1978, 1, 237–269. [CrossRef]
85. Johnson, T. The politics of waste incineration in Beijing: The limits of a top-down approach? J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2013, 15,
109–128. [CrossRef]
86. Inch, A. Creating ‘a Generation of NIMBYs’? Interpreting the Role of the State in Managing the Politics of Urban Development.
Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2012, 30, 520–535. [CrossRef]
87. Mancini, E.; Raggi, A. Out of sight, out of mind? The importance of local context and trust in understanding the social acceptance
of biogas projects: A global scale review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 91, 102697. [CrossRef]

329
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15835

88. Adamo, I.D.; Sassanelli, C. Biomethane Community: A Research Agenda towards Sustainability. Sustainabilitiy 2022, 14, 4735.
[CrossRef]
89. Linnerud, K.; Toney, P.; Simonsen, M.; Holden, E. Does change in ownership affect community attitudes toward renewable energy
projects? Evidence of a status quo bias. Energy Policy 2019, 131, 1–8. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

330
 sustainability

Article
Prediction of Battery Remaining Useful Life Using Machine
Learning Algorithms
J. N. Chandra Sekhar 1, *, Bullarao Domathoti 2 and Ernesto D. R. Santibanez Gonzalez 3, *

1 Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati 517502, India
2 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shree Institute of Technological Education,
Tirupati 517501, India; bullaraodomathoti@[Link]
3 Department of Industrial Engineering and CES 4.0, Faculty of Engineering, University of Talca,
Curico 3340000, Chile
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link] (J.N.C.S.); [Link]@[Link] (E.D.R.S.G.)

Abstract: Electrified transportation systems are emerging quickly worldwide, helping to diminish
carbon gas emissions and paving the way for the reduction of global warming possessions. Battery
remaining useful life (RUL) prediction is gaining attention in real world applications to tone down
maintenance expenses and improve system reliability and efficiency. RUL forms the prominent
component of fault analysis forecast and health management when the equipment operation life cycle
is considered. The uprightness of RUL prediction is vital in providing the effectiveness of electric
batteries and reducing the chance of battery illness. In assessing battery performance, the existing
prediction approaches are unsatisfactory even though the battery operational parameters are well
tabulated. In addition, battery management has an important contribution to several sustainable
development goals, such as Clean and Affordable Energy (SDG 7), and Climate Action (SDG 13).
The current work attempts to increase the prediction accuracy and robustness with selected machine
learning algorithms. A Real battery life cycle data set from the Hawaii National Energy Institute
(HNEI) is used to evaluate accuracy estimation using selected machine learning algorithms and is
validated in Google Co-laboratory using Python. Evaluated error metrics such as Mean Square Error
(MSE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), R-Squared, and execution
time are computed for different L methods and relevant inferences are presented which highlight the
potential of battery RUL prediction close to the most accurate values.
Citation: Sekhar, J.N.C.; Domathoti,
B.; Santibanez Gonzalez, E.D.R.
Keywords: HNEI battery; machine learning algorithms; heat map; Mean Squared Error; Mean
Prediction of Battery Remaining
Absolute Error; Root Mean Squared Error; R-Squared Error
Useful Life Using Machine Learning
Algorithms. Sustainability 2023, 15,
15283. [Link]
su152115283
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Assunta Di Vaio
One of the major challenges facing society today is reducing greenhouse gas emissions
Received: 6 August 2023 Which has prompted the industry’s top producers to promote the progress of electric
Revised: 9 October 2023 vehicles (EVs). Since the majority of end user electronics are motorized by battery-like
Accepted: 10 October 2023 technology, and the use of renewable energy sources to generate electricity is expanding
Published: 25 October 2023 quickly, energy storage has emerged as one of the key sectors. Due to their high energy
density and lengthy cyclical and calendrical lifetime, lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), which
are efficient energy storage systems, have assumed a leading position in powering EVs.
RUL is the required amount of time, which is commonly calculated using the numerical
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
subsequent charge–discharge cycles, from the active profile point to the end of a battery’s
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
life. A battery’s lifespan ends when its remaining capacity reaches 70–80% of its initial
distributed under the terms and
value, according to a widely accepted generalization. RUL is a well-liked research area
conditions of the Creative Commons in the realm of electric battery research because it has an obvious significance for the
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// assessment of the safety of batteries. The length of time a machine or asset is liable
[Link]/licenses/by/ to function before needing repair or substituent is known as the remaining useful life
4.0/). (RUL). In addition, it is important to highlight that good management and prediction

Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283. [Link] 331 [Link]

Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

of battery use can significantly contribute to improving the efficiency and sustainability
of energy storage systems, promoting the adoption of clean energy, reducing emissions,
and encouraging innovation and collaboration [1]. In this way, its contribution to several
sustainable development goals is interesting, including, for example, Clean and Affordable
Energy (SDG 7), and Climate Action (SDG 13) [2]. The Battery RUL problem is directly
related to SDG 7 by supporting the development and deployment of affordable, reliable,
and clean energy solutions. In systems relying on batteries, knowing the remaining useful
life allows for efficient planning and operation. By optimizing the use of batteries and
extending their useful life, we can enhance the sustainability of energy systems, promote
renewable energy adoption, and work toward the achievement of SDG 7’s targets for
universal access to clean and affordable energy [3]. In the same vein, solving the Battery
RUL problem contributes to SDG 13 by supporting efforts to combat climate change,
promote renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and enhance resilience in the
face of climate-related challenges. By extending the useful life of batteries and optimizing
their use, we can minimize the environmental and economic impact of battery-related
activities and contribute to a more sustainable and climate-resilient future [4].
The time period may be expressed in terms of days, miles, cycles, or any other number,
depending on the system you are using. RUL prediction offers early failure alerts and has
evolved into a crucial part of system prognostics and health management. Figure 1 shows
deterioration of a machine over time.

ȱ
Figure 1. Prediction of RUL.

This picture illustrates how a machine degrades over time. Remaining useful life is
calculated as the interval between these two points if A is the current condition and B is the
minimal condition beyond which the machine will fail. RUL can be replaced or maintained
to prevent unforeseen downtime and financial losses if it is forecast in advance. It is crucial
to estimate RUL precisely because it is essential for operations and decision-making. The
study of the most precise RUL calculation has recently gained popularity due to the swift
advancement of situation and health tracking technology. In the most recent modelling
trends for figuring out the RUL the examination places a strong emphasis on statistical
methods that are fact-driven and use the finest readily available historical determined
records and statistical models.
The different procedures that have been suggested and put into exercise to simulate
the degradation of these complex systems have led to the evolution of two techniques:
entirely model-based techniques and information-driven techniques. Due to the model’s
complexity, its universality is also limited and usually impossible to attain. As a result, the
generalization impact cannot be determined. The kinetics of SEI generation and solvent
transportation are considered in a one-dimensional model to examine possible decline
in lithium-ion batteries. This work advises analyzing potential fade at various cyclic

332
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

charge–discharge settings within a lithium-ion electrochemical pseudo-dimensional (P2D)

battery version.
The model exhibits a stronger relationship between battery performance and elec-
trolyte chemical characteristics by combining porosity exchange with electrolyte partial
molar concentration [3]. The changing modern pricing and cut-off voltages are expected to
cause fluctuations in the stable electrolyte interface (SEI) layer. The results show that the
porosity version and convective heat switch coefficient have a substantial impact on the
SEI layer development and battery life.
The semi-empirical cycle aging model for an LFP-based fully cylindrical cell presented
here has been improved as a result of better knowledge of aging phenomena under the
effect of DOD and Ah-throughput variables [4]. It is based on ability loss and is the primary
LLI degradation technique since it takes into account both internal resistance aging and
capacity loss. A Thevenin version has been described with a single RC branch and constant
values for all model parameters. In this work, parameters of similar circuit models that
account for battery aging and qualities for resistance aging, as well as several internal
battery capabilities are included [5].
A substitute is used for random initialization, a prediction model with LSTM is
initialized, and the system parameters are optimized based on test temperature and test
dates, which presents an 89.18% average accuracy [6]. A comparison has been drawn
between Naïve Bayes (NB) and Support Vector Machine (SVM): where NB is employed,
the RUL of Li-ion batteries exhibit stable and better competitive prediction performance
than SVM under constant discharge conditions [7].
A probabilistic-based adaptive estimator is used with caution for both SOE and SOC
estimation using neural networks and information-pushed methodology, and accurate
battery models are examined [8]. The voltage prediction effects that may be more accurate
for the SOC calculation are provided by an electrochemical model and an n ordered RC
equal circuit model. For SOE estimation, the relationship between the terminal voltage
and the model input is often examined using a sliding window neural network model.
The results demonstrate that the proposed voltage mistakes and records pushed neural
network models can produce accurate version predictions.
A weighted least squares assist vector device is used for online estimation of the SOH
of 2D-use lithium-ion batteries. The suggested method has been tested on a variety of
2D-use lithium-ion battery data units under various environmental conditions and battery
types [9]. The results of the application show that, in comparison to the totally BPNN-based
technique and the totally GPR-based approaches, the SOH accuracy anticipated via the
totally WLSSVM-based approach is the best because the suggested approach has a higher
ideal for nonlinear conditions with much less educational information. Battery terminal
voltage characteristics during the charge process for RUL prediction has been considered
Importance Sampling which has been employed in combination with a Feed Forward
Neural Network [10].
In ref. [11] the author worked on a fusion of 3-D CNN and 2-D CNN which yielded a
1.1% test error for battery cycle life and a 36% test error for RUL prediction. The design and
development of a lithium-ion cell version battery management system may also be used to
execute state machines for charge and discharge current limit calculations, fault manage-
ment, contactor management, and other duties [12]. The simulation model for designing
and testing these methodologies includes Li-ion battery cell parameter estimation, battery
packs with 6 and 96 cells, test documents with check cases to confirm state machine logic
and linking requirements to models. Bayesian methodology is a probabilistic method for
forecasting the RUL of a battery. When we initially offer a framework for feature extraction,
we use the RUL estimation model to apply Bayesian inference of linear regression [13].
The lithium battery deterioration model and its RUL can both be accommodated by an
integrated mastering approach that is entirely based on tracking records [14]. The relevance
vector device (RVM), the random woodland (RF), the elastic net (EN), the autoregressive
model (AR), and the lengthy quick-time period memory (LSTM) community are the five

333
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

fundamental rookies used by the ensemble learning approach, which aims to improve
prediction performance [15]. Remaining useful life (RUL) estimation of drilling pumps
and critical components in fossil energy production is carried out with deep feature learn-
ing technique that uses a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Convolutional Block
Attention Module (CBAM) [16].
Rechargeable battery systems with attractive potential for commercial applications
are emerging as alternatives to traditional lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). They offer the
promise of higher theoretical energy density and lower production costs compared to
LIBs. However, despite their potential, these emerging lithium-sulfur Batteries (LSBs)
continue to face persistent challenges that hinder their widespread industrial adoption.
These issues include the inevitable dissolution of lithium polysulfide intermediates during
electrochemical reactions and significant volume expansion, sometimes reaching up to 80%,
upon the formation of Li2 S. These challenges result in severe limitations on battery lifespan
and safety [17].
In this comprehensive review [18], an overview of the theoretical and experimental
advancements in Ge-based monoelemental and binary two-dimensional (2D) materials
is presented and encompasses various aspects, including crystal structures, as well as
electronic, mechanical, thermal, optical, and photoelectric properties. Furthermore, we
delve into the potential applications of these materials across a wide spectrum, including
field-effect transistors, photodetectors, optical devices, catalysts, energy storage devices,
solar cells, thermoelectric devices, sensors, biomedical materials, and spintronic devices.
Effective monomer design can lead to the creation of a sulfur-containing polymer
with advantageous characteristics. These properties encompass ion and electron conduc-
tivity, high sulfur content, suitable viscosity, processability, and controllable morphology.
These attributes hold significant promise for application in the cathodes of Li-S batteries,
facilitating high capacity and consistent discharge even at elevated rates. This review
provides a concise overview of the latest advancements in cathode materials based on
sulfur-containing polymers [19].
The introduction of lithium iodide (LiI) as a Lewis basic salt serves to prevent the
interaction between LiTFSI and the MoS2 electrocatalyst, thereby inhibiting the formation of
a surface gel layer. This electron-deficient center, induced by the trifluoromethanesulfonyl
group in LiTFSI interacting with the Lewis acidic sites on MoS2 , triggers the cationic
polymerization of the 1,3-dioxolane solvent and leads to a reduction in electrocatalytic
activity. As a result of this modification, Li-S batteries incorporating the MoS2 electrocatalyst
and the LiI additive achieve an exceptionally high actual energy density of 416 W h kg−1
demonstrated at the pouch cell level [20].
Despite the notable theoretical energy density associated with lithium-sulfur (Li-S)
batteries, they grapple with practical challenges, notably sluggish conversion kinetics
and the notorious shuttle effect of polysulfides. In response to these challenges, a novel
approach has been introduced involving a nitrogen-doped continuous porous carbon
(CPC) host that firmly anchors monodispersed sub-10 nm FeS2 nanoclusters, referred to as
CPC@FeS2 . This innovative host exhibits a robust capability for adsorbing polysulfides,
holding the promise of mitigating the polysulfide shuttle effect and enhancing the initial
stages of the catalytic conversion process [21].
The other sections of this paper are prepared as follows: Section 2 explains the recent
relevant works based on model-dependent and data-driven methods. Section 3 presents the
pre-requisites of the data set, ML Algorithms, and Problem formulation. Section 4 presents
Proposed Methodology of ML Methods for RUL Prediction and estimation of Performance
error indices. Section 5 shows the results of our proposed method and discussion. Finally,
Section 6 offers a conclusion and directions for future work.

334
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

2. Literature Review
To predict the RUL of lithium-ion batteries, completely version-based and statistics-
driven techniques are frequently used. Primarily version-based procedures frequently
make use of an extension of algebraic, differential, and empirical equations. Records-
driven algorithms estimate battery RUL in the realm of mathematical fashions by utilizing
latent mappings between inputs and outputs, hidden correlations between developments
or features, hidden correlations between qualities and skills, and so on [22]. Several
approaches for estimating lithium-ion battery RUL are currently linked. RUL prediction
algorithms are classified into three categories: entirely version-based, facts-driven, and
hybrid. Figure 2 depicts a thorough evaluation of the RUL prediction methods. The
completely version-based approach makes use of modelling that is generally based on
physics to enlarge the degradation and an empirical version to disclose how a linked item
declines with time. Statistic-driven styles, on the other hand, embellish the degrading
version to expand packages using ML approaches and historical statistics. In order to
incorporate the respective advantages of the two models, hybrid-based solutions are finally
developed.

Figure 2. Classification of various RUL prediction methods for lithium-ion battery.

(A) Model Dependent Methods

Algebraic and empirical equations, linked elements, and mathematical models make
up the model-based techniques. They also include a significant amount of empirical data
gathering via experimentation. A physics or regression model can be used to create the
battery’s deterioration behavior, and the results can then be extrapolated to estimate battery
performance.
(A.1) Physics-based model
The physical and electrochemical phenomena that take place inside the battery serve as
the foundation of the physics model. The electrode porosity and reaction kinetics theories
are used to create the physics model for RUL prediction. The physical and chemical
processes, as well as calculating battery states like SOC and SOH, may also be better
understood by using the physics model. The pros and cons of using dynamic models
for the operation and diagnosis of Li-ion batteries are discussed in [23]. The summary of
models and dynamics is succinct but clear, and it also looks at the necessary advancements
for the field’s future. The fundamental processes, including their dynamics, parameters,
and time, must be understood in order to determine battery diagnostics and operation
constants. Compared to other model-based methodologies, the accuracy of physics models
is relatively poor [24]. The demand for batteries is rising as new energy electric vehicles

335
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

and smart grids emerge quickly. An essential component of a system using batteries for
energy storage is the battery management system (BMS). The state estimation approaches
are evaluated in terms of ultimate potential and power estimation, strength functioning
prediction, lifespan and health forecasting, and other important indicators in BMS.
(A.2) Equivalent circuit model
The equivalent circuit model (ECM), which stands based on knowledge of the physical
and chemical processes involved in popular battery production, has been developed. It
is entirely predicated on the idea that different electrical element combinations can result
in outcomes that are electrically comparable to those of a battery. Consequently, a math-
ematical model can be developed using circuit assessment techniques. Additionally, the
employment of ECM results in the simulation of several significant characteristics, such as
the production of power, electricity, and heat under challenging operating conditions [25].
As the SEI movie layer matures, it has been seen that the battery’s internal resistance
continuously rises. Additionally, the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (ECM) char-
acteristics may be seen using EIS datasets, and RUL can be predicted using a regression
model. One of the most important metrics for assessing the health of lithium-ion batteries
is the electrochemical impedance spectrum (EIS). Ref. [26] outlines a method for online im-
plementation that determines the EIS of lithium-ion batteries using a fractional-order equal
circuit model (FOECM). The parameters of the fractional-order model are first generated
based on measurements of current and voltage using a fractional-order kingdom variable
clean out and the recursive least-squares approach. The parameters that were gathered
are then used to construct the battery’s expected EIS under various ageing scenarios. The
regression version of the estimated EIS spectrum is then utilized to show how the battery is
deteriorating in terms of the rise in internal resistance. Finally, compared to tests applicable
to current FOECM-based regression models, the enhanced regression model is successfully
applied in the context of particle filtering to predict the battery’s final usable lifetime (RUL).
(A.3) Empirical model
The foundation of the empirical model is built by looking at the association between
a wide range of factual aspects. Several battery degradation traits are included in the
empirical model for RUL prediction. Empirical models can predict degradation trends using
empirical formulas or exceptional regression models to represent degradation behavior.
In [27], a framework for RUL prediction based on a logarithmic variant was established,
proving its superiority over conventional empirical models. It is important to carefully
choose version settings related to scalar quantities to prevent the introduction of complex
values for expected ability. A two-term logarithmic variant was built to reflect the 2-
segment nonlinear concave degradation of cylindrical-type Li-ion batteries. The proposed
design accurately captured the inflection factor of the two-section concave deterioration.
Reference [28] recommended a dual EKF (DEKF) based entirely on the Thevenin model for
estimating battery kingdom. When a primary-order Taylor expression was employed for
country estimate, the DEFK was used to convert a non-linear state and statement expression
hooked on a linear feature. The empirical model remains a non-linear system, therefore
conventional KF remains appropriate. The equivalent circuit version is constructed from
basic circuit components, and the modelling process is challenging. The form acts as a
real replacement for the outside function switch of battery charge and discharge. The
comparable circuit version’s parameter identification is rather straightforward; as a result,
it is frequently used. As a result, we created the second-order Thevenin equal circuit version
as well as the RC version.
(B) Data-driven-based Techniques for RUL Prediction
Utilizing past data, data-driven context predicts the rate of battery degeneration. At
this time, it is still unclear how data-driven models function and propagate. Without using
physics-based methods, the weight limitations in the data-driven mathematical context
are determined using the training data. Recently, the flexibility and applicability of data

336
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

driven models have attracted attention on a worldwide scale. Three categories can be made
to classify the RUL estimation techniques created with data-driven methods: machine
learning (ML), statistical methods, and signal processing.
(B.1) Machine learning (ML)
RUL can be predicted using model-based, statistics-driven, or hybrid strategies using
historical data or direct statistics extraction. Developing version-based strategies in complex
devices is particularly challenging, expensive, and time-consuming because it calls for a
great deal of skill outside of the realm of machine learning, because data-driven tactics
mainly rely on machine learning (ML) techniques.
The component’s maximum useful life (MUL) is one of the most significant indicators
of expected failure. The studies on RUL prediction using ML approaches are described
in [29]. It is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to develop totally version-based
procedures in complex equipment since it requires extensive outside device expertise.
Statistics-driven techniques had been heavily reliant on machine learning (ML) procedures.
Machine learning is employed in [30] to predict battery cycle life and early pleasant
class throughout manufacture. Information-driven machine learning algorithms have been
used to forecast and classify the early success of battery manufacture. The predictive power
of linear regression models and artificial neural networks (ANNs) were investigated using
a variety of datasets. However, the linear regression shows an equivalent look at errors
of about 13% when only a few enter features are used. The focus of the RUL prediction
investigation was on three top-ranked regions [31]. The first entails compiling battery data
using publicly and commercially available Li-ion battery data sets. The second part of the
section involves estimating battery statuses using a battery management system [32]. The
symbolic regression machine learning algorithm was used to anticipate the final useful
existence of these batteries. A single methodology for batch categorization, unit utilization,
and battery recycling is provided by the information-pushed device mastery method used
to anticipate strong state battery life. Offline training and online correction of data driven
models for RUL prediction has been worked and the author inferred that a reduction of
40% in Root Mean Square Error and 34% in mean uncertainty calibration error is achieved
with the augmented model [33].
(B.2) Statistical approach
The method of building a model for RUL prediction is statistical. A capacity deteriora-
tion model was created using data from earlier measurements. The application of statistical
modelling is straightforward and precise. In the subsections below, a few of the statistical
techniques utilized for RUL prediction are displayed.
(a) Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) technique
For battery RUL estimation, the ARIMA typical mostly substitutes the Autoregressive
version due to the predominance of underfitting at some point in version schooling. To
alleviate the problems associated with underfitting, ARIMA combines a shifting common
approach with an autoregressive model. A novel hybrid Elman-LSTM approach for estimat-
ing the amount of usable existence that a battery has left was developed using Elman neural
networks, long and short-term memory, and empirical model decomposition. This method
is made available by way of [34]. The recorded battery potential versus cycle number
data is broken down into several sub-layers using the empirical version decomposition
set of rules. Then, utilizing Elman neural networks and recurrent long and short-term
memory, high- and occasional-frequency sub-layer forecasting is performed. Large battery
test datasets were used to parameterize the models and assess their performance. The
appropriate HI for RUL prediction was determined using the capacity regeneration profile
data from the state of health (SOH) estimation. When compared to the RVM, echo state
network (ESN), and traditional ARIMA models, the determined RUL errors become in-
significant. The performance of the model can be enhanced through PDF computation,
as shown in [35]. A fractional-order equal circuit device is created using a combined Ge-

337
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

netic Algorithm/Particle Swarm Optimization technique. The model is able to predict the
voltage response using cycle-based comprehensive testing with a root-mean-squared error
below many others. A dual fractional-order prolonged Kalman filter is suggested in order
to obtain concurrent SOC and SOH estimates. Combining GM (1, 1), the ARIMA model,
and the Variational mode decomposition (VMD) denoising scheme allowed us to forecast
RUL, as is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. ARIMA based RUL prediction.

(b) Grey model technique

Enhancing the grey prediction classical means that we can use it to predict the number
of users in a public road transportation system [36]. For evaluating the behavior of an
unknown system, only small amounts of data are necessary. The forecasts are based on
a small number of data points. Three different strategies are used in three different grey
prediction models that have been presented to boost accuracy. To achieve the prediction
of time series, these models convert discrete sequences into a continuous and dynamic
differential equation. Each grey model is denoted by the notation GM (H, N), where H is
the number of variables and N is the order of the differential equation. Small amounts of
data are needed by the grey models to estimate the behavior of an unidentified system. The
grey prediction model is described in greater detail in the ensuing subsections.
With the appropriate optimization of the extracted HI, the accuracy of the grey model’s
performance was increased [37]. The suggested model showed great accuracy, robustness,
and dynamic flexibility. However, taking into account dynamic circumstances such as EV
application, the provided results may vary. The RUL is predicted using an improved grey
model, GM (1, 1), based on the HI that has been given. The experimental findings demon-
strate the effectiveness and precision of the suggested strategy for battery degradation
modelling and RUL prediction.
(B.3) Signal processing approach
With the help of the signal processing technique, significant data can be extracted.
Data augmentation is one of the traits of signal processing methods. To estimate battery
RUL, one can utilize a signal processing method. The DWT method is used to split a signal
into its component parts. Although the DWT technique is rarely used for battery RUL
prediction, it is commonly recognized for removing noise during the pre-processing of
battery data. In ref. [38], lithium-ion battery remaining useful life prediction is performed
using discrete wavelet transform. The remaining usable life and health are important
factors in determining how safely and reliably an electric vehicle operates. Several methods

338
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

have been used to estimate the RUL and SOH, with a focus on capacity loss, internal
resistance growth, voltage drop, self-discharge, and cycle count. Most works only take
batteries into account in specific circumstances. The model and identification techniques
are the most crucial elements in figuring out how accurate the prediction results would be.

3. Problem Formulation
(A) Data set
The overall performance of a battery diminishes for a variety of reasons, and the
reduction is not necessarily linear. Battery becoming older facts are required to develop
an RUL prediction set of rules and compare its balance and correctness. In the early
days of lithium-ion technology, battery life was limited. As a result, many ageing checks
are required to swiftly acquire battery growing older facts. Numerous charge–discharge
charges and ambient temperature are the most commonly utilized pressure parameters.
However, apparent battery aging checks take time, and complex and expensive sign
collection equipment is required to extract battery attributes from multiple aging cycles.
Several researchers have used publicly available battery information to validate their RUL
prediction algorithms. The Hawaii Natural Energy Institute evaluated 14 NMC-LCO
18,650 batteries with a nominal capacity of 2.8 Ah after being cycled over a thousand times
at a temperature of 25 ◦ C with a CC–CV rate of C/2 and a discharge price of 1.5C. The
unique dataset is used to create features that emphasize the behavior of the voltage and
current over the course of each cycle. These characteristics can be used to calculate the
batteries’ ultimate beneficial life (RUL). The dataset contains summaries for the 14 batteries.
Finally, voltage, current, and time are used to extract seven functions from the original
datasets. The goal is to forecast the battery’s RUL using these features. The characteristics
are listed in Figures 4–6:

ȱ
Figure 4. Profile of features F1, F2 and F3 in Voltage Discharge Cycle.

339
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

ȱ
Figure 5. Profile of features F4 and F5 in Voltage charge Cycle.

ȱ
Figure 6. Profile of features F6 and F7 in Current charge Cycle.

Characteristic features:
• Cycle Index: number of cycle;
• F1: Discharge Time (s);
• F2: Time at 4.15 V (s);
• F3: Time Constant Current (s);
• F4: Decrement 3.6–3.4 V (s);
• F5: Max. Voltage Discharge (V);
• F6: Min. Voltage Charge (V);
• F7: Charging Time (s);
• Total time (s);
• RUL: target.
The battery life cycle databases that are available to the general public do not provide
ready-to-use data for the assignment in [39]. Despite the fact that they incorporate various

340
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

factors such as voltage (V), current (A), time (S), discharge and fee capability (Ah), and
charge and discharge energy (Wh), not all of these factors can be employed for this enter-
prise. Voltage, cutting-edge, and time are the best inputs allowed. However, using such
variables as inputs right away is impractical because they provide worthless information
and are insufficient to construct a version. As a result, they must be used as a starting point
and adjusted to produce new qualities, which the neural community can use to educate.
(B) Elucidation of ML Algorithms
Machine learning (ML), a completely AI-based technique, teaches a machine to mimic
human behavior in order to carry out previously impossible tasks. It also encourages
communication between individuals and ML systems in order to make ML outcomes intel-
ligible to humans. Figure 7 depicts the extensive classification of gadget learning methods.
The ML era has the potential to improve both prognostic accuracy and computing efficiency
for predicting the RUL of Li-ion-based batteries. Machine learning aims to discover styles
and laws mechanically, using data experiments or in-person interactions [40].

Figure 7. Classification of Machine learning algorithms.

This type of guide vector tool technique has grown in popularity during the last
ten years. While using the technique as a regression strategy, its critical functions can be
maintained. When records are regressed using the SVM, it is known as support vector
regression (SVR). The RUL for Li-ion batteries can be predicted using the SVR technique.
We decided to use a hybrid version of the SVR particle elimination technique [41]. For the
terminal life cycle, an RUL prediction version that would offer the charge of RUL while
updating the possibility distribution was provided. The results confirmed the efficacy of
the cautioned RUL function prediction algorithms.
A simple and effective technique called KNN has been widely used in sample recogni-
tion for categorization. Using KNN and a specific number (k) of its closest neighbors in the
feature area, a testing factor is categorized. These neighbors are chosen from a selection of
educational websites with the right established categories. KNN regionally approximates
the feature and waits to compute it because it is a lazy studying collection of rules [42].
Supervised Learning:
The supervised learning approach uses an enter-and-output pair-based learning
dataset with the goal of implicitly establishing the mapping and intentional links be-
tween the inputs and outputs. The enter-and-output pairs’ class output for the education
dataset addresses a constrained set of discrete classes that need labelling. Information
input and output are mapped as the basic goal of supervised learning. As it depends on

341
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

supervision, supervised learning is analogous to when a student studies under a teacher’s

direction. Two further sorts of supervised learning issues can be identified:
(i) Classification;
(ii) Regression.
Unsupervised Learning:
Unsupervised learning is a sort of machine learning in which the computer is free to
make decisions based solely on the information provided. The algorithm wishes to act on
those records without supervision, thus the unsupervised models may be trained using the
unlabeled dataset, which is neither categorized nor labelled. The version in unsupervised
learning digs through the enormous number of facts in search of insightful data rather than
providing a deliberate outcome. They are used to overcome the Association and Clustering
difficulties As a result, they can be split into two groups:
(i) Clustering;
(ii) Association.
Reinforcement Learning:
When an agent uses reinforcement learning, it engages with its surroundings and
learns from the feedback it receives. The agent receives feedback in the form of prizes;
for instance, he gets a high compliment for every admirable activity and a bad reward for
every distasteful conduct. The agent is not subject to any supervision. The decision-making
process, which includes reinforcement algorithms, can be further divided into:
(i) Q-learning;
(ii) R-learning;
(iii) TD-learning.
Some of the popular machine learning algorithms which are used for prediction
purpose are:
1. Linear Regression Algorithm;
2. Random Forest;
3. Decision Tree;
4. Support Vector Machine;
5. Naïve Bayes;
6. K-Nearest neighbor;
7. Gradient Boosting Regressor;
8. Deep Neural Network;
9. K-means Clustering;
10. Q learning.
(C) Work Objective and Problem Formulation
A twofold objective is proposed for the present work. The first step is to extract and
build new features based on voltage, current, and time from the given source datasets. And
the second is to predict a battery’s RUL by working with machine learning methods using
Python 3.6.8 in Google Co laboratory. The methods employed produce the outcome in
terms of performance evaluation metrics like MSE, MAE, RMSE, and R2.

4. Proposed Methodology
(A) Framework for RUL Prediction
Although data-driven models can train quickly since they are based on historical
data, choosing the right hyperparameters for effective model training requires human
judgement. In this research, we suggest a novel RUL prediction framework. RUL prediction
implementation is broken down into three stages, which are covered below.
Stage 1: Extraction of characteristics from considered dataset and subsequent pre-
processing of data is performed.
Figure 8 shows the stage 1 flow chart. Here the battery dataset is obtained from Hawaii
Natural Energy Institute (HNEI). By evaluating the charging profile data and capacity the

342
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

input parameters voltage, current, and time are chosen, methodical sampling is employed.
The capacity degradation data are attained from discharging cycles, and normalizations of
data are done in this process.

Figure 8. Extraction and Processing of data.

Stage 2: Data Division and Model Training

Figure 9 shows the flow chart of the stage 2 process. In the second stage, the data are
divided into two components to facilitate model training, i.e., train and test the data. By

343
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

using the hit and trail method for solution of focused parameters input features are selected
and suitable algorithms are applied.

ȱ
Figure 9. Data division and model training.

Stage 3: Prediction and Investigation

In the last stage, as displayed in Figure 10, RUL prediction and performance indices
are calculated by Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean
Square Error (MSE), and Root Square (R2 ), and various training dataset combinations
are employed.

Figure 10. Prediction and Investigation of data.

(B) Selected ML Algorithms

The efficacy of a battery is determined by determining its remaining usable life.
Through the identification of elements that will raise and improve their efficiency, it sup-
ports the development and testing of numerous EV variations. The method involves a
number of parameters. Engineering difficulties with non-linearity and complexity can
be modelled using machine learning approaches. ML approaches offer a non-invasive
alternative with good accuracy and little processing, in contrast to the temporal constraints
of battery degradation. The report provides a thorough and impartial assessment of the dif-
ficulties. Individual studies of numerous RUL evaluation methods are conducted. Finally,
an overview that focuses on applications is provided, emphasizing the benefits in relations
of accuracy and efficiency. The planned technique has six different algorithms that are used
for obtaining the values of MSE, MAE, RMSE, and R Squared error. Figure 11 shows the
flow chart for the proposed method.

344
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

Figure 11. Flow chart for proposed method.

Random Forest Regression:

Random Forest, RF, may be applied for each type and regression, and it can manage
a tremendous quantity of information. Many parallels exist between decision tree and
random forest. The most basic distinction is that after the set of rules is run at some time in
education, RF generates a larger number of DTs. The three primary benefits of using RF are
that it eliminates the overfitting problem, has extremely high predictive accuracy, and is
simple to use. The Gini index, which is frequently used, must be understood when using
random forests that are entirely dependent on categorization data. The formula used to
decide how nodes on a decision tree branch is given below.
c
Gini = 1 − ∑i=1 ( pi )2 (1)

The capacity to anticipate batteries for the purpose of maintaining a consistent supply
of energy and the best possible use of that energy, remaining usable life (RUL), must be
calculated beforehand. When it comes to accurately anticipating the battery management
systems’ state of charge, we decided to forecast RUL using a random forest model. With the
help of this model, data may be gathered, pre-processed, and classified in order to forecast
RUL. In terms of R2 and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), the simulation is run. According
to the findings, the ensemble random forest model has a greater level of prediction accuracy
shows in Table 1. The random forest approaches utilized for RUL prediction are depicted
in Figure 12.

345
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

Table 1. Features of random forest method.

Parameter Value/Description
n_estimators 42
Max_features 09
Min_sample_leaf 10
Criterion Gini Impurity
Max_leaf_nodes 10

ȱ
Figure 12. Flow chart for RF method.

Decision Tree Regression:

Although it can also be used to address regression problems, the decision tree approach
to supervised learning is commonly used to solve classification problems. It is properly
suited to each unique and continuous variable. Figure 13 depicts a tree-like structure with
nodes and branches, beginning from the root node and progressing along extra branches
to the leaf nodes. The central node represents the dataset’s features, whereas branches
indicate decision-making techniques, and leaf nodes represent results.

Figure 13. Decision tree Regression.

To determine which direction the node should head in, entropy analyzes the likelihood
of a chosen outcome. It is more theoretically difficult to calculate than the Gini index since

346
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

it uses a logarithmic feature. Entropy can also be used to analyze the branching patterns of
nodes in a selection tree.
c
Entropy = ∑i=1 − Pi ∗ log2 Pi (2)
The DT classifier generates a final tree with leaves that reflect the final prediction and
branches that represent the observations [43]. The dataset is split up into a number of
subsets while the process is running, and these subsets are subsequently utilized to create
the DT. The well-known classifier DT is applicable to both classification and regression.
DT can therefore be applied to both numerical and categorical data. DTs are useful in a
range of applications because they work well when the dataset contains missing values.
Figure 14 shows the steps for predicting decision tree regression for RUL calculations shows
in Table 2.

Figure 14. Decision tree regression for RUL.

Table 2. Features of decision tree method.

Parameter Value/Description
Splitter Random subset of features
Max_depth -
Min_sample_split Two
Criterion Gini
Max_leaf_nodes -
Min_sample_leaf One
Max_features Nine
Class_weight -
Min_weight_fraction_leaf -

Linear Regression (LR):

Linear regression is one of the most well-liked and straightforward device mastery
procedures for predictive evaluation. Predictive analysis is used to explain what is pre-
dicted, and linear regression anticipates continuous values such as age, profitability, and
other factors. In response to the unbiased variable (x), the dependent variable (y) adjusts,
and the linear dating between the structured and independent variables is confirmed. The
regression line is the path that aims to maximize the statistics among the dependent and
independent variables. The equation for the regression line is:

y = a0 + a ∗ x + b (3)

where y = dependent variable; x = independent variable; and a0 = Intercept of line.

Procedures for linear regression are applied if the output is a continuous variable.
Instead, grading algorithms are utilized when output is classified into categories like
pass/fail, good/average/bad, etc. [44] shows in Table 3. The LR method is the basic
regression algorithm, but we also have other regression algorithms or classifying behaviors.
Figure 15 displays the flow chart for the linear regression model.

347
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

Table 3. Features of linear regression.

Parameter Value/Description
Linearity Relationship between x and mean of y
Homoscedasticity For any value of x, variance of residual is same
Observations Independent
Normality For any fixed x, y is normlly distributed

Figure 15. Flow chart for linear regression.

Gradient Boosting Regression:

An electric vehicle’s battery management system must be reliable and durable in order
to anticipate the state of charge. Lithium-ion batteries are heavily dependent on ageing
information, which is occasionally pricey, or no longer accessible online. For the purpose
of electrical car programs, it is strongly advised in [45] that the state of rate estimate of
lithium-ion battery systems be carried out using a gradient boosting approach, which may
also accumulate the nonlinear relationship model through offline training. The intensive
gradient boosting methodology, which successfully works and accelerates, is used in the
tree-based learning method.
To correct the flaws in the prior model, gradient boosting tree ensembles upload more
timber at each stage. Those models are typically applied when the heterogeneity of the
features is excessive. Unlike other boosting techniques like AdaBoost, this uses gradients to
identify flaws. Additionally, the Gradient Boosting model is more resilient against outliers
than the AdaBoost approach [46]. Evidently, gradient boosting is an expanded form of
AdaBoost that is capable of handling unique loss features showed in Table 4. Typical
loss features used in regression models include “huber” and “absolute” loss capabilities.
More protection against outliers is provided by these loss features than by squared loss
capabilities. We employed the Huber loss function as the loss function parameter in our
gradient boosting regressor model. x Consider a training set (xi , yi ) with i = 1, 2, 3, . . .,

348
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

N and a differential loss function (L(yi , z), here referred to as “deviance”), where z is the
predicted value. Set the model’s parameters to:
i=n
f 0 ( x ) = argminz ∑i=1 L(yi , z). (4)

Table 4. Features of gradient boosting regression method.

Parameter Value/Description
n_estimators 500
Max_features Nine
Learning rate 0.1
Random_state 100

For each observation in each tree calculate the gradient which is given by:

θ jm = argminz ∑ L(y, z + f ( xi )). (5)

Now, update the model of the succeeding tree with the gradient of the previous tree.
This is given by:
j= Jm
f m ( x ) = f m−1 ( x ) + ∑ j=1 l jm ∗ I. (6)

For each x which belongs to the region of that tree (i.e., Rjm ), the overall output is given
by fm (x).
The steps evolved for prediction of RUL using GBR are given below:
Step 1: Load the data.
Step 2: Define the target variables.
Step 3: Split the data into training and test sets.
Step 4: Initialize the GBR.
Step 5: Model the training data.
Step 6: Predict the target.
Step 7: Evaluate the performance.
Known as a Bayesian network, certain types of probabilistic graphics use Bayesian
reasoning to calculate probabilities. Bayesian networks represent conditional dependency
as edges in a directed graph with the objective of explaining conditional dependence and,
by extension, causality. Using factors, these correlations can readily be exploited to extract
data about the random variables in the graph [47].
To fully comprehend a Bayesian network, it is necessary to first grasp probability
theory. It is vital to remember that the joint probability distribution of the random variables
A_0, A_1, . . ., A_n, abbreviated as P(A_0, A_1, . . ., A_n), equals P(A_1|A_2, . . ., A_n) *
P(A_2|A_3, . . ., A_n) *... * P(A_n). As it comprises N components, each with a localized
probability, we can think of it as a factorized representation of the distribution.

n n k −1
P( Ak ) = ∏ P( Ak | AJ ) (7)
k =1 k =1 j =1

A and B are independent as long as C has a known and stable value. Remember
that the conditional independence between the random variables A and B equals C * P B,
assuming that C is the only other random variable. This can also be expressed in the way
we will utilize it, which is C = A community software.
A Bayesian network’s nodes and edges are directed acyclic graphs that represent
conditional relationships and discrete random variables, respectively. Because the region
(A, B) within the graph that implies A connects the random variables A and B, the joint
opportunity distribution explicitly considers this. In order for it to execute inference, we

349
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

must be aware of the P(B) possible values of A and B. Bayesian networks satisfy the nearby
Markov asset, which asserts that a node is conditionally independent of its non-descendants
given its parents. After simplification, In the Table 5 joint distribution of a Bayesian network
is equal (mother and father(node)), as shown below:
n n
P( X1....Xn) = ∏ P(Xi|X1, ....Xi − 1) = ∏ P(Xi| parents(Xi)) (8)
i =1 i =1

Table 5. Features of Bayesian Network.

Parameter Value/Description
Posterior—updated after evidence is
Probability
considered
Conditional independence Subset of variables
Directed acyclic graph Continued valued variables

This feature allows us to drastically reduce the amount of processing required in larger
networks because most nodes often have few parents relative to the size of the network as
a whole.
(C) Performance Error Indices
To assess the model’s accuracy and gauge how well it is functioning in its predictions,
the process of developing system mastering models must include this step. The evalu-
ation metrics vary depending on the problem type. The main issue with the regression
problem—possibly the most famous example of this kind of issue—is that a dataset’s
objectives can only include real values [48]. The errors display how frequently the version
makes erroneous predictions. The fundamental concept behind accuracy evaluation is to
use a set of criteria to compare the original aim with the anticipated one. Following are the
evaluation metrics:
C.1. MAE (Mean Absolute Error) is the difference between the original and predicted
values calculated by averaging the absolute difference over the facts set. As the projected
aim is the same, MAE is primarily a degree of accuracy for the labored model expressed on
the same scale. If MAE is closer to zero, the more accurate the model is.

1 n
n ∑ i =1 i
Mean Absolute error = (y − ŷ) (9)

C.2. MSE (Mean Squared Error) depicts the variance between the original and pre-
dicted values as determined by square rooting the mean variance throughout the data set.

1 n
n ∑ i =1 i
Mean Square Error = (y − ŷ)2 (10)

C.3. The error rate by the square root of MSE is known as (Root Mean Squared Error)
RMSE.

√ 1 n
n ∑ i =1 i
Root Mean Square Error = MSE= (y − ŷ)2 (11)

C.4. R-Squared (Coefficient of determination) represents the degree to which the

values fit the initial values. the proportions of values in the range of 0 and 1. The model
improves as the value increases.
2
∑(yi − ŷ)
R Squared = 1 − 2
(12)
∑ ( yi − y )

350
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

5. Results Analysis
Heat Map:
To show how closely related various factors are, these coefficients are presented as
a warmth map. It aids in locating trends that are useful for constructing device learning
models. The warmth map converts the correlation matrix into a color-coding system. The
correlation matrix displays how the variables are connected to one another on a scale of −1
to 1, with 1 signifying an extremely bad connection and −1 a flawless exceptional correla-
tion. The main function of the Heatmap in Seaborn is to show a color-coded correlation
matrix enabling easy visualization of the relationships between the statistical data.
From the heatmap in Figure 16, it can be inferred that:
• Features Time Constant Current’ and Charging Time have a strong positive correlation
with a value of 0.95.
• Features ‘RUL’ and ‘Maximum Voltage Discharge’ also have a strong positive correla-
tion with a value of 0.78.
• Another positive correlation is between features ‘Time at 4.15 V’ and ‘Discharge Time’
with a value of 0.78.
• Feature ‘Minimum Voltage Discharge’ has a strong negative correlation with features
‘RUL’ and ‘Maximum Voltage Discharge’ with values −0.76 and −0.72, respectively.

ȱ
Figure 16. Heat map for the features of the source dataset.

Table 6 illustrates the numeric RUL prediction errors of the Hawaii Natural Energy
Institute (HNEI) dataset’s batteries. In addition, it compares ML strategies. We looked
at five separate machine learning algorithms for predicting assessment metrics and the
range of evaluation predictive accuracy. In this case, the records are educated, and the high-
quality version forecasts are evaluated using the four outstanding overall performance error
indices MSE, RMSE, MAE, and R-Squared. In this case, inputs are defined for a wide range
of voltages, moderns, and temperatures for separate charging and discharging cycles. This
provides a simple framework for including an expansion of input features for prediction,
as well as general elapsed real time for training all algorithms. The battery RUL problem
is crucial for the efficient and reliable operation of battery-dependent systems and is an
active area of research and development, particularly in industries where batteries play a
vital role in powering critical applications. Predicting RUL accurately can help extend the
lifespan of batteries, reduce maintenance costs, and enhance overall system performance
and safety [49].

351
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

Table 6. Comparison of ML methods with evaluation metrics.

ML ALGORITHMS MSE RMSE MAE R-Squared TIME

Random Forest
14.1186 3.7574 2.0930 0.9998 0.0651
Regression
Decision Tree
26.8489 5.1816 2.2296 0.9997 0.1510
Regression
Linear Regression 54.5430 7.3853 4.6441 0.9994 0.0248
Bayesian network 54.5478 7.3856 4.6483 0.9993 1.2356
Gradient Boosting
57.4476 7.5794 4.9842 0.9990 2.5640
Regression

In summary, the battery RUL problem is closely related to various Sustainable De-
velopment Goals, particularly those related to clean energy, sustainable infrastructure,
climate action, responsible consumption, economic growth, and collaboration. Addressing
the battery RUL problem through research and innovation can contribute significantly to
achieving these global sustainability development goals:
Affordable and Clean Energy (SDG 7): one of the targets of SDG 7 aims to ensure
access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. Batteries play a
crucial role in energy storage and the transition to renewable energy sources such as solar
and wind. Extending battery run-time can make these energy sources more reliable and
accessible, helping to achieve the goal of clean and sustainable energy for everyone [50]. In
systems relying on batteries, knowing the remaining useful life allows for efficient planning
and operation. This information helps to ensure that energy storage systems and devices
continue to function reliably until the end of their expected lifespan [51].
Climate Action (SDG 13): It’s aims to combat climate change and its impacts. Batteries
are essential for electric vehicles and renewable energy systems, both of which play a critical
role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Improving battery run-time can accelerate
the adoption of these technologies and contribute to mitigating climate change. Further
regarding goal 13.1, one of the key targets is to strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity
to climate-related hazards and natural disasters [52].
The comparison graph of RF, DT, LR, BN, and GBR are shown in Figure 17 and it is
observed that the random forest regression (RF) method achieves the best value in MSE
measurement with 14.1186 which is lower than all the other four methods. Therefore, this
learning prediction method has higher robustness and better applicability. Accurate esti-
mation of a battery’s remaining useful life is crucial in various climate-related applications,
such as renewable energy systems and electric vehicles. By optimizing battery usage and
ensuring batteries operate at their full lifespan, we can reduce the need for premature
replacements and the associated environmental impacts, such as the carbon footprint of
manufacturing and disposing of batteries [53].

Figure 17. Mean Squared Error for different machine learning methods.

352
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

Figure 18 shows the training and prediction result for battery RUL prediction based
on RMSE evaluation. It can also be seen that the random forest (RF) model stages the best
performance for RUL prediction in terms of RMSE. This also verifies the advantage and
superiority of all the five different machine learning algorithms.

Figure 18. Root Mean Squared Error for different machine learning methods.

The MAE prediction of battery RUL is shown in Figure 19. This also verifies five
different ML algorithms for prediction and determines that the random forest regression
model has a good prediction capacity for determination of a battery’s RUL. This also
validates the effectiveness of the model for prediction.

Figure 19. Mean Absolute Error for different machine learning methods.

The statistical indicator R-Squared is predicted for RF, DT, LR, BN, and GB as shown
in Figure 20. This performance indicator describes the amount of uncertainty explained
by an independent variable. From these performance error indices, it determines which
approach achieves good efficiency with the other outperformed all the other methods.
The main contribution of this study is that it finds the optimized version and effectively
captures characteristics of RUL model prediction with less execution time. Figure 21
shows the execution time obtained for all five of the ML algorithms to perform different
performance error indices. This also shows the shorter training time and advantage features
of all the models proposed for prediction of RUL.

353
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

Figure 20. R-Squared Error for different machine learning methods.

Figure 21. Time taken by different Machine Learning Methods.

In addition, the following two SDGs are also positively impacted by addressing battery
run-time problem:
Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12): Sustainable batteries that last
longer reduce the frequency at which batteries need to be replaced, resulting in less waste
and fewer raw materials used in manufacturing. This aligns with SDG 12’s target to ensure
sustainable consumption and production patterns. Replacing batteries prematurely can be
costly, especially in applications such as electric vehicles, where batteries are a significant
part of the overall cost. Accurate RUL predictions help optimize the replacement schedule,
reducing unnecessary expenses, waste, and raw materials used [54].
Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (SDG 9): SDG 9 emphasizes the development
of resilient infrastructure and the promotion of sustainable industrialization. Longer battery
run-time can contribute to the development of more efficient and sustainable transportation,
communication, and industrial systems, reducing energy waste and promoting sustainable
infrastructure [55].
The profile of the five performance error indices of the given data set using all five
different machine learning algorithms is shown in Figure 22.

354
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

Figure 22. Error indices for different Machine Learning Methods.

6. Conclusions
This article studied the RUL prediction for the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute’s
(HNEI) real life battery dataset with various machine learning algorithms such as linear
regression, gradient boosting, random forest, decision tree, and the Bayesian network.
Subsequently the error metrics such as Mean Square Error (MSE), Root Mean Square Error
(RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), R-Squared, and execution time were determined
for the considered battery dataset. The proposed data driven model with all the ML
algorithms was executed in python with Google Co-laboratory. Each algorithm exhibited a
notable deviated relevancy with regard to the different system error indices. It is observed
from the obtained results that the random forest method had better optimized evaluation
metrics with less execution time and was also well suited for accurate RUL prediction. A
heatmap in seaborn was also generated for the dataset where voltage, current, and time
were considered to extract seven functions from the original datasets. A correlation matrix
has also been computed to illustrate the association between the coefficients as presented
in the warmth map.
In a global context, where energy sector emissions represent more than 75%, it is
important to highlight that good management and prediction of battery use can significantly
contribute to improving the efficiency and sustainability of energy storage systems. In
addition to promoting the adoption of clean energy, good battery management can help
reduce sector emissions and encourage innovation and collaboration between members of
the supply chain. In this way, the proposed methodology is interesting for its contribution
to several sustainable development goals, such as Clean and Affordable Energy (SDG 7),
and Climate Action (SDG 13).
The research findings highlighted in this article may be useful for the researchers
in predicting the battery RUL accuracy enhancing the overall battery efficiency. Future
research can be focused on further improving the accuracy of prediction by employing
Deep Learning, Hybrid Learning algorithms.

Author Contributions: Each author contributed equally in each part. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.

355
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

Institutional Review Board Statement: This article does not contain any studies with human partic-
ipants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data used to support the findings of this study are available from
the corresponding author upon request.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank to Sri Venkateswara University College of Engineering for
providing characterization supports to complete this research work. The authors claim that none of
the material in the paper has been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Explanation
LIB Lithium-ion battery
RUL Remaining useful life
SOH State of health
SOC State of charge
ML Machine learning
SVR Support vector regression
KNN K-Nearest neighbor
DT Decision Tree
GBR Gradient Boosting Regressor
DNN Deep Neural Network
MAE Mean Absolute error
MSE Mean Square Error
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
HNEI Hawaii National Energy Institute

References
1. Si, X.-S.; Wang, W.; Hu, C.H.; Zhou, D.H. Remaining useful life estimation–a review on the statistical data driven approaches. Eur.
J. Oper. Res. 2011, 213, 1–14. [CrossRef]
2. Sankarasubramanian, S.; Krishnamurthy, B. A capacity fade model for lithium-ion batteries including diffusion and kinetics.
Electrochim. Acta 2012, 70, 248–254. [CrossRef]
3. Ashwin, T.R.; Chung, Y.M.; Wang, J. Capacity fade modelling of lithium-ion battery under cyclic loading conditions. J. Power
Sources 2016, 328, 586–598. [CrossRef]
4. Sarasketa-Zabala, E.; Gandiaga, I.; Martinez-Laserna, E.; Rodriguez-Martinez, L.M.; Villarreal, I. Cycle ageing analysis of a
lifepo4/graphite cell with dynamic model validations: Towards realistic lifetime predictions. J. Power Sources 2015, 275, 573–587.
[CrossRef]
5. Liu, C.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Z. Degradation model and cycle life prediction for lithium-ion battery used in hybrid energy storge
system. Energy 2019, 166, 796–806. [CrossRef]
6. Ma, J.; Shang, P.; Zou, X.; Ma, N.; Ding, Y.; Sun, J.; Cheng, Y.; Tao, L.; Lu, C.; Su, Y.; et al. A hybrid transfer learning scheme for
remaining useful life prediction and cycle life test optimization of different formulation Li-ion power batteries. Appl. Energy 2021,
282, 116167. [CrossRef]
7. Ng, S.S.; Xing, Y.; Tsui, K.L. A Naïve Bayes Method for Robust Remaining Useful Life Prediction for Lithium-ion Battery. Appl.
Energy 2014, 118, 114–123. [CrossRef]
8. Wang, Y.; Yang, D.; Zhang, X.; Chen, Z. Probability based remaining capacity estimation using data-driven and neural network
model. J. Power Sources 2016, 315, 199–208. [CrossRef]
9. Feng, X.; Weng, C.; He, X.; Han, X.; Lu, L.; Ren, D. Online state-of-health estimation for Li-ion battery using partial charging
segment based on support vector machine. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2019, 68, 8583–8592. [CrossRef]
10. Wu, J.; Zhang, C.; Chen, Z. An online method for lithium-ion battery remaining useful life estimation using importance sampling
and neural networks. Appl. Energy 2016, 173, 134–140. [CrossRef]
11. Richardson, R.R.; Osborne, M.A.; Howey, D.A. Battery health prediction under generalized conditions using a Gaussian process
transition model. J. Energy Storage 2019, 23, 320–328. [CrossRef]
12. Hitesh Chandra, S.; Chandra Sekhar, J.N. Battery Management Systems for Electric Vehicles using Lithium-Ion Batteries
International. J. Sci. Res. 2022, 11, 1255–1261.

356
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

13. Yang, Y. A machine-learning prediction method of lithium-ion battery life based on charge process for different applications.
Appl. Energy 2021, 292, 116897. [CrossRef]
14. Bhalaji, N. Rimi Chowdhury Remaining Useful Life (RUL) Estimation of Lead Acid Battery using Bayesian Approach. J. Electr.
Eng. Autom. 2020, 2, 25–34.
15. Wua, J.; Kong, L. RUL Prediction for Lithium Batteries Using a Novel Ensemble Learning Method. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 313–326.
[CrossRef]
16. Ansari, S.; Ayob, A.; Lipu, M.H.; Hussain, A.; Saad, M.H.M. Remaining useful life prediction for lithium-ion battery storage
system: A comprehensive review of methods, key factors, issues and future outlook. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 12153–12185. [CrossRef]
17. Krewer, U.; Röder, F.; Harinath, E.; Braatz, R.D.; Bedürftig, B.; Findeisen, R. Review—Dynamic models of Li-ion batteries for
diagnosis and operation: A review and perspective. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2018, 165, A3656–A3673. [CrossRef]
18. Wang, Y.; Tian, J.; Sun, Z.; Wang, L. A comprehensive review of battery modeling and state estimation approaches for advanced
battery management systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 131, 110015.
19. Laayouj, N.; Jamouli, H. Lithium-ion battery degradation assessment and remaining useful life estimation in hybrid electric
vehicle. Renew. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2016, 2, 37–44. [CrossRef]
20. Guha, A.; Patra, A. Online estimation of the electrochemical impedance spectrum and remaining useful life of lithium-ion
batteries. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2018, 67, 1836–1849. [CrossRef]
21. Yang, F.; Wang, D.; Xing, Y.; Tsui, K.L. Prognostics of Li(NiMnCo)O2-based lithium-ion batteries using a novel battery degradation
model. Microelectron. Reliab. 2017, 70, 70–78. [CrossRef]
22. Wang, A.; Chen, H.; Jin, P.; Huang, J.; Feng, D.; Zheng, M. RUL estimation of lithium-ion power battery based on DEKF algorithm.
In Proceedings of the 2019 14th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA), Xi’an, China, 19–21 June
2019; pp. 1851–1856. [CrossRef]
23. Ferreira, C.; Gonçalves, G. Remaining Useful Life prediction and challenges: A literature review on the use of Machine Learning
Methods. J. Manuf. Syst. 2022, 63, 550–562. [CrossRef]
24. Stock, S.; Pohlmann, S.; Guenter, F.J.; Hille, L.; Hagemeister, J.; Reinhart, G. Early Quality Classification and Prediction of Battery
Cycle Life in Production Using Machine Learning. J. Energy Storage 2022, 50, 104144. [CrossRef]
25. Hasib, S.A.; Islam, S.; Chakrabortty, R.K.; Ryan, M.J.; Saha, D.K.; Ahamed, M.H.; Moyeen, S.I.; Das, S.K.; Ali, M.F.; Islam, M.R.;
et al. A Comprehensive Review of Available Battery Datasets, RUL Prediction Approaches, and Advanced Battery Management.
IEEE Trans. 2021, 9, 86166–86193. [CrossRef]
26. Cheng, D.; Sha, W.; Wang, L.; Tang, S.; Ma, A.; Chen, Y.; Wang, H.; Lou, P.; Lu, S.; Cao, Y.C. Solid-State Lithium Battery Cycle Life
Prediction Using Machine Learning. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4671. [CrossRef]
27. Thelen, A.; Li, M.; Hu, C.; Bekyarova, E.; Kalinin, S.; Sanghadasa, M. Augmented model-based framework for battery remaining
useful life prediction. Appl. Energy 2022, 324, 119624. [CrossRef]
28. Li, X.; Zhang, L.; Wang, Z.; Dong, P. Remaining useful life prediction for lithium-ion batteries based on a hybrid model combining
the long shortterm memory and elman neural networks. J. Energy Storage 2019, 21, 510–518. [CrossRef]
29. Chen, L.; Xu, L.; Zhou, Y. Novel Approach for Lithium-Ion Battery On-Line Remaining Useful Life Prediction Based on
Permutation Entropy. Energies 2018, 11, 820. [CrossRef]
30. Balochian, S.; Baloochian, H. Improving grey prediction model and its application in predicting the number of users of a public
road transportation system. J. Intell. Syst. 2020, 30, 104–114. [CrossRef]
31. Zhou, D.; Xue, L.; Song, Y.; Chen, J. On-line remaining useful life prediction of lithium-ion batteries based on the optimized gray
model GM (1, 1). Batteries 2017, 3, 21. [CrossRef]
32. Wang, Y.; Pan, R.; Yang, D.; Tang, X.; Chen, Z. Remaining useful life prediction of lithium-ion battery based on discrete wavelet
transform. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 2053–2058. [CrossRef]
33. GitHub. How the Dataset Was Built. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 1
March 2022).
34. Zhao, S.; Blaabjerg, F.; Wang, H. An Overview of Artificial Intelligence Applications for Power Electronics. IEEE Trans. Power
Electron. 2020, 36, 4633–4658. [CrossRef]
35. Dong, H.; Jin, X.; Lou, Y.; Wang, C. Lithium-Ion Battery State of Health Monitoring and Remaining Useful Life Prediction Based
on Support Vector Regression-Particle Filter. J. Power Sources 2014, 271, 114–123. [CrossRef]
36. Jayakumar, T.; Gowda, N.M.; Sujatha, R.; Bhukya, S.N.; Padmapriya, G.; Radhika, S.; Mohanavel, V.; Sudhakar, M.; Sathyamurthy,
R. Machine Learning approach for Prediction of residual energy in batteries. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 756–764. [CrossRef]
37. Chandran, V.; Patil, C.K.; Karthick, A.; Ganeshaperumal, D.; Rahim, R.; Ghosh, A. State of Charge Estimation of Lithium-Ion
Battery for Electric Vehicles Using Machine Learning Algorithms. World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 38. [CrossRef]
38. Hu, C.; Jain, G.; Zhang, P.; Schmidt, C.; Gomadam, P.; Gorka, T. Data-driven method based on particle swarm optimization and
k-nearest neighbor regression for estimating capacity of lithium-ion battery. Appl. Energy 2014, 129, 49–55. [CrossRef]
39. Jafari, S.; Shahbazi, Z.; Byun, Y.C.; Lee, S.J. Lithium-Ion Battery Estimation in Online Framework Using Extreme Gradient
Boosting Machine Learning Approach. Mathematics 2022, 10, 888. [CrossRef]
40. Patil, S.; Patil, A.; Handikherkar, V.; Desai, S.; Phalle, V.M.; Kazi, F.S. Remaining Useful Life (Rul) Prediction of Rolling Element
Bearing Using Random Forest and Gradient Boosting Technique. In Proceedings of the ASME 2018 International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 9–15 November 2018.

357
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15283

41. Guo, J.; Wan, J.L.; Yang, Y.; Dai, L.; Tang, A.; Huang, B.; Zhang, F.; Li, H. A deep feature learning method for remaining useful life
prediction of drilling pumps. Energy 2023, 282, 128442. [CrossRef]
42. Domathoti, B.; Ch, C.; Madala, S.; Berhanu, A.A.; Rao, Y.N. Simulation Analysis of 4G/5G OFDM Systems by Optimal Wavelets
with BPSK Modulator. J. Sens. 2022, 2022, 8070428. [CrossRef]
43. Zhao, F.; Xue, J.; Shao, W.; Yu, H.; Huang, W.; Xiao, J. Toward high-sulfur-content, high-performance lithium-sulfur batteries:
Review of materials and technologies. J. Energy Chem. 2023, 80, 625–657. [CrossRef]
44. Zhao, F.; Feng, Y.; Feng, W. Germanium-based monoelemental and binary two-dimensional materials: Theoretical and experi-
mental investigations and promising applications. InfoMat 2022, 4, e12365. [CrossRef]
45. Zhao, F.; Li, Y.; Feng, W. Recent Advances in Applying Vulcanization/Inverse Vulcanization Methods to Achieve High-
Performance Sulfur-Containing Polymer Cathode Materials for Li–S Batteries. Small Methods 2018, 2, 1800156. [CrossRef]
46. Li, X.Y.; Feng, S.; Zhao, C.X.; Cheng, Q.; Chen, Z.X.; Sun, S.Y.; Chen, X.; Zhang, X.Q.; Li, B.Q.; Huang, J.Q.; et al. Regulating
Lithium Salt to Inhibit Surface Gelation on an Electrocatalyst for High-Energy-Density Lithium–Sulfur Batteries. Am. Chem. Soc.
2022, 144, 14638–14646. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Sun, W.; Liu, S.; Li, Y.; Wang, D.; Guo, Q.; Hong, X.; Xie, K.; Ma, Z.; Zheng, C.; Xiong, S. Monodispersed FeS2 Electrocatalyst
Anchored to Nitrogen-Doped Carbon Host for Lithium–Sulfur Batteries. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2022, 32, 2205471. [CrossRef]
48. He, X.; Khan, S.; Ozturk, I.; Murshed, M. The role of renewable energy investment in tackling climate change concerns:
En-vironmental policies for achieving SDG-13. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 31, 1888–1901. [CrossRef]
49. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.;
et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
50. Türk, H. The Oil Crisis of 1973 as a Challenge to Multilateral Energy Cooperation among Western Industrialized Countries. Hist.
Soc. Res. 2014, 39, 209–230. [CrossRef]
51. India Becomes Associate Member of International Energy Agency; The Economic Times: Mumbai, India, 2022.
52. Javaid, M.; Haleem, A.; Singh, R.P.; Suman, R.; Gonzalez, E.S. Understanding the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in
improving environmental sustainability. Sustain. Oper. Comput. 2022, 3, 203–217. [CrossRef]
53. Yazdani, M.; Gonzalez, E.D.; Chatterjee, P. A multi-criteria decision-making framework for agriculture supply chain risk
management under a circular economy context. Manag. Decis. 2021, 59, 1801–1826. [CrossRef]
54. Küfeoğlu, S. SDG-13: Climate Action. In Emerging Technologies; Sustainable Development Goals Series; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2022. [CrossRef]
55. Campbell, B.M.; Hansen, J.; Rioux, J.; Stirling, C.M.; Twomlow, S.; Wollenberg, E. Urgent action to combat climate change and its
impacts (SDG 13): Transforming agriculture and food systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 34, 13–20. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

358
 sustainability

Article
Decent Work and Economic Growth in EU Countries—Static
and Dynamic Analyses of Sustainable Development Goal 8
Beata Bieszk-Stolorz * and Krzysztof Dmytrów *

Institute of Economics and Finance, University of Szczecin, 71-101 Szczecin, Poland

* Correspondence: [Link]-stolorz@[Link] (B.B.-S.); [Link]@[Link] (K.D.)

Abstract: The goal of this research is a static geographic comparison of the degree of Sustainable
Development Goal 8 (SDG8) implementation and to compare its dynamics for the European Union
(EU) in the period of 2002–2021 with the consideration of the COVID-19 pandemic. The level of
implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development objectives is monitored both jointly
and individually. This research uses the COPRAS, the Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) and the
hierarchical clustering methods. The study confirmed the geographical diversity in the degree of
SDG8 implementation. Nordic countries have the highest degree of implementation, while Greece,
Spain, Italy, Romania and Slovakia have the lowest. Some less-developed countries (Czechia, Poland
and Malta) were in the cluster where the implementation improved, and some well-developed
countries (France, Luxembourg and Portugal) were in the cluster in which the situation did not
improve or improved at a low degree. It was not possible to identify geographical diversity in the
dynamics of changes in the degree of SDG8 implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic caused the
decline in the degree of SDG8 implementation. The added value of the study consists of comparing
the dynamics of the degree of implementation of SDG8 using the DTW method. The obtained
conclusions may help to create policies for EU countries in this regard.

Keywords: sustainable development; SDG8; COPRAS method; dynamic time warping; hierarchical
Citation: Bieszk-Stolorz, B.; clustering; COVID-19
Dmytrów, K. Decent Work and
Economic Growth in EU
Countries—Static and Dynamic
Analyses of Sustainable Development 1. Introduction
Goal 8. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327.
In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly approved the universal 2030 Agenda
[Link]
for Sustainable Development [1]. It includes 17 distinct Sustainable Development Goals
su151813327
(SDGs) and 169 individual targets under these goals. They were at first thought to be
Academic Editors: Idiano D'Adamo, aspirational and global goals, and national governments were expected to decide how
Massimo Gastaldi and Manoj they should be integrated into national planning, policy and strategy processes. The goals
Kumar Nallapaneni were seen as milestones, setting the direction of changes but not defining implementation
Received: 11 August 2023 at the national level. The level of achievement of individual goals is monitored. Studies
Revised: 1 September 2023 such as this one are carried out both for all the goals together and for individual goals.
Accepted: 4 September 2023 The conclusions of the evaluation activities are intended to assist in their implementation.
Published: 5 September 2023 Undoubtedly, disruptions in their implementation may be caused by crises of a local nature,
i.e., affecting one country. However, due to the globalisation of socio-economic processes,
the greatest disruptions to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals are
brought about by crises of a global nature. Reporting on progress towards the Sustainable
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Development Goals is extremely important in terms of creating appropriate policy [2]. An
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. analysis of trends in publications in the area of the Sustainable Development Goals shows
This article is an open access article that one of the less highlighted goals is Sustainable Development Goal 8 (SDG8—Decent
distributed under the terms and
Work and Economic Growth) [3].
conditions of the Creative Commons
The goal of this research is a static geographic comparison of the degree of Sustainable
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
Development Goal 8 implementation and to compare its dynamics for the European Union
[Link]/licenses/by/
(EU) in the period 2002–2021 with the consideration of the COVID-19 pandemic. The
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327. [Link] 359 [Link]

Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

analysis was conducted in two planes. The first one was a static analysis in which the EU
countries were divided into homogeneous clusters with regard to the degree of achievement
of SDG8 in selected years: 2002 (the beginning of the research period), 2009 (the peak of the
financial crisis) and 2021 (the health crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic). The
second aspect was a dynamic analysis that compared the dynamics of the degree of SDG8
implementation and the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic. The following research
methods were applied: linear ordering using the COPRAS method, the Dynamic Time
Warping method and a hierarchical cluster analysis with the application of Ward’s method.
The stated research objective is to identify the most divergent countries from those with
the highest degree of SDG8 implementation (static analysis). The objective of the dynamic
analysis was to identify groups of countries with a similar direction of change in the degree
of SDG8 implementation. This may allow similar policies to be implemented to support
sustainable development. The dynamics of the composite measure will identify which
clusters of countries were most severely affected by the pandemic and which would require
specific support. The use of less frequently used statistical and mathematical methods in
the construction of composite measures can be considered an added value of the study [3].
This paper is organised as follows: Section 2 contains a discussion of the SDG8 targets
and a literature review. In Section 3, the data used in the study and applied research
methods are described. Section 4 contains a discussion of the results of the empirical study.
Section 5 contains a discussion and Section 6 contains conclusions, directions for future
research and limitations of the study.

2. Sustainable Development Goals

The Sustainable Development Goals were established by the United Nations General
Assembly in 2015 (Resolution approved by the General Assembly) [1]. Progress towards the
objectives is measured, monitored and evaluated using 17 goals. Sustainable Development
Goal 8 (SDG8) is to “promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full
and productive employment and decent work for all. SGD8 is the aspiration that the
economic sector of each country should provide its citizens with the necessary needs for
a good life, regardless of their origin, race or culture”. SDG8 has a total of twelve targets.
They are included in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Sustainable Development Goal 8 targets. Source: own elaboration on the basis of [4].

360
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

All Sustainable Development Goals are connected to each other. Research conducted
by Fonseca et al. [5] indicates that SDG8 is positively correlated with most of the other
SDGs. It is strongly and positively correlated with SDG2–SDG5, SDG7, SDG9, SDG11 and
SDG16, and strongly negatively correlated with SDG12 (Responsible Consumption and
Production). It should be noted here that SDG12 is negatively correlated with most of the
other targets.
There is no doubt that crisis situations have an impact on the realisation of the Sus-
tainable Development Goals. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has been such an
event. It has affected the socio-economic phenomena [6–10]. The Sustainable Development
Goals Report 2021 [11] indicates that even before the pandemic outbreak, global economic
growth had slowed. However, the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 severely disturbed
global economic activity. The COVID-19-driven recession was assessed as the worst since
the Great Depression.
As Kreinin and Aigner [12] highlight, SDG8 hinders society’s ability to achieve other
Sustainable Development Goals and prevent disastrous environmental crises. They point
out that a focus on economic growth and a focus on an increase in employment lead to
unsustainable and inequitable consequences. Currently, only sub-goals 8.4, 8.7 and 8.8 are
adequate in achieving the overall SDGs and 2030 Agenda goals of ending poverty and
ensuring prosperity and protection of the Earth. The authors proposed a redesigned SDG8
framework, together with new targets and a new set of indicators, which together are
expected to contribute to harmonising SDG8 with the overall goals of the 2030 Agenda.
Projections for the SDG targets in Austria for 2020 were presented by Bilek-Steindl
and Url [13]. They showed that the SDG8 targets are strongly linked to the underlying
economic situation and that the outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic are evident in the
results for 2020. In particular, the evaluation of indicators involving the economic aspect
has rapidly declined with the economic crisis. The authors point out that some of the data
on the SDG8 target are insufficiently up to date. They present ‘in-work at-risk-of-poverty
rate’ and the ‘resource productivity’ as examples. The lack of data published with sufficient
frequency makes forecasting difficult.
Regional organisations play an important role in the implementation of the SDGs.
Both the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union are
examining and experimenting with various institutional mechanisms to participate in the
achievement of these goals. The result of these experiments is the creation of new institu-
tional mechanisms and initiatives. These new institutional instruments and mechanisms
are characterised by varying degrees of effectiveness [14].
One of the issues that inhibits efforts to predict progress in implementing the Sustain-
able Development Goals is the lack of data on crises and the poor quality of some data [15].
Despite this, numerous attempts are being made to assess the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on the SDGs. The research conducted by Alibegovic et al. [16] presented the
impact of the pandemic on the SDGs in Italy. They found that SDG1 (No Poverty), SDG4
(Quality Education) and SDG8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) were the goals most
affected by COVID-19. In contrast, research by Shulla et al. [17] indicates the impact of
COVID-19 on stronger links between SDG4, SDG8, SDG3 (Health and Well-Being) and
SDG13 (Climate Action) goals. In Portugal, implementation of SDG8 during the first wave
of the pandemic was threatened by corporate bankruptcy and the increase in unemploy-
ment [18]. The research conducted by Lucas and Landman [19] consisted of an analysis of
the impact of COVID-19 on target 8.7. They point out the major limitations of the study
caused by limited data availability. As Ranjbari et al. [20] indicated, there was an urgent
need for action to support the achievement of the SDGs, particularly in the following direc-
tions: (1) opportunities for transformative sustainable development following COVID-19
with a focus on SDG12 (Consumption and Production) and SDG9 (Industry, Innovation
and Infrastructure), (2) innovative solutions for economic resilience in support of SDG1
(No Poverty), SDG8 and SDG17 (Partnerships for the Goals), and (3) an in-depth analy-
sis of the long-term implications of COVID-19 for social sustainability to achieve SDG4,

361
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

SDG5 (Gender Equality) and SDG10 (Reducing Inequalities). The research conducted by
Ranjbari et al. [21] attempted to identify priority areas for action after the COVID-19 crisis
towards the implementation of the SDGs under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-
ment. Target 8.3 (development-oriented policies for supporting creativity and job creation)
was identified as one of the highest priorities for action.
Most often, measures are taken to reduce the impact of crises negatively affecting
the overall level of sustainable development. However, the impact of crises is not always
negative. An example is the crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic
increased the demand for working from home, especially for parents with young children
or school-age children. As a result, teleworking has gained attention and is estimated to
continue in the future. Thus, a new form of employment in relation to the conventional
workplace has become widespread [22,23]. Also, the acceleration of digitalisation may soon
create more employment opportunities [24]. These factors have the potential to positively
influence employment by using more effective approaches that can strengthen the progress
towards the implementation of SDGS8 [25].
In their report, Sciarra et al. [26] ranked countries by the SDGs-GENEPY (GENeralised
economic comPlexitY) framework [27] and SDG Index [28]. European and North American
countries are at the top of these rankings. African and South Asian countries are in the
worst situation. The analysis conducted by Pakkan et al. [29] points to correlations between
the goals. SDG8 is often studied in conjunction with SDG9. In contrast, research conducted
for Australia by Bandari et al. [30] indicates a strong link between SDG8 and SDG2 (Zero
Hunger), and Rai et al. [31] argue that SDG8 focuses on Decent Work and Economic Growth
insufficiently. In addition, they argue that SDG8 is at odds with SDG5, which calls for the
value of domestic work and unpaid care to be recognised. On the other hand, the SDG8
implementation is positively influenced by the development of high-quality education,
which is embedded within SDG4 [32].
The European Union is pursuing an accelerated transformation from the present linear
economy to a circular one (CE). The CE is considered as a tool to achieve SDGs [33,34]. The
research conducted by Rodríguez-Antón et al. [35] showed a significant positive correlation
between the implementation of SDG8 and adherence to CE targets. This is particularly
evident in such countries as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
Finally, Jianu et al. [36] investigated labour market inequalities in the EU, as expressed
by specific indicators used for SDG8 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
on the basis of a cluster analysis for the 27 Member States. The first cluster comprised
the majority of EU countries, geographically located in Eastern and Central Europe along
with the Baltic countries, as well as two Mediterranean countries—Portugal and Greece.
The principal characteristics of these countries were low values of the real GDP per capita,
resource productivity and domestic material consumption and high values recorded for
the NEET indicator for young people, the in-work at-risk-of-poverty rate the and long-term
unemployment rate.
The analysis of the literature provided the basis for the following research hypotheses:

H1. It is possible to identify regions of the European Union with a similar level of SDG8 implemen-
tation.

H2. It is possible to identify regions of the European Union with similar dynamics of change in the
degree of SDG8 implementation.

H3. The COVID-19 pandemic caused the decline in the degree of SDG8 implementation.

The problem addressed in H1 is reflected in the available literature. The contribution

of this study is to present the changes in the geographical distribution of countries with a
similar degree of SDG8 implementation over a long research horizon. The verification of
H2 fills a research gap related to the assessment of the dynamics of change in the degree

362
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

of SDG8 implementation and its comparison using the DTW method. Also, the study of
the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the degree of SDG8 implementation using a
synthetic measure created with the COPRAS method (verification of H3) is the added value
of the research.

3. Data and Research Methodology

In this study, a pre-defined set of indicators included in the Eurostat database was used.
There are criticisms and proposals for new indicators in the literature. In their study, Kreinin
and Aigner [12] suggest a new SDG8 framework consistent with the strong sustainability
concepts of ‘Sustainable Work and Growth’. Similarly, Coscieme et al. [37] stress that
pursuing unconditional GDP growth risks failing to achieve the Sustainable Development
Goals. SDG8 implementation through continued GDP growth will make it more difficult to
achieve environmental and inequality reduction goals. They propose guidelines for the
selection of alternative indicators related to the achievement of SDG8. In addition, another
problem arises. Many of the SDG indicators used to monitor implementation of the goals
have long publication delays [38].
The Eurostat database collects data on sustainable development. These are grouped
according to individual headline goals and include variables to examine these targets. The
SDG8 data from period 2002–2021 were applied. There are eight variables related to the
implementation of SDG8:
1. x1 —GDP per capita in constant prices from year 2021 (in Euro);
2. x2 —Investment share of GDP by institutional sectors (percentage of GDP);
3. x3 —Young people (aged 15–29 years) neither in employment nor in education and
training by sex (NEET) (percentage of total population);
4. x4 —Employment rate (for persons aged 20–64 years) (percentage of total population);
5. x5 —Long-term unemployment rate (percentage of total population in the labour
force);
6. x6 —In-work at-risk-of-poverty rate (percentage of total employed persons, aged
18 years and more);
7. x7 —Fatal accidents at work per 100,000 workers;
8. x8 —Inactive population due to caring responsibilities (percentage of population aged
20–64 outside the labour force and wanting to work).
The Eurostat data are public and freely available. They are collected in accordance
with statistical reporting rules and have a high degree of reliability. These data do not
require ethical considerations. The calculations were conducted in R language [39] with the
use of the following libraries: clusterSim [40], dtw [41], NbClust [42] and factoextra [43].
The survey was conducted in several stages according to the following scheme
(Figure 2).
In the first step of the static analysis, the pattern, i.e., best values of all variables, were
determined (Table 1).

Table 1. Pattern values of indicators.

Specification x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8
EUR
Value 53.59% 4.70% 81.80% 0.60% 2.70% 0.45 2.40%
86,550.00
Country/ Luxembourg Ireland Denmark Sweden Czechia Finland Malta Sweden
year 2021 2019 2006 2018 2019 2017 2017 2002
Source: own calculations on the basis of Eurostat data.

The best values of variables vary across the countries and years. For half of the
variables, their best values were in the Nordic countries. This confirms the initial finding
that these countries are the ones with generally the highest degree of SDG8 implementation.

363
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

Figure 2. Research scheme. Source: own elaboration.

The static analysis (verification of H1) consisted of the selection of the homogeneous
clusters of countries, with the artificial one being the pattern country (the hypothetical one
with the best values of variables, as presented in Table 1). Although such an analysis can
be performed every year, the size would exceed the capacity of this research. Therefore,
three years were selected: 2002 (the beginning of the research period), 2009 (the peak of
the financial crisis) and 2021 (the health crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic).
The agglomerative clustering method with Ward’s method for minimising the total within-
cluster variance was used [44]. The hierarchical clustering was based on the distance matrix.
For the static analysis, the Euclidean distance matrixes between the countries were applied.
The dynamic analysis allowed for verification of H2 and H3. Its first stage was the
assessment of the degree of SDG8 implementation every year by means of linear ordering.
Linear ordering methods are types of multivariate statistical analysis. The idea of linear
ordering methods is the creation of a composite measure from a set of a larger number of
variables. There are many linear ordering methods, which can be divided into two main
groups: the pattern and patternless methods. The pattern methods assess the position
of every object by means of the weighed distance of them from the so-called pattern or
anti-pattern, which is the hypothetical object with the best (worst) values in the dataset.
The patternless methods are based on the weighed sums of normalised variables. One of
the patternless methods—the COPRAS method—was selected. In the second stage of the
dynamic analysis, we compared the time series created from the composite measures by
means of the DTW method and used the results in hierarchical clustering to distinguish
homogeneous clusters of EU countries with respect to the dynamics of the degree of SDG8
implementation (verification of H2). In the third stage of the dynamic analysis, we assessed
the influence of COVID-19 on the degree of SDG8 implementation (verification of H3).
It is worth noting that the static and dynamic analyses are complimentary, and thus
cannot be directly compared. The static analysis was conducted for every year separately,
while the dynamic one was conducted for the whole period (2002–2021).

364
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

3.1. The COPRAS Method

The COPRAS (the COmplex PRoportional Assessment) method was invented by the
Lithuanian researchers Zavadskas et al. [45]. It was created for the needs of the decision
theory and belongs to the group of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods.
MCDM methods are used to analyse the Sustainable Development Goals [46]. There are no
clearly defined ways of selecting methods. When it comes to ranking, different methods
may give different results [47]. The COPRAS method is also applied in the analysis
of socio-economic phenomena [48–51]. However, it can also be used in multivariate
statistical analysis. There are five steps of the COPRAS method. In the first one, there is the
observation matrix X:
⎡ ⎤
x11 x12 · · · x1m
  ⎢ ⎢ x21 x22 · · · x2m ⎥
⎥
X = xij = ⎢ . .. . .. ⎥ for i = 1, ..., n; j = 1, ..., m (1)
⎣ .. . . . . ⎦
xn1 xn2 ··· xnm

where the components are as follows:

xij —Value of j-th variable in the i-th object;
n—Number of objects;
m—Number of variables.
In the second step, the data are normalised in order to remove units and ensure that
the variables have the same order of magnitude. In this research, one of the quotient
inversions, given by the following formula, was selected:
xij
zij =  for i = 1, ..., n j = 1, ..., m (2)
∑in=1 xij2

where zij is the value of the j-th variable in the i-th object after normalisation.
In the third step, the weighted normalised values of variables are calculated:

tij = zij w j , i = 1, . . . , n; j = 1, . . . , m (3)

where w j is the weight of the j-th variable, satisfying the following conditions:

w j ∈ 0, 1 (4)
m

∑w = 1 j (5)
j =1

There are many methods used to assess the weights of variables. In this research, equal
weights were assumed. The reason for this was that the weights allocated by statistical
methods (on the basis of variation or correlation between variables) would vary from year
to year. By contrast, using expert methods to assign weights would have resulted in a
high level of subjectivity. As it is difficult to state whether some variables are of greater
importance than others, equal weights are assumed. In the fourth step, the weighted sums
for stimulants (Si+ ) and destimulants (Si− ) for all objects are calculated:

Si+ = ∑t ij for i = 1, . . . , n (6)

j∈ J +

Si− = ∑t ij for i = 1, . . . , n (7)

j∈ J −

where the components are as follows:

365
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

J + —Variables that are stimulants;

J − —Variables that are destimulants.
Stimulant variables are the ones where the highest values are the most preferred, and
destimulants are the opposite. In our case, the variables x1 , x2 and x4 are the stimulants.
The remaining variables are the destimulants. In the fifth step, the value of the synthetic
variable is obtained:
∑n S−
qi = Si+ + − i=n1 i 1 for i = 1, . . . , n (8)
Si ∑ i = 1 S −
i

The value of qi is not normalised; max{qi } is the best object and min{qi } is the worst
i i
object. The composite measures for every country every year were calculated. These
variables then created the time series of the degree of SDG8 implementation, which were
compared with the use of the Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) method.
The advantage of the COPRAS method in this study over methods based on distances
from the pattern and anti-pattern is due to the fact that their values also deteriorate during
crises, which does not necessarily translate into a deterioration of the synthetic variable.
Relying on the weighted sums of the normalised values alone (as in the COPRAS method)
results in a decrease in the value of the synthetic measure when the indicators deteriorate
and an increase if they improve. A disadvantage of the COPRAS method is that there must
be at least one variable that is a destimulant. In this study, this assumption is satisfied.

3.2. Dynamic Time Warping (DTW)

DTW measures the similarity between time series. This method uses dynamic pro-
gramming to find the optimal match between them with respect to a given score function. It
was proposed by Bellman and Kalaba [52] and first used for speech recognition [53,54]. Its
primary use has been in technical sciences, although more and more often its applications
cover the areas of finance [55–57], labour markets [58,59] and energy markets [60–62].
There are four steps of the DTW method. Let X = ( x1 , x2 , . . . , x N ) and Y = (y, y2 , . . . , y M )
be two time series. In the first step, the time series are normalised. The z-normalisation was
selected. In the second step, the local measure of cost for two elements of X and Y is specified.
   
c xi , y j =  xi − y j  for i = 1, 2, . . . , N, j = 1, 2, . . . , M (9)

In the third step, the time warping path is constructed, which is the point-to-point
match between X and Y by means of the following sequence:

p = ( p1 , . . . , p L ), pl = (nl , ml ) ∈ {1, . . . , N } × {1, . . . , M} (10)

for l ∈ {1, . . . , L}( L ∈ {max( N, M ), . . . , N + M − 1}).

This satisfies the boundary, monotonicity and step-size conditions. The first condition
provides that the first and the last element of p are p1 = (1, 1) and p L = ( N, M ) (the first
(last) index from the first sequence must be matched with the first (last) index from the
second one). The monotonicity and step-size conditions provide that the path always goes
up, right or up and right of the current position, i.e.,

pl +1 − pl ∈ {(1, 0), (0, 1), (1, 1)}for i = 1, . . . , L − 1 (11)

In the fourth step, the optimal match is found. It satisfies all the aforementioned
restrictions and minimises the total cost c p ( X, Y ) of a warping path p. This cost is calculated
using the following equation:

L L
  
c p ( X, Y ) = ∑c x nl , yml ) = ∑ x nl − yml  (12)
l =1 l =1

366
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

Therefore, the optimal alignment between X and Y is

  
DTW ( X, Y ) = c p∗ ( X, Y ) = min c p ( X, Y ) p ∈ P (13)

where P is the set of all warping paths.

The DTW distance, i.e., a stretch-insensitive distance between the two time series,
which is also the minimum distance between the series X and Y, is therefore defined as

DTW ( X, Y ) = D ( N, M ) (14)

The degree of similarity between time series can also be tested using other distance
measures, such as the Euclidean metric or other known distance measures. The first
advantage of the DTW method in this respect is that the time series being compared do not
have to be of equal lengths. The second advantage of this method is that it adjusts much
better to differences in the cycles.
The calculated distances were applied in hierarchical clustering. The assessed simi-
larities between the analysed time series by means of DTW were used in the hierarchical
agglomerative clustering. A dendrogram was built with the use of the Ward’s method.

4. Empirical Results and Discussion

The data used in the study covered the years 2002–2021. The static analysis was
conducted for each year separately. The exact results of the cluster analysis for three years
are presented: 2002 (the first analysed year), 2009 (the peak of the financial crisis) and 2021
(the COVID-19 pandemic). The countries were also joined by a hypothetical ‘ideal’ country
with values for the variables that are the pattern of development. The variables were
normalised by using the [Link] function from the clusterSim R package.
In every analysed year, we specified the number of clusters by using the NbClust function
from the NbClust R package and applying the Beale index [63]. The results are presented
in Figures 3–5 (the dendrograms were drawn by using the fviz_dend function from the
factoextra R package).

Figure 3. Homogeneous clusters of the European Union countries and the pattern—the degree of
SDG8 implementation in 2002. Source: own calculations.

367
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

Figure 4. Homogeneous clusters of the European Union countries and the pattern—the degree of
SDG8 implementation in 2009. Source: own calculations.

Figure 5. Homogeneous clusters of the European Union countries and the pattern—the degree of
SDG8 implementation in 2021. Source: own calculations.

4.1. Results of the Static Analysis

The static analysis was used to verify H1.
In each of the three analysed years (2002, 2009 and 2021), the hypothetical pattern
country always formed a separate cluster. This means that even the countries with the
overall best situation with respect to the implementation of SDG8 had some weaker areas
that did not allow them to be in the same cluster as the hypothetical pattern country.
In 2009 only, Luxembourg had the most similar situation with respect to the degree of
implementation of SDG8 as the pattern country (Figure 4). In each of the three analysed
years, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland were in one cluster. They were

368
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

the countries that, in the majority of the analysed years, were at the top of the degree
of SDG8 implementation. Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Greece and Malta were,
at the beginning of the period under analysis, in the group of countries with the lowest
degree of SDG8 implementation (Figure 3). Over the years, Slovakia’s position improved
slightly, and Italy and Spain joined the cluster of countries with the lowest degree of SDG8
implementation. Germany, Belgium, Ireland and France were the countries forming clusters
with a good (but not the highest) degree of SDG8 implementation throughout the analysed
period. The remaining countries that joined the EU in 2004 were among those with an
average degree of SDG8 implementation. The degree of SDG8 implementation in Ireland
and Luxembourg was high, but their membership in the clusters was the most changing.
The next two countries whose membership in the clusters was variable were Poland and Malta.
They, in turn, are at the other pole of the degree of SDG8 implementation. Crisis periods have
most severely deteriorated the degree of SDG8 implementation in Spain and Italy. This is also
reflected in their membership in the clusters in 2009 and 2021 (Figures 4 and 5).

4.2. Results of the Dynamic Analysis

The dynamic analysis was used to verify H2 and H3. In the first stage of the dynamic
analysis, the degree of SDG8 implementation was assessed by means of the COPRAS
method. In each year, the synthetic measures were calculated for every country. Thus, the
obtained time series of the synthetic measure for every country were compared pairwise by
using the DTW method. In the second stage of the dynamic analysis, on the basis of these
comparisons, the DTW distance matrix for the whole period by using the dtw function
from the dtw R package was obtained. This matrix reflects the comparison of dynamics
of the degree of SDG8 implementation and was the basis for the hierarchical clustering
(Ward’s method). Similarly, as in the static analysis, the Beale index in the NbClust function
from the NbClust R package was applied to obtain the optimal number of clusters and the
fviz_dend function from the factoextra R package to draw the dendrogram. The results
of this analysis verify H2 and are presented in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Homogeneous clusters of the European Union countries—dynamic analysis of the degree
of SDG8 implementation. Source: own calculations.

A total of 15 clusters with respect to the similarity of dynamics of the degree of SDG8
implementation were obtained. Italy (further referred to as Cluster 1), Spain (Cluster 2),
Sweden (Cluster 3), Greece (Cluster 4), Portugal (Cluster 5), Ireland (Cluster 6), Slovenia

369
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

(Cluster 7), Bulgaria (Cluster 8), Cyprus (Cluster 9) and Croatia (Cluster 10) formed separate
single clusters. The dynamics of the synthetic variable formed clusters for the following
countries:
• Estonia and Lithuania (Cluster 11);
• Romania, Czechia, Slovakia, Belgium and Latvia (Cluster 12);
• Malta, Hungary, Germany and Poland (Cluster 13);
• Denmark, Luxembourg and Austria (Cluster 14);
• France, the Netherlands and Finland (Cluster 15).
It can be found that the similarity of countries with the degree of SDG8 implementation
(static analysis) does not have much in common with their dynamics. In general, it was hard
to distinguish well-separated clusters with respect to dynamics of the SDG8 implementation.
That is why the optimal number of them is that big. The results indicate that it is hard to
find similarities between the dynamics of the degree of SDG8 implementation between
the EU countries. The most similar countries with regard to the dynamics of the degree of
SDG8 implementation were Poland and Germany, while Portugal was the most dissimilar
with respect to all other EU countries. In the cases of Greece and Spain, the degree of SDG8
implementation at the end of the analysed period was lower than at the beginning. For
Portugal (the most dissimilar country with comparison to other ones), it was the most
steady (the degree of SDG8 implementation in Portugal had only small fluctuations). The
highest increase was observed in the case of Ireland.
In the last stage of the dynamic analysis, H3 was verified. The average values of the
COPRAS measure for each of the 15 clusters, obtained in the previous stage, are presented
in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Dynamics of the degree of SDG8 implementation in the clusters of the EU countries in years
2002–2021. Source: own calculations.

The dynamics of all clusters varies, which confirms the findings from the second
stage (Figure 6). However, some common regularities for each cluster can be seen. Firstly,
the financial crisis of 2007–2008 did not cause a significant decline in the degree of SDG8
implementation. Some clusters (3 and 15) showed its high increase. The second common
regularity for all clusters is the decline in the year 2020 (the first year of the COVID-19
pandemic). In 2021, the degree of SDG8 implementation increased in most clusters. Only
Clusters 3, 6, 8, 14 and 15 reported a further decline in SDG8 implementation. Therefore,

370
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

this confirms H3, that the COVID-19 pandemic caused deterioration in the degree of SDG8
implementation. However, high differences between the clusters’ dynamics (especially
since Clusters 1–10 consist of single countries) indicate that the directions of changes are
different. This makes the implementation of a common policy with regard to the degree of
SDG8 implementation difficult, if not impossible.

5. Discussion
The first research hypothesis concerned the geographical variation in the degree of
SDG8 implementation. It was verified positively. The conducted study confirms the results
of other studies. The results of the analysis by Rocchi et al. [64] showed that in 2019, the
Nordic countries were the most advanced among European countries in terms of achieving
the SDGs. These countries were at the top of the ranking for all dimensions, except for
the environmental dimension in the case of Denmark. Moreover, Barbier and Burgess [65]
explain such results by the institutional effectiveness and good governance associated with
long-term development and success in sustainable development. This fact can explain
the high position of the Nordic countries in terms of SDG implementation. The EU Baltic
States and the post-communist countries performed the worst. The low position of the
EU post-communist countries is due to their later accession to the EU. It should be noted
that their accession had a positive impact on economic development, including the labour
market [59]. However, the question of whether the economies of EU members are ‘driving’
the economies of EU candidates depends on a number of factors and is still open [66].
The high position of Sweden in terms of the implementation of all SDGs was pointed
out by Stanujkic et al. [67]. And although this country was not leading in all the goals
implemented, it ranked very high (e.g., SDG8) or high in all of them. Their research
indicates a weak position of Romania, as well as Bulgaria. This is consistent with our
analysis. Both countries are Eastern European ones and joined the EU in 2007. These
countries have not included sustainable development as a demand in their policies yet.
Interestingly, Romania ranks high in terms of implementing SDG7 [61]. Studies indicate an
improvement in the energy use process in this country [68]. However, improvements are
needed in the targets included in SDG8.
The targets and their constituting indicators of SDG8 in 2019 were assessed by Skvar-
ciany and Astikė [69]. They showed that the most important indicator is the annual growth
rate of the real GDP per employed person. In 2019, the countries that progressed the most
in the implementation of SDG8 were Germany and France. Finland and Latvia made less
progress in SDG8 implementation. The level of SDG8 implementation in EU countries
between 2001 and 2020 was analysed by Grzebyk et al. [70]. Their results confirm that in
most EU countries there have been positive changes in its implementation in the years
studied. This is demonstrated by the increasing values of the synthetic measure calculated
for each of the EU27 countries. According to their ranking in 2020, the Netherlands and
Sweden were in the highest positions and Bulgaria and Romania were in the lowest po-
sitions. The latter two countries formed a separate cluster of countries in our 2021 study.
In contrast, our analysis with respect to dynamics of the degree of SDG8 implementation
indicated that both countries at the top of the ranking and at the bottom of the ranking were
in separate clusters. This shows that changes in the implementation of the SDG8 targets in
these countries have occurred in different ways. In contrast, in Carlsen’s [71] ranking of the
EU27 countries for 2019, the first two are Sweden and Austria and the last two are Greece
and Bulgaria. In creating this ranking, the author considered the five main indicators that
characterise SDG8. These were in relation to our variables: x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 and x5 . The ranking
created for 2020 by Kuc-Czarnecka et al. [72] showed that the best positions were held by
the Netherlands and Finland, and the worst positions were held by Greece and Cyprus. In
the latter study, the authors used different weights for all variables.
In the static analysis, Luxembourg and Ireland were often the outliers. This is con-
firmed by the study conducted by D’Adamo et al. [73]. As the authors point out, the
distinguishing feature of these countries is a very attractive tax system, which appears

371
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

to have succeeded in stimulating economic growth but has failed to reconcile it with the
Sustainable Development Goals.
The verification of H2 was based on the DTW method, which is rarely used in studies
on the SDGs. An example of such application was the study of SDG7 by Dmytrów et al. [61].
This study was able to identify homogeneous clusters of countries geographically. Unfor-
tunately, it was not possible to extract such clusters in the current study on SDG8. A very
large number of clusters were obtained, which were highly internally heterogeneous, as well
as many clusters consisting of individual countries. This demonstrates the high diversity of
EU countries according to the dynamics of the degree of SDG8 implementation. This may
be related to the fact that EU countries are diverse in terms of their policies. There is a need
to tailor programmes to the specifics of each region [74]. In addition, the main implications
of the research by Anselmi et al. [75] are that Europe is moving towards the Sustainable
Development Goals in an uneven manner, and so there is a need to define an agenda that
allows for greater cooperation between several countries.
The third research hypothesis states that the COVID-19 pandemic caused a decline
in the degree of SDG8 implementation. This is consistent with the research conducted by
Grzebyk et al. [70]. In the last year of their study, 2020, the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic
was observed. Also, other conducted studies are consistent with H3 [16–20]. Research
conducted by Shuai et al. [76] identified progress towards the SDG targets after COVID-19
in the period 2020–2024 by means of predicted GDP and population growth and machine
learning models. They justified that the total implementation of the SDGs declined by 7.7%
in 2020 globally, with the performance of the 12 socio-economic SDGs (including SDG8)
declining by 3.0–22.3% and the performance of the 4 environmental SDGs increasing by
1.6–9.2%. By 2024, progress on the 12 Sustainable Development Goals (including SDG8)
will be delayed by one to eight years in comparison with their pre-COVID-19 trajectories,
while the 4 environmental SDGs will gain additional time. Only the trajectory of SDG5
remained unchanged.

6. Conclusions
Decent Work and Economic Growth remains central to the prosperity of countries.
Emerging crises cause countries around the world, including in the European Union, to
face unexpected challenges.
It follows that the sustainable development of European countries is not uniform. It
depends on their level of economic development, political and historical circumstances and
the level of development of society. It will be interesting to see whether all countries will
reach their targets in 2030. Therefore, research in this area is worth continuing.
A study of this type has some limitations. On the one hand, data for individual SDGs
are available in the Eurostat database and grouped accordingly. On the other hand, the
individual targets overlap. Hence, the question arises whether other variables should not
also be taken into account when assessing the degree of achievement of a selected SDG.
It is also interesting to note the proposals in the literature for other indicators. However,
it happens that the data needed for the determination of other types of indicators are
not collected with sufficient frequency and concern, for example, five-year periods. In
addition, the data used for the classic indicators are provided with a delay of at least one
year. Having more up-to-date data is essential in order to make effective and timely policy
decisions. Another critical aspect is the fair assignment of weights. Researchers are also not
consensual in assigning weights to individual indicators. Their inclusion may contribute to
interesting new research results.
The conducted research allowed the first research hypothesis to be positively verified.
The regions of the European Union with the highest degree of SDG8 implementation were
the Nordic countries together with the Netherlands. On the other hand, the countries
of Southern and Southeastern Europe were characterised by the lowest degree of SDG8
implementation. The second research hypothesis could not be positively verified. The dy-
namics of change in the degree of SDG8 implementation did not depend on the geographic

372
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

location of a country, and no clearly differentiated clusters could be identified. The positive
verification of the third hypothesis indicates a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
on the level of SDG8 implementation in EU countries.
This analysis may also encourage us to draw some policy recommendations. Countries
with a low level of the degree of SDG8 implementation should follow the realisation of
policy with respect to the Nordic countries, as they are the best in this regard. In the
need for analysing the dynamics of the degree of SDG8 implementation, Ireland should
be considered, as in the case of this country the increase in the indicators was the highest.
The conclusions of this research may have a number of implications for governing bodies
and policy makers in EU governments. When SDG8 implementation is low, it is necessary
to change the governance model and take rigorous action. It is also important to establish
cooperation between good and weak countries in order to equalise the level of SDG8
implementation. There is a need to adapt policies and programmes to the specific needs
and characteristics of each region. There is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all approach to
guarantee success. The specific economic, social and environmental circumstances of the
regions must always be taken into account.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.B.-S. and K.D.; methodology, B.B.-S. and K.D.; software,
B.B.-S. and K.D.; validation, B.B.-S.; formal analysis, K.D.; investigation, B.B.-S. and K.D.; resources,
B.B.-S. and K.D.; data curation, B.B.-S. and K.D.; writing—original draft preparation, B.B.-S. and K.D.;
writing—review and editing, B.B.-S. and K.D.; visualization, K.D.; supervision, B.B.-S. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All data are from [Link]
database (accessed on 15 December 2022).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. UN General Assembley 70 Session.
Available online: [Link]
20Development%[Link] (accessed on 15 September 2022).
2. Alsayegh, M.F.; Ditta, A.; Mahmood, Z.; Kouser, R. The Role of Sustainability Reporting and Governance in Achieving Sustainable
Development Goals: An International Investigation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3531. [CrossRef]
3. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.; et al.
Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
4. United Nations. Goal 8 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 23 August 2022).
5. Fonseca, L.M.; Domingues, J.P.; Dima, A.M. Mapping the sustainable development goals relationships. Sustainability 2020,
12, 3359. [CrossRef]
6. Fatih, C. What Can SVAR Models Tell us About the Impact of Public Expenditure Shocks on Macroeconomic Variables in Algeria?
A Slight Hint to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Folia Oecon. Stetin. 2021, 21, 21–37. [CrossRef]
7. Bieszk-Stolorz, B.; Dmytrów, K. Assessment of the Similarity of the Situation in the EU Labour Markets and Their Changes in the
Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3646. [CrossRef]
8. Machová, R.; Korcsmáros, E.; Marča, R.; Esseová, M. An International Analysis of Consumers’ Consciousness During the Covid-19
Pandemic in Slovakia and Hungary. Folia Oecon. Stetin. 2022, 22, 130–151. [CrossRef]
9. Musa, H.; Rech, F.; Yan, C.; Musova, Z. The Deterioration of Financial Ratios During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Does Corporate
Governance Matter? Folia Oecon. Stetin. 2022, 22, 219–242. [CrossRef]
10. Streimikiene, D. Energy poverty and impact of Covid-19 pandemics in Visegrad (V4) countries. J. Int. Stud. 2022, 15, 9–25.
[CrossRef]
11. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021. Available online: [Link] (accessed on
31 August 2022).
12. Kreinin, H.; Aigner, E. From “Decent work and economic growth” to “Sustainable work and economic degrowth”: A new
framework for SDG 8. Empirica 2022, 49, 281–311. [CrossRef]

373
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

13. Bilek-Steindl, S.; Url, T. Nowcasting and monitoring SDG 8. Empirica 2022, 49, 313–345. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Marx, A.; Pertiwi, S.B.; Depoorter, C.; Hoornick, M.; Mursitama, T.N.; Otteburn, K.; Arnakim, L.Y. What role for regional
organizations in goal-setting global governance? An analysis of the role of the European Union and ASEAN in the Sustainable
Development Goals. GPPG 2021, 1, 421–445. [CrossRef]
15. Marzouk, M.; Azab, S.; Elshaboury, N.; Megahed, A.; Metawie, M.; El-Hawary, M.; Ghaith, D.; Bayoumi, A.E.M. Modeling
COVID-19 effects on SDGs using system dynamics in Egypt. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 59235–59246. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Alibegovic, M.; Cavalli, L.; Lizzi, G.; Romani, I.; Vergalli, S. COVID-19 & SDGs: Does the current pandemic have an impact on the
17 Sustainable Development Goals? A qualitative analysis. FEEM Policy Brief 2020, 7, 1–18.
17. Shulla, K.; Voigt, B.F.; Cibian, S.; Scandone, G.; Martinez, E.; Nelkovski, F.; Salehi, P. Effects of COVID-19 on the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). Discov. Sustain. 2021, 2, 15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Borrego, A.C.; Carreira, F.A.; Pardal, P.; Abreu, R. Social Responsibility and SDG 8 during the First Wave of the COVID-19
Pandemic: The Role of Chartered Accountants in Portugal. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8625. [CrossRef]
19. Lucas, B.; Landman, T. Social listening, modern slavery, and COVID-19. J. Risk Res. 2021, 24, 314–334. [CrossRef]
20. Ranjbari, M.; Esfandabadi, Z.S.; Zanetti, M.C.; Scagnelli, S.D.; Siebers, P.-O.; Aghbashlo, M.; Peng, W.; Quatraro, F.; Tabatabaei,
M. Three pillars of sustainability in the wake of COVID-19: A systematic review and future research agenda for sustainable
development. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126660. [CrossRef]
21. Ranjbari, M.; Esfandabadi, Z.S.; Scagnelli, S.D.; Siebers, P.-O.; Quatraro, F. Recovery agenda for sustainable development post
COVID-19 at the country level: Developing a fuzzy action priority surface. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 16646–16673.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Djankov, S.; Panizza, U. Developing economies after COVID-19: An introduction. In COVID-19 in Developing Economies; Centre
for Economic Policy Research: London, UK, 2020; Volume 8.
23. Ljungholm, D.P.; Olah, M.L. Regulating fake news content during COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence-based reality, trustworthy
sources, and responsible media reporting. Rev. Contemp. Philos. 2020, 19, 43–49.
24. Avdiu, B.; Nayyar, G. When face-to-face interactions become an occupational hazard: Jobs in the time of COVID-19. Econ. Lett.
2020, 197, 109648. [CrossRef]
25. Clemente-Suárez, V.J.; Rodriguez-Besteiro, S.; Cabello-Eras, J.J.; Bustamante-Sanchez, A.; Navarro-Jiménez, E.; Donoso-Gonzalez,
M.; Beltrán-Velasco, A.I.; Tornero-Aguilera, J.F. Sustainable Development Goals in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Narrative Review.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 7726. [CrossRef]
26. Sciarra, C.; Chiarotti, G.; Ridolfi, L.; Laio, F. A network approach to rank countries chasing sustainable development. Sci. Rep.
2021, 11, 15441. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Sciarra, C.; Chiarotti, G.; Ridolf, L.; Laio, F. Reconciling contrasting views on economic complexity. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 3352.
[CrossRef]
28. Sachs, J.D.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Kroll, C.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Woelm, F. The Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19.
Sustainable Development Report 2020; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020.
29. Pakkan, S.; Sudhakar, C.; Tripathi, S.; Rao, M. A correlation study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Qual.
Quant. 2023, 57, 1937–1956. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Bandari, R.; Moallemi, E.A.; Lester, R.E.; Downie, D.; Bryan, B.A. Prioritising Sustainable Development Goals, characterising
interactions, and identifying solutions for local sustainability. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 127, 325–336. [CrossRef]
31. Rai, S.M.; Brown, B.D.; Ruwanpura, K.N. SDG 8: Decent work and economic growth—A gendered analysis. World Dev. 2019, 113,
368–380. [CrossRef]
32. Sezgin, F.H.; Tekin Turhan, G.; Sart, G.; Danilina, M. Impact of Financial Development and Remittances on Educational
Attainment within the Context of Sustainable Development: A Panel Evidence from Emerging Markets. Sustainability 2023,
15, 12322. [CrossRef]
33. Androniceanu, A.; Kinnunen, J.; Georgescu, I. Circular economy as a strategic option to promote sustainable economic growth
and effective human development. J. Int. Stud. 2021, 14, 60–73. [CrossRef]
34. Skvarciany, V.; Lapinskaite, I.; Volskyte, G. Circular economy as assistance for sustainable development in OECD countries. Oecon.
Copernic. 2021, 12, 11–34. [CrossRef]
35. Rodríguez-Antón, J.M.; Rubio-Andrada, L.; Celemín-Pedroche, M.S.; Ruíz-Peñalver, S.M. From the circular economy to the
sustainable development goals in the European Union: An empirical comparison. Int. Environ. Agreem. 2022, 22, 67–95. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
36. Jianu, E.; Pîrvu, R.; Axinte, G.; Toma, O.; Cojocaru, A.V.; Murtaza, F. EU Labor Market Inequalities and Sustainable Development
Goals. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2675. [CrossRef]
37. Coscieme, L.; Mortensen, L.F.; Anderson, S.; Ward, J.; Donohue, I.; Sutton, P.C. Going beyond Gross Domestic Product as an
indicator to bring coherence to the Sustainable Development Goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 248, 119232. [CrossRef]
38. Hopp, D.; Fu, E.; Peltola, A. Feasibility of nowcasting SDG indicators: A comprehensive survey. Stat. J. IAOS 2022, 38, 591–608.
[CrossRef]
39. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria,
2020. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 15 August 2022).

374
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

40. Walesiak, M.; Dudek, A. The Choice of Variable Normalization Method in Cluster Analysis. In Education Excellence and Innovation
Management: A 2025 Vision to Sustain Economic Development During Global Challenges; Soliman, K.S., Ed.; International Business
Information Management Association: King of Prussia, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 325–340.
41. Giorgino, T. Computing and Visualizing Dynamic Time Warping Alignments in R: The dtw Package. J. Stat. Softw. 2009, 31, 1–24.
[CrossRef]
42. Charrad, M.; Ghazzali, N.; Boiteau, V.; Niknafs, A. NbClust: An R Package for Determining the Relevant Number of Clusters in a
Data Set. J. Stat. Softw. 2014, 61, 1–36. [CrossRef]
43. Kassambara, A.; Mundt, F. factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. R Package Version 1.0.7.
Available online: [Link] (accessed on 15 August 2022).
44. Ward, J.H., Jr. Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1963, 58, 236–244. [CrossRef]
45. Zavadskas, E.K.; Kaklauskas, A.; Sarka, V. The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects. Technol.
Econ. Dev. Econ. 1994, 1, 131–139.
46. Trane, M.; Marelli, L.; Siragusa, A.; Pollo, R.; Lombardi, P. Progress by Research to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals in
the EU: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7055. [CrossRef]
47. Miola, A.; Schiltz, F. Measuring sustainable development goals performance: How to monitor policy action in the 2030 Agenda
implementation? Ecol. Econ. 2019, 164, 106373. [CrossRef]
48. Tutak, M.; Brodny, J.; Bindzár, P. Assessing the Level of Energy and Climate Sustainability in the European Union Countries in
the Context of the European Green Deal Strategy and Agenda 2030. Energies 2021, 14, 1767. [CrossRef]
49. Radulescu, C.Z.; Radulescu, M.; Boncea, R. A Multi-Criteria Decision Support and Application to the Evaluation of the Fourth
Wave of COVID-19 Pandemic. Entropy 2022, 24, 642. [CrossRef]
50. Ünvan, Y.A.; Ergenç, C. Financial Performance Analysis with the Fuzzy COPRAS and Entropy-COPRAS Approaches. Comput.
Econ. 2022, 59, 1577–1605. [CrossRef]
51. Xie, Z.; Tian, G.; Tao, Y. A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework for Sustainable Supplier Selection in the Circular Economy
and Industry 4.0 Era. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16809. [CrossRef]
52. Bellman, R.; Kalaba, R. On adaptive control processes. IRE Trans. Automat. Control 1959, 4, 1–9. [CrossRef]
53. Rabiner, L.; Rosenberg, A.; Levinson, S. Considerations in dynamic time warping algorithms for discrete word recognition. IEEE
Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 1978, 26, 575–582. [CrossRef]
54. Sakoe, H.; Chiba, S. Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition. IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang.
Process. 1978, 26, 43–49. [CrossRef]
55. Stübinger, J. Statistical arbitrage with optimal causal paths on high-frequency data of the S&P 500. Quant. Financ. 2019, 19,
921–935. [CrossRef]
56. Denkowska, A.; Wanat, S. Dynamic Time Warping Algorithm in Modeling Systemic Risk in the European Insurance Sector.
Entropy 2021, 23, 1022. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Št’astný, T.; Koudelka, J.; Bílková, D.; Marek, L. Clustering and Modelling of the Top 30 Cryptocurrency Prices Using Dynamic
Time Warping and Machine Learning Methods. Mathematics 2022, 10, 3672. [CrossRef]
58. Dmytrów, K.; Bieszk-Stolorz, B. Mutual relationships between the unemployment rate and the unemployment duration in the
Visegrad Group countries in years 2001–2017. Equilib. Q. J. Econ. Econ. Policy 2019, 14, 129–148. [CrossRef]
59. Dmytrów, K.; Bieszk-Stolorz, B. Comparison of changes in the labour markets of post-communist countries with other EU
member states. Equilib. Q. J. Econ. Econ. Policy 2021, 16, 741–764. [CrossRef]
60. Dmytrów, K.; Landmesser, J.; Bieszk-Stolorz, B. The Connections between COVID-19 and the Energy Commodities Prices:
Evidence through the Dynamic Time Warping Method. Energies 2021, 14, 4024. [CrossRef]
61. Dmytrów, K.; Bieszk-Stolorz, B.; Landmesser-Rusek, J. Sustainable Energy in European Countries: Analysis of Sustainable
Development Goal 7 Using the Dynamic Time Warping Method. Energies 2022, 15, 7756. [CrossRef]
62. Cui, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Zhao, X.; Li, Z. Energy Schedule Setting Based on Clustering Algorithm and Pattern Recognition for Non-
Residential Buildings Electricity Energy Consumption. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8750. [CrossRef]
63. Beale, E.M.L. Cluster Analysis; Scientific Control Systems: London, UK, 1969.
64. Rocchi, L.; Ricciolini, E.; Massei, G.; Paolotti, L.; Boggia, A. Towards the 2030 Agenda: Measuring the Progress of the European
Union Countries through the SDGs Achievement Index. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3563. [CrossRef]
65. Barbier, E.B.; Burgess, J.C. Institutional Quality, Governance and Progress towards the SDGs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11798.
[CrossRef]
66. Radulović, M.; Kostić, M. Are EU Members’ Economies an “Engine” of the EU Candidates’ Economies? Folia Oecon. Stetin. 2021,
21, 97–117. [CrossRef]
67. Stanujkic, D.; Popovic, G.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Karabasevic, D.; Binkyte-Veliene, A. Assessment of Progress towards Achieving
Sustainable Development Goals of the “Agenda 2030” by Using the CoCoSo and the Shannon Entropy Methods: The Case of the
EU Countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5717. [CrossRef]
68. Bak,
˛ I.; Tarczyńska-Łuniewska, M.; Barwińska-Małajowicz, A.; Hydzik, P.; Kusz, D. Is Energy Use in the EU Countries Moving
toward Sustainable Development? Energies 2022, 15, 6009. [CrossRef]
69. Skvarciany, V.; Astikė, K. Decent work and economic growth: Case of EU. In Proceedings of the 12TH International Scientific
Conference Business and Management 2022, Vilnius, Lithuania, 12–13 May 2022; pp. 184–190. [CrossRef]

375
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13327

70. Grzebyk, M.; Stec, M.; Hejdukova, P. Implementation of sustainable development goal 8 in European Union countries—A
measurement concept and a multivariate comparative analysis. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 31, 2758–2769. [CrossRef]
71. Carlsen, L. Decent Work and Economic Growth in the European Union. A partial order analysis of Eurostat SDG 8 data. Green
Financ. 2021, 3, 483–494. [CrossRef]
72. Kuc-Czarnecka, M.; Markowicz, I.; Sompolska-Rzechuła, A. SDGs implementation, their synergies, and trade-offs in EU countries–
Sensitivity analysis-based approach. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 146, 109888. [CrossRef]
73. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Morone, P. Economic sustainable development goals: Assessments and perspectives in Europe.
J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 354, 131730. [CrossRef]
74. Chamusca, P. Public Policies for Territorial Cohesion and Sustainability in Europe: An Overview. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6890.
[CrossRef]
75. Anselmi, D.; D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Lombardi, G.V. A comparison of economic, environmental and social performance of
European countries: A sustainable development goal index. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, in press. [CrossRef]
76. Shuai, C.; Zhao, B.; Chen, X.; Liu, J.; Zheng, C.; Qu, S.; Zou, J.-P.; Xu, M. Quantifying the impacts of COVID-19 on Sustainable
Development Goals using machine learning models. Fundam. Res. 2022, in press. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

376
 sustainability

Article
Chemical Engineering beyond Earth: Astrochemical
Engineering in the Space Age
Vassilis J. Inglezakis 1, *, Donald Rapp 2 , Panos Razis 3 and Antonis A. Zorpas 4, *

1 Department of Chemical & Process Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XQ, UK

2 Independent Researcher, South Pasadena, CA 91030, USA; drdrapp@[Link]
3 Faculty of Pure and Applied Science, Department of Physics, University of Cyprus, 1st Panepistimiou Avenue,
2109 Aglantzia, P.O. Box 20537, Nicosia 1678, Cyprus; razis@[Link]
4 Laboratory of Chemical Engineering and Engineering Sustainability, Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences,
Open University of Cyprus, Giannou Kranitiodi 89, Nicosia 2236, Cyprus
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link] (V.J.I.); [Link]@[Link]
or antoniszorpas@[Link] (A.A.Z.)

Abstract: The Space Race in the second half of the 20th century was primarily concerned with getting
there and back. Gradually, technology and international collaboration opened new horizons, but
human activity was mostly restricted around Earth’s orbit, while robotic missions were sent to solar
system planets and moons. Now, nations and companies claim extraterrestrial resources and plans are
in place to send humans and build bases on the Moon and Mars. Exploration and discovery are likely
to be followed by exploitation and settlement. History suggests that the next step is the development
of space industry. The new industrial revolution will take place in space. Chemical engineers have
been educated for more than a century on designing processes adapted to the Earth’s conditions,
involving a range of raw materials, atmospheric pressure, ambient temperature, solar radiation, and
1-g. In space, the raw materials differ, and the unique pressure, temperature and solar radiation
conditions require new approaches and methods. In the era of space exploration, a new educational
concept for chemical engineers is necessary to prepare them for playing key roles in space. To this
Citation: Inglezakis, V.J.; Rapp, D.; end, we introduce Astrochemical Engineering as an advanced postgraduate course and we propose a
Razis, P.; Zorpas, A.A. Chemical 2-year 120 ECTS MEng curriculum with a brief description of the modules and learning outcomes.
Engineering beyond Earth: The first year includes topics such as low-gravity process engineering, cryogenics, and recycling
Astrochemical Engineering in the systems. The second year includes the utilization of planetary resources and materials for space
Space Age. Sustainability 2023, 15,
resources. The course culminates in an individual design project and comprises two specializations:
13227. [Link]
Process Engineering and Space Science. The course will equip engineers and scientists with the
su151713227
necessary knowledge for the development of advanced processes and industrial ecologies based
Academic Editors: Idiano D’Adamo, on closed self-sustained systems. These can be applied on Earth to help reinvent sustainability and
Massimo Gastaldi, Manoj Kumar mitigate the numerous challenges humanity faces.
Nallapaneni and Marc A. Rosen

Received: 8 July 2023 Keywords: chemical engineering; astrochemical engineering; curriculum development; extraterrestrial
Revised: 28 August 2023 environment; space engineering; sustainable education
Accepted: 29 August 2023
Published: 4 September 2023
Corrected: 20 June 2024
1. Introduction
Chemical Engineering (ChE) has evolved dramatically over the past thirty years,
embracing advances in the broader areas of nanotechnology, biotechnology, and computer
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
science. Bio-, info-, and nano- are not new concepts to ChE but the exponential development
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
of these areas has had a profound effect on the evolution of the discipline. Nanotech-
distributed under the terms and
nology was first introduced in 1959 with a lecture by the Nobel-prize-winning physicist
conditions of the Creative Commons Richard Feynman, entitled There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom (Data Storage), where he
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// envisioned the possibility of directly manipulating individual atoms as a powerful form
[Link]/licenses/by/ of synthetic chemistry [1]. ChE embraced nanotechnology in the 1990s; suitable modules
4.0/). were integrated into the curriculum and research has been evolving at an accelerating

Sustainability 2023, 15, 13227. [Link] 377 [Link]

Sustainability 2023, 15, 13227

pace. In recognition of biology as an important science impacting ChE, a number of

ChE departments changed their names to include some bio terms [1], such as Chemical
and Biomolecular Engineering (e.g., Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, USA), Chemical and Bio-
logical Engineering (e.g., Princeton, NJ, USA), Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology
(e.g., Cambridge, UK), and Chemical and Biomedical Engineering (e.g., Florida State
University, Tallahassee, FL, USA). The new hybrid plays a key role in advancing biopro-
cesses, biomaterials, and biomedicine. In tandem, a revolution in process engineering was
brought about by computers in the 1990s [2]. The increasingly powerful hardware and
software created unimaginable opportunities. ChE is undergoing a transformation driven
largely by the booming of data science [3]. A new term, i.e., Industry 4.0, has emerged to
represent the fourth revolution that has occurred in manufacturing driven by digitalization.
There is ample evidence that the next revolution in ChE will be data-driven and powered
by artificial intelligence [3].
The potential human bases on the Moon and Mars are coming within the reach of our
current technological capabilities and Astropolitics shapes national strategies worldwide [4].
Several disciplines have embraced the new opportunity; Astrochemistry deals with the
chemical evolution occurring in space and it is a recognized field of research [5,6], Space
Chemistry is defined as the performance of chemistry in space [6], Astrobiology is the study
of life in the universe, Space Biology is aimed at addressing the basic questions regarding
the extent to which gravity plays a role in the growth, morphology, and function of cells in
the space environment [7], Astropharmacy and Astromedicine address the question of how
human explorers can receive effective medical and pharmaceutical care in the context of
space [8], and Civil Engineering is expanding towards the design and construction of lunar
and Martian structures, habitats, and outposts [9]. ChE contributes to space industry as well
in a number of ways; life support systems (LSSs), materials, energy systems, and propulsion
are a few examples. However, as Lobmeyer and Meneghelli argued two decades ago, ChE
has been laboring in the shadows of other disciplines, namely Physics and Mechanical
Engineering [10]. The situation has not changed much since then. In New Directions for
Chemical Engineering published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, bio and info are
thoroughly discussed but space is absent [3]. In Revisiting the Future of Chemical Engineering,
where some of the profession’s thought leaders share their visions of the future of ChE,
data science and biotechnology (among others) are identified as strong forces shaping the
future of ChE; however, again, space is not considered [11].
Looking beyond the immediacy of current space projects, we envision a significant
future expansion of space exploration and exploitation of space resources. We believe
that the current ChE curriculum does not adequately prepare students for leadership in
space engineering. We therefore created and present in this paper a new 2-year curriculum
leading to an MSc in Astrochemical Engineering to fill this anticipated need. Section 2
discusses the role of ChE in space exploration. Section 3 discusses the differences between
space and terrestrial processing, and interprets these as both challenges and opportunities.
That is followed by Section 4, where the structure of the 2-year course is presented. The
first year is on the theory and fundamentals of space engineering from the ChE perspective
and the second year is dedicated to space exploration applications. The course comprises
seven core modules, four modules for Process Engineering, and four for the Space Science
specializations and a Design Project. An important part of space processing is so-called
circular or cyclic systems, where spent outputs are reprocessed to produce new useful input
materials. In typical terrestrial processes, such spent outputs are often discharged to the
environment, where they typically pollute and require great effort to mitigate. Eventually, as
these circular systems designed for space applications also become available for terrestrial
applications, they will contribute to sustainability goals.
The 2030 Agenda of the United Nations (UN) revolves around the Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals (SDGs), and to achieve the related objectives, scientific production should
align with the SDGs’ achievement [12]. Universities should try to make the most of the
many opportunities that the SDGs offer, not only in the field of teaching and research,

378
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13227

but also in their university extension activities [13]. This commitment in universities is
advancing with the help of academics who individually include it in their disciplines
and course design but consider that there is still a long way to go [14]. The innovative
technologies built to push humanity into space can also support sustainable development
on Earth. Many projects related to sustainable development across industries make use of
space-based technologies and services to contribute to the goals. In particular, space tech-
nologies directly support Good health and well-being (SDG3), Affordable and clean energy
(SDG7) and Industry, Innovation and infrastructure (SDG9) and Climate Action (SDG13).
Also, according to UNESCO, five other SDGs have direct reference to Quality Education
(SDG4), including SDG3 (Target 3.7) and SDG 13 (Target 13.3). Thus, by educating chemi-
cal engineers for space applications, the proposed curriculum is focused on fulfilling all
these SDGs. The modules, and in particular the Circular Systems module of the proposed
curriculum, bring together theoretical approaches and innovative knowledge by providing
students with the skills and knowledge to apply sustainable development solutions in
extraterrestrial environments.
Space was a central theme in science fiction for centuries, but it is only recently
that fiction and reality have converged. Science fiction as an educational resource was
recognized from the very beginnings of the genre, but its use in ChE education was first
discussed in a paper published in Education for Chemical Engineers in 2011 [15]. In the
science fiction book Reach for the Stars published in 2021 by John Wegener, Ethan Richards,
a space traveler, was sponsored by NASA to study Astrochemical Engineering at UCLA; to
the best of our knowledge, this is the first time the term was used. Hereby, we argue that
it is time to make science fiction a reality and introduce Astrochemical Engineering into the
ChE curriculum.

“There is a tide in the affairs of men

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.”
William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (Act IV, Scene III, lines 218–224)

2. Space Exploration and Chemical Engineering

The contribution of ChE to space exploration is not new and can be traced in the
literature back to 1979; Waldron et al. discussed the possibilities and conditions of con-
structing and operating processing plants in space using materials taken from the lunar
surface [16]. They list a number of processes, such as the electrolysis of molten silica,
carbothermic/silicothermic reduction, the carbon–chlorination process, NaOH basic-leach
process, and HF acid leach. Life support systems, low-gravity processes, and the associated
automated control systems have long been identified as areas where ChE can contribute [17].
In a conference paper published in 2001 [10], Lobmeyer and Meneghelli list cryogenics,
ISRU, miniaturization, launchability, and power/process efficiencies as several areas where
chemical engineers can provide support for the exploration of space. ChE played a central
role in the development of propulsion systems and the latest major contribution is the
development of solid oxide electrolysis of CO2 to O2 recently demonstrated on Mars [18,19].
Also, several ChE processes are used in the Environmental Control and Life Support System
(ECLSS) developed by NASA. The ECLSS provides clean air and water to the International
Space Station (ISS) crew and laboratory animals and it consists of two key components: the
Water Recovery System (WRS) and the Oxygen Generation System (OGS) [20,21]. However,
except for propulsion systems, fuels, and Life Support Systems, hardcore ChE such as
chemical reactor engineering and separation processes has not been utilized in the core of
space research. This is about to change as the advent of in situ resource utilization (ISRU)

379
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13227

brings ChE to the forefront of space programs, and it is expected to grow significantly in
importance over the coming decades.
The current cost of exploration and subsequent settlement in extraterrestrial environ-
ments is challenging but can be reduced by use of resources found in situ. ISRU is defined
as the conversion of local resources at a space destination to provide useful infrastructure
and commodities [19,22]. A seminal paper published in 1978 by Ash et al. presented a
revolutionary detailed analysis of Mars ISRU and its benefits [23]. The current ISRU inter-
ests on the Moon and Mars concentrate on building shelters and the harvesting of subsoil
water and atmospheric CO2 for the production of methane, hydrogen, and oxygen [24].
However, there is untapped potential as the Moon and Mars hold a number of other useful
materials such as oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, and titanium; salts; hydrated minerals;
and atmospheric N2 and Ar [25,26]. Minerals that exist on Earth in very limited quantities
are abundant on some meteorites and asteroids [19,27]. The new generation of chemical
engineers should be able to capture and/or recover such critical minerals from extrater-
restrial environments as these are essential to develop smart technologies. For materials
that are not readily available, chemical engineers would have to recover them from waste
or end-of-life equipment applying circular economy strategies [28]. Clearly, ISRU is in-
complete without the development of processes that transform raw materials into useful
products—this is what chemical engineers carry out on Earth. Indeed, ChE is recognized
as one of the key disciplines involved in ISRU technologies [29]. Reverse water–gas shift
and Sabatier reactions are prime examples of reactions utilizing CO2 , the main component
of the Martian atmosphere [25]. These reactions are the basis of the era of small-molecule
activation [30]. Another resource is the waste produced by humans, notably urine. The
closed-loop nutrient cycle from human urine has attracted interest in the last decade and
the number of papers published on bioregenerative life support systems is growing [31].
However, Earth technologies cannot simply be implemented on other planets and need
to be adapted to each location. There is a gap both in terms of technology and finances
stemming from the major differences on other planets regarding available resources and the
physical environment in terms of gravity, temperature, pressure, and radiation conditions.
As one recent example, consider the Mars Oxygen In Situ Experiment (“MOXIE”) that has
been converting CO2 to O2 on Mars for the past two years. This operates with a continuous
flow reactor system, where a compressor pulls the Martian atmosphere through a filter to a
higher pressure, and the flow passes through the cathode of a high-temperature electrolysis
stack, where a portion of Martian CO2 is converted to CO while a commensurate flow of
oxygen occurs in the anode. However, an undesirable side reaction can also occur that
would produce carbon that would clog up the cells and essentially destroy the electrolysis
stack. The minimum voltage required for the side reaction is greater than the minimum
voltage for oxygen production, so the voltages on the cells in the stack must be maintained
above the minimum for oxygen production, yet below that for carbon formation. The
essential technical background for MOXIE involves thermodynamics, electrochemistry, gas
flow in various regimes, the filtration of dust particles, and thermal control. All of this
must be carried out within the context of space constraints on mass, volume, power, and
reliability. Most of the work was beyond ordinary ChE education and required special
study to work effectively on the project. ChE education must evolve and equip engineers
for the Space Age.

3. Challenges and Opportunities

Throughout history, scientists and engineers have been educated to think in terms of
a 1 g environment, traditional training that must be updated to account for low-gravity
environments [32]. Unit operations in microgravity are not a new topic in ChE; for instance,
they were discussed in a paper published by Allen and Pettit in 1987 [33]. The authors
view microgravity as an advantage in crystallization processes. However, microgravity
complicates fluid handling and processes governed by density differences, such as the
stratification and separation of gases and liquids, due to the absence of buoyancy [34,35].

380
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13227

In the absence of gravity, convection, sedimentation, and buoyancy become irrelevant and
mixing is not spontaneous. Diffusion is the only way that molecular heat and matter can be
transported, and microgravity conditions provide a unique opportunity to study processes
decoupled from sedimentation [36]. Microgravity benefits the formation of alloys as the
process is diffusion-controlled rather than gravity-controlled, encouraging molecules to
be distributed evenly in the material, resulting in a more uniform structure. On the other
hand, chemistry under microgravity cannot be performed in flasks because the solutions
would not mix well and reactions would not be reproducible [37]. The predominance of
diffusion is a challenge for heterogeneous catalytic processes as the absence of density-
driven convection hinders phase separation [37]. Distillation, arguably the most important
separation process in ChE, may be useless in space since microgravity removes two of the
variables in boiling: convection and buoyancy. This means that the vapor phase of a boiling
liquid does not rise and the usual model of convection currents that distributes heat in the
liquid phase that we know on Earth is no longer valid. Two-phase boiling experiments
have shown that reduced gravity considerably alters the flow patterns and heat transfer as
compared to 1 g conditions [38]. Another example is electrolysis, where under 1 g, buoyancy
leads to the detachment of gas bubbles from the electrode surface and a separation of
oxygen and hydrogen gas bubbles from the liquid electrolyte, but under reduced-gravity
electrolysis systems, this is hindered, resulting in a lower efficiency [21]. Due to the
effect of microgravity on mixing in batch systems, continuous flow is considered the best
operational mode in space. Flow chemistry studies reactions taking place in continuous
flow in tubes rather than in a flask [39]. The first journal publications regarding the overall
concept and promises of flow chemistry for microgravity applications were published in
2017 [37]. Although these effects are more intense in zero gravity and microgravity, they are
important in reduced-gravity conditions found on terrestrial planetary bodies. Moreover,
process integration to small compact systems is compulsory in space [36]. At the plant level,
the integration of extraterrestrial industrial systems needs to be complete, and process
intensification, a relatively new concept in ChE, represents a way to achieve more with less.
This is relevant to the miniaturization of processes, e.g., microreactors—in other words, to
put a plant on the scale of a small laboratory setup [40].
Beyond the profound effect of gravity, as Allen and Pettit argued in 1987 [33], low
temperature and high vacuum are advantages that space offers rather than challenges.
Indeed, space offers an infinitely available vacuum and extremely low temperatures, which
are expensive and difficult to achieve on Earth. Vacuum technology is ubiquitous and
typical applications include distillation, drying, sublimation, and filtration [41]. Low
temperature is used to produce and transport immense quantities of gas mixtures [42].
Also, we know that some reactions can be accelerated by operating at temperatures below
−150 ◦ C and some can even occur at temperatures below 10 K [43,44]. A challenge is
the exposure of chemical reactions to the entire electromagnetic spectrum outside the
Earth’s atmosphere, which is likely to influence photocatalytic reactions and the stability of
molecules due to higher UV radiation [37].
Sustainable development, as defined in the World Commission on Environment and
Development’s 1987 Brundtland report, should follow humans in the journey to space,
considering circular economy principles [45]. A major challenge is to extract and transform
the available in situ resources sufficiently in circular systems. The new concept of circular
chemical processes is gaining traction [36]. In extraterrestrial environments, the objective is
the development of an industrial ecology based on closed self-sustained systems with zero-
discharge production processes. The knowledge acquired in extraterrestrial environments
can be applied on Earth to help reinvent sustainability by developing new technologies,
including smart ones that harness the power of chemistry to create sustainable products and
processes. By studying the chemical properties of materials in space, scientists can identify
new materials that are more resistant to environmental degradation. Furthermore, they can
be used to create new processes for the production of energy, such as using solar power
to create hydrogen fuel through a process known as artificial photosynthesis. Artificial

381
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13227

photosynthesis can be an efficient alternative route to capture CO2 and produce food and
energy [46]. Hann et al. found a way to bypass the need for biological photosynthesis
altogether and create food independent of sunlight by using artificial photosynthesis [47].

4. The Case for Astrochemical Engineering

In NASA’s upcoming new mission “ARTEMIS II” [48], currently planned to be
launched in November 2024, four astronauts will venture around the Moon, paving the
way for future lunar missions. If we review the curriculum of the four astronauts, it will
become apparent that nexus disciplines are needed for the next generations of engineers
that intend to explore space. The commander spent hundreds of hours conducting valuable
scientific research in areas such as Human Physiology, Medicine, Physical Science, Earth
Science, and Astrophysics, and he studied Computer and Systems Engineering, with an
MSc in Systems Engineering. The pilot holds a BSc in General Engineering, MSc in Flight
Test Engineering, MSc in Systems Engineering, and MSc in Military Operational Art and
Science. The other two members as specialists hold BSc degrees in Electrical Engineer-
ing and Physics and an MSc degree in Electrical Engineering and Space Science, as well
as a PhD. The 17 members of the 2022 ESA astronaut class exhibit an amazing breadth
of disciplines: Astronautical Engineering, Aerospace Engineering, Mechanical Engineer-
ing, Human Factors Engineering, Space Engineering, Physics, Astrophysics, Biotechnol-
ogy, Neuroscience, Biomedical Engineering, Medicine, Transport Engineering, Military
Technology, Electrical Engineering, and Astronomy. One of the class members studied
Industrial Chemistry.
Beyond the standard Astronautical Engineering courses that focus on the design,
development, and manufacturing of spacecrafts, there are a number of postgraduate courses
related to space communications, data collection and processing, satellites, observation, and
remote sensing. The Technical University of Denmark (Denmark) offers an MSc course in Earth
and Space Physics and Engineering, with an astrophysics orientation and specialization
primarily in the areas of instrumentation to observe the universe, data processing, and
physical and mathematical modelling. The University of Pisa (Italy) offers a 2-year MSc of
Science in Space Engineering course focused on aerospace engineering, instrumentation,
and propulsion. Brno University of Technology (Czech Republic) offers a 2-year MSc
course on Space Applications, which is an interdisciplinary association of electrical and
mechanical engineering. Gdansk University of Technology (Poland) offers a 2-year MSc course
on Engineering and Management of Space Systems and it is broader in scope, including
robotics, gravity-related research, heat and mass transfer in zero gravity, space law, and
several modules on applications of computer science. The ESPACE—Earth Oriented Space
Science and Technology is a 2-year MSc course offered by the Technical University of Munich
(Germany) positioned at the interface between space technology and the engineering and
natural scientific use of satellite data. The 1-year Space Science MSc offered by University
College London (UK) provides a broad understanding of all aspects of space science and space
instrumentation, including modules on data, instrumentation, satellites and spacecrafts,
planetary atmospheres, and astrophysics. The University of Edinburgh released a new
master’s course (1 year) on Astrobiology and Planetary Sciences targeting the development
of knowledge on cometary and exoplanet science, investigating the origin, diversity, and
behavior of planets, asteroids, and solar systems.
A course similar in spirit to the Astrochemical Engineering concept is the 4-year
MEng course on Electronic Engineering with Space Science and Technology offered by
the University of Bath (UK), focused on the design, operation, and building of electronic
systems for the space environment. However, the modules offered do not seem to con-
sider the environmental conditions found on terrestrial planets. In this paper, we propose
a new ChE course, namely Astrochemical Engineering (120 ECTS), dedicated to enabling
space industry, which is necessary for establishing self-sustaining communities on the
Moon, Mars, and other solar system bodies. Astrochemical Engineering would have to
answer the fundamental question of how terrestrial ChE processes can be optimized and/or

382
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13227

transformed to adapt to, and benefit from, the conditions in space. In a paper entitled
Chemical Engineering Education in the Next Century, Gillet argues that ChE has survived
extremely well in a changing world by assimilating or developing new subjects into cur-
ricula, but there is a fear that this ability to adapt might go too far and might lead to its
eventual demise [49]. We believe that ChE must adapt to the new trends without diluting
its core and Astrochemical Engineering is seen as a stem of an evolving ChE discipline.
Astrochemical Engineering (Figure 1) is a ChE course adapted to address extraterres-
trial environments, typically characterized by high radiation and low gravity, pressure,
and temperature.

Figure 1. Astrochemical Engineering concept (images credit: NASA).

The 2-year MEng Astrochemical Engineering is a 120 ECTS course as presented below.
1st Year: Theory and fundamentals (60 ECTS)
Core modules (45 ECTS)
• Thermodynamics of terrestrial planets’ and satellites’ atmospheres and surfaces
(7.5 ECTS): greenhouse effect, planetary atmosphere and climate, mass and heat flows,
and case studies (Earth, Mars, Venus, Pluto, Titan, Triton, Enceladus, and Europa).
• Low-gravity process engineering (7.5 ECTS): the effect of gravity on transport phe-
nomena and unit operations (boiling, flow, electrolysis, and crystallization).
• Principles of cryochemistry (7.5 ECTS): chemical reactions at low temperatures, in
frozen systems, and at extremely low temperatures (<−150 ◦ C).
• Programming (7.5 ECTS): numerical methods, open-source languages (Python), big
data, machine learning, human–machine interfaces, the Metaverse environment,
and gamification.
• Circular systems: circular economy, design for recycling, regenerative development
remanufacturing, and reverse logistics for process optimization (7.5 ECTS).
• Design project I (7.5 ECTS).

383
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13227

Specialization: Process Engineering (15 ECTS)

• Fundamentals of cryogenic engineering (7.5 ECTS): the properties of materials and
fluids in cryogenic conditions, cryogenic separation processes, the liquification of
gases, cryogenic fluid storage and transfer, and cryogenic instrumentation.
• Process intensification (7.5 ECTS): equipment (microreactors, intensive mixing, and
compact/microchannel heat exchangers) and methods (hybrid separations and reac-
tion/separation integration).
Specialization: Space Science (15 ECTS)
• Energy production in space: solar energy, cosmic radiation, nuclear fission/fusion
energy, artificial photosynthesis, energy production for life support systems, and
carbon capture and utilization (7.5 ECTS).
• Space microbiology (7.5 ECTS): microbes in space, biochemical processes, synthetic
biology and genetic engineering.
2nd Year: Space exploration applications (60 ECTS)
Core modules (45 ECTS)
• Martian in situ resource utilization (7.5 ECTS): atmospheric gas capture and purifi-
cation, electrolysis (H2 O/CO2 ), reactions for the production of useful substances
(Sabatier, Fischer–Tropsch, reverse water–gas shift, and Haber–Bosch), and dust con-
trol and filtration systems.
• Materials for space applications: advanced composites (2D materials, graphene, carbon
fiber, metal foams, aerogels, 3D-printed materials, and titanium composites), nano-
materials (carbon nanotubes; nanoscale sensors and actuators), and smart materials
(shape memory alloys, self-healing materials, and bio-inspired materials) (7.5 ECTS).
• Design project II (30 ECTS).
Specialization: Process Engineering (15 ECTS)
• Lunar in situ resource utilization: polar ice, regolith, and fluid transfer under vacuum
(pumps and compressors) (7.5 ECTS).
• Propulsion systems: methane–oxygen chemical propulsion, hydrogen storage and
transport in space, solar electric propulsion, Xe, C60 and exotic propellants, nuclear
thermal propulsion, nuclear electric propulsion, the storage and transport of cryogenic
propellants on planetary surfaces, cryogenic propellants within aeroshells, and descent
and ascent propulsion linkage (7.5 ECTS).
Specialization: Space Science (15 ECTS)
• Life support systems: human physiology and anatomy, life cycle assessment, instru-
mentation, and control systems (7.5 ECTS).
• Space agriculture (7.5 ECTS): plant science, farming technologies, the effect of reduced
gravity, and genetic engineering.
The structure of the MSc provides the necessary transferable skills and ensures the
learning outcomes (Figure 2) cover several pillars such as knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. The students will be equipped with solid
theoretical knowledge and an understanding of applications, enabling them to operate in
multiple contexts. The first year covers ChE fundamentals adapted to space conditions and
applications, i.e., thermodynamics, transport phenomena, unit operations, and chemistry.
The modules provide students with the tools needed to apply ChE in space applications.
The circular systems module is of paramount importance in space and completes the set of
core modules, ensuring that sustainability plays a central role in the curriculum [50]. In
the second year, the approach is more specific and focuses on ISRU and materials needed
for space applications. ISRU using the Mars paradigm as the planet offers a range of
raw materials and appropriate, albeit challenging, conditions for the design of processes.
Students can choose between two specializations in the first year, i.e., Process Engineering
and Space Science, consisting of a total of four elective modules. The design project objective
is the application of technical knowledge covered in the various teaching modules and it is

384
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13227

divided into two phases: a group and an individual project. Bloom’s taxonomy was used
as a guide for the learning outcomes presented in Figure 2. As this is an advanced ChE
course, it is best suited for students with ChE education. The course is designed to prepare
a new generation of chemical engineers ready to work and innovate in the broader area of
space industry.

Figure 2. Learning outcomes of the course.

Education can be said to be part of an ongoing transition, which comprises opportu-

nities and challenges. The proposed course competencies could vary depending on the
institution and the evolving nature of the field. The course is multidisciplinary and con-
cepts such as case-based learning (CBL) and problem-based learning (PBL), as a sustainable
teaching practice, can be easily integrated [50]. Also, the proposed course contributes to
SDG4 (Quality of Education) [51–53]. It links knowledge with real engineering problems
through an interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary approach to develop the competencies
needed for building a sustainable future on Earth and beyond. It is relevant to mention
that the notion of sustainability in Astrochemical Engineering is futuristic and one would
have to look into the coming decades; it is difficult to make this specific in the year 2023.

5. Conclusions
Chemical Engineering education has passed through several significant stages of evo-
lution, particularly in the incorporation of biological processes. We believe that Chemical
Engineering education is poised for yet another evolution into preparation for operations
in space, which we call Astrochemical Engineering. Chemical Engineering already plays a
significant role in space technology via materials, environmental control, the reprocessing
of waste materials, in situ resource utilization, and propulsion. These processes involve
unique environmental conditions in gravity, radiation, and the need for recycling waste
products under significant mass and power constraints. Individual chemical engineers
have had to learn to adapt to these conditions ad hoc. We envision a significant future
expansion in the global exploration and exploitation of space in which Chemical Engi-
neering will play an increasing role, requiring targeted preparation at the university level.
Looking beyond the immediacy of current space projects, we envision a significant future
expansion of space exploration and the exploitation of space resources. We believe that

385
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13227

the current Chemical Engineering curriculum does not adequately prepare students for
leadership in space industry. We therefore created a new 2-year curriculum leading to an
MS in Astrochemical Engineering to fill this anticipated need. Moreover, Astrochemical
Engineering has much to offer to sustainability as space technologies can be used to solve
problems on Earth. The proposed curriculum can support several SDGs, such as SDGs 3, 4,
7, 9, and 13.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, V.J.I.; methodology, V.J.I.; software, V.J.I. and A.A.Z.;
validation, V.J.I., D.R., P.R. and A.A.Z.; formal analysis, V.J.I., D.R., P.R. and A.A.Z.; investigation,
V.J.I. and A.A.Z.; resources, V.J.I. and A.A.Z.; data curation, V.J.I. and A.A.Z.; writing—original draft
preparation, V.J.I.; writing—review and editing, V.J.I., D.R., P.R. and A.A.Z.; visualization, V.J.I.;
supervision, V.J.I.; project administration, V.J.I. and A.A.Z.; funding acquisition, V.J.I. and A.A.Z. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Varma, A.; Grossmann, I.E. Evolving Trends in Chemical Engineering Education. AIChE J. 2014, 60, 3692–3700. [CrossRef]
2. Wei, J. Future Directions of Chemical Engineering. In Advances in Chemical Engineering; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA,
1991; pp. 51–56.
3. Kaler, E. New Directions for Chemical Engineering; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2022; ISBN 978-0-309-26842-4.
4. Marshal, T. The Future of Geography; Eliott and Thomson Limited: London, UK, 2023.
5. Puzzarini, C. Grand Challenges in Astrochemistry. Front. Astron. Space Sci. 2020, 7, 19. [CrossRef]
6. Sipos, G.; Bihari, T.; Milánkovich, D.; Darvas, F. Flow Chemistry in Space-A Unique Opportunity to Perform Extraterrestrial
Research. J. Flow Chem. 2017, 7, 151–156. [CrossRef]
7. Clément, G. Introduction to Space Biology. In Fundamentals of Space Biology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 1–50.
8. Sawyers, L.; Anderson, C.; Boyd, M.J.; Hessel, V.; Wotring, V.; Williams, P.M.; Toh, L.S. Astropharmacy: Pushing the Boundaries
of the Pharmacists’ Role for Sustainable Space Exploration. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2022, 18, 3612–3621. [CrossRef]
9. Kalapodis, N.; Kampas, G.; Ktenidou, O.J. A Review towards the Design of Extraterrestrial Structures: From Regolith to Human
Outposts. Acta Astronaut. 2020, 175, 540–569.
10. Lobmeyer, D.A.; Meneghelli, B. Chemical Engineering in Space. In Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of Chemical
Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, 23–27 September 2001.
11. Westmoreland, P.R.; McCabe, C. Revisiting the Future of Chemical Engineering. Chem. Eng. Prog. 2018, 114, 26–38.
12. Sánchez-Roncero, A.; Garibo-i-Orts, Ò.; Conejero, J.A.; Eivazi, H.; Mallor, F.; Rosenberg, E.; Fuso-Nerini, F.; García-Martínez, J.;
Vinuesa, R.; Hoyas, S. The Sustainable Development Goals and Aerospace Engineering: A Critical Note through Artificial
Intelligence. Results Eng. 2023, 17, 100940. [CrossRef]
13. Leal Filho, W.; Shiel, C.; Paço, A.; Mifsud, M.; Ávila, L.V.; Brandli, L.L.; Molthan-Hill, P.; Pace, P.; Azeiteiro, U.M.; Vargas, V.R.; et al.
Sustainable Development Goals and Sustainability Teaching at Universities: Falling behind or Getting Ahead of the Pack?
J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 285–294. [CrossRef]
14. Chaleta, E.; Saraiva, M.; Leal, F.; Fialho, I.; Borralho, A. Higher Education and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)—Potential
Contribution of the Undergraduate Courses of the School of Social Sciences of the University of Évora. Sustainability 2021,
13, 1828. [CrossRef]
15. Derjani-Bayeh, S.; Olivera-Fuentes, C. Winds Are from Venus, Mountains Are from Mars: Science Fiction in Chemical Engineering
Education. Educ. Chem. Eng. 2011, 6, e103–e113. [CrossRef]
16. Waldron, R.D.; Criswell, D.R.; Erstfeld, T.E. Role of Chemical Engineering in Space Manufacturing. Chem. Eng. 1979, 86, 80–94.
17. Borman, S. Chemical Engineering: Ready for Space. Chem. Eng. News Arch. 1991, 69, 16–17. [CrossRef]
18. Hecht, M.; Hoffman, J.; Rapp, D.; McClean, J.; SooHoo, J.; Schaefer, R.; Aboobaker, A.; Mellstrom, J.; Hartvigsen, J.; Meyen, F.; et al.
Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment (MOXIE). Space Sci. Rev. 2021, 217, 9. [CrossRef]
19. Nasr, M.; Hoffman, J.; Masson-Zwaan, T.; Rapp, D.; Newman, D. A Policy Framework for Sustainable and Equitable Space
Resource Utilization. Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. 2023. [CrossRef]
20. Environmental Control and Life Support System, NASA. Available online: [Link]
[Link] (accessed on 15 April 2023).

386
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13227

21. Akay, Ö.; Bashkatov, A.; Coy, E.; Eckert, K.; Einarsrud, K.E.; Friedrich, A.; Kimmel, B.; Loos, S.; Mutschke, G.; Röntzsch, L.; et al.
Electrolysis in Reduced Gravitational Environments: Current Research Perspectives and Future Applications. NPJ Microgravity
2022, 8, 56. [CrossRef]
22. Starr, S.O.; Muscatello, A.C. Mars in Situ Resource Utilization: A Review. Planet. Space Sci. 2020, 182, 104824.
23. Ash, R.L.; Dowler, W.L.; Varsi, G. Feasibility of Rocket Propellant Production on Mars. Acta Astronaut. 1978, 5, 705–724.
24. Bennett, N.J.; Ellender, D.; Dempster, A.G. Commercial Viability of Lunar In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU). Planet. Space Sci.
2020, 182, 104842. [CrossRef]
25. Rapp, D. Use of Extraterrestrial Resources for Human Space Missions to Moon or Mars, 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2018.
26. Inglezakis, V.J. Extraterrestrial Environment. In Environment and Development: Basic Principles, Human Activities, and Environmental
Implications; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 453–498, ISBN 9780444627339.
27. Petrovic, J.J. Review Mechanical Properties of Meteorites and Their Constituents. J. Mater. Sci. 2001, 36, 1579–1583. [CrossRef]
28. Zorpas, A.A. Strategy Development in the Framework of Waste Management. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 716, 137088. [CrossRef]
29. Hadler, K.; Martin, D.J.P.; Carpenter, J.; Cilliers, J.J.; Morse, A.; Starr, S.; Rasera, J.N.; Seweryn, K.; Reiss, P.; Meurisse, A.
A Universal Framework for Space Resource Utilisation (SRU). Planet. Space Sci. 2020, 182, 104811. [CrossRef]
30. Vogt, C.; Monai, M.; Kramer, G.J.; Weckhuysen, B.M. The Renaissance of the Sabatier Reaction and Its Applications on Earth and
in Space. Nat. Catal. 2019, 2, 188–197. [CrossRef]
31. Maggi, F.; Tang, F.H.M.; Pallud, C.; Gu, C. A Urine-Fuelled Soil-Based Bioregenerative Life Support System for Long-Term and
Long-Distance Manned Space Missions. Life Sci. Space Res. 2018, 17, 1–14. [CrossRef]
32. Sani, R.L.; Koster, J.N. (Eds.) Low-Gravity Fluid Dynamics and Transport Phenomena; American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc.: Reston, VA, USA, 1990.
33. Allen, D.T.; Pettit, D.R. Unit Operations in Microgravity. Chem. Eng. Educ. 1987, 21, 190–218.
34. Nijhuis, J.; Schmidt, S.; Tran, N.N.; Hessel, V. Microfluidics and Macrofluidics in Space: ISS-Proven Fluidic Transport and
Handling Concepts. Front. Space Technol. 2022, 2, 779696. [CrossRef]
35. Wu, X.; Loraine, G.; Hsiao, C.-T.; Chahine, G.L. Development of a Passive Phase Separator for Space and Earth Applications. Sep.
Purif. Technol. 2017, 189, 229–237. [CrossRef]
36. Hessel, V.; Sarafraz, M.M.; Tran, N.N. The Resource Gateway: Microfluidics and Requirements Engineering for Sustainable Space
Systems. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2020, 225, 115774. [CrossRef]
37. Hessel, V.; Stoudemire, J.; Miyamoto, H.; Fisk, I.D. (Eds.) In-Space Manufacturing and Resources; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022;
ISBN 9783527348534.
38. Darr, S.; Dong, J.; Glikin, N.; Hartwig, J.; Majumdar, A.; Leclair, A.; Chung, J. The Effect of Reduced Gravity on Cryogenic
Nitrogen Boiling and Pipe Chilldown. NPJ Microgravity 2016, 2, 16033. [CrossRef]
39. Plutschack, M.B.; Pieber, B.; Gilmore, K.; Seeberger, P.H. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Flow Chemistry. Chem. Rev. 2017,
117, 11796–11893. [CrossRef]
40. Dimian, A.C.; Bildea, C.S.; Kiss, A.A. Integrated Design and Simulation of Chemical Processes; Elsevier: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2014.
41. Jorisch, W. (Ed.) Vacuum Technology in the Chemical Industry; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany, 2014;
ISBN 9783527653898.
42. Knapp, H. Chemical Engineering at Low Temperatures. Int. J. Refrig. 1988, 11, 352–355. [CrossRef]
43. Sergeev, G.B.; Batyuk, V.A. Cryochemistry, 2nd ed.; Mir Publishers: Moscow, Russia, 1986.
44. Widicus Weaver, S.L. Virtual Issue on Astrochemistry: From the Chemical Laboratory to the Stars. J. Phys. Chem. A 2019, 123.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Papamichael, I.; Chatziparaskeva, G.; Pedreño, J.N.; Voukkali, I.; Almendro Candel, M.B.; Zorpas, A.A. Building a New Mind
Set in Tomorrow Fashion Development through Circular Strategy Models in the Framework of Waste Management. Curr. Opin.
Green Sustain. Chem. 2022, 36, 100638. [CrossRef]
46. Mahdi Najafpour, M. Artificial Photosynthesis; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; ISBN 9789533079660.
47. Hann, E.C.; Overa, S.; Harland-Dunaway, M.; Narvaez, A.F.; Le, D.N.; Orozco-Cárdenas, M.L.; Jiao, F.; Jinkerson, R.E. A Hybrid
Inorganic–Biological Artificial Photosynthesis System for Energy-Efficient Food Production. Nat. Food 2022, 3, 461–471. [CrossRef]
48. Our Artemis Crew, NASA. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 15 March 2023).
49. Gillett, J.E. Chemical Engineering Education in the next Century. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2001, 24, 561–570. [CrossRef]
50. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M. Perspectives and Challenges on Sustainability: Drivers, Opportunities and Policy Implications in
Universities. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3564. [CrossRef]
51. Doukanari, E.; Ktoridou, D.; Efthymiou, L.; Epaminonda, E. The Quest for Sustainable Teaching Praxis: Opportunities and
Challenges of Multidisciplinary and Multicultural Teamwork. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7210. [CrossRef]

387
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13227

52. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.;
Martin, M.A.; et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
53. Efthymiou, L.; Kulshrestha, A.; Kulshrestha, S. A Study on Sustainability and ESG in the Service Sector in India: Benefits,
Challenges, and Future Implications. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 165. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

388
 sustainability

Article
Implications of Land Grabbing and Resource Curse for
Sustainable Development Goal 2 in Africa: Can Globalization
Be Blamed?
Samuel Chukwudi Agunyai * and Lere Amusan

Department of Political Studies and International Relations, Mafikeng Campus, North West University,
Mmbatho 2790, South Africa; lereamusan@[Link]
* Correspondence: agunyais@[Link]

Abstract: Globalization, as described by Joseph Stiglitz in his books Globalization and its Discontents
and Making Globalization Work, draws on both pains and gains. These two seemingly incompatible
positions, where globalization is used as a platform to partner or collaborate with other countries by
grabbing lands for sustainable developmental initiatives such as the attainment of SDG 2, but ends
up dispossessing the host communities of their lands, form the crux of this paper. Although not all
land grabbing is illegal, especially if lands are leased within the confines of a country’s land tenure
laws, the reality in some African countries shows that lands are grabbed without following land
tenure laws. This partly limits the capacity of African countries to effectively control and monitor
the activities of foreign land grabbers or investors on leased lands. This loophole in the governance
of arable lands in Africa has made many foreign partners use Africa’s arable lands for their own
benefit at the expense of Africa’s food sovereignty initiative. It has partly made Africa appear to
be a resource-cursed region, where it can hardly feed its population despite its global partnerships
and huge land resources. Drawing on systematic desktop reviews of the literature, this study asks if
globalization is contributing to Africa’s hunger index and resource curse. The findings expand the
discussion on how Africa is still not able to feed its population and end hunger, despite the potential
Citation: Agunyai, S.C.; Amusan, L.
offered by globalization. It suggests approaches through which Africa can optimize globalization in
Implications of Land Grabbing and
ways that support determined efforts at ending hunger in Africa.
Resource Curse for Sustainable
Development Goal 2 in Africa: Can
Keywords: land grabbing; resource curse; SDGs; agroecology; complex interdependency theory
Globalization Be Blamed?.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845.
[Link]
su151410845
1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Idiano D’Adamo,
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the greatest challenge of the current period
Massimo Gastaldi and Nallapaneni
and need to be pursued with all countries making a pragmatic contribution (Ali et al., 2023).
Manoj Kumar
Globalization, which is the interdependence of the world’s populations, economies, or
Received: 1 May 2023 cultures, is driven by cross-border flows of people, investment, trade in goods and services,
Revised: 7 July 2023 and information unquestionably has advantages and disadvantages [1]. While its benefits
Accepted: 7 July 2023 include trade liberalization, access to information, a vast flow of capital goods and services,
Published: 11 July 2023 technology transfer, and access to foreign aid, it is criticized for promoting unhealthy
competition among states, exploitation of resources and labor, imbalanced trade, and the
loss of domestic jobs [1]. Through globalization, nations have lost control of their resources,
thus leading to what is known as the resource curse. It arises when a country or continent
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
is not fully benefiting from its huge resource endowment [2]. Similarly, globalization
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
stimulates land grabbing, which is the acquisition of large-scale land by an individual or
distributed under the terms and
entity, public or private, domestic or foreign, following laid-down land regulations. Land
conditions of the Creative Commons is usually allocated through ownership, lease, concession, quota, or general power. It could
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// be legal or illegal for purposes of resource control, commodification, and speculation [3].
[Link]/licenses/by/ However, the motive behind international land grabbing has provoked studies that question
4.0/). the utility value of globalization in Africa. Land grabs, whether legal or illegal, somehow

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845. [Link] 389 [Link]

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

occur at the expense of agroecology, stewardship, subsistence farmers, food sovereignty,

and human rights [4]. It has partly heightened poverty and hunger through the very thing
(globalization, via global partnerships and collaborations) that the world believes will aid
the achievement of the end to hunger. This is true even though the world has experienced
tremendous improvement and civilization in technology, migration, productivity in food
production, and innovations in global connectivity [5]. However, through globalization,
developed countries such as China, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and
a host of others have maintained a stranglehold on Africa and its resources, including
large-scale arable lands, as they promise to support the continent through partnerships,
financial assistance, loans, humanitarian services, technology transfers, and other veiled
collaborations [6]. Although these interventions are aided by the spirit of globalization,
their consequences outweigh the benefits accrued by Africa [7]
Today, despite huge deposits of raw materials and natural resources in Africa as well
as globalization spreading to the continent, Africa continues to struggle and lag behind
other continents in critical indicators of development [8]. Africa still suffers greatly from
poverty, hunger, and malnutrition. Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG 2) was proposed
as part of globalization policy to end hunger by 2030 [9]. However, Africa seems to
lack the capacity to achieve this goal, despite the description of Africa as a raw material
continent [10,11]. The inability of Africa to feed its populations and end hunger despite
the huge availability of arable landed resources, and the deliberate leasing or allocation of
lands to foreign partners to boost food production in Africa raises some serious questions,
such as: why is Africa still faced with the problem of hunger? Could Africa’s hunger
index rate be connected to the fallouts of globalization? Why is Africa not able to feed its
population despite collaborations, collective action on climate change, and partnerships
with developed countries? Can the resource curse in some African countries be linked
to globalization? These questions are better addressed by focusing on international land
grabbing, especially those specifically allocated for large-scale food production. Since the
attainment of SDG 2 requires partnerships in terms of the transfer of technology that can
combat harsh climatic threats or the leasing of lands to grow large-scale food production,
this can enhance Africa’s capacity to feed its population. It is therefore important to examine
big international land grabbing drawn from different ethnic groups in host communities.
One other reason for this choice is that globalization drives international land grabs, hence,
the focus of this article.
All the foregoing questions are well documented in the SDGs, which are an element
of globalization. Collective action on climate to boost food security and protect lives, the
influx of multinational corporations (MNCs), and corporate social responsibility (CSR) to
partner and engage in the transformation of African communities and assist in the best
possible ways to boost food security in Africa, among others, are essential features of
globalization [12,13]. However, the reality in most African countries shows that many
developed countries, international organizations, and international non-governmental or-
ganizations, as well as global financial institutions or partners, have deployed the deceptive
strategy of land grabbing, foreign aid, and assistance to impoverished Africa [14,15] The
displacement of 15,000 Ugandans described in [16] to pave way for the planting of timber
to mitigate climate change problems by New Forests, a British company, under the auspices
of the United Nations Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
(REDD+) program is one amongst numerous examples of land grabs and displacement
problems in Africa [11,17]. It raises the question as to whether the same dispossession of
land and displacement can take place in the US or China [18], and the answer is that it
could not happen, even though the US itself was created due to land dispossession [19].
It is the contention of this article that, similar to the era of colonialism, African countries
are forcefully taken over or seized by foreign imperialists. Although not with force in this
era, Africa’s arable lands are subtly under the control of foreign investors or partners due
to weak regulations on land tenure systems in some African states. It portrays an unlawful
allocation of lands to foreign investors at the expense of local peasant farmers, human

390
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

rights, and stewardship. In the name of global partnerships for agricultural development,
food sovereignty in Africa is gradually waning due to the imposition of obnoxious food
policies. These policies include genetically modified organisms (GMOs), mono-cropping
as against the agro-ecological model, soulless capitalism, and the granting of low-interest
credit or loans, among other unhealthy practices by Africa’s global partners [20,21]. African
lands have been deceptively used by these global giants to further under develop and
annex Africa [22–24]. China’s interest in Africa, especially in sectors such as agriculture,
technology, infrastructure, and finance, aptly buttressed its resource control motive in
some African countries [25,26]. Similarly, the West, especially the United States, through
its dominance in organizations such as the UN, WHO, World Bank, FAO, IMF, and WTO,
has imposed Western-oriented policies that have consistently made Africa’s economy
dependent on the West [10,27]. The policy of collective action on climate change may look
good on paper, but many African countries lack the capacity to procure technology for
the timely detection and prevention of climate change impacts, hence Africa’s current
dependent status [11,28]. The policy outcomes or goals of these Western-oriented policies
do not always ‘trickle down’ to local communities in Africa [11,29]. For example, the
erection of sophisticated machines to control, detect, and mitigate harsh climatic conditions
often leads to the displacement of indigenous people and the dispossession of their lands
with little or no compensation [30]. This does not only affect the capacity of peasant
farmers to produce food but also creates tendencies toward hunger and poverty. Hunger is
imminent when local farmers are dispossessed of their lands by foreign farmers in their
host local farming communities. This is because it is on record that most global giants,
having acquired land, used the same land to create more job opportunities and feed their
own populations at the expense of indigenous African people [31].
The case of Africa as the most vulnerable continent, despite its lowest contribution
to greenhouse emissions, heightens the already existing poverty and hunger index in
Africa [32]. This is because, in addition to the inherent climatic problems suffered by Africa,
the displacement of Africans from their lands in order to combat climate change has further
impoverished them [33]. The large scale of arable lands, the inability of African farmers
to predict uncertainties over future supplies of food, and increasing demand for food
and biofuel drive foreign companies, land speculators or investors, and superpowers to
Africa in search of lands, which some of them have subtly used to relegate Africa’s food
sovereignty and undermine peasant farmers [34,35]. Heightened international interest in
the acquisition and leasing of land adversely affects food production at local and national
levels [36]. Land grabs, especially those allocated without due process, often lead to the
displacement of people and the dispossession of their lands. As people are displaced or
dispossessed of their lands, it becomes very easy to grab land, which in turn limits the
capacity of local peasant farmers to productively produce food [21,37]. How could local
peasant farmers engage in farming after the dispossession of their lands? This question
further points to the fact that land grabs are strongly related to the resource curse, which
is the inability of Africa to fully benefit from the abundance of its land resources, raw
materials, and global agricultural partnerships. Africa is currently not food sovereign and
cannot adequately feed its populations despite being labeled the raw materials continent.
Hunger still exists in Africa, despite the fact that it is home to valuable raw materials
or natural resources [38]. This brings to the fore the importance of this article, which
tries to examine how land grabs (legal acquisition of land for development, speculation,
and commodification) and resource curses (i.e., hunger amid massive abundances of raw
materials that can be used to grow food) undermine Africa’s quest to achieve SDG 2. Zero
hunger is the dream and goal of the world, including Africa. The extent to which this goal
is achieved through effective utilization of the potential of globalization remains the focus
of this article. Indeed, the positive and negative implications of globalization in Africa have
received attention. However, empirical evidence is scarce on how globalization through
land grabbing heightens hunger on an already hunger-ravaged continent. Research in this
direction will guide the design of an Afrocentric policy intervention to resolve the problem

391
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

of land grabbing and the resource curse, which, in the long run, will boost food security in
Africa. The objective of this article is to assess this interdependent initiative by enhancing
collaborative efforts and global partnerships to promote vibrant and mutually beneficial
food security in Africa. The findings are significant for theory and policy. Theoretically, it
expands the discussion on the dimensions of land grabs and resource curses and how they
undermine the attainment of SDG 2. The findings also suggest a means by which African
countries can optimize indigenous knowledge systems and technology to enhance strategic
efforts at improving food security in Africa. More importantly, it expands knowledge on
the relevance of integrated food security and sustainability in Africa.
Integrated food security requires an innovative multi-partner initiative to improve
food security, nutrition analysis, and decision-making. This shows that the sustainability
of food security in Africa depends largely on contributions from other countries [39]. The
attainment of SDG 2, that is, zero hunger in Africa and other emerging economies, also
depends on the ability of Africa to engage in multi-level partner initiatives that can promote
its participation in the analysis and decision-making process to improve food security and
nutrition [40]. One of Africa’s important engagements in multi-partner initiatives, which
further aids integrated food security, is that Africa, through these initiatives, can produce
food that can sustain its teeming population [41]. In other words, this initiative can enhance
the sustainability of Africa and other emerging economies towards ending hunger and
malnutrition. Thus, Africa needs to be more proactive in innovative multi-partner decisions
with other countries to boost its food security [42].
Following the introduction section, the article utilizes the social constructivist as a
theoretical construct in explaining food security and SDGs in Africa. This article appraises
the patterns and nature of land grabs, the resource curse, and their implications for food
security in Africa. The next section discusses the impact of globalization on Africa’s hunger
index rate and the resource curse. It concludes with discussions on issues of indigenous
knowledge systems and technology to boost food security in Africa. To achieve all these
goals, the article utilizes a systematic research method that was sourced through extensive
desktop reviews of extant studies that discussed issues in detail relating to the subject matter.
The rationale for the choice of this method is based on the fact that issues of globalization,
land grabbing, resource curse, and SDGs, especially those empirically analyzed, are readily
available in the literature, hence the need for thorough systematic reviews. It is hoped that
a systematic review method provides the opportunity for a detailed analysis, which is the
focus of this paper.

2. Social Constructivism, Food Security, and SDG 2

Social constructivism advances the knowledge that theories are constructed due to
the social development of an environment. Constructivism posits that the construction of
knowledge is the product of social interaction, interpretation, and understanding. It posits
that there is no perfect theory that is not fallible [43]. It argues that the social dimension
of human relations is germane to the much-touted fourth industrial revolution (4IR) and
food security in Africa. It allows for the training of people, especially women, who are
known to be custodians of organic seeds for sustainable food production [44]. It is a
variety of cognitive constructivism that emphasizes the collaborative nature of people
in an environment. It argues that the development of society largely depends on social
interactions and relations among those living in the environment. To interact in a locality,
native intelligence or indigenous knowledge is required. It is needed to boost food security
in Africa, and the functionality of the technology largely depends on human relations and
interactions, which are largely based on local indigenous knowledge. All components of
food security—availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality—are interdependent
and can only be developed and sustained through healthy human relations and social
interactions in an environment.
The theory provides alternative ways to conceptualize food security among states in
the global system. It sees food security as a social construction, which makes it easier to un-

392
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

derstand how people are mobilized to promote food production, availability, accessibility,
affordability, and utilization. In the analysis of food security, understanding ‘reality’ as a
social construction means that identities, national interests, and security threats are socially
constructed through interstate interaction and domestic political and strategic cultures [45].
Social constructivism has emphasized the role of international organizations as sites of
social interaction that can produce changes in actors’ identities and interests. Walters [45]
specifies how norms, not just material power, provide the basis for an intersubjective
understanding of social purpose among states. This understanding was shown to be critical
to the formation and durability of the post-war international order. Social constructivism
advocates for models and standards through mutual and cooperative interactions that can
influence states’ decisions to change their attitude against the use of force and coercion
against other states in the international system. This explains why land grabs and resource
curses are social constructions emanating from the environment. Social constructivism be-
lieves that these social constructs can be amicably addressed by socialization and diffusion,
which are largely based on interactions and human relations.
Since the issue of international land grabbing is mostly perpetrated by actors such
as international organizations and states, social constructivism advocates for authority,
that is, “the ability of one actor to use institutional and discursive resources to induce
deference from others” [46,47]. It underscores that international organizations (IOs) are
not just servants of states; authority provides IOs with self-sufficiency regarding states
and non-state actors. It is also opined that IOs sometimes accomplish more than states
can accomplish; they adequately transmute broad mandates into specific ways of acting
in the world that change the behavior of state and non-state actors and use knowledge
and authority to regulate the social world [46]. Authority itself is understood to be a
social construction that is deployed to check the excesses of some states or IOs in the
international system.
This theory adequately explains the implications of land grabbing for zero hunger,
as it stipulates that there should be mutual social interactions and human relations in the
form of the sharing of ideas and knowledge on how to adequately tackle the issues of land
grabbing and the resource curse that has been bedeviling the African continent. On the
global scene, international organizations and other actors are expected to amicably discuss
the issue of land grabbing, which somehow has given more foreign partners more control
over resources and raw materials in Africa. This requires concerted efforts for sustainable
solutions. Inclusion and consultation with the indigenous people over the use of their lands
are essential for the attainment of these solutions. This might have led to the conclusion
that human relations in terms of the sharing of indigenous knowledge and technology are
required for sustainable food security in Africa [48,49]. Africa’s quest for food sovereignty
could be better achieved through global partnership and collaborative efforts aimed at
considering the plight of peasant farmers, inclusiveness, and respect for the human rights
of host communities.
The achievement of SDG 2 is well captured in the core principles of social construc-
tivism. Zero hunger is a construct that is envisaged to be achieved through collaborations
and mutual social interactions among citizens in society. Joint collaborations and interven-
tions between the government and the people to address issues of poverty and hunger
will serve as spurs for general development and food security [37]. Social interactions
and the dynamism of constant change in the international system largely determine the
quality of partnerships and collaborations among states toward the call for the eradication
of hunger [48]. To end hunger, Africa’s capacity to produce quality food depends on human
relations and interactions. These social interactions should include women, who are more
active in food production [49,50]. The empowerment of women is a strong requirement for
food security in Africa. This is because women are more reliable custodians of organic seeds
for sustainable food production [51]. Social interactions that include women, according
to social constructivism, strengthen their productivity in food production. This is due
to the fact that women are good managers of credit facilities to boost food security [52].

393
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

Thus, ensuring more access for women to relevant inputs will promote food security and
empower the landless majority in the state with a greater focus on women and girls [53].

3. Methodology
A qualitative research method forms the basis of data collection in this article. It draws
on systematic desktop reviews of key issues of land grabbing and resource curse in Africa. It
has been argued that a systematic approach is appropriate for studies that uniquely provide
detailed summaries of reviews in response to research questions [54]. Since this study draws
on research questions (such as could globalization be responsible for Africa’s high hunger
index and could it be responsible for Africa’s resource curse?), thus, it is more convenient to
adopt a systematic review method. Its validation hinges on the fact that a similar approach
has been used in studies and research conducted in education, engineering, humanities,
social sciences, tropical medicine, and health [55–57]. Evidence shows most studies that
used this approach provided answers to research questions in the form of findings [58].
Data were also drawn from empirical studies, verifiable government documents, online
materials, periodicals, newspapers, journals, and policy notes for comprehensive reviews
and discussions of findings or answers to the research questions. These data were analyzed
using thematic descriptive content analysis.

4. Land Grabbing and Resource Curse: The Misery of Hunger in Africa

Land grabbing and the resource curse are not new in Africa. Africa has long contin-
ually suffered from these contemporary issues, which partly contribute to the misery of
hunger in Africa [11]. Land grabbing is simply the practice of large-scale land acquisition
by individuals, entities, governments, international organizations, and foreigners for spec-
ulation, investment, commodification, and resource control purposes [3]. It is the lawful
acquisition of large-scale lands, especially those that follow the laid-down procedural
means or approach of host countries. Evidence shows that some developed nations, foreign
investors, and governments, in a bid to partner with Africa and end hunger or combat the
impacts of climate change, have grabbed land for food production and biofuel needs [59].
Land grabbing as the right or power to land resources or large quantities of land acquired
in a bid to respond to the food security crisis adequately, combat the impacts of climate
change, and meet financial exigencies [60]. Although this is a global practice, the way it
is acquired in Africa seems to be restrictive of Africa’s quest for food sovereignty, agroe-
cology, and human rights. This is because it has governance problems, such as deficient
information or data on large-scale lands and the exclusion of host communities from the
land allocation decision-making process, among others [21]. It tends to favor more foreign
investors, governments, or states at the expense of stewardship and peasant farmers in
home countries.
Peasant farmers, who largely depend on land as a means of livelihood, are more
affected by unlawful land grabs. It also impacts herders, who are forest-dependent [61].
African governments with weak regulations on land tenure systems often violate existing
communal and customary land tenure laws to re-allocate land to foreign governments,
speculative investors, and organizations for agricultural development [11]. This inordinate
practice by some African governments has partly contributed to the forceful acquisition
or dispossession of land from the real owners under the guise that such land will be used
for developmental purposes [21]. However, the reality in most African states reveals that
land grabbing for developmental purposes hardly translates to the development of host
communities where the lands were originally acquired [61]. It is the poor, displaced, and
marginalized communities that lose land in Africa, mainly because they lack the power and
influence to compete with foreign land speculators or investors. It is imperative to note that
despite Africa’s endowment of land resources and raw materials, hunger and malnutrition
still persist on the continent. This is otherwise known as the “resource curse”. A resource
curse is an inability to fully benefit from the abundance of resources endowed or available
in a country or state. Africa, despite its huge land resources and raw materials, as well as its

394
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

initiative to lease land for developmental purposes, still cannot feed its populations [37,62].
It is a resource curse for Africa if, after partnering with foreign land speculators or investors
through the leasing of its landed resources and huge raw materials, its people still suffer
from hunger. One in five people, or 21% of the African population, still suffers from hunger,
while 282 million are undernourished [63]. This negative outcome of Africa’s land leasing
or grabbing initiative has been blamed on a lack of accurate data on the scale, trends,
geographical distribution of land, and actors in large-scale land deals [61].
Land deals, especially those in large quantities, are shrouded in secrecy and not
transparent [21]. Variations in timescales, methodologies, and criteria for land deals make it
very difficult to compare information about land grabbing in Africa [64]. From the foregoing,
it can be deduced that the inability of African leaders to follow procedural and approved
regulations on land tenure or the unlawful leasing of land to foreign partners is partly the
reason for the resource curse in Africa. It shows that there is a strong relationship between
land grabbing and the resource curse in Africa. African governments that jettisoned lawful
allocation of land due to weak land tenure regulations or that allocated lands without due
process because they wanted to balance their budgets would certainly not benefit fully
from the proceeds of investment on the leased or allocated lands [21,61]. This is because
once foreign land speculators or investors bribe their way to acquire land, as is currently
performed in some African countries, it will be very difficult for these African governments
to control and audit investment by these land speculators or grabbers [11]. This is because
regulating agencies, at the point of land allocation, abandoned the land tenure laws [11,65].
Moreover, since one of the aims of land speculators or grabbers is to attain access to
resources in host communities through collaborative efforts, they may likely benefit more
from the proceeds of investment in the landed resources than African countries [21]. Thus,
it can be interpreted to mean that while the abandonment of land tenure regulations
by some African governments during land allocations has retarded Africa, it has also
attracted more foreign land speculators to Africa [66]. Africa is home to uncultivated lands,
and this could have informed the conclusion that uncultivated land with the prospect of
boosting significant food outcomes attracts foreign investors [67]. Despite the fact that
Africa accounts for about 60% of the world’s arable land, most African countries hardly
achieve 25% of their potential yield [68]. This may have partly contributed to an increase in
China’s investment in the agricultural sector in Africa. Land grabs raise concerns about
corruption, large-scale resettlement of populations, and even the recolonization of Africa.
It is imperative to note that some developed countries persistently hide under the pretense
of climate mitigation action, corporate social responsibility (CSR), technology transfer,
collaborative efforts in food security, foreign aid, and financial assistance to unduly exploit
and occupy lands in Africa.
The case of Chinese loans and partnerships in agricultural food production in some
African countries, where the latter default on loan repayment, often leads to the forfeiture
of national assets. This may include the loss of cash crop plantations, where food meant
for African host countries is shipped to China. This succinctly explains the problem
of land grabbing in Africa [26,69,70]. It is the largest bilateral lender for public sector
loans across the African continent [26,71,72]. Despite this large economic footprint, there
is often very little information in the public domain on the specifics of its lending and
investments [73,74]. Today, through its loan policy in Africa, China has been able to provide
business and employment opportunities to Chinese citizens and contractors working
in Africa [71]. Similarly, because China, on the one hand, often imposes most of these
loans on infrastructural development in Africa, African governments, on the other hand,
provide land for the construction of these infrastructure projects [26]. This imposition has
benefited China more than host African countries because of her “going-out strategy”,
which tends to give more priority to Chinese companies as contractors or investors for any
projects, including agricultural projects, financed by Chinese loans [26]. These companies,
rather than giving job opportunities to citizens of host African countries, prefer giving job
opportunities to Chinese citizens in host African countries. This describes a situation where

395
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

China gives out money with one hand and collects back all the proceeds of that money with
another hand [26,75]. It is similar to a situation where China agreed to assist or partner
with some African countries to boost food production through the recruitment of local
peasant farmers but went behind the host nation’s back by recruiting Chinese farmers and
still transferred the harvest back to China [76]. This does not only undermine stewardship,
peasant farmers, and human rights; it also raises the question of whether Africa wants to
feed China or itself. This was well captured in the forms of large-scale investments, often
involving transnational purchases of land to create jobs and bring new technology to the
sector, and small-holder farming that neglects local rights, extracts short-term profits at the
cost of long-term sustainability, ignores social standards, and fosters corruption on a large
scale [68].
However, on the procurement of land for large investments in the creation of jobs,
evidence such as that shows discrepancies between interest in large-scale investment in
African agriculture and actual investment [10,68]. China has been criticized for grabbing
land cheaply from Africa, using underpaid Africans as laborers, and producing food
for its citizens back home at the expense of Africa [26,73,77]. This has implications for
hunger as African countries, especially those that are politically sensitive and food insecure,
will lose control over their own food supplies when they need them most. It also has
severe implications for new colonialism, agrarian colonialism, or eco-colonialism. It is
on record that countries such as Ghana, Ethiopia, Mali, Tanzania, Kenya, and Sudan
have grossly engaged in the leasing of millions of hectares of their lands for biofuels and
agricultural production; this could be similar to “new colonialism or agrarian colonialism”
currently spreading to African countries [68,78]. Land acquisition in Africa has been
unprecedented, and there is a huge gap between declaring an intention to lease land and
the actual cultivation of the land for food production. Investment in African lands for food
production that will benefit the population of the investing countries is not new; what is
new is the rate of land deals that have been transacted. Land deals in Africa have been
enormous, such that local farmers and investors hardly have the opportunity to procure
land for food cultivation. This is even worse for women, who are major contributors to
food production in Africa [9,37,79,80]. Another unprecedented thing is the issue of what
the land is used for and the beneficiary. Africa’s inability to address gaps in the effective
management of leased or acquired lands for developmental purposes creates the tendency
to have huge deposits of resources that cannot necessarily translate into wealth or freedom
from hunger and poverty. This is similar to a resource curse because, despite Africa’s huge
land resources and abundance of raw materials, it can hardly boast of fully reaping positive
outcomes from the resources or raw materials. This depicts a situation where those who
own the resources (land) cheaply sell their land to foreigners or investors and work as
laborers on their sold land to earn a livelihood. As foreign countries (US or China) smile to
the bank to receive huge dividends from their investment [70,81]. This adequately describes
the resource curse situation in Africa.
Similarly, multinational corporations, through CSR, have illegally grabbed lands for
the benefit of their home states at the expense of the host countries. These corporations
hide under the pretense of bringing socio-economic development to areas of their oper-
ations by illegally acquiring lands and assets belonging to host communities in Africa,
as their assistance to developing African countries is embedded in an unequal exchange
arrangement [10,82–84]. It has been argued that negotiation dexterity, diplomatic power,
economic preponderance, and socio-cultural upper hands of multinational cooperations
or states undermine African nations’ bargaining prowess during negotiations over trade,
including land; this has been found to be detrimental to the economic development of the
continent [10]. MNCs have also been accused of preventing the free flow of indigenous
knowledge among the local people in host countries. They have been accused of hijack-
ing and converting high-income-producing indigenous knowledge to their own through
patenting, despite the global geographical recognition of such knowledge belonging to
host communities [20,37]. The promise to assist the people of San in processing the hoodia

396
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

plant without infringing on their right of ownership, where there was a total disregard for
the convention on biological diversity (CBD) by the foreign MNCs, aptly explained the
domineering nature of the negotiation process by MNCs.
MNCs are opposed to local, vibrant initiatives that could have aided the develop-
ment of host communities. They disarticulate the sources of economic stability in host
communities as local people are forced to produce what they cannot eat and consume
what they cannot produce. They are objects of de-capitalization and de-industrialization
in Africa [10,27]. The claim that land is grabbed to create jobs in the agricultural sector is
absolutely not correct and misleading, as most of these multinational cooperatives only
cultivate the land for food production to feed their own populations and not those of Africa.
They grabbed lands in host communities under the pretense of utilizing those lands for the
improvement of infrastructure (roads, bridges, and schools, among others) and mitigation
against climate change. In doing this, members of host communities are displaced and
forcefully ejected from their lands, only to realize later that the main motive is to use the
land to feed the population of the home countries [77,82].
Despite the endowment of Africa with raw materials and natural resources, it lacks
the capacity to process these resources or raw materials into finished products. This has
made Africa rely on developed countries for the processing of its resources. This reliance
is partly due to a lack of sophisticated technology and technical know-how. However,
empirical evidence shows that the refined or processed resources are sold back to Africa
at a very high price, thus making it appear as a resource curse to Africa, which originally
owned the resources [85]. The need for Africa to have some of its resources processed into
finished products overseas makes her accept stringent conditions during loan negotiations
with Bretton Woods institutions and other big powers (the IMF and World Bank, China,
and the US) [10,26]. The imposition of mono-cropping against an agro-ecological model of
sustainable development in food security in Africa is a sign and an indicator that Africa
suffers from a resource curse. It literally means that Africa’s resources cannot transform it
from its poverty and hunger-striking state to a more desired and sustainable level.
This explains why Africa, despite her arable lands and her description as the world’s
capital of raw materials, is still largely poor and faces hunger, malnutrition, and inequalities.
How could a continent so endowed with arable, fertile lands with huge raw materials be
this poor and affected by hunger? This question confirms the fact that central Africa has the
highest extreme poverty rate of 54.8%, followed by Southern Africa at 45.1%. Rates in West-
ern and Eastern Africa are 36.8% and 33.8%, respectively [86]. The answer to this question
is not far-fetched, as globalization not only triggered massive attraction to Africa for her
unprocessed raw materials and uncultivated lands, but it also led to land grabbing for mas-
sive food production for commercial purposes rather than for humanitarian sustainability
or purpose. This might have led to the conclusion that the description of Africa as the food
basket and raw materials of the world has made many multinational corporations (MNCs)
and states scramble for African countries' resources and, more recently, grab African arable
lands to produce food for the North and Middle East markets [87]. Relatedly, Amusan
(2018) argued that African resources are fast becoming a curse if multinational corporations
(MNCs) continue to engage in capital flight and soulless capitalism, where monies realized
from food production on the grabbed African land are sold outside African markets.

5. Mapping the Impact of Globalization on Global Partnerships, Hunger-Index, and

Resource Curse in Africa
Although globalization often draws praise and recognition, it has also been blamed
for its negative side effects across continents, including Africa [88]. Indeed, Africa has
benefited and suffered greatly from globalization. While studies have extensively examined
how Africa benefited from globalization, findings about Africa’s pains, especially how they
contribute to Africa’s hunger index rate, are scarce in the literature. It is a fact that prior to
the establishment of the SDGs, hunger already existed in Africa; SDG 2 was only a global
response to end hunger in the world, including Africa [89]. To achieve this goal, all countries

397
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

in the world are expected to take action against hunger [90]. However, while some countries
seem to have the capacity in terms of technology, knowledge, and finance for massive food
production that can solve their food crisis, others, especially their African counterparts,
seem to be highly deficient in modern climate control, food production technologies, and
finance to meet their food production needs [89,90]. In the same vein, while Africa has a
large scale of arable lands, raw materials, and viable markets for agricultural harvests or
products, their counterparts on other continents seem to have limited arable lands, markets,
or raw materials required for their food production [11]. These shortfalls and limited
capacities across continents form the basis of global partnerships, interdependency, and
interconnectedness. With partnerships, countries across continents have been able to have
access to agricultural funds, technology transfer, foreign aid, financial assistance, arable
lands, raw materials, and markets to enhance their food production capacity [21]. From
the foregoing, it is clear that partnerships can only thrive through flows of trade, people,
communication, goods and services, ideas, information, and knowledge, which are essential
features of globalization. It is expected that as countries engage in global partnerships
or collaborative engagements, their capacity to achieve the SDGs, including SDG 2, will
be enhanced, all things being equal [10,27]. Thus, Africa is expected to have the capacity
to eradicate hunger following her global partnerships and collaborations with developed
nations such as China, the US, Britain, and France, among others. In addition, its large scale
of arable lands and endowment of raw materials are added advantages that ought to have
improved Africa’s capacity to produce food that can feed its populations [11,21]. However,
despite her global partnerships, availability of arable lands, and raw materials, Africa still
has a high hunger index rate, lacks the capacity to feed her populations and suffers from
resource curse syndrome [91,92]. These deplorable conditions have been blamed on the
fallout of globalization, which is manifested in the way global powers such as China have
transgressed constituted authorities and undermined land allocation regulations in some
African states with weak budgetary allocations to agricultural production [93]. It is a fact
that the rising global demand for biofuel and food has shifted the focus of some developed
nations to Africa, where raw materials are readily available [65]. As they scrambled for
African raw materials and lands for food plantations, they tended to undermine the interests
of peasant farmers and impugned human rights in Africa (Holmen, 2015). Although land
grabbing is legal and commonly practiced across the world, its enforcement in some African
countries limits Africa’s food sovereignty initiative [56,94]. China’s developmental drive
in Africa indicates that, through globalization, most foreign land speculators or investors
grab land in Africa. However, the motive for the acquisition of these lands appears to
purportedly promote Africa’s food production capacity, whereas, in reality, it is to provide
job opportunities and promote the welfare of their citizens residing in host countries.
China’s “Going-out policy” tends to retain Chinese citizens as workers or contractors in
any project financed by loans provided by China [26,73]. With this policy, peasant farmers
in Africa would be denied the opportunity to grow food because the majority of them
have been dispossessed of their lands [10]. Although these lands were allocated on the
basis of positive agricultural outcomes such as the training of local farmers on how to
operate agricultural technologies, high-yielding seedlings, irrigation, detecting a good and
conducive planting season, climate adaptability, marketing, and storage of farm harvests,
among others, that can be rewarding and beneficial to African countries food production
capacity [11]. It is a fact that Africa is not fully benefiting from its allocated landed resources
because the majority of its global partners often do not report all the gains or profits on
agricultural investment. In the same vein, evidence indicated massive capital flights
(transfers of profits on investment back home) overseas by these global partners [11,26,27].
In some severe cases, raw materials from Africa are transferred overseas by these global
partners for the industrialization of their countries. In the colonial era, palm oil from
southern Nigeria was used to fuel Britain’s industrial revolution, just as French farmers
resettled in the farmlands of local communities without any meaningful compensation
in Algeria [11]. Today, Africa’s natural resources, especially arable lands and other raw

398
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

materials, have attracted global partners that have offered to assist Africa in ending hunger,
but their assistance has been shrouded in secrecy and largely skewed to undermine the
rights of peasant farmers, take control of resources in host communities, amass wealth at
the expense of host communities, and limit food sovereignty in Africa [27,45]. These are the
reasons why Africa still has a high hunger index rate, is unable to feed its populations, and
suffers from a resource curse. The more peasant farmers are denied the opportunity to grow
food, the higher the hunger index rate and the greater the inability to feed the population.
This no doubt described Africa’s resource curse situation, especially with the way Africa,
despite her endowment of resources (large-scale arable lands and raw materials) and web
of global partnerships, is still not fully benefiting from the proceeds of investment in its
landed resources. This might have led to the conclusion that governance crises are the bane
of underdevelopment in Africa [89]. Land grabbing in Africa has governance issues, such as
a lack of information on leased lands and poor monitoring of the activities of land investors
or foreign partners. These governance crises could limit the attainment of SDG 2 [10,27].
The practical effects or implications of these findings are that African governments can
now understand where they get it wrong in terms of not following due process in land
allocation and make swift adjustments against such practices. Similarly, the findings of
this article advanced fresh knowledge on how African governments should now manage
or handle their collaborative engagements or partnerships with global powers. Another
practical effect of this article’s findings is that they provided needed information on how
African governments can optimize globalization to achieve positive SDG 2 outcomes. This
will be accomplished by ensuring that all information about land grabbing is transparent,
people-oriented, or focused, through effective land grab governance, periodic checks or
reviews of the activities of foreign land investors or global partners, and by ensuring that
Africa fully benefits from its landed resources.

6. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Technology to Boost Food Security in Africa

Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) are simply the application or use of native intel-
ligence to foster or boost agricultural food production. Prior to globalization, indigenous
knowledge systems were in existence and widely used by local farmers in Africa to produce
mainly organic foods [95]. However, with the advent of globalization, the focus shifted
from indigenous knowledge systems that specialize in mostly organic farming or food
production to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with the use of technology. The
widespread nature of globalization, which eventually led to the adoption of technology in
agricultural food production across the world, including Africa, is symptomatic of some
factors. First, it attests to the expanding importance of technology in everyday human
endeavors. Whereas technology can enhance and endanger food security, its gains offset the
fallout. Second, it is reflective of an alternative method for addressing low food production
that negatively impugns food security.
Although low food production is widespread on some continents, Africa’s situation
suffers from below-par and rushed attempts at increasing food production [21,49]. Studies
on the use of crude farming equipment for food production in Africa show low food
production outcomes [96]. The literature is replete with evidence of undesirable drifts in
public perceptions of the capacity of crude technology in food security [97–100], indicating
low food production, which could trigger food insecurity. The consequences of these
actions have been stiffening food security challenges [101].
Thus, the advent of globalization, which comes with technology transfer and adoption,
embodies opportunities for massive and fruitful food production that can meet the food
demand of Africa. Africa’s population is huge, and the indigenous technology systems
cannot produce food that can meet the exponential population growth of Africa. Technology
transfers and adoption or utilization are predominantly expedient in the context of Africa’s
exponential population growth. The ability of highly sophisticated technologies to produce
the food requirements of Africa can enhance food availability, accessibility, and utilization
and allow the people wider latitude to determine what to eat and produce what they can

399
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

consume rather than receiving directives and impositions from the developed countries.
Africa has, for a long time, been on the receiving end of out-of-use technologies from
developed partners. No wonder it was concluded that inappropriate technologies are
transferred to Africa, and even when sophisticated technologies are sent to Africa, local
employees are hardly allowed to work on those machines [10,27]. It is also a fact that about
5% to 10% of the profit made on technology transfer to Africa is directed toward patenting
payments [10]. This shows that technology transfer to Africa, which is purposely intended
to boost food security, is meant to drain the pockets of Africa and enrich the MNCs and
their states.
Importantly, as it was made clear, those technologies barely drive change without
other factors; ‘effectiveness arises from a combination of technology, organizational shifts,
and policy reforms [102]’. Technologies need to be aggregated with other factors that are
important for development [86]. The aspects of the reforms that could not be handled by
technology require human judgment, intuition, and discretion [103]. Therefore, outcomes
will be a function of the quality of decision-making resulting from the effective operation of
farming technologies such as tractors, irrigation machines, food modification technologies
or machines, robots, and agricultural drones, among others. For massive food production
through technology to take firm root in Africa, ‘it is vital that the training, mindset, and
methods of food production and farming undergo fundamental change [104].’ These under-
score the human dimension. Local farmers need to be trained in the act of mechanization
and the handling of sophisticated farming machines or technologies to boost food security
in Africa.
Much progress in the use of technology platforms (such as tractors, climate detection
devices, mobile phones, and drones) to boost food security depends on how farmers,
especially women, can adapt them to daily operational workings such as the use of phones
to alert customers or buyers of food harvests. In addition to what technology can add to
food security, it is imperative that African farmers expand their infrastructure, especially in
relation to the use of mobile phones and internet facilities, to showcase their harvests and
attract customers. This is against a background of studies highlighting a shortage of basic
technology used for food production, such as telephones, computers, and internet facilities,
in rural local farming areas [75,82].
This limits the extent to which farmers are familiar with technology in their farming
duties. Farmers need to deepen their use of technologies, as this can enable them to know
the potency of the best technology platforms in addressing challenges, including seedlings,
irrigation, planting season, prices of food, harvesting, and storage of food, and not just as
platforms for increasing food production. The ability to institutionalize and strengthen the
use of IKS and technology among farmers, especially women, will aid sustained efforts at
boosting food security and ending hunger in Africa.

7. Limitations and Future Directions

One of the limitations of this paper was the difficulty in identifying the exact and
global meaning of land grabbing. In the literature, while some scholars see it as a forceful
dispossession of lands in foreign countries, especially in Africa, others see it as a legal and
mutual allocation of land. In the long run, this article believes that land grabbing could be
legal or illegal, especially when the due process or land tenure regulations of host African
states are not followed in the process of leasing or allocating lands. Another limitation is
that it places too much focus on developing countries in Africa. Other developing nations
on other continents, where land grabbing is predominant, were excluded from the review.
Importantly, the paper also suffers from the limitation of reviewing or examining only SDG
2. Its findings can only be applicable to countries in need of ways to improve their food
production capacity to end hunger. Given these limitations, it is expected that more robust
research should be conducted to compare land grabs and resource curses, with a specific
focus on globalization in Africa and Asia. Similarly, research on this subject should cover
more SDGs (specifically, SDGs 1, 13, and 17). Finally, research in this direction should strive

400
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

to utilize mixed methods of quantitative and qualitative research design. It is hoped that in
the future, the findings of the mixed-methods paper will provide a balanced view of how
globalization impacts land grabbing and provokes resource curses.

8. Conclusions
This article has established that globalization in itself is not a bad thing. The real
problem of globalization in Africa is the inability of some African governments to effectively
optimize the potential of globalization for the development of Africa [105]. Land grabbing,
if adequately enforced (in terms of following due process and good governance, which
ensures that the local communities participate in land allocation decisions and have access
to information about the land and transparency), has the potential to contribute to the
attainment of SDG 2 [106]. Expectedly, with Africa’s arable lands and lawful land grabs
for food security purposes, the issue of hunger and mal-nutrition targeted by SDG 2 will
be a thing of the past. The successful achievement of SDG 2 in Africa largely depends
on transparent land grabs, sincere global partnerships, and effective monitoring of the
activities of international land grabbers [107]. This, if adequately enforced, can improve
Africa’s capacity to feed its population and attain SDG 2. However, lands allocated to
foreign partners have yielded little or no positive outcomes due to weak land tenure laws
in Africa. This partly accounts for the increasing rate of dispossession of local farmers
from their farmlands and the relegation of peasant farmers in host communities. The
desire to amass wealth and earn foreign currencies from global partners is partly the reason
why arable lands are allocated without due process or regulations [10,21,94]. This has
implications for the loss of lands by local farmers; it also reduces their capacity to produce
food and consequently aggravates Africa’s hunger index rate. From the foregoing, it can
be inferred that the more arable lands are unlawfully allocated at the expense of peasant
farmers, human rights, and Africa’s developmental motives, the lower the capacity to
produce food and the greater the rate of hunger in Africa. It also has implications for
Africa’s inability to feed its populations. This is because most African governments fail to
optimize and effectively utilize their collaborations with other developed states or global big
powers (China, the US, Britain, and others) to advance sustainable development in their key
sectors, including agriculture. Evidence shows that in most large-scale land deals, African
governments with weak financial or budgetary allocations are usually under pressure to
satisfy these big powers at the expense of their local farmers [26,27]. This satisfaction, if not
properly checked, could lead these big powers to exert undue influence and control over
resources in Africa. China’s undue influence and control over gold mining and big farm
lands and its ability to determine who works on these sites and farms succinctly explained
why Africa’s overdependency on foreign partners for technology, financial assistance, and
foreign aid limits its capacity to feed its populations. It is also the reason why Africa is
labeled a resource curse because Africa has yet to fully benefit from its landed resources
and partnerships with big global powers.
To address this gap, the findings in this piece indicate the possibilities that IKS and
technology provide for the effective cultivation of land and processing of resources. These
are sacred to food security. Unfortunately, in Africa, governments have failed to optimize
lawful land grabbing and foreign partnerships for the attainment of SDG 2 and, thus,
food security. Uncultivated arable lands stimulate the massive attraction of foreign land
investors and speculators to Africa, but the inordinate desire of some African governments,
which made them allocate land without due process, caused many local peasant farmers to
lose their lands, hence their limited capacity to produce food. Other restrictive challenges
affecting food security, including the overbearing influence of MNCs, the imposition of
food policies and methods, mono-cropping, a lack of technology, the marginalization of
women farmers, and other related issues, as well as a lack of funds and the associated
problems of GMOs, worsen food security in Africa.
Prospects provided by technology transfer are desirable for addressing some of the
issues. It is established that a blend of IKS and technology used by farmers will help boost

401
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

food production and, by extension, food security in Africa. Technologies and IKS enable
deeper interactions, native intelligence, monitoring, and oversight leverage over massive
food production. Gaps in food production and security in Africa can be alleviated by IKS,
which relies on the low cost of technology to advance indigenous knowledge to boost food
security efforts in Africa. Technology allows the joint production of indigenous knowledge,
in which local farmers in host communities bring to the fore their native knowledge about
problems affecting food production in their localities and support for ideas or efforts of
partnering states or organizations, which are the determinants of food security. Continual
cultivation of Africa’s arable lands and processing of resources using a blend of IKS and
technology will combine to boost food security in Africa.
Universities in Africa can also provide the expected change in the attainment of SDG
2, especially through the giving of assignments and research works to students, which
specifically cover issues of global partnerships and food sovereignty in Africa. This can
expose students to understanding how their work or assignments impact lives in society.
Across continents, universities are thinking tanks that are strategically placed in society to
conduct problem-solving research and cross-sectoral execution of the SDGs, providing an
invaluable source of expertise in research and education on all sectors of the SDGs [108].
Universities, through the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI), can partner-
with governments and communities in food production. This can be achieved by offering
agricultural extension or educational services to local peasant farmers, creating awareness
on how farmers can adapt and prevent harsh climatic impacts, and liaising with different
sub-national governments to train and educate farmers in massive food production [109].
The departments of food technology, agricultural science, and extension services of various
universities in Africa, through their community service functions, have rendered research
expertise to governments and communities in the growing of cash crops that have yielded
positive outcomes in food production [110]. This, if adequately and continually explored,
could enhance the quick attainment of SDG 2 [111].
Conclusively, it can be deduced that while globalization stimulates Africa to partner
with other nations or big powers to be able to attain SDG 2 (an end to hunger and mal-
nutrition), globalization has also been disproportionately exploited to milk Africa of its
resources, as Africa has benefited very little from allocating its arable lands to foreign land
grabbers, who pretentiously cultivate Africa’s lands to develop their home country and
limit Africa’s capacity to attain SDG 2, hence, the high hunger index in Africa.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.C.A.; Methodology, S.C.A.; Software, L.A.; Validation,

S.C.A.; Formal analysis, S.C.A.; Investigation, L.A.; Data curation, L.A.; Writing—original draft, S.C.A.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research has no external funding. And the APC was funded by the University of
North West, South Africa.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data Availability Statements are available in section “MDPI Research
Data Policies” at [Link]
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.;
Martin, M.A.; et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
2. Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE). What Is Globalization? And How Has the Global Economy Shaped the
United States? 2018. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 4
June 2023).
3. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M. Perspectives and Challenges on Sustainability: Drivers, Opportunities and Policy Implications in
Universities. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3564. [CrossRef]

402
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

4. Hall, R.; Scoones, I.; Tsikata, D. Africa’s Land Rush: Rural Livelihoods and Agrarian Change; James Currey: Woodbridge, UK, 2015.
5. He, X.; Khan, S.; Ozturk, I.; Murshed, M. The role of renewable energy investment in tackling climate change concerns:
Environmental policies for achieving SDG-13. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 31, 1888–1901. [CrossRef]
6. Kumar, N.M.; Chopra, S.S. Leveraging Blockchain and Smart Contract Technologies to Overcome Circular Economy Implementa-
tion Challenges. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9492. [CrossRef]
7. Smol, M. Is the green deal a global strategy? Revision of the green deal definitions, strategies and importance in post-COVID
recovery plans in various regions of the world. Energy Policy 2022, 169, 113152. [CrossRef]
8. Halkos, G.; Gkampoura, E.-C. Where do we stand on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals? An overview on progress. Econ.
Anal. Policy 2021, 70, 94–122. [CrossRef]
9. Salahuddin, M.; Vink, N.; Ralph, N.; Gow, J. Globalisation, poverty and corruption: Retarding progress in South Africa. Dev.
South. Afr. 2019, 37, 617–643. [CrossRef]
10. Ojo, A.S. Globalization and Agricultural Productivity Paradigm: The Nigeria Perspective. Arch. Bus. Res. 2018, 6, 94–104.
[CrossRef]
11. Amusan, L. “Reap what you have not Sown”, “Architect of Poverty”: The Political Economy of Biodiversity Patenting in Africa.
Anthropologist 2018, 31, 25–33. [CrossRef]
12. Batterbury, S.P.J.; Ndi, F. Land grabbing in Africa. The Routledge Handbook of African Development; Binns, J.A., Lynch, K., Nel, E., Eds.;
Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 573–582.
13. Gygli, S.; Haelg, F.; Potrafke, N.; Sturm, J.E. The KOF globalisation index–revisited. Rev. Int. Organ. 2019, 14, 543–574. [CrossRef]
14. Muthoka, S.; Muthuri, E.; Oginga, J. Globalisation in Africa: An Overview; MPRA Paper 65474; University Library of Munich:
Munich, Germany, 2013.
15. Vibeke, B.; Henning, B.; Andre, F.; Rooyen, V. Why agricultural production in sub-Saharan Africa remains low compared to the
rest of the world—A historical perspective. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2020, 36, (Suppl. 1). S20–S53. [CrossRef]
16. Otsuka, K.; Muraoka, R. A green revolution for sub-Saharan Africa: Past failures and future prospects. J. Afr. Econ. 2017,
26, 173–198. [CrossRef]
17. Nel, A. A Critical Reflection on Equity in Ugandan Carbon Forestry; Social Justice and Environmental Governance; Routledge:
London, UK, 2016.
18. Smith, W.; Jeppese, C. Britain, France and the Decolonization of Africa. 2017. Available online: [Link]/ucl-press (accessed
on 26 June 2023).
19. Bi, M.; Zhang, Z. Exploring the Path of Autonomous Development: The Development Dilemma and Coping Strategies of
Sub-Saharan Africa in the Post-epidemic Era. J. Knowl. Econ. 2023, 14, 1–16. [CrossRef]
20. Carmody, P.; Taylor, D. Globalization, Land Grabbing, and the Present-Day Colonial State in Uganda: Ecolonization and Its
Impacts. J. Environ. Dev. 2016, 25, 100–126. [CrossRef]
21. Amusan, L. Multinational Corporations’ (MNCs) Engagement in Africa: Messiahs or Hypocrites? J. Afr. Foreign Aff. 2018, 5, 41–62.
[CrossRef]
22. Holmén, H. Is Land Grabbing Always What It Is Supposed to Be? Large scale Land Investments in sub-Saharan Africa. Dev.
Policy Rev. 2015, 33, 457–478. [CrossRef]
23. Yao, J.M.; Xu, M. Development dilemmas and prospects in Africa under the new crown pneumonia epidemic. Contemp. World
2020, 9, 64–71.
24. Zabella, A.A. The impact of the China-Africa cooperation Forum on the deepening of relations between China and Africa. RUDN
J. World Hist. 2020, 12, 35–46. [CrossRef]
25. Zhou, J.; Jing, Z. Urban trap and breakthrough of Sub-Saharan Africa: Discussing the influence of China investment in Africa on
urbanization. Int. Urban. Plan. 2018, 33, 29–38.
26. Zhou, J.Y. Why has poverty increased and life expectancy declined in sub-Saharan Africa? Chin. Sci. Bull. 2018, 63, 606–610.
[CrossRef]
27. Gallous, A. The impact of Chinese Loans in Africa. J. Am. Acad. Res. 2022, 10, 1–26.
28. Amusan, L. SDGs 1, 2 and 5 Actualisation in the Age of Ultra-Capitalism: Likely Roles of State Intervention in South Africa.
Transylv. Rev. 2020, 28, 12220–12226.
29. Wang, X.J. Africa’s development situation and China-Africa joint construction of the Belt and Road. Int. Stud. 2019, 2, 35–48.
30. Wen, Z. The forum on China-Africa cooperation: An investment perspective. China WTO Rev. 2019, 5, 195–206. [CrossRef]
31. Yates, D.A. France and Africa. In Africa and the World; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 95–118.
32. Zhao, Y.T. African development governance and China’s role during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. China-Afr. Stud. 2021, 2,
24–43+155–156.
33. Quartey, S.H.; Oguntoye, O. Understanding and promoting industrial sustainability in Africa through the Triple Helix approach:
A conceptual model and research propositions. J. Knowl. Econ. 2021, 12, 1100–1118. [CrossRef]
34. Rana, J.; Paul, J. Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: A review and research agenda. J. Retail. Consum.
Serv. 2017, 38, 157–165. [CrossRef]
35. Li, X.Y.; Li, J.Y.; Xu, J. Agriculture in Africa: Dilemma and prospects in the context of globalization. Int. Econ. Rev. 2020, 5,
5–6+61–75.

403
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

36. Liu, H.; Luo, J. Changes in the Geopolitics of Africa, and Issues Pertaining to Three-Way Cooperation among China, Africa and
the West. In Sino-African Development Cooperation; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 79–101.
37. Malah Kuete, Y.F.; Asongu, S.A. Infrastructure development as a prerequisite for structural change in Africa. J. Knowl. Econ. 2022,
10, 1–27. [CrossRef]
38. Amusan, L. Politics of Biopiracy: An Adventure into Hoodia/Xhoba Patenting in Southern Africa. Afr. J. Tradit. Complement.
Altern. Med. 2017, 14, 103–109. [CrossRef]
39. Odinga, S.O. Looking for Leverage: Strategic Resources, Contentious Bargaining, and US-African Security Cooperation. CUNY
Academic Works. 2016. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 26 June 2023).
40. Prudence, A.; Wenche, B.E.; Kristin, R.K.; Per Ole, I.; Ane, C.W. Unlocking the potential for achievement of the UN Sustainable
Development Goal 2—‘Zero Hunger’—in Africa: Targets, strategies, synergies and challenges. Food Nutr. Res. 2021, 65, 7686.
41. Schöggl, J.-P.; Rusch, M.; Stumpf, L.; Baumgartner, R.J. Implementation of digital technologies for a circular economy and
sustainability management in the manufacturing sector. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 35, 401–420. [CrossRef]
42. Alam, M.F.B.; Tushar, S.R.; Zaman, S.M.; Gonzalez, E.D.R.S.; Bari, A.B.M.M.; Karmaker, C.L. Analysis of the drivers of Agriculture
4.0 implementation in the emerging economies: Implications towards sustainability and food security. Green. Technol. Sustain.
2023, 1, 100021. [CrossRef]
43. Tseng, M.L.; Lim, M.K.; Ali, M.H.; Christianti, G.; Juladachah, P. Assessing the sustainable food system in Thailand under
uncertainties: Governance, distribution and storage drive technological innovation. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2022, 39, 1–18. [CrossRef]
44. Fierke, K.M. Constructivism. In International Relations Theories; Dunne, T., Kurki, M., Smith, S., Eds.; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 2016.
45. Amusan, L. The Plight of African Resources Patenting through the Lenses of the World Trade Organisation: An Assessment of
South Africa’s Rooibos Tea’s Labyrinth Journey. Afr. J. Tradit. Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 5, 41–47. [CrossRef]
46. Walters, R. Eco Crime and Genetically Modified Food; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
47. Thun, E. The Globalization of Production. In Global Political Economy; Ravenhill, J., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK,
2017; pp. 174–196.
48. Wade, R.H. Global Growth, Inequality, and Poverty; The Globalization: London, UK, 2017.
49. Tickner, J.A.; Laura, S. Feminism. In International Relations Theories; Dunne, T., Kurki, M., Smith, S., Eds.; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 2016.
50. Amusan, L.; Agunyai, S.C. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the crisis of Lockdowns in Nigeria: The food security perspective. Afr.
Public. Serv. Deliv. Perform. Rev. 2021, 9, 78–98. [CrossRef]
51. Santos, M.P.; Brewer, J.D.; Lopez, M.A.; Paz-Soldan, V.A.; Chaparro, M.P. Determinants of food insecurity among households
with children in Villa el Salvador, Lima, Peru: The role of gender and employment, a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health
2022, 22, 717. [CrossRef]
52. Riley, L.; Caesar, M. Urban household food security in China and Mozambique: A gender-based comparative approach. Dev.
Pract. 2018, 28, 1012–1021. [CrossRef]
53. Amusan, L.; Agunyai, S.C. Food Security without Women: A sine qua’non for Food Insecurity in Africa. In Food Security and Food
Sovereignty in Africa; Amusan, L., Ed.; Ethics Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 67–79.
54. Ehrlich, S.D. The Politics of Fair Trade: Moving Beyond Free Trade & Protection; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018.
55. Owens, J.K. Systematic reviews: Brief overview of methods, limitations, and resources. Nurse Author Ed. 2021, 31, 69–72.
[CrossRef]
56. Bedenlier, S.; Kondakci, Y.; Zawacki-Richter, O. Two decades of research into the internationalization of higher education: Major
themes in the Journal of Studies in International Education (1997–2016). J. Stud. Int. Educ. 2018, 22, 108–135. [CrossRef]
57. Almudena, M.; Taísa, D.; Javier, M.S.; Raquel, G. Systematic Literature Reviews in Social Sciences and Humanities: A Case Study.
J. Inf. Technol. Res. 2018, 11, 1–17.
58. Giang, H.T.N.; Banno, K.; Minh, L.H.N.; Trinh, L.T.; Loc, L.T.; Eltobgy, A.; Tai, L.L.T.; Khan, A.; Tuan, N.H.; Reda, Y.; et al. Dengue
hemophagocytic syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis on epidemiology, clinical signs, outcomes, and risk factors.
Rev. Med. Virol. 2018, 28, e2005. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Tawfik, G.M.; Dila, K.A.S.; Mohamed, M.Y.F.; Tam, D.N.H.; Kien, N.D.; Ahmed, A.M.; Huy, N.T. A step by step guide for
conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Trop. Med. Health 2019, 47, 46. [CrossRef]
60. Hanson, N. Biofuels, land grabbing and food security in Africa. Afr. Geogr. Rev. 2013, 32, 190–192.
61. Ralph, T.; Fred, S. The Politics of Land Grabbing: State and corporate power and the (trans)nationalization of resistance in
Cameroon. J. Agrar. Chang. 2018, 19, 41–63.
62. Cotula, L. The Great African Land Grab? Zed Books: London, UK, 2013.
63. Lisk, F. Land Grabbing or Harnessing of Development Potential in Agriculture? East Asia’s land-based investments in Africa.
Pac. Rev. 2013, 26, 563–587. [CrossRef]
64. Oxfam International. Land and Power: The Growing Scandal Surrounding the New Wave Ofinvestments in Land; Oxfam: Oxford,
UK, 2011.
65. IIED. The Global Land Rush: What the Evidence Reveals about Scale and Geography; IIED Briefing; International Institute for
Environment and Development: London, UK, 2012.

404
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

66. Hamouchene, H.; The Ouarzazate Solar Plant in Morocco: Triumphal ‘Green’ Capitalism and the Privatization of Nature.
Adaliyya e-zine (Arab Studies Institute). Syndicated Article. 2016. Available online: [Link]
124/the-ouarzazate-solar-plant-in-morocco_triumphal-gr (accessed on 16 June 2023).
67. Tijo, S. Facing criticism: An analysis of (land-based) corporate responses to the large-scale land acquisition countermovement.
J. Peasant Stud. 2018, 46, 1–18.
68. Amanor, K.S. Global Resource Grabs, Agribusiness Concentration and the Smallholder: Two West African Case Studies. J. Peasant
Stud. 2012, 39, 731–749. [CrossRef]
69. Amadou, S. What Do We Know about the Chinese Land Grab in Africa? Brookings, 2015. Available online: [Link]
[Link]/blog/africa-in-focus/2015/11/05/what-do-we-know-about-the-chinese-land-grab-in-africa/ (accessed on 20
June 2023).
70. Shaomin, X.; Jiang, L. The Emergence and Fallacy of ‘China’s Debt-Trap Diplomacy’ Narrative. China Intl. Stud. 2020, 81, 69.
71. Gill, I.; Karakhula, K. Sounding the Alarm on Africa’s Debt. Brookings Institution Blog, 6 April 2018. Available online: https:
//[Link]/blog/future-development/2018/04/06/sounding-the-alarm-on-africas-debt/ (accessed on 4 June 2023).
72. Bernstein, H. Agrarian Political Economy and Modern World Capitalism: The Contributions of Food Regime Analysis. J. Peasant
Stud. 2016, 43, 611–647. [CrossRef]
73. Borras, S.M.; Franco, J.; Wang, C. The Challenge of Global Governance and Land Grabbing: Changing International Agricultural
Context and Competing Political Views and Strategies. Globalizations 2013, 10, 161–179. [CrossRef]
74. Sun, Y. China’s Aid to Africa: Monster or Messiah? Brookings Institution, 7 February 2014. Available online: [Link]
[Link]/opinions/chinas-aid-to-africa-monster-or-messiah/ (accessed on 3 June 2023).
75. Were, A.; Debt Trap? Chinese Loans and Africa’s Development Options. Africanportal, South African Institute of Internal Affiars,
Policy Insights 66. 2018. Available online: [Link]
development-options/ (accessed on 26 June 2023).
76. Su, X. Why Chinese Infrastructure Loans in Africa Represent a Brand-New Type of Neocolonialism. The Diplomat, 9 June 2017.
Available online: [Link]
of-neocolonialism/ (accessed on 26 June 2023).
77. Scoones, I.; Hall, R.; Borras, S.M., Jr.; White, B.; Wolford, W. The Politics of Evidence: Methodologies for understanding the global
land rush. J. Peasant Stud. 2013, 40, 469–483. [CrossRef]
78. Sassen, S. Land grabs today: Feeding the disassembling of national territory. Globalizations 2013, 10, 25–46. [CrossRef]
79. Rotberg, R. Africa Emerges: Consummate Challenges, Abundant Opportunities; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013.
80. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S.J. Decolonising borders, decriminalising migration and rethinking citizenship. In Crisis, Identity and Migration
in Post-Colonial Southern Africa; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 23–37.
81. Axford, B. Theories of Globalization; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015.
82. Dicken, P. Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy; Sage: London, UK, 2015.
83. Roberts, D.J. Technology is playing an expanding role in policing. Technology talk. Police Chief 2011, 78, 72–73.
84. Schwab, K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution; World Economic Forum; Geneva, Switzerland, 2016; 184p.
85. World Bank. Poverty Rate in Africa: 2022; World Bank: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022.
86. Pearce, F. The Landgrabbers: The New Fight over Who Owns the Earth; Eden Books Project: Croydon, UK, 2012.
87. Dwyer, M.B. Building the Politics Machine: Tools for ‘Resolving’ the Global Land Grab. Dev. Chang. 2013, 44, 309–333. [CrossRef]
88. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). World Economic and Social Survey; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
Available online: [Link] (accessed on 21 June 2023).
89. Kossi, A.; Wang, R.; Wang, W.; Stephanie, N.; Josphert, N.K.; Judith, M.P. The impact of globalization on African countries
economic development. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2012, 6, 11057–11076.
90. Anseeuw, W. The rush for land in Africa: Resource grabbing or green revolution? S. Afr. J. Int. Aff. 2013, 20, 159–177. [CrossRef]
91. Zoomers, A.; Gekker, A.; Schäfer, M.T. Between two Hypes: Will ‘Big Data’ Help Unravel Blind Spots in Understanding the
‘Global Land Rush’? Geoforum. J. Phys. Hum. Reg. Geosci. 2016, 69, 147–159. [CrossRef]
92. Liberti, S. Land Grabbing: Journeys in the New Colonialism; Verso: London, UK, 2013.
93. Nally, D. Governing precarious lives: Land grabs, geopolitics, and ‘food security’. Geogr. J. 2015, 181, 340–349. [CrossRef]
94. Wolford, W.; Borras, S.M., Jr.; Hall, R.; Scoones, I.; White, B. Governing Global Land Deals: The Role of the State in the Rush for
Land. Dev. Chang. 2013, 44, 189–210. [CrossRef]
95. Agunyai, S.C. Emerging Governance Crises in Twenty-First Century Nigeria. In Africa Now: Emerging Issues and Alternative
Perspective; Adebusuyi, A., Ikuteijo, K., Eds.; Springer Publication, Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2018; pp. 211–239.
96. Olaopa, O.; Ayodele, O.A. Building on the strengths of African indigenous knowledge and innovation (AIK&I) for sustainable
development in Africa. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2021, 14, 1313–1326.
97. Baumüller, H. Mobile Technology Trends and Their Potential for Agricultural Development, 2013. ZEF Working Paper 123.
Available online: [Link] (accessed on 21 June 2023).
98. Chen, H. Applications of cyber-physical system: A literature review. J. Ind. Integr. Manag. 2017, 2, 1750012. [CrossRef]
99. Krell, N.T.; Giroux, S.A.; Guido, Z.; Hannah, C.; Lopus, S.E.; Caylor, K.K.; Evans, T.P. Smallholder farmers’ use of mobile phone
services in central Kenya. Clim. Dev. 2021, 13, 215–227. [CrossRef]

405
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10845

100. Scalzo, R.L.; Picchi, V.; Migliori, C.A.; Campanelli, G.; Leteo, F.; Ferrari, V.; Di Cesare, L.F. Variations in the phytochemical
contents and antioxidant capacity of organically and conventionally grown Italian cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. subsp. botrytis):
Results from a three-year field study. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 10335–10344.
101. Raheem, D.; Shishaev, M.; Dikovitsky, V. Food System Digitalization as a Means to Promote Food and Nutrition Security in the
Barents Region. J. Agric. 2019, 9, 168. [CrossRef]
102. Schwab, B.; China and Africa—Continuing an Unequal Relationship. A Fiedrich Ebert Stiftung Briefing Paper. 2016. Available
online: [Link]
an_Unequal_Relationship__Benjamin_Schwab_.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2023).
103. West, D.M. The Next Wave: Using Digital Technology to Further Social and Political Innovation; The Brookings Institution: Washington,
DC, USA, 2011.
104. World Bank. Digital Dividends: World Development Report; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
105. Nolte, K.; Väth, S.J. Interplay of Land Governance and Large-Scale Agricultural Investment: Evidence From Ghana and Kenya.
J. Mod. Afr. Stud. 2015, 53, 69–92. [CrossRef]
106. Ishaku, B.L. Globalization and development. The impact on Africa; A political economy approach. OIDA Int. J. Sustain. Dev.
2014, 7, 153–162.
107. Odoh, S.I. The Challenges of Globalisation as Instrument of Imperialism in Africa. South East J. Political Sci. 2018, 4, 44–55.
108. Tewodros, K.; Yemiamrew, J. The Challenges of Globalization to Africa: Theoretical Reflections and Practical Assessments. World
J. Res. Rev. 2020, 11, 21–38.
109. Schendel, R.; McCowan, T. Expanding higher education systems in low- and middle-income countries: The challenges of equity
and quality. High. Educ. 2016, 72, 407–411. [CrossRef]
110. El-Jardali, F.; Ataya, N.; Fadlallah, R. Changing roles of universities in the era of SDGs: Rising up to the global challenge through
institutionalizing partnerships with governments and communities. Health Res. Policy Syst. 2018, 16, 38. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
111. SDSN Australia/Pacific. Getting Started with the SDGs in Universities. A Guide for Universities, Higher Education Institutions, and
the Academic Sector. Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Edition; Sustainable Development Solutions Network—Australia/Pacific:
Melbourne, Australia, 2017.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

406
 sustainability

Review
Mapping Drivers, Barriers, and Trends in Renewable Energy
Sources in Universities: A Connection Based on the SDGs
Vinicius dos Santos Skrzyzowski 1 , Felipe Neves Farinhas 1 , Maria Cecília Ferrari de Carvalho Teixeira 1 ,
Murillo Vetroni Barros 1, *, Rodrigo Salvador 2 , Sebastião Cavalcanti Neto 3
and Fernando Henrique Lermen 1,4

1 Department of Industrial Engineering, State University of Paraná, Paranaguá 83203560, Brazil;

viniciusdssnts78@[Link] (V.d.S.S.); felipenfarinhas@[Link] (F.N.F.);
[Link]@[Link] (M.C.F.d.C.T.); fernando-lermen@[Link] (F.H.L.)
2 Department of Engineering Technology and Didactics, Technical University of Denmark,
2750 Ballerup, Denmark; rodsa@[Link]
3 Department of Management, State University of Paraná, Paranaguá 83203560, Brazil;
[Link]@[Link]
4 Industrial Engineering Department, Universidad Tecnológica del Perú, Lima 15046, Peru
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]; Tel.: +55-42-99142-9087

Abstract: Universities play a pivotal role in modern society and must lead the way in achieving
energy efficiency, directly contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Like small
towns in resource consumption and population mobility, many universities and research centers face
significant challenges transitioning to renewable electricity systems. This study aims to (i) map the
current scientific literature on renewable energy sources used by universities; (ii) discuss the drivers,
barriers, and trends of implementing renewable energy; and (iii) establish a connection with the SDGs.
More specifically, the authors conducted a systematic literature review based on three stages: (i) data
collection, (ii) bibliometric analysis, and (iii) content analysis. Forty-two articles were obtained and
Citation: Skrzyzowski, V.d.S.; defined as the studied sample. The findings of this review illuminate critical research themes, leading
Farinhas, F.N.; Teixeira, M.C.F.d.C.; countries in renewable energy adoption, and the prevalent electricity sources, shedding light on the
Barros, M.V.; Salvador, R.; Neto, S.C.; primary authors shaping the discourse. Wind and solar energy exhibit a notable growth trajectory,
Lermen, F.H. Mapping Drivers, offering environmentally friendly alternatives compared to conventional sources. Furthermore, it
Barriers, and Trends in Renewable is essential to highlight that the distribution of research documents in the sample is uneven, with a
Energy Sources in Universities: A predominant concentration in European countries. Additionally, the study identifies the field’s key
Connection Based on the SDGs. drivers, barriers, and emergent trends. The theoretical contributions encompass a comprehensive
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583.
compilation of renewable energy sources, discernible research trajectories, and strategies to navigate
[Link]
obstacles. In practical terms, this work offers valuable insights for the selection of energy sources
Academic Editors: Manoj Kumar and stakeholder engagement, facilitating informed decision-making processes. This article’s novelty
Nallapaneni, Idiano D’Adamo and lies in its holistic examination of renewable energy adoption in university settings, providing a
Massimo Gastaldi comprehensive overview of the current landscape and actionable insights for stakeholders seeking
Received: 4 June 2024
sustainable energy solutions within these institutions. This aligns with multiple SDGs, including
Revised: 28 July 2024 Goal 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and Goal 13
Accepted: 29 July 2024 (Climate Action), underscoring the critical role of universities in driving sustainable development.
Published: 1 August 2024
Keywords: renewable energy; sustainable energy; solar energy; university; review

Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. 1. Introduction
This article is an open access article
Energy plays an essential role in any country’s economic growth [1]. Finding alter-
distributed under the terms and
native energy sources that meet the population’s needs is necessary to meet its growing
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
demand. Unfortunately, fossil fuels are a concerning problem with electricity generation [2],
[Link]/licenses/by/
harming the environment, depleting natural resources, and causing pollution. In this sense,
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583. [Link] 407 [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

new energy sources, especially those of renewable origin, must be present in countries’
energy matrices.
In residential and industrial settings, renewable energy has been pursuing the forefront
on a large scale [3]. However, implementing renewable sources for electricity generation in
higher education institutions (HEI) is still a topic for scientific research. Nevertheless, HEI
have studied hybrid renewable energy adoption [4–6]. To Kolokotsa et al. [7], university
campuses are like small-scale cities. In such a way, according to Avila et al. [8], the
occupancy profiles of cities are vast, and the use of spaces is so diverse that a university
campus resembles a community or a neighborhood in a city. Once universities can be
characterized as small cities, they must embrace the implementation of renewable energy
to set an example for the community on behalf of sustainable development. Based on this
university–city relationship, it is possible to see the importance of expanding renewable
and sustainable energy technologies on campuses.
Given universities’ role in modern society, they must take the lead in analyzing
energy efficiency, characterizing themselves as smart and sustainable universities [9–11].
The definition of a sustainable university is commonly associated with the three pillars
of sustainability, as universities are responsible for mitigating environmental, economic,
and social impacts; promoting health and well-bing; and disseminating these values
globally [12–14]. Furthermore, Cortese [15] argued that teaching, research, operations, and
extension are part of a sustainable university’s integrated system; therefore, a sustainable
university focuses on inseparability, considering the impacts it suffers.
Universities face barriers to joining a renewable energy system. For example, many
public institutions are burdened with supplying and maintaining diesel generators [4]. Also,
Avila et al. [8] suggested that bottom-up initiatives may fail due to a lack of financing and
support from administrative boards. Further, it is notable that the barriers for implementing
these systems in HEI are common across the board, including, e.g., lack of funding, lack
of human and technological resources, lack of support from administration, resistance
from collaborators, and lack of knowledge about the importance of renewable energy
generation [16–20], with most of the impediments to the adoption of this type of energy
system coming from a lack of governmental support for its adoption in universities.
Given this research gap, this study aims to (i) map the current scientific literature on
renewable energy sources used by universities; (ii) discuss the drivers, barriers, and trends
of implementing renewable energy; and (iii) to establish a connection with the Sustainable
Development Goals. To do so, we used a systematic literature review in three stages: (i) data
collection, (ii) bibliometric analysis, and (iii) content analysis. This manuscript presents a
dyad of theoretical and practical contributions. A compilation of renewable energy sources,
research trends, and strategies to mitigate barriers is given regarding the former. The latter
is directed at the types of energy and stakeholders that support decision making and the
list of management trends and opportunities that support clean energy implementation
in universities. In addition, this study aligns with some of the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) established by the 2030 Agenda.
Therefore, this paper is organized as follows: The first section contextualizes the
study’s theme and aim. The following section shows the methodology used in the system-
atic literature review on the topic. Section 3 reports the results of the bibliometric analysis.
Section 4 discusses the trends, barriers, and trends for further study. Finally, Section 5
presents the final remarks and limitations of the research.

2. Materials and Methods

A methodology was adopted for data collection, selection of relevant documents for
analysis, and obtaining answers to the research questions: the systematic review, which was
uniquely and methodically used on each selected paper to narrow down and summarize the
content of the files to specific results consistent with the research [21–23]. In addition, the
methods used enable the inclusion of an empirical analysis of the data obtained, commonly
used to complement systematic reviews and show the practical and functional side of the

408
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

research [19]. Based on the method of Denyer and Tranfield [20], it focuses on three stages:
(i) data collection, (ii) bibliometric analysis, and (iii) content analysis.

2.1. Data Collection

The protocol used in this research was the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), developed by Moher et al. [24]. It was established
to assist in classifying and selecting the articles. This research used the following search
string: ((University OR Universities) AND (“Renewable Energy” OR “Sustainable Energy”)
AND (Empirical OR “Case Study”) AND (Strategy OR Strategies OR “Public Policy” OR
“Public Policies”)). Based on the string results, the entire gathered dataset was taken from
the Web of Science database, a comprehensive and diverse platform regarding scientific
content [25]. At the end of the searches, 2534 documents were found, as presented in
Figure 1 through the PRISMA protocol.

Figure 1. PRISMA protocol.

The use of PRISMA followed three filtering steps: (i) exclusion of review articles,
book chapters, books, and conference articles, resulting in 2008 records; (ii) reading titles,
abstracts, and keywords, resulting in 172 records; and (iii) complete reading of the sample
articles, resulting in 42 documents. The Mendeley ® v1.19.8 software was used as a support
tool for managing references [26]. The final sample of articles was used for bibliometric
analysis (Section 2.2) and content analysis (Section 2.3).

2.2. Bibliometric Analysis

The Bibliometrix tool 4.1 was used for the research analysis and mapping. The tool
developed by Aria and Cuccurullo [27] makes it possible to quantitatively analyze many
documents based on the accumulated database examined by the package. It also helps
in empirical studies since it is based on experiences that have occurred. As a form of
modernization and adequacy, Bibliometrix used the RStudio® software 3.6.0 as a support
tool for the graphics [27].
Thus, Bilbliometrix is a visualization tool for obtaining bibliometric data. Therefore,
once the analysis method is defined, the platform needs a more apparent data classification
to analyze each provided element accurately and concisely. Consequently, it was necessary
to export the entire database in BibTex format. In this file model, it is possible to detail
all the elements obtained from the database in text form [28]. Other information was

409
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

considered in the bibliometric analysis because it is information referring to the articles in

the sample studied: (i) research method employed, (ii) type of energy source used, and
(iii) stakeholders.

2.3. Content Analysis

Lastly, content analysis was used to categorize all articles in the final sample according
to the topics the research addresses [29]. This analysis followed the steps suggested by Elo
and Kyngäs [30], such as open coding, categorization, and abstraction. Through these steps,
we sought to identify relevant information through a deductive process while coding the
studied documents. This information was analyzed in two ways: bibliometric analysis and
content analysis. Finally, the abstraction step supported the discussions among the sample
authors for the results presented in Sections 3 and 4. This was carried out by retrieving
the information from the articles according to specified categories so that the content
analysis could occur in an organized manner. Therefore, the following categories were
used: (i) drivers, (ii) barriers, and (iii) trends. Thus, based on the established categories,
a detailed reading of the documents in the final sample was initiated to identify the
information related to each category.

3. Overview of the Studied Sample

This section discusses the bibliometric analyses carried out in this study. The obtained
database allowed us to identify how the documents and authors position themselves
and relate to the studied themes. Figure 2 shows the analysis of the articles concerning
the year of publication, the journal of publication, the university of affiliation, and the
global citations.

(a) Articles published per year (b) Articles published per journals

(c) Articles published per affiliation (d) Global citations per articles

Figure 2. Articles by year, journal, affiliation, and global citations [31–40].

410
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

Figure 2a shows the publications on renewable energy and their applications in

universities between 2010 and 2022, presenting a considerable increase starting in 2016.
Furthermore, the volume of studies in this area declined between 2021 and 2022. Yet, they
are still more frequent than in years before 2016, pointing to the topic’s great importance
in academia.
The manuscript was constructed from a systematic review of the literature, following
methodological procedures for searching documents, filters, and selection. The literature
does not provide a clear answer as to why the number of publications decreased in 2018
and 2022. However, given the general history, the topic is growing. One issue that might
relate to the decline is that studies are more focused on empirical applications of renewable
energy in other fields, such as manufacturing, agriculture, and cities.
Figure 2b exhibits an analysis of the journal’s area of knowledge and the frequency of
publication of these studies. The first three journals with the highest number of publications
are Applied Energy, Energy, and Renewable Energy, which are part of the scope of the topic
presented. Other journals cited were Energy Policy and Energy Research & Social Science; all
five of these journals are recognized as top journals in energy research. Figure 2c shows
which universities are affiliated with which articles in the study’s portfolio. The leading
university, having affiliation in five articles, is Columbia University/USA, followed by Delft
University of Technology/The Netherlands, Sapienza University of Rome/Italy, University
of Calgary/Canada, the University of Edinburgh/Scotland, and the University of Hong
Kong/Japan, which have affiliations in four studies each. Most of the universities cited in
this paper are related to the continents America, Europe, and Asia.
Figure 2d presents the number of citations of the analyzed articles globally. The most
cited author is Luethi S., followed by Kang L. and Hanif I. They are also characterized
as the three most cited authors in other articles. Another analysis was performed on the
relationship among the main research themes. In this sense, Figure 3 shows the bibliometric
analysis regarding the themes, their interconnections, and published studies by country.

Figure 3. Main themes and their relationships.

The main themes in the articles highlighted in Figure 3 are renewable energy, strategies,
and performance. Thus, it is notable that, within the selected articles, the main objects of
study are the types of renewable energy, the possible strategies to be adopted, and the
performance of tools within this theme. Secondary themes, still having significant incidence,
are optimization, simulation, solar, buildings, and governance. Considering the occurrence
of words, strategies were cited by 33 papers (78.54%), renewable energy by 22 papers
(52.36%), and performance by 18 papers (42.84%). To complement the analysis, Figure 4
shows the map of countries with the most prominent number of analyzed publications.

411
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

Figure 4. Published studies by authors in each country.

Figure 4 shows in more intense colors (darker shades of blue) where there is a higher
incidence of articles being published. Considering occurrence per continent, Europe pre-
sented 55 authors (37.41%), Asia 45 authors (30.61%), America 35 authors (23.80%), Oceania
9 authors (6.12%), and Africa 3 authors (2.04%). China and the USA are the main countries
in which this theme is addressed and have the highest number of publications. Subse-
quently, the incidence is also considerable in Italy, the UK, Germany, Spain, and Australia,
with fewer publications. Therefore, there is a need to increase the discussion in different
countries and continents on how to deal with the energy application of their universities
to increase the number of studies published on the subject. Furthermore, in Figure 5, the
correspondence analysis of the studied theme is shown based on interrelated studies.

Figure 5. Correspondence analysis of the studied sample. The dotted line and red dot show where
the zero is located, that is, it is possible to identify the four quadrants of the image.

412
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

In Figure 5, there are two groups with correlated words. The first group (the smaller
one—in blue) presents the concepts of electrification, solar, and simulation. This indicates
that these three themes intersect in similar works and are directly linked. The second group
(in red) has a broader range of concepts that can be related more frequently by proximity,
with the main topics being CO2 emissions, policy, and electricity. It can be noticed from
Figure 5 that the closer to a positive value in the axis, the greater the incidence of the
word in the articles in the sample; in addition, the percentage shown in the dimensions
demonstrates the number of studies that belong to it.
Furthermore, Table 1 allows one to identify the research method employed, energy
type, and stakeholders present in the analyzed articles as well as the frequency or incidence
with which they appear in the studies.

Table 1. Methods, energy source types, and stakeholders in the sample.

Classification Articles (n) References %

Mixed method (qualitative
25 [31–35,41–60] 59.5%
Research method and quantitative)
employed Qualitative 8 [33,36–39,61–63] 19.0%
Quantitative 9 [40,55,64–70] 21.4%
[31–33,35,37,40,44,46,52,55,58,62–
Solar 20 47.6%
64,67–69]
Wind 7 [38,47,56,60,61,66,70] 16.7%
Geothermal 4 [41,48,53,71] 9.5%
Hybrid 3 [43,50,65] 7.1%
Type of energy source
Biomass 3 [34,39,45] 7.1%
Tidal wave 2 [54,59] 4.8%
Nuclear 1 [51] 2.4%
Hydropower 1 [69] 2.4%
Fossil fuels 1 [36] 2.4%
Community 4 [31,37,43,65] 9.5%
Entrepreneurs 2 [41,55] 4.8%
University 8 [35,40,44,49,60,62,64,66] 19.0%
NGOs 1 [61] 2.4%
Project developers 1 [32] 2.4%
Stakeholders
Farmers 1 [45] 2.4%
Countries 21 [33,34,38,46,48,50–59,63,68–70] 50.0%
Politicians 1 [39] 2.4%
Entrepreneurs, community,
2 [47,71] 4.8%
and government
University and community 1 [67] 2.4%

The research methods employed by the sample articles are divided into qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative). Most studies use mixed
methods to measure their results, totaling 59.5% of the sample. This provides information
stating that studies are not being conducted solely in diagnostic form but rather with
empirical and longitudinal applications for implementing renewable energy in universities.
Additionally, it is possible to analyze the types of energy used during the studies: geother-
mal, solar, wind, hybrid, fossil fuels, nuclear, tide wave, hydropower, and biomass. In this
analysis, it was noted that some types are more prevalent than others within the articles.
An example is photovoltaic and wind energy, which account for 45.2% and 16.7% of the
sample. Geothermal and hybrid energy were characterized as 7.1% of the analyzed studies.
In fact, solar energy has a large and positive representation in the global context for
potential installation in universities for a few reasons. First, it is clean, renewable energy
with low-carbon prospects and follows global movements towards a lower-carbon economy.
Secondly, installation and maintenance costs have decreased considerably in recent years,
increasing consumer potential.

413
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

The stakeholders of each study were defined, with 10 of them based on reading the
articles. Among them are the countries involved in half of the analyzed articles, while the
university is present in 19.0%. The community and entrepreneurs are also present in 9.5%
and 4.8% of the sample. Besides these stakeholders acting alone in the studies, a group is
also involved in some studies, such as the entrepreneurs allied to the government and the
community, representing 4.8% of the analyzed articles. Also, the university allied with the
community in 2.4% of the sample.

4. Drivers, Barriers, and Trends of Renewable Energy Sources in Universities

This section addresses the main results of this article’s content analysis, identifying
drivers, barriers, and trends for future research.

4.1. Drivers
After analyzing the 42 documents in the final sample, the importance of using renew-
able energy was made explicit both concerning the efficiency of sustainable energy models
and the benefits to the environment and the health of the population, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Drivers to implement renewable energy in universities.

Cluster Type of Energy Source Reference Main Drivers

Dealing with uncertain links and disturbances
[44] that are present in microgrid systems in
some universities.
Performing future evaluations and analyses of
[67] its potential is key to its consolidation
and dissemination.
Validating the data with larger samples through
future research. Investigating whether renewable
[32]
energy policy risk assessment differs by type of
investors (e.g., large vs. small companies).
Solar energy
Engaging in future research to understand the
psychological benefits regarding the intention to
[55]
install solar energy, alongside the mediation of
an eco-friendly lifestyle.
[52] Standardizing ecosystem monetary methods.
Exploring the integration of additional
Sustainable and renewable
upgrading measures. Explore land and locations
energy employed by [58]
that are being used in large university campuses,
universities
with potential for installing solar energy
Identifying the best sustainable conditions for
[70]
powering consumer.
Other (wind, hydroelectric, Conducting further analysis concerning large
[48]
tidal, geothermal) university buildings through future work.
Studying the impacts of introducing taxes on
[51]
carbon generation.
Performing tests through case studies of policies
[46] for different issues, varied sectors,
and delimitations.
Extending the investigation to include
Multiple energy types
environmental variables and conducting
[33]
comparative analyses across sectors for a
sustainable transition.
Further studying the relative share of each
[34]
alternative clean energy resource.

414
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

Table 2. Cont.

Cluster Type of Energy Source Reference Main Drivers

Relating the modeling of different energy
[37] technologies to the adoption barriers beyond
those already known.
Developing ways to engage the dynamic
consciousness of historical relationships about
[63] the causes of contradictions in a proactive way
Public policies to support systemic transformations based on
future research.
Enhancing the influence of energy
management policies to ensure sustainable
[36] development in the region by integrating civil
society into fundamental development and
Public policy and external environmental policies.
projects to implement
Initiating a multiple-case-study project could
sustainable and
do more to suggest a general model of the
renewable energy
process previously identified, in addition to
[41]
conducting a survey for technology
entrepreneurs about their experiences with the
early stages of the commercialization process.
Seeking to understand exactly how the
physical and socioeconomic conditions of the
External projects
[65] landscape influence the development, success,
and possible scaling up of sustainable
energy initiatives.
Conducting investigations across sectors and
[71]
beyond the European continent.
Using techniques considering the future
[43]
uncertainty of electricity-type growth.

Through the analyses and after tabulating the data, it was possible to observe that
most authors carried out research focused on solar energy. At least fifteen of them discussed
their articles in various ways while commenting on the use of solar energy. In addition,
some researchers showed how the transition from using energy with high carbon emission
rates to renewable energy from the sun happens. Secondly, the type of energy they depicted
the most is wind energy, which was demonstrated in some instances through calculations
of the energy efficiency coming from atmospheric air currents. Furthermore, the authors
referred to other renewable energy types, such as biomass, hydroelectric, and geothermal.
However, the data obtained note the importance of using renewable resources to
capture energy. Due to increasing globalization, the rate of CO2 emissions has also increased
dramatically. Therefore, systems that avoid the emission of undesired gasses into the
ecosystem must be sought at all costs.
Solar energy is the most convenient and straightforward technology to obtain today
in terms of size and complexity, and it has become the most coherent technology when
considering its application anywhere. After all, it requires roof space and a place for energy
storage. According to [67], in addition to the great potential that exists in the production
of energy from photovoltaic cells, there are incentives for those who have a network to
generate energy from renewable sources, as the implementation of this type of energy
demands a high investment, which must be considered in a compensation calculation.
Moreover, underdeveloped countries do not use this type of energy in ample sup-
ply [67] but only a tiny portion compared to the production and use of other methods.
Therefore, aside from the potential environmental benefits of solar energy generation, there
are other incentives to start this process, at least to some degree. Following Lee et al. [31],
implementing a power distribution network based on photovoltaic cells presents many
expenses due to the plate number, amount of energy stored, distance, and terrain. Con-

415
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

sidering the installed equipment, this distribution system offers one of the simplest and
most affordable ways to spread the adoption of this type of energy because of its easy
maintenance and modular components; i.e., its products have great versatility.
Bearing in mind that acquiring this system is very costly, Lüthi and Wustenhagen [32]
commented that governments are creating financial incentives for projects with photovoltaic
technology. Similarly, several countries are encouraging the adaptation and usage of re-
newable energy sources, considering the climate problems the planet has been suffering. In
summary, microgrids were created to study energy generation capacity, in which reliability
and compensation calculations are made for possible more significant investments.
Photovoltaic solar energy is one of the many renewable energy options available
worldwide. It is a solution in several cases that require an energy source transition. Lakhani
et al. [52] stated that the two most recurrent installations of this type of energy are the
systems implemented on the roof and the photovoltaic panels installed on the ground.
Therefore, regarding the implementation of photovoltaic technology, a precise analysis is
necessary to decide where to place it. If the impact of land use for installing the system
directly on the ground is too high, the solution is to implement it on roofs. It can be stated
that for the direct implementation of this energy in a university, its impact must be analyzed
and calculated in a general way, both concerning the structure of the building and the
influence on the ecosystem. Li et al. [69] stated that several ways to implement a solar
system in a building exist. They can be installed separately and added to the building after
its construction, or they can even be used to replace some elements of the original building.
Wind energy is a renewable source from nature with infinite capacity, for it renews
itself endlessly. In this sense, the wind is one of the forces of nature with an inexhaustible
capacity, as it is a mass of air that varies in direction, intensity, and speed. The capture of
wind energy has been happening for a long time, constituting a considerable portion of the
world’s energy supply. These data are remarkable if we analyze the number and extent
of wind farms scattered around the globe. In agreement with Choe et al. [70], the capture
occurs through wind turbines positioned in strategic locations with a high wind-incidence
rate, which moves the propellers of the equipment, moving the turbine that generates
energy. There are different sizes of turbines, and the energy production is proportional
to them. Thus, the biggest problem for implementing a wind turbine at a university is
the area to install the equipment, as the space limits its size, consequently limiting energy
generation. Despite that, the turbines can be operated parallel to conventional methods,
whereby storing the energy generated and directing it to more basic purposes is possible.
Considering that this type of energy production depends on the constant occurrence of
wind to move the turbines and that the storage generators are usually diesel-powered, this
system would help to keep carbon emissions on the planet to a minimum and not stop the
energy supply.
Tidal Energy is one of several ways to obtain renewable energy. The capture of energy
through tidal power is performed by converting the waves’ kinetic energy into electricity
for the population or nearby industries. According to Gray et al. [59], this relatively new
method of energy production has both positive and negative sides, the two most prominent
being that the energy is clean, and its implementation cost is high. However, considering
that some universities have their facilities in coastal cities, constructing a small machine for
extracting kinetic energy is possible due to the advantages of the geographical location.
Many papers deal with energy transitions, i.e., the change of generating energy from
conventional non-renewable means with high rates of carbon emissions that are incredibly
harmful to people and the environment to a means of sustainable energy production
from renewable sources. According to Falcone et al. [33], energy transition happens for
different reasons, such as energy crises, an aggravating factor that generates the need for
alternative energy production. However, many factors amidst crises should be considered
to analyze the best alternative energy. Moreover, among the positive aspects, this transition
generates many jobs for developing and implementing renewable sources, hence having a
positive financial impact. Based on this principle, the application of a renewable energy

416
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

source in a university should occur after the analysis of numerous factors, such as the
energy consumption values of the location, labor costs, the prices of the equipment to be
implemented, and the social acceptance of the people who circulate in the environment,
alongside political factors that involve the energy application.
Public policies are an aggravating and necessary factor for implementing a renewable
energy source. They will determine the bids needed for projects and the amount of energy
produced, which, in some cases, should be able to meet local demand. Further, spare parts
that are not stored can be destined for the population, determining sustainability laws
concerning energy production and some other minor details. Moreover, since many energy
generation processes require much capital, there is the possibility of acquiring investment
from the public to assist in creating new renewable energy sources.
Finally, Thoyre [64] reported that companies that generate energy using fossil fuels
have constantly damaged their investments because they still use methods that emit too
much carbon, harming the environment. To change companies’ methods of obtaining
energy, laws to encourage the use of renewable sources to generate energy have been
created, through which places like universities would benefit from receiving monetary aid
to develop and assist studies on the energy efficiency of renewable sources.

4.2. Barriers and Strategies

The barriers refer directly to the difficulties identified regarding implementing a
particular type of renewable energy, whether in a conventional residence, building, or
university. These difficulties can be identified by analyzing all the aspects involving energy
and their crucial factors, whether environmental, socioeconomic, or political.
It is possible to point out that solar energy is currently one of the cleanest and most
widely used energy types in the world, but this does not mean there are no difficulties
when implementing a project in a specific location. As exemplified by Sarkar et al. [49], one
of the main barriers regarding this type of energy would be the variation of solar incidence
in the region, which would negatively affect the energy production of the photovoltaic
panels and make them not as effective as they should be.
Furthermore, Lakhani et al. [52] reported different ways to install photovoltaic panels
to meet specific energy demands without harming the environment, such as installing these
panels on the roof of the building in question without harming untouched land. Another
option would be implementing them on the ground, as described by the authors. However,
it is notable that, given their proportions, both ways have installation difficulties. Taking
a university as an example, it is necessary to analyze the roof of the building to identify
whether it is appropriate to receive the panels in a way that does not damage its structure
and to study the possibility of an energy transition of the structure to an alternative type
of energy. Additionally, a prior study should be performed on the possibility of such an
installation, as its implementation on the ground harms the land it will occupy. There may
not be available land around the university in question.
Wind power is a solution for certain cases since its implementation directly depends
on ample available territorial space in which there is also an incidence of wind for power
generation. According to Yuan et al. [56], this results in other barriers, such as the fact that,
in most cases, the availability of these lands only happens in remote areas; in other words,
there is difficulty in taking the energy produced to the final consumer across these great
distances. Moreover, when it comes to implementing wind energy at a university, it can be
said that, except in some specific cases, there is usually not enough space to install it within
the university itself, further limiting the use of this technology. From this, Matti et al. [38]
also highlighted the obligation to analyze the region’s governmental policies regarding
properly implementing this type of energy since it cannot be applied in any location or
situation. Thus, it might not be a viable solution to meet the demand for sustainable energy.
Regarding tidal energy, which comes from the force exerted by tidal phenomena and
the transformation of this kinetic energy into electrical energy, its application strongly
depends on the sea’s presence in the implementation region, thus prioritizing coastal

417
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

regions. Regarding such locations, it is indispensable that tidal energy plays an increasingly
active role in meeting the demand for energy production [54] since the most common
types are solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. From this, Gray et al. [59] demonstrated
that, compared to the types of energy mentioned above, tidal power has a much higher
application cost due to its specificities and evident territorial limitations.
As for energy transition, the application of one or more sources of renewable energy
is directly influenced by local laws and public policies. In this sense, Tanaka et al. [46]
showed that, in Japan, electric utilities significantly impact the decisions regarding energy
policy, which results in significant difficulties when the government implements legislation
regarding energy generation from renewable sources. Therefore, it is essential to consider
all the possibilities and feasibility of implementing these energies [34]; this becomes criti-
cal when deciding whether to create or continue a sustainable power generation project
within universities.
Therefore, most of the barriers to implementing a renewable energy system are limited
to the current country’s public policies, which results in fewer possibilities for applications
within universities or any other type of structure. As highlighted by some authors, scarce
funding for renewable energy projects [43], barriers to energy-efficiency adoption [37],
and the complexity of carrying out the energy transition process due to the extended
timeframe [65] make the political and socioeconomic environment two of the biggest
causes of difficulties when implementing sustainable energy generation and upgrading the
energy system.
The innovative barriers and strategies are (i) the energy transition from fossil sources
to renewable sources, (ii) installation and use of alternative sources such as wind and solar,
and (iii) promoting research and development in the university environment for clean, safe,
and affordable energy.
Towards climate change mitigation, the transition from fossil energy to renewable
energy is an impetus for modern society, including universities. Given this, some energy
sources have positive characteristics in terms of the low environmental impact generated,
the efficiency in electricity production, and the reduction in implementation costs (com-
pared to other sources). These characteristics are based on solar, wind, and biogas sources.
Furthermore, the best environment to foster the development of new technologies and
practical applications is the university.

4.3. Trends by SDGs

Studies on the 17 SDGs developed by the UN are widely reported in the scientific
literature, such as in the area of indicators associated with equitable and sustainable well-
being (BES) [72], pragmatic sustainability [73], digital transformation and Industry 5.0 [74],
companies headquartered in the European Union [75], monitoring the outcomes of the
SDGs by evaluating the Italian regions [76], and many others.
This section addresses questions that researchers and supporters can use to develop
new empirical studies related to renewable and sustainable energy at universities and what
their public policies are, as presented in Table 3.
Based on the list of trends (Table 3), it is suggested that authors in the area answer the
questions raised, which are of paramount importance for the beginning of new research, in
addition to identifying the best strategies and types of energy to be utilized. In a specific
case, such as the implementation of renewable energy at a university, that list is essential
in identifying the authors who relate to the methods of application and their connection
to the geographical territory and its climate. Regarding the bureaucracy involved in the
application, one must analyze which laws make the use of renewable energy viable at a
university and how the creation of public policies can assist in this process.
Based on all the above, we highlight that this study aligns with some of the SDGs
established by the 2030 Agenda [77].

418
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

Table 3. Trends to support researchers.

Cluster Question References

What is the energy efficiency regarding the location of the application of a
[31,32,52,67]
photovoltaic energy grid between the ground, roof, and curtains of capture?
What is the feasibility and efficiency of using batteries for electrical energy storage
[43,60,66]
in conjunction with wind systems?
Sustainable and renewable In what ways can tidal energy be further implemented despite its high cost? [54,59]
energy employed What are the alternatives for assisting the supply of energy in periods when no
[49,66]
by universities generation occurs due to the lack of incidence of both sun and wind?
Considering the application of an energy grid at a university, what would be the
[31,32,67]
advantage of applying a system based on photovoltaic cells?
Considering the high incidence of tropical winds in Brazil, what are the
[66,70]
advantages of creating mini wind grids in universities?
What are the implementation laws, and how do they influence the adoption of
[38,63,64]
renewable energy in universities?
What are the incentive policies for creating new renewable energy generators, and
[37,63,64]
how do they apply to universities?
Public policies and external What are the monetary aid policies used for renewable energy implementation
[35,64]
projects to implement at universities?
sustainable and If the study site has some energy supply, what are the public policies for this
[36,65]
renewable energy energy transition?
How do social beliefs and interests impact the implementation of a renewable
[46,61,63]
energy source?
What is the influence of public policies to ensure sustainable development in the
[36,63]
region by applying renewable energy?

Goal 4 refers to quality education. Some specific goals in higher education can con-
tribute to achieving this SDG. Ensuring access to inclusive, quality, and equitable education
and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all needs to be on the agenda of many
schools, research institutes, and universities [78,79]. In addition, a sustainable structure,
in terms of renewable electricity, can be a viable solution in this field. Collaborating with
other institutions, governments, and organizations to promote sustainable educational
practices and sharing best practices is part of sustainable development in higher education.
Furthermore, it should be ensured that the institution’s physical infrastructure is adequate
to support effective and modern learning, preparing students to face the challenges of the
21st century.
Goal 7 dwells on clean and affordable energy. Access to reliable, sustainable, modern
energy sources in the teaching environment is important. Industries must produce and
consume clean energy, and educational buildings (schools and universities) must also act. A
higher education institution can adopt practices and technologies that promote the efficient
use of energy and the adoption of renewable sources [80]. This includes installing solar,
wind, or other renewable energy systems to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Additionally,
universities often conduct advanced research into energy technologies, including energy
storage, energy efficiency, and new energy sources. This environment is extremely rich in
possibilities for developing new technologies and patents in the electrical energy sector.
Goal 11 covers sustainable cities and communities. This study focuses on making
communities and educational environments more inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
Universities must produce knowledge; operate in inclusive, resilient systems; and, above
all, be sustainable. Universities are most often established in central regions of the city
or close to it. In few cases is a university located very far from the city. The reason for
its location is the ease of transporting students, teachers, staff, and supplies. Therefore,
working with sustainable mobility and using bikes, scooters, public transport, and walking
can make sense. Additionally, universities often have large campuses that can be thought
of as small urban communities. A higher education institution can adopt sustainable
urban planning principles in its physical development, promoting the efficient use of

419
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

space, the preservation of green areas, waste management, and the reduction of the carbon
footprint [81].
Finally, strengthening the means of implementation and revitalizing the global partner-
ship for sustainable development is an impetus for a more sustainable future in universities.

5. Conclusions
It is possible to identify different ways of capturing energy from renewable sources,
the most cited being electrical grids based on photovoltaic cells and energy from wind
turbines. When considering the application of an electric grid based on renewable sources
in a university, several options are available regarding which source type to employ. This
choice is usually based on the terrain, i.e., analyzing the incidence of wind, the amount of
sunlight received, or the possibility of using the ocean to capture kinetic energy.
When choosing the renewable energy method or source, we must investigate the polit-
ical and socioeconomic environment, identifying public policies that assist in implementing
the energy network and facilitate the installation. In other words, one must consider the
high costs of the installation and check the policies for financial aid for the implementation
of the project. In addition, promoting studies concerning energy efficiency at the univer-
sity and improving sustainability using low-carbon emission energy align directly with
multiple SDGs.
Besides the difficulties due to current policies, environmental and socioeconomic
factors are still directly related to their implementation. The incidence of sunlight for
capturing energy through photovoltaic panels, the recurrence of wind force to make the
turbines work, and the presence of waves and tides in coastal regions for kinetic energy
generation are clear examples of the barriers encountered when dealing with these types of
renewable energy. However, it is worth pointing out the advantages for the environment
and its use in general through the decrease in harmful non-renewable sources, which
contributes to sustainability and prolongs energy generation due to its inexhaustible source.
Finally, the best choice for implementing energy from a renewable source in a univer-
sity would be based on photovoltaic cell networks. It presents a high degree of versatility.
Besides the conventional panels deployed on the roofs or fixed on the ground, curtains can
still capture the sun’s rays. In addition, this type of energy generation uses a modular sys-
tem in its panels, making the maintenance and exchange of equipment parts straightforward
and practical. In this way, the energy transition from conventional carbon-based means to
technological energy generation systems through renewable sources becomes feasible.
The study is not free from limitations. Some documents may have been left out of
this analysis due to the set of keywords and the databases used. In further research, we
highlight the need to explore other less prominent renewable energy sources that might
be more readily available at the university level, such as biomass, which can be derived
from food waste and might be a cheaper alternative in terms of infrastructure while also
helping to manage existing waste and environmental influence on the campus. Other
sources also deserve exploration. As a suggestion for future work, a case study reporting
descriptions of sustainable universities implementing renewable sources, pointing out the
technical and economic viability, can be developed. Furthermore, daily energy consumption
in universities, different building types, seasonal variations, and external parameters
can be considered. Additionally, the alignment of these initiatives with SDGs such as
Goal 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), Goal 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities),
and Goal 13 (Climate Action) should be emphasized to highlight their broader impact on
sustainable development.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.H.L., V.d.S.S., F.N.F. and M.C.F.d.C.T.; methodology,

F.H.L.; software, M.C.F.d.C.T.; validation, M.V.B. and R.S.; formal analysis, V.d.S.S. and F.N.F.;
investigation, V.d.S.S., F.N.F. and M.C.F.d.C.T.; resources, F.H.L.; data curation, V.d.S.S. and F.N.F.;
writing—original draft preparation, F.H.L., V.d.S.S., F.N.F. and M.C.F.d.C.T.; writing—review and
editing, M.V.B. and R.S.; visualization, S.C.N.; supervision, F.H.L.; project administration, F.H.L. and

420
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

M.V.B.; funding acquisition, S.C.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: The authors appreciate the support of the Araucaria Foundation and the National Council
for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data will be provided if requested from the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the State University of Paraná—UNESPAR’s Academic
Writing Center (Centro Acadêmico de Letramento e Escrita—UNESPAR—[Link]
br/menu-geral/centro-de-escrita-academica-da-unespar, accessed on 30 July 2024) for assistance
with the English language editing. The authors would also like to express their gratitude to Idiano
D’Adamo of the Special Issue “Sustainable Development Goals: A Pragmatic Approach”, and the
reviewers for substantially improving this work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Bin Amin, S.; Chang, Y.; Khan, F.; Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. Energy security and sustainable energy policy in Bangladesh: From the
lens of 4As framework. Energy Policy 2022, 161, 112719. [CrossRef]
2. Poudyal, R.; Loskot, P.; Nepal, R.; Parajuli, R.; Khadka, S.K. Mitigating the current energy crisis in Nepal with renewable energy
sources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 116, 109388. [CrossRef]
3. Nezhnikova, E.; Papelniuk, O.; Dudin, M. Developing renewable and alternative energy sources to improve the efficiency of
housing construction and management. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2019, 9, 172–178. [CrossRef]
4. Karabulut, A.; Gedik, E.; Keçebaş, A.; Alkan, M.A. An investigation on renewable energy education at the university level in
Turkey. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 1293–1297. [CrossRef]
5. Akindeji, K.T.; Tiako, R.; Davidson, I.E. Use of Renewable Energy Sources in University Campus Microgrid—A Review. IEEE
Conference Publication. 2019. IEEE Xplore n.d. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 8 May 2023).
6. Babatunde, O.; Munda, J.; Hamam, Y. Off-grid hybrid photovoltaic—Micro wind turbine renewable energy system with hydrogen
and battery storage: Effects of sun tracking technologies. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 255, 115335. [CrossRef]
7. Kolokotsa, D.; Gobakis, K.; Papantoniou, S.; Georgatou, C.; Kampelis, N.; Kalaitzakis, K.; Vasilakopoulou, K.; Santamouris, M.
Development of a web based energy management system for University Campuses: The CAMP-IT platform. Energy Build. 2016,
123, 119–135. [CrossRef]
8. Ávila, L.V.; Beuron, T.A.; Brandli, L.L.; Damke, L.I.; Pereira, R.S.; Klein, L.L. Barriers to innovation and sustainability in
universities: An international comparison. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2019, 20, 805–821. [CrossRef]
9. Rinaldi, C.; Cavicchi, A.; Spigarelli, F.; Lacchè, L.; Rubens, A. Universities and smart specialisation strategy: From third mission
to sustainable development co-creation. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2018, 19, 67–84. [CrossRef]
10. Pérez, F.M.; Martínez, J.V.B.; Fonseca, I.L. Modelling and Implementing Smart Universities: An IT Conceptual Framework.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3397. [CrossRef]
11. Valdés, R.M.A.; Comendador, V.F.G. European Universities Initiative: How Universities May Contribute to a More Sustainable
Society. Sustainability 2022, 14, 471. [CrossRef]
12. Alshuwaikhat, H.M.; Abubakar, I. An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: Assessment of the current campus
environmental management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1777–1785. [CrossRef]
13. Cole, L. Assessing Sustainability on Canadian University Campuses: Development of a Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework;
Royal Roads University: Victoria, BA, Canada, 2003.
14. Velazquez, L.; Munguia, N.; Platt, A.; Taddei, J. Sustainable university: What can be the matter? J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 810–819.
[CrossRef]
15. Cortese, A.D. The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Plan. High. Educ. 2003, 31, 15–22.
16. Babatunde, O.; Denwigwe, I.; Oyebode, O.; Ighravwe, D.; Ohiaeri, A.; Babatunde, D. Assessing the use of hybrid renewable
energy system with battery storage for power generation in a University in Nigeria. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 4291–4310.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Ávila, L.V.; Filho, W.L.; Brandli, L.; Macgregor, C.J.; Molthan-Hill, P.; Özuyar, P.G.; Moreira, R.M. Barriers to innovation and
sustainability at universities around the world. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 1268–1278. [CrossRef]
18. Amaral, A.R.; Rodrigues, E.; Gaspar, A.R.; Gomes, Á. A review of empirical data of sustainability initiatives in university campus
operations. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119558. [CrossRef]

421
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

19. Qazi, A.; Hussain, F.; Rahim, N.A.; Hardaker, G.; Alghazzawi, D.; Shaban, K.; Haruna, K. Towards Sustainable Energy:
A Systematic Review of Renewable Energy Sources, Technologies, and Public Opinions. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 63837–63851.
[CrossRef]
20. Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D. Producing a systematic review. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods; Buchanan, D.A.,
Bryman, A., Eds.; Sage Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009; pp. 671–689.
21. Graciano, P.; Lermen, F.H.; Reichert, F.M.; Padula, A.D. The impact of risk-taking and creativity stimuli in education towards
innovation: A systematic review and research agenda. Think. Ski. Creat. 2022, 47, 101220. [CrossRef]
22. Cordeiro, E.R.; Lermen, F.H.; Mello, C.M.; Ferraris, A.; Valaskova, K. Knowledge management in small and medium enterprises:
A systematic literature review, bibliometric analysis, and research agenda. J. Knowl. Manag. 2023, 28, 590–612. [CrossRef]
23. Kuakoski, H.S.; Lermen, F.H.; Graciano, P.; Lam, J.S.L.; Mazzuchetti, R.N. Marketing, entrepreneurship, and innovation in port
management: Trends, barriers, and research agenda. Marit. Policy Manag. 2023, 1–18. [CrossRef]
24. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA
statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097-269. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106,
213–228. [CrossRef]
26. Thelwall, M. Are Mendeley reader counts useful impact indicators in all fields? Scientometrics 2017, 113, 1721–1731. [CrossRef]
27. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975.
[CrossRef]
28. Derviş, H. Bibliometric analysis using bibliometrix an R Package. J. Sci. Res. 2019, 8, 156–160. [CrossRef]
29. Spens, K.M.; Kovács, G. A content analysis of research approaches in logistics research. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2006,
36, 374–390. [CrossRef]
30. Elo, S.; Kyngäs, H. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 2008, 62, 107–115. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Lee, M.; Soto, D.; Modi, V. Cost versus reliability sizing strategy for isolated photovoltaic micro-grids in the developing world.
Renew. Energy 2014, 69, 16–24. [CrossRef]
32. Lüthi, S.; Wüstenhagen, R. The price of policy risk—Empirical insights from choice experiments with European photovoltaic
project developers. Energy Econ. 2012, 34, 1001–1011. [CrossRef]
33. Falcone, P.M.; Lopolito, A.; Sica, E. Policy mixes towards sustainability transition in the Italian biofuel sector: Dealing with
alternative crisis scenarios. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 33, 105–114. [CrossRef]
34. Zhang, L.; Zhou, P.; Newton, S.; Fang, J.-X.; Zhou, D.-Q.; Zhang, L.-P. Evaluating clean energy alternatives for Jiangsu, China: An
improved multi-criteria decision making method. Energy 2015, 90, 953–964. [CrossRef]
35. Chappin, E.J.; de Vries, L.J.; Richstein, J.C.; Bhagwat, P.; Iychettira, K.; Khan, S. Simulating climate and energy policy with
agent-based modelling: The Energy Modelling Laboratory (EMLab). Environ. Model. Softw. 2017, 96, 421–431. [CrossRef]
36. Hanif, I. Impact of fossil fuels energy consumption, energy policies, and urban sprawl on carbon emissions in East Asia and the
Pacific: A panel investigation. Energy Strat. Rev. 2018, 21, 16–24. [CrossRef]
37. Hesselink, L.X.; Chappin, E.J. Adoption of energy efficient technologies by households—Barriers, policies and agent-based
modelling studies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 99, 29–41. [CrossRef]
38. Matti, C.; Consoli, D.; Uyarra, E. Multi level policy mixes and industry emergence: The case of wind energy in Spain. Environ.
Plan. C Politics Space 2017, 35, 661–683. [CrossRef]
39. Purkus, A.; Gawel, E.; Thrän, D. Addressing uncertainty in decarbonisation policy mixes—Lessons learned from German and
European bioenergy policy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 33, 82–94. [CrossRef]
40. Kang, L.; Yang, J.; An, Q.; Deng, S.; Zhao, J.; Wang, H.; Li, Z. Effects of load following operational strategy on CCHP system
with an auxiliary ground source heat pump considering carbon tax and electricity feed in tariff. Appl. Energy 2017, 194, 454–466.
[CrossRef]
41. Earle, A.G.; Merenda, M.J.; Davis, J.M. Strategy-as-Process in a Technology Venture: A Case Study of Pivots, Pauses, Partners,
and Progress. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2019, 9, 8–18. [CrossRef]
42. Gasbarro, F.; Rizzi, F.; Frey, M. Sustainable institutional entrepreneurship in practice: Insights from SMEs in the clean energy
sector in Tuscany (Italy). Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2018, 24, 476–498. [CrossRef]
43. Fioriti, D.; Giglioli, R.; Poli, D.; Lutzemberger, G.; Micangeli, A.; Del Citto, R.; Perez-Arriaga, I.; Duenas-Martinez, P. Stochastic
sizing of isolated rural mini-grids, including effects of fuel procurement and operational strategies. Energy Convers Manag. 2020,
213, 112824. [CrossRef]
44. Ndwali, P.K.; Njiri, J.G.; Wanjiru, E.M. Optimal Operation Control of Microgrid Connected Photovoltaic-Diesel Generator Backup
System Under Time of Use Tariff. J. Control. Autom. Electr. Syst. 2020, 31, 1001–1014. [CrossRef]
45. Carrosio, G. Energy production from biogas in the Italian countryside: Modernization vs. repeasantization. Biomass- Bioenergy
2014, 70, 141–148. [CrossRef]
46. Tanaka, Y.; Chapman, A.; Tezuka, T.; Sakurai, S. Multiple Streams and Power Sector Policy Change: Evidence from the Feed-in
Tariff Policy Process in Japan. Politics Policy 2020, 48, 464–489. [CrossRef]
47. Hale, T.; Urpelainen, J. When and how can unilateral policies promote the international diffusion of environmental policies and
clean technology? J. Theor. Politics 2015, 27, 177–205. [CrossRef]

422
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

48. Ramos-Escudero, A.; Gil-García, I.C.; García-Cascales, M.S.; Molina-Garcia, A. Energy, economic and environmental GIS–based
analysis of shallow geothermal potential in urban areas—A Spanish case example. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103267. [CrossRef]
49. Sarkar, A.; Velasco, L.; Wang, D.; Wang, Q.; Talasila, G.; de Biasi, L.; Kübel, C.; Brezesinski, T.; Bhattacharya, S.S.; Hahn, H.; et al.
High entropy oxides for reversible energy storage. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3400. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Maes, D.; Van Passel, S. Interference of regional support policies on the economic and environmental performance of a hybrid
cogeneration-solar panel energy system. Energy Policy 2012, 42, 670–680. [CrossRef]
51. Percebois, J.; Pommeret, S. Efficiency and dependence in the European electricity transition. Energy Policy 2021, 154, 112300.
[CrossRef]
52. Lakhani, R.; Doluweera, G.; Bergerson, J. Internalizing land use impacts for life cycle cost analysis of energy systems: A case of
California’s photovoltaic implementation. Appl. Energy 2014, 116, 253–259. [CrossRef]
53. Dadzie, J.; Runeson, G.; Ding, G. Assessing determinants of sustainable upgrade of existing buildings: The case of sustainable
technologies for energy efficiency. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2020, 18, 270–292. [CrossRef]
54. Harcourt, F.; Angeloudis, A.; Piggott, M.D. Utilising the flexible generation potential of tidal range power plants to optimise
economic value. Appl. Energy 2019, 237, 873–884. [CrossRef]
55. Sun, P.-C.; Wang, H.-M.; Huang, H.-L.; Ho, C.-W. Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward rooftop photovoltaic
installation: The roles of personal trait, psychological benefit, and government incentives. Energy Environ. 2020, 31, 21–39.
[CrossRef]
56. Yuan, Q.; Zhou, K.; Yao, J. A new measure of wind power variability with implications for the optimal sizing of standalone wind
power systems. Renew. Energy 2020, 150, 538–549. [CrossRef]
57. Li, C.; Lin, T.; Xu, Z. Impact of Hydropower on Air Pollution and Economic Growth in China. Energies 2021, 14, 2812. [CrossRef]
58. Abdallah, M.; El-Rayes, K. Multiobjective Optimization Model for Maximizing Sustainability of Existing Buildings. J. Manag. Eng.
2016, 32, 4. [CrossRef]
59. Gray, A.; Dickens, B.; Bruce, T.; Ashton, I.; Johanning, L. Reliability and O&M sensitivity analysis as a consequence of site specific
characteristics for wave energy converters. Ocean Eng. 2017, 141, 493–511. [CrossRef]
60. Zhan, S.; Hou, P.; Enevoldsen, P.; Yang, G.; Zhu, J.; Eichman, J.; Jacobson, M.Z. Co-optimized trading of hybrid wind power plant
with retired EV batteries in energy and reserve markets under uncertainties. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2020, 117, 105631.
[CrossRef]
61. Szarka, J. Bringing interests back in: Using coalition theories to explain European wind power policies. J. Eur. Public Policy 2010,
17, 836–853. [CrossRef]
62. Streitferdt, V.; Chirarattananon, S.; Du Pont, P. Lessons learned from studying public initiatives to support energy efficiency
finance in Thailand from 1992 to 2014. Energy Effic. 2017, 10, 905–923. [CrossRef]
63. Novalia, W.; Rogers, B.C.; Bos, J.J. Incumbency and political compromises: Opportunity or threat to sustainability transitions?
Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 2021, 40, 680–698. [CrossRef]
64. Thoyre, A. Neoliberalizing negawatts: Governance of energy efficiency as accumulation strategy. Geoforum 2021, 118, 140–149.
[CrossRef]
65. De Boer, J.; Zuidema, C. Towards an integrated energy landscape. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Urban Des. Plan. 2015, 168, 231–240.
[CrossRef]
66. Hauer, I.; Balischewski, S.; Ziegler, C. Design and operation strategy for multi-use application of battery energy storage in wind
farms. J. Energy Storage 2020, 31, 101572. [CrossRef]
67. Salvador, D.S.; Toboso-Chavero, S.; Nadal, A.; Gabarrell, X.; Rieradevall, J.; da Silva, R.S. Potential of technology parks to
implement Roof Mosaic in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 166–177. [CrossRef]
68. Arif, A.; Rizwan, M.; Elkamel, A.; Hakeem, L.; Zaman, M. Optimal Selection of Integrated Electricity Generation Systems for the
Power Sector with Low Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. Energies 2020, 13, 4571. [CrossRef]
69. Li, L.; Qu, M.; Peng, S. Performance evaluation of building integrated solar thermal shading system: Active solar energy usage.
Renew. Energy 2017, 109, 576–585. [CrossRef]
70. Choe, K.Y.; Kim, H.; Li, J.U.; Hyon, C.I.; Kang, I.Y. New architecture and SCADA for stand-alone hybrid (medium-sized
asynchronous wind turbine + UPS with battery + photovoltaic array) power system without diesel generator. Wind. Energy 2019,
22, 959–974. [CrossRef]
71. Gasbarro, F.; Annunziata, E.; Rizzi, F.; Frey, M. The Interplay Between Sustainable Entrepreneurs and Public Authorities: Evidence
from Sustainable Energy Transitions. Organ. Environ. 2017, 30, 226–252. [CrossRef]
72. D’adamo, I.; Di Carlo, C.; Gastaldi, M.; Rossi, E.N.; Uricchio, A.F. Economic Performance, Environmental Protection and Social
Progress: A Cluster Analysis Comparison towards Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5049. [CrossRef]
73. D’adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M.; Nallapaneni, M.K. Europe Moves toward Pragmatic Sustainability: A More Human and Fraternal
Approach. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6161. [CrossRef]
74. Osorio, A.M.; Úsuga, L.F.; Restrepo-Carmona, J.A.; Rendón, I.; Sierra-Pérez, J.; Vásquez, R.E. Methodology for Stakeholder
Prioritization in the Context of Digital Transformation and Society 5.0. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5317. [CrossRef]
75. Perevoznic, F.M.; Dragomir, V.D. Achieving the 2030 Agenda: Mapping the Landscape of Corporate Sustainability Goals and
Policies in the European Union. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2971. [CrossRef]

423
Sustainability 2024, 16, 6583

76. D’adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M. Monitoring the Performance of Sustainable Development Goals in the Italian Regions. Sustainability
2023, 15, 14094. [CrossRef]
77. UN. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. 2015. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 3 July 2024.).
78. Gamage, K.A.A.; Munguia, N.; Velazquez, L. Happy sustainability: A future quest for more sustainable universities. Soc. Sci.
2022, 11, 24. [CrossRef]
79. Zenchanka, S.; Gorbatchev, N.; Zagoumennov, I.; Frankenberger, F. Sustainability of university campus and SDG 2030: Social
aspects. In Handbook of Best Practices in Sustainable Development at University Level 2022; Springer International Publishing: Cham,
The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 337–352. [CrossRef]
80. Silva-Da-Nóbrega, P.I.; Chim-Miki, A.F.; Castillo-Palacio, M. A smart campus framework: Challenges and opportunities for
education based on the sustainable development goals. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9640. [CrossRef]
81. Alawneh, R.; Jannoud, I.; Rabayah, H.; Ali, H. Developing a novel index for assessing and managing the contribution of
sustainable campuses to achieve UN SDGs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11770. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

424
 sustainability

Review
Decoding the Nexus: A Bibliometric Review on Sustainability,
Circular Economy, and Consumer Food Waste†
Miray Baybars 1 , Fatma Demircan Keskin 1 , İpek Kazançoğlu 1 and Yiğit Kazançoğlu 2, *

1 Department of Business Administration, Ege University, İzmir 35040, Turkey;

[Link]@[Link] (M.B.); [Link]@[Link] (F.D.K.); [Link]@[Link] (İ.K.)
2 Department of Logistics Management, Yaşar University, İzmir 35040, Turkey
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]
† This study is an extended and revised version of the paper entitled “Mapping the intersections of
sustainability, circular economy, and consumer behavior: a bibliometric review on food waste” presented at
the 3rd International Conference on Sustainable, Circular Management and Environmental Engineering
(ISCMEE 2023) held in İzmir, Turkey on 12 July 2023.

Abstract: One of the issues that has gained importance within the scope of the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is the issue of food waste. These goals, which represent very
important and urgent problems to be solved at the global level, are extremely critical in terms of
sustainability. Food waste, by its nature at the intersection of economic, social, and environmental
sustainability goals, has become a global problem linked to key challenges in the global environment
in terms of food security, climate change, malnutrition, and economic sustainability. The fact that
consumers are one of the most important factors affecting food waste in the transition to a circular
economy increases the importance of this study once again. Due to the lack of systematic, chronologi-
cal studies showing how food waste develops over time, this study will examine the development
and evolution of food waste research using a bibliometric analysis. In this way, it aims to gain a
comprehensive insight into the field’s current state and shed light on this highly important area
of study. In addition to informing policymakers, practitioners, and consumers with the results of
Citation: Baybars, M.; Demircan this research, it is also aimed to support all relevant individuals, institutions, and organizations in
Keskin, F.; Kazançoğlu, İ.;
the efforts to combat food waste. One of the main objectives of this study is to contribute to the
Kazançoğlu, Y. Decoding the Nexus:
achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For this reason, it can be
A Bibliometric Review on
stated that the research has objectives in line with SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
Sustainability, Circular Economy, and
and SDG 13: Climate Action.
Consumer Food Waste. Sustainability
2024, 16, 4408. [Link]
10.3390/su16114408
Keywords: circular economy; sustainability; food waste; bibliometric analysis

Academic Editors: Idiano D’Adamo,

Massimo Gastaldi and Manoj
Kumar Nallapaneni
1. Introduction
Received: 7 December 2023 Sustainability is an understanding that invites people to think beyond individual
Revised: 1 February 2024 needs and motivates them to consider the long-term consequences of their current actions.
Accepted: 7 March 2024 One of the main axes of sustainable thinking is the effective and efficient use of limited
Published: 23 May 2024 resources to meet current needs and consider future generations’ needs. This approach,
which should not be limited to the sustainability of natural resources, is a holistic under-
standing that needs to be reflected in environmental, economic, and social spheres. While
environmental sustainability emphasizes the importance and protection of the natural
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
environment, economic sustainability underlines the need for the efficient, responsible,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
and effective use of economy-related scarce resources. Finally, social sustainability refers to
distributed under the terms and
equity and inclusiveness within society.
conditions of the Creative Commons In recent years, there has been an increase in individual and academic interest in
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// sustainability. Sustainability-oriented thinking and practices, which impact macro-scale
[Link]/licenses/by/ practices at the level of institutions or enterprises and individual practices, have increased
4.0/). with increasing awareness on various occasions [1,2]. On the other hand, academic studies

Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408. [Link] 425 [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

in this field have also risen significantly with increasing interest, awareness, and thus
increasing examples of practice at institutional and individual levels [3,4].
The increasing interest in this field at both individual and academic levels has led to
an intensification of studies in the field, which has necessitated a comprehensive evaluation
of the existing studies. The field of sustainability, which is located at the intersection of
many fields, is an interdisciplinary field of study with a wide range of evaluation with
studies involving many sub-fields, from economics to sociology and public administration
to consumer behavior. For this reason, this study aims to provide a valuable and structured
framework by examining the extensive body of work in the field.
The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals Report data distinguished
between food waste and food loss, highlighting 13% of food loss in production chains as
well as 17% of food waste at the consumer level [5]. Food waste is a critical issue to prevent,
not only in terms of economic sustainability but also in terms of the sustainability of natural
resources and social justice and therefore social sustainability. Therefore, it is required to be
examined in depth.
Understanding and gaining insights into the causes of food waste, which originates
from consumers, is one of the most important steps to prevent it. This study, which aims to
develop an in-depth understanding of the field to develop effective strategies to reduce
this waste, is an important effort for a more sustainable universe by shedding light on the
intersection of sustainability, circular economy, and food waste.
The bibliometric analysis method, which will be used in this study, is one of the
leading tools to examine and synthesize comprehensive information in a field. Especially
in intersectional fields such as this particular research study area, where many fields in-
tersect and have rich literature, a bibliometric analysis emerges as a method that enables
valuable results to be obtained. A bibliometric analysis, which differs from a traditional
literature review in several respects, was chosen because of its potential for quantitative
insights, its competence in visual representation, and its superiority in terms of enabling
the identification of objective trends and patterns in the literature. Through this method,
this study addressed the following research questions (RQs) by conducting descriptive
analyses and network analyses using the R Bibliometrix package and VOSviewer, examin-
ing publications at the intersection of sustainability, circular economy, and food waste in
the Web of Science (WoS) database until the end of August 2023.
RQ1. What are the variations in annual publications and citation trends within the re-
search field?
RQ2. What keywords have shown the highest frequency of use and the most frequent
co-occurrence within publications in the research field?
RQ3. Which countries demonstrate the highest research productivity, and what are the
collaboration patterns among these countries within the research field?
RQ4. Who are the most prolific authors, what co-authorship patterns emerge among them,
and which sources publish the most studies within the research field?

2. Food Waste, Sustainability, and Circular Economy

In line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development announced by the United
Nations, our study focuses on key topics, such as responsible consumption and production
(SDG 12) and climate action (SDG 13). The growing interest in these Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals (SDGs) is also reflected in the literature [6]. While both are important for
sustainability, food waste and food loss are distinguished from each other by definition by
the UN [5]. Food loss is defined as food becoming unusable due to inefficiencies that occur
during production, post-harvest processing, transportation, etc., before the product reaches
the final consumer; food waste, on the other hand, is explained as the disposal of edible
food as a result of consumer-induced practices such as overbuying, improper storage, etc.,
or personal preferences [7–9]. It has been stated that nations’ economic development is
directly related to the food waste or loss they cause. It has been emphasized that developed

426
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

countries are more responsible for food waste due to reasons such as more effortless access
to food.
In contrast, developing countries are more responsible for food loss due to ineffective
management of inefficiency in the process [10–14]. Although food waste production varies
according to countries’ development levels, the problem is characterized as a universal
sustainability issue affecting the whole world [15]. The economic cost of food waste from
consumers is higher than food loss due to the product’s added value until it reaches the
consumer [16]. Therefore, understanding food waste at the consumer level is critical for
achieving sustainability goals.
Food waste can be expressed as a holistic process that cannot be explained only
by individual attitudes, intentions, and behaviors [17]. It is essential to understand its
multifaceted nature to reduce food waste, which is influenced by social norms, cultural
practices, and structural variables. It has also been stated that efforts to raise awareness
and consciousness only at the individual level do not have a significant effect if other
structural factors are ignored [9,17]. Despite the existence of individual awareness or
positive attitudes or intentions to avoid food waste [18,19], the inability to prevent food
waste suggests the importance of focusing on structural solutions with a macro approach.
It is clear that studies that point to interdisciplinary collaboration and guide policymakers
toward systemic change will contribute to a more sustainable food ecosystem.
Once it is accepted that individual factors do not fully explain food waste behavior,
systemic influences must be closely examined. Culture is a phenomenon that should not
be ignored when discussing food waste. For this very reason, studies indicate that taking
steps to prevent food waste by considering local dynamics and using culturally adapted
language that avoids giving generalized messages yields more meaningful results in the
fight against food waste [20]. It is known that food culture patterns that differ from region
to region, sometimes even within the same country, will lead to diversity in approaches to
food waste and related behaviors [21,22]. Within the scope of individual practices related
to food waste, contextual factors such as family composition, income level, and individual
differences need to be considered alongside structural influences, such as culture [21,23,24].
Even time-based differences such as holidays and celebrations have the potential to create
variability in wastage due to shopping and preparations [25,26]. Therefore, delivering a
standard message about food waste to all consumers, even if they are located in the same
geographical region, would reduce effectiveness, so it is crucial to provide consumers with
customized messages that are appropriate for their segment [27].
Studies on food waste can be quite complex as they adopt a wide range of method-
ological approaches, focusing on various stages of waste and using measurement methods
without adhering to a standard [28]. As a result of this situation, it can be stated that
although there are a large number of studies in the field, the studies are disconnected from
each other. Therefore, the synergistic potential of the research in the field is not realized.
Because of the importance of analyzing this extensive literature in a structured way and
with a common framework, it is crucial to organize the research in such a way that a greater
synergy can be achieved. The present study aims to provide a clear view to researchers,
practitioners, and policymakers working in this field by structuring the various studies on
food waste around emerging themes, trends, and concepts.
Since existing studies on sustainability and consumer behavior are based either on
traditional literature analysis [9,17] or consumer data [7,8,13], the current study addresses
the lack of a comprehensive bibliometric analysis focusing on quantitative insights in
the field.

3. Materials and Methods

This study employed a systematic approach to address the research questions posed.
Initially, each set’s search sets and relevant keywords were defined, and searches were
conducted within WoS, one of the most widely utilized databases in the literature. The
retrieved studies were subsequently selected in accordance with the research area, and

427
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

datasets were prepared for analysis through the cleaning and standardization processes.
Following this, bibliometric analyses were conducted using the R Bibliometrix package
and VOSviewer.

3.1. Data Selection and Preparation for the Analysis

To systematically cover the breadth of academic research conducted within the scope
of this research, three specific search categories were identified: “Circular Economy and
Sustainability”, “Food Waste”, and “Consumer”. On 21 August 2023, scientific studies that
included at least one of the predefined keywords from these three different categories were
found, as summarized in Table 1. The data were imported from the WoS database.

Table 1. Search sets.

Sets Search Terms

“Circular econom*” OR “Circular business
model*” OR “Circular supply chain*” OR
“Circular design*” OR “Closed-loop system*”
OR “Resource efficien*” OR “Waste manag *”
OR “Sustainable product*” OR “Industrial
Circular economy and sustainability
ecolog*” OR “Resource recover*” OR
“Extended producer responsibilit*” OR
“Remanufactur*” OR “Sustainable consumpt*”
OR “Ecological footprint*”
OR“Green procurement*”
“Food wast*” OR “Food loss*” OR “Food
dispos*” OR “Food recov*” OR “Food supply*”
Food waste OR “Food consump*” OR “Food recycl*” OR
“Food redistribut*” OR “Sustainable food*” OR
“Food packaging wast*”
Consumer “consum*”

The search was refined within the WoS categories, excluding research areas outside
the scope of this study. Within the obtained dataset, duplicated studies were eliminated,
and the expressions of terms were standardized. For instance, terms such as “LCA” and
“life cycle assessment (LCA)” were changed to “life cycle management”, while “consumer
behavior” was changed to “consumer behavior”. Following the editing process, a dataset
comprising 1448 studies, spanning 1994 to 2023, was compiled. The main details about the
studies encompassed within the analysis are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of the analysis data.

Main Information about Data

Timespan 1994:2023
Sources (Journals, Books, etc.) 440
Documents 1448
Document Types
Article 1147
Book Chapter 19
Data Paper 1

428
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

Table 2. Cont.

Main Information about Data

Early Access 42
Proceeding Paper 71
Book Review 1
Correction 2
Editorial Material 5
Meeting Abstract 3
Review 157
Authors
Authors 4799
Author Appearances 5637
Authors of Single-authored Documents 101
Authors of Multi-authored Documents 4698
Authors Collaboration
Single-authored Documents 103
Co-Authors per Documents 3.89
Collaboration Index 3.49

The dataset mainly comprises articles, accounting for approximately 79% (1147),
followed by reviews at 11% (157), Proceeding Papers at 5% (71), and Early Accesses
constituting 3% (42). The studies within the dataset were published in 440 different sources
and authored by 4799 authors. Among these studies, 103 were single-authored, while
1345 were collaboratively authored. One of the indicators that illustrates the extent of
collaboration among authors in the research field is the average number of co-authors per
study, which is 3.89. Meanwhile, the collaboration index indicator, calculated by dividing
the total number of authors in multi-authored studies by the total number of multi-authored
studies [29], yields a value of 3.49.

3.2. Bibliometric Analysis

The bibliometric methodology, which involves applying various quantitative tech-
niques to bibliometric data, has seen a significant rise in popularity, especially in recent
years. This increase can be attributed to several factors, including the availability of large-
scale databases like WoS and Scopus that provide bibliometric data. Moreover, numerous
software tools such as R version 3.6.3, VOSviewer version 1.6.19, and Gephi (accessed
date: 21 August 2023) enable the analysis of bibliometric data to be more accessible, fur-
ther fueling the growing utilization of bibliometric analysis [30]. Bibliometric analyses
encompass the descriptive analysis of bibliometric data and examining networks encom-
passing keywords, authors, citations, countries, and their connections [31]. In this study,
various aspects of research within the field have been investigated, including how the
annual scientific production within the research field evolved over the years, the annual
citation patterns within the research field, the most frequently used keywords and their
co-occurrence patterns, the most prolific countries and authors in the research field, collab-
oration patterns among countries and authors within the research field, and the leading
sources within the research field.

4. Results
As a result of the bibliometric analyses applied to the dataset within the scope of this
research, various insights have been obtained on the research field. These insights include

429
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

the year-by-year evolution of publications in the field up to the end of August 2023, annual
citation patterns within the research area, the most frequently used keywords and their
co-occurrence patterns, the most productive countries and authors within the research
domain, collaboration patterns among countries and authors in the research area, and the
primary sources contributing to the field. This section presents all of these findings.

4.1. Annual Scientific Production

The yearly publication figures within the research field are illustrated in Figure 1. The
number of publications gradually increased, especially in the last ten years [14,32]. Between
1994 and 2008, the yearly number of studies within the research field remained below 10.
However, starting from 2009, the annual number of studies in the field began to surpass 10,
and by 2018, it had exceeded 100. In the research field, where the number of studies has
been on the rise since 2014, an analysis of the last ten years shows that the most substantial
increases compared to the previous year took place in 2015 and 2021, respectively. This
increasing trend in annual study counts continued, and as of August 2023, the number of
publications in 2023 reached 67% of the total number of publications produced in 2022.

ȱ
Figure 1. Annual scientific production.

4.2. Annual Citations

The yearly citation patterns within the research field are analyzed through the indi-
cators of total publications (TPs), total citations (TCs), and Citations per Paper per year
(CPY = Citations per Paper/Citable years). Citations per Paper are calculated by dividing
the TCs by the TPs. In Figure 2, the annual variations in the TCs and TPs are depicted,
while in Figure 3, the annual changes in the CPY and TCs are illustrated.
In the field of research, the number of publications has consistently increased each
year since 2014, while the citation numbers have exhibited a fluctuating trend. Decreases in
citation counts were observed in 2019, 2021, and 2022 compared to the previous year. The
most significant decline occurred in 2022.

430
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

ȱ
Figure 2. Annual publications–annual citations.

ȱ
Figure 3. Annual citations–citations per paper per year.

Figure 3 indicates that although TCs have generally followed a similar path to the
CPY, TCs increased in 2015, 2016, and 2018, while the CPY declined and TCs decreased
in 2020, and the CPY increased. The CPY indicator, which provides a comprehensive
viewpoint by considering the number of studies and the years cited together, reveals that
2006 was the most productive year. The article “Sustainable food consumption: Exploring
the consumer’ attitude–behavioral intention’ gap”, authored by [33] and published in
the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, has received 1258 citations in the WoS
database. This study, which has the highest citation count among the publications covered
in the research, played a crucial role in achieving the top position within the citation
indicators for the year 2006.
Based on the CPY indicator, 2006 is followed by 2014 (CPY = 11.1) and 2008 (CPY = 9.64),
respectively. In terms of the total citation count, the studies of [34–36] push these years to
the top positions.

431
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

4.3. Co-Occurrence Analysis of Keywords

The most frequently used keywords were determined, and a keyword co-occurrence
analysis was conducted to uncover recurring keywords and research patterns at the intersec-
tions of sustainability, circular economy, and food waste. The most frequently encountered
terms include “food waste”, “sustainability”, “circular economy”, “sustainable consump-
tion”, and “food”, all of which are part of the search sets. Beyond the terms within these sets,
words such as “life cycle assessment”, “ecological footprint”, “food supply chain”, “envi-
ronment”, “organic food”, “sustainable food”, and “food security” have also demonstrated
noteworthy usage.
Figure 4 displays the co-occurrence network, which encompasses keywords mentioned
at least ten times within the Author Keywords sections of all the documents in the dataset.
The co-occurrence analysis of these keywords resulted in seven primary clusters. Figure 5
presents the clusters and corresponding keywords within the clusters with their frequencies.

Figure 4. Co-occurrence network of most used keywords.

&OXVWHU  &OXVWHU  &OXVWHU 

UHG JUHHQ GDUN EOXH
‡ IRRG ZDVWH  ‡ IRRG  ‡ VXVWDLQDELOLW\ 
‡ FLUFXODU HFRQRP\  ‡ IRRG FRQVXPSWLRQ  ‡ VXVWDLQDEOH
‡ OLIH F\FOH DVVHVVPHQW  ‡ HFRORJLFDO IRRWSULQW  FRQVXPSWLRQ 
‡ ZDVWH PDQDJHPHQW  ‡ FDUERQ IRRWSULQW  ‡ FRQVXPHU EHKDYLRXU 
‡ ZDVWH  ‡ DJULFXOWXUH  ‡ RUJDQLF IRRG 
‡ LQGXVWULDO HFRORJ\  ‡ HQYLURQPHQWDO LPSDFW  ‡ FRQVXPHU 
‡ PDQDJHPHQW  ‡ QXWULWLRQ  ‡ VXVWDLQDEOH
‡ UHF\FOLQJ  ‡ FKLQD  IRRG FRQVXPSWLRQ 
‡ DQDHURELF GLJHVWLRQ  ‡ IRRWSULQW  ‡ FOLPDWH FKDQJH 
‡ PDWHULDO IORZ DQDO\VLV  ‡ HQYLURQPHQWDO LPSDFWV  ‡ PHDW 
‡ IRRG ZDVWH ‡ ZDWHU  ‡ DTXDFXOWXUH 
PDQDJHPHQW  ‡ DVVHVVPHQW  ‡ RUJDQLF 
‡ UHVRXUFH UHFRYHU\  ‡ VXVWDLQDEOH GLHWV  ‡ VXUYH\ 
‡ HQHUJ\  ‡ ZDWHU IRRWSULQW  ‡ ORFDO IRRG 
‡ ELRHFRQRP\  ‡ GLHW 
‡ ELRJDV 
‡ FRPSRVWLQJ 
‡ VROLG ZDVWH
PDQDJHPHQW 
ȱ
Figure 5. Cont.

432
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

&OXVWHU  &OXVWHU  &OXVWHU  &OXVWHU 

\HOORZ SXUSOH OLJKW EOXH RUDQJH
‡ IRRG VXSSO\ FKDLQ ‡ HQYLURQPHQW  ‡ FRQVXPSWLRQ  ‡ VXVWDLQDEOH
 ‡ IRRG VHFXULW\  ‡ VXVWDLQDEOH  ‡ SURGXFWLRQ 
‡ VXVWDLQDEOH IRRG  ‡ VXVWDLQDEOH ‡ FRYLG  ‡ IRRG SDFNDJLQJ 
‡ IRRG V\VWHP  ‡ GHYHORSPHQW  ‡ VXSSO\ FKDLQ 
‡ IRRG ORVV DQG ZDVWH ‡ VXVWDLQDELOLW\  ‡ SROLF\ 
 ‡ IRRG ORVV  ‡ KRXVHKROG
‡ VXVWDLQDEOH ‡ EHKDYLRXU  ‡ IRRG ZDVWH 
‡ GHYHORSPHQW JRDOV ‡ KRXVHKROG 
 ‡ KHDOWK 
‡ IRRG ZDVWH  ‡ ZDVWH SUHYHQWLRQ
‡ VXVWDLQDEOH IRRG 
V\VWHPV 
‡ IRRG VXVWDLQDELOLW\

‡ SURGXFWLRQ 

ȱ
Figure 5. Clusters and corresponding keywords within clusters (frequencies).

The first cluster, named Waste and Sustainability, centers around food waste, circular
economy, life cycle assessment, and waste management. The keywords co-occurring
in this cluster implied a holistic exploration of waste management, circular economy
principles, and the potential for value extraction from waste. The second cluster, Food
and Consumption, focuses on food, incorporating food consumption and diet. The cluster
collectively emphasizes evaluating the overall sustainability of food choices, providing a
concise exploration of intersections between food, environmental impact, and sustainability.
Consumer and Sustainability, the third cluster, focuses intensely on sustainability and
addresses sustainability in consumer behavior, emphasizing food choices, organic practices,
and their broader implications for climate and local economies. The cluster that concen-
trates on the food supply chain, emphasizing sustainability and key themes within food
systems, is cluster four, named Food Chain and Goals. This cluster comprehensively exam-
ines sustainable practices within the food supply chain, encompassing waste reduction,
adherence to development goals, and promoting resilient food systems.
The fifth cluster, Environment and Security, delves into ecological considerations with
the environment at its core. It centers on the intersection of environmental concerns, food
security, and sustainable development, exploring various sustainability dimensions. The
sixth cluster, Consumption and Policy, reflects the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on
consumption dynamics. It provides a perspective on the interplay between consumption,
sustainability, the COVID-19 pandemic, and policy influences. The last cluster, Production
and Packaging, focuses on sustainable production, particularly addressing the environmen-
tal impact of food packaging.

4.4. Co-Authorship Analysis: Countries

Patterns of collaboration, indicative of a more intense form of interaction, can be
explored by creating co-authorship networks at the level of authors, organizations, or
countries, thus facilitating the study of interactions within the collaborative realm [37,38].
The country analysis and the dynamics of collaborations are very important in terms
of showing which countries are most interested in the field of research and shaping the
dissemination of knowledge worldwide.
The analysis is based on co-authorship among countries considered to have partic-
ipated in at least ten studies within the research field. A total of 44 countries met this
criterion. Table 3 presents information about the top 10 countries with the most publica-
tions in the research field. It includes the TPs, TCs, Citations per Paper (CPs), and Total
Link Strength (TLS) values. The TLS represents the collective intensity of the co-authorship
connections between a specific country and others [39].

433
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

Table 3. Publication, citation, and collaboration indicators for top 10 productive countries.

Country TP TC CP TLS
Italy 211 6529 30.94 187
England 172 6036 35.09 198
USA 162 4805 29.66 187
Peoples R China 160 3205 20.03 158
Germany 102 2488 24.39 117
Spain 92 2565 27.88 128
India 81 1154 14.25 70
Netherlands 75 3770 50.27 70
Sweden 72 2042 28.36 75
Australia 67 1791 26.73 75

Italy, England, and the USA have the highest TPs and TCs in the research field.
However, a different result emerges among the top three countries when considering the
CP metric. In this case, Belgium, Austria, and Finland, which fall within the range of
20 to 30 in the TP-based ranking, are leading in CPs. Even though these countries have
not contributed to as many collaborative studies as the countries at the top of the list, the
research produced by the authors from these countries has received many citations. Of the
top 10 countries based on TPs, India, China, and Germany have the lowest CP scores. This
result suggests that despite these countries producing a substantial number of studies, the
average number of citations per publication is comparatively lower.
Country co-authorship networks are highly relevant as they visually represent global
research collaboration for understanding countries’ efforts in a field that transcends geo-
graphical boundaries. This information is particularly valuable for researchers, institutions,
or policymakers to identify potential collaborations. Furthermore, to build broader re-
search relationships in the future, it is critical to recognize the existing strong links between
countries. Through analyzing collaborative authorship relationships between countries,
five distinct clusters were identified, each containing countries frequently participating in
collaborative research. The visual representation of these clusters is shown in Figure 6. In
the network depiction, countries with the highest productivity are shown with larger nodes.
According to the TLC metric, which shows the strength of the co-authoring links between
authors from different countries, the top three countries with the strongest co-authorship
relationships are England, Italy, and the USA, in descending order.

Figure 6. Co-authorship network of countries.

434
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

4.5. Co-Authorship Analysis: Authors

A co-authorship analysis was undertaken to investigate the collaborative patterns
observed among authors who have contributed significantly to the research field under con-
sideration. A total of 4797 authors were identified as contributors, of whom 57 individuals
had participated in a minimum of four studies. Notably, the authors with the highest TPs
are Filimonau, Viachaslau; Laso, Jara; Margallo, Maria; and Sala, Serenella, as presented
in Table 4. It is important to recognize the most influential names in the field and identify
individuals who have made highly influential contributions to enhance the collaborative
nature of the discipline. These authors have significantly impacted the field through their
publications and citations. Therefore, the values associated with the citations are also of
great importance.

Table 4. Publication, citation, and collaboration indicators of the most productive authors.

Author TP TC CP TLS
Filimonau, Viachaslau 14 402 28.71 2
Laso, Jara 13 375 28.85 39
Margallo, Maria 10 356 35.60 35
Sala, Serenella 10 1360 136.00 0
Hoehn, Daniel 9 304 33.78 34
Aldaco, Ruben 8 361 45.13 28
Vazquez-Rowe, Ian 8 159 19.88 21
El Bilali, Hamid 6 134 22.33 1
Galli, Alessandro 6 272 45.33 1
Mangla, Sachin Kumar 6 157 26.17 0
Martens, Pim 6 50 8.33 7
Rousta, Kamran 6 218 36.33 5
Woolley, Elliot 6 131 21.83 0

Furthermore, it is worth highlighting that Verbeke, Wim (TC = 1977, CP = 395.4) and
Vermeir, Iris (TC = 1969, CP = 393.8) emerged as the authors with the highest TCs and CPs,
although they are not among the authors listed with the highest TPs. Following them in
terms of TCs is Sala, Serenella (TC = 1360, CP = 136), who also has a position within the
top three authors based on TPs. Sala, Serenella’s position in TCs can be attributed to her
significant role as a co-author in several highly cited works, most notably the studies of [35]
with 595 citations and [40] with 338 citations.
Figure 7 visually represents the co-authorship density among authors involved in at
least four studies. In this depiction, authors with strong co-authorship connections are
represented by dark yellow shading, while dark blue shading represents those with weaker
co-authorship links. The TLS metric, which signifies the strength of the co-authorship con-
nections, highlights Laso, Jara; Margallo, Maria; and Hoehn, Daniel as the top three contributors.

435
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

ȱ
Figure 7. Co-authorship density visualization of authors.

4.6. Leading Sources

There have been 440 sources, including journals, books, conference proceedings, and
reports, in which the studies within the context of this study were published. Among these
sources, 44 published at least five studies in the research field. The leading ten sources with
the highest publications are presented in Table 5, with the TC and CP indicators.

Table 5. Publication and citation indicators of 10 sources with the highest TPs.

Source TP TC CP
Sustainability 178 2643 14.85
Journal of Cleaner Production 149 7663 51.43
British Food Journal 45 654 14.53
Foods 41 768 18.73
Science of The Total Environment 39 1577 40.44
Waste Management 37 2287 61.81
Resources Conservation and Recycling 36 1426 39.61
Sustainable Production and Consumption 29 430 14.83
Journal of Industrial Ecology 26 860 33.08
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 23 105 4.57

All the sources in the top ten list are journals. Sustainability, the Journal of Cleaner
Production, and the British Food Journal are the top three journals with the highest TPs,
respectively. On the TCs side, the Journal of Cleaner Production, Sustainability, and Waste
Management are in the top three. The CP metric resulted in a different picture. The journals
Ecological Economics (TP = 14, CP = 124.50), International Journal of Production Economics
(TP = 5, CP = 18.40), and Food Policy (TP = 11, CP = 76.18), while not having positions
within the TP-based top 10 rankings, emerged as the top three in the CP list. This finding
highlights the fine distinction in evaluating journals, pointing to the complex interplay
between productivity and impact. Within the subset of journals ranked in the top 10 based
on TPs, an internal CP ranking reveals that Waste Management (CP = 61.81), the Journal of

436
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

Cleaner Production (CP = 51.43), and Science of The Total Environment (CP = 40.44) take the
top three positions.
The number of articles published by these ten journals in the last ten years on an annual
basis is depicted in Figure 8. Until 2019, the journal with the highest number of publications
in the intersection of sustainability, circular economy, and food waste was the Journal of
Cleaner Production. However, starting from 2020, Sustainability took the lead. In 2022, both
journals saw a decrease in published studies in the research area. The publication-based
rankings of other journals have shown variability.

ȱ
Figure 8. Annual publications of the top journals.

These journals demonstrate distinct scopes based on the most frequently occurring
keywords and their co-occurrence. Sustainability has a broad focus encompassing circular
economy, food waste, sustainable consumption, and other related topics. In contrast,
the Journal of Cleaner Production emphasizes food waste, sustainable consumption, life
cycle assessment, circular economy, and waste management. The Science of The Total
Environment Journal focuses on the circular economy, life cycle assessment, food waste, and
related environmental aspects. Foods covers sustainable consumption, food waste, circular
economy, food security, and various food production and consumption aspects. Similarly,
the British Food Journal shares similar focus areas, emphasizing sustainable consumption,
food waste, circular economy, and consumer behavior, including meat consumption. The
comparison highlights the subtle thematic orientations of these journals in the context of
this research field.

5. Conclusions and Future Research

As mentioned in the introduction, the present study, which examines consumer food
waste in the context of sustainability and circular economy, aims to provide a meaningful
and structured framework by analyzing the extremely rich content of the field. The
intersection of sustainability, circular economy, and food waste brings with it the advantage
of the rich diversity of the field and the need to analyze and standardize this rich content
that speaks different languages. Our study aims to provide a structured examination of the
interaction of these fields by aiming to take advantage of this diversity.
With the current study focusing on the intersection of sustainability, circular economy,
and consumer food waste, we prioritize the UN’s goal of action to mitigate climate change
(SDG 13) and responsible consumption and production (SDG 12).

437
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

Beyond the traditional literature review, employing a bibliometric analysis, which

allows for quantitative insights into the broad and interactive nature of the field, this study
prioritizes evaluating the findings from a unique perspective.
By identifying the publication trends and the most co-occurring keyword clusters,
revealing co-authorship patterns, identifying prolific authors, and revealing the field’s lead-
ing sources and their focal points, the current study’s findings contribute to understanding
the development of the field, identifying related concepts in the field, and articulating
models of collaboration on a global scale.
Publication indicators reveal a continuous growth trend in the research field, consistent
with the studies by [12,41]. Their findings indicate a surge in annual publications from
2017 to 2021, particularly in circular economy and food waste and losses. Publications
through August 2023 suggest this upward trend will continue, underscoring the continued
importance and expansion of research in these areas.
A co-authorship analysis of countries indicates that, in the field of research, Italy is the
most productive country with the most publications, as stated in the study by [41]. Ref. [12]
stated that India, one of the countries that stands out in collaborative publications in the
research field, has publications in the research field. The most dominant journals in the
research field with the most publication numbers are Sustainability and the Journal of Cleaner
Production, in line with [41,42].
Also, by analyzing trend topics and frequently used words in recent research and
examining recent studies conducted by authors with the highest collaboration in the
research field, this study attempts to identify the research trends. One key trend centers
around the imperative to ensure food security and enhance the sustainability of seafood
production systems. Researchers are actively addressing the challenges arising from the
escalating global demand for seafood, analyzing supply chains, and exploring ways to
support sustainability merits. Another focal point is the comprehensive approach to
addressing contamination issues in fish and aquaculture products, emphasizing the fishing
sector’s short- and medium-term sustainability and the critical goal of ensuring food
safety. Additionally, there is a growing emphasis on understanding consumer attitudes
and behaviors related to the environmental impact of seafood packaging, with a concerted
effort to explore consumers’ willingness to actively contribute to reducing this impact.
Furthermore, the field explores the nuanced interplay between objective and subjective
knowledge and its impact on organic purchase intentions. It reflects a heightened interest in
understanding consumer choices in sustainable and organic food preferences. Collectively,
these research trends underscore a multifaceted approach aimed at fostering sustainability,
environmental responsibility, and informed consumer decision-making in seafood and
related industries.
However, the reliance on the WoS database represents a significant limitation of this
study. Future studies are thought to improve their scope by including publications in
databases, such as Scopus.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Cogut, G.; Webster, N.J.; Marans, R.W.; Callewaert, J. Links between sustainability-related awareness and behavior: The
moderating role of engagement. Int. J. Sustain. High. 2019, 20, 1240–1257. [CrossRef]
2. Alsaati, T.; El-Nakla, S.; El-Nakla, D. Level of sustainability awareness among university students in the eastern province of Saudi
Arabia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3159. [CrossRef]
3. Cullen, J.G. Educating business students about sustainability: A bibliometric review of current trends and research needs. J. Bus.
Ethics 2017, 145, 429–439. [CrossRef]
4. Kajikawa, Y.; Tacoa, F.; Yamaguchi, K. Sustainability science: The changing landscape of sustainability research. Sustain. Sci. 2014,
9, 431–438. [CrossRef]
5. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022. 2022. Available online: [Link]
2022/[Link] (accessed on 1 February 2024).

438
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

6. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.;
et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
7. Dobernig, K.; Schanes, K. Domestic spaces and beyond: Consumer food waste in the context of shopping and storing routines.
Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 43, 480–489. [CrossRef]
8. Stancu, V.; Haugaard, P.; Lähteenmäki, L. Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite
2016, 96, 7–17. [CrossRef]
9. Dos Santos, J.I.A.S.; da Silveira, D.S.; da Costa, M.F.; Duarte, R.B. Consumer behaviour in relation to food waste: A systematic
literature review. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 4420–4439. [CrossRef]
10. Chauhan, Y. Food Waste Management with Technological Platforms: Evidence from Indian Food Supply Chains. Sustainability
2020, 12, 8162. [CrossRef]
11. Li, H.; Pan, P. Food waste in developed countries and cold chain logistics. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 251, 03001. [CrossRef]
12. De Oliveira, M.M.; Lago, A.; Dal’Magro, G.P. Food loss and waste in the context of the circular economy: A systematic review. J.
Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126284. [CrossRef]
13. Gaiani, S.; Caldeira, S.; Adorno, V.; Segre, A.; Vittuari, M. Food wasters: Profiling consumers’ attitude to waste food in Italy. Waste
Manag. 2018, 72, 17–24. [CrossRef]
14. Tamasiga, P.; Miri, T.; Onyeaka, H.; Hart, A. Food waste and circular economy: Challenges and opportunities. Sustainability 2022,
14, 9896. [CrossRef]
15. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023. 2023. Available online: [Link]
2023/[Link] (accessed on 4 February 2024).
16. Aktas, E.; Sahin, H.; Topaloglu, Z.; Oledinma, A.; Huda, A.K.S.; Irani, Z.; Sharif, A.M.; van’t Wout, T.; Kamrava, M. A consumer
behavioural approach to food waste. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2018, 31, 658–673. [CrossRef]
17. Schanes, K.; Dobernig, K.; Gozet, B. Food waste matters—A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy
implications. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 978–991. [CrossRef]
18. Abeliotis, K.; Lasaridi, K.; Chroni, C. Attitudes and behaviour of Greek households regarding food waste prevention. Waste
Manag. Res. 2014, 32, 237–240. [CrossRef]
19. Stefan, V.; van Herpen, E.; Tudoran, A.; Lahteenmaki, L. Avoiding food waste by Romanian consumers: The importance of
planning and shopping routines. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 375–381. [CrossRef]
20. Schmidt, K. Explaining and promoting household food waste-prevention by an environmental psychological based intervention
study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 111, 53–66. [CrossRef]
21. Annunziata, A.; Agovino, M.; Ferraro, A.; Mariani, A. Household Food Waste: A Case Study in Southern Italy. Sustainability 2020,
12, 1495. [CrossRef]
22. Marangon, F.; Tiziano, T.; Troiano, S.; Daniel, V. Food waste, consumer attitudes and behaviour. A survey study in the North-
Eastern part of Italy. In CAP 2014–2020: Scenarios for European Agri-Food and Rural Systems; Universitas Studiorum Srl: Mantova,
Italy, 2015; pp. 67–72.
23. Ankiel, M.; Samotyja, U. Consumer opinions on the causes of food waste—Demographic and economic conditions. Mark. Sci. Res.
Organ. 2021, 42, 75–96. [CrossRef]
24. Annunziata, A.; Agovino, M.; Ferraro, A.; Mariani, A. Food waste as a consequence of an inefficient consumer’s choices: A
microeconomic approach. Appl. Econ. 2021, 53, 6266–6285. [CrossRef]
25. Liao, C.H.; Qiao, L.G.; Wang, X.Z.; Lu, S.S. Exploring food waste prevention through advent food consumption: The role of
perceived concern, consumer value, and impulse buying. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 988260. [CrossRef]
26. Elshaer, I.; Sobaih, A.E.E.; Alyahya, M.; Abu Elnasr, A. The impact of religiosity and food consumption culture on food waste
intention in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6473. [CrossRef]
27. Aschemann-Witzel, J. Helping You to Waste Less? Consumer Acceptance of Food Marketing Offers Targeted to Food-Related
Lifestyle Segments of Consumers. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2018, 24, 522–538. [CrossRef]
28. Amicarelli, V.; Bux, C. Food waste measurement toward a fair, healthy and environmental-friendly food system: A critical review.
Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 2907–2935. [CrossRef]
29. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. A Brief Introduction to Bibliometrix. 2019. Available online: [Link]
Introduction_to_bibliometrix.html (accessed on 26 August 2023).
30. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and
guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [CrossRef]
31. Liang, T.P.; Liu, Y.H. Research landscape of business intelligence and big data analytics: A bibliometrics study. Expert Syst. Appl.
2018, 111, 2–10. [CrossRef]
32. Kumar, D.; Choudhuri, S.; Shandilya, A.K.; Singh, R.; Tyagi, P.; Singh, A.K. Food Waste & Sustainability Through A Lens of
Bibliometric Review: A Step Towards Achieving SDG 2030. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Innovations
in Science and Technology for Sustainable Development (ICISTSD), Kollam, India, 25–26 August 2022; pp. 185–192.
33. Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. J. Agric.
Environ. Ethics. 2006, 19, 169–194. [CrossRef]
34. Papargyropoulou, E.; Lozano, R.; Steinberger, J.K.; Wright, N.; bin Ujang, Z. The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the
management of food surplus and food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 76, 106–115. [CrossRef]

439
Sustainability 2024, 16, 4408

35. Mirabella, N.; Castellani, V.; Sala, S. Current options for the valorization of food manufacturing waste: A review. J. Clean. Prod.
2014, 65, 28–41. [CrossRef]
36. Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the
role of confidence and values. Ecol Econ. 2008, 64, 542–553. [CrossRef]
37. Melin, G.; Persson, O. Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics 1996, 36, 363–377. [CrossRef]
38. Kumar, S.; Jan, J.M. Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010. Scientometrics
2013, 97, 491–517. [CrossRef]
39. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer manual: Manual for VOSviewer Version 1; CWTS: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2022.
40. Notarnicola, B.; Sala, S.; Anton, A.; McLaren, S.J.; Saouter, E.; Sonesson, U. The role of life cycle assessment in supporting
sustainable agri-food systems: A review of the challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 399–409. [CrossRef]
41. Del-Aguila-Arcentales, S.; Alvarez-Risco, A.; Carvache-Franco, M.; Rosen, M.A.; Yáñez, J.A. Bibliometric analysis of current
status of circular economy during 2012–2021: Case of foods. Processes 2022, 10, 1810. [CrossRef]
42. Chauhan, C.; Dhir, A.; Akram, M.U.; Salo, J. Food loss and waste in food supply chains. A systematic literature review and
framework development approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 295, 126438. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

440
 sustainability

Review
Exploring Circular Economy Practices in the Healthcare Sector:
A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis
Carlotta D’Alessandro 1, *, Katarzyna Szopik-Depczyńska 2 , Małgorzata Tarczyńska-Łuniewska 3 , Cecilia Silvestri 4
and Giuseppe Ioppolo 1

1 Department of Economics, University of Messina, 98121 Messina, Italy; [Link]@[Link]

2 Department of Business Management, Institute of Management, University of Szczecin,
71-004 Szczecin, Poland; [Link]-depczynska@[Link]
3 Department of Econometrics and Statistics, Institute of Economics and Finance, University of Szczecin,
Mickiewicza 64, 71-101 Szczecin, Poland; [Link]-luniewska@[Link]
4 Department of Economics, Engineering, Society and Business Organization, University of “Tuscia” of Viterbo,
01100 Viterbo, Italy; [Link]@[Link]
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]

Abstract: The healthcare sector produces 2 gigatons of CO2 . To address this impactful trend and
contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the adoption of circular economy (CE)
practices could represent a strategic target. In this context, the present article provides a systematic
and bibliometric literature review of CE practices applied in the healthcare sector by considering the
collected case studies. This study aims to analyze the state of the art in CEs in the healthcare sector in
order to identify CE practices in healthcare, examining how they contribute to sustainability goals and
the critical issues in their implementation. A final selection of 36 articles from reputable databases,
Web of Science and Scopus, was obtained and analyzed using VOSviewer. By systematically exam-
ining these papers, the study investigates the key CE practices implemented within the healthcare
sector and their respective areas of application, which help the broader mission of achieving SDG 12,
and also, to a lesser extent, SDG 9. Although the research criteria impose some limitations, this study
Citation: D’Alessandro, C.; offers a comprehensive review of successful circular practices adopted in the healthcare sector while
Szopik-Depczyńska, K.; shedding light on existing gaps and providing valuable insights for relevant stakeholders.
Tarczyńska-Łuniewska, M.; Silvestri,
C.; Ioppolo, G. Exploring Circular
Keywords: healthcare sector; bibliometric analysis; systematic analysis; circular economy; CE practices
Economy Practices in the Healthcare
Sector: A Systematic Review and
Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability
2024, 16, 401. [Link]
1. Introduction
10.3390/su16010401
Nowadays, humanity is facing several challenges; among the many, climate change
Academic Editors: Andrea Appolloni
is one of the most pernicious, threatening clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food,
and Steve W. Lyon
and secure shelter. As we look ahead to the period between 2030 and 2050, climate change
Received: 18 October 2023 is expected to have a grave impact, resulting in an estimated annual increase in deaths
Revised: 13 December 2023 of approximately 250,000, predominantly caused by malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and
Accepted: 19 December 2023 heat stress [1]. It is worth noting that the health sector, which bears the responsibility of
Published: 2 January 2024 safeguarding human well-being, has also made substantial contributions to the climate
crisis in recent decades [2]. According to the Healthcare Without Harm (HCWH) Annual
Report in 2022, if the healthcare sector were a country, it would be the world’s fifth
largest producer of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution [3]. In an international comparative
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
analysis using analogous information taken from a selection of 36 OECD countries at
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
various points in time, it was noted that in 2014, the healthcare sector was accountable
This article is an open access article
for emitting 2 gigatons of CO2 , equivalent to 4.4% of the global ecological footprint [4].
distributed under the terms and
Therefore, scientists have stressed that quality amelioration strategies are indispensable
conditions of the Creative Commons
for sustainability [5]. Sustainability is perceived as an equilibrium between the social,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
[Link]/licenses/by/
environmental, and economic aspects of society and the planet as a whole [6].
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 401. [Link] 441 [Link]

Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

To enhance environmental sustainability, solutions such as a complete life cycle in-

ventory database for medical devices and drugs, reform of contagion check standards
that guide the practical use of single-use disposable devices, implementation of consoli-
dated sustainability operation measures at the medical level, and more national research
financial support are needed [7]. Examples that boost social sustainability are domicil-
iary telemedicine; emerging technologies to ensure accessibility to and the availability of
healthcare and ensure patient satisfaction; customized treatments exploiting 3D printing
technology; financing expensive drugs for global use; sustainable health training as an
approach to achieve sustainability; and improved personnel recruitment [8].
Finally, research, development, and reductions in costs are some of the strategies to
achieve economic sustainability; furthermore, energy safeguarding, recycling, sourcing,
training programs, and employability, despite covering environmental and social aspects,
also contribute to the promotion of economic sustainability [8].
In this context, the United Nations General Assembly (UN) took a significant step
in September 2015 by endorsing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which
encompasses 17 SDGs. The SDGs call upon nations to collaborate with the purpose of
diminishing economic disparities and safeguarding the planet for peace and peoples’ well-
being [9]. Addressing the environmental impact of the healthcare sector and reorienting
its practices towards long-term sustainability can play decisive roles in achieving the
overarching goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, ultimately contributing
to a high quality of life for both present and future generations.
Moreover, the European Union’s (EU) effort to achieve circularity and become more
sustainable led to the creation of the Green Deal, a policy developed to reach zero GHG
emissions and carbon neutrality and protect human health by 2050 [10,11]. In pursuit of this
goal, EU countries have collectively vowed to achieve a reduction in emissions of no less
than 55% by 2030 in contrast to the emission levels recorded in 1990 [10]. In order to actively
support the fulfillment of the SDGs and address the environmental challenges arising
from the healthcare sector, the transition to a CE, considered an emerging and innovative
paradigm, holds significant promise as a viable solution. In this economic framework,
the central emphasis is on reducing resource consumption and managing environmental
consequences [12]. Further, as reported in [13], the shift towards a CE is the requirement for
reaching sustainability. A CE is an interdisciplinary topic that encompasses several fields of
expertise, with the objective of banding together the enhancement of ecological well-being
and financial growth for sustainable ecological development [14]. Indeed, the CE seems
to encompass a diverse array of ideas and principles, making it more akin to an umbrella
concept. The CE draws inspiration from a variety of sources, including concepts like
Cradle to Cradle, Industrial Ecology, Biomimicry, Performance Economy, Blue Economy,
Natural Capitalism, and Industrial Capitalism, among others [15]. From this perspective,
the implementation of CE strategies in the healthcare sector could represent a response to
the growing environmental threats. In fact, a CE primarily aims to reduce pollution and
waste while simultaneously generating economic benefits [16], and is built on the suitable
and ecological utilization of resources [17]. Moreover, a CE plays a pivotal role in guiding
economic development towards sustainability, representing a sustainable profitable system
in which the economy improves; it is disconnected from the consumption of resources
thanks to the reduction in use and recycling of natural resources [18]. Reaching a CE
predominantly means ensuring the reduction in the environmental effects of production and
the efficient reuse and recycling of products, developing community interventions to adapt
customer behavior to CE requirements [16]. For all the above reasons, the healthcare sector,
and in general, all types of institutions, can support positive environmental policies [19].
Furthermore, researchers contend that the transition towards circularity is closely
connected with the digitalization transformation [20]; Industry 5.0, conceived to use man’s
originality expertise in cooperation with intelligent and precise apparatus, is designed to
enhance customer satisfaction [21]. In this sense, Industry 5.0 is facilitating the individu-
alized tracking of essential health metrics, such as monitoring blood pressure and blood

442
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

sugar levels, and offering customized medical care [21]. Likewise, green innovation or
eco-innovation can be helpful in preserving environmental management, as it is a method
focused on the development of novel advancements in production and technology, all
while striving to mitigate environmental hazards, such as pollution and adverse impacts
stemming from the exploitation of resources [22].
This method is commonly associated with the triple bottom line concept, which encom-
passes social, environmental, and economic operations [23]. Due to the huge environmental
impacts of the healthcare sector, and the consequent necessity to achieve sustainable devel-
opment, the purpose of this paper is to comprehend how the sector embraces circularity,
identifying the most representative CE practices implemented in the sector.
Indeed, reference [24] demonstrates the existence of untapped sustainability opportu-
nities that have not been thoroughly investigated yet.
In this context, a CE could be considered as a pathway to advance specific SDGs,
for example, encouraging facilities to assume more responsible and sustainable practices
(Goal 12) [25].
Up to now, the existing body of literature has been more focused on the depiction of
singular practice, mainly implemented for healthcare waste management (HWM). While
the circularity topic is currently researched within the sector, the categorization of existing
practices is necessary and requires attention; none of the analyzed papers present a com-
prehensive overview of the above-mentioned practices. To achieve this goal, this paper
addressed the following research questions:
RQ1: What is the state of the art in a CE implemented in the healthcare sector?
RQ2: What are the main areas of CE practices applied to the healthcare sector?
Following this Introduction, Section 2 presents a description of the literature review
method applied, Section 3 underlines the main findings of the study, Section 4 critically
examines the results, and finally, in the last section, the conclusions with the main outcomes
are summarized, defining future outlooks.

2. Materials and Methods

The present section details the methodology employed for the literature review in this
study, which involved both a systematic review and a bibliometric analysis. A systematic
literature review involves “replicable, scientific, and transparent procedures to collect
all related publications and documents that fit pre-defined inclusion criteria to answer
a specific research question” [26]. Instead, a bibliometric analysis is the identification
of emerging patterns in articles and a journal’s impact, the examination of collaborative
networks, and the investigation of the knowledge landscape within a particular field as
documented in the existing literature [27]. A combination of both methodologies was
proposed to obtain coherent, trustworthy, and robust research.
Sample selection was performed following the specifications suggested by the PRISMA
protocol [28]. The systematic literature review was conducted to obtain a global view of the
CE practices implemented in the healthcare sector. Figure 1 illustrates the comprehensive
research method to provide transparency and allow readers to understand the methodology
used to ensure the appropriateness and quality of the sources included in the study.
First, the study objectives, questions, keywords, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and
databases were developed. Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) were used concurrently
as main sources through the employment of chosen keywords in the title, abstract, and
keywords of publications according to the Boolean operators “OR” and “AND”. The
preference for these two sources was to ensure the inclusion of peer-reviewed articles.
These articles, found in reputable journals, are considered high-quality studies, and their
relevance and significance were verified [29].

443
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

Figure 1. Methodological framework (Source: authors).

The search queries used to conduct the search are available in Table S5 in the
Supplementary Materials.
Paper collection was conducted in January 2023; thus, potential forthcoming publica-
tions were not taken into account. Afterwards, inclusion (I) and exclusion (E) criteria were
defined to evaluate the studies (see Table 1). In addition, articles presenting CE practices
applied in multiple sectors were included if and only if one of the sectors analyzed is the
healthcare sector, and only data regarding this were extracted.

Table 1. Selection criteria of the sources (Source: authors).

Inclusion Exclusion
Criteria Criteria
(a) Articles must be written in English (a) Not aligned with the purpose of the study
(b) Accordance with the forward-looking perspective of the
(b) Inadequacy of information
studies regarding circularity in the healthcare sector
(c) If the document is a Conference paper; Conference
(c) Main sector of application is healthcare
Proceeding; Review; or Book Chapter
(d) Must present CE practices applied to the healthcare sector to
face environmental challenges

In the beginning, the above research strategy initially allowed the identification of
a total of 324 articles: 203 from Scopus and 121 from WoS. The two results were merged

444
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

in Microsoft Excel for Mac, Version 16.80. License Microsoft 365 to carry on the screening
process (as shown in Figure 2). The PRISMA flowchart in Figure 2 enables readers to gain a
comprehensive understanding of the systematic approach utilized for the identification
and analysis of the literature, thereby reinforcing the credibility and reproducibility of the
study’s findings.

,GHQWLILFDWLRQRIVWXGLHVYLDGDWDEDVHV 6FRSXVDQG:HERI6FLHQFH
,GHQWLILFDWLRQ

5HFRUGVLGHQWLILHGIURP
6FRSXV Q 
'XSOLFDWHUHFRUGVUHPRYHG Q 
:HERI6FLHQFH Q 
7RWDO Q 

5HFRUGV([FOXGHGIURP
%RRN&KDSWHU Q 
&RQIHUHQFH3DSHUV Q 
5HFRUGVVFUHHQHGE\'RFXPHQW7\SH
5HYLHZV Q 
Q 
1RQ(QJOLVK Q 
2WKHUV Q 

5HFRUGVVFUHHQHGE\7LWOH$EVWUDFW 5HFRUGV([FOXGHG
6FUHHQLQJ

Q  2XWRI7RSLF3DSHUV Q 

5HFRUGVVFUHHQHGE\)XOO7H[W5HDGLQJ 5HFRUGV([FOXGHG
Q  2XWRI7RSLF3DSHUV Q 
,QFOXGHG

)LQDO6DPSOH Q 

Figure 2. PRISMA flowchart.

The corresponding literature was analyzed to eliminate copies and all non-relevant
documents, resulting in an initial sample of 220 articles. The residual articles were screened
by considering the document type, excluding conference proceedings, book chapters,
reviews, non-English language papers, and others. Thus, 133 articles were screened by
taking into account titles and abstracts, not including papers that were off topic, reducing
the number of articles to 41.
Later, the full text of these articles was downloaded in order to investigate it. This final
screening process permitted the exclusion of five articles, leading to a total of 36 works.
While no temporal constraints were imposed in this analysis, papers deemed pertinent
to the study’s objectives could not be located preceding the year 2016, as delineated in
Section 3.1.
From these 36 studies, the following types of data were extracted and analyzed:
bibliometric data such as keywords, the journal and year of publication, subject areas, and
geographical location of CE practices. Further, data concerning the practices (particularly
their areas of application within the healthcare sector), benefits, and limitations were
collected. Bibliometric data were represented in a network map, while the systematic
review results were condensed into tables and charts.

445
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

Identification of CE Practices and Areas of Application

This section focuses on the practices gathered in the sample and emphasizes the spe-
cific areas in the healthcare sector where circular practices have been implemented. Table 2
provides an illustration of the categorization of these practices and their application areas.

Table 2. Classification of CE practices and areas of application (Source: authors).

CE Practice Area of Application Example

R-strategies: Analyze how to mitigate
operating room (OR) waste through
recycling and reuse possibilities.
Reusing medical items, after thorough
cleaning, decontamination, and
HWM: It aims to identify and promote Explore how waste can be minimized in
sterilization, has shown potential in
waste reduction and safe healthcare large hospitals via eight observations and
various areas, e.g., textiles (table covers,
waste management, implement five expert interviews. Lowering medical
gowns, and facemasks), consumables
regulations to meet global standards, and waste cuts both financial and
(syringes and single-use plastic trays),
raise awareness of safety practices [31]. environmental costs [30].
and packaging.
Recycling by optimizing the
sorting process.
Reuse options have emerged as the best
solution [30].
Involvement with relevant stakeholders
to increase the awareness of
Technology involvement: Clinical climate environmental problems and foster
informatics can lead healthcare change. Optimized algorithms, shared
HSI: It develops awareness about CE
decarbonization efforts towards cloud computing resources,
strategies’ importance to employees,
achieving net-zero emissions, minimizing low-consumption CPUs, and
patients, and all the actors involved in
electronic waste, advocating responsible telemedicine can be implemented to
healthcare processes [33].
resource management, and realizing reduce energy consumption. Data
environmental sustainability [32]. analysis can be used to optimize work
processes, procurement, and procedures,
thus reducing supply waste [32].
Design opportunities: Tracks all materials
entering and leaving intensive care Medical devices and supplies: It
through an MFA. The primary embraces a wide range of objects and Application of a Material Flow Analysis
environmental footprint is from everyday substances, including instruments, (MFA) allows for an assessment of the
materials instead of materials designated apparatuses, implements, machines, environmental impacts of key product
for specific therapies such as non-sterile materials, medical, or surgical items that groups, including weight, carbon
gloves, isolation gowns, bed liners, are consumable, expendable, disposable, footprint, agricultural land occupation,
surgical masks, and syringes, giving or non-durable for a medical purpose and water usage [34].
support to a shift to a circular system in [35].
intensive care [34].
Examination of supply chain strategies
Stakeholder involvement: Healthcare
HSC: The healthcare supply chain sector, aimed at achieving a circular economy
stakeholders demonstrate the capability
a significant contributor to worldwide within the Indian healthcare sector.
to enact sustainable supply chain
greenhouse gas emissions, is linked to Empirical research involving
management practices and wield
organizational factors, including forging 145 healthcare organizations reveals the
substantial influence in elevating the
partnerships, delineating roles and hidden connections of stakeholder
organization’s sustainable performance
responsibilities, and coordinating and involvement, sustainable supply chain
and maintaining a heightened awareness
managing interface processes [37]. practices, sustainable performance, and
of sustainability [36].
the circular economy in the sector [35].

446
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

Table 2. Cont.

CE Practice Area of Application Example

LCA analysis to measure the carbon
HT: It incorporates actions to enhance
footprint of breast surgical treatment,
consciousness about healthcare treatment
revealing less environmental impacts for
to reduce carbon footprints [38].
telehealth visits [38].
HCP: It covers actions for the proper Recommendations for sustainable
management of construction processes to materials in order to enhance
ensure the control of CO2 emissions [39]. environmental protection [39].

3. Results
In this section, we present the main outcomes of our academic literature review,
discussing the data obtained from the bibliometric analysis and the relevant practices of
circularity implemented in the healthcare sector.

3.1. Bibliometric Analysis

A bibliometric analysis was conducted using VOS viewer Version 1.6.18 to cluster
emerging fields related to the chosen topic. The analysis also examined connections among
publications and keywords to identify strengths and gaps in the topic and publications. In
particular, in the 36 selected papers, the correlations between the keywords used by the top
authors were determined through a co-occurrence network map (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Co-occurrence network map (Source: authors).

The thickness of the lines in the map indicates the strength of the correlations between
the nodes (keywords). This strength is calculated by tallying the number of publications
where the two keywords appear together. A total of 122 fixed keywords were tested in order
to standardize the topics. Of the 122 items in the network, 117 items were connected to
each other. The resulting network graph presents clear connections among the investigated
keywords, grouped in colored clusters. The most frequently occurring keywords in the
study are “circular economy”, “healthcare waste”, “sustainability”, and “plastic waste”.

447
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

Specifically regarding “plastic waste” and “healthcare waste”, they appeared connected
with “life cycle assessment”. Additionally, the network analysis revealed a connection
between the issue of “plastic waste” and “remanufacturing”, as they appeared in the same
cluster (liliac). Furthermore, there is a correlation between “operating rooms” (ORs) and
“reuse” (blue cluster). Similarly, the keyword “Industry 4.0” occurs many times and is
linked to the repeated keyword “Internet of Things”, and also connected to “sustainable
supply chain”, to which technologies and the keyword “stakeholder involvement” (light
blue cluster) were interconnected, aiming at the achievement of circularity. Moreover,
the keywords “waste management”, “single-use plastic”, and “decontamination” are
consistently grouped together (purple cluster). Lastly, “recycling” and “reprocessing”
practices are strictly interconnected with a CE (grouped in the dark yellow cluster). Further,
to inspect the progress of implementation of CE practices in the healthcare sector, the final
group of 36 papers was analyzed by year and considering the journal of publication, as
shown in Figure 4. This provides a snapshot of the scholarly activity and the dissemination
of knowledge regarding the subject matter.

Figure 4. Count of articles distributed per year and by journal.

The first of these works was published in 2016 [40]; prior to 2021, there were only
seven publications [40–46], but there was an explosive increase in that year [30,33,37,39,47–52].
Moreover, fourteen publications were recorded in 2022 [32,36,38,53–63], while in 2023, there
were only five [34,64–67]. Additionally, the figure illustrates the distribution of articles among
different scientific journals, considering the distribution by year as described. Importantly,
this study was conducted in early 2023, which accounts for the relatively low number of
articles retrieved for this year. The Journal of Cleaner Production (JCP) emerges with the highest
publication count, with three articles in 2021 [33,47,52] and the most recent one in 2023 [66].
Starting with Resource, Conservation, and Recycling, the first publication on this subject
was in 2016 [40]. Subsequently, two more articles were published in 2019 [45], and the most
recent one was published in 2022 [56]. Moving on to Sustainability, it has received growing
attention from 2019, as evidenced by reference [42]. However, in 2021, there was a decline
in this interest, marked by the publication of the last two identified articles on the topic,
which are [30,49]. Similarly, the Journal of Sustainable Production and Consumption received
scholarly interest, as evidenced by the presence of two articles published in both 2021 [50]
and 2022 [55], underscoring a commitment to this subject matter. Conversely, the remaining

448
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

journals published only one paper delving into CE practices, with a particular focus on their
implementation within the healthcare sector.
Furthermore, from an examination of research areas per journal, in addition to 15 sub-
ject areas of interest emerging, a clear focus on the environment in the subject area emerges,
as “Environmental Sciences” is the prevailing area (27.40%), followed by “Engineering”
(15.07%), “Medicine” (9.59%), “Economics, Econometrics and Finance” (8.22%), “Business,
Management and Accounting”, “Computer Science”, and “Social Sciences” (6.85%). The
other areas with minor relevance are displayed in the Supplementary Materials in Table S3.
Finally, the analysis illustrates how publications are distributed geographically by country
according to the context in which the studies were conducted.
The outcomes showed that significant contributions were made by the Netherlands (six
publications) [33,34,50–52,62], followed by India (five works) [36,46,47,54,56], Spain [39,65],
and Iran (two articles) [57,58]. Additionally, the analysis revealed that two articles did not
specify the country (indicated as “Not Specified” countries) [32,48], while four articles were
labeled as “Multiple countries”, due to their reliance on surveys and questionnaires that
were administered in more than one country [40,43,53,67]. The Supplementary Materials
contains information on the other geographical areas with minor contributions in Table S1.
This examination demonstrates how Europe has made substantial contributions (58%),
while Asia (22%) has been increasingly interested in transitioning from the conventional
linear model to the implementation of CE practices in the healthcare sector. On the other
hand, South America has made fewer contributions (6%), while 11% of contributions did
not specify any continent or country.

3.2. Classification of CE Practices

This systematic analysis focuses on examining the well-studied CE practices within the
healthcare sector, as documented in the literature, to evaluate their benefits and challenges.
It involves classifying and analyzing the CE practices discussed in the collected articles (as
shown in Figure 5).
To categorize CE practices in the healthcare sector, several practices were identified
in the literature, including recycling, reuse, reprocessing, refurbishment, and recovery,
which collectively constitute 47% of the strategies applied within the sector. These practices
fall under the established categorization of “R-strategies”. They are designed to mitigate
the depletion of natural resources and reduce material consumption, all while actively
attempting to minimize waste generation [49]; they include refusal, repair, remanufacture,
reuse, repurpose, refurbishment, recycling, and recovery. In the hierarchy of circular
strategies, “refusal” stands out as the most impactful, whereas “recovery” ranks as the least
impactful [34]. Other practices designated as “technology involvement” underscore the
role of technology in healthcare processes as a strategy to promote circularity (20%). The
primary aim of healthcare waste technologies is to minimize the potential risks associated
with waste. These technologies include thermal, chemical, irradiative, and biological
treatment methods, alongside mechanical treatment technologies, and they serve as the
primary methods of waste management [63]. The research has also identified other circular
strategies, such as the redesign of products and processes to consider their end-of-life
fate. These strategies, known as “design opportunities”, account for 25% of the total
practices identified.
Lastly, the familiarity and awareness of customers, particularly patients, and employ-
ees are considered potential drivers of CE adoption, representing a significant portion (8%),
termed as “stakeholder involvement”.

Categorization of Areas of Application

The analysis of the full text reveals several areas within the healthcare sector where
CE practices have been applied, categorizing them by geographical areas. These findings
are summarized and presented in Figure 6, providing an overview of the prevalence and

449
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

distribution of CE practices across different categories within the healthcare sector and the
geographical areas of their implementation.

3URSRUWLRQRI&LUFXODU(FRQRP\3UDFWLFHV&DWHJRULHV




'HVLJQRSSRUWXQLWLHV
 5VWUDWHJLHV
6WDNHKROGHULQYROYHPHQW
7HFKQRORJ\LQYROYHPHQW



Figure 5. Classification and quantification of CE practices, according to the systematic analysis

conducted by the authors.

Notably, HWM has received significant attention from scholars (39%). From this
assessment, it emerges that the geographical area more interested in this category is Asia,
with three articles originating from India [47,54,56], two from Iran [57,58], one from Pak-
istan [41], and another from Vietnam [59]. Following Asia, Europe also shows a significant
interest in the category, with two articles on CE practice for waste management in the
Netherlands [50,52], one in Belgium [30], one in Turkey [61], and another in Latvia [63].
Further, another important area of application has been identified, medical devices and
supplies (39%), which encompasses a wide range of practices involving apparatus, tools,
implants, in vitro reagents, and disposable or semi-disposable elements used individually
or in combination for medical purposes. The focus on practices related to the circular
use of devices and supplies is most pronounced in Europe, with three studies conducted
in the Netherlands [34,51,62] and two articles spanning multiple countries, labeled as
“Multiple Countries” [40,53]. Furthermore, individual studies in this category are located in
various European countries, including the United Kingdom [55], the Czech Republic [64],
Ireland [45], Spain [65], Denmark [66], and Germany [49]. Moreover, one work within this
area does not specify a geographical region and has consequently been categorized as “Not
Specified” [48].
Additionally, CE practices implemented in the supply chain have also been identified
and are classified under the healthcare supply chain (HSC) category, although there are
fewer publications than other areas (8%). The three publications focused on the HSC were
conducted in Turkey [37], India [36], and Brazil [42]. Likewise, another category, given the
healthcare stakeholder involvement (HSI) label, accounts for 8% of academic interest. These
practices, related to the involvement of healthcare stakeholders, workers, and patients,
are only addressed in a paper conducted in the Netherlands [33], in a study conducted
in “Multiple Countries” [67] and in a study with no specified geographical area [32]. In
conclusion, the final two areas in which CE practices were employed were categorized and
designated as healthcare treatment (HT) and healthcare construction processes (HCPs).
Academic attention was directed towards HT with a total share of 3%, with research
conducted in Italy [38]. Meanwhile, HCPs, also representing 3% of the sample, are linked
to a study conducted in Spain [39].

450
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

Figure 6. Frequency of CE practices distributed per category and country of application.

4. Discussion
The bibliometric analysis has outlined that the CE concept applied to the healthcare
sector as a relatively recent development, as the first article in the collected sample was
published in 2016; however, from 2021 to now, the increasing number of articles shows the
growing interest of researchers on this topic, with a specific focus in Europe. In this regard,
the analysis of keyword occurrence underscores the prevalence and interconnectedness of
sustainability and healthcare waste within a CE. Remarkably, keywords such as “reman-
ufacturing” are linked to the plastic waste issue, as it can be considered a solution to the
plastic problem. Specifically, following an evaluation of the mechanical recycling of clinical
plastic waste for secondary plastic recovery, it becomes evident that incorporating a design
that considers the environment in the initial stages of plastic production is essential. This
ensures the feasibility of post-use segregation and remanufacturing and enables the assem-
bly and disassembly of material components as needed, thereby extending product life
cycles indefinitely [60]. Further, it is evident that ORs are responsible for generating huge
amounts of waste, suggesting that the implementation of reusable solutions could serve as
a viable remedy [30]. Similarly, the connections between “waste management”, “single-use
plastic”, and “decontamination” keywords can be attributed to the substantial usage of
single-use plastic products in this sector, which ultimately leads to waste. Particularly,
potential strategies for addressing this issue encompass several options, such as reducing
the demand for single-use bottles, exploring alternative solutions for eliminating them,
encouraging manufacturers to address product design [45], and motivating policymakers to
implement consistent labeling systems for the recycling of materials and the enhancement
of waste management and to implement collaborative efforts and assistance systems to
achieve sustainable resource management [45].
Furthermore, the analysis of the subject area of the 28 journals in which articles were
published clearly marked the close correlation with environmental science; in that light,
the sector’s profound link to the environment becomes evident, in addition to medicine,
engineering, and business and accounting.

451
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

Moreover, in line with the co-occurrence analysis, the field of medical devices and
supplies was highly prominent, together with the HWM area. Articles on the former were
concentrated in Europe, and the latter in Asia.
Nevertheless, we aim to delve further into the assessment of CEs within the healthcare
sector by comprehensively outlining all the practices that have been identified in this
research. Particularly, the practices identified are categorized as an “R-strategy”, consid-
ered a pivotal solution to mitigate environmental harm and its associated costs. These
practices encompass the use of reusable medical devices [64]. For example, while reusable
gynecological speculums have a negative environmental impact during the disinfection
and sterilization phase due to the use of ethylene oxide or detergents, this impact is com-
paratively lower than that of disposable medical devices [64]. Despite this, a notable
limitation arises from the preferences of physicians and patients, who often opt for dis-
posable devices [64]. Further, an analysis has been conducted to assess the value of used
laryngoscopes [40], with the aim of restoring the intrinsic value of materials. Achieving
increased circularity in the management of used laryngoscopes lies in the sourcing of these
devices; however, more efficient communication between relevant departments and staff
involvement are necessary. One prominent application of reprocessing is the steam steril-
ization of medical equipment, particularly face masks. Notably, reprocessed masks exhibit
a reduced carbon footprint compared to disposable masks, as indicated by the findings of
a life cycle analysis (LCA) performed in [51]. A LCA is a methodological approach that
evaluates the environmental impact of a product or service throughout its entire life cycle,
from raw material extraction to disposal [68,69].
Moreover, the collected sample allowed the identification of the emergence of “design
opportunities” practices. A prime example is presented by the development of 3D-printable
bioresorbable materials for orthopedic implants (such as bioactive ceramics and bioinert
ceramics), which not only reduce waste but also utilize less material during the manufac-
turing process. However, the limitation posed by 3D-printable bioresorbable materials
lies in their sensitivity to repeated stress, which confines their use to small bones [46]. An-
other example involves designing a circular healthcare business model; gowns integrating
nonwoven polyester exhibited worse environmental consequences in comparison to their
counterparts composed of nonwoven polypropylene. A circular economy model centered
on non-sterile polypropylene gowns holds the potential to slash carbon emissions given
the increased usage of these gowns [65].
Further, “technological involvement” has been delineated as a new CE practice area.
In fact, emerging technologies could play an important role in strengthening and accel-
erating the transition into a more circular and sustainable healthcare sector. Indeed, the
introduction of technologies such as blockchain technology in [59], even if it is only the first
trial of substituting traditional waste treatment processes with this technology, represents a
potential solution to the production of waste in order to foster sustainable development.
From this perspective, smart waste management is a strategic approach that leverages
advanced technologies to guarantee a reduction in medical waste generation [59].
CE strategies identified in the sample also provide a clinical informatics framework
designed to mitigate healthcare’s contributions to environmental pollution and climate-
related effects [32] and to adopt big data [37] to obtain social, economic, and environmental
benefits. The framework proposed in [32] can play a fundamental role in promoting the
contribution of health information technology (IT) in enhancing environmental sustainabil-
ity and the betterment of planetary health in healthcare settings. However, the high costs
for the implementation of these technologies [37] in this sector represent a major limitation,
due to which their application is still a slow process. Finally, the last CE practice area
identified was termed “stakeholder involvement”, which foresees stakeholder engagement
as essential for achieving the common goal of mitigating negative environmental impacts
and lowering carbon emissions for the shift toward a CE [37].
Subsequently, in this study, we attempted to provide a categorization of the application
areas of the aforementioned circular practices. “HWM” is the first identified area, which

452
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

aims to promote the reduction in healthcare waste, with a focus on sustainable development
as one of its guiding principles [31]. Studies concerning this aspect were concentrated
in Asia. The majority of practices for HWM encompass recycling strategies; this offers
clear benefits within the CE framework for the preservation of natural resources and
reducing the need for extracting new materials. From this standpoint, reuse and recycling
processes can contribute to reducing the costs caused by the extraction and processing of
natural resources, minimizing healthcare waste. For example, as stated in [60], the reuse, or
recycling, if the reuse process is not feasible, of plastic waste could ensure the transition
toward a CE. Moreover, ORs are liable for 33% of the waste generated in a hospital [30].
In [30], reusing strategies were introduced to manage waste generated in ORs, regis-
tering benefits that extend beyond mere financial savings and leading to a decrease in the
environmental impacts. Further, refurbishment and repair were identified as practices to
enhance circularity. Refurbishment, for the revitalization of obsolete products and their
transformation to align to contemporary standards, alongside the repair strategy, is an
optimal solution to avoid waste and costs linked to its disposal [50]. However, ref. [50]
evaluated the viability of implementing a circular approach for repurposing discarded
medical instruments and stainless-steel waste within hospital settings, ultimately showing
that repairing and refurbishing surgical instruments, rather than replacing them with new
ones, hold the greatest potential for cost reduction and environmental benefits.
This study focuses on “medical devices and supplies”, an area of significant scholarly
interest, possibly driven by the positive impacts associated with their circular utilization.
In particular, practices falling into this category are primarily classified as an “R-strategy”,
as possible solutions to manage environmental risks and their related expenses. To address
these issues, it is imperative to enhance interdepartmental communication and increase
staff involvement.
Thus, the area labeled “HSC” encompasses the reduction in overall resources needed to
provide the required level of customer service by increasing product availability, decreasing
the time taken for order processing, and simultaneously lowering costs. It is apparent
that, for the overwhelming bulk of global greenhouse gas emissions within the HSC,
the application of big data technologies is crucial for optimizing the healthcare supply
chain [37].
Despite this, a lack of studies in this area was noted; however, the sustainable manage-
ment of the supply chain could be useful to foster circularity and reduce environmental
impacts and the creation of waste by enhancing collaborative partnerships with health-
care professionals.
Likewise, the HSI is another delineated area, including stakeholder, patient, and em-
ployee value and involvement, more focused on the social dimension of sustainability,
which receives attention from European academics. Establishing familiarity and awareness
among human resources engaged in healthcare processes could lead to circularity [37].
Ref. [67] emphasizes the importance of raising awareness among therapeutic radiogra-
phers/radiation therapists regarding the several facets of integrating a CE into healthcare,
for example, “sustainable transportation”, “eco-conscious procurement”, “innovative hospi-
tal architecture”, “efficient food processing”, “water conservation”, “energy sustainability”,
and “effective waste control”. However, it could be interesting to consider the importance
and also the point of view of other relevant actors involved in healthcare processes, like
non-specialized figures such as manufacturers, managers, administrators, cooks, and clean-
ing attendants, to provide a more comprehensive perspective. Stakeholder engagement
practices have been acknowledged as essential for achieving the common goal of becoming
sustainable [66]; indeed, employees are also responsible for the consumption and separa-
tion of products, while producers could redesign medical devices and products to improve
end-of-life solutions that can be reused [66]. Nevertheless, there is a lack of adequate train-
ing for patients and workers on circular practices. In this sense, a significant obstacle to the
implementation of a CE within this sector arises from healthcare workers and professionals
having a limited awareness of environmental issues due to insufficient human resources

453
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

capabilities [37]. It is crucial to enhance their understanding to minimize the environmental

consequences of their actions, while also considering the economic outcomes.
Finally, the last two areas identified in this study, which garnered less interest, are
HT and HCPs. Although little attention from academics is focused on these subjects,
these two areas represent fundamental aspects of the healthcare sector, as their proper
management can ensure the reduction in or at least the control of CO2 emissions [38,39].
To reduce environmental pollution due to treatment, the use of telemedicine is consid-
ered a CE solution [38]; instead, in [39], they show that concrete and steel are the most
polluting materials. Therefore, by paying more attention to these identified practices, we
can unlock the potential for positive environmental, economic, and social outcomes in the
healthcare sector.
For example, in [49], the potential of reusing disposed medical devices and stainless-
steel waste is demonstrated, while the possibility of cost-cutting in repair and recycling
is considered, a new base for surgical waste management is produced, and long-term
environmental benefits are actualized. The study indicates that the environmental benefits
increase as the collection rates of catheters rise [49]. Further, in [56], it is shown that
pharmaceutical blisters (PBs) ground into a powder form and incorporated into concrete,
partially substituted with sand, with the aim of recycling PB waste and preserving natural
aggregates, could represent a potential solution to fulfil sustainable development goals [56].
Another research work shows that reusable masks create 80–90% less waste than
single-use face masks, and have up to 11-fold lower climate change impacts [55]. Moreover,
the calculation of the ecocentric value of embodied energy in healthcare waste, performed
in [41], proves the value of 100% waste recycling, which can help mitigate the costs of
extracting virgin resources. An analysis of intelligent and sustainable technologies within
healthcare facilities found that they can contribute to cost savings and enhance staff com-
fort [42]. Lastly, attention on the social dimension could lead to educational programs
that can empower professionals to adjust their practices for greater environmental sustain-
ability [67]. Additionally, the implementation of adaptive treatment methods, such as 3D
printing technology [46] or telemedicine [38], contributes to enhancing social sustainabil-
ity. While the majority of studies tend to emphasize environmental considerations, it is
important to recognize that the implementation of circular practices in healthcare holds
the potential to not only enhance economic sustainability but also yield positive social
impacts. To summarize, the effective management of various categorized areas within
healthcare organizations can lead to significant progress in building a more sustainable
sector, reducing environmental impacts and fostering a healthier future for both people
and the planet.
Hence, these CE practices are a cohesive framework for reorganization at the system
level, and by using innovation and creativity, they can pave the way to a constructive and
regenerative economy [70]. Consequently, by addressing barriers associated with sustain-
ability in the healthcare sector, CE practices, promoting sustainable resource management
and elimination of waste and pollution, hold a crucial role in meeting the SDGs [71]. Al-
though there is not a distinct and specified elucidation of the realized benefits with regard
to the SDGs, the identified practices appear to align to SDG 12: Responsible production
and consumption. This involves achieving sustainable management and productive uti-
lization of natural resources, as well as substantial waste reduction through prevention,
reduction, recycling, and reuse. Additionally, some of these practices [32,37,38,59,63] could
be in harmony with SDG 9: Industry, innovation, and infrastructure. SDG 9 emphasizes
the modernization of infrastructure industries to make them sustainable, promoting a
higher efficiency of resource use and encouraging the adoption of clean and environmen-
tally friendly technologies and industrial processes, making them reliable, sustainable,
and resilient.
Despite the growing interest in this topic, the absence of an established classification of
CE practices hinders the development of circular healthcare businesses, as does the lack of
appropriate behavioral, regulatory, and policy guidance. These recognized practices could

454
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

be useful for the sector’s relevant stakeholders. Thereby, it is recommended to implement

managerial, policy, and theoretical measures that support sustainable development initia-
tives in the healthcare sector, ensuring the effective management of environmental, social,
and economic outcomes throughout the process. In this sense, the primary objective of
CE practices is to reduce resource consumption, waste production, emissions, and energy
depletion [72], while simultaneously promoting social and economic growth; thus, the
potential of employing a CE as a vehicle to advance certain SDGs has been suggested [73].
Further, the connection between Industrial Ecology (IE) and a CE is incontrovertible,
since IE was denominated as a science of a CE, and central IE tools, such as LCAs or
Material Flow Analyses (MFAs), have been gradually implemented within the sustainable
CE framework [74]. However, a limited application of IE tools in contrast to other analyses
found in the sample, for instance, Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses (MCDAs) and fuzzy
theory, [58,61,63], was registered. LCAs were performed in five studies [39,49,51,55,65]; in
contrast, only one study was identified that utilized an MFA to evaluate material flows
within the healthcare sector [34]. An MFA focuses on managing and quantifying the stocks
and flows of substances or materials within a specific system and serves to provide control
and measurement over material movement across various stages [75].
Material Flow Analysis or Substance Flow Analysis could be a useful tool for sustain-
ability assessment since it admits in parallel, evaluating environmental and socioeconomic
subsystems, together with an analysis of resource utilization [76].
However, it is important to note that research in the field of circular practices within
the healthcare sector is still in its early stages, and there are limited scientific studies on
this topic.
This broader exploration not only enriches the understanding of circular practices
in the healthcare sector but also bolsters commitment to achieving the SDGs, ultimately
leading towards a more sustainable and patient-centered healthcare sector.

5. Conclusions
Through a systematic analysis and an in-depth examination of the relevant literature,
this study has provided valuable insights into the implementation of CE practices in
the healthcare sector, highlighting the pressing need to transform the sector into a more
sustainable and circular one aligned with the SDGs. By presenting an overview of the
current state of CE practices based on a bibliometric and systematic review, this research
contributes to the advancement of sustainability in healthcare.
The increasing interest in CE practices within the healthcare sector reflects a growing
focus on sustainability, particularly regarding waste management and resource consumption.
Specifically, the adoption of “R-strategies” addresses reducing waste, prolonging
the usefulness of materials, and promoting circularity. Practices falling under “design
opportunities” aim to redesign products and processes with attention on the final impact to
reduce resource consumption and waste. “Technology involvement” practices are required
to improve efficiency and innovation in the healthcare sector, sustaining economic growth
and creating a sustainable infrastructure. Lastly, “stakeholder involvement” practices are
fundamental for promoting CE adoption through collaboration. All these practices align to
both Sustainable Development Goal 12: Responsible Production and Consumption and
Sustainable Development Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure. Although the
specific benefits realized in relation to these SDGs are not explicitly outlined, some authors
suggest that the proposed research could be a significant focal point in the Agenda for 2023.
Furthermore, these strategies have been applied in various healthcare areas, including
HWM, medical devices and supplies, the HSC, HSI, HT, and HCPs.
The framework proposed in this article provides a comprehensive understanding of
existing CE practices and offers valuable insights for future studies and applications.
It is important to acknowledge that this study has certain limitations. Firstly, the
chosen keywords and database used may have resulted in the exclusion of relevant studies,
as the literature on CEs within the healthcare sector is expanding rapidly. Nevertheless,

455
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

this work represents an original contribution by the authors and represents progress in
advancing circularity within the healthcare sector. These outcomes could be significant for
the relevant stakeholders seeking to adopt the principles of a CE.
However, further research on CE practices in the healthcare sector should not be
limited to qualitative approaches like this study. It is essential to integrate the findings of
this review with quantitative IE methods in order to analyze and assess environmental
risks more comprehensively. This will provide a more robust and global perspective for
future research endeavors. In conclusion, the outcomes contribute to the existing body of
knowledge on a CE in healthcare and pave the way for future studies that combine qualita-
tive and quantitative approaches for a more holistic understanding of the environmental
impacts and risks associated with healthcare practices.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at https:

//[Link]/article/10.3390/su16010401/s1: Table S1: Dataset; Table S2: Scheme codes;
Table S3: Subject Areas; Table S4: Keywords; Table S5: Search queries.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.D.; methodology, C.D. and G.I.; data curation, G.I.,
C.D., K.S.-D., M.T.-Ł. and C.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.D. and G.I.; writing—review
and editing, M.T.-Ł., C.D. and C.S; visualization, G.I. and K.S.-D.; supervision, G.I. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations were used in this manuscript:

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
CE Circular Economy
HWM Healthcare Waste Management
HSC Healthcare Supply Chain
HSI Healthcare Stakeholder Involvement
HT Healthcare Treatment
HCP Healthcare Construction Process
OR Operating Room
PB Pharmaceutical Blister
IE Industrial Ecology
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
MFA Material Flow Analysis

References
1. World Heath Organizations. Climate Change and Health. 2021. Available online: [Link]
detail/climate-change-and-health (accessed on 8 February 2023).
2. Karliner, J.; Slotterback, S.; Boyd, R.; Ashby, B.; Steele, K. Health Care’s Climate Footprint: How the health sector contributes to
the global climate crisis and opportunities for action. In Health Care Without Harm and Arup; 2019 Climate-Smart Health Care
Series; Green Paper Number One; Ashland Creek Press: Ashland, OR, USA, 2019.
3. Health Care Without Harm. From Commitment to Action. 2022 Annual Report. Available online: [Link]
sites/default/files/documents-files/7347/2022_AnnualReport_HCWH.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2023).
4. Pichler, P.-P.; Jaccard, I.S.; Weisz, U.; Weisz, H. International comparison of health care carbon footprints. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019,
14, 064004. [CrossRef]
5. Goh, C.Y.; Marimuthu, M. The path towards healthcare sustainability: The role of organisational commitment. Procedia-Soc. Behav.
Sci. 2016, 224, 587–592. [CrossRef]

456
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

6. Eslami, Y.; Dassisti, M.; Lezoche, M.; Panetto, H. A survey on sustainability in manufacturing organisations: Dimensions and
future insights. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 5194–5214. [CrossRef]
7. Sherman, J.D.; Thiel, C.; MacNeill, A.; Eckelman, M.J.; Dubrow, R.; Hopf, H.; Lagasse, R.; Bialowitz, J.; Costello, A.; Forbes, M.;
et al. The green print: Advancement of environmental sustainability in healthcare. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 161, 104882.
[CrossRef]
8. Mehra, R.; Sharma, M.K. Measures of sustainability in healthcare. Sustain. Anal. Model. 2021, 1, 100001. [CrossRef]
9. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.;
et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
10. European Council. European Green Deal. 2019. Available online: [Link]
~:text=The%20European%20Green%20Deal%20is%20a%20package%20of%20policy%20initiatives,a%20modern%20and%20
competitive%20economy (accessed on 12 January 2023).
11. Cheba, K.; Bak,˛ I.; Szopik-Depczyńska, K.; Ioppolo, G. Directions of green transformation of the European Union countries. Ecol.
Indic. 2022, 136, 108601. [CrossRef]
12. Oliveira, M.; Miguel, M.; van Langen, S.K.; Ncube, A.; Zucaro, A.; Fiorentino, G.; Passaro, R.; Santagata, R.; Coleman, N.; Lowe,
B.H.; et al. Circular Economy and the Transition to a Sustainable Society: Integrated Assessment Methods for a New Paradigm.
Circ. Econ. Sust. 2021, 1, 99–113. [CrossRef]
13. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy–A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod.
2017, 143, 757–768. [CrossRef]
14. Schröder, P.; Lemille, A.; Desmond, P. Making the circular economy work for human development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020,
156, 104686. [CrossRef]
15. Voorter, J.; Iurascu, A.; Van Garsse, S. The Concept “Circular Economy”: Towards a More Universal Definition; 2022. Available
online: [Link] (accessed on 12 January 2023).
16. Demirel, P.; Danisman, G.O. Eco-Innovation and Firm Growth in the Circular Economy: Evidence from European SMEs. Electron.
J. 2019, 23, 1608–1618. [CrossRef]
17. Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmen-
tal and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32. [CrossRef]
18. Corona, B.; Shen, L.; Reike, D.; Carreón, J.R.; Worrell, E. Towards sustainable development through the circular economy—A
review and critical assessment on current circularity metrics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104498. [CrossRef]
19. Ioppolo, G.; Cucurachi, S.; Salomone, R.; Saija, G.; Shi, L. Sustainable local development and environmental governance: A
strategic planning experience. Sustainability 2016, 8, 180. [CrossRef]
20. Chauhan, C.; Parida, V.; Dhir, A. Linking circular economy and digitalisation technologies: A systematic literature review of past
achievements and future promises. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 177, 121508. [CrossRef]
21. Maddikunta, P.K.R.; Pham, Q.-V.; B, P.; Deepa, N.; Dev, K.; Gadekallu, T.R.; Ruby, R.; Liyanage, M. Industry 5.0: A survey on
enabling technologies and potential applications. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2022, 26, 100257. [CrossRef]
22. Takalo, S.K.; Tooranloo, H.S. Green innovation: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 122474. [CrossRef]
23. Szopik-Depczyńska, K.; Cheba, K.; Vikhasta, M.; Depczyński, R. New form of innovations related to the environment—A
systematic review. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2021, 192, 5039–5049. [CrossRef]
24. D’Adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M. Sustainable Development Goals: A Regional Overview Based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9779. [CrossRef]
25. Pasqualotto, C.; Callegaro-De-Menezes, D.; Schutte, C.S.L. An Overview and Categorization of the Drivers and Barriers to the
Adoption of the Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532. [CrossRef]
26. Mengist, W.; Soromessa, T.; Legese, G. Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental
science research. MethodsX 2020, 7, 100777. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and
guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [CrossRef]
28. Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A. Preferred reporting items for
systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 1. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Kelly, J.; Sadeghieh, T.; Adeli, K. Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. EJIFCC 2014, 25,
227–243. [PubMed]
30. Harding, C.; Van Loon, J.; Moons, I.; De Win, G.; Du Bois, E. Design Opportunities to Reduce Waste in Operating Rooms.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 2207. [CrossRef]
31. World Health Organization. Health-Care Waste. 2018. Available online: [Link]
health-care-waste (accessed on 18 April 2023).
32. Sittig, D.F.; Sherman, J.D.; Eckelman, M.J.; Draper, A.; Singh, H. i-CLIMATE: A “clinical climate informatics” action framework to
reduce environmental pollution from healthcare. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2022, 29, 2153–2160. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. van Boerdonk, P.J.M.; Krikke, H.R.; Lambrechts, W. New business models in circular economy: A multiple case study into touch
points creating customer values in health care. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 282, 125375. [CrossRef]

457
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

34. Hunfeld, N.; Diehl, J.C.; Timmermann, M.; van Exter, P.; Bouwens, J.; Browne-Wilkinson, S.; de Planque, N.; Gommers, D. Circular
material flow in the intensive care unit—Environmental effects and identification of hotspots. Intensive Care Med. 2023, 49, 65–74.
[CrossRef]
35. World Health Organization. Medical Devices. 2019. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 13 April 2023).
36. Vishwakarma, A.; Dangayach, G.S.; Meena, M.L.; Gupta, S.; Joshi, D.; Jagtap, S. Can circular healthcare economy be achieved
through implementation of sustainable healthcare supply chain practices? Empirical evidence from Indian healthcare sector. J.
Glob. Oper. Strateg. Sourc. 2022. ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
37. Kazançoğlu, Y.; Sağnak, M.; Lafcı, Ç.; Luthra, S.; Kumar, A.; Taçoğlu, C. Big Data-Enabled Solutions Framework to Overcoming
the Barriers to Circular Economy Initiatives in Healthcare Sector. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7513. [CrossRef]
38. Materazzo, M.; Facchini, A.; Garozzo, D.; Buonomo, C.; Pellicciaro, M.; Vanni, G. Maintaining good practice in breast cancer
management and reducing the carbon footprint of care: Study protocol and preliminary results. World Cancer Res. J. 2022, 9, e2438.
[CrossRef]
39. García-Sanz-Calcedo, J.; de Sousa Neves, N.; Fernandes, J.P.A. Assessment of the global warming potential associated with the
construction process of healthcare centres. J. Build. Phys. 2021, 44, 309–325. [CrossRef]
40. Viani, C.; Vaccari, M.; Tudor, T. Recovering value from used medical instruments: A case study of laryngoscopes in England and
Italy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 111, 1–9. [CrossRef]
41. Ali, M.; Geng, Y. Accounting embodied economic potential of healthcare waste recycling—A case study from Pakistan. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 678. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Daú, G.; Scavarda, A.; Scavarda, L.F.; Portugal, V.J.T. The Healthcare Sustainable Supply Chain 4.0: The Circular Economy
Transition Conceptual Framework with the Corporate Social Responsibility Mirror. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3259. [CrossRef]
43. Ertz, M.; Patrick, K. The future of sustainable healthcare: Extending product lifecycles. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104589.
[CrossRef]
44. Ferronato, N.; Ragazzi, M.; Torrez Elias, M.S.; Gorritty Portillo, M.A.; Guisbert Lizarazu, E.G.; Torretta, V. Application of
healthcare waste indicators for assessing infectious waste management in Bolivia. Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 4–18. [CrossRef]
45. Leissner, S.; Ryan-Fogarty, Y. Challenges and opportunities for reduction of single use plastics in healthcare: A case study of
single use infant formula bottles in two Irish maternity hospitals. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104462. [CrossRef]
46. Yadav, D.; Garg, R.K.; Ahlawat, A.; Chhabra, D. 3D printable biomaterials for orthopedic implants: Solution for sustainable and
circular economy. Resour. Policy 2020, 68, 101767. [CrossRef]
47. Chauhan, A.; Jakhar, S.K.; Chauhan, C. The interplay of circular economy with industry 4.0 enabled smart city drivers of
healthcare waste disposal. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123854. [CrossRef]
48. Meissner, M.; Lichtnegger, S.; Gibson, S.; Saunders, R. Evaluating the Waste Prevention Potential of a Multi- versus Single-Use
Surgical Stapler. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 2021, 14, 3911–3921. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Schulte, A.; Maga, D.; Thonemann, N. Combining Life Cycle Assessment and Circularity Assessment to Analyze Environmental
Impacts of the Medical Remanufacturing of Electrophysiology Catheters. Sustainability 2021, 13, 898. [CrossRef]
50. van Straten, B.; Dankelman, J.; Van der Eijk, A.; Horeman, T. A Circular Healthcare Economy; a feasibility study to reduce surgical
stainless steel waste. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 169–175. [CrossRef]
51. van Straten, B.; Ligtelijn, S.; Droog, L.; Putman, E.; Dankelman, J.; Weiland, N.H.S.; Horeman, T. A life cycle assessment of
reprocessing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 17680. [CrossRef]
52. van Straten, B.; van der Heiden, D.R.; Robertson, D.; Riekwel, C.; Jansen, F.W.; Van der Elst, M.; Horeman, T. Surgical waste
reprocessing: Injection molding using recycled blue wrapping paper from the operating room. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 322, 129121.
[CrossRef]
53. Boussuge-Roze, J.; Boveda, S.; Mahida, S.; Anic, A.; Conte, G.; Chun, J.K.R.; Marijon, E.; Sacher, F.; Jais, P. Current practices and
expectations to reduce environmental impact of electrophysiology catheters: Results from an EHRA/LIRYC European physician
survey. Europacem 2022, 24, 1300–1313. [CrossRef]
54. Chakraborty, S.; Saha, A.K. A framework of LR fuzzy AHP and fuzzy WASPAS for health care waste recycling technology. Appl.
Soft Comput. 2022, 127, 109388. [CrossRef]
55. Chau, C.; Paulillo, A.; Ho, J.; Bowen, R.; La Porta, A.; Lettieri, P. The environmental impacts of different mask options for
healthcare settings in the UK. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 33, 271–282. [CrossRef]
56. Dalal, S.P.; Dalal, P.; Motiani, R.; Solanki, V. Experimental investigation on recycling of waste pharmaceutical blister powder as
partial replacement of fine aggregate in concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2022, 14, 200076. [CrossRef]
57. Govindan, K.; Nosrati-Abarghooee, S.; Nasiri, M.M.; Jolai, F. Green reverse logistics network design for medical waste manage-
ment: A circular economy transition through case approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 322, 115888. [CrossRef]
58. Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi, S.; Memarpour Ghiaci, A.; Rahnamay Bonab, S.; Ranjbarzadeh, R. Barriers to circular economy implemen-
tation in designing of sustainable medical waste management systems using a new extended decision-making and FMEA models.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 79735–79753. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Le, H.T.; Quoc, K.; Le Nguyen, T.A.; Dang, K.T.; Vo, H.K.; Luong, H.H.; Le Van, H.; Gia, K.H.; Cao Phu, L.; Van Nguyen Truong
Quoc, D.; et al. Medical-Waste Chain: A Medical Waste Collection, Classification and Treatment Management by Blockchain
Technology. Computers 2022, 11, 113. [CrossRef]

458
Sustainability 2024, 16, 401

60. Sadhukhan, J.; Sekar, K. Economic Conditions to Circularize Clinical Plastics. Energies 2022, 15, 8974. [CrossRef]
61. Simic, V.; Ebadi Torkayesh, A.; Ijadi Maghsoodi, A. Locating a disinfection facility for hazardous healthcare waste in the COVID-19
era: A novel approach based on Fermatean fuzzy ITARA-MARCOS and random forest recursive feature elimination algorithm.
Ann. Oper. Res. 2023, 328, 1105–1150. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. van Straten, B.; Tantuo, B.; Dankelman, J.; Weiland, N.H.S.; Boersma, B.J.; Horeman, T. Reprocessing Zamak laryngoscope blades
into new instrument parts; an ‘all-in-one’experimental study. Heliyon 2022, 8, E11711. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Zlaugotne, B.; Pubule, J.; Gusca, J.; Kalnins, S.N. Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Healthcare Waste and Resource
Potential Assessment. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2022, 26, 64–74. [CrossRef]
64. Hospodková, P.; Rogalewicz, V.; Králíčková, M. Gynecological Speculums in the Context of the Circular Economy. Economies
2023, 11, 70. [CrossRef]
65. Quintana-Gallardo, A.; del Rey, R.; González-Conca, S.; Guillén-Guillamón, I. The Environmental Impacts of Disposable
Nonwoven Fabrics during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Case Study on the Francesc de Borja Hospital. Polymers 2023, 15, 1130.
[CrossRef]
66. Ramos, T.; Christensen, T.B.; Oturai, N.; Syberg, K. Reducing plastic in the operating theatre: Towards a more circular economy
for medical products and packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 383, 135379. [CrossRef]
67. Soares, A.L.; Buttigieg, S.C.; Couto, J.G.; Bak, B.; McFadden, S.; Hughes, C.; McClure, P.; Rodrigues, J.; Bravo, I. An evaluation
of knowledge of circular economy among Therapeutic Radiographers/Radiation Therapists (TR/RTTs): Results of a European
survey to inform curriculum design. Radiography 2023, 29, 274–283. [CrossRef]
68. ISO 14040:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. International Organization
for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
69. ISO 14044:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization
for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
70. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Towards the Circular Economy. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2012. Available online:
[Link]
[Link] (accessed on 2 February 2023).
71. Economic, U.N.; Council, S. Circular Economy for the SDGs: From Concept to Practice. 2018. Available online: [Link]
org/en/ga/second/73/jm_conceptnote.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2023).
72. Salvioni, D.M.; Bosetti, L.; Fornasari, T. Implementing and Monitoring Circular Business Models: An Analysis of Italian SMEs.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 270. [CrossRef]
73. Romero-Perdomo, F.; Carvajalino-Umaña, J.D.; Moreno-Gallego, J.L.; Ardila, N.; González-Curbelo, M.Á. Research Trends on
Climate Change and Circular Economy from a Knowledge Mapping Perspective. Sustainability 2022, 14, 521. [CrossRef]
74. Wiprächtiger, M.; Haupt, M.; Froemelt, A.; Klotz, M.; Beretta, C.; Osterwalder, D.; Burg, V.; Hellweg, S. Combining industrial
ecology tools to assess potential greenhouse gas reductions of a circular economy: Method development and application to
Switzerland. J. Ind. Ecol. 2023, 27, 254–271. [CrossRef]
75. Brunner, P.H.; Rechberger, H. Handbook of Material Flow Analysis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016. [CrossRef]
76. Huang, C.L.; Vause, J.; Ma, H.W.; Yu, C.P. Using material/substance flow analysis to support sustainable development assessment:
A literature review and outlook. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 68, 104–116. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

459
 sustainability

Review
Impact of Power Interruption on Buildings and Neighborhoods
and Potential Technical and Design Adaptation Methods
Caroline Hachem-Vermette * and Somil Yadav

Department of Building, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer
Science, Concordia University, Montreal, QC H3G 1M8, Canada; [Link]@[Link]
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]

Abstract: This paper presents a state-of-the-art review of the impact of energy interruptions on
people, buildings, and neighborhoods and discusses some technological and design strategies to
mitigate some of these impacts. An exhaustive literature review was carried out employing keyword
searches in the ScienceDirect and Scopus databases. The literature focuses mainly on 37 keywords,
which occurred in more than two sources. Based on this literature survey, the paper highlights that,
depending on their duration, power outages can have a severe impact on people, buildings, and
neighborhoods. The lives of vulnerable individuals dependent on electrical medical devices can
be threatened even in short-term power interruption scenarios. Longer-term power outages affect
multiple aspects of daily life, such as communication, thermal comfort, life quality, transportation,
health, and security, in addition to potential damage to buildings and their contents. The paper
identifies and discusses various methods that can be implemented to reduce vulnerability and
improve adaptation to climate-related power interruptions. These methods range from simple, low-
tech solutions that enable users to temporarily cope with hours of interruption to more sophisticated
methods requiring advanced planning. These adaptation and coping methods are classified according
to various criteria, including their ease of implementation, accessibility, potential cost, ease of use
by occupants, and their potential to address various needs. The paper finally discusses the impact
of building and neighborhood design on improving adaptation to energy interruptions. High-
Citation: Hachem-Vermette, C.; performance building design can extend the time that a building can passively operate without
Yadav, S. Impact of Power reliance on mechanical systems for heating and for cooling. Building shape and geometry, as well
Interruption on Buildings and as the spatial design of the neighborhood, can maximize solar access and therefore facilitate the
Neighborhoods and Potential implementation of PV and solar technologies. In addition, the design of mixed-use neighborhoods
Technical and Design Adaptation with access to various facilities and basic amenities assists in prolonging the self-reliance of the
Methods. Sustainability 2023, 15, community as a whole. This work aligns with the vision of the Sustainable Development Goals: by
15299. [Link]
identifying methods and technologies to reduce the impact of power interruptions and improve the
su152115299
energy resilience of urban areas around the globe, this work can contribute to the direct and indirect
Academic Editor: Davide fulfillment of several Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDGs 7, 11, 13, and others). Although the
Settembre-Blundo work is performed in a North American context and specifically refers to the Canadian climate, the
methodology can be implemented in other climatic and regional conditions.
Received: 22 September 2023
Revised: 18 October 2023
Accepted: 24 October 2023
Keywords: energy resilience; Sustainable Development Goals; climate crisis; energy interruption;
Published: 26 October 2023 renewable energy sources; building and neighborhood design

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. 1. Introduction

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Modern societies are significantly dependent on electric power to provide essential
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
needs, including food and adequate living environment, as well as to power various activi-
conditions of the Creative Commons
ties including communication and transport [1]. The interruption of the electricity supply
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
can cause significant damage to daily life activities and services, including household
[Link]/licenses/by/ practices and basic needs, transportation systems, banking and financial systems, health
4.0/). services, and communication [2,3]. While maintaining a reliable and continuous electric

Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299. [Link] 460 [Link]

Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

supply might be challenging under regular conditions [4,5], anomalous conditions such as
an extreme natural event can significantly increase the impact of this challenge [6].
The occurrence of extreme weather-related disasters, such as hurricanes, wildfires, and
floods, has significantly increased during the last two decades. For example, the average
number of disasters in the United States doubled in the period between 2014 and 2018,
as compared to the average number of climate disasters that occurred between 1980 and
2018 [7,8].
A review of worldwide extreme weather events highlights that many of these events
have a major effect on power grids, causing extensive power outages that in some cases may
last for days, weeks, or even months (e.g., during Hurricane Sandy [9–11] and the ice storm
in Canada [12,13], etc.), leading to prolonged electrical interruptions and major economic
losses. Experiences with the energy infrastructure during the last two decades have
demonstrated that the electricity network in European and North American countries is not
as dependable and robust as was generally assumed and that it can be significantly affected
by various weather events. Bushal et al. [7] provide a summary of major blackouts, technical
problems, and cyber-attacks caused by weather events based on data collected from research
papers and reports. To enhance communities’ continuous functioning and sometimes
survival during power interruption, there is a need to comprehensively understand the
impact of power outages on various aspects of human life and the environment, to identify
factors affecting the magnitude of these impacts, and to recognize existing and potential
technologies that can mitigate these impacts, as well as their feasibility and limitations.
The existing literature on the impacts of power interruption is both generally scattered
and does not clearly highlight the relation between the magnitude of these impacts and
various factors related to humans and their environment. Although the role of technologies
in enhancing energy resilience is increasingly investigated, a focused review of these
technologies, their capabilities, and their limitations, with respect to feasibility criteria, has
not yet been presented at the building and neighborhood scale.
The existing literature focuses mostly on specific issues during power outages and
discusses specific solutions, such as thermal resilience, resilient cooling, and distributed
energy generation, e.g., [14–17]. Although such issues and solutions are undeniably signifi-
cant in improving the resilience of the built environment, it is vital to understand that the
severity of the impact of power outages on households is affected by various factors. These
factors include access to alternative methods of energy generation, the energy efficiency
of buildings, other basic design features including building type, and the diversity of fuel
types serving various functions (e.g., all-electric vs. hybrid for heating, cooling, etc.). In
addition, the type and size of the neighborhood can play a significant role in the severity
and duration of the disruption [18].
The severity of energy interruption goes beyond the energy systems themselves to
affect other basic systems in the built environment, such as water, health, and economic
systems. This is especially important due to the interaction of these systems leading to
cascading effects during an unanticipated disruption or disturbance [19,20]. For instance,
water systems rely on energy to bring water to buildings, and any prolonged energy
disturbance can impact water supply. Various health problems can also result from large
and prolonged energy interruptions [21,22].
Reducing vulnerabilities is a key concern of the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). For instance, the implementation of renewable energy technologies to support
energy supply from local grids can lead to more sustainable and resilient cities (SDG 11),
help mitigate the impact of climate change (SDG 13), and constitute a key aspect of af-
fordable and clean energy access (SDG 7) [23]. Despite the importance of improving the
energy resilience of communities, there are enormous gaps both in research and implemen-
tation [23]. For example, developing solutions that recognize the interconnection of critical
infrastructure structures and their vulnerability to disruptions can induce events with major
cascading effects on the social, economic, and environmental levels [23,24]. To meet some
of the SDGs, it is increasingly important to multiply efforts toward the implementation

461
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

of green technologies that can reduce the energy consumption of the built environment,
reduce waste, and promote renewable energy generation and advanced energy manage-
ment systems (e.g., community energy systems) while developing sustainable policies that
support these efforts [23,25–27].
The paper aims to achieve the following: (1) present a state-of-the-art review of the
impact of power interruptions on buildings and neighborhoods, (2) discuss the available
technologies for reducing the impact of these interruptions, and (3) highlight design strate-
gies for improved energy resilience. The paper provides an information-based tool to
implement evidence-based energy-conscious design scenarios, thus assisting in designing
resilient and sustainable urban developments. The merit of this focused review work lies
in providing key insights that can drive future research, inform resilience policies, and
assist in establishing practical procedures to reduce vulnerabilities. Moreover, identifying
methods and technologies to reduce the vulnerability of urban areas to energy interruption
contributes significantly to the Sustainable Development Goals, both directly and indirectly.
The contribution of improved energy resilience in communities to the SDGs is discussed in
the manuscript.

2. Methodology
Three main topics form the focus of this paper: (1) identifying the impacts of power
outages on households’ daily practices; (2) discussing various technologies for mitigating
some of these impacts and reducing vulnerability during outages; (3) analyzing the role
of building and neighborhood design in improving energy resilience. A neighborhood is
considered in this work as a geographic area encompassing a number of buildings and
their surroundings, featuring various land uses and associated infrastructure. A building is
a single physical construction dedicated to a single or mixed use.
An extensive literature review was carried out in two major fields: the impacts of
power interruptions on human survivability and their built environment, and potential
technologies employed to mitigate, in different capacities, these impacts. Relevant literature
(journal articles and reports) was identified through keyword searches in the ScienceDirect
and Scopus databases, and a network visualization illustrating the relationship between
keywords in the current literature review is presented in Figure 1. The literature focuses
mainly on 37 keywords, occurring in more than two sources. A few keywords, such as
critical infrastructure and solar irradiation, have been neglected due to weak link strength.
This enhances the credibility of the review and is implemented in a number of current
studies, e.g., [28,29]. The selected keywords were imported into VOS viewer 1.6.19 software
to generate the visual maps. The size of a keyword’s label and circle corresponds to its
frequency in the cited literature, with more prominent items having larger labels and
circles. These keywords are further clubbed together and presented by different colored
clusters. The lines connecting clusters represent the connections between them. From the
figure, it is evident that power outages are connected with natural disasters and climate
change. Additionally, resilience in such events is associated with renewable energy sources,
including solar energy and fuel cells, which are further linked to storage technologies. Smart
grids and microgrids establish connections between storage technologies and demand-side
management. All these facets are extensively discussed in the literature review. Figure 1
also illustrates the evolving research trends in these domains over time. The color bar in
the right corner indicates the year of the cited research articles. It is evident from Figure 1
that the current emphasis is on studying power outage resilience.
In processing the various literature sources on outage impacts, topics need to be
narrowed down to various specific criteria, such as the length of the power outage, health
and safety impacts, communication, and other specific needs, to obtain meaningful results.
The main observations are then grouped into tables to provide a holistic picture of the
impact of power interruptions on various human needs.

462
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

Figure 1. Visual representation of keywords in the current literature review and evolving research
trends over time for the keywords in the current literature review.

The literature review on technologies employed to mitigate the impacts of power

interruptions yields knowledge about technologies employed in specific circumstances
(such as PV with batteries, combined heat and power generation, etc.) and highlights the
role of distributed energy in general. A list of potential distributed energy technologies at
the building and neighborhood level is then developed, and each of these is individually
reviewed employing pertinent literature to identify their potential and their limitations.
The third part of this paper is based on the extensive research of the author related
to the impact of building and neighborhood design parameters to allow energy efficiency
and to optimize the implementation of various renewable and alternative energy resources,
thus improving the overall resilience of a community. Figure 2 presents an illustration of
the approach applied in this paper.

463
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

Figure 2. Illustration of the general approach employed in the paper.

3. Impacts of Power Outage

Power outages can have a range of direct and indirect impacts on humans and their en-
vironment [30,31]. The literature on technical issues related to power outages is increasing;
however, studies that explore the psychological and emotional impacts of power outages
are scarce to nonexistent [31].
This section assesses the potential impacts of power outage crises, which often result
from an extreme climate crisis, on livelihood and survivability in residential buildings.
The impacts are determined for varying outage durations, considered short-term (hours),
medium-term (days), and long-term (weeks). The impacts are mostly classified in terms
of communication, comfort (heating/cooling, warm water, electric lighting), food and
water (e.g., nutrition, cooking, water supply), safety, security, damage to dwelling content,
damage to dwelling itself, health concerns, and threat to life.
The impacts are discussed according to different types of residential buildings as well
as the demographic of occupants (e.g., elderly and vulnerable individuals, families with
vulnerable individuals, and young couples/single individuals). A literature survey was
conducted to identify the common and specific impacts of power outages on residential
buildings and their inhabitants.
The impacts can change dramatically according to the length of the outage. Some
of the expected impacts are summarized below, according to the outage duration, and in
Table 1.
• Short-term outage (<24 h):
Although a short-duration outage of less than 24 h has a limited impact on people and
buildings, some serious damage can still occur. For instance, for vulnerable people who
depend on electrical medical devices for survival (heart, breathing, etc.), even a short-term
power outage may lead to life-threatening situations [32,33].
Other critical functions that can be affected by short-term outages include a poten-
tial interruption in communication, such as reliance on cellphones (with limited battery
duration) [34,35]. In addition, thermal comfort can be compromised in low-performance
buildings during extreme cold or heat waves [36,37]. Other critical impacts include access to

464
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

high-rise residential buildings, especially for vulnerable people [38]. The various concerns
are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of potential impacts of power outage.

12–24 h 1 Day–1 Week >1 Week

• Cellphone interruption (battery

running out). • All kinds of communication are • All kinds of communication are
Communication • Communications for police and severely impacted, including severely impacted, including
fire departments can be cellphones and internet. cellphones and internet.
compromised.

• Heating in winter in all-electric • Heating in winter in all-electric

buildings. buildings.
• Heating in winter in electrically
Comfort
• Electric lighting. • Electric lighting.
heated buildings.
• Overheating in summer can • Overheating in summer can
• Electric lighting.
significantly affect survival, significantly affect survival,
especially of vulnerable people. especially of vulnerable people.

• Depending on availability of dry

• Refrigerated food is damaged. food, food demand can become
Food Minimal • Depending on availability of dry an issue.
food, food demand can become • Potential disruption of
an issue. large-scale food supplies and
availability of supply.

• Potential water interruption. • Potential water interruption

Water Minimal
• Domestic hot water can be • Domestic hot water can be
compromised if electricity is compromised if electricity is
employed to heat water. employed to heat water.

• Individual transportation is
compromised due to lack of fuel,
• Limited possibility of personal
or disruption in operation of the
transport due to potential lack of
fuel stations.
fuel in motor vehicles, etc.
• Interruption of electric
Transportation Minimal • Interruption of electric
transportation (trains, trams,
transportation (trains, trams,
etc.), charging electric
etc.), charging electric
vehicles, etc.
vehicles, etc.
• Potential disruptions to public
transportation.

• People with electrical medical

devices (heart, breathing, etc.).
• Risk of shortage of supply
of medicaments.
• Care for emerging sickness
(especially for children and
• Indoor air quality, especially vulnerable people).
with very tightly spaced • Mental health effects from
• Indoor air quality, especially in buildings or traumatic or stressful
very tightly spaced buildings or apartments/condos. experiences during outages.
apartment buildings. • CO2 built up in parking lots • Post-outage hazards from
Safety • CO2 built up in case of using (apartment buildings with sheltering in place in unhealthy
alternative heating. underground parking). environments.
• Access, especially for • Access, especially for • Potential exposure to hazards
multistorey buildings. multistorey buildings (for such as contaminated drinking
elderly or people with water, contaminated floodwaters
health issues). (if flooding occurs), and
potential mold growth and
moisture in housing.
• Environmental hazards due to
damage to sewage treatment.
• Health and safety risks from
clean-up and recovery activities.

465
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

Table 1. Cont.

12–24 h 1 Day–1 Week >1 Week

• Financial security: ATM not

• Financial security: ATM not working, cash availability.
Security Minimal working. • Looting.
• Risk of looting. • The risk of disturbance to public
order and security.

• People with electrical medical

devices (heart, breathing, etc.).
• Risk of shortage of supply
of medicaments.
• People with electrical medical
• Care for emerging sickness
devices (heart, breathing, etc.).
(especially for children and
• Risk of shortage of supply of
vulnerable people).
• People with electrical medical medicaments (for persons
Health concerns • Mental health effects from
devices (heart, breathing, etc.). requiring supply for less than
traumatic or stressful
a week).
experiences during outage.
• Water shortages, spoilage
• Risks to health and safety
of foods.
emerging from certain clean-up
and recovery activities.
• Water shortages, spoilage
of foods.

• People with electrical medical

devices (heart, breathing, etc.).
• People with electrical medical
• Potential compromise of medical
devices (heart, breathing, etc.).
• People with electrical medical and social care institutions, etc.
Threat to life • Potential compromise of medical
devices (heart, breathing, etc.). • Potential risk to life and health
and social care institutions, etc.
due to the occurrence of
• Increased traffic accidents.
secondary crisis.
• Increased traffic accidents.

• Potential damage from power • Potential damage from power

surge after an outage to surge after an outage to
computers, TVs, air computers, TVs, air
conditioners, heaters, motors, conditioners, heaters, motors,
Damage to dwellings’
contents
• Minimal and other HVAC components. and other HVAC components.
• Appliances, including washers, • Appliances, including washers,
dryers, and microwaves, are dryers, and microwaves, are
vulnerable to sudden and vulnerable to sudden and
frequent changes in voltage. frequent changes in voltage.

• Frozen pipes- bursting (in cold • Frozen pipes- bursting (in cold
period). period).
• Water damage due to pipe burst. • Water damage due to pipe burst.
• Potential appearance of • Potential appearance of
Damage to dwellings • Minimal
moisture and damp patches. moisture and damp patches.
• Potential basement flooding and • Potential basement flooding and
consequent damage to consequent damage to
equipment and furniture. equipment and furniture.

• Medium-term outage (24 h–1 week):

Beyond 24 h, some functions and human needs become difficult to fulfill. For instance,
communication can be severely disrupted, including communications for police and fire
departments, compromising public safety [19]. Basic levels of thermal comfort through
adequate heating and cooling may become unattainable, especially during severe climate
events. This can significantly affect the well-being of occupants and, in some cases, lead to
the buildings’ evacuation. Domestic hot water can be compromised as well if electricity is
employed to heat water [39]. Similarly to the short-duration outage, people with critical
electric equipment can experience life-threatening situations. In addition, medical centers
and the supply of medicines can be affected, even in the presence of some emergency power
generation means [19].
Other crucial issues include damage to dwelling contents such as the refrigeration
of food and damage to various electrical equipment appliances such as computers, TVs,

466
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

HVAC, and various electric appliances, which can be damaged by power surges [40]. Under
extreme cold conditions, other significant issues can arise, such as the bursting of frozen
pipes coupled with water damage [41,42].
At the safety level, indoor air quality can be significantly impacted, especially in
tight-sealed buildings that rely on mechanical ventilation [43]. In addition, carbon dioxide
can build up in underground spaces, such as in parking lots (particularly in apartment
buildings), which could render these areas hazardous [44] necessitating, in some cases, the
evacuation or partial evacuation of the buildings. Other issues relate to access to multistorey
buildings due to the restricted function of elevators (especially for vulnerable people).
Additional issues include the limited possibility of transport due to the potential of
fuel shortages or dysfunctional fuel stations, as well as the impact of power outages on
electric-powered transport (e.g., trams, trains) and the charging of electric vehicles, which
are becoming increasingly abundant. A summary of the main issues related to various
criteria and outage periods is summarized in Table 1.
• Long-term outage (>one week):
Issues that occur during a single-week power outage continue and become more severe
for longer-term periods of outage [45]. Additional potentially major issues (compared to the
medium-term outage) include disruption of large-scale food and water supplies and sewage
treatment. During long-period outages, serious damage to buildings can occur, potentially
including pipes bursting (in cold periods, as discussed above), basement flooding, and
consequent damage to equipment and furniture, as well as the appearance of moisture and
damp patches [19].
Other concerns include a negative impact on living standards and social services,
mental health issues due to traumatic experiences, and the potential occurrence of various
emergencies during the outage that might endanger health and life [46]. Hazards from
sheltering in inadequate housing conditions include exposure to various hazardous condi-
tions such as contaminated water, mold, and moisture [46]. Population displacement leads
to large-scale problems, such as housing shortages, accompanied by economic and social
impacts. A detailed summary is presented in Table 1.
Table 2 graphically shows the various functions and needs that are impacted by power
outages, according to the time length of the outage. The main impacts are indicated by
triangles. Circles indicate that a combined impact of other factors may apply. These factors
include residence types, location, and demographics, as well as the type of fuel employed to
power various functions (e.g., heating, appliances, etc.). Residence types include detached
houses, attached houses, low-rise apartments, mid-rise apartments, high-rise apartments,
and apartments with or without underground indoor parking. Locations may include urban
high-density areas, rural areas with moderate density, and farmland. The demographics of
the population can play an important role in the resilience of a community; this includes the
existence of elderly people (couples or singles), families with vulnerable individuals (the
elderly, children, etc.), and young individuals (couples or singles). Other impactful factors
relate to the design of the buildings and the neighborhoods and their energy systems. While
the role of building and neighborhood design is discussed below (Section 4), the impact of
the other factors mentioned above is beyond the scope of this paper. These factors (building
types, location, and demographics) can have a significant effect on the overall resilience of
a community to power outages and need to be thoroughly investigated.

467
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

Table 2. Functions and needs that are impacted by power outage.

Damage to Dwellings’

Damage to Dwellings
Health Concerns
Communication

Transportation

Threat to Life

Contents
Comfort

Security
Safety
Water
Food
Period

12–24 hours  GG – – – G – GG GG – –
1 day–1 week  GGG  GG  GG  GG GG  
>1 week    GGG  GGG  GGG   
, G Indicate low impact, , GG indicate medium impact, , GGG indicate higher impact. All impacts are
qualitatively assessed in relative terms.

4. Technologies for Improved Resilience

There are several strategies and technologies that can be used to improve resilience
during power outages at the building and neighborhood levels. Some of these are very basic
and address individual needs, while some other technologies can replace the interrupted
power for a specific time span. For instance, the adoption of renewable and alternative
energy sources presents a practical approach to adapting to power outages associated
with climate crises and extreme events, allowing it to address not only potential power
interruptions and energy deficits but also to alleviate climate change-associated disruptions.
Neighborhoods and communities can become more energy resilient by diversifying their
energy resources, including the implementation of reliable renewable energy systems [47].
In addition to improving distributed energy generation potential, energy efficiency
in buildings constitutes a key aspect of energy resilience [48,49], assisting in reducing the
energy consumption of urban areas and consequently the strain on local energy suppliers
during an energy emergency. Enhancing passive strategies, including passive heating
and cooling, can increase the preparedness of buildings and households to withstand
disasters [16,18,50]. In addition to these measures, there are some commonly applied
methods, including low-tech methods, that can assist in adapting, albeit temporarily, to a
power outage crisis.
This section presents an overview of various methods and strategies that can mitigate
the impact of power interruptions, as discussed above. These strategies are then preliminary
classified according to various criteria. The work acknowledges, however, that there is a
need to analyze in more depth the potential of various technologies and to quantify their
impacts on improving energy resilience.

4.1. Building-Level Measures

Some methods are commonly employed in residential buildings to cope with power
outages. Most of these methods can be helpful for short timespans and to address a specific
need, including emergency lighting (e.g., emergency exits, floor lighting, and other important
signage). Other methods relate to energy efficiency measures that allow a reduction in the
electricity load and prolong the period of building autonomy without relying on mechanical
systems. This has been investigated in a large number of studies, as presented in Section 4
(see below). Other advanced methods, including those focusing on energy generation, are
presented below.
Low-tech and alternative methods
Some of the temporary coping methods include simple devices that can be easily
acquired and utilized for restricted needs, such as flashlights and candles to provide lighting
for limited visual tasks or portable gas stoves to allow food preparation. When the crisis

468
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

lasts longer than a few hours, some basic needs start to be important to fulfill, including
food preparation and thermal comfort, especially heating in cold weather. Alternative
solutions such as a wood stove or wood fireplace can mitigate some of these critical issues
for short- to medium-term outages [19,35]. However, these methods would not fulfill a
wider range of needs and cannot be applied to all types of buildings (e.g., wood fireplaces).
For thermal comfort, an efficient building design, especially building envelopes, can
assist in keeping the residence at acceptable conditions; however, these are also short- to
medium-term solutions, depending on the exigency of the outdoor thermal conditions.
Energy efficiency measures
Energy efficiency plays a major role in reducing demand, especially during periods
of extreme stress on the grid. For instance, extreme heat or cold events may increase in
magnitude and frequency, leading to an increase in peak electricity demand [51]. Higher
electricity demand can lead to prolonged power interruptions [52]. The energy efficiency
of building equipment and appliances can help communities reduce their overall load and,
as such, their demand on the local grid, which may assist in avoiding outage interruptions
in critical periods.
Energy-efficient buildings with high-performance building envelopes allow the pas-
sive performance of buildings, leading to some level of inhabitability without the require-
ment of mechanical systems. For example, research carried out on some buildings in New
York City to evaluate the impact of power outages on indoor temperatures in winter and
summer demonstrates the better thermal resilience of high-energy-performance buildings.
Such buildings that were designed with highly insulated and air-tight building envelopes
maintained a comfortable indoor temperature (in the upper 50 s ◦ F (10 s ◦ C) in the winter
during a theoretical weeklong power outage [22], while the indoor air temperature of older
building types dropped to 40 s ◦ F (4.5 ◦ C) [53] in a period ranging from 1–3 days, causing
health risks, especially to vulnerable inhabitants.
Various passive strategies can assist in reducing the impact of outdoor conditions, both
high and low temperatures, on the indoor environment. The impact of building design,
including the building envelope, is discussed more in the building design section (Section 4)
below.

4.1.1. Energy Generation

Technologies that permit the use of renewable and alternative energy sources for
power and heat production can offer resilient backups for communities [54,55]. These
technologies comprise on-site generation using photovoltaic systems, including building-
integrated photovoltaics (BIPVs), solar thermal collectors, geothermal heating, and micro
wind turbines coupled with microgrids. The planning and implementation of such tech-
nologies can be beneficial for the whole community and particularly pertinent to critical
facilities such as hospitals and buildings accommodating vulnerable people (e.g., retirement
homes). Combined heat and power systems and microgrids can operate continuously (not
only during emergencies) and, as such, they present reliable methods of energy supply.

PVs Coupled to Batteries

PV systems can withstand extreme weather events, providing backup power for build-
ings and critical facilities, thus enhancing the resilience of communities [29]. PV systems can
be sized to provide the most critical functions to residences to survive power outages [56].
Buildings with hybrid photovoltaic–battery storage systems can provide a continuous elec-
tricity supply during power outages, depending on the weather conditions and the battery
size as well as the building energy load [57]. Research highlights that a combination of PVs,
battery storage, and grid connections is cost-effective and environmentally efficient [58].
The potential of PVs coupled to batteries has been investigated in a number of stud-
ies [16], including the capabilities of PVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to enhance
the resilience of households [59] and their return on investment [60]. The impact of a PVs–
batteries combination on the resilience of whole communities was also studied, e.g., [61,62].

469
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

Micro Wind Turbines

Small-size urban wind turbines include building-integrated wind turbines or small
stand-alone wind turbines [63]. Building-integrated wind turbines can be grid-tied or
off-grid, requiring battery storage to store energy. The rotor diameter of residential wind
turbines can range from 0.9 m to 7 m and require a height of 18 m to 30 m [64].
Wind turbines extract about 40–50% of the energy that passes through them [65]. A
traditional single-home family would need one 10–20 KW turbine to produce sufficient en-
ergy to fulfill the total energy demand of a typical house (using approximately 10,000 kWh
per year) [66].
The feasibility and efficiency of wind energy depend mainly on the location. Wind
turbines are more suited for areas with reduced obstacles and with an average annual wind
speed of at least 10 mph (16 km/h) [67].

Micro Combined Heat and Power

Micro combined heat and power (micro-CHP) is a heat and power cogeneration system
designed for use at the building scale, such as single or multi-family houses, and can also
serve small office buildings (up to 50 kW [68]). A micro-CHP system provides electric
power while simultaneously generating thermal energy for space heating and hot water
provisions for a building by recovering waste heat [69].
A micro-CHP system can be designed to follow the electricity or heat demand of a
building, delivering heat or electricity as a by-product. This may result in the produc-
tion of excess electricity or heat, which requires devising methods to manage the excess
power, such as designing storage systems [70]. Excess electricity can be, under regular
circumstances, fed to the grid.
The most common micro-CHP systems employ natural gas to cogenerate heat and
power. Although natural gas CHP is responsible for GHG emissions, due to the effective
efficiency of the CHP system, the produced emissions are less than those of other alternative
systems for generating heat (e.g., a condensing boiler) [71].
Although connected to the electricity distribution network, CHP systems, including
micro-CHPs, can be completely independent, allowing them to produce energy when it is
required, thus improving the resilience of a building to power interruptions.

Fuel Cells
Fuel cell technologies present a promising option for clean power generation. This
technology allows the generation of electrical energy while producing heat as a useful
by-product. Fuel cells convert energy into electricity and heat through the chemical reaction
of hydrogen and oxygen to produce water [72,73]. Although fossil fuel is generally used to
produce hydrogen (the basic ingredient of fuel cells), fuel cells create significantly fewer
emissions than most other fossil fuel generators [72].
Fuel cells are mainly employed in two major applications: powering vehicles and
generating power for various types of buildings, utilities, and communities. Demonstrated
applications of fuel cells include backup generation for hospitals, office buildings, and
schools [74]. Some applications include remote villages and campgrounds [75]. Fuel cells
can also be used to supply power for temporary needs, including shelters and construction
sites. Fuel cells can play a significant role in enhancing distributed energy initiatives,
providing electricity and heat, and reducing the vulnerability of central grid disruptions.

Integrated Micro-Generation Systems

Integrating different systems and methods to generate heat and power is continuing
to attract attention to improve the efficiency of renewable and alternative energy resources.
For instance, research on the integration of a fuel cell (FC) micro-cogeneration device, a heat
pump (HP), and thermal storage highlights that such a combination presents an optimal
solution to manage electrical and thermal storage while reducing energy consumption and

470
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

evading energy excess production, e.g., [69,76]. An FC-based CHP system can be sized to
produce sufficient energy for individual buildings.
Other research investigated the integration of heat pumps, PV systems, and the local
grid connection, demonstrating the efficiency of such systems in multistorey buildings [77].

Portable Generators with Various Fuel Types

Generators are some of the most common systems to generate distributed energy. The
fuel employed in generators ranges from high-GHG-producing, such as diesel generators, to
natural gas (NG) [78]. Although NG generators are cleaner than diesel generators, they still
have high GHG emissions. Other generators use gasoline and propane as fuel. Gasoline-fueled
generators fall between diesel-fueled and natural gas generators in terms of GHG emissions,
while propane generators are similar to natural gas generators (in terms of emissions).
Employing such generators can be useful during an emergency power interruption;
however, they should be restricted to use as emergency back-up generation. Emission-
control measures should be put in place when such power generation methods are em-
ployed to reduce their harmful environmental impacts. These measures comprise improve-
ments in fuel and control technologies and enhanced efficiency.

4.2. Neighborhood-Level Energy Resilience

Most of the energy generation technologies suitable at the individual building level
can be effective on a neighborhood level, with design modifications to suit larger-scale
developments. For example, PV systems and wind turbines can be designed to be not
only part of a building (integrated within the building envelope or add-on systems) but
also part of the neighborhood outdoor surface (see Section 4). Similarly, wind turbines
can be installed in various areas of the neighborhood. A CHP plant can be designed more
efficiently at the urban scale, as discussed below. Additional technologies that can be
applied only on the urban scale include district heating and cooling systems, microgrids,
and smart grids. These are summarized below.

4.2.1. Combined Heat and Power

Urban- and community-level CHP systems serve the same function as a micro-CHP
(described above) but are designed at a larger scale to serve multiple buildings within a
neighborhood. Examples of CHP implementation and its performance and impact during
power outages due to weather events are reported in the literature [79]. For instance, during
Hurricane Sandy, CHP systems supplied heat and power (although sometimes in limited
capacity) as well as other critical functions to multifamily buildings [54]. Maintaining
critical services during a power outage is vital to improving the overall resilience of
communities and can affect multiple households. This is because the risk to individual
buildings and individuals can be significantly reduced by keeping vital services running
(hospitals, water treatments, and others). On the other hand, designing such critical
buildings and facilities with backup power can enable them to serve as temporary shelters
for displaced residents [80], leading to increased social resilience and capacity to cope.
CHP systems can use various types of fuel to provide continuous operations. Most CHP
systems are fueled by natural gas, which can be reliable during outages (as long as natural
gas pipelines are not disrupted). CHP can be operated using waste generation biomass
or biogas, which can be equally reliable in times of disaster [54]. In addition to providing
emergency power, CHP systems are cost-effective and reduce overall net emissions [81].

4.2.2. District Energy

District energy systems can integrate several types of renewable energy sources to
produce thermal and electrical energy [82,83] while reducing GHG emissions [84]. Some
of the most common renewable sources incorporated in district energy systems include
solar photovoltaics and stand-alone microgrids, as discussed below. Biomass is also used
in some communities using local waste generated from tree trimming and other urban

471
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

waste wood. These technologies are often coupled with electrical and thermal energy
storage (e.g., batteries [85], fuel cells [86,87], and borehole geothermal energy storage [88]).
The integration of different energy sources constitutes an effective method to enhance the
efficiency of the entire system.
District energy systems can be designed to fulfill only one requirement, such as heating,
cooling, combined heating and cooling needs, co-generation, or tri-generation [83]. District
systems allow the shift in energy consumption from peak demand to off-peak periods, thus
reducing the dependence on the electric grid.

4.2.3. Microgrids
The microgrid concept is explained employing a number of definitions [89–91]. Most
commonly, a microgrid is defined as a mix of distributed energy resources and interconnected
loads, constituting a single controllable entity that can be connected to or disconnected from
the grid. When disconnected from the grid, the microgrid can operate in island mode [92].
Microgrids connect buildings and facilities within a neighborhood to various dis-
tributed energy resources, such as those described above (e.g., CHP, photovoltaic systems,
wind turbines, district energy systems, and energy storage). The design of a microgrid
system varies depending on the project specifications and requirements [89]. Microgrids
can play a key role in enhancing the resilience of communities against power outages since
they are able to maintain a reliable and continuous supply of power.

4.2.4. Smart Grid

Smart grids are advanced digital systems that enable a two-way power flow [93] and
incorporate several technologies, comprising advanced metering and information and
communication networks, which are integrated into power infrastructures [94]. Smart
grids can use different energy resources, including intermittent solar- and wind-generated
electricity [95], and can accommodate storage facilities. Smart grids can play a significant
role in restricting the spread of power outages since they allow the identification of the im-
pacted parts of the electricity system and can then isolate them, improving the resilience of
a community to the power outage. Smart grids also allow users to preventively turn off the
power in specific areas before extreme weather events to avoid system-wide damage. This
capability assists in reducing the extent of power outages and shortening recovery times.

Overview of Technologies’ Potential

This section gives an overview of the potential of the technologies presented above
with respect to a number of criteria. These criteria include the current feasibility of these
technologies and their environmental impact, including their efficiency (Table 3). The
potential of these technologies is presented in a qualitative manner (Table 4), indicating the
fulfillment of some of the criteria.

Table 3. Description of criteria.

Building types: potential to accommodate variety of buildings.

Feasibility: Accessibility: relates to various issues such as availability on the market, cost, etc.
Implementation: relates to the ease of implementation in a building, ease of use, etc.
Reduced Emissions: potential to reduce GHG emissions (based on materials used or/and fuel consumed).
Impact Efficiency: increase in the value of reduced damage from power breakdown (fulfillment of the objectives) to
investment in the technology.
Comfort: achieving survivable and safe temperatures and acceptable overall comfort (e.g., lighting).
Indoor air quality: potential improvement in indoor air quality.
Objectives Health and safety: potential reduction in health and safety hazards.
Fulfilling specific need: potential to fulfill various needs (more than one).
Continuous power generation: potential to generate stable power.
Outage Period Describes the suitability of the resilience measure to the outage time.

472
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

Table 4. Summary of technologies potential. G indicates fulfillment,  indicates unfulfillment, S:

short-term, M: medium-term, L: long-term.

Feasibility Impact Objectives

Fulfilling Other Needs

Outage period
Reduced Emissions

Indoor Air Quality

Continuous Power
Health and Safety
Thermal Comfort
Implementation

Building Types
Accessibility

Efficiency
Low-tech and alternative measures
Candles, flashlights, propane/kerosene lamps G G G G  —    — S
Wood stove    G      — M-L
Portable gas stove G G G  G —    — S-M
Wood fireplace    G   G   — M-L
Batteries  G G G  — — — G G S-M
Efficiency measures
High-performance building envelope   G G G G G —  — S-M
Passive solar design   G G G G G —  — S-M
Operable windows/natural ventilation   G G G G G —  — S-M
High-efficiency appliances  G G G G — — — — — M-L
Generation
PV   G G  G G G G  S-L
Micro wind turbines   G G  G G G G  S-L
Micro combined heat and power   G  G G G  G  S-L
Portable generators/propane/diesel   G  G G G  G G S-L
Fuel cells   G G G G G G G G S-L
Neighborhood level
PV G  G G  G G G G  S-L
Wind G  G G  G G G G  S-L
CHP G G G  G G G G G G S-L
District energy   G G G G G G G  S-L
Microgrid   G G G G G G G G S-L
Smart grid   G G G G G G G G S-L

5. Impact of Building and Neighborhood Design

This section is based on the author’s research and aims to illustrate the implementation
of principles outlined in the literature review of Sections 2 and 3 in the design of buildings
and neighborhoods and their energy systems to improve their overall energy resilience. The
section highlights the impact of a holistic approach in the design of neighborhoods, their
buildings, and the exterior areas surrounding the buildings in order to provide an adequate
environment for implementing measures to enhance energy resilience and empower the
neighborhoods’ residents.

5.1. Building Design

The design of a building significantly affects its energy efficiency, its capability to
withstand climate events, and its vulnerability to energy outages. Design considerations,
such as the building type, form and configuration, and outer envelope, directly affect
the building’s energy demand [18,22,96] and its potential to incorporate solar technolo-
gies for sustainable energy production. Improving such capacity is, as mentioned above,

473
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

a significant strategy to mitigate the impact of central power interruptions. Design as-
pects, such as being highly insulated, having an airtight building envelope, and having
optimized window systems with an adequate window-to-wall ratio (WWR), can signifi-
cantly impact the energy requirements of a building. The window-to-wall ratio (WWR)
is a variable parameter, and a country’s building and high-energy performance codes
govern the appropriate WWR value. Some examples of high-performance windows are
thermochromic glazing [97] and ventilated/non-ventilated PV-integrated windows [98].
These high-performance windows significantly diminish heating and cooling requirements
while improving visual and thermal comfort. This is not only beneficial in reducing the
size of mechanical equipment but also in increasing the duration of the self-sustainability
of a building without relying on electric energy to provide these functions. The design
of various other climate-responsive features and architectural passive design elements,
including shading strategies, light shelves, and solar chimneys, can maximize the utiliza-
tion of solar energy for heating, cooling, and daylighting, reducing dependence on local
energy grids. Architectural passive design features can be implemented in different types
of buildings, including residential, office, and commercial, allowing the enhancement of
buildings’ adaption to energy interruption.
Building envelope design for energy generation. The design of the building enve-
lope plays a significant role in preparing buildings to integrate renewable energy generation
technologies (e.g., PV and PV/thermal systems (PV/T)), thus improving their potential to
withstand power outages. The shape of the building and of the envelope affects its solar
exposure and thus its solar potential, which is highly dependent on the tilt and orientation
angles of these surfaces (Figure 1 [99]). While integrating PV technologies in roofs is an
optimal decision for low-rise buildings (≤3 floors), multistorey buildings’ facades can offer
advantageous surfaces for the integration of PV systems due to their increased surface
area from the increased height of multistorey buildings relative to the roofs of the same
buildings (which remain unchanged [100]).
The geometric design of building envelope can be carefully designed to maximize
solar radiation incident on these surfaces, consequently increasing the electric and thermal
energy generated by solar collectors. Manipulating the tilt and orientation angles of individ-
ual building surfaces can lead to increased electricity generation and the extension of the
timing peak generation. Multifaceted geometry (Figure 3d–f) can significantly increase the
energy generation potential of roofs and particularly facades [100]. Such design considera-
tions can provide the creative assimilation of PV systems, making them architecturally and
esthetically pleasant.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. Cont.

474
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

(d) (e) (f) (g)

Figure 3. Design of buildings for enhanced solar potential: (a–c) building layout, (d–g) building
facades.

5.2. Neighborhood Design

Neighborhood design has a significant impact on the energy consumption and GHG
emissions of the overall neighborhood and enhances its resilience and capability to adjust
to different stresses. Below is a summary of some factors that should be considered in the
design of resilient communities and neighborhoods.
Type of neighborhood and building mix. A mixed-use neighborhood that encom-
passes diverse amenities within walking distance provides several possibilities for mitigat-
ing energy vulnerabilities. For instance, such neighborhoods can reduce the dependence on
vehicle transport when fuel is restricted and can provide potential nearby temporary shelter
in buildings that can be supplied with continuous alternative energy (e.g., schools [80]).
Other opportunities offered by mixed-use neighborhoods include the prospective applica-
tion of district energy, large-scale renewable energy, thermal storage, and energy sharing
between buildings.
The variety of building types within a neighborhood can affect its energy consumption
as well as its overall capacity to accommodate solar technologies within its buildings and
neighborhood surfaces [101]. An optimal ratio of commercial to built land area ranges from
23% to 32%, allowing for a reduction in energy consumption and GHG emissions.
The mix of buildings also affects, as mentioned above, the potential of designating
specific buildings as temporary shelters during power outages. Figure 4 presents an example
neighborhood that includes various amenities and buildings that can serve as temporary
shelters, which are strategically placed with respect to roads and residential buildings [80].
Designated temporary shelters can be selected, where possible, according to their
energy intensity, prioritizing those that have a reduced overall energy intensity (energy per
unit area) or emergency power generation capacity. In addition, such buildings should be
easily accessible to the residents of different parts of the neighborhood.
Density. An increased built density, including a high ratio of built floor area in
a neighborhood, is often associated with urban environmental sustainability [102]. To
augment the potential of renewable solar energy generation, enhancing solar availability is
a high priority. The solar access of buildings and the neighborhoods’ outdoor areas can
be negatively affected by high density, especially with the design of high-rise multistorey
buildings. The impact of density on solar access can be offset through the thoughtful design
of the urban layout, site coverage, and building heights [103,104]. Increasing spacing
between buildings allows better solar access to buildings and increases solar availability
at the ground level for the implementation of standalone PV systems for neighborhood-
level electricity generation (see below). On the other hand, while low-density residential
neighborhoods can achieve energy self-sufficiency from PVs integrated into buildings’
surfaces, higher-density neighborhoods require diverse energy sources that are combined
with energy storage [101]. A study that investigated and contrasted the energy resilience of

475
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

low- and higher-density neighborhoods based on specific resilience indicators showed that
higher-density, mixed-use neighborhoods are less energy resilient [80].

Figure 4. Example of mixed-use neighborhood with various amenities. Red lines indicate buildings
that can serve as temporary shelters, and/or buildings that need to maintain continuous operations.

Green and spatial areas. Landscape and outdoor areas surrounding buildings can
be designed to maximize the incorporation of PV and solar thermal collectors within
neighborhoods (Figure 5a). For solar applications, the design of public green areas should
address various issues such as avoiding shade from surrounding buildings.

Figure 5. (a) PV and STC integration in public areas, (b) PV as parking structure, (c) PV on street borders.

The implementation of solar collector structures in the public landscape can be de-
signed to enhance outdoor thermal comfort, creating attractive areas for social interaction
and, as such, improving the quality of life in the community. For example, landscape PV
structures can be employed as shading structures for thermal shelters during colder periods
(Figure 5b,c).

476
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

Street design. The street layout, including shape and orientation, influences the
design and orientation of the buildings on them. Street design therefore has an impact on
the solar potential of the surrounding buildings.
Beyond their impact on the energy consumption and energy generation of the build-
ings and surrounding areas, the street’s design has a significant impact on the choice of
transport and resulting energy consumption and GHG emissions. Research highlights that
streets with a higher density of intersections may decrease the reliance on individual cars
for transportation [103].
The design of connection nodes and available routes affects the potential for evacuation
during emergencies and therefore impacts the resilience of the whole community. A key
criterion for creating resilient neighborhood layouts is to reduce dependence on major
streets. This design consideration prevents the destabilization of the entire street network
system when some central nodes are disabled due to power outages or climate-related
events [100]. Potential shelter buildings should be located at street intersections to improve
their access during evacuations [80]. Although analyzing the response to disasters is
beyond the scope of this paper, the impact of neighborhood design on some responses
(such as evacuation) is mentioned due to the interconnection of various design elements
and their direct and indirect impacts on energy resilience.

5.3. Impact of Design on Energy Systems

Resilient neighborhood design should consider energy demand as well as local and
distributed energy generation strategies. The impact of neighborhood design on urban
energy systems, both on the demand and supply sides, is briefly discussed below.
Energy demand. Energy demand can be significantly reduced through the architec-
tural design of buildings and proper spatial neighborhood design. Employing high-energy-
performance mechanical systems and energy-efficient appliances can further reduce energy
consumption in buildings. Efficient mechanical systems, including heat pump technologies,
heat pumps coupled with PV systems, heat recovery systems, mechanical ventilation (e.g.,
displacement ventilation), and effective distribution and controls, are increasingly imple-
mented to improve the energy performance of different building types. For instance, smart
management systems can be implemented to preheat or precool buildings before peak
hours [105,106]. The deliberate exploitation of thermal mass, together with energy-efficient
building envelopes and mechanical ventilation, can assist in the strategic preheating and
precooling of buildings [107].
Other promising systems consist of ground source heat pumps (GSHPs), which, using
ground-extracted heat, are considerably more energy-efficient than conventional mechani-
cal systems [108]. Coupling a GCHP system with solar thermal collectors offers a significant
opportunity for energy savings, especially for heating-dominated neighborhoods [109].
Integrating energy efficiency measures with microgrid technology allows for a reduction in
energy demand on the microgrid itself.
Energy supply and neighborhood planning. Diversification of energy resources
constitutes a promising strategy to enhance the energy resilience of a community. PV
technologies integrated in buildings and in neighborhood outdoor areas form a mature
technology that is ready to be deployed at various scales and capacities [110], forming an
important layer of energy resilience. Together with solar technologies (PV and STC), other
energy resources, including combined heat and power utilizing various sources, such as
waste to energy (WtE) or reduced impact fuel (see above) and small wind turbines, can be
explored, especially when available surfaces for installing solar systems are restricted. To
achieve self-sufficient neighborhoods, energy storage is required, together with an optimal
mix of energy sources [101]. To be completely independent from the grid, during an energy
crisis, electrical and thermal storage should be sized to provide the necessary demand
of a neighborhood. It should be considered that increased levels of distributed energy
resources may lead to issues in energy balance and congestion. These potential congestion

477
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

issues should be addressed when designing urban energy systems, allowing for the proper
management of energy production, utilization, control, and storage.
On the other hand, microgrids and smart metering can be beneficial in controlling the
zones that can be supplied with energy at specific times. For instance, a study carried out
by Singh and Hachem-Vermette [77] shows that, for long periods of power interruption,
it might be beneficial to evacuate the population to designated temporary shelters (e.g.,
schools) and to prioritize these buildings when supplying local energy. Such a scenario will
be less vulnerable than sheltering in place, as it is easier and more efficient to supply a few
buildings with energy rather than a larger number of residences. In such cases, smart grids
can be useful in controlling the energy supply to specific zones.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

This work presents an overview of the impact of power interruptions on buildings,
buildings’ occupants, and neighborhoods. It also discusses the existing technologies,
ranging from simple to more advanced, to mitigate some of these impacts. The paper
finally highlights the role of building and neighborhood design in resilient energy systems.
Depending on its length, a power interruption can severely impact people, buildings,
and neighborhoods. These impacts may include threat to the lives of vulnerable popu-
lations, even under short-term power interruptions, while, at a longer term, other issues
can arise, including displacement of the population, serious damage to buildings, and
instability of neighborhood organization. The severity of the power interruption impact is
enhanced by the interconnection of energy systems with many other basic systems, such as
water, food, connectivity, and transportation systems. The gravity of power interruption
impacts can be affected by various factors, including demographics, building type, building
design, and location. Research focusing on highlighting the correlation between the severity
of power interruptions and the factors mentioned above is still lacking.
There are various methods to cope with power interruptions at building and neighbor-
hood levels. At a building level, some of these methods are simple and affordable, allowing
the fulfillment of a specific need for a short time, while others are more sophisticated and
need planning and a larger budget to be efficiently implemented. Such methods include
PV-integrated systems with battery storage or integrated wind turbines. Several strategies
need to be analyzed with respect to the building type to fully understand their potential and
feasibility. For example, a wood stove cannot be easily installed in a multistorey building
if it is not designed at an early stage. On the neighborhood level, the implementation of
technologies requires more advanced planning, involving various stakeholders. Although
some single technologies, such as neighborhood PV installations or combined heat and
power (CHP), can mitigate power interruption, research shows that the integrated design
of various renewable and alternative energy sources within smart microgrids presents
more efficient and low-environmental impact solutions. Other employed and relatively
easy-to-implement solutions such as generators, including portable ones, should be limited
to emergency back-up generation. The utilization of such methods should be governed by
emission-control measures to reduce harmful environmental impacts.
On the design side, a holistic approach should be applied in planning energy-resilient
neighborhoods. This approach depends on the integration of building and urban design
considerations, as well as on the interaction between these design considerations. Buildings
and surrounding open public spaces need to be considered active elements of the energy
network, contributing to production, storage, and supply. The various components of a
neighborhood should be planned to maintain uninterrupted operation and to maximize
their energy efficiency and potential contribution to the neighborhood energy system. For
example, street layouts can be designed to allow the optimal orientation of the surrounding
buildings while ensuring functionality during disruptions, thus enhancing the overall
operation and resilience of the neighborhood. Additionally, the thoughtful consideration of
building density assists in achieving a range of economic, social, and environmental benefits
without compromising the solar potential of open public spaces and building surfaces.

478
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

A flow chart presenting the main research output is included below (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Flowchart of main research output.

479
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

The strategies and technologies discussed in this work can assist in minimizing the
impact of power interruptions and ensuring a reliable energy supply. This can contribute
to fulfilling several of the SDGs. For example, developing and implementing microgrids
and promoting the use of renewable energy sources and energy storage technologies can
reduce dependence on a single energy source (usually the local grid), contributing to SDG
7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG
13 (Climate Action). Reducing energy consumption through the implementation of various
energy efficiency measures reduces resource consumption and waste generation, promoting
responsible consumption (SGC 12). In addition, a resilient and uninterrupted energy supply
is vital for vulnerable people (with health issues) and for healthcare facilities, ensuring
continuous access to medical services during climate disasters (SDG 3: Good Health and
Well-being). Other indirect contributions of this work to the SDGs include encouraging the
development of innovative solutions to mitigate power interruptions and to improve the
robustness and efficiency of infrastructure. This can foster economic growth and industrial
development, thus supporting SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure).

Conclusions
This paper gives an insight into the impact of power interruptions and mitigation
strategies and the role of neighborhood composition and building types in increasing the
energy resilience of a specific neighborhood.
The review of potential issues caused by power interruptions highlights the need
for substantial research to be conducted in various domains. This includes determining
correlations between the severity of impacts and the parameters representative of the built
environment and the population, as well as the assessment of various technologies with
respect to useful criteria. In addition, investigating the impact of power interruptions and
their length on the psychological performance of the population is still lacking. Such work
can assist municipalities and governmental agencies in fully understanding the impact
of power interruption in specific communities and, accordingly, in adopting feasible and
effective mitigating strategies, as well as emergency response and management.
This review of the severe and diverse impacts of energy interruptions that span social,
economic, and environmental domains supports the importance of a serious and urgent
commitment to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, as many of these goals
have direct or indirect impacts on reducing the vulnerabilities of cities. Additionally, the
discussed energy and design strategies can play a key role in achieving affordable and clean
energy, sustainable cities and communities, climate action, and responsible consumption,
among others, which are central to numerous SDGs.

Author Contributions: C.H.-V. is the first author of this work and has contributed to all aspects of its
creation, research, and development. S.Y. contributed to the literature review and its visualization.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by NSERC Discovery Grant held by the first author.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are
not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

480
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

Nomenclature
ATM Automated teller machine NG Natural gas
CHP Combined heat power PV Photovoltaic
CO2 Carbon dioxide PV/T Photovoltaics thermal
FC Fuel cell STC Solar thermal collector
GHG Greenhouse gases SDG Sustainable Development Goals
HP Heat pump WWR Window–wall ratio
HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

References
1. Kent, M.G.; Huynh, N.K.; Mishra, A.K.; Tartarini, F.; Lipczynska, A.; Li, J.; Sultan, Z.; Goh, E.; Karunagaran, G.; Natarajan, A.; et al.
Energy savings and thermal comfort in a zero energy office building with fans in Singapore. Build. Environ. 2023, 243, 110674.
[CrossRef]
2. Abi Ghanem, D. Energy, the city and everyday life: Living with power outages in post-war Lebanon. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018,
36, 36–43. [CrossRef]
3. Hasselqvist, H.; Renström, S.; Strömberg, H.; Håkansson, M. Household energy resilience: Shifting perspectives to reveal
opportunities for renewable energy futures in affluent contexts. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 88, 102498. [CrossRef]
4. Chu, S.; Majumdar, A. Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable energy future. Nature 2012, 488, 294–303. [CrossRef]
5. Alhelou, H.; Hamedani-Golshan, M.E.; Njenda, T.C.; Siano, P. A survey on power system blackout and cascading events: Research
motivations and challenges. Energies 2019, 12, 682. [CrossRef]
6. McLellan, B.; Zhang, Q.; Farzaneh, H.; Utama, N.A.; Ishihara, K.N. Resilience, sustainability and risk management: A focus on
energy. Challenges 2012, 3, 153–182. [CrossRef]
7. Bhusal, N.; Abdelmalak, M.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Benidris, M. Power system resilience: Current practices, challenges, and future
directions. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 18064–18086. [CrossRef]
8. Mora, C.; Spirandelli, D.; Franklin, E.C.; Lynham, J.; Kantar, M.B.; Miles, W.; Smith, C.Z.; Freel, K.; Moy, J.; Louis, L.V.; et al.
Broad threat to humanity from cumulative climate hazards intensified by greenhouse gas emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8,
1062–1071. [CrossRef]
9. Robinson, D.; Cruikshank, K. Hurricane Hazel: Disaster relief, politics, and society in Canada, 1954–55. J. Can. Stud. 2006, 40,
37–70. [CrossRef]
10. Subaiya, S.; Moussavi, C.; Velasquez, A.; Stillman, J. A rapid needs assessment of the Rockaway peninsula in New York City after
hurricane Sandy and the relationship of socioeconomic status to recovery. Am. J. Public Health 2014, 104, 632–638. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
11. Comes, T.; Van de Walle, B.A. Measuring disaster resilience: The impact of hurricane sandy on critical infrastructure systems.
ISCRAM 2014, 11, 195–204.
12. Lecomte, E.L.; Pang, A.W.; Russell, J.W. Ice Storm ’98; Research Paper Series No. 1; Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction:
Toronto, ON, Canada, 1998; p. 45.
13. Abbey, C.; Cornforth, D.; Hatziargyriou, N.; Hirose, K.; Kwasinski, A.; Kyriakides, E.; Platt, G.; Reyes, L.; Suryanarayanan, S.
Powering through the storm: Microgrids operation for more efficient disaster recovery. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2014, 12, 67–76.
[CrossRef]
14. Attia, S.; Levinson, R.; Ndongo, E.; Holzer, P.; Kazanci, O.B.; Homaei, S.; Zhang, C.; Olesen, B.W.; Qi, D.; Hamdy, M.; et al.
Resilient cooling of buildings to protect against heat waves and power outages: Key concepts and definition. Energy Build. 2021,
239, 110869. [CrossRef]
15. Amada, K.; Kim, J.; Inaba, M.; Akimoto, M.; Kashihara, S.; Tanabe, S.I. Feasibility of staying at home in a net-zero energy house
during summer power outages. Energy Build. 2022, 273, 112352. [CrossRef]
16. Rahif, R.; Hamdy, M.; Homaei, S.; Zhang, C.; Holzer, P.; Attia, S. Simulation-based framework to evaluate resistivity of cooling
strategies in buildings against overheating impact of climate change. Build. Environ. 2022, 208, 108599. [CrossRef]
17. Sun, K.; Specian, M.; Hong, T. Nexus of thermal resilience and energy efficiency in buildings: A case study of a nursing home.
Build. Environ. 2020, 177, 106842. [CrossRef]
18. Kavan, Š.; Dvořáčková, O.; Pokorný, J.; Brumarová, L. Long-Term Power Outage and Preparedness of the Population of a Region
in the Czech Republic—A Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13142. [CrossRef]
19. Zimmerman, R.; Restrepo, C.E. Analyzing cascading effects within infrastructure sectors for consequence reduction. In Proceedings
of the 2009 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security, Waltham, MA, USA, 11–12 May 2009; pp. 165–170.
20. Pescaroli, G.; Alexander, D. Critical infrastructure, panarchies and the vulnerability paths of cascading disasters. Nat. Hazards
2016, 82, 175–192. [CrossRef]
21. Ribeiro, D.; Mackres, E.; Baatz, B.; Cluett, R.; Jarrett, M.; Kelly, M.; Vaidyanathan, S. Enhancing Community Resilience through Energy
Efficiency; American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.

481
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

22. Casey, J.A.; Fukurai, M.; Hernández, D.; Balsari, S.; Kiang, M.V. Power outages and community health: A narrative review. Curr.
Environ. Health Rep. 2020, 7, 371–383. [CrossRef]
23. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.;
et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
24. Kumar, N.M.; Chopra, S.S. Leveraging blockchain and smart contract technologies to overcome circular economy implementation
challenges. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9492. [CrossRef]
25. Di Vaio, A.; Zaffar, A.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Garofalo, A. Decarbonization technology responsibility to gender equality in the
shipping industry: A systematic literature review and new avenues ahead. J. Shipp. Trade 2023, 8, 9. [CrossRef]
26. Yeğin, T.; Ikram, M. Performance evaluation of green furniture brands in the marketing 4.0 period: An integrated MCDM
approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10644. [CrossRef]
27. He, X.; Khan, S.; Ozturk, I.; Murshed, M. The role of renewable energy investment in tackling climate change concerns:
Environmental policies for achieving SDG-13. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 31, 1888–1901. [CrossRef]
28. Omrany, H.; Chang, R.; Soebarto, V.; Zhang, Y.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Zuo, J. A bibliometric review of net zero energy building
research 1995–2022. Energy Build. 2022, 262, 111996. [CrossRef]
29. Agbodjan, Y.S.; Wang, J.; Cui, Y.; Liu, Z.; Luo, Z. Bibliometric analysis of zero energy building research, challenges and solutions.
Sol. Energy 2022, 244, 414–433. [CrossRef]
30. Rubin, G.J.; Rogers, M.B. Behavioural and psychological responses of the public during a major power outage: A literature review.
Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 38, 101226. [CrossRef]
31. Experts Call for Home Battery Storage to Protect Vulnerable during Outages. Available online: [Link]
[Link]/news/experts-call-home-battery-storage-protect-vulnerable-during-outages (accessed on 21 September 2023).
32. Mango, M.; Casey, J.A.; Hernandez, D. Resilient Power: A home-based electricity generation and storage solution for the
medically vulnerable during climate-induced power outages. Futures 2021, 128, 102707. [CrossRef]
33. Campbell, R.J.; Lowry, S. Weather-Related Power Outages and Electric System Resiliency; Congressional Research Service, Library of
Congress: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
34. Wethal, U. Practices, provision and protest: Power outages in rural Norwegian households. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 62, 101388.
[CrossRef]
35. Palmer, J.; Bennetts, H.; Chileshe, N.; Pullen, S.; Zuo, J.; Ma, T. Heat Wave Risks and Residential Buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, Griffith
University, Brisbane, Australia, 2012.
36. Erba, S.; Barbieri, A. Retrofitting buildings into thermal batteries for demand-side flexibility and thermal safety during power
outages in winter. Energies 2022, 15, 4405. [CrossRef]
37. Anderson, G.B.; Bell, M.L. Lights out: Impact of the August 2003 power outage on mortality in New York, NY. Epidemiology 2012,
23, 189. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Meireles, I.; Sousa, V.; Bleys, B.; Poncelet, B. Domestic hot water consumption pattern: Relation with total water consumption and
air temperature. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 157, 112035. [CrossRef]
39. Liddiard, R.; Gowreesunker, B.L.; Spataru, C.; Tomei, J.; Huebner, G. The vulnerability of refrigerated food to unstable power
supplies. Energy Procedia 2017, 123, 196–203. [CrossRef]
40. Bhattacharyya, S.; Myrzik, J.M.A.; Kling, W.L. Consequences of poor power quality-an overview. In Proceedings of the 2007 42nd
International Universities Power Engineering Conference, Brighton, UK, 4–6 September 2007; pp. 651–656.
41. Gordon, J.R. An Investigation into Freezing and Bursting Water Pipes in Residential Construction; Building Research Council, School of
Architecture, College of Fine and Applied Arts, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Champaign, IL, USA, 1996.
42. Chang, S.E.; McDaniels, T.L.; Mikawoz, J.; Peterson, K. Infrastructure failure interdependencies in extreme events: Power outage
consequences in the 1998 Ice Storm. Nat. Hazards 2007, 41, 337–358. [CrossRef]
43. Babu, P.; Suthar, G. Indoor air quality and thermal comfort in green building: A study for measurement, problem and solution
strategies. In Indoor Environmental Quality; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 139–146.
44. Amnian, J.; Maerefat, M.; Heidarinejad, G. Offering a method for reducing pollution and criterion for evaluation of ventilation
flow in multilevel enclosed parking lots. Modares Mech. Eng. 2016, 16, 285–296.
45. Dugan, J.; Byles, D.; Mohagheghi, S. Social Vulnerability to Long-Duration Power Outages. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2023, 85,
103501. [CrossRef]
46. Lane, K.; Charles-Guzman, K.; Wheeler, K.; Abid, Z.; Graber, N.; Matte, T. Health effects of coastal storms and flooding in urban
areas: A review and vulnerability assessment. J. Environ. Public Health 2013, 2013, 913064. [CrossRef]
47. Ribeiro, D.; Bailey, T. Indicators for Local Energy Resilience; American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy: Washington, DC,
USA, 2017.
48. Dodman, D.; Diep, L.; Colenbrander, S. Making the case for the nexus between resilience and resource efficiency at the city scale.
Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2017, 9, 97–106. [CrossRef]
49. Economidou, M.; Todeschi, V.; Bertoldi, P.; D’Agostino, D.; Zangheri, P.; Castellazzi, L. Review of 50 years of EU energy efficiency
policies for buildings. Energy Build. 2020, 225, 110322. [CrossRef]
50. Hong, T.; Chang, W.K.; Lin, H.W. A fresh look at weather impact on peak electricity demand and energy use of buildings using
30-year actual weather data. Appl. Energy 2013, 111, 333–350. [CrossRef]

482
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

51. Petermann, T.; Bradke, H.; Lüllmann, A.; Poetzsch, M.; Riehm, U. What Happens during a Blackout: Consequences of a Prolonged and
Wide-Ranging Power Outage; Office of Technology Assessment at The German Bundestag: Berlin, Germany, 2014.
52. Leigh, R.; Kleinberg, J.; Scheib, C.; Unger, R.; Kienzl, N.; Esposito, M.; Hagen, E.; Tillou, M. Leaks and Lives: How Better Building
Envelopes Make Blackouts Less Dangerous. In 2014 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings; American Council for
an Energy-Efficient Economy: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 17–22.
53. Bourgeois, T.; Gerow, J.; Litz, F.; Martin, N. Community Microgrids: Smarter, Cleaner, Greener; Pace Energy and Climate Center, Pace
Law School: White Plains, NY, USA, 2013.
54. Tostado-Véliz, M.; Icaza-Alvarez, D.; Jurado, F. A novel methodology for optimal sizing photovoltaic-battery systems in smart
homes considering grid outages and demand response. Renew. Energy 2021, 170, 884–896. [CrossRef]
55. Gong, H.; Ionel, D.M. Improving the Power Outage Resilience of Buildings with Solar PV through the Use of Battery Systems and
EV Energy Storage. Energies 2021, 14, 5749. [CrossRef]
56. Yang, Y.; Wang, S. Resilient residential energy management with vehicle-to-home and photovoltaic uncertainty. Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst. 2021, 132, 107206. [CrossRef]
57. Chatterji, E.; Bazilian, M.D. Battery storage for resilient homes. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 184497–184511. [CrossRef]
58. Gupta, R.; Bruce-Konuah, A.; Howard, A. Achieving energy resilience through smart storage of solar electricity at dwelling and
community level. Energy Build. 2019, 195, 1–15. [CrossRef]
59. Thompson, J.; Krarti, M. Resiliency Evaluation of Net-Zero Residential Communities. In Proceedings of the ASME 2021 15th
International Conference on Energy Sustainability collocated with the ASME 2021 Heat Transfer Summer Conference. ASME
2021 15th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, Virtual, 16–18 June 2021; Volume 84881, p. V001T15A001.
60. Stankovic, S.; Campbell, N.; Harries, A. Urban Wind Energy; Routledge: London, UK, 2009.
61. Nelson, V. Innovative Wind Turbines: An Illustrated Guidebook; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019.
62. Blackwood, M. Maximum efficiency of a wind turbine. Undergrad. J. Math. Model. One+ Two 2016, 6, 2. [CrossRef]
63. Ko, D.H.; Jeong, S.T.; Kim, Y.C. Assessment of wind energy for small-scale wind power in Chuuk State, Micronesia. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 613–622. [CrossRef]
64. Thresher, R.; Robinsion, M.; Veers, P. Wind Energy Technology: Current Status and R&D Future; No. NREL/CP-500-43374; National
Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2008.
65. Hussain, F.; Ashfaq Ahmad, M.; Badshah, S.; Raza, R.; Ajmal Khan, M.; Mumtaz, S.; Dilshad, S.; Riaz, R.A.; Jafar Hussain, M.;
Abbas, G. A modeling approach for low-temperature SOFC-based micro-combined heat and power systems. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B
2019, 33, 1950001. [CrossRef]
66. Sorace, M.; Gandiglio, M.; Santarelli, M. Modeling and techno-economic analysis of the integration of a FC-based micro-CHP
system for residential application with a heat pump. Energy 2017, 120, 262–275. [CrossRef]
67. Bianchi, M.; De Pascale, A.; Spina, P.R. Guidelines for residential micro-CHP systems design. Appl. Energy 2012, 97, 673–685.
[CrossRef]
68. Adam, A.; Fraga, E.S.; Brett, D.J. Options for residential building services design using fuel cell based micro-CHP and the
potential for heat integration. Appl. Energy 2015, 138, 685–694. [CrossRef]
69. Stambouli, A.B. Fuel cells: The expectations for an environmental-friendly and sustainable source of energy. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 4507–4520. [CrossRef]
70. Edwards, P.P.; Kuznetsov, V.L.; David, W.I.; Brandon, N.P. Hydrogen and fuel cells: Towards a sustainable energy future. Energy
Policy 2008, 36, 4356–4362. [CrossRef]
71. Garche, J.; Jürissen, L. Applications of fuel cell technology: Status and perspectives. Electrochem. Soc. Interface 2015, 24, 39.
[CrossRef]
72. Wilberforce, T.; Alaswad, A.; Palumbo, A.; Dassisti, M.; Olabi, A.G. Advances in stationary and portable fuel cell applications. Int.
J. Hydrog. Energy 2016, 41, 16509–16522. [CrossRef]
73. Vijay, A.; Hawkes, A. Demand side flexibility from residential heating to absorb surplus renewables in low carbon futures. Renew.
Energy 2019, 138, 598–609. [CrossRef]
74. Singh, K.; Hachem-Vermette, C. Scheduling of Hybrid Heating and Cooling System Based on Energy Resources for Mixed-Use
Multistorey Building (VC-20-C004). In Proceedings of the 2020 ASHRAE Virtual Conference, 29 June–2 July 2020.
75. Bohman, A.D.; Abdulla, A.; Morgan, M.G. Individual and collective strategies to limit the impacts of large power outages of long
duration. Risk Anal. 2022, 42, 544–560. [CrossRef]
76. Wang, J.; You, S.; Zong, Y.; Træholt, C.; Dong, Z.Y.; Zhou, Y. Flexibility of combined heat and power plants: A review of
technologies and operation strategies. Appl. Energy 2019, 252, 113445. [CrossRef]
77. Singh, K.; Hachem-Vermette, C. Techniques of Improving Infrastructure and Energy Resilience in Urban Setting. Energies 2022,
15, 6253. [CrossRef]
78. Hachem-Vermette, C.; Singh, K. Developing an optimization methodology for urban energy resources mix. Appl. Energy 2020,
269, 115066. [CrossRef]
79. Gilleo, A.; Chittum, A.; Farley, K.; Neubauer, M.; Nowak, S.; Ribeiro, D.; Vaidyanathan, S. The 2015 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard;
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
80. Nguyen, T.; Gustavsson, L. Production of district heat, electricity and/or biomotor fuels in renewable-based energy systems.
Energy 2020, 202, 117672. [CrossRef]

483
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

81. Mahmoud, M.; Ramadan, M.; Naher, S.; Pullen, K.; Baroutaji, A.; Olabi, A.G. Recent advances in district energy systems: A review.
Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2020, 20, 100678. [CrossRef]
82. Aste, N.; Caputo, P.; Del Pero, C.; Ferla, G.; Huerto-Cardenas, H.E.; Leonforte, F.; Miglioli, A. A renewable energy scenario for a
new low carbon settlement in northern Italy: Biomass district heating coupled with heat pump and solar photovoltaic system.
Energy 2020, 206, 118091. [CrossRef]
83. Murthy, S.S.; Dutta, P.; Sharma, R.; Rao, B.S. Parametric studies on a stand-alone polygeneration microgrid with battery storage.
Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2020, 19, 100608. [CrossRef]
84. Ijaodola, O.; Ogungbemi, E.; Khatib, F.N.; Wilberforce, T.; Ramadan, M.; El Hassan, Z.; Thompson, J.; Olabi, A.G. Evaluating
the effect of metal bipolar plate coating on the performance of proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Energies 2018, 11, 3203.
[CrossRef]
85. Baroutaji, A.; Wilberforce, T.; Ramadan, M.; Olabi, A.G. Comprehensive investigation on hydrogen and fuel cell technology in the
aviation and aerospace sectors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 106, 31–40. [CrossRef]
86. Rosato, A.; Ciervo, A.; Ciampi, G.; Scorpio, M.; Guarino, F.; Sibilio, S. Impact of solar field design and back-up technology on
dynamic performance of a solar hybrid heating network integrated with a seasonal borehole thermal energy storage serving a
small-scale residential district including plug-in electric vehicles. Renew. Energy 2020, 154, 684–703. [CrossRef]
87. Hirsch, A.; Parag, Y.; Guerrero, J. Microgrids: A review of technologies, key drivers, and outstanding issues. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2018, 90, 402–411. [CrossRef]
88. Olivares, D.E.; Mehrizi-Sani, A.; Etemadi, A.H.; Cañizares, C.A.; Iravani, R.; Kazerani, M.; Hajimiragha, A.H.; Gomis-Bellmunt,
O.; Saeedifard, M.; Palma-Behnke, R.; et al. Trends in microgrid control. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2014, 5, 1905–1919. [CrossRef]
89. Martin-Martínez, F.; Sánchez-Miralles, A.; Rivier, M. A literature review of Microgrids: A functional layer based classification.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 1133–1153. [CrossRef]
90. Ton, D.T.; Smith, M.A. The US department of energy’s microgrid initiative. Electr. J. 2012, 25, 84–94. [CrossRef]
91. Dileep, G. A survey on smart grid technologies and applications. Renew. Energy 2020, 146, 2589–2625. [CrossRef]
92. Judge, M.A.; Khan, A.; Manzoor, A.; Khattak, H.A. Overview of smart grid implementation: Frameworks, impact, performance
and challenges. J. Energy Storage 2022, 49, 104056. [CrossRef]
93. Khan, A.; Javaid, N. Jaya learning-based optimization for optimal sizing of stand-alone photovoltaic, wind turbine, and battery
systems. Engineering 2020, 6, 812–826. [CrossRef]
94. Hachem, C.; Athienitis, A.; Fazio, P. Evaluation of energy supply and demand in solar neighborhood. Energy Build. 2012, 49,
335–347. [CrossRef]
95. Hachem, C.; Athienitis, A.; Fazio, P. Parametric investigation of geometric form effects on solar potential of housing units. Sol.
Energy 2011, 85, 1864–1877. [CrossRef]
96. Hachem, C.; Athienitis, A.; Fazio, P. Energy performance enhancement in multistory residential buildings. Appl. Energy 2014, 116,
9–19. [CrossRef]
97. Liang, R.; Kent, M.; Wilson, R.; Wu, Y. The effect of thermochromic windows on visual performance and sustained attention.
Energy Build. 2021, 236, 110778. [CrossRef]
98. Kim, S.; An, J.; Choi, H.; Hong, T. Assessment the technical and economic performance of a window-integrated PV system using
third-generation PV panels. Energy Build. 2023, 286, 112978. [CrossRef]
99. Hachem-Vermette, C. Multistory building envelope: Creative design and enhanced performance. Sol. Energy 2018, 159, 710–721.
[CrossRef]
100. Hachem-Vermette, C.; Grewal, K.S. Investigation of the impact of residential mixture on energy and environmental performance
of mixed-use neighborhoods. Appl. Energy 2019, 241, 362–379. [CrossRef]
101. Hachem-Vermette, C.; Singh, K. Optimization of the mixture of building types in a neighborhood and their energy and environ-
mental performance. Energy Build. 2019, 204, 109499. [CrossRef]
102. Jabareen, Y.R. Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2006, 26, 38–52. [CrossRef]
103. Hachem, C. Impact of neighborhood design on energy performance and GHG emissions. Appl. Energy 2016, 177, 422–434.
[CrossRef]
104. Lee, K.S.; Lee, J.W.; Lee, J.S. Feasibility study on the relation between housing density and solar accessibility and potential uses.
Renew. Energy 2016, 85, 749–758. [CrossRef]
105. Frincu, M.; Draghici, R. Towards a scalable cloud enabled smart home automation architecture for demand response. In
Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe), Ljubljana, Slovenia,
9–12 October 2016; pp. 1–6.
106. Miller, W.; Ma, Y.; Susilawati, C.; Arlinkasari, F. Residential Solar Pre-Cooling and Pre-Heating: H1 Opportunity Assessment; RACE for
Homes Program: Haymarket, Australia, 2021.
107. Ramos, J.S.; Moreno, M.P.; Delgado, M.G.; Domínguez, S.Á.; Cabeza, L.F. Potential of energy flexible buildings: Evaluation of
DSM strategies using building thermal mass. Energy Build. 2019, 203, 109442. [CrossRef]
108. Lim, T.H.; De Kleine, R.D.; Keoleian, G.A. Energy use and carbon reduction potentials from residential ground source heat pumps
considering spatial and economic barriers. Energy Build. 2016, 128, 287–304. [CrossRef]

484
Sustainability 2023, 15, 15299

109. Zhai, X.Q.; Qu, M.; Yu, X.; Yang, Y.; Wang, R.Z. A review for the applications and integrated approaches of ground-coupled heat
pump systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 3133–3140. [CrossRef]
110. Victoria, M.; Haegel, N.; Peters, I.M.; Sinton, R.; Jäger-Waldau, A.; del Cañizo, C.; Breyer, C.; Stocks, M.; Blakers, A.; Kaizuka, I.;
et al. Solar photovoltaics is ready to power a sustainable future. Joule 2021, 5, 1041–1056. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

485
 sustainability

Systematic Review
An Overview and Categorization of the Drivers and Barriers to
the Adoption of the Circular Economy: A Systematic
Literature Review
Carina Pasqualotto 1, *, Daniela Callegaro-De-Menezes 1 and Cornelius Stephanus Lodewyk Schutte 2, *

1 Agribusiness Research Center, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre 91540-000, RS, Brazil;
[Link]@[Link]
2 Department of Industrial Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link] (C.P.); corne@[Link] (C.S.L.S.)

Abstract: The adoption of the circular economy (CE) can help to solve the dilemmas of food, economic
and social crises, environmental pollution, and continuous decreases in non-renewable resources,
caused by the continuous increase in the size of the global population. Identifying drivers of
and barriers to the CE is important for the implementation of the CE. In this context, this study
aims to identify and categorize the drivers of and barriers to the adoption of the CE through a
systematic literature review. In doing this, ten categories of drivers and barriers were identified:
environmental, supply chain, economic, information, legal, market, organizational, public, social,
and technological. The results of this study may contribute to the development of circular processes,
the promotion of sustainability, and may encourage the implementation of the CE in many areas. The
CE’s implementation can be a way to achieve some of the Sustainable Development Goals from the
2030 Agenda.

Keywords: circular economy; drivers; barriers; categories

Citation: Pasqualotto, C.;
Callegaro-De-Menezes, D.; Schutte,
C.S.L. An Overview and
Categorization of the Drivers and 1. Introduction
Barriers to the Adoption of the
We live in an era of food, economic, and social crises, environmental pollution, grow-
Circular Economy: A Systematic
ing awareness of social responsibility, sustainability, and concern for the environment,
Literature Review. Sustainability 2023,
and heightened growth in some economies, coupled with urbanization [1,2]. The modern
15, 10532. [Link]
su151310532
economy threatens environmental protection, and this fact places pressure on environmen-
tal stakeholders, especially firms and policymakers [2]. Arising from the perception that
Academic Editors: Idiano D’Adamo, current consumption patterns are at the root of the environmental crisis, criticism of con-
Massimo Gastaldi and Nallapaneni sumerism came to be seen as a contribution to the development of sustainable societies [3].
Manoj Kumar
In this sense, the adoption of the circular economy (CE) is seen as one of the ways that we
Received: 12 April 2023 might solve this dilemma. The CE paradigm aims to attain sustainability by preventing
Revised: 23 June 2023 environmental degradation and ensuring the social and economic wellbeing of present and
Accepted: 26 June 2023 future generations [4]. CE has become a popular strategy for improving sustainability, and
Published: 4 July 2023 is a theme that has been extensively researched over the past five years [5]. Arthur et al.
(2023) [2] assumed that some CE variables have a significant impact on the environment;
variables such as the level of materials considered as input factors for economic production,
the amount of waste generated because of the extraction and usage of these materials, and
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. the rate of recycling of the generated waste.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. From a different perspective, while the terms circular economy and sustainability
This article is an open access article
are increasingly gaining traction within academia, industry, and for policymakers, and
distributed under the terms and
are often being used in similar contexts, the similarities and differences between these
conditions of the Creative Commons
concepts have not been made explicit in the literature, and remain ambiguous [6]. However,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
Velenturf and Purnell (2021) [7] suggest every actor should do their very best to develop
[Link]/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532. [Link] 486 [Link]

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

a more sustainable CE, which requires research and constant learning to ensure progress
towards sustainability, even with imperfections.
The adoption of the CE fosters a reduction in the consumption of raw materials,
improves brand image, encourages the emergence of new demands for services and new
potential markets, reduces the costs and risks of emissions and waste, and increases the
potential to attract new investors [8]. Therefore, the CE approach has attracted the attention
of many firms, enabling them to make the production process more efficient, especially
when material and energy inputs become more expensive [9]. Considering the importance
of the topic, a growing number of authors have explored the theme of the CE, specifically
its drivers and barriers. However, some studies have focused only on issues that facilitate
the implementation of the CE (drivers) [10–12], while other studies have focused only on
factors that hinder the implementation of the CE (barriers) [13–17]. Some studies deal
with both drivers and barriers, but in specific contexts, e.g., the supply chain [18,19], the
textile and apparel industry [20], small and medium enterprises [21], and the building and
infrastructure sector [22], or in specific countries, e.g., Brazil [23], China [24], Taiwan [25]
and Finland [26]. Additionally, there are some studies in the literature that have only
categorized drivers of the CE in the leather industry [27] and in the Italian economy [10];
and barriers to the CE applied to the Danish economy [15], to the construction sector [28],
and to five European regions [29], as well as both (drivers and barriers) applied together to
the built environment sector [22] and to the manufacturing sector in the UK [30]. Moreover,
Mishra et al. (2022) [31] developed, measured, and validated an instrument for barriers
to the adoption of the CE practices in micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs),
determining seven dimensions; however, the drivers for the adoption of the CE were not
considered in their study.
An in-depth and complete analysis joining the drivers of and barriers to the adoption
of the CE is necessary to enable a general application. Elia et al. (2020) [32] analyzed the
relationship between the level of supply chain integration and the adopted CE strategies
from the industrial field, rather than specifically analyzing the drivers of and barriers to the
adoption of the CE. Thus, notwithstanding the studies that have already been completed,
in the literature, there is a lack of investigation into these drivers and barriers in a more
detailed way that could be applied to multiple sectors [18,27], different markets [33], distinct
economies [23], and different geographic contexts [19]. Additionally, Jia et al. (2020) [20]
demand more databases to find relevant articles. In this sense, searching for a theoretical
proposition that can help to attend to such demands, this study aims to identify and
categorize the drivers of and barriers to the adoption of the CE for a general application.
The study contributes in different ways to research and practice in the CE field. It
extends the body of knowledge on CE by assessing a significant number of papers that
contain the drivers of and barriers to the adoption of the CE, equipping researchers and
practitioners with prior information about the realities that will be faced. It also helps
in planning for the transition from a linear economy to CE, making companies more
efficient with their resources and advancing toward sustainable economies [14]. The
results of D’Adamo and Gastaldi (2022) [34] in their study regarding the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) showed that many sustainability opportunities have not yet
been well explored. In this sense, the adoption of the CE can be considered a way to
achieve some of the SDGs, e.g., companies producing with more responsibility, encouraging
them, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices (goal 12)
and reducing the environmental impact of cities through waste management (goal 11).
Additionally, Ali et al. (2023) [35] mention circular economy-centric education being the
solution to the social, economic, and environmental problems stemming from climate
change. Moreover, green technologies, through the optimization of the use of resources,
the reduction of waste, and the reduction of demand for new resources, may promote the
development of green products and services, thereby helping to reduce the environmental
impact of consumption [35]. The study presents an extended literature review, enabling
a broader view and a categorization of the drivers of and barriers to the adoption of the

487
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

CE. These contributions are important to help companies develop the CE and help the
government obtain knowledge to work on public policies fostering the CE. It is important
to have a clear understanding of the context of the CE in order to provide a common basis
of assumptions and targets on which policymaking can be developed [36]. Additionally, it
would facilitate practitioners to understand the drivers of and barriers to the adoption of
the CE to handle them effectively.
To summarize, the present study addresses the following research question: What
are the drivers of and barriers to the adoption of the CE, and how can we categorize them
according to the literature?
The paper is structured as follows. Sections 2 and 3 present the theoretical basis and
material and methods of the study, respectively. The fourth section presents the results
and discussion of the paper. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper by presenting the
implications and limitations of the study, and suggestions for future studies.

2. Theoretical Basis
2.1. Circular Economy
The concept of the CE, which was created primarily by practitioners, the business
community, and policymakers, is currently promoted by the European Union, several
national governments, and various business organizations around the world [8]. CE is
becoming part of popular discourse, especially in the government and corporate sector [37].
The CE focuses on the maintenance, reuse/redistribution/remanufacturing/recycling,
circularity and optimization of resources, the use of clean energy, and processing efficiency,
with zero waste as a basic premise [38]. According to Zhang et al. (2022) [4] (p. 656), the CE
is perceived as a substitute for the take–make–waste linear economy.
The concept involves careful management of two types of material flows, as described
by McDonough and Braungart (2010) [39]: biological nutrients, designed to re-enter the
biosphere safely and build natural capital, and technical nutrients, designed to circulate in
high quality without entering the biosphere. According to Sehnem and Pereira (2019) [38],
the CE emphasizes the biological cycle and technical cycle of materials.
According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019) [40], the CE is based on three
principles: (1) designing waste and pollution, (2) keeping products and materials in use,
and (3) regenerating natural systems. It makes sense to extract resources from nature to
transform them into a product or service that can be used not just once, but many times,
thus reducing the need for virgin input extraction and waste production [8]. Designing
waste, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems creates
vital opportunities for economic growth, thereby creating jobs and benefiting society [41].
Substantially reducing waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and
reuse, and achieving sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources are
some goals of the 12th SDG, proposed in the 2030 Agenda (2015) [42].
While the CE is increasingly attracting attention in academia, industry, and with
policymakers [6], Friant et al. (2020) [37] argue that the definition, objectives, and forms
of implementation of the CE are still unclear, inconsistent, and contested. This is the
case because different actors and sectors are articulating circular discourses which align
with their own interests and which do not often sufficiently examine the ecological, social,
and political implications of circularity [37]. In line with these authors, Corvellec et al.
(2022) [43] addressed critiques of the CE in their study, considering that the CE has diffused
limits, unclear theoretical grounds, and that its implementation faces structural obstacles.
According to Velenturf and Purnell (2021) [7], every actor should do their very best to
develop a more sustainable CE. Sustainable development is fraught with imperfection, and
so is the circular economy, both requiring research and constant learning to ensure progress
in pursuit of sustainability [7].
Joining the CE allows for a reduction in the consumption of raw materials [8] and
gains in resource efficiency [19,44], thus promoting waste reduction [30], in addition to
reducing a company’s environmental impact [10].

488
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

The cost reductions arising from the implementation of the CE are one of the most
frequently considered aspects in the literature [26,44]. The CE encourages the emergence of
new demands for services and expansion into new markets, thus increasing a company’s
potential to attract new investors [8], and generating competitive advantages for circular
companies [10,20].
In addition, the adoption of the CE makes it possible to improve the reputation and
recognition of the brand [8], the relationship with customers [44], and to increase consumer
satisfaction [10]. The adoption of the CE is also seen as a potential source of new jobs [33].

2.2. Drivers and Barriers to the Circular Economy

As the concept of the CE becomes more prevalent among the topics covered in the
literature, more studies are focusing on the drivers of and barriers to the adoption of the
CE. Many authors have worked with drivers of the adoption of the CE in their studies to
encourage, motivate, and facilitate companies to adopt the CE [18,22,27,33], thus helping
in the transition from a linear economy to the CE; it is thought that the CE is much more
efficient in resources, and will generate greater competitiveness for the company and
advancement towards a more sustainable economy [14].
Some of the main drivers addressed by the literature were concern for environmental
impact and the environment [27]; increased transparency and engagement in the supply
chain [26]; reduced costs [45,46]; the existence of laws and regulations regarding the CE [47];
awareness of environmental issues among consumers [18]; investment in science and
technology [19,48]; and government support [21,49]. In this sense, Arthur et al. (2023) [2]
concluded in their study that a blend of government policies is the most effective means of
achieving a CE.
Drivers regarding companies, such as increasing the network and partnerships [50] and
gains in market share and competitiveness [33], were also heavily addressed in the literature.
On the other hand, many studies have also pointed out the barriers to the adoption of
the CE, hindering or inhibiting its implementation [30,33,51]. There is a lack of funding [19],
financial resources [29], economies of scale [52], appropriate technology for the CE [47],
information [36], and laws and rules supporting the CE [18]. Furthermore, the initial
investment cost for companies is high [52].
Within the market, demand for circular products and processes is still restricted [29],
and there is a lack of environmental awareness among consumers [53]. In companies,
there is a lack of commitment at the management level [54], and a shortage of qualified
personnel to work with CE [55]. There is also a lack of encouragement and support from
the government [56].
The literature has categorized the presentation of drivers and barriers in different
ways. Table 1 presents the categorization of only drivers, only barriers, and both drivers
and barriers, from the literature.

Table 1. Categorization of drivers and barriers from the literature.

Author(s) Drivers Barriers

Knowledge about CE, consumer awareness,
leadership, and commitment from top
Moktadir et al. (2018) [27]
management and government support
and legislation
Gusmerotti et al. (2019) [10] Economic drivers and resource risk drivers

489
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

Table 1. Cont.

Author(s) Drivers Barriers

Technological, financial, and supply
Ritzén and Sandström (2017) [57]
chain barriers
Campbell-Johnston et al. (2019) [58] Soft factors (soft) and hard factors (hard)
Cultural, market, regulatory, and
Kirchherr et al. (2018) [53]
technological barriers
Ormazabal et al. (2018) [46] Hard barriers and human-based
Market and institutional, value chain,
Guldmann and Huulgaard (2020) [15]
organizational, and employees
Cultural, economic, informational,
Nohra et al. (2020) [29] regulatory, political, institutional,
technological, and environmental
Managerial and decision-making, work,
design challenges, materials, rules and
Kazancoglu et al. (2020) [52] regulation, knowledge and awareness,
integration and collaboration, costs and
technological infrastructure
Financial, technological, social,
Masi et al. (2017) [19]
informational, and institutional
Socio-cultural, technological, political
Ababio and Lu (2023) [28] and legislative, and financial
and economic
External, organizational, social,
Kumar et al. (2019) [30] environmental, technological, and
legal barriers
Jia et al. (2020) [20] Organizational, consumer, and institutional Organizational, financial, and political
Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [18] Governmental, corporate, consumer, organizational, and supplier perspectives
Ranta et al. (2018) [51] Regulatory, normative and cultural-cognitive
Hart et al. (2019) [22] Cultural, regulatory, financial, and sectoral
Agyemang et al. (2019) [44] Internal and external
Environmental, economic, social, institutional, technological and informational factors,
Tura et al. (2019) [26]
supply channels, and organizational
Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48] Policy, technology, and public participation
De Jesus and Mendonça (2018) [45] Soft factors and hard factors

3. Materials and Methods

In order to identify and categorize drivers and barriers to the adoption of the CE, a
systematic literature review was used as a method, as suggested by Snyder (2019) [59]. The
method used consists of a content analysis of selected studies based on specific criteria
defined by the authors. This study followed four stages, as suggested by Wolfswinkel et al.
(2013) [60] and Flores and Jansson (2022) [61].

3.1. Stage 1—Selection of Database

First, the database to be used was identified. Following Paul and Criado (2020) [62],
we decided to use Scopus, as it captures more articles than Web of Science and includes
the main journals, thus providing a more comprehensive and relevant set of articles that
could potentially be relevant, even considering that this decision may have resulted in the
unintentional exclusion of other pertinent papers listed in other databases. Scopus is a
consolidated database that is widely used in systematic review studies [18,19,63].

490
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

3.2. Stage 2—Selection of Keywords and Search for Studies According to Clear Criteria
After selecting the database, we needed to determine the keywords for searching
relevant papers. The expressions used when searching the title, abstract, and keyword fields
were “circular economy” AND “drivers” OR “barriers”. We have not included synonyms,
as the selected keywords are well-established terms used in academia. We considered
papers and articles published in English, limiting the results to academic/scientific journals
and conference proceedings. Only full papers were included, and book chapters, reviews,
and books were excluded. This produced a list of 532 papers for further analysis.

3.3. Stage 3—Selection of Articles

To select the articles to be reviewed and included in our paper, we applied the follow-
ing criteria: (1) the abstracts of the 532 selected articles were analyzed. As inclusion criteria,
they had to be theoretical or empirical articles that presented, as a result, a list of drivers
and/or barriers. Based on this criterion, 435 articles were excluded, and 97 articles were
selected for inclusion. (2) These 97 articles were then read in their entirety to verify that the
lists of drivers and/or barriers were related to the adoption of the circular economy, and
not to adjacent fields that were not of interest to our study, such as recycling, sustainability,
and green marketing. Thus, 44 articles were excluded, and 53 articles were included.

3.4. Stage 4—Analysis through Data Coding and Structuring of Findings

A spreadsheet was created for the analysis of the 53 selected articles. The information
from these articles was released in the form of an Excel spreadsheet. The articles were
tabulated under title, year and place of publication, area, sector, or geographic context
in which the study was carried out, objectives, methodological approach, and the main
conclusions, as well as the list of drivers of and barriers to the adoption of the CE found
in the articles. Data were analyzed using the content analysis technique [64]. To ensure
the quality of the interpretation, the drivers and barriers emanating from the literature
were systematically organized according to Wolfswinkel et al. (2013) [60], Xiao and Watson
(2019) [65], and Flores and Jansson (2022) [61]. In cases in which there were doubts
regarding the organization of the drivers and barriers among the categories defined by
the authors of this study, a discussion took place between the authors until a consensus
was reached.
The flowchart in Figure 1 presents the research process.
It was observed that some studies categorized the presentation of drivers and barriers
in their research (Table 1). So, based initially on the literature review categorization of
drivers and barriers, presented in Table 1, the list of drivers of and barriers to the adoption
of the CE was grouped, and ten categories were created for the purpose of the final
presentation of the study results.
The first category identified for the present study was the environmental category.
Nohra et al. (2020) [29] and Kumar et al. (2019) [30] used the environmental category to
present barriers to the CE, and Tura et al. (2019) [26] used the environmental category to
present drivers of and barriers to the CE. In this way, issues related to sustainability, the
environment, waste management, recycling, and the scarcity of resources were allocated to
the environmental category.
The second category identified in the study was the supply chain category. Ritzén and
Sandström (2017) [57] used the supply chain category to present barriers to the CE, and
Tura et al. (2019) [26] used the supply chain category to present the drivers of and barriers
to the CE. In this sense, aspects from distribution channels, logistics, reverse logistics, and
the potential to reduce channel dependence were allocated to the supply chain category.

491
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

Figure 1. Flowchart of the research design.

The third category identified was the economic category. Gusmerotti et al. (2019) [10],
Nohra et al. (2020) [29], Ababio and Lu (2023) [28] and Tura et al. (2019) [26] used the
economic category to present only drivers of, only barriers to, and both (drivers and
barriers), concerning the CE. In this way, aspects involving finance, sales, profitability,
revenues, earnings, costs, accounting, raw material costs and prices, and the regulatory
costs of environmental pollution and waste were allocated to the economic category.
The fourth category identified in our study was the information category. Nohra et al.
(2020) [29] and Masi et al. (2017) [19] used the information category to present barriers
to the CE, and Tura et al. (2019) [26] used the informational factors category to present
the drivers of and barriers to the CE. In this way, aspects such as knowledge, information
sharing, learning, training, and experiences were allocated to the information category.
The fifth category identified in the study was the legal category. Kumar et al. (2019) [30]
and Ababio and Lu (2023) [28] used this category to present barriers to the CE in their
article. Issues related to normativity, regulations, and legislation were allocated to the
legal category.
The market was the sixth category identified in the article. Kirchherr et al. (2018) [53]
and Guldmann and Huulgaard (2020) [15] used the market category to present barriers
to the adoption of the CE. Aspects embracing the external aspects of the organization,
for instance, the environmental awareness of consumers, consumer preferences, market
demands, and market trends were allocated to the market category.
The seventh category identified was the organizational category. Several authors
used this category in their studies; Guldmann and Huulgaard (2020) [15] and Kumar et al.
(2019) [30] used it to present barriers to the adoption of the CE, Jia et al. (2020) [20] and
Tura et al. (2019) [26] used it to present drivers of and barriers to the adoption of the CE,
and Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [18] used it to present the drivers of and barriers to the
adoption of the CE. Internal aspects related to companies and commercial institutions, such

492
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

as competitiveness, performance indicators, organizational culture, company policy, human

resources, the value and quality of products, raw materials and components, suppliers,
partnerships, customer satisfaction, customer relationship, branding, and company image
were allocated to the organizational category.
The public category was identified as the eighth category in this study. Geng and
Doberstein (2008) [48] used public participation as a category to present the drivers of
and barriers to the adoption of the CE. All issues related to the government, states, and
municipalities, for instance, support, incentives, financial assistance, and public policies
were allocated to the public category.
The ninth category identified in this study was the social category. Masi et al.
(2017) [19] and Kumar et al. (2019) [30] and Ababio and Lu (2023) [28] used the social cate-
gory to present barriers to the CE, and Tura et al. (2019) [26] used it to present the drivers
of and barriers to the adoption of the CE. Aspects of society and community, involving job
creation and reduction of the unemployment rate, population size, public health, safety,
hygiene, social responsibility, social projects, public awareness, social recognition, and
stakeholders were allocated to the social category.
The tenth category identified in this study was the technological category. Ritzén
and Sandström (2017) [57], Kirchherr et al. (2018) [53], Nohra et al. (2020) [29], Masi et al.
(2017) [19], Kumar et al. (2019) [30], and Ababio and Lu (2023) [28] used the technological
category to present the barriers to the CE, and Tura et al. (2019) [26] used it to present the
drivers of and barriers to the CE. Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48] used the technology
category to present the drivers of and barriers to the adoption of the CE. Aspects related to
science, technology, and innovation were allocated to the technological category.
Table 2 summarizes the authors who motivated the choice of each of the ten categories
for the purpose of the final presentation of the study results. Table 2 also shows the authors
that used other categories to work with the drivers of and barriers to the CE, and the
authors who did not use any category in their studies to present the drivers of and barriers
to the CE.

Table 2. Motivation for choosing the categories of drivers and barriers.

Categories Authors
Environmental Kumar et al. (2019) [30], Tura et al. (2019) [26] and Nohra et al. (2020) [29].
Supply Chain Ritzén and Sandström (2017) [57] and Tura et al. (2019) [26].
Economic Gusmerotti et al. (2019) [10], Tura et al. (2019) [26], Ababio and Lu (2023) [28] and Nohra et al. (2020) [29].
Information Masi et al. (2017) [19], Tura et al. (2019) [26] and Nohra et al. (2020) [29].
Legal Kumar et al. (2019) [30] and Ababio and Lu (2023) [28]
Market Kirchherr et al. (2018) [53] and Guldmann and Huulgaard (2020) [15].
Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [18], Kumar et al. (2019) [30], Tura et al. (2019) [26], Guldmann and Huulgaard
Organizational
(2020) [15] and Jia et al. (2020) [20].
Public Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48]
Social Masi et al. (2017) [19], Kumar et al. (2019) [30], Ababio and Lu (2023) [28], and Tura et al. (2019) [26].
Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48], Masi et al. (2017) [19], Ritzén and Sandström (2017) [57], Kirchherr et al. (2018)
Technological
[53], Kumar et al. (2019) [30], Tura et al. (2019) [26], Ababio and Lu (2023) [28] and Nohra et al. (2020) [29].
De Jesus and Mendonça (2018) [45], Moktadir et al. (2018) [27], Ormazabal et al. (2018) [46], Ranta et al. (2018)
Other categories use [51], Agyemang et al. (2019) [44], Campbell-Johnston et al. (2019) [58], Hart et al. (2019) [22], and Kazancoglu et al.
(2020) [52].
Xue et al. (2010) [24], Ilić and Nikolić (2016) [49], De Mattos and De Albuquerque (2018) [50], Ghisellini et al.
(2018) [66], Mahpour (2018) [67], Mangla et al. (2018) [54], Masi et al. (2017) [19], Barbaritano et al. (2019) [33],
Bolger and Doyon (2019) [68], Camacho-Otero et al. (2019) [69], Chang and Hsieh (2019) [25], Farooque et al.
Authors that did not use (2019) [70], Garcés-Ayerbe et al. (2019) [71], Gue et al. (2019) [72], Milios et al. (2019) [55], Piyathanavong et al.
categories in their studies to
present drivers and barriers (2019) [73], Rajput and Singh (2019) [74], Scarpellini el al. (2019) [75], Šebo et al. (2019) [47], Singh and Giacosa
to CE (2019) [76], Tseng et al. (2019) [77], Dieckmann et al. (2020) [13], García-Quevedo et al. (2020) [14], Galvão et al.
(2020) [63], Hartley et al. (2020) [11], Jabbour et al. (2020) [23], Jaeger and Upadhyay (2020) [78], Kanters (2020)
[16], Mura et al. (2020) [21], Ozkan-Ozen et al. (2020) [79], Robaina et al. (2020) [12], Shao et al. (2020) [56], and
Werning and Spinler (2020) [17].

493
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

4. Results and Discussion

In this chapter, the results of the analysis of the 53 articles on the drivers of and barriers
to the CE that were analyzed for this study will be described and analyzed.
Of the total of 53 articles analyzed, 27 articles addressed drivers of the CE, and
47 articles addressed barriers to the CE. However, only 6 articles dealt only with drivers
(11%), 26 articles dealt only with barriers (49%), and 21 articles dealt with both drivers and
barriers (40%) (Figure 2).

only drivers
11%

only barriers
49%
drivers and
barriers
40%

Figure 2. Drivers and barriers article topic analysis.

The drivers and barriers extracted from the analyzed articles were categorized based
on the categorization of drivers and barriers from the literature shown in Table 1. The ten
categories identified and used to present the drivers that can help the implementation of
the CE and the barriers disrupting its adoption are as follows:
• Environmental, which involves aspects related to sustainability, environment, waste
management, recycling, and the scarcity of resources;
• Supply chain, which covers aspects involving the supply chain, distribution channels,
logistics and reverse logistics, as well as, according to Tura et al. (2019) [26], drivers
related to the potential to reduce channel dependence;
• Economic, which includes financial aspects, sales, profitability, revenues, earnings,
costs, accounting, raw material costs and prices, and regulatory costs of environmental
pollution and waste;
• Information, which involves aspects related to information, knowledge about the CE,
information sharing, learning, training, and experience;
• Legal, which encompasses normative, regulatory, and legislative aspects, as well as
the costs arising from these aspects;
• Market, which involves aspects of the market, that is, aspects external to the organiza-
tion, for example, the environmental awareness of consumers, consumer preferences,
market demands and market trends;
• Organizational, which involves managerial aspects and aspects related to companies
and commercial institutions, that is, the internal aspects of the company/organization
such as competition and competitiveness, performance indicators, organizational
culture, company policy, environmental aspects (such as environmental collaboration
of customers and suppliers, reduction of the environmental impact of the company
and processes), aspects regarding ownership, aspects of management and personnel
department (such as leadership, employees, workers, and shareholders), aspects
regarding the product (product value and quality), raw materials and components,
suppliers, partnerships, customers (customer satisfaction and customer relationship),
branding, and company image;
• Public, which encompasses aspects regarding the government, states, and munic-
ipalities, such as, for example, their support, incentive, financial assistance, and
public policies;

494
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

• Social, which encompasses aspects of society and the community, involving job cre-
ation and reduction of the unemployment rate, population size, public health, safety,
hygiene, social responsibility, social projects, public awareness, social recognition,
and stakeholders;
• Technological, which involves aspects related to science and technology, technological
innovation, and technical aspects, as well as the costs arising from these technologies.
It should be noted that the dividing line between some categories is very tenuous.
When this occurred, the authors used the conceptual definition of the category as a criterion.

4.1. Drivers to the Circular Economy

A number of studies have pointed out drivers of the adoption of the CE in order to
encourage, motivate, facilitate, and drive companies to adopt CE, and different approaches
were used. In their study, Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [18] examined the drivers in
order to understand the motivational factors for implementing the CE in the supply chain.
Moktadir et al. (2018) [27] and Hart et al. (2019) [22] refer to a driver as a facilitator in their
studies. Motivations for CE practices and facilitating factors for the implementation of
circular practices are raised in the study by Barbaritano et al. (2019) [33]. In the study by
Jabbour et al. (2020) [23], CE motivators and CE drivers were considered to be synonymous.
Finally, in their study, Xue et al. (2010) [24] address methods that drive the development of
the CE, and Piyathanavong et al. (2019) [73] presented reasons to implement CE.
Based on this, it was observed that there is no clear-cut definition of drivers in the
literature. What is known is that all expressions and nomenclatures used in the literature
when it comes to drivers express driving forces leading companies to adopt the CE. The
boundaries between the definitions are not clear; there are overlapping areas between
the concepts. For the purposes of this study, drivers are therefore defined as forces that
motivate or encourage companies to adopt CE.
There were several areas in which CE drivers were studied in the literature. Table 3
presents the contexts and sectors in which the papers were developed.

Table 3. Contexts of application of studies of the drivers of the CE.

Context/sector Authors
Supply chain Masi et al. (2017) [19] and Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [18]
Textile industry Jia et al. (2020) [20]
Automotive sector Agyemang et al. (2019) [44]
Leather industry Moktadir et al. (2018) [27]
Gusmerotti et al. (2019) [10], Kumar et al. (2019) [30], Piyathanavong et al.
Manufacturing industry
(2019) [73], and Šebo et al. (2019) [47]
Business Gue et al. (2019) [72]
Luxury furniture industry Barbaritano et al. (2019) [33]
Waste management Ilić and Nikolić (2016) [49]
Construction sector Chang and Hsieh (2019) [25] and Hart et al. (2019) [22]
Small and medium-sized companies Ormazabal et al. (2018) [46] and Mura et al. (2020) [21]

In addition, the studies’ geographic contexts cover a significant range of countries

around the world. Continents, countries, and authors are presented in Table 4.

495
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

Table 4. Countries and regions from which articles on CE drivers and barriers came.

Countries Author(s) Drivers Author(s) Barriers

De Mattos and De Albuquerque,
Brazil
2018 [50]
America
Brazil Jabbour et al., 2020 [23] Jabbour et al., 2020 [23]
USA Ranta et al., 2018 [51] Ranta et al., 2018 [51]
Bangladesh Moktadir et al., 2018 [27]
China Geng and Doberstein, 2008 [48] Geng and Doberstein, 2008 [48]
China Xue et al., 2010 [24] Xue et al., 2010 [24]
China Ranta et al., 2018 [51] Ranta et al., 2018 [51]
China Shao et al., 2020 [56]
Asia China Farooque et al., 2019 [70]
India Mangla et al., 2018 [54]
Pakistan Agyemang et al., 2019 [44] Agyemang et al., 2019 [44]
Philippines Gue et al., 2019 [72]
Taiwan Chang and Hsieh, 2019 [25] Chang and Hsieh, 2019 [25]
Taiwan Piyathanavong et al., 2019 [73] Piyathanavong et al., 2019 [73]
Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy, France,
Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, The
Robaina et al., 2020 [12]
Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, and
United Kingdom
Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, and
Kanters, 2020 [16]
United Kingdom
Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal,
Kirchherr et al., 2018 [53]
Sweden, and United Kingdom
Guldmann and Huulgaard,
Denmark
2020 [15]
Finland Tura et al., 2019 [26] Tura et al., 2019 [26]
France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Italy,
Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland, United Kingdom,
Greece, Spain, Portugal, Finland, Sweden, Austria,
Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2019 [71]
Europe Cyprus (Republic), Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,
Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Bulgaria, Romania, and Croatia
France, Cyprus, Belgium, Czech Republic, The
Netherlands, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia,
Luxembourg, Lithuania, Denmark, Malta, Ireland,
García-Quevedo et al., 2020 [14]
Poland, United Kingdom, Slovakia, Greece, Slovenia,
Spain, Bulgaria, Portugal, Romania, Finland, Croatia,
Sweden, and Austria
Italy Barbaritano et al., 2019 [33] Barbaritano et al., 2019 [33]
Italy Mura et al., 2020 [21] Mura et al., 2020 [21]
Italy Gusmerotti et al., 2019 [10]
Italy, Spain, France, Romania, and Slovenia Nohra et al., 2020 [29]
Campbell-Johnston et al., Campbell-Johnston et al.,
The Netherlands
2019 [58] 2019 [58]
The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Denmark, Belgium,
Hartley et al., 2020 [11]
Portugal, and Serbia
not mentioned Ranta et al., 2018 [51] Ranta et al., 2018 [51]

496
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

Table 4. Cont.

Countries Author(s) Drivers Author(s) Barriers

not mentioned Kumar et al., 2019 [30] Kumar et al., 2019 [30]
Scandinavia Milios et al., 2019 [55]
Serbia Ilić and Nikolić, 2016 [49] Ilić and Nikolić, 2016 [49]
Slovakia Šebo et al., 2019 [47] Šebo et al., 2019 [47]
Spain Ormazabal et al., 2018 [46] Ormazabal et al., 2018 [46]
Spain Scarpellini el al., 2019 [75]
Sweden Bolger and Doyon, 2019 [68]
United Kingdom Dieckmann et al., 2020 [13]
United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland,
Kumar et al., 2019 [30] Kumar et al., 2019 [30]
and Wales)
Oceania Australia Bolger and Doyon, 2019 [68] Bolger and Doyon, 2019 [68]

Based on the analysis of data from articles that contained drivers of the adoption of
the CE, the drivers were categorized into the ten categories proposed for this study. As a
result, a list of 160 drivers was obtained and categorized. Some of these drivers will be
presented below.
(a) Environmental drivers support the adoption of the CE, as there is great concern
about environmental impacts and the state of the environment [20], the scarcity of
resources [26], and global warming and climate change [18]. The CE can act as a
solution to these problems, helping to minimize environmental impact [73], reduce
waste [30], and develop sustainability [22].
(b) For supply chains, the adoption of the CE brings improvements to the entire chain [27].
For example, it may improve material efficiency and energy use [18], and increase
chain transparency [26] and chain engagement [22].
(c) Considering the economic category, one of the main drivers identified in the literature
that motivates companies to adopt the CE was cost reduction [45]. By adopting the
CE, gains in resource efficiency are made [12], and new value streams are created
using byproducts and waste, thus giving companies a new source of revenue and
minimizing costs related to the treatment and disposal of waste [19]. In addition, the
regulatory costs of environmental pollution and waste are avoided [19]. Finally, the
CE generates economic growth for companies [49].
(d) Information drivers help the implementation of the CE, providing information [20],
training and education [27], and knowledge exchange [58].
(e) Considering the category of legal drivers, the existence of laws and regulations
regarding CE [23] was a very important aspect found in the literature that helps
companies to adopt CE.
(f) As market drivers, awareness of environmental issues among consumers [73], cus-
tomer awareness of green initiatives [20], and the preference and demand for circular
products [23] drive the adoption of the CE.
(g) There are several organizational drivers identified in the literature that drive compa-
nies to adopt the CE: gains in market share and competitiveness [10,20], environmental
collaboration with customers and suppliers [27], companies’ willingness to adopt
circulars [72], employee engagement and motivation [20], increased product value and
quality [44], improving relationships with customers, building loyalty, and increasing
their satisfaction [10], the promotion of the company’s reputation, its brand and im-
proving the corporate image [19], the collaboration between organizations and the
enlarging of the network and partnerships [50], and the stability of the company [44].
All of these aspects motivate companies to adopt the CE.
(h) Public drivers motivate the adoption of the CE due to the support of the government
and public institutions, whether in the form of financial, tax, or fiscal support, the
waste collection system, or public policies [21,49].

497
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

(i) Social drivers support the adoption of the CE due to the possibility of generating
jobs [33], concern for public health [30], social awareness [45], community pressure to
adopt the CE [27], and stakeholder pressure for sustainable consumption [51].
(j) In the category of technological drivers, investment in science and technology for the
CE’s implementation is considered a very important aspect [48], in addition to the use
of new and state-of-the-art technologies [23].
The categories of drivers for the adoption of the CE and the authors can be seen in
Appendix A.

4.2. Barriers to the Circular Economy

Although on the one hand, a series of studies have pointed out drivers for the adoption
of the CE to encourage, motivate, facilitate, and encourage companies to adopt a circular
process, a number of barriers to the adoption of the CE were also found in the literature,
expressing forces opposing the CE’s implementation, inhibiting or barring the CE’s devel-
opment. Different approaches were used by authors in the literature regarding the barriers
to the adoption of the CE. According to Barbaritano et al. (2019) [33], barriers are factors
that hinder the implementation of the CE’s practices. Ranta et al. (2018) [51] consider CE
barriers to be difficulties face in the CE’s implementation. Kumar et al. (2019) [30] and Masi
et al. (2017) [19] treat barriers as inhibitors to the CE’s implementation, whereas Rajput and
Singh (2019) [74] address challenges involved in the implementation of the CE.
Based on this, it is observed that there is also no clear-cut definition of barriers in the
literature. However, all expressions and nomenclatures used in the literature when it comes
to barriers express forces that oppose the adoption of the CE. The boundaries between
the definitions are not clear; there are overlapping areas between the concepts. For the
purposes of this study, barriers are considered to be obstacles that hinder, or even prevent,
the implementation of the CE.
Several sectors were the focus of the studies of the barriers to the adoption of the CE
in the literature. Based on the literature review of the articles that deal with barriers, we
observed the application of studies in the contexts and sectors presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Contexts of application of studies of barriers to the CE.

Context/sector Authors
Masi et al. (2017) [19], Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [18], Farooque et al. (2019) [70], Mangla
Supply chain
et al. (2018) [54], Kazancoglu et al. (2020) [52], and Ozkan-Ozen et al. (2020) [79]
Food supply chain Farooque et al. (2019) [70]
Food system Tseng et al. (2019) [77]
Poultry industry Dieckmann et al. (2020) [13]
Textile industry Jia et al. (2020) [20], and Kazancoglu et al. (2020) [52]
Electronic industry Werning and Spinler (2020) [17]
Services Ritzén and Sandström (2017) [57]
Maritime Milios et al. (2019) [55]
Fashion Camacho-Otero et al. (2019) [69]
Automotive sector Agyemang et al. (2019) [44], and Shao et al. (2020) [56]

Manufacturing industry Kumar et al. (2019) [30], Piyathanavong et al. (2019) [73], Šebo et al. (2019) [47], and Jaeger and
Upadhyay (2020) [78]
Luxury furniture industry Barbaritano et al. (2019) [33]
Waste management Ilić and Nikolić (2016) [49]
Chang and Hsieh (2019) [25], Hart et al. (2019) [22], Ababio and Lu (2023) [28], and Kanters
Construction
(2020) [16]
Construction and demolition Ghisellini et al. (2018) [66], and Mahpour (2018) [67]
Ormazabal et al. (2018) [46], Garcés-Ayerbe et al. (2019) [71], García-Quevedo et al. (2020) [14],
Small and medium-sized companies
and Mura et al., 2020 [21]

498
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

It was also observed that studies related to barriers were applied in a significant num-
ber of countries around the world. Table 4 presents these continents, countries, and authors.
From the analysis of data from articles that contained barriers to the adoption of the
CE, barriers were grouped according to the ten categories proposed for this study. As a
result, a list of 430 barriers was obtained. Some of these barriers will be presented below.
(a) Environmental barriers can hamper the adoption of the CE due to the difficulty of
validating, verifying, and predicting environmental pollution and all environmental
effects and impacts [13]; the lack of benefits in relation to environmental sustainability,
and uncertainty about potential environmental benefits [70]; the low level of reuse,
recycling, and recovery of waste [52]; inefficiency in waste management [67]; the
limited availability and quality of recycling materials [19]; and the underdeveloped
waste infrastructure, which is to take components back for reuse [55]. There is also an
informal sector tradition that collects recyclables and food waste (China), and textile
waste [52].
(b) Within supply chains, the adoption of the CE may be hampered due to costs, lack of
priority, lack of employee skills, lack of enthusiasm and leadership from managers [18],
lack of customer awareness [54], the fragile return and collection system [17], the lack
of reverse logistics infrastructure [52], the lack of collaboration with stakeholders in
the supply chain in CE initiatives [54], and the lack of suitable partners in supply
chains [30].
(c) Considering the economic category, some aspects can obstruct the implementation
of the CE, such as high initial investment costs [22,28,70]; high production costs,
management costs, and planning costs [29]; the low price of virgin raw materials
compared to recycled/reused materials [52]; the uncertain profits and returns [28,45],
and uncertain economic and fiscal benefits [71]; the lack of funding [15,28]; the lack of
working capital [45]; the lack of financial resources [73]; financial risk [16]; and the
lack of economies of scale [70].
(d) Some aspects of the information category can obstruct the implementation of the
CE, given that there is a lack of training and education of the people involved in the
chain [48], a lack of knowledge and skills about CE [15], an abundance of poor data
and a lack of data quality [29], and a lack of information [20].
(e) Regarding the legal category, the lack of clarity or lack of support for the CE in the
form of laws, norms, and rules becomes a major obstacle to the implementation of
the CE. For example, there is a lack of legislation for recycling [51], waste manage-
ment [55], the environment [48], green production [48], and laws that are specific to
the CE’s implementation [18]. There is also low regulatory support for increasing
reuse activities [51], and bureaucratic difficulty in enforcing legislation on the sustain-
ability (e.g., waste, water) of companies [21]. Furthermore, there are still laws and
regulations that are opposed to CE solutions [13].
(f) Market barriers can hamper the CE’s implementation, mainly considering two as-
pects: demand and consumers. The demand for circular products and processes
is still restricted [29] and unclear [15]. In addition, there is a lack of demand for
remanufactured products due to their appearance [30]. Regarding the consumer, there
is a lack of interest in circular processes and products [53] and a lack of environmental
awareness [73]. In addition, customers have a negative perception of the quality of
remanufactured products [56], preferring new products and materials over reused or
remanufactured ones [67].
(g) With regard to organizational barriers, it was identified that the lack of metrics,
measurements, and a system with indicators and a method of performance evaluation
can hinder the implementation of the CE [52], in addition to the fear of possible risks
arising from the implementation of the CE [76] and the lack of collaboration between
business functions and departments [17]. There is a business culture that operates a
linear system [53] and maintains conservatism in current practices [22] and resistance
to change [70], thus causing cultural conflicts [26]. Companies’ own cultures do

499
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

not favor the adoption of the CE [53], and their organizational structures make it
difficult to implement the CE [18]. Regarding the managerial level of the organization,
there is a lack of commitment [70], will [30], environmental awareness [19], support,
and collaboration on the part of management [73], making the adoption of the CE
difficult. Regarding the raw material, there is volatility in terms of quantity and
availability [17] and a low quality of recovered used parts [56] negatively impacting
the adoption of the CE. The difficulty of establishing partnerships is also an aspect
that can hinder the implementation of the CE; there may be, for example, lack of
suitable partners [30], difficulty in business-to-business (B2B) cooperation [78], and
lack of a shared vision and willingness to collaborate with chain partners [52]. It takes
time to build new partnerships and mutual trust [15]. Organizations are also faced
with the challenge of a lack of qualified personnel to work with the CE and related
areas (environmental, remanufacturing, reuse of products and components) [44,46].
Regarding the company’s products, it is difficult to maintain quality throughout the
product’s life cycle, because returned materials may cause low quality in recycled
products [52]. It is also difficult for companies to manage products made from
reclaimed materials [18].
(h) Regarding the public category, the lack of incentives and support (industrial and
financial) from the government is one of the main obstacles to the implementation
of the CE identified in the literature [24,63]. In addition, existing recycling policies
are ineffective in achieving high-quality recycling, thus hampering the development
of the CE [18]. Moreover, there is a lack of public awareness about the CE [24], and
public incentives regarding the CE are misaligned, complex, and confusing [45].
(i) The category of social barriers can hamper the adoption of the CE due to the low
involvement of society in circular actions and practices [67]; the lack of a global
consensus on CE [53]; the lack of awareness in society about circularity [76]; the
linear mindset rooted in society [58]; the values, norms, lifestyles, and current social
practices; a lack of cultural diversity, and social ignorance about the resource cycle [29].
(j) Technological barriers can impede the development of the CE due to the lack of techno-
logical systems [20]; lack of technology transfer [54]; lack of appropriate technologies
for the CE [46]; lack of technical support [45,70]; insufficient technical resources [46];
weak demand and acceptance of environmental technologies [54], and the lack of skills
and technical capacities of workers [78]. In addition, as there is a need for investment
in technology for the adoption of the CE, the costs arising from this investment may
also become an obstacle to the CE’s implementation [74].
The categories of barriers to the adoption of the CE and the authors can be seen in
Appendix A.

5. Conclusions
5.1. Contributions and Implications
This study aimed to identify and categorize drivers of and barriers to the adoption of
the CE through a systematic literature review. The study’s conclusion will be presented
based on 53 analyzed articles. The results of the study show that there are more articles
in the literature reflecting barriers to the adoption of the CE than those reflecting drivers
of its adoption. Consequently, the study indicates that in the literature, there are more
barriers to than drivers of the adoption of the CE. Thus, it was observed that the literature
demonstrates a greater concern with what bars, prevents, or hinders companies and society
implementing circular behavior; this circular behavior is necessary, considering the current
increasing concern about the scarcity of resources in the environment.
Furthermore, it was observed that there are different contexts and sectors in which the
analyzed studies were applied, and a significant range of countries and regions around the
world were involved. The region in which the largest number of searches was observed
was Europe. Corroborating this, in the last 50 years, there has been an intense debate on
energy policies and issues related to the environment among the countries of the European

500
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

Union [80], culminating in 2019 with the affirmation of commitments to face the challenges
of sustainability by adopting the European Green Deal (EGD), a set of initiatives for environ-
mental protection whose main objective is to promote sustainable development strategies
focused on energy emissions and the mitigation of climate change [81]. Furthermore, these
European Green Deal policies can be incorporated into economic models that promote
sustainable development, such as the CE [82].
Finally, the authors of 19 of the articles analyzed in this paper used some categorization
to present the drivers and barriers in their studies. Following this idea, the drivers and
barriers listed in the literature review were grouped according to ten categories identified
and proposed for this study. The ten categories of drivers that can help the implementation
of the CE and the barriers disrupting its adoption are presented as follows.
The first category defined in the study, the environmental category, looks at environ-
mental aspects related to sustainability, waste management, recycling, and the scarcity of
resources [26]. Concern regarding its environmental impact and concern for environmental
sustainability are subjects discussed in the literature [1,20].
The second category identified was the supply chain category, which involves the
aspects of the supply chain, distribution channels, logistics, and reverse logistics [57]. It is
important to pay close attention to the supply chain as a whole in order to succeed in the
CE’s development. CE strategies are crucial to restructure the take-make-discard model
through the active participation of all actors in the supply chain [83].
The economic category was the third category defined in the study, and covers financial
aspects, sales, profitability, revenues, earnings, costs, accounting, the costs of raw materials,
and the regulatory costs of environmental pollution and waste [29]. Lack of financial
resources is a major limitation for companies in adopting the CE [73]. This could be
dealt with by government support and public policies to achieve the CE, as suggested by
Arthur et al. (2023) [2].
The fourth category identified was the information category, which considers aspects
related to information, CE knowledge, information sharing, learning, training, and experi-
ence [19]. Everyone involved in the circular chain must have the necessary information
to develop the CE successfully. One of the goals of the 12th SDG of the 2030 Agenda
(2015) [42] is to ensure that people have relevant information and awareness about sustain-
able development.
The fifth category identified was the legal category, looking at normative and regula-
tory aspects, and their costs [30]. The lack of laws supporting CE practices is one of the
major obstacles to the implementation of the CE [51,55]. Policymakers should attend to
developing laws that could incentivize companies to adopt the practices of the CE.
The market category was the sixth category defined for the present study. Exter-
nal aspects of the organization, such as consumer environmental awareness, consumer
preference, market demands, and trends, constitute this category [15]. There has been
an increase in environmental awareness and concern for the environment on the part of
consumers, thus generating an increase in demand for circular products. While joining the
CE encourages the emergence of new demands for services and new potential markets [8],
companies’ interest in adopting the CE is increasing.
The seventh category identified in this study is the organizational category, which
considers aspects related to companies and commercial institutions, i.e., internal com-
pany/organizational features such as competition and competitiveness, performance indi-
cators, organizational culture, company policy, the environmental aspects of the company,
aspects related to property, the management and personnel department, products, raw ma-
terials, components, suppliers, partnerships, customers, branding, and company image [18].
The benefits arising from the implementation of the CE for companies are numerous, but on
the other hand, the challenges are also great. The adoption of the CE generates competitive
advantages for circular companies [10,20]; thus, the CE has attracted interest from the
business community wanting to work on sustainable development [8].

501
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

The public category was the eighth category defined in the study, involving aspects
from the government, states, and municipalities, via the government’s support, encour-
agement, financial aid, and public policies [48]. The lack of incentives and industrial and
financial support from the government is one of the main obstacles to the implementation
of the CE identified in the literature [29,56,73]. It is thus observed that public involvement
is fundamental for the development of the CE. Financial resources are scarce, making im-
plementing CE unfeasible for many companies [46,70], especially small and medium-sized
companies. Through financial, tax, and fiscal support, and public policy, the adoption of
the CE can be encouraged. In accordance with this, Arthur et al. (2023) [2] mentioned that
a blend of government policies is an effective means of achieving a CE.
The ninth category identified in the study is the social category. This category involves
society and community aspects, such as job creation and the reduction of the unemployment
rate, population size, public health, safety, hygiene, social responsibility, social projects, and
public awareness [30]. Increased awareness of social responsibility [1] should be harnessed
as a driver for new circular business opportunities and the CE’s development.
Finally, the tenth category defined in the study is the technological category, which
considers science, technology, and technical aspects [53]. Considering that we live in a
technological era of digitization and great technological developments, companies could
embrace these aspects to help them in the development of the CE. It is suggested that
the development of specific technologies will be necessary for the development of the CE.
In this sense, the 2030 Agenda (2015) [42] points to the goal of the 12th SDG, supporting
developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacities in pursuit of
more sustainable patterns of production and consumption.
A summary of the drivers of and barriers to the adoption of the CE is presented in
Figure 3.

Figure 3. Summary of drivers of and barriers to the adoption of the circular economy.

502
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

It is important to highlight the multilevel approach within which these categories were
constructed. Even though it was not the focus of this study, allocation at the micro, meso and
macro levels is evident, following the findings of Ababio and Lu (2023) [28], which reinforce
the current consensus that the CE should be discussed using a multilevel approach.
First, this study contributes by extending the body of knowledge on the CE, helping
to integrate the existing literature and develop a comprehensive theoretical framework for
guiding future research, as mentioned by Zhang et al. (2022) [4]. Due to the assessment
of an extensive number of articles, a list of 160 drivers of and 430 barriers to the adoption
of the CE was obtained. Having these drivers of and barriers to the adoption of the CE
listed in the literature, it is possible to gain an in-depth understanding of the CE’s context,
thus providing researchers and practitioners with prior information about the realities
that they will face. This will also allow companies and governments to work toward
the CE’s implementation, helping the transition from a linear economy to a CE, which
is more efficient in terms of resources and will help us to advance toward sustainable
economies [14]. The transition from a linear economy to a CE is a matter of extreme
relevance in the pursuit of more sustainable development [84].
In accordance with this, the second contribution of this study is to bring about sustain-
able benefits for companies and society, by making them aware of aspects that foster the CE
and aspects that make the implementation of the CE difficult. Substantially reducing waste
generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse, and achieving sustainable
management and efficient use of natural resources are some of the targets of the 12th SDG
addressed in the 2030 Agenda (2015) [42], ensuring standards of sustainable production and
consumption by the year 2030 (2030 Agenda, 2015). In this sense, the CE can be considered
a promising concept for sustainable development [8]. Additionally, Ali et al. (2023) [35]
mention circular economy-centric education being the solution to the social, economic, and
environmental problems stemming from climate change. Moreover, green technologies,
through the optimization of the use of resources, reduction of waste, and reduction of
the demand for new resources, promote the development of green products and services,
helping to reduce the environmental impact of consumption [35].
Third, the presentation of an extensive literature review enabled a broader view and
a categorization of the drivers of and barriers to the adoption of the CE. These contribu-
tions are important to help companies develop a CE and encourage them to implement it.
Additionally, the literature review contributes to helping governments to gain knowledge,
in order to work on public policy implementation and actions to foster the CE’s adoption.
According to Schraven et al. (2019) [85], government incentives, such as research funds or
stimulating legislation, should be created. Yazdanpanah et al. (2019) [86] support policy-
making and fine-tuning the regulations that will foster the transition to a CE; for instance,
due to a lack of regulations, firms may face no prohibition of the disposal of some particular
(hazardous) wastes, and may have no incentives in the case of substituting some of their
raw materials with reusable waste inputs. In this sense, the authors suggest that policy-
makers could introduce monetary incentives to foster such practices [86]. Furthermore, the
study results would facilitate practitioners’ understanding of the drivers of and barriers to
the adoption of the CE, that they might handle them effectively.

5.2. Limitations and Future Research

The main limitations of this research refer to the number of databases used. Only
the Scopus database was used to collect data. We suggest that future studies also use
other databases.
Even though this review was quite comprehensive, the search strategy used only the
most consolidated terms in the literature, and may have left out some articles that used
other nomenclatures. Thus, it is suggested that future studies use not only consolidated
terms (for example, “circular economy”), but also different combinations of keywords
that may be synonymous, such as, for example, “circular practices”, “circularity”, and
“circular model”.

503
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

Although some studies have discussed the circular economy in specific regions, e.g.,
in the Baltic region [87] and Central and Eastern European countries [88], the present study
did not aim to discuss drivers and barriers in different regions or countries. However, due
to the importance of countries having different behaviors, it is suggested that future studies
take these local idiosyncrasies into account, testing the current categorization.
The analysis showed that there are some aspects of categories such as social, for
example, hygiene, public health, and safety, that are not explored in depth in the literature.
Thus, future research could identify the less explored categories in the literature and explore
them, thereby leading to new frontiers.
This research is part of a research project focused on understanding how to promote
an ideal structure of the CE in the organic products sector. The next step of this research is
to validate the drivers and barriers that apply to producers and consumers in this sector.
At the same time, it will be possible to verify if this general proposal can be applied to
different sectors and markets.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.P. and D.C.-D.-M.; methodology, C.P., D.C.-D.-M. and
C.S.L.S.; validation, C.P., D.C.-D.-M. and C.S.L.S.; formal analysis, C.P.; investigation, C.P.; writing—
original draft preparation, C.P.; writing—review and editing, C.P., D.C-D-M. and C.S.L.S.; supervision,
C.P.; funding acquisition, C.S.L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de
Nível Superior—Brazil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are available upon request from the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Categories of drivers of and barriers to the adoption of the CE and the authors.

Barriers Authors Category Drivers Authors

SUPPLY CHAIN ENVIRONMENTAL

Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48]; Ilić and Nikolić (2016) [49];
Ilić and Nikolić (2016) [49]; Govindan and Hasanagic
Mahpour (2018) [67]; Masi et al. (2017) [19]; Ranta et al. (2018)
(2018) [18]; Moktadir et al. (2018) [27]; Ormazabal et al.
[51]; Barbaritano et al. (2019) [33]; Farooque et al. (2019) [70]; (2018) [46]; Ranta et al. (2018) [51]; Hart et al. (2019) [22];
Kumar et al. (2019) [30]; Milios et al. (2019) [55]; Piyathanavong Kumar et al. (2019) [30]; Piyathanavong et al. (2019) [73];
et al. (2019) [73]; Tura et al. (2019) [26]; Dieckmann et al. (2020) Tura et al. (2019) [26]; Hartley et al. (2020) [11]; Jia et al.
[13]; Guldmann and Huulgaard (2020) [15]; Kazancoglu et al.
(2020) [20].
(2020) [52]; Nohra et al. (2020) [29].

Ritzén and Sandström (2017) [57]; Govindan and Hasanagic

(2018) [18]; Mangla et al. (2018) [54]; Masi et al. (2017) [19];
Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [18]; Moktadir et al.
Agyemang et al. (2019) [44]; Farooque et al. (2019) [70]; Kumar
(2018) [27]; Hart et al. (2019) [22]; Tura et al. (2019) [26];
et al. (2019) [30]; Tura et al. (2019) [26]; Dieckmann et al. (2020) Jia et al. (2020) [20].
[13]; Jaeger and Upadhyay (2020) [78]; Kazancoglu et al. (2020)
[52]; Nohra et al. (2020) [29]; Werning and Spinler (2020) [17].

504
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

Table A1. Cont.

Barriers Authors Category Drivers Authors

Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48]; Masi et al. (2017) [19]; Ritzén
and Sandström (2017) [57]; De Jesus and Mendonça (2018) [45];
Ghisellini et al. (2018) [66]; Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [18];
Kirchherr et al. (2018) [53]; Mahpour (2018) [67]; Mangla et al. Ilić and Nikolić (2016) [49]; Masi et al. (2017) [19]; De
Jesus and Mendonça (2018) [45]; Govindan and
(2018) [54]; Ormazabal et al. (2018) [46]; Agyemang et al. (2019)

ECONOMIC
Hasanagic (2018) [18]; Moktadir et al. (2018) [27];
[44]; Barbaritano et al. (2019) [33]; Campbell-Johnston et al. (2019)
Ormazabal et al. (2018) [46]; Agyemang et al. (2019) [44],
[58]; Farooque et al. (2019) [70]; Garcés-Ayerband et al. (2019)
Barbaritano et al. (2019) [33]; Gue et al. (2019) [72];
[67]; Hart et al. (2019) [22]; Kumar et al. (2019) [30]; Milios et al. Gusmerotti et al. (2019) [10]; Piyathanavong et al. (2019)
(2019) [55]; Piyathanavong et al. (2019) [73]; Scarpellini el al.
[73]; Šebo et al. (2019) [47]; Tura et al. (2019) [26]; Hartley
(2019) [75]; Šebo et al. (2019) [47]; Tura et al. (2019) [26]; et al. (2020) [11]; Jia et al. (2020) [20]; Robaina et al. (2020)
Dieckmann et al. (2020) [13]; Guldmann and Huulgaard (2020) [12]; Ababio and Lu (2023) [28].
[15]; Jabbour et al. (2020) [23]; Jaeger and Upadhyay (2020) [78];
Jia et al. (2020) [20]; Kanters (2020) [16]; Kazancoglu et al. (2020)
[52]; Nohra et al. (2020) [29].
Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48]; Masi et al. (2017) [19]; De Jesus
and Mendonça (2018) [45]; Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [18];

INFORMATION
Mangla et al. (2018) [54]; Ormazabal et al. (2018) [46]; Agyemang
et al. (2019) [44]; Bolger and Doyon (2019) [68]; Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48]; Masi et al. (2017) [19];
Campbell-Johnston et al. (2019) [58]; Farooque et al. (2019) [70]; De Jesus and Mendonça (2018) [45]; Moktadir et al. (2018)
Hart et al. (2019) [22]; Rajput and Singh (2019) [74]; Galvão et al. [27]; Campbell-Johnston et al. (2019) [58]; Gue et al.
(2020) [63]; Guldmann and Huulgaard (2020) [15]; Jaeger and (2019) [72]; Hart et al. (2019) [22]; Jia et al. (2020) [20].
Upadhyay (2020) [78]; Jia et al. (2020) [20]; Kazancoglu et al.
(2020) [52]; Kirchherr et al. (2018) [53]; Nohra et al. (2020) [29];
Ozkan-Ozen et al. (2020) [79]; Piyathanavong et al. (2019) [73].
Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48]; Xue et al. (2010) [24]; Masi et al.
(2017) [19]; De Jesus and Mendonça (2018) [45]; Govindan and
Hasanagic (2018) [18]; Kirchherr et al. (2018) [53]; Mangla et al.
(2018) [54]; Ranta et al. (2018) [51]; Campbell-Johnston et al. Xue et al. (2010) [24]; Govindan and Hasanagic (2018)
(2019) [58]; Farooque et al. (2019) [70]; Garcés-Ayerband et al. [18]; De Jesus and Mendonça (2018) [45]; De Mattos and
(2019) [67]; Hart et al. (2019) [22]; Kumar et al. (2019) [30]; Milios De Albuquerque (2018) [50]; Moktadir et al. (2018) [27];
LEGAL

et al. (2019) [55]; Piyathanavong et al. (2019) [73]; Rajput and Ranta et al. (2018) [51]; Agyemang et al. (2019) [44]; Gue
Singh (2019) [74]; Šebo et al. (2019) [47]; Singh and Giacosa (2019) et al. (2019) [72]; Hart et al. (2019) [22]; Piyathanavong
[76]; Tseng et al. (2019) [77]; Tura et al. (2019) [26]; Dieckmann et al. (2019) [73]; Šebo et al. (2019) [47]; Tura et al. (2019)
et al. (2020) [13]; García-Quevedo et al. (2020) [14]; Guldmann [26]; Hartley et al. (2020) [11]; Jabbour et al. (2020) [23];
and Huulgaard (2020) [15]; Jia et al. (2020) [20]; Kanters (2020) Jia et al. (2020) [20]; Ababio and Lu (2023) [28].
[16]; Kazancoglu et al. (2020) [52]; Mura et al. (2020) [21]; Nohra
et al. (2020) [29]; Shao et al. (2020) [56]; Werning and Spinler
(2020) [17].
Masi et al. (2017) [19]; De Jesus and Mendonça (2018) [45];
Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [18]; Kirchherr et al. (2018) [53];
Mahpour (2018) [67]; Ormazabal et al. (2018) [46]; Ranta et al.
(2018) [51]; Agyemang et al. (2019) [44]; Camacho-Otero (2019) De Jesus and Mendonça (2018) [45]; Govindan and
MARKET

[69]; Campbell-Johnston et al. (2019) [58]; Farooque et al. (2019) Hasanagic (2018) [18]; Moktadir et al. (2018) [27]; Ranta
[70]; Kumar et al. (2019) [30]; Milios et al. (2019) [55]; et al. (2018) [51]; Barbaritano et al. (2019) [33]; Gue et al.
(2019) [72]; Hart et al. (2019) [22]; Piyathanavong et al.
Piyathanavong et al. (2019) [73]; Scarpellini el al. (2019) [75]; Šebo (2019) [73]; Tura et al. (2019) [26]; Jabbour et al. (2020)
et al. (2019) [47]; Singh and Giacosa (2019) [76]; Tura et al. (2019) [23]; Jia et al. (2020) [20].
[26]; Guldmann and Huulgaard (2020) [15]; Jabbour et al. (2020)
[23]; Kanters (2020) [16]; Mura et al. (2020) [21]; Nohra et al.
(2020) [29]; Shao et al. (2020) [56]; Werning and Spinler (2020) [17].
Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48]; Masi et al. (2017) [19]; Ritzén
and Sandström (2017) [57]; De Jesus and Mendonça (2018) [45];
Ghisellini et al. (2018) [66]; Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [18];
Kirchherr et al. (2018) [53]; Mahpour (2018) [67]; Mangla et al.
(2018) [54]; Ormazabal et al. (2018) [46]; Agyemang et al. (2019) Ilić and Nikolić (2016) [49]; Masi et al. (2017) [19]; De
ORGANIZATIONAL

[44]; Barbaritano et al. (2019) [33]; Campbell-Johnston et al. (2019) Mattos and De Albuquerque (2018) [50]; Govindan and
[58]; Chang and Hsieh (2019) [25]; Farooque et al. (2019) [70]; Hasanagic (2018) [18]; Moktadir et al. (2018) [27];
Ormazabal et al. (2018) [46]; Ranta et al. (2018) [51];
Garcés-Ayerband et al. (2019) [67]; Hart et al. (2019) [22]; Kumar Agyemang et al. (2019) [44]; Barbaritano et al. (2019) [33];
et al. (2019) [30]; Milios et al. (2019) [55]; Piyathanavong et al. Gue et al. (2019) [72]; Gusmerotti et al. (2019) [10]; Hart
(2019) [73]; Rajput and Singh (2019) [74]; Scarpellini el al. (2019) et al. (2019) [22]; Kumar et al. (2019) [30]; Piyathanavong
[75]; Šebo et al. (2019) [47]; Singh and Giacosa (2019) [76]; Tura et al. (2019) [73]; Šebo et al. (2019) [47]; Tura et al. (2019)
et al. (2019) [26]; Dieckmann et al. (2020) [13]; Galvão et al. (2020) [26]; Jia et al. (2020) [20]; Hartley et al. (2020) [11]; Mura
[63]; García-Quevedo et al. (2020) [14]; Guldmann and Huulgaard et al. (2020) [21].
(2020) [15]; Jabbour et al. (2020) [23]; Jaeger and Upadhyay (2020)
[78]; Jia et al. (2020) [20]; Kanters (2020) [16]; Kazancoglu et al.
(2020) [52]; Mura et al. (2020) [21]; Ozkan-Ozen et al. (2020) [79];
Shao et al. (2020) [56]; Werning and Spinler (2020) [17].

505
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

Table A1. Cont.

Barriers Authors Category Drivers Authors

Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48]; Xue et al. (2010) [24]; Ilić and
Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48]; Xue et al. (2010) [24];
Nikolić (2016) [49]; Masi et al. (2017) [19]; De Jesus and
Mendonça (2018) [45]; Ghisellini et al. (2018) [66]; Govindan and Ilić and Nikolić (2016) [49]; Masi et al. (2017) [19]; De
Hasanagic (2018) [18]; Mahpour (2018) [67]; Mangla et al. (2018) Mattos and De Albuquerque (2018) [50]; Moktadir et al.

PUBLIC
[54]; Ormazabal et al. (2018) [46]; Agyemang et al. (2019) [44]; (2018) [27]; Barbaritano et al. (2019) [33]; Bolger and
Doyon (2019) [68]; Campbell-Johnston et al. (2019) [58];
Bolger and Doyon (2019) [68]; Hart et al. (2019) [22]; Kumar et al.
(2019) [30]; Piyathanavong et al. (2019) [73]; Tura et al. (2019) [26]; Chang and Hsieh (2019) [25]; Hart et al. (2019) [22];
Piyathanavong et al. (2019) [73]; Jabbour et al. (2020) [23];
Dieckmann et al. (2020) [13]; Galvão et al. (2020) [63]; Guldmann
and Huulgaard (2020) [15]; Jia et al. (2020) [20]; Mura et al. (2020) Jia et al. (2020) [20]; Mura et al. (2020) [21]; Robaina et al.
(2020) [12].
[21]; Nohra et al. (2020) [29]; Shao et al. (2020) [56].
Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48]; Masi et al. (2017) [19]; Galvão Xue et al. (2010) [24]; Ilić and Nikolić (2016) [49]; Masi
et al. (2018) [63]; Kirchherr et al. (2018) [53]; Mahpour (2018) [67]; et al. (2017) [19]; De Jesus and Mendonça (2018) [45];
Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [18]; Moktadir et al.
Mangla et al. (2018) [54]; Ranta et al. (2018) [51];

SOCIAL
(2018) [27]; Ranta et al. (2018) [51]; Agyemang et al.
Campbell-Johnston et al. (2019) [58]; Chang and Hsieh (2019) [25]; (2019) [44]; Barbaritano et al. (2019) [33]; Bolger and
Scarpellini el al. (2019) [75]; Singh and Giacosa (2019) [76]; Tseng
Doyon (2019) [68]; Campbell-Johnston et al. (2019) [58];
et al. (2019) [77]; Tura et al. (2019) [26]; Dieckmann et al. (2020) Gue et al. (2019) [72]; Kumar et al. (2019) [30]; Tura et al.
[13]; Guldmann and Huulgaard (2020) [15]; Jabbour et al. (2020) (2019) [26]; Jabbour et al. (2020) [23]; Jia et al. (2020) [20];
[23]; Nohra et al. (2020) [29]. Ababio and Lu (2023) [28].
Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48]; Xue et al. (2010) [24]; Ilić and
Nikolić (2016) [49]; Masi et al. (2017) [19]; De Jesus and
TECHNOLOGICAL
Mendonça (2018) [45]; Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) [18]; Geng and Doberstein (2008) [48]; Masi et al. (2017) [19];
Mangla et al. (2018) [54]; Ormazabal et al. (2018) [46]; Agyemang De Jesus and Mendonça (2018) [45]; Moktadir et al. (2018)
et al. (2019) [44]; Campbell-Johnston et al. (2019) [58]; Farooque [27]; Agyemang et al. (2019) [44]; Barbaritano et al. (2019)
et al. (2019) [70]; Hart et al. (2019) [22]; Kumar et al. (2019) [30]; [33]; Chang and Hsieh (2019) [25]; Hart et al. (2019) [22];
Rajput and Singh (2019) [74]; Šebo et al. (2019) [47]; Tura et al. Kumar et al. (2019) [30]; Tura et al. (2019) [26]; Hartley
(2019) [26]; Dieckmann et al. (2020) [13]; Galvão et al. (2020) [63]; et al. (2020) [11]; Jabbour et al. (2020) [23]; Ababio and Lu
Jabbour et al. (2020) [23]; Jaeger and Upadhyay (2020) [78]; Jia (2023) [28].
et al. (2020) [20]; Kazancoglu et al. (2020) [52]; Nohra et al. (2020)
[29]; Ozkan-Ozen et al. (2020) [79].

References
1. Flores, P. Latin America. In The World of Organic Agriculture Statistics and Emerging Trends 2022; Willer, H., Trávnícek, J., Meier, C.,
Eds.; Fibl & Ifoam—Organics International: Bonn, Germany, 2022; pp. 272–274. Available online: [Link]
net/yearbook/[Link] (accessed on 6 March 2023).
2. Arthur, E.E.; Gyamfi, S.; Gerstlberger, W.; Stejskal, J.; Prokop, V. Towards Circular Economy: Unveiling Heterogeneous Effects of
Government Policy Stringency, Environmentally Related Innovation, and Human Capital within OECD Countries. Sustainability
2023, 15, 4959. [CrossRef]
3. Portilho, F. Sustentabilidade Ambiental, Consumo e Cidadania; Cortez: São Paulo, Brazil, 2010.
4. Zhang, Q.; Dhir, A.; Kaur, P. Circular economy and the food sector: A systematic literature review. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022,
32, 655–668. [CrossRef]
5. Hojnik, J.; Ruzzier, M.; Ruzzier, M.K.; Sučić, B.; Soltwisch, B. Challenges of demographic changes and digitalization on eco-
innovation and the circular economy: Qualitative insights from companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 396, 136439. [CrossRef]
6. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The circular economy—A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod.
2017, 143, 757–768. [CrossRef]
7. Velenturf, A.P.; Purnell, P. Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1437–1457. [CrossRef]
8. Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46.
[CrossRef]
9. Horbach, J.; Rammer, C. Circular economy innovations, growth and employment at the firm level: Empirical evidence from
Germany. J. Ind. Ecol. 2020, 24, 615–625. [CrossRef]
10. Gusmerotti, N.M.; Testa, F.; Corsini, F.; Pretner, G.; Iraldo, F. Drivers and approaches to the circular economy in manufacturing
firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 230, 314–327. [CrossRef]
11. Hartley, K.; van Santen, R.; Kirchherr, J. Policies for transitioning towards a circular economy: Expectations from the European
Union (EU). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 155, 104634. [CrossRef]
12. Robaina, M.; Villar, J.; Pereira, E.T. The determinants for a circular economy in Europe. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27,
12566–12578. [CrossRef]
13. Dieckmann, E.; Sheldrick, L.; Tennant, M.; Myers, R.; Cheeseman, C. Analysis of Barriers to Transitioning from a Linear to a
Circular Economy for End of Life Materials: A Case Study for Waste Feathers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1725. [CrossRef]
14. García-Quevedo, J.; Jové-Llopis, E.; Martínez-Ros, E. Barriers to the circular economy in European small and medium-sized firms.
Bus. Strat. Environ. 2020, 29, 2450–2464. [CrossRef]
15. Guldmann, E.; Huulgaard, R.D. Barriers to circular business model innovation: A multiple-case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243,
118160. [CrossRef]

506
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

16. Kanters, J. Circular Building Design: An Analysis of Barriers and Drivers for a Circular Building Sector. Buildings 2020, 10, 77.
[CrossRef]
17. Werning, J.P.; Spinler, S. Transition to circular economy on firm level: Barrier identification and prioritization along the value
chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118609. [CrossRef]
18. Govindan, K.; Hasanagic, M. A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: A supply chain
perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 278–311. [CrossRef]
19. Masi, D.; Day, S.; Godsell, J. Supply Chain Configurations in the Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability
2017, 9, 1602. [CrossRef]
20. Jia, F.; Yin, S.; Chen, L.; Chen, X. The circular economy in textile and apparel industry: A systematic literature review. J. Clean.
Prod. 2020, 259, 120728. [CrossRef]
21. Mura, M.; Longo, M.; Zanni, S. Circular economy in Italian SMEs: A multi-method study. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118821.
[CrossRef]
22. Hart, J.; Adams, K.; Giesekam, J.; Tingley, D.D.; Pomponi, F. Barriers and drivers in a circular economy: The case of the built
environment. Procedia CIRP 2019, 80, 619–624. [CrossRef]
23. Jabbour, C.J.C.; Seuring, S.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Jugend, D.; Fiorini, P.D.C.; Latan, H.; Izeppi, W.C. Stakeholders, innovative
business models for the circular economy and sustainable performance of firms in an emerging economy facing institutional
voids. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 264, 110416. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Xue, B.; Chen, X.-P.; Geng, Y.; Guo, X.-J.; Lu, C.-P.; Zhang, Z.-L.; Lu, C.-Y. Survey of officials’ awareness on circular economy
development in China: Based on municipal and county level. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 1296–1302. [CrossRef]
25. Chang, Y.-T.; Hsieh, S.-H. A Preliminary Case Study on Circular Economy in Taiwan’s Construction. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ.
Sci. 2019, 225, 012069. [CrossRef]
26. Tura, N.; Hanski, J.; Ahola, T.; Ståhle, M.; Piiparinen, S.; Valkokari, P. Unlocking circular business: A framework of barriers and
drivers. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 90–98. [CrossRef]
27. Moktadir, M.A.; Rahman, T.; Rahman, M.H.; Ali, S.M.; Paul, S.K. Drivers to sustainable manufacturing practices and circular
economy: A perspective of leather industries in Bangladesh. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 1366–1380. [CrossRef]
28. Ababio, B.K.; Lu, W. Barriers and enablers of circular economy in construction: A multi-system perspective towards the
development of a practical framework. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2023, 41, 3–21. [CrossRef]
29. Nohra, C.G.; Pereno, A.; Barbero, S. Systemic Design for Policy-Making: Towards the Next Circular Regions. Sustainability 2020,
12, 4494. [CrossRef]
30. Kumar, V.; Sezersan, I.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Gonzalez, E.D.; Al-Shboul, M.A. Circular economy in the manufacturing sector:
Benefits, opportunities and barriers. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 1067–1086. [CrossRef]
31. Mishra, R.; Singh, R.K.; Govindan, K. Barriers to the adoption of circular economy practices in Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises: Instrument development, measurement and validation. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 351, 131389. [CrossRef]
32. Elia, V.; Gnoni, M.G.; Tornese, F. Evaluating the adoption of circular economy practices in industrial supply chains: An empirical
analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 273, 122966. [CrossRef]
33. Barbaritano, M.; Bravi, L.; Savelli, E. Sustainability and Quality Management in the Italian Luxury Furniture Sector: A Circular
Economy Perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3089. [CrossRef]
34. D’adamo, I.; Gastaldi, M. Sustainable Development Goals: A Regional Overview Based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9779. [CrossRef]
35. Ali, S.M.; Appolloni, A.; Cavallaro, F.; D’adamo, I.; Di Vaio, A.; Ferella, F.; Gastaldi, M.; Ikram, M.; Kumar, N.M.; Martin, M.A.;
et al. Development Goals towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9443. [CrossRef]
36. Kirchherr, J.; Yang, N.-H.N.; Schulze-Spüntrup, F.; Heerink, M.J.; Hartley, K. Conceptualizing the Circular Economy (Revisited):
An Analysis of 221 Definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 194, 107001. [CrossRef]
37. Friant, M.C.; Vermeulen, W.J.; Salomone, R. A typology of circular economy discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a
contested paradigm. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 161, 104917. [CrossRef]
38. Sehnem, S.; Pereira, S.C.F. Rumo à Economia Circular: Sinergia Existente entre as Definições Conceituais Correlatas e Apropriação
para a Literatura Brasileira. Rev. Eletrônica Ciência Adm. 2019, 18, 35–62. [CrossRef]
39. McDonough, W.; Braungart, M. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things; North Point Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
40. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Cities and Circular Economy for Food. 2019. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 18 April 2022).
41. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. A Solution to Build Back Better: The Circular Economy. 2020. Available online: [Link]
[Link]/assets/downloads/[Link] (accessed on 8 December 2020).
42. Agenda 2030. 2015. Agenda 2023 Para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável. Available online: [Link]
agenda-2030-para-o-desenvolvimento-sustentavel (accessed on 14 May 2022).
43. Corvellec, H.; Stowell, A.F.; Johansson, N. Critiques of the circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 2022, 26, 421–432. [CrossRef]
44. Agyemang, M.; Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Khan, S.A.; Mani, V.; Rehman, S.T.; Kusi-Sarpong, H. Drivers and barriers to circular economy
implementation. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 971–994. [CrossRef]
45. De Jesus, A.; Mendonça, S. Lost in transition? drivers and barriers in the eco-innovation road to the circular economy. Ecol. Econ.
2018, 145, 75–89. [CrossRef]

507
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

46. Ormazabal, M.; Prieto-Sandoval, V.; Puga-Leal, R.; Jaca, C. Circular Economy in Spanish SMEs: Challenges and opportunities.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 185, 157–167. [CrossRef]
47. Šebo, J.; Kádárová, J.; Malega, P. Barriers and motives experienced by manufacturing companies in implementing circular
economy initiatives: The case of manufacturing industry in Slovakia. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Council on
Technologies of Environmental Protection (ICTEP), Starý Smokovec, Slovakia, 23–25 October 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA,
2019; pp. 226–229. [CrossRef]
48. Geng, Y.; Doberstein, B. Developing the circular economy in China: Challenges and opportunities for achieving ‘leapfrog
development’. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2008, 15, 231–239. [CrossRef]
49. Ilić, M.; Nikolić, M. Drivers for development of circular economy—A case study of Serbia. Habitat Int. 2016, 56, 191–200.
[CrossRef]
50. De Mattos, C.A.; De Albuquerque, T.L.M. Enabling factors and strategies for the transition toward a circular economy (CE).
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4628. [CrossRef]
51. Ranta, V.; Aarikka-Stenroos, L.; Ritala, P.; Mäkinen, S.J. Exploring institutional drivers and barriers of the circular economy: A
cross-regional comparison of China, the US, and Europe. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 135, 70–82. [CrossRef]
52. Kazancoglu, I.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Yarimoglu, E.; Kahraman, A. A conceptual framework for barriers of circular supply chains for
sustainability in the textile industry. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 1477–1492. [CrossRef]
53. Kirchherr, J.; Piscicelli, L.; Bour, R.; Kostense-Smit, E.; Muller, J.; Huibrechtse-Truijens, A.; Hekkert, M. Barriers to the Circular
Economy: Evidence From the European Union (EU). Ecol. Econ. 2018, 150, 264–272. [CrossRef]
54. Mangla, S.K.; Luthra, S.; Mishra, N.; Singh, A.; Rana, N.P.; Dora, M.; Dwivedi, Y. Barriers to effective circular supply chain
management in a developing country context. Prod. Plan. Control 2018, 29, 551–569. [CrossRef]
55. Milios, L.; Beqiri, B.; Whalen, K.A.; Jelonek, S.H. Sailing towards a circular economy: Conditions for increased reuse and
remanufacturing in the Scandinavian maritime sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 225, 227–235. [CrossRef]
56. Shao, J.; Huang, S.; Lemus-Aguilar, I.; Ünal, E. Circular business models generation for automobile remanufacturing industry in
China. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2020, 31, 542–571. [CrossRef]
57. Ritzén, S.; Sandström, G. Barriers to the Circular Economy—Integration of Perspectives and Domains. Procedia CIRP 2017, 64,
7–12. [CrossRef]
58. Campbell-Johnston, K.; Cate, J.T.; Elfering-Petrovic, M.; Gupta, J. City level circular transitions: Barriers and limits in Amsterdam,
Utrecht and The Hague. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 1232–1239. [CrossRef]
59. Snyder, H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 333–339. [CrossRef]
60. Wolfswinkel, J.F.; Furtmueller, E.; Wilderom, C.P.M. Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Eur.
J. Inf. Syst. 2013, 22, 45–55. [CrossRef]
61. Flores, P.J.; Jansson, J. SPICe—Determinants of consumer green innovation adoption across domains: A systematic review of
marketing journals and suggestions for a research agenda. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2022, 46, 1761–1784. [CrossRef]
62. Paul, J.; Criado, A.R. The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? Int. Bus. Rev. 2020,
29, 101717. [CrossRef]
63. Galvão, G.D.A.; Homrich, A.S.; Geissdoerfer, M.; Evans, S.; Scoleze Ferrer, P.S.; Carvalho, M.M. Towards a value stream
perspective of circular business models. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 162, 105060. [CrossRef]
64. Bardin, L. Análise de Conteúdo; Edições 70: São Paulo, Brazil, 2016.
65. Xiao, Y.; Watson, M. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019, 39, 93–112. [CrossRef]
66. Ghisellini, P.; Ripa, M.; Ulgiati, S. Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to
the construction and demolition sector. A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 618–643. [CrossRef]
67. Mahpour, A. Prioritizing barriers to adopt circular economy in construction and demolition waste management. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2018, 134, 216–227. [CrossRef]
68. Bolger, K.; Doyon, A. Circular cities: Exploring local government strategies to facilitate a circular economy. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019,
27, 2184–2205. [CrossRef]
69. Camacho-Otero, J.; Boks, C.; Pettersen, I.N. User acceptance and adoption of circular offerings in the fashion sector: Insights from
user-generated online reviews. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 928–939. [CrossRef]
70. Farooque, M.; Zhang, A.; Liu, Y. Barriers to circular food supply chains in China. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019, 24, 677–696.
[CrossRef]
71. Garcés-Ayerbe, C.; Rivera-Torres, P.; Suárez-Perales, I.; Leyva-De La Hiz, D.I. Is it possible to change from a linear to a circular
economy? an overview of opportunities and barriers for european small and medium-sized enterprise companies. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 851. [CrossRef]
72. Gue IH, V.; Ubando, A.T.; Promentilla MA, B.; Tan, R.R. Determining the Causality between Drivers of Circular Economy using
the DEMATEL Framework. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2019, 76, 121–126. [CrossRef]
73. Piyathanavong, V.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kumar, V.; Maldonado-Guzmán, G.; Mangla, S.K. The adoption of operational environmen-
tal sustainability approaches in the Thai manufacturing sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 507–528. [CrossRef]
74. Rajput, S.; Singh, S.P. Industry 4.0—Challenges to implement circular economy. Benchmarking Int. J. 2019, 28, 1717–1739. [CrossRef]
75. Scarpellini, S.; Portillo-Tarragona, P.; Aranda-Usón, A.; Llena-Macarulla, F. Definition and measurement of the circular economy’s
regional impact. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 62, 2211–2237. [CrossRef]

508
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10532

76. Singh, P.; Giacosa, E. Cognitive biases of consumers as barriers in transition towards circular economy. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57,
921–936. [CrossRef]
77. Tseng, M.-L.; Chiu, A.S.; Chien, C.-F.; Tan, R.R. Pathways and barriers to circularity in food systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019,
143, 236–237. [CrossRef]
78. Jaeger, B.; Upadhyay, A. Understanding barriers to circular economy: Cases from the manufacturing industry. J. Enterp. Inf.
Manag. 2020, 33, 729–745. [CrossRef]
79. Ozkan-Ozen, Y.D.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Mangla, S.K. Synchronizes Barriers for Circular Supply Chains in Industry 3.5/Industry 4.0
Transition for Sustainable Resource Management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 161, 104986. [CrossRef]
80. Panarello, D.; Gatto, A. Decarbonising Europe—EU citizens’ perception of renewable energy transition amidst the European
Green Deal. Energy Policy 2023, 172, 113272. [CrossRef]
81. Cuadros-Casanova, I.; Cristiano, A.; Biancolini, D.; Cimatti, M.; Sessa, A.A.; Angarita, V.Y.M.; Dragonetti, C.; Pacifici, M.;
Rondinini, C.; Di Marco, M. Opportunities and challenges for Common Agricultural Policy reform to support the European
Green Deal. Conserv. Biol. 2023, 37, e14052. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Camilleri, M.A. European environment policy for the circular economy: Implications for business and industry stakeholders.
Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 1804–1812. [CrossRef]
83. Borrello, M.; Caracciolo, F.; Lombardi, A.; Pascucci, S.; Cembalo, L. Consumers’ Perspective on Circular Economy Strategy for
Reducing Food Waste. Sustainability 2017, 9, 141. [CrossRef]
84. Testa, F.; Iovino, R.; Iraldo, F. The circular economy and consumer behaviour: The mediating role of information seeking in
buying circular packaging. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2020, 29, 3435–3448. [CrossRef]
85. Schraven, D.; Bukvić, U.; Di Maio, F.; Hertogh, M. Circular transition: Changes and responsibilities in the Dutch stony material
supply chain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 150, 104359. [CrossRef]
86. Yazdanpanah, V.; Yazan, D.M.; Zijm, W.H.M. FISOF: A formal industrial symbiosis opportunity filtering method. Eng. Appl. Artif.
Intell. 2019, 81, 247–259. [CrossRef]
87. Ahmadov, T.; Gerstlberger, W.; Prause, G.K. Fiscal Incentives for Circular Economy: Insights from the Baltic States. In Business
Models for the Circular Economy; Sustainability and Innovation; Prokop, V., Stejskal, J., Horbach, J., Gerstlberger, W., Eds.; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2022. [CrossRef]
88. Prokop, V.; Gerstlberger, W.; Zapletal, D.; Striteska, M.K. The double-edged role of firm environmental behaviour in the creation
of product innovation in Central and Eastern European countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 331, 129989. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

509
 MDPI AG
Grosspeteranlage 5
4052 Basel
Switzerland
Tel.: +41 61 683 77 34

Sustainability Editorial Office

E-mail: sustainability@[Link]
[Link]/journal/sustainability

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are
solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s).
MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from
any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Academic Open
Access Publishing

[Link] ISBN 978-3-7258-2580-6