7. Recommendations

7.1 Divergent performance across metrics

The TPI presents the Nordic countries as top performers. This is in contrast to the SDI where they rank near the bottom of the pile, and the doughnut economy indicators which temper excellent social performance with disastrous environmental performance. This incongruence can be explained by the fact that the TPI is a relative indicator and so only ranks countries in comparison with one another, and is also far more influenced by performance in more traditional economic metrics such as GDP. By comparison, the latter two metrics are both underpinned by a “strong” or “strict” sustainability approach, where positive social performance cannot counterbalance poor environmental performance, and environmental performance is measured by those absolute proxies which matter most for planetary boundary transgression. Notably both sets of indicators also focus on consumption-based metrics when analysing ecological impacts. These differences in findings are representative of a wider gulf between the public perception of the Nordics particularly as environmental leaders, and the reality borne out in the data of massive and growing unsustainability. This theme is returned below.

7.2 The need to align and improve metrics

The study has backed conclusions drawn elsewhere that the landscape of beyond-GDP metrics is not yet in a fit place to guide serious and impactful policymaking. For the doughnut economy indicators data was only available until 2015 and was absent entirely for a number of countries, most significantly Iceland. Meanwhile the underlying dynamics of the TPI proved hard to interpret even for our own expert project team, with little information offered publicly about the underlying data and how it was used. Even more glaringly the TPI is being discontinued to make way for another new metric, returning the European landscape to square one after a no doubt substantial investment to develop it in the first place.

If alternative measures of welfare are to play a more meaningful role in policy and governance in the future, then alignment is needed around a set of metrics which can be developed to a level of rigour and completeness that they are suitable for this purpose, and which can enable the same level of comparability and shared reference as GDP does today. Rather than continually developing new metrics, the community should attempt to find alignment around a useful set and focus on improving them. Here there is a significant opportunity for powerful Nordic collaboration; each country has a wide array of unique welfare and ecological indicators, and if a regional agreement could be reached around a unified set this could set a promising precedent for the rest of Europe and the world. Even where Nordic countries may feel a sense of competition between themselves, shared measurement will enable this competition to drive towards mutual improvement. Forums like the EU and OECD could provide other opportunities for the Nordic countries to show their leadership around the growing beyond-GDP agenda. Shifts in policy and governance require improving the coherence and quality of indicators, and the present moment is ripe with opportunity to do just this.

In terms of the form of the indicators which should be chosen, dashboard-based metrics such as the doughnut indicators appear particularly promising. Such approaches avoid the worries over normativity and subjectivity involved in weighting and compiling metrics into composite indicators, while providing a granular enough overview of performance to guide policy and a clear enough picture to be intelligible to wider audiences. Similarly, if metrics are to provide an accurate picture of sustainability performance then it is essential that they follow the likes of the doughnut indicators and SDI in utilising consumption-based indicators of ecological performance, so as to avoid offshoring of environmental impacts being mistaken for improvement.

Recommendations:

Begin work across the Nordic countries to align on a beyond-GDP measurement standard, informed by the wider state of the art. Advocate and lead based on this through multilateral institutions such as the EU and OECD.
Adopt a framework–such as the doughnut economy–which separates social and environmental performance, which is absolute not relative, uses consumption-based indicators, and which meets “strong” sustainability criteria (see 7.1).
Ensure there is up to date and high-quality data available for all Nordic countries and support national statistical offices to collect important data which is missing.

7.3 Without governance integration, measurement is meaningless

As mentioned above, the Nordics all do very well with respect to the presence of alternative measurements and experimentation with frameworks such as the wellbeing and doughnut economy. However, in every case the translation of these initiatives into meaningful policy action, particularly around environmental performance, has proved underwhelming. The crucial gap is found in the integration of metrics into mechanisms of governance in a manner that gives them the teeth to legitimately shape policy and practice. As Malmaeus & Lindblom (2021) note in their discussion of environmental management:

“Management by setting objectives is frequently practiced in various policy contexts (Vedung 1997; Wholey 1999). But despite the fact that objectives are common in environmental management, research on the performance of such systems and how they should be designed has so far been limited (Edvardsson 2004; Larsson and Hanberger 2016).”

Further work is needed to identify the approaches and systems which can most effectively translate measurement into policy and governance change. The Danish example of SDG informed risk assessment is the closest example of meaningful governance integration, however its shortfalls also point to the difficulty of doing so effectively. These interventions need not start entirely from scratch, however, as promising innovations have been developed elsewhere. For example, WEGo nations and their Nordic peers might consider adopting nationally appropriate variations of the Welsh WE institutional framework, with legislation that identifies core goals related to sustainable/future-oriented wellbeing rather than GDP growth, supported by offices similar to the Future Generations Commissioner. (Hayden, 2024)

Governance integration presents another opportunity for the Nordic countries to position themselves as global leaders; in the midst of the momentum behind beyond-GDP metrics Nordic integration of such metrics into the heart of their governance infrastructures would send a clear signal to the rest of the world that the region is serious about securing sustainable and inclusive wellbeing for its citizens for generations to come.

Recommendations:

Conduct a review of how alternative metrics have been successfully integrated into governance across the world, highlighting cases where they have changed policy outcomes.
National governments should explore what feasible and effective governance integration would look like in their contexts, and use this to develop pilots.

7.4 There is an urgent need to focus on ecological interventions

As mentioned in the opening paragraph, the reputation of the Nordic countries as top environmental performers is not borne out in the data. Through a focus on consumption based impacts the doughnut economy indicators and SDI point to an urgent need for a step change in action around sustainability across the region if ecological catastrophe is to be avoided at home and across the world.

What is particularly interesting is that this poor environmental performance comes despite leadership in many of the standard suite of policy solutions, such as clean domestic energy and EV adoption. That the Nordics have more than most other regions already plucked these low hanging fruits, and still continue to operate vastly unsustainably, indicates that exploring different, more structural changes should be considered if we are to take sustainability seriously.

A strong focus on alternative, ecological interventions need not mean sacrificing performance across social welfare, however. In fact, alternative approaches may hold promise in maintaining the Nordics’ high performance in the face of increasing strain and uncertainty. In the present and ever more unstable era there is evidence that the traditional Nordic welfare model is proving more difficult to maintain even aside from its environmental impacts; popular disaffection and malaise is growing and has been manifested in increasing political polarisation in the region, as well as across the EU at large. A more central role for ecological considerations in policy design has the potential to afford a number of co-benefits for present day societal welfare in a manner that may prove useful in countering this worrying trend.

Recommendations:

Conduct comparative and evaluative research into the full range of interventions available to the Nordics for delivering sustainable and inclusive wellbeing, including serious explorations of alternative approaches such as sufficiency solutions which have been outlined in the beyond-GDP policy sphere.
Conduct country level analyses of which policy interventions hold the most potential to deliver sustainable and inclusive wellbeing at the national level.