The sustainable competitiveness index 2013

The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index

1

Disclaimer

Disclaimer No warranty This publication is derived from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but neither its accuracy nor completeness is guaranteed. The material and information in this publication are provided "as is" and without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied. SolAbility disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Any opinions and views in this publication reflect the current judgment of the authors and may change without notice. It is each reader's responsibility to evaluate the accuracy, completeness and usefulness of any opinions, advice, services or other information provided in this publication. Limitation of liability All information contained in this publication is distributed with the understanding that the authors, publishers and distributors are not rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters and accordingly assume no liability whatsoever in connection with its use. In no event shall SolAbility be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use of any opinion or information expressly or implicitly contained in this publication. Copyright Unless otherwise noted, text, images and layout of this publication are the exclusive property of SolAbility. Republication is welcome. No Offer The information and opinions contained in this publication constitutes neither a solicitation, nor a recommendation, nor an offer to buy or sell investment instruments or other services, or to engage in any other kind of transaction. The information described in this publication is not directed to persons in any jurisdiction where the provision of such information would run counter to local laws and regulation.

Page 2

The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013

Table of contents

About this Report

About this report Research, calculation and compilation by SolAbility April 2013 © SolAbility. Reproduction welcome & encouraged

Acknowledgements The compilation and calculation of this Index would not have been possible without the data and time series made available by various UN agencies (UNDP, UNEP, UNICEF, FAO, WHO, WMO, www.data.un.org), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other nongovernmental organisations (including Transparency International, Reporters without Borders, The New Economics Foundation, The Institute for Economics and Peace, and The Fund For Peace).

About SolAbility SolAbility is a sustainability advisory consultancy based in Korea, providing sustainable management tools & services to corporate clients and advanced sustainable investment research covering Pan-Asian equities for institutional investors. Three corporate clients who have implemented sustainability strategies and management systems developed and designed by SolAbility have been recognised as global sustainability leaders (“global super-sector leader”) in their respective industry sector by the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), an honour that is awarded to only 19 of the annually evaluated 2’500 companies world-wide.

SolAbility 802 Meritwin 856 Ilsan, South Korea www.solability.com contact@solability.com

Table of contents

The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013

Page 3

or “non-financial” aspects are factored into the commonly expression of wealth of Nations. the GDP. due to the lack of integrating all aspects of development drivers – natural resources. The Sustainable Competitiveness Index is based on a sustainable competitiveness model that incorporates all relevant pillars of sustained growth and wealth creation of a nation – natural capital availability. Yet none of these adverse effects. and to be used to analyse future development prospects of nations. and are actively pursuing new opportunities related to sustainable development. innovation capabilities and social cohesion .Foreword Inclusive alternative to the GDP The wealth of nations is commonly expressed in the “Gross Domestic Product” (GDP). In the financial world. We hope you find this report informative. but also certain minerals and metals – are scarce (or are set to become scarce goods in the near/medium future). economic activities do have certain adverse side-effects on the natural environment. GDP growth rates and changes in growth rates are often used as an indicator for an economy’s well-being and development. Page 4 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents . The results aim at serving as an alternative to the GDP. Current GDP levels therefore have limited informative value relating to the future potential of achieving and sustaining inclusive development and creation of wealth. models have been developed aiming at evaluating a company's capability to mange future risks and to capitalise on new opportunities for investment decision purposes. It is not suspiring that where the money rolls – in the real economy – that corporations have long started to incorporate sustainability factors in their corporate score cards.the GDP describes a moment in time. it also analyses and incorporates the data trends over time to allow for a better expression of the future development potential. expressed in a monetary value. However. external. In addition to the full integration of sustainability performance data. In other words – the GDP is a very limited expression of a national balance sheet. innovation and business capabilities. resources. in turn composed of financial transactions in exchange for goods and services. governance). most often referred to as “ESG” models (environment . social. However. unfortunately and too often impaired by ideological prejudice or economic theories developed in a aseptic theoretical environment. efficiency. The GDP is composed of the economic output of a country. What is competitiveness ? The definition of competitiveness of nations is a controversially discussed issue. natural resources are not renewable and many vital resources – water. In addition. and on the socio-cultural fabric of a society. and social cohesion. By comparing the outcomes of the sustainable competitiveness analysis with the probably best recognised conventional competitiveness index – The WEF’s “Davos Man” Competitiveness Report – the Sustainable Competitiveness Index aims at contributing to the discussion of what policies can help a country to identify and develop suitable development models adapted to its special characteristics in order to achieve sustainable wealth creation. resource intensity. energy.

Davos Man Competitiveness The WEF Competitiveness Model Methodology Comparison 26 32 38 42 45 48 53 Ranking Comparison Analysis: Economic growth & competitiveness 4 Achieving Sustainable Competitiveness Problem-Solution Tree Sustaining Natural Capital Competitiveness & Efficiency Creating Sustainable Wealth Ensuring Social Cohesion 56 58 64 66 68 70 72 5 6 Spotlight: Korea Tables: Rankings at a Glance Sustainably competitive Korea Sustainable Competitiveness All Areas Natural Capital Resource Intensity Sustainable Innovation Social cohesion 74 84 86 90 91 92 93 Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 5 .Table of Contents 1 The Index: Sustainable Competitiveness Sustainable Competitiveness Natural Capital Resource Intensity 6 14 20 Sustainable Innovation & Economy Social Cohesion 2 Measuring Sustainable Competitiveness The Sustainable Competitiveness Model Indicators Index Calculation 3 Sustainable Competitiveness vs.

Sustainable competitiveness The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index 6 .

and Resource Intensity. Social. because it encompasses all economic aspects. It is now widely accepted that economic growth and wealth creation can have adverse impacts or side-effects on the non-financial assets of a country and the region (depletion of resources is normally affecting the country itself. on the geographical and climatic environment within their given physical boundaries. The environmental component has therefore been divided into two separate pillars of competitiveness: the Natural Capital. While there is some controversy surrounding this definition – in particular the definition of “needs” – the definition is widely accepted and often quoted. and are therefore also referred to as “economic” aspects. the main pillars of the model are widely established. A distinctive difference between countries and corporations is that corporations are mobile. The Sustainable Competitiveness Index is based on the adaption of the ESG model to country level. i. Countries are ranked against each other in numerous indexes. Sustainable competitiveness means the ability of a country to meet the needs and basic requirements of current generations while sustaining or growing the national and individual wealth into the future without depleting natural and social capital. there is no agreed indicator to measure “sustainable development” of nations.Sustainable Competitiveness Introduction Sustainable development and sustainable competitiveness It is now more than 20 years ago that the Brundtland Commission formulated the definition of sustainable development in the run-up to the Rio 92’ summit: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. but they tend to either concentrate on economic performance or else on sustainability indicators while excluding or omitting the other. but bear limited informative value for future developments due to the omission of key fundamentals required for the smooth functioning of economies.can undermine or even reverse future wealth creation. for good or for worse. However. The negative impacts of economic activities including negative impacts on the social fabric and cohabitation within a society . and therefore depend. while pollution can have wider regional impacts in other countries. In the context of a country. with adjustments to fundamental pillars and indicators to measure sustainabilitybased competitiveness of a country. including governance and management. the economic pillar refers to the ability of a country to generate and sustain wealth in a globalised economy. Countries are bound within their frontiers. Economic competitiveness indicators alone are therefore a measurement of current wealth levels. or global impacts like climate change). the ESG (Environment. While there are significant methodological differences between the different corporate sustainability Indexes and rankings depending on the issuing organisation. There is no agreed model to comprehensively measure sustainability of nations.e. Governance) model has become a accepted standard to measure sustainability of corporations for investment purposes. a model that integrates economic and sustainability (financial and “non-financial” performance) – the sustainable competitiveness of a country. where the Natural Capital stands for availability of resources and Resource Intensity for the efficient use of available resources. The “G” for “Governance” in ESG might be somewhat misleading. In the financial market realm. Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 7 .

WHO. 65 of the 73 indicators are based on pure data (quantitative indicators) collected by the World Bank. • Sustainable Innovation: the capability of a country to generate wealth and jobs through innovation and value-added industries in the globalised markets • Social Cohesion: the health of populations.The Sustainable Competitiveness Model Four Pillars 4 sustainable competitiveness pillars. equality. The remaining 7 have been calculated by external agencies or are based on perception surveys in the different countries. These four pillars are: • Natural Capital: the given natural environment within the frontiers of a country. i. and the level of the depletion of those resources. the lack of innovative edge required to competed in the globalised markets. security and freedom within a country In order to calculate the Sustainable Competitiveness. FAO. 8 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents . the IMF and various UN agencies (UNEP. WTO. UNDP. wealth that is not in danger of being reduced or diminished through overexploitation of resources (natural and human). UNESCO). a total of 73 indicators have been analyses against latest available performance data. or the exploitation of segments of a society.e. including availability of resources. A 5-year trend of the same indicators (whether the development shows positive or negative trends) has also been incorporated in the index calculation. • Resource Intensity: the efficiency of using available resources(domestic or imported) as a measurement of operational competitiveness in a resource-constraint World. 73 data sets The Sustainable Competitiveness model is based on four fundamental pillars that together from the base capability of a country to generate and sustain sustainable wealth.

achieving sustained prosperity in these countries might be compromised by Natural Capital constraints and current high resource intensity/low resource efficiency • The Social Cohesion ranking is headed by Northern European countries. favourable climate and sufficient water resources. indicating that Social Cohesion is the result of economic growth combined with social consensus The Sustainable Competitiveness World map: dark colour indicates high. The only non-European country in the top 20 are Canada (7).Sustainable Competitiveness World Map The Sustainable Competitiveness World Map The Sustainable Competitiveness score is based on scoring current performance data as well as the trend analysis (increase/decrease) over the past 5 years. indicating that some countries will face lower obstacles with the coming raw material and energy scarcity • Asian nations (Singapore. China) lead the Sustainable Innovation Competitiveness ranking. Of the booming emerging economies. and other not-so-surprising results: • The Sustainable Competitiveness Index is topped by the four Scandinavian countries. China 38th. Distinctions are also visible between the more industrialised countries. Russia 48th. Japan (12). The Sustainable Competiveness Ranking reveals some surprising. and India 126h. and New Zealand (14). is ranked 27th. followed by other North-Western European Nations. the US. light colour limited Sustainable Competitiveness Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 9 . • The Worlds largest economy. Brazil is ranked 28th. South Korea. South Korea 30st. However. Japan. The combination of absolute comparison and trend analysis reflects a momentary picture as well as being an indication of the long-term sustainable development potential of countries. • The Natural Capital and Resource Intensity rankings are topped by countries with a rich biodiversity.

10 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents 25 . it is interesting to note that Eastern Europe achieves a higher score than Sothern Europe (which has nominally higher income levels). North America and North-East Asia – all areas in the Northern hemisphere. The large difference means that there is large gap between the leading scores (the top 40 nations) and the rest of the World. joined by Central America and the Middle East. followed by North-Western Europe. All African Regions are in the bottom half. Australia & New Zealand. Central Asia is the only region that doesn't fit into the North-South divide. The high-income countries of the Middle East have sustained their economic success with the exploitation of their mineral resources. -50% Denmark Ireland Slovenia Italy Malta Bhutan Hungary Chile Greenland Mauritius Nepal India Mongolia Jamaica Senegal Malawi Guinea Iran Burundi West Bank and Gaza -30% -10% 10% 30% 50% Average deviation Only 38% of the 176 countries assessed Sustainable Competitiveness score is above the average score. i. Part of the objective of this index was to evaluate whether the commonly poor outlook of African nations would look different when measured against non-financial indicators.Sustainable Competitiveness Regional Spread Scandinavia North-western Europe Australia & New Zealand North America North-east Asia Eastern Europe Southern Europe South America South-east Asia Central Asia Northern Africa Central America Western Africa Southern Africa Middle East Eastern Africa 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Regional spread Scandinavia as a region achieves the highest Sustainable Competitiveness score. Unfortunately. The low Sustainable Competitiveness of the region raises concerns on whether those countries will be able to maintain or sustain their development level once there fossil fuel wealth subsidies. From a European perspective. nearly two thirds (62%) are below the average score. this seems not to be the case.e.

the correlation is superficial and refuted by too many exceptions to the rule. Like every endeavor or project. sustainable competitiveness can be temporarily “cheated on” in the presence of large natural resources trough exploitation of the natural capital (e.000 25. Sustainable Competitiveness and GDP 40. the correlation or the influence of the sustainable competitiveness on GDP or income level is not immediate. The seeds have to be planted.000 30.000 35.Relation to Economic Output: Sustainable Competitiveness Score & GDP High sustainability = high income levels The leading nations in the Sustainable Competitiveness ranking are mostly (current) high-income countries.000 15.000 0 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Average deviation of GDP and sustainable competitiveness -100% -50% 0% 50% 100% Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 11 . such wealth is highly unsustainable and the wealth generated will diminish in the absence of development of an adequate alternative sustainable economy and the underlying fundament requirements to achieve sustainable wealth that does not depend on the exploitation of non-renewable resources.000 10. an upfront investment is required to achieve the desired results. In other words: higher sustainable competitiveness can be associated with higher income levels. However. the plants need to be cared for before the harvest can be collected. it is time deferred.000 5. the oil-rich countries of the Middle East). The same is true when visualizing average deviations of GDP per capita and the sustainable competitiveness score. While a certain similarity between GDP rankings and sustainability levels seems to be visible. but rather from sustainable competitiveness to income levels.g.000 20. However. suggesting a certain correlation between Sustainable Competitiveness score and GDP per capita or income levels (high income = high sustainability). In addition. This indicates that the correlation is not from GDP to sustainable competitiveness.

1 56.3 47.6 45.0 42.6 46.5 51.9 55.2 55.3 54.5 44.5 52.7 44.9 46.7 51.8 42.2 42.4 44.3 42.8 61.3 55.2 2012 +2 -1 +1 +1 +5 +2 -5 +3 -3 -3 -2 +3 +1 +6 +3 -4 +6 +6 -1 +1 -10 +3 -3 +16 +3 +11 -11 +13 +1 -3 -5 -10 -2 +6 -6 -3 +8 +18 -3 Country Malta Timor-Leste Israel Russia Peru Serbia Albania Bulgaria Republic of Congo Tajikistan Tanzania Greece Ghana Malaysia Colombia Zambia Cyprus Sri Lanka Cameroon Qatar Dominica Liberia Moldova Guyana Guinea-Bissau Mozambique Laos Armenia Macao Venezuela Ethiopia Ecuador Cote d'Ivoire Dominican Republic Paraguay Suriname Tunisia Sudan Kosovo Democratic Republic of Congo Kyrgistan Sierra Leone Gambia Zimbabwe Rank 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Score 46.2 42.2 47.8 47.6 51.6 48.6 44.1 44.1 44.6 52.0 43.4 46.5 57.9 46.9 47.2 50.6 60.5 48.0 43.9 49.1 44.0 53.8 59.6 46.3 43.7 43.9 44.0 52.9 59.1 44.0 42.0 45.7 57.2 47.0 41.1 43.9 51.7 46.1 54.6 50.5 43.4 50.6 44.3 48.4 46.7 43.3 48.Sustainable Competitiveness Rankings 1-88 Country Denmark Sweden Finland Norway Switzerland Germany Canada Ireland Austria Luxembourg Netherlands Japan Iceland New Zealand France Slovenia Czech Republic Estonia Spain Portugal Belarus Italy Lithuania Australia United Kingdom Belgium USA Brazil Hungary South Korea Poland Singapore Bhutan Romania Slovakia Latvia Croatia China Uzbekistan Argentina Costa Rica Montenegro Indonesia Uruguay Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Score 62.9 Page 12 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents .8 49.7 42.3 47.8 54.1 42.2 42.9 44.9 49.6 42.1 46.7 56.3 46.1 49.1 52.2 52.9 60.3 44.8 42.3 45.0 51.

6 34.5 41.4 38.6 35.4 38.0 36.8 38.1 39.6 39.9 35.1 34.8 36.5 41.6 38.2 40.5 39.0 33.7 41.5 40.1 35.3 40.9 36.9 38.1 34.1 37.3 39.6 38.4 41.Sustainable Competitiveness Rankings 89-176 Country Mali Malawi Cambodia Niger Belize Papua New Guinea Georgia Nepal Egypt Guinea Greenland Madagascar Togo Ukraine Mauritius Nicaragua Burkina Faso Bosnia and Herzegovina Azerbaijan Uganda Oman El Salvador Djibouti Thailand Lesotho Lebanon Angola Burma Panama Philippines Chile Vietnam Cuba Senegal Turkey Bangladesh Chad India Central African Republic Rwanda Mauritania Kuwait Burundi Morocco Rank 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 Score 41.4 37.0 Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 13 .7 40.2 35.8 34.1 37.0 39.4 41.3 41.0 40.4 31.0 28.0 41.6 Country Mongolia Syria Gabon Kazakhstan Afghanistan Benin Turkmenistan Nigeria Jamaica Seychelles Mexico Macedonia Saudi Arabia Bolivia Algeria Eritrea Jordan Kenya Bahrain Pakistan Botswana Guatemala North Korea Libya Comoros Swaziland South Africa United Arab Emirates Bahamas Iraq Iran Hong Kong South Sudan Honduras Namibia Brunei Somalia Maldives Fiji Trinidad and Tobago Haiti West Bank and Gaza Equatorial Guinea Yemen Rank 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 Score 38.0 37.3 38.7 41.7 40.1 38.3 36.2 30.9 37.7 37.7 40.2 34.3 37.5 37.7 38.2 37.9 38.6 36.6 36.9 41.8 40.7 40.3 38.4 26.6 37.2 38.3 33.0 38.1 39.1 40.7 41.2 32.3 39.4 34.7 31.2 38.8 37.8 39.8 40.9 41.1 41.7 33.5 40.9 41.2 41.1 40.8 39.

Natural capital The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index 14 .

resource depletion. desertification Forests Flora & Fauna Biodiversity pressure Energy resources Mineral resources Resource depletion Pollution of water Pollution of biodiversity Air pollution Natural capital indicators Based on the definition of the key natural capital sustainability areas.Elements of sustainable competitiveness Natural Capital Elements of the national natural capital The “Natural Capital” of a country is the capital that is given to a country in the form of land and its geography. the core issues affecting the sustainable use of natural capital have been defined in a natural capital model. water availability. Natural Capital Natural Capital Depletion & Agriculture Biodiversity Water Renewable freshwater Not renewable freshwater Agriculture Resources Pollution Available land Yield efficiency Degradation. the level of depletion. or degradation of those resources that could endanger future self-efficiency have also been taken into account. a sub-division of the UNEP) have been used for certain indicators. and the ecological footprint. The main challenge is therefore to select the most relevant and meaningful indicators amongst the wealth of available data. biodiversity. data series are chosen as indicators that reflect the sustainable competitiveness of a country based on its natural resources (natural capital). and the availability of mineral and fossil resources. climate. water. Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 15 . refer to the methodology section. quantitative scores compiled by GEF (Global Environment Facility. capacity. The natural capital model incorporates the essence of resources available that in effect would allow a country to be completely self-sustaining: land. such as biodiversity potential. food production. The indicators have been analyzed for the latest data point available as well as their development over time. As some of the above key areas are difficult to express in numerical values. and energy and mineral resources. The number of data points available from a variety of sources is nearly endless. fertility. For the full list of indicators. reflecting the current status and the future outlook of a country based on the natural capital and the level of its depletion due to human activities. In order to define meaningful and relevant. In addition.

West Africa. Guyana. and depletion levels. and requires significant time and resources. Brazil).Natural Capital World Map Biodiversity. While it takes little to impair or exploit the natural capital. The top ten according to natural capital indicators contains some surprising and not well known countries like Papua New Guinea. A large number of countries located in tropical areas (at the intersection of Central and South America. rebuilding or improving natural capital factors is difficult. Denmark and Norway.whereas the OECD’s representation in the top twenty is limited to Canada. Scandinavia. The ranking of China (149) and India (126) are affected by a combination of arid climate. raising some concerns to these countries ability to sustain their large populations. Large countries with a comparably small population density and rich biodiversity are on top of the Natural Capital ranking (North America. Both of these observations underline the overarching importance of the availability of water for humanity. Suriname. high population density. The Natural Capital World map: dark colour indicates high. South-East Asia) also seem to have the potential to achieve sustainable development based on their respective natural capital. The natural capital sustainability map below indicates a certain correlation with the level of human activities and population density. and Laos . light colour limited availability (or high depletion) of Natural Capital Page 16 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents . combined with the extend of human activities that have or will affect the ability of natural factors to sustain the population and the economy. water and raw materials determine natural capital competitiveness The potential for sustaining natural capital as a basis for sustained competitiveness is composed of two main factors: the characteristics of geography and climate. Because the natural capital is a given value – it is as it is – there are limitations to improve or change the available natural capital. Ne Zealand.

However. South America and Western Africa are following the top three regions thanks to a rich biodiversity and favorable climatic circumstance. North America Scandinavia Australia & New Zealand South America Western Africa Eastern Europe South-east Asia Southern Africa North-western Europe Central America North-east Asia Northern Africa Eastern Africa Southern Europe Central Asia Middle East 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Natural capital and depletion indicators 19 data points Indicator Renewable freshwater resources Inland water Population density Arable land Potentially arable land Cereal yield Land degradation Desertification & desertification risks Forest area & forest loss Biodiversity potential Extreme weather events Endangered species Fossil resources Mineral resources Energy self-sufficiency Resource depletion Pollution levels SO2 emissions Hazardous waste Relative to Population Population Area Population Population Absolute Area Area Area Absolute Time Absolute Population. industrial).Regional Rankings Natural Capital Natural capital: the importance of water Regional spread North America. GDP Population. 61% are below average). while the majority of the countries are somewhere in the middle. The same applies for South-East Asia. Water availability is also strongly correlated to the level and richness of the local biodiversity. and absence of other natural resources possess very little natural capital levels even compared to the average. Some countries at the very bottom. higher depletion levels somewhat lowers the natural capital sustainability level of this region. Southern Europe. Common to all of these regions is the arid climate. high population density. Central Asia and the Middle East (despite rich fossil resources) are forming the bottom of the Natural Capital ranking. GDP Absolute Absolute Absolute Population Population Average deviation Only 39% of all countries are above the absolute World average (i. affected by the combination of arid climate. Eastern Africa. coupled with sufficient availability of renewable freshwater resources and a rich biodiversity. Scandinavia and Australia & New Zealand come out on top of the regional natural capital ranking – all regions with comparable low population density (one of the factors affecting the level of depletion of the natural capital). underlining the fundamental .e. The unequal spread between above and below average indicates that a comparable small number of countries reach a relative high score. human.and until recently grossly underestimated and neglected importance of sufficient and renewable water resources and the stable supply of clean water for all purposes (irrigation. Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 33 17 .

6 52.5 40.2 49.6 41.2 51.0 51.9 45.3 49.2 49.8 43.7 50.8 41.1 51.7 41.Natural Capital Rankings 1-88 Country Papua New Guinea Suriname Guyana Laos Canada Colombia Brazil New Zealand Peru Venezuela Democratic Republic of Congo Denmark Guinea-Bissau Zambia Paraguay Norway Latvia Cote d'Ivoire Belarus Bhutan Burma USA Russia Republic of Congo Argentina Madagascar Tanzania Ireland Indonesia Sweden Australia Sierra Leone Uruguay Bolivia Zimbabwe Finland Mozambique Belize Estonia Cameroon Sudan France Angola Gabon Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Score 63.7 43.8 44.5 51.9 44.2 49.0 47.2 Country Lithuania Mali Liberia Cambodia Uzbekistan Guinea Central African Republic Dominican Republic Netherlands Lesotho Egypt Trinidad and Tobago Qatar Ethiopia Rwanda Ghana Ecuador Gambia Panama Iceland Nicaragua Malaysia Luxembourg Burkina Faso Germany Bahamas Czech Republic South Africa Equatorial Guinea Malawi Vietnam Uganda Costa Rica Bangladesh Timor-Leste North Korea Hungary Switzerland Croatia Japan Tajikistan Slovenia Swaziland Italy Rank 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Score 46.4 44.8 39.9 54.4 40.8 62.7 39.1 52.0 50.0 44.9 59.4 41.4 44.2 55.1 52.4 52.1 45.3 57.0 56.4 46.1 40.0 41.8 50.7 Page 18 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents .4 51.1 45.6 44.8 41.7 52.6 46.7 42.9 42.1 61.0 54.4 40.4 52.7 42.9 42.2 43.3 40.4 50.6 59.5 40.7 58.0 39.9 44.4 43.0 53.9 40.2 42.9 53.9 41.4 51.2 53.5 51.1 40.6 57.2 52.3 55.5 60.7 42.8 51.6 40.4 41.3 44.9 52.2 55.8 63.

2 31.5 32.1 36.8 37.4 39.4 38.0 34.0 25.5 39.0 35.5 39.5 21.9 32.8 33.9 34.8 32.4 37.6 32.2 Country Botswana Morocco United Arab Emirates Guatemala Dominica Eritrea Cuba Tunisia Nigeria China Macedonia India Bahrain Iraq United Kingdom Somalia Ukraine Libya Azerbaijan Afghanistan Comoros Yemen Nepal Kenya Armenia Namibia Brunei West Bank and Gaza Israel South Sudan Jamaica Haiti Cyprus Greenland Iran Turkey Pakistan Kosovo Lebanon Maldives Singapore Hong Kong Jordan Rank 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 Score 34.6 34.4 37.4 37.5 37.3 28.0 27.0 30.7 21.4 35.6 33.7 28.9 36.8 34.4 38.2 36.0 28.6 35.7 32.5 39.4 32.6 36.4 37.9 31.6 31.0 35.8 30.8 36.5 26.2 38.8 25.9 34.8 24.7 35.2 26.8 31.0 19.3 38.1 38.2 39.9 28.7 29.4 39.3 28.3 32.2 35.1 38.7 22.4 24.7 34.0 33.6 35.3 36.Natural Capital Rankings 89-176 Country Kuwait Mauritius Bosnia and Herzegovina Chad Fiji Togo Niger Philippines Oman Benin Bulgaria Greece Kyrgistan Chile Seychelles Portugal Romania Belgium Mexico Kazakhstan Saudi Arabia Turkmenistan Mauritania Serbia Austria Albania Syria Moldova Sri Lanka Montenegro Burundi Mongolia Malta Poland Algeria Thailand El Salvador Senegal Honduras South Korea Georgia Spain Slovakia Djibouti Rank 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 Score 39.0 38.8 27.9 26.1 30.2 Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 19 .0 37.2 36.7 31.8 33.4 38.5 31.7 38.0 28.8 31.0 29.3 37.

Resource Intensity & efficiency The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index 20 .

Whether a country does or does not posses natural resources within its boundaries. Another element is how efficient the available resources are used. non-renewable resources that are used today will not be available tomorrow. water. GDP). as long as their capacity is not overused and the replacement patterns are not drastically altered. biodiversity loss. The key objective of the resource efficiency element is therefore to evaluate a countries’ ability to deal with rising cost and sustain economic growth in the face of rising prices in the global commodity markets as expected. The availability of accurate global data to measure resource intensity and efficiency is not as wide as in other criteria. water.g. Most of the resources used today are non-renewable. Water aquifers and other natural products (e.National Resource Efficiency Lower cost & dependency on resource imports Resource efficiency One element of sustainability is having resources at ones disposal. The focus is therefore on energy. trough depletion. In addition. efficiency in using resources – whether domestic or imported . and raw materials. Resource intensity Energy Energy per capita Energy per GDP Energy sources Water Water per capita Water per GDP Resource replenishment Raw materials Resources / capita Resources / GDP Resource balance Indicators Vital resources include water. financial speculation on raw materials. particularly in terms of usage of raw materials. or climate change Resource efficiency indicators are evaluated both in terms of intensity (per capita) and efficiency (relative to wealth. steel usage. For a the full list of indicators. e. energy. affecting the competitiveness and thus wealth of nations. pollution. Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 21 . Other than steel & minerals usage. energy sources. wood) are renewable. affecting competitiveness. and minerals.g.is a cost factor. refer to the methodology section. wealth and quality of life in the future. increasing consumption (particular in non-OECD countries). A number of factors are pointing to rising cost of resources in the future: scarcity and depletion of energy. and possibly geo-political influences. reliable raw material usage statistics are not available on a global level. or only partly renewable: fossil-based energy. and mineral resources. as well as GHG emission intensity and productivity.

The resource intensity ranking is topped by less developed countries. the countries in the lower ranks will face substantial higher challenges to maintain their growth compared to countries with higher efficiency and intensity scores. Japan at 107.Resource Intensity World Map Resource intensity World map The resource intensity pillar is composed of indicators scored relative to population (e.g.e. While the indicators measured against population (per capita) clearly favour countries with low resource and raw material consumption. economic resource efficiency). which are mostly equal to less developed countries). The resource intensity map shows that the resource intensity of less developed countries seems to be lower than that of higher developed countries . with no OECD nation in the top 20 – Switzerland. China (141) and Russia (151) have a distinctive potential for improving their resource intensity. GHG measured per capita) as well as relative to economic output (e.g. the indicators scored relative to GDP measure economic efficiency. The World’s economic powerhouses score comparable low . coming in on rank 31. Brazil (rank 43) is positioned the highest among the large emerging economies. light colour high resource intensity Page 22 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents . The Resource Intensity World map: dark colour indicates low. while India at 120. the highest ranking of the developed economies.Germany in rank 86. and the USA at 133. The main implication of the rankings are related to stability of economic growth: should global prices for raw materials and energy rise significantly in the future (as the majority of available research suggests). energy consumption measured per GDP) in order to incorporate both absolute intensity and relative intensity (i.despite the weighting (as calculated by relevance) for scores measured against economic output (GDP) being significantly higher than for absolute intensity scores (measured against capita).

efficiency is low).e. If only absolute intensity (i. 47% are below average). Western Europe (excluding Scandinavia and Southern Europe) made the fourth spot – indicating that the methodology applied indeed is capable of incorporating both absolute and economic relative resource intensity.Regional Spread Resource Intensity Regional spread Central America and Western Africa top the resource intensity ranking. possibly due to the abundant availability of domestic energy (hydro-energy. Central America Western Africa South America North-western Europe Southern Africa Eastern Africa Central Asia Southern Europe South-east Asia Eastern Europe Northern Africa North America Scandinavia Australia & New Zealand North-east Asia Middle East 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Resource efficiency indicators 14 data points0 Indicator Energy consumption Energy consumption Water consumption Water productivity Steel & metal usage Steel & metal usage Ecological footprint Electricity consumptions Electricity consumption Renewable electricity generation Coal electricity generation Transmission losses GHG emissions GHG emissions Relative to Population GDP Population GDP Population GDP Absolute Population GDP % % Time Population GDP Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 41 23 . the lowest negative deviation is close to -70%.e. Scandinavia is amongst the lower ranks. where resources are cheap. whereas the highest deviation is less than +40%. The only manifestation of a visible correlation seems to be a correlation of abundant local availability of resources with low efficiency (i. while South America consists of economies in different stages of development. The equal spread and the diverse allotment of countries of similar natural characteristics and regions indicate that there is no direct correlation between geography.e. location and climate to resource intensity. The first two regions consist mainly of less developed nations in economic terms or GDP. per capita consumption of resources) was incorporated. Average Deviation 53% of all countries are above the World average (i. oil) that allowed for efficiency management to be considered a somewhat marginal consideration in the past. efficiency and intensity are the result of economic activities. policies. representing a fairly even distribution. Westerns Europe most likely would be found on the bottom of the ranking. However. or economic development level to natural resource intensity and efficiency. a small margin ahead of South America. and investments. In the absence of rich local resources.

8 51.7 51.5 Country Philippines Mozambique Paraguay Mali Sierra Leone United Kingdom Haiti Namibia Burkina Faso Uganda Sweden Colombia Georgia Kenya Somalia Swaziland Ecuador Romania Afghanistan Guatemala Dominican Republic Armenia South Sudan Panama Croatia Zimbabwe Austria Slovakia Hungary Indonesia Niger Morocco Portugal Uzbekistan Pakistan Cote d'Ivoire Denmark Luxembourg Honduras Kyrgistan Finland Germany Botswana Peru Rank 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Score 57.2 53.6 66.2 58.7 54.7 52.5 51.6 62.2 51.3 55.2 55.8 63.6 54.9 56.9 62.0 53.8 59.5 60.5 57.0 51.0 56.1 54.9 64.8 50.3 53.8 66.8 50.7 63.6 57.2 51.7 Page 24 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents .2 51.9 61.1 56.2 58.7 50.2 64.Resource Intensity Rankings 1-88 Country Republic of Congo Lesotho Gambia Ghana Nicaragua Dominica Sudan Bhutan Costa Rica Guinea-Bissau Comoros Nepal Nigeria El Salvador Albania Timor-Leste Togo Angola Zambia Sri Lanka Djibouti Lithuania Burundi Liberia Ethiopia Cameroon Tajikistan Tanzania Belize Cambodia Switzerland Madagascar Rwanda Azerbaijan Malawi Eritrea Guinea Spain Chad Central African Republic Democratic Republic of Congo Burma Brazil Italy Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Score 70.2 53.0 55.0 50.1 57.5 59.9 52.3 56.3 51.7 62.7 59.5 59.7 61.0 62.7 50.6 66.5 61.2 64.3 65.8 53.2 58.3 64.5 58.7 59.9 51.8 51.1 63.6 57.7 55.0 52.9 53.6 55.0 62.5 53.3 56.8 61.2 56.2 65.0 68.3 64.3 53.0 61.1 59.2 58.8 52.8 54.3 64.5 57.1 64.7 62.

1 34.6 45.6 Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 25 .7 36.3 48.3 46.0 39.5 39.8 40.2 31.1 45.1 35.3 47.2 35.2 38.5 34.8 48.1 41.7 43.0 45.5 49.6 42.4 47.4 50.9 44.5 44.1 48.4 50.7 44.3 46.4 32.4 47.5 41.7 45.6 44.9 44.9 17.0 49.5 39.5 40.7 22.1 13.1 35.6 48.9 41.2 30.7 34.1 43.2 40.5 39.7 49.9 48.1 44.4 26.5 45.9 48.2 35.5 26.3 17.9 46.5 19.3 18.4 49.5 39.6 43.9 43.0 40.3 31.5 44.5 40.3 48.5 47.5 36.0 28.0 45.2 47.1 46.3 40.3 37.0 44.9 Country Czech Republic USA Seychelles Slovenia Hong Kong Turkey Cyprus Malaysia Iraq Israel China Serbia Mexico Bahamas Ukraine Norway Algeria Jordan Macao Russia Vietnam Qatar Turkmenistan Singapore Maldives Iceland Equatorial Guinea Libya Thailand Bosnia and Herzegovina South Africa South Korea Estonia Greenland Mongolia Iran Brunei United Arab Emirates Bahrain Trinidad and Tobago Kazakhstan Oman Saudi Arabia Kuwait Rank 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 Score 42.3 24.1 47.3 33.6 36.8 19.6 41.8 49.Resource Intensity Rankings 89-176 Country Mauritania Argentina Cuba Guyana Ireland Papua New Guinea Tunisia Montenegro Syria New Zealand Uruguay Bangladesh Mauritius Moldova Senegal West Bank and Gaza Chile Gabon Japan Greece France Belgium Poland Bolivia Yemen Benin Laos North Korea Suriname Belarus Malta India Fiji Australia Venezuela Canada Jamaica Lebanon Macedonia Latvia Netherlands Egypt Bulgaria Kosovo Rank 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 Score 50.

Sustainable innovation sustainable innovation & the economy The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index .

and last but not least. Providing jobs requires producing goods and providing services that people or businesses – domestically or abroad – are willing to buy. corruption.Innovation & Competitiveness Sustaining Wealth through Adding Value Sustainable innovation & economy In order to create and sustain wealth. This in turn requires products and services to be competitive in terms of quality and price against global competition. and the health of the balance between agricultural. and infrastructure investments (infrastructure investments today are an indication of the quality (and efficiency) of tomorrows infrastructure). capital allocation. Additional indicators include performance data on R&D (employees in R&D functions. And in order to maximise the domestic benefits. Sustainable Innovation Competitiveness & Education R&D Economic indicators GNI GDP Economic diversity Business environment Business facilitation Corruption Business dynamic Infrastructure Infrastructure investments Infrastructure status School enrollment School quality University degrees R&D employees R&D investments Patent intensity Innovation measuring Quality and availability of education in the past are an indication for today’s R&D and innovation capabilities. Sustainable competitiveness requires a number of elements: the basic structures (infrastructure. the value chain is idyllically covered within the boundaries of a national economy (the largest share of adding value is contained in processing raw materials to finished products). The Gross National Income (GNI) has been chosen as an economic indicator due to more appropriately reflecting the full economic capability compared to the GDP. business legislation. patent applications). Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 27 . nations need to provide jobs and income to their populations. quality education and R&D capabilities. and today’s education performance reflect future innovation capabilities. Educational performance indicators are therefore highly important to predict sustained innovation and competitiveness. business environment. industrial and service sectors of an economy. and the maintenance of infrastructure). Strength and depth of R&D activities is the basis for the development of valueadded technologies and services. Further indicators relate to the actual business environment – new business registration.

The Sustainable Innovation World map: dark colour indicates high. light colour limited sustainable innovation & competitiveness Page 28 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents . there is no representation from Africa. The USA is ranked 22th. Russia. with all other top-ten places (Germany. Costa Rica.e. and therefore achieve higher growth rates. innovation capabilities. Japan. independent of the size of a country. followed by Brazil (35th) as the highest ranked country of the Southern hemisphere. South Korea. China). All indicators used to assess the innovation capability and sustainable competitiveness have been scored against size of the population or against GDP in order to gain a full picture of the competitiveness. Oman. Uzbekistan and Thailand. and infrastructure. economic development. Norway. the high-value added industries. The innovation and competitiveness ranking is dominated by Asian nations and OECD countries from the Northern hemisphere. The only other nations from outside Europe or North-East Asia in the top 50 are New Zealand. Finland.Competitiveness World Map Sustainable Innovation Asian countries top innovation rankings The indicators used for assessing innovation capability and sustainability competitiveness are composed of data points relating to education. Countries with a high score in this ranking are more likely than others to develop successful economies through research and know-ledge driven industries. Thailand and Bahrain. Australia. in order of ranking) and top twenty spots going to European countries expect for Israel (12) and Canada (19). Sweden. Switzerland. the UK 31st. Uzbekistan. business environment. i. Central Asia or South-East Asia within the leading 50 nations in terms of innovation capability and sustainable competitiveness. Denmark. Other than Oman. The innovation and competitiveness ranking is topped by Asian countries (Singapore.

All African regions are on the bottom of this list. Another significant gap opens to countries in Central Asia. the leading and the last countries in this ranking) of plus/minus 70%.e. underlying the fundamental importance of education availability and quality for achieving sustainable development. North-east Asia Scandinavia North-western Europe North America Australia & New Zealand Southern Europe Eastern Europe South America South-east Asia Middle East Central Asia Northern Africa Southern Africa Central America Western Africa Eastern Africa 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Sustainable innovation indicators 21 data points Indicator Primary school completion Primary school repetitions Secondary school completion Tertiary education completion Mean school years Total investments Roads Railroads Austerity & public spending R&D FTEs R&D expenditure High tech exports Patent registrations Patent registrations Trademark registrations New business registrations Industry-service-sector balance Unemployment Obesity rate Corruption index Corporate bribery Relative to % % % % % GDP Area.e. indicating a significant gap between the leading and above average nations to the lower performing countries. Eastern Europe and South America. This notion is also supported by the high average deviation. which could not be used for this index due to lack of coverage of non-OECD countries). 62% are below average).Regional Spread Sustainable Innovation & Competitiveness Innovation & investment lead development Regional spread North-East Asia is the leading region in terms of sustainable innovation and economic development. Average Deviation Only 38% of all countries are above the World average (i. Coincidently. this rankings shows a fair amount of similarity to the findings of the PISA Study (comparison of student test levels across OECD countries. population GDP growth Population GDP GDP Population GDP Population Population % % % Population Population Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 49 29 . followed by Scandinavia and North-Western Europe. Central America and Africa. both on the positive and the negative ends of the scale (i. indicating that the continent is still some distance off to lifting itself out of the cycle of poverty and lack of resources for innovation and investments to eradicate poverty. A significant gap is visible between the leading countries to countries from Southern. population Area.

8 40.5 48.6 41.6 38.8 39.1 65.3 44.0 45.7 62.5 58.Sustainable Innovation Rankings 1-88 Country Singapore South Korea Germany Japan Denmark Norway Switzerland Finland Estonia Sweden China Israel Luxembourg Iceland Austria Slovenia Czech Republic Netherlands Canada Portugal France USA Belgium Ireland Italy Australia Belarus New Zealand Spain Russia United Kingdom Poland Lithuania Hungary Brazil Romania Montenegro Cyprus Slovakia Malaysia Serbia Costa Rica Malta Oman Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Score 74.0 51.3 42.4 45.0 38.8 51.9 64.2 49.6 40.8 41.5 55.2 55.1 39.9 48.4 42.9 53.4 43.2 52.1 68.2 63.3 41.7 47.8 60.2 40.0 54.1 57.4 62.5 62.0 39.8 62.1 44.8 39.1 47.1 40.2 56.8 44.9 45.4 43.2 42.9 54.2 59.5 66.5 41.1 54.5 39.6 38.0 53.7 47.1 55.1 45.9 64.0 44.0 Country Uzbekistan Latvia Thailand Bulgaria Turkey Bahrain Hong Kong Iran Greenland Argentina Greece Uruguay Saudi Arabia Peru Croatia Dominica Kosovo Sri Lanka Tunisia Indonesia Kazakhstan Georgia Moldova Timor-Leste Albania Kuwait Mauritius Cuba Armenia Colombia Mongolia Ukraine Brunei Lebanon Ecuador Qatar Seychelles Dominican Republic Libya Niger Tanzania Zimbabwe Turkmenistan Ghana Rank 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Score 46.9 46.8 68.6 38.3 56.9 38.0 44.3 39.1 47.0 43.0 50.7 63.0 45.9 41.3 47.5 39.6 42.8 56.2 45.7 39.4 60.0 41.1 61.3 42.0 Page 30 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents .7 70.5 47.

9 21.7 31.5 35.3 27.8 27.1 37.8 31.8 30.7 37.6 Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 31 .8 32.6 33.8 29.3 26.Sustainable Innovation Rankings 89-175 Country Chile Bhutan Kyrgistan Guyana Republic of Congo Algeria Zambia Tajikistan Bosnia and Herzegovina Senegal Uganda Liberia Cameroon Cote d'Ivoire Jordan Venezuela Mozambique Djibouti South Africa Jamaica Benin India Kenya El Salvador Mauritania Democratic Republic of Congo Mexico Rwanda Central African Republic Angola Botswana Eritrea Pakistan Mali Gambia Macedonia Azerbaijan Malawi Nepal Sierra Leone Chad Nigeria Burkina Faso Guinea Rank 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 Score 37.5 33.5 33.0 35.5 26.0 33.3 35.0 31.9 33.9 37.2 32.1 36.9 33.0 30.9 35.7 28.2 29.5 27.1 37.8 37.1 31.3 22.2 36.8 29.6 37.5 36.6 32.7 33.0 31.9 28.8 30.4 Country Sudan Ethiopia Vietnam Morocco Togo Panama Swaziland Philippines Lesotho Iraq Belize Cambodia Suriname Guinea-Bissau Syria Afghanistan Paraguay United Arab Emirates Maldives Guatemala Egypt North Korea Laos Bahamas Burundi Comoros Bolivia Trinidad and Tobago Madagascar South Sudan Bangladesh Namibia Somalia Honduras Gabon Nicaragua Burma Equatorial Guinea Haiti Papua New Guinea Fiji West Bank and Gaza Yemen Rank 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 Score 33.7 31.9 36.9 28.4 15.8 37.3 37.2 34.4 33.3 35.9 37.1 28.7 36.3 37.0 36.6 31.6 24.4 37.3 36.1 33.4 33.1 34.2 35.2 31.5 34.2 34.3 32.3 35.8 27.7 27.2 31.3 35.1 24.5 36.4 33.2 34.5 34.9 31.4 34.5 37.0 32.2 30.6 29.

Social cohesion The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index 32 .

not based on performance data that can be measured. “happiness”) are qualitative. freedom from fear and the absence of violent conflicts. and the Global Peace Index (Institute for Economics and Peace).Foundation of stable development Social Cohesion Equal Opportunities Social cohesion are the basis for smooth economic activities Elements of Social Cohesion Social Cohesion is not a tangible value and therefore hard to measure and evaluate in numeric values. adequate health systems. demographic structure to assess the future balance within a society.g. the social consensus in a society is influenced by several factors: health care systems and their universal availability/affordability to measure physical health. income and asset equality. freedom from fear and equal opportunities (whiteout which no American Dream would have ever been possible) are pre-requisites to achieve the same. paralysing economic development and growth. which are correlated to crime levels. including single indicators from the Happy Planet Index (New Economics Foundation). In addition to historical and cultural influences. The absence or deterioration of social cohesion in turn leads to lower productivity (health). Instead.e. a certain degree of equality. crime. rising crime rates. equality. and potentially social unrest. Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 33 . qualitative indicators from surveys and other sources compiled by recognised organisations were used to measure the qualitative aspects of social cohesion. Some of these indicators (e. While a direct connection of social cohesion to creating wealth and sustain economic development might be difficult to establish scientifically. freedom and age structure). i. Social Cohesion Health Health care availability Child mortality Family planning Equality Income equality Resource equality Gender equality Crime Theft Violent crime Prison population Freedom Press freedom Human rights Happiness Age structure Demographics Birth rate Indicators The indicators selected to measure social cohesion have been selected from the 5 themes above (health. the Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders). and freedom of expression.

Uruguay (67) in South America. is ranked 59th.Social Cohesion World Map Scandinavia showing the way A certain level of social balance or social consensus is required to maintain a stable environment in which economic activities can take place. Austria. and gender equality). while the first African Nation is Tunisia (72). due to comparable high crime rates and low availability of health services. the sustainable development of the nation. and Russia 114. individual happiness). followed by new Zealand (32). Of the emerging economies. The Social Cohesion World map: dark colour indicates high. the quantitative equality within societies (income. Japan (35) in Asia. the higher the motivation of individuals to contribute to the wider good. Switzerland. and Germany. The USA . Most African nations. India 77. limited freedom of expression and unstable human rights situation. The indicators used to calculate the social cohesion score of countries is composed of health and health care factors (availability and affordability). The higher the social consensus. The highest ranked non-OECD country is Qatar (24th). are at the bottom of this list. particular below in and South of the Sahel zone. light colour limited social cohesion. the Netherlands. The first non-European countries in the Social Cohesion ranking are Canada (13).e. The four Scandinavian countries occupy the top 4 spots of the Social Cohesion ranking. crime levels. and demographic indicators. Ireland. and Brazil 125. with other Central and Northern European countries (Iceland. Page 34 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents . freedom from fear. due to a combination of low availability of health care services and child mortality.) filling the top ten. i. China is ranked 65. assets. freedom indicators (political freedom.

There is also a distinct differentiation between North and South visible here.e. representing an uneven distribution. depending on the definition. On the other end of the scale. while the Southern hemisphere is located at the bottom (expect Australia & New Zealand. the deviation is 70% below the average. the countries at the bottom of the ranking are facing an significant barriers to improve social cohesion and catch up with currently higher ranked countries.e. The high ranking of regions with medium or high GDP seems to indicate a certain correlation of income levels and social consensus. while Eastern Europe. followed by NorthWestern Europe.Regional Spread Social Cohesion Regional spread Scandinavia tops the social cohesion ranking by a considerable margin. for example). 58% are below average). Both are regions with high average GDP per capita. are often included in the definition of the North). The only ranking not fitting into this pattern is North America’s classification below Southern Europe due to higher crime levels. Central Asia and the Middle East occupy the middle ranks. between the top ten and the top twenty countries. whereby the Northern hemisphere makes the top of the list. The high positive deviation amongst the top ten countries of between 70-90% also indicates significant gaps between the countries on the top of the ranking (i. which. In other words. Scandinavia North-western Europe Australia & New Zealand North-east Asia Southern Europe North America Eastern Europe Central Asia Middle East South-east Asia Northern Africa South America Central America Western Africa Southern Africa Eastern Africa 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Social cohesion indicators 19 data points Indicator Relative to % Population Population Population Per woman % % Absolute Absolute Population Average Deviation Only 42% of countries are above the absolute average of all countries (i. The high deviation at the top and bottom end indicate a big spread between leading and trailing countries. Central America and all African regions are found at the bottom of this regional ranking. Child mortality Doctor availability Nurse availability Hospital bed availability Birth rate Teenage pregnancy Population over 65 GINI coefficient Income quintile ratio Poverty index Gender equality index Public service quality perception Life satisfaction Press freedom index Peace index Theft Conflict with laws Prison population Homicide rate Population Population Population Population Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 35 .

8 55.0 62.7 53.5 71.8 45.8 41.4 71.2 Country Tajikistan Lebanon Belarus Australia Greece Moldova Oman Macao Vietnam Singapore Latvia Lithuania Kazakhstan Albania USA Uzbekistan South Korea Mongolia Timor-Leste Bangladesh China Indonesia Uruguay Nepal Argentina Malaysia Laos Tunisia Maldives Azerbaijan Kyrgistan Jamaica India Israel Saudi Arabia Afghanistan Bahrain Macedonia Syria Thailand Ethiopia Sri Lanka Morocco Turkey Rank 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Score 53.3 68.8 41.6 52.1 48.8 46.8 71.3 70.3 55.5 44.2 74.3 60.6 74.0 59.2 57.7 61.2 60.0 47.2 41.0 50.1 63.0 54.0 73.7 58.2 Page 36 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents .1 43.9 57.5 58.2 60.9 64.3 45.5 54.8 45.9 53.8 52.0 52.3 50.6 61.2 49.5 52.9 45.3 42.6 52.4 47.0 49.6 45.8 45.1 50.2 64.Social Cohesion Rankings 1-88 Country Norway Denmark Sweden Finland Iceland Austria Switzerland Netherlands Ireland Germany Slovenia United Kingdom Canada Luxembourg Spain Poland Belgium Greenland France Czech Republic Croatia Cyprus Slovakia Qatar Serbia Malta Portugal Kosovo Hungary Bulgaria Romania New Zealand Estonia Jordan Japan Montenegro Italy Armenia Bosnia and Herzegovina Kuwait United Arab Emirates Ukraine Egypt Bhutan Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Score 77.5 61.6 59.0 55.6 51.5 58.4 49.4 61.9 72.5 43.1 57.3 55.1 47.6 47.2 47.9 46.0 51.7 50.7 49.6 54.9 44.3 41.9 45.5 64.3 60.2 53.2 49.7 53.0 46.7 54.7 41.9 71.8 43.

4 38.9 30.4 33.0 35.5 35.5 37.2 25.8 39.9 31.3 29.6 36.9 37.4 34.3 26.2 25.6 29.8 37.7 37.Social Cohesion Rankings 89-176 Country Papua New Guinea Pakistan Malawi Niger Turkmenistan Mexico Ghana Dominica Senegal Costa Rica Nicaragua Cambodia Burkina Faso Gabon Ecuador Venezuela Liberia Libya Philippines Togo Algeria Peru Iraq Mali Dominican Republic Russia Chile Panama Cameroon Tanzania Paraguay Mozambique Suriname Brunei Guinea Georgia Brazil Mauritania Burundi Guinea-Bissau Mauritius North Korea Djibouti Cote d'Ivoire Rank 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 Score 40.9 40.3 37.0 39.1 38.5 29.3 26.5 33.9 35.0 28.9 40.6 34.0 36.2 30.1 21.0 31.8 31.2 37.3 37.7 Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 37 .4 22.5 39.8 32.7 38.3 35.2 32.5 38.7 35.6 39.5 29.3 40.6 36.2 33.5 33.4 36.6 40.3 37.7 40.1 39.3 40.1 22.7 39.1 24.2 13.2 29.8 35.8 35.9 37.9 34.8 23.4 37.0 22.9 35.8 31.9 30.4 37.0 Country Guatemala Benin El Salvador Madagascar Cuba Sierra Leone Burma Republic of Congo Uganda Belize South Sudan Iran Bahamas Gambia Kenya Trinidad and Tobago South Africa Seychelles Fiji Botswana Chad Guyana Namibia West Bank and Gaza Zambia Sudan Honduras Comoros Bolivia Zimbabwe Nigeria Colombia Eritrea Democratic Republic of Congo Somalia Lesotho Hong Kong Haiti Central African Republic Swaziland Yemen Rwanda Angola Equatorial Guinea Rank 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 Score 35.4 37.9 32.5 33.4 38.1 39.3 31.4 32.3 33.8 34.1 29.7 37.0 34.7 31.7 37.

Measuring Sustainable Competitiveness The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index 38 .

In this context. While the origins are found in corporate ESG evaluation. the direct comparison of 2012 and 2013 rankings have been omitted from this report other than for overall rankings. its current sustainable development level. it is nevertheless not completely plausible to directly compare 2012 and 2013 rankings.it might be argued that “sustainability” is better described in qualitative than quantitative terms. The methodology therefore remains work in progress. The changes do not materially affect scorings and rankings. Factors determining the development level of a country can and should to be viewed from a long-term (sustainable) perspective in order to achieve a comprehensive view-point of competitiveness.Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Methodology Changes to the Sustainable Competitiveness Index methodology The Sustainable Development Index was first developed and published in 2012. In addition. we hope that this Index can contribute to the on-going discussion of what drives success for countries and their populations. “Sustainability” or “Sustainable development” is a broad concept. believes and background of the describer. 20 years after Rio. it is clear that the resulting methodology applied to evaluate sustainable competitiveness of countries is entirely different from the corporate sustainability ESG methodologies. but allow for a better differentiation between countries within the same or comparable development levels or stages. the methodology to generate scores from performance data and the methodology to calculate weightings of indicators have been reviewed and improved where necessary. based on a sustainability model that ensures inclusion of all relevant aspects of sustainability that can be measured in numbers. are not subjective.relationships and changes over time . The sum of all these indicators together reflect the overall sustainability and sustainable competitiveness level of a country. many of the issues are dependent on each other and inter-acting. The data collected by various global institutions across all countries contain numerous single indicators (quantitative indicators) that are an expression of the current sustainability level of a certain aspect of sustainability. Given the complexity – the number of issues. three more indicators have been included. and potential to increase or sustain the current development and wealth levels. Numeric values (single data points). Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 39 . scoring and weight calculation. a qualitative description is always subject to the values. For this reasons. Due to better data availability. in contrast. social (often referred to as “ESG”) – to evaluate the sustainability of a nation rather than a corporation. However. Because of the changes in methodology. the concept of “Sustainability” is widely used and applied. encompassing a large number of themes and issues. The quantitative indicators are carefully chosen as expressions of relevant aspects of sustainable development. While we believe that the methodology underlying the Sustainable Competitiveness Index is an accurate mirror of the sustainable competitiveness of a country. we believe that a comprehensive evaluation of countries integrating both financial and “non-financial” aspects is a helpful tool to provide an inclusive picture of a country. In addition. At the same time. The initial approach consisted of adapting corporate sustainability evaluation methodology based on the 3 pillars of sustainability – economic. environment. this Index has been calculated purely based on quantitative indicators. In order to exclude subjectivity. inter. data availability is constantly improving and the concept of sustainability is still evolving. Certain improvements have been applied in for the 2013 edition.

including water. For the purpose of evaluating the sustainability and sustainable development level of a country (which is equal to sustained economic development). they do not depend on the location of the capital. the natural capital of their environment for better or worse. and therefore can move any given moment to where the external conditions are most favorable. agricultural output) become scarce or the country inhabitable due to climate change. and live off. The elements of the model therefore have to be adapted to the characteristics of nations and their fundament of sustained prosperity.The Sustainability of a Nation Methodology Sustainability models The three-dimensional sustainability model of reconciling the economy. a fourth element – the natural capital – has therefore been added to the three elements of innovation competitiveness. both in terms of physical location (offices/factories) and markets. as well as in terms of business fields. While corporate or economic entities (depending on the nature of their business) are working with natural capital. Sustainability model usually applied in corporate sustainability evaluation Sustainability model of nations: an additional element is added: natural capital as the basis for a countries ability for self-sustaining existence 40 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents 17 . Transport and international trade have made countries and people less dependent on their immediate environment through international trade of resources. the environment and the society is often used and applied in the corporate world to evaluate and manage sustainability issues and performance. However. resource efficiency and social sustainability. corporations are entities that operate in very different boundaries and with different goals than states and nationeconomies. countries and population cannot simply move on should fundamental resources (water. However. At the end of the day people rely on.

can undermine or even reverse future growth and wealth creation. The Sustainable Competitiveness Index is built and calculated based on the sustainable competitiveness model that covers 73 data indicators grouped in 4 pillars: • Natural Capital is the based to sustain a society and economic activities: the given natural environment within the frontiers of a country. and the level of the depletion of those resources. • Sustainable Innovation is key to sustain economic development in the globalised market: the capability of a country to generate wealth and jobs through innovation and value-added industries in the globalised markets • Social Cohesion is the fundamental stability required to maintain interruption-free economic activities: t he health of populations. including availability of resources. • Resource Intensity is a measurement of efficiency. The negative impacts of economic activities .including negative impacts on the social fabric and cohabitation within a society . conventionally used measurements to measure wealth of nations such as the GDP have limited informative value for the future development of a country. equality.Sustainable Competitiveness Factors Methodology National sustainability & competitiveness It is now widely accepted that economic activities have adverse impacts or side-effects on the non-financial assets of a country. Due to the omission of key non-financial indicators and performance that are fundamental to sustain economic activities. and thus an element of competitiveness: the efficiency of using available resources(domestic or imported) as a measurement of operational competitiveness in a resource-constraint World. Sustainable competitiveness means the ability of a country to meet the needs and basic requirements of current generations while sustaining or growing the national and individual wealth into the future without depleting natural and social capital. security and freedom within a country Table of contents 18 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 41 .

Natural Capital & Resource Efficiency: Indicators Natural capital and depletion indicators 19 data points Indicator Renewable freshwater resources Inland water Population density Arable land Potentially arable land Cereal yield Land degradation Desertification & desertification risks Forest area & forest loss Biodiversity potential Extreme weather events Endangered species Fossil resources Mineral resources Energy self-sufficiency Resource depletion Pollution levels SO2 emissions Hazardous waste Relative to Population Population Area Population Population Absolute Area Area Area Absolute Time Absolute Population. However. Efficient use of resources and energy is an indicator for a nation’s ability to maintain or improve living standard levels both under a future business-as-usual scenario as well as under changing external economic or geo-political circumstances and influences that might affect raw material and resource prices. climate change emissions and intensity as well as certain raw material usage. Indicators used cover water usage and intwnsity. The combination of these factors and the level of depletion of the natural resources due to human activity and climate change represents the future potential of sustaining a prosperous livelihood for the population and the economy of a nation. pollution indicators and depletion indicators. land degradation and desertification. global data availability for raw materials consumption other than steel is limited and therefore could not be included. energy usage. biodiversity and availability of natural resources (renewable and non-renewable). which consists of a mixture of size. GDP Population. Indicators used encompass forests and biodiversity indicator. as well as the depletion of those resources. industrial production. minerals and energy resources. Higher efficiency is also equal to lower cost per production unit in agriculture. Table of contents Resource efficiency indicators 14 data points Indicator Energy consumption Energy consumption Water consumption Water productivity Steel & metal usage Steel & metal usage Ecological footprint Electricity consumptions Electricity consumption Renewable electricity generation Coal electricity generation Transmission losses GHG emissions GHG emissions Relative to Population GDP Population GDP Population GDP Absolute Population GDP % % Time Population GDP Page 42 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 . energy intensity and energy sources. climate. geography. GDP Absolute Absolute Absolute Population Population Natural Capital The natural capital of a nation or country is defined by the characteristics of the natural environment. Resource Intensity The more efficient a nation is using resources. water resources. energy. water. agricultural indicators. and minerals). population. and to a lesser extend also in the service sector. the smaller the negative impacts of a potential supply scarcity of resources (food.

and throughout all institutions (not limited to industrial or technology R&D). including corruption levels affecting business development. employment indexes. nations and societies need some minimum level of social cohesion. between income levels. the balance of the agricultural-industrial-service sectors. infrastructure) are needed. R&D performance indictors. and long-term investments in crucial areas (education. infrastructure investment levels. population GDP growth Population GDP GDP Population GDP Population Population % % % % Social cohesion indicators Social Cohesion Last but not least. and the level of crime against both possession and humans. Sustaining competitiveness also requires a long-term view beyond momentary individual or political interests and opinions. between generations. Indicators used cover educational levels. 19 data points Indicator Child mortality Doctor availability Nurse availability Hospital bed availability Birth rate Teenage pregnancy Population over 65 GINI coefficient Income quintile ratio Poverty index Gender equality index Public service quality perception Life satisfaction Press freedom index Peace index Theft Conflict with laws Prison population Homicide rate Relative to % Population Population Population Per woman % % Absolute Absolute Population Population Population Population Population Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 43 . equal opportunities (gender. between interest groups. A lack of social cohesion in any of the above aspects can seriously undermine the long-term stability which an economy requires as a basis to thrive in the long run. Sustainable innovation indicators 21 data points Indicator Primary school completion Primary school repetitions Secondary school completion Tertiary education completion Mean school years Total investments Railroad Roads Austerity & public spending R&D FTEs R&D expenditure High tech exports Patent registrations Patent registrations Trademark registrations New business registrations Industry-service-sector balance Unemployment Obesity rate Corruption index Corporate bribery Relative to % % % % GDP Area. obesity (as a measurement of worker efficiency). business environment indicators. freedom of press. birth statistics. and between individuals. income differences. Economies that are being deprived from investments sooner or later face decline. and business indicators. economic). and solidarity between different regions. human rights considerations. as some nations of the formerly “leading” West are currently learning the hard way.Sustainable Innovation& Social Cohesion: Indicators Sustaining Innovation & Competitiveness The backbone of sustained economic success is the ability to continuously improve and innovate on all levels. between authorities and the people. coherence. population Area. Indictors used cover health performance indicators.

indicates the direction of future developments. whereas the blue line is likely to decrease Page 44 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents . they cannot be compared or added to other values (two apples plus three oranges are not equal to five pineapples). which is. Converting data to scores The raw data as provided by the various databases consist of numerical values.Scoring Methodology UNDP FAO Data sources Data sources were chosen according to their reputation and reliability (as well as availability of global data). It is therefore necessary to extract a scalable and comparable score from the raw data as a first step. Increasing agricultural efficiency. or the opposite if the trends are decreasing. Where sufficient data series are available. for example. followed by data sets and indicators provided by various UN agencies. While values can be ranked against each other. indicates a country's capability to feed an increasing population in the future. by definition. the momentary status is not sufficient to gain a true picture of the sustainable competitiveness. In the second step. Inclusion of trends: analysis over time Current or recent data on its own limits the perspective to a momentary picture in time. Of equal importance are therefore the development and recent trends of the indicators and their performance. more importantly . However. The largest percentage of indicators was derived from the immense wealth of the World Bank’s indicator database. Analysing trends and developments allows for understanding of where a country is coming from – and. World Bank UNEP WHO IMF Others Data sources used for the Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2000 2005 2010 2015 Integrating trend analysis: while the momentary picture of the two series might be equal in 2010. the trend was calculated for the latest 5 years available and scored to evaluate the current level as well as the future outlook and sustainability potential of a country based on recent developments. forwardlooking. the grey series is likely to improve in the future. the relative importance of the indicator is assessed against other indicators to calculate the sustainability performance.

where the maximum score is 100. energy efficiency. Raw data is evaluated in relation to country specifics Indicator scores are calculated based on averages across all countries Table of contents 22 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 45 . a trend analysis for the period of the most recent 5 years of data is conducted and scored in the same way as described above. but also innovation indicators). In addition to the scoring indicators based on the latest available data. the performance is evaluated against two denominators (normally population size and GDP) in order to gain a more altruistic picture of the national sustainability performance that incorporates economic and human efficiency. In addition. Depending on the indicator.g. GDP. The latest available performance score accounts for between 60 an 80% and the trend for 40-60% of the total score for each indicator. while the lowest score is 0. (e. For the purpose of this index. Scores therefore cannot be calculated against a real or calculated best practice score.Index Calculation Scoring the Indicators Scoring data indicators When comparing raw data of variables of different countries. Scores between the highest and the lowest 5% are linearly assigned according to the respective country’s performance relative to the best 5% and the worst 5%. the size of the population. the denominator might be the land area. depending on the barriers to change (time and assets required to improve intensity performance). For certain indicators. the raw data was analysed and then ranked for each indicator individually. as is usually the practiced in corporate sustainability performance evaluation. the best performing 5% is attached the highest possible. Trough calculation of the average deviation. an “absolute best” cannot be defined. data has to be analysed in perspective: 500 ha of forest might be a large area for a country like Andorra. and the lowest 5% receives the lowest possible score. but it is a small area for China. or for intensity measurements.

Yet other indicators can be influenced trough government policies or other measurements (provided sufficient political will or economic incentives). some indicators have a higher importance to the long-term development and competitiveness of a country than others. The application of this methodology led to the weightings of the four sustainability criteria as presented in the graph to the left. It is therefore necessary to define a formula for calculating the sustainable competitiveness taking into account the relevance of each indicator. For some indicators. etc. while the performance of other indicators are beyond the influence and manageability of current human powers. The sustainability relevance (weighting) of individual indicators are calculated based on three criteria: • relevance to economic development and sustaining eco-systems • data accuracy • human ability and resources (time. and other policy measurements. However. the data is accurate. financial) to influence the variable trough policies (targeted investment. regulation.Index Calculation Weightings Weightings The simplest mathematical methodology to calculate the sustainability performance from individual scores would be to average all indicators.) The application of this formula leads to an individual relevance weighting for each score.5 0 Natural Capital Resource Intensity Weightings of the four pillars of sustainable competitiveness Page 46 Innovation & Competitiveness Social Cohesion Total The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents . Scores are added according to their relevance. for other less accurate. From raw data to weighted sustainability scores criteria to calculate indicator weightings 100 22.5 75 35 50 100 20 25 22. which leads to the score in each of the four identified sustainable competitiveness pillars.

Time frame The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 is based on the latest available data. For indicators with a potentially low correlation between quantity and quality. In order to integrate some qualitative aspects. the missing data points from those countries have been replaced with calculated values. For such indicators. Data sources chosen for this Index (World Bank. Given the many individual and agencies involved in data collected around the World. However. as well as geographical features and climatic averages.Limitations Reliance on Quantitative Data Data Sources Only data from reliable sources was included in the index. High spending on health care for example does not necessarily guarantee high quality health care system available for the average citizen. income and development levels. conducting a qualitative evaluation of the 73 indicators used on the global level would go far beyond the limitations of this index. for the quality of public services. 2010 data was used. only quantitative data has been taken into account. UN agencies) are considered reasonably reliable. In order to present a balanced overall picture. quantitative indicators sometimes are not able to differentiate or express real and actual levels of quality. i. the weighting has been adjusted accordingly. If non-available data points would be converted to a 0 (zero) score. For most data series. Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 23 47 . quantitative indicators have limited informative value and serve as a proxy. for some indicators. quality is equally important to quantity from a sustainability viewpoint.e. Raw data from the various databases was used as a basis for calculation as-is. or perceived life satisfaction. without verifying the actual data. Availability of data For some indicators data is not available for all countries (in particular for the less or least developed economies). extrapolated based on regional averages. e. the rankings would be distorted. Limitations of quantitative analysis In order to exclude subjectivity. Where 2012 data was available. While explanatory power of quantitative indicators is limited. Most data points and data series were extracted from the World Banks statistical database as well as from the combined UN database that contains statistical data across several UN agencies. the percentage of school enrollment(on all levels. and in a few cases 2009 data has been used. 2012 data has been used. Equally. form primary levels to college and universities) is not necessarily an expression of the quality of the education.g. results of global surveys have ben included. Data reliability & accuracy The accuracy of the index relies on the accuracy of the underlying data. However. it cannot be excluded that some of the data is not completely accurate. the latest data available (March 2013) is 2011 data. Where 2012 or 2011 data was not available.

Davos Man Competitiveness vs. Sustainable Competitiveness The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index 48 .

The definition or understanding of the term “competitiveness” guides the selection of competitiveness indicators and their analysis. and the way societies ensure equal opportunities.in particular whether the competitiveness index correlates to actual wealth creation capabilities. resource efficiency. and the outlook for sustaining or increasing current wealth. Amongst them are several indexes that in some way or another refer to “competitiveness” . The WEF Report aims to “help understand of the key factors that determine economic growth. and distribute wealth and services amongst its citizens). impossible) different criteria.in other words. (…). independent of the actual land it is built on) • Does not take into account the ramifications of current economic activities on the future economic development and wealth creation capabilities Through the inclusion of the so-called “non-financial” characteristics of national economies (the land that an economy is built upon. “Competitiveness” Competitiveness indexes: different competitiveness definitions = different results Why a sustainable competitiveness Index? There are many different “indexes”. The WEF’s Global Competitiveness Report shall therefore be compared by methodology and results to the Sustainable Competitiveness Index on the following pages. indexes that rank countries according to their ability to create wealth. enjoy a very good reputation amongst business executives and high-ranking politicians (the “Davos Man”) whose jets clog the runways of Zurich Airport each January. Probably the most famous “competitiveness” index is the “Global Competitiveness Report”. the Sustainable Competitiveness Index aims at developing a broader picture of competitiveness that incorporates the normally omitted factors. Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 49 . the definition of competitiveness in a conventional approach tends to focus on economic an financial aspects of any given economy.maybe more importantly . and its annual forum held in Davos. Different interpretations of different data sets or surveys analysed and put into indexes or rankings can open interesting new perspectives.Intro “Sustainable Competitiveness” vs. sometimes. It is therefore not really surprising that different “competitiveness” rankings come up with very different results. ranking nations against each other in all possible (and. annually published by and at the World Economic Forum (WEF). published by different organisations.e. regardless of the accuracy and real-life relevance of the index. and offers an important tool in the formulation of improved economic policies and institutional reforms”. which are essential pillars of an economy that is not built on borrowed time but is able to sustain growth and wealth into the future. However. and b) . This approach has two main limitations: • The focus on economic/financial performance aspects assumes that an economy works within an air-tight space independent of its physical environment (i.e. The WEF.the definition of “competitiveness” that underlies a specific index. the aspects of an economy that define the competitiveness of a nation according the point of view of the publishing organisation or the individuals behind the index. However. helps to explain why some countries are more successful than others in raising income levels. The interesting question is whether this holds true . indeed. i. These are very noble intentions. and are based on momentary pictures in time. real-life relevance and correlations to actual success factors depend on a) the source and reliability of the raw data.

market mechanism and size. The three main criteria are “basic requirements” (institutions and infrastructure). the WEF definest 3 main criteria. representing a total of 115 indicators. “Innovation and sophistication”. The weightings for the last criteria. labor flexibility. technology adaption). financial market liberalization.” Based on this definition. subdivided in 12 pillars of competitiveness. as well as the rates of return obtained by investments in an economy. The weightings of the “basic requirements” indicators is higher for a poor countries (“factor-driven economies” according to the WEF terminology). and “innovation and sophistication (market maturity. as are categories within a pillar. the weightings of the 3 main criteria differs depending on the level of development of a country (defined as GDP per capita). The index is computed based on indicator performance. policies. R&D). 12 pillars The WEF (in the Global Competitiveness Report) defines competitiveness “as the set of institutions. However.The Global Competitiveness Report WEF Methodology The Davos Man Global Competitiveness Report: 3 main criteria. It is further argues that the level of productivity sets the level of prosperity that can be earned by an economy. leading to “a more competitive economy which is likely to sustain growth. The Sustainable Competitiveness Index does not weight indicators or pillar according to the level of income of a country. Composition of the WEF’s Competitiveness Index 50 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents . “efficiency enhancers” (education levels. and decreasing over 5 stages of development (GDP per capita) to mature "innovation-driven” economies. The indicators within a category seem to be equally weighted. Productivity and returns of investments of an economy are considered “the fundamental drivers of its growth rates”. is highest for the richest countries. but computes each indicator weighting according to its relevance in achieving and sustaining sustainable wealth e. The indicators are described in detail on the next page. and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country”.

World Bank WEF executive opinion survey.Measuring Davos Men Competitiveness Indicators Pillar Institutions Category Public Indicators Property rights Ethics and corruption Undue influence Government efficiency Security 2 3 2 6 4 1 4 5 3 5 8 2 2 4 2 8 6 2 5 4 5 3 3 6 1 1 10 Data Source WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey. female participation Availability and affordability of capital and venture capital Soundness of banking systems. redundancy cost. credit rating Malaria. mobile/fixed line availability Budget balance. savings. security market regulation Technology availability. child mortality rate Quality and enrolment Secondary and tertiary enrolment Quality of schools and teaching. others: 36 The 115 WEF indicators determining competitiveness Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 51 . production. taxation. ILO WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey. inflation. railways. World Bank WEF executive opinion survey. patent applications Efficient use of talent Financial market development Efficiency Trustworthiness and confidence Technological readiness Technological adoption ICT use Market size Business sophistication Domestic market size Foreign market size Supply. value chain depth. R&D expenditure. FDI. air Electricity supply. buyer sophistication Management-labour relations. technology transfers Availability and speed of communication infrastructure Domestic market size index Foreign market size index Supplier quantity and quality. government procurement. hiring/firing freedom. UNESCO WEF executive opinion survey. World Bank WEF executive opinion survey International Telecommunication Union WEF calculation WEF calculation WEF executive opinion survey Private Infrastructure Transport infrastructure Electricity and telephony infrastructure Macroeconomic environment Health and primary education Health Primary education Higher education and training Quantity of education Quality of education On-the-job training Goods market efficiency Competition Corporate ethics Accountability Roads. custom proceedings. International Trade Centre. debt. value chain utilisation. tuberculosis. marketing capabilities Researcher availability & quality. UNESCO UNESCO WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey. imports) Quality of demand conditions Labour market efficiency Flexibility Customer orientation. marketing Research availability and spending R&D Innovation WEF executive opinion survey (7). brain drain. ports. International Air Transport Association WEF executive opinion survey. life expectancy. Institutional Investor WEF executive opinion survey. HIV. WTO WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey. OECD 8 Total 115 WEF executive opinion survey: 79. taxation Pay & productivity. International Telecommunication Union IMF. business barriers) Foreign competition (trade tariffs. internet access in schools Training and availability of training Domestic competition (competition. research institutions and capabilities. World Bank WEF executive opinion survey. production sophistication.

It also does not cover the same number of countries/territories – while the GCI covers 144 nations. the results are used to produce 3 sub-indexes – the Social sustainability-adjusted GCI. and some indicators seem to be chosen somewhat randomly.but nevertheless marking a first step in the right direction. others: 13 Environmental sustainability pillar Stringency of environmental regulation Enforcement of environmental regulation Terrestrial biome protection No. The WEF has therefore developed an additional index pillar on “sustainable competitiveness” since 2012. and concludes that “competitiveness on its own may not lead to sustainable levels of prosperity”. It is arguable whether the chosen indictors cover all relevant aspects of social and environmental sustainability. Pillar Social sustainability pillar Indicators Income Gini index Youth unemployment Access to sanitation Access to improved drinking water Access to healthcare Social safety net protection Extent of informal economy Social mobility Vulnerable employment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 Source World Bank ILO WHO WHO WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey World Bank WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 2012 IUCN FAO World Bank Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 2012 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 2012 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 2012 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 2012 WEF executive opinion survey WEF executive opinion survey: 7. it is questionable whether a survey conducted amongst “executives” and “leaders” (8 of the 20 indicators are based on the WEF’s “executive opinion survey”) presents a reliable source to accurately and qualitatively assess the level of sustainability of an economy. and “competitiveness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for prosperity”. The report is full of references to the potentially unsustainable side-effects of economic activity. the Sustainability-adjusted GCI analysis has only be conducted for 126 countries. this seems to be work in progress . and the Sustainability-adjusted GCI (combining the former two). the Environment sustainabilityadjusted GCI. The Sustainabilityadjusted GCI is calculated by applying a “sustainability coefficient” of between 80-120% to the original competitiveness score. In addition.5) concentration Quality of the natural environment Total Page 52 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents .Davos Man Competitiveness Sustainability Adjusted The WEF’s Sustainability-adjusted Competitiveness Index One cannot say that the WEF is not reading the sign of times. The sustainability pillar consists of 20 indicators divided in “social sustainability” and “environmental sustainability” (see table below). it seems the WEF does not yet fully trust its own new insight – rather than fully integrating the sustainability pillars into the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI). of ratified international environmental treaties Agricultural water intensity CO² intensity Fish stocks overexploited Forest cover change Forest loss Particulate matter (2. However. with 40% of the indicators relating to policies and perception rather than performance. From a sustainable competitiveness view-point.

there remain a some question marks: • While “business executives” might have a clear understanding of the business environment and its regulation in their country. answers are adjusted for the economic structure of the country. named “Executive Opinion Survey” – a stark contrast to the Sustainable Competitiveness Index. 14’059 respondents participated in 2012. Target respondents are business leaders from large and small companies in each country. public health services. While the global coverage. such as public services. to a major part. do “executives” have the same understanding of services that they perhaps never use. and environmental issues (all of which are part of the survey and basis for the Competitiveness Index)? • Is a survey – regardless of whether conducted amongst “executives” or “nonexecutives” – that is based on individual perceptions rather than on facts .a reliable source to compose a ranking? Considering that 70% of the WEF’s GCI are based on perception and opinions of leaders. computing and data weighting processes seem fairly sophisticated. and only 30% on performance data GCI sustainability adjusted External data 31% Aggregate qualitative indicators 2% Data sources for the Sustainability-adjusted Global Competitiveness Index Opinion surveys 67% Sustainable Competitiveness Index External data 90% Opinion surveys 0% Aggregate qualitative indicators 10% The Sustainable Competitiveness Index is 90% based on performance data.Davos Man Data Sources Is an “Executive Opinion Survey” a reliable Source? The data source: executive ‘s opinions A very interesting – and probably not well know or overlooked factor – is that the Global Competitiveness Rankings are. wouldn’t it be more accurate to call the resulting ranking a “Competitiveness Perception Index” rather than “Competitiveness Index”? Table of contents Global Competitiveness Report External data 29% Aggregate qualitative indicators 2% Opinion surveys 69% The Global Competitiveness Index is to 69% based on perceptions of individuals. The executive opinion survey is conducted annually with the help of partner organisations across 150 countries. The yearly responses are adjusted using a moving and discounted average of past surveys in order to reduce “sensitive to the specific point in time when the survey is administered”. social services. and 10% on aggregated qualitative assessments in turn based on performance data The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 53 . which is based on performance data. based on a survey conducted by the WEF. In addition.

homicide rats. but not the main Competitiveness Index. energy mix. value of biodiversity. prison population. executive opinion on quality of environment) - Sustainable Competitiveness Index Number 4 4 Coverage Availability of freshwater resources. Pillar Natural capital Criteria Water Biodiversity WEF Global Competitiveness Index Number 0 (5) Coverage (SA-GCI: Forest area. freshwater withdrawal rate and their historical trends Volumes of ordinary and hazardous waste per capita and GDP & historical trends Particle mater pollution.GINI coefficient) (AS-GCI: police services (as perceived by "executives")) Cost of crime to businesses - 4 2 5 4 4 2 2 7 Social stability (3) 4 Public services Crime Freedom (1) 3 0 1 4 2 Page 54 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents . infant mortality. CO2 intensity of energy mix CO2 emissions per GDP and capita & their historical trends Water productivity. income quintile rate. and historical trends Stakeholder perception of quality of public services Theft cases. SO2 emissions & tehir historical trends Child mortality. doctors and hospital beds. arable land degradation rate. affordability of medical services and drugs. but most indicators are addressing to policy and regulatory levels. life satisfaction perception index. extreme weather events & historical trends Availability of energy resources (fossil & renewable) and level of depletion Availability of mineral resources & level of depletion Energy usage per capita & GDP. social mobility (as perceived by "executives"). It is obvious that the Global Competitiveness Index hardly integrates and environmental or social factors. protected areas. The new framework for a sustainability-adjusted GCI is a step in the right direction. Tuberculosis. availability of nurses. overfishing. potentially arable land Arable land under risk of desertification. peace index (absence of violent conflicts and aggression) 0 0 0 (1) (1) 0 (1) 8 (3) (SA-GCI: CO2 emissions per GDP) (SA-GCI: agricultural water intensity) (SA-GCI: particle mater pollution) Prevalence and business cost of Malaria. cereal yield per capita & area.Competitiveness Indicators Side-by-side Environmental & Social Criteria Few environmental & social indicators The table below shows the direct comparison of indicators used by the “Sustainable Competitiveness” and the “Global Competitiveness” indexes side-by side. annual rain volumes & historical trends Forest areas & changes. overweight rates GINI coefficient. and HIV. which are considered to have limited meaningfulness for performance evaluation amongst sustainability experts. and focusses instead of economic environment and performance factors. threatened species & historical trends Agriculture Environmental degradation Energy Minerals Resource efficiency Energy Climate change Water Waste Pollution Social cohesion Health 0 0 5 4 Arable land per capita & land area. life expectancy (AS-GCI: access to health care. safety perception index Press freedom index. policy indicators: environmental treaty signatures. Environmental & social indicators used for the two indexes. gender equality index. sanitation and water) (AS-GCI: social safety net. Numbers and indicators in brackets refer to indictors used in the Sustainability-adjusted WEF index.

personnel. manufacturing. diversion of funds. financing and venture capital A working banking systems providing financing for infrastructure and business investment as well as to guarantee financial transactions is essential to the functioning and development of a national economy. Transparency International shareholder and investor protection. economics education systems and on-the-job education historical trends as perceived by "executives" Infrastructure 15 Air kilometers 5 Infrastructure investments Internet. quality and 7 R&D expenditure (per capita & GDP). secondary and tertiary enrolment & innovation& internet access in schools. FDI. obesity rates. Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 55 . bribery payments Innovation 10 Property rights & protection. 3 Unemployment. transparency all as perceived by measure quality of governments without "executives") budget balance. R&D availability of research personal and institutes. quality of completion rate and gender equality. Market Corruption Index maturity and internal competitiveness. export/import regulations and tariffs (all as perceived by "executives"). new business registrations. 3 Ease of doing business index. 7 GNI growth rates. spending on R&D (all as perceived by patent applications (per capita & GDP). Due to lack of accurate indicators that quantify the quality of regulation minimising the danger posed by financial markets to national economies. legal 0 markets rights index Stock exchanges and trading of derivative products do not create sustainable value or wealth and are therefore not necessary foundations for national prosperity. air Internet & mobile communication availability transport infrastructure and electricity supply Business 31 Government regulation. services). Numbers and indicators in brackets refer to indictors used in the Sustainability-adjusted WEF index. but not the main Competitiveness Index. hiring/firing cost. financial austerity crises management Governments 9 Public trust in politicians. due to the lack of indicators that could adequately measure the quality and stability of a banking system. this criteria has been omitted from the SCI Financial 2 Regulation of securities exchanges. legal framework. Pillar Criteria WEF Global Competitiveness Index Sustainable Competitiveness Index Number Coverage Number Coverage Sustainable Education 10 Primary. secondary and tertiary enrolment. local supplier base. payments. credit rating. accountability. fixed line mobile communication Availability of roads and railways per area & usage population Perception of quality of roads. and 0 system affordability of. vulnerable employment. "executives"). 0 judicial independence. rate of engineering students. bribery environment government support. female labour participation rate (AS-GCI: youth unemployment & vulnerable employment) Banking 6 Soundness of banks. access to. depth of internal value optimisation. 6 Primary. government missDue to the lack of indicators that could spending. market (2) wage flexibility. start-up requirements. ports. debt ideological prejudices. this criteria has been omitted from the SCI Labour 9 Labour flexibility. taxation. indicators Inflation. pay & compensation (all as female labour participation rate perceived by "executives"). However. this criteria has not been included in the SCI. GNI. domestic and foreigner new trademark applications (per capita & market size GDP).Economic & Innovation Criteria Competitiveness Indicators Side-by-side Focus on economic criteria Innovation and economic indicators used for the two indexes. patent applications per capita value added through high-tech manufacturing Economic 9 Tax rate. health of balance between different sectors (agriculture.

Index (GCI) vs. adjusted WEF Index (GCI adjusted) Country Denmark Sweden Finland Norway Switzerland Germany Canada Ireland Austria Luxembourg Netherlands Japan Iceland New Zealand France Slovenia Czech Republic Estonia Spain Portugal Belarus Italy Lithuania Australia United Kingdom Belgium USA Brazil Hungary South Korea Poland Singapore Bhutan Romania Slovakia Latvia Croatia China Uzbekistan Argentina Costa Rica Montenegro Indonesia Uruguay SCI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 GCI 12 4 3 15 1 6 14 27 16 22 5 10 30 23 21 56 39 34 36 49 42 45 20 8 17 7 48 60 19 41 2 78 71 55 81 29 94 57 72 50 74 +/-11 -2 -11 +4 -7 -19 -7 -12 +6 +2 -17 -9 -6 -40 -22 -16 -17 -29 n/a -21 -23 +3 +16 +8 +19 -21 -32 +10 -11 +29 n/a -46 -38 -21 -46 +7 n/a -57 -19 -33 -10 -33 GCI adjusted 10 4 2 5 1 6 13 18 7 3 9 16 11 14 24 23 22 27 35 33 26 15 8 11 17 30 37 21 34 61 39 25 45 31 71 28 43 40 -9 -2 +1 -1 +4 -6 -10 +2 n/a +7 +2 -4 +2 -9 -7 -5 -9 -16 n/a -13 -5 +7 +15 +13 +8 -4 -10 +7 -5 n/a n/a -31 -8 +7 -12 +3 n/a -36 +8 n/a -6 -2 Country GCI +/.Sustainable GCI adjusted Competitiveness SCIrankings: Malta 45 47 -5 n/a Competitiveness Index vs. WEF Timor-Leste 46 136 -93 n/a Competitiveness Index vs.Davos Men vs. Sustainable Competitiveness Rankings (1-88) WEF Competitiveness Competitiveness rankings: Sustainable Competitiveness Index (SCI) vs. adjusted WEF Index Israel 47 26 +18 20 +19 Russia 48 67 -22 49 -9 Peru 49 61 -15 53 -12 Serbia 50 95 -48 66 -24 Albania 51 89 -41 n/a Bulgaria 52 62 -13 41 +2 Republic of Congo 53 n/a n/a Tajikistan 54 100 -50 n/a Tanzania 55 120 -69 77 -33 Greece 56 96 -44 62 -17 Ghana 57 103 -50 n/a Malaysia 58 25 +29 19 +27 Colombia 59 69 -14 59 -12 Zambia 60 102 -46 n/a Cyprus 61 58 -1 36 +12 Sri Lanka 62 68 -10 50 -1 Cameroon 63 112 -53 n/a Qatar 64 11 +49 n/a Dominica 65 n/a n/a Liberia 66 111 -50 n/a Moldova 67 87 -25 58 -8 Guyana 68 109 -46 n/a Guinea-Bissau 69 n/a n/a Mozambique 70 138 -74 n/a Laos 71 n/a n/a Armenia 72 82 -17 67 -16 Macao 73 n/a n/a Venezuela 74 126 -60 76 -24 Ethiopia 75 121 -54 n/a Ecuador 76 86 -18 64 -11 Cote d'Ivoire 77 131 -62 n/a Dominican Republic 78 105 -35 75 -21 Paraguay 79 116 -45 74 -19 Suriname 80 114 -42 n/a Tunisia 81 n/a n/a Sudan 82 n/a n/a Kosovo 83 n/a n/a Democratic 84 n/a n/a Republic of Congo Kyrgistan 85 127 -54 n/a Sierra Leone 86 143 -69 n/a Gambia 87 n/a n/a Zimbabwe 88 132 -57 n/a Ranking differences have been adjusted for the number of countries available in each index to allow for direct ranking comparisons Page 56 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents .

Davos Men vs. adjusted Gabon 135 99 +12 Index (GCI adjusted) Kazakhstan 136 51 +61 45 Afghanistan 137 n/a Benin 138 119 -6 Turkmenistan 139 n/a Nigeria 140 115 -1 Jamaica 141 97 +18 70 Seychelles 142 76 +40 Mexico 143 53 +64 47 Macedonia 144 80 +38 63 Saudi Arabia 145 18 +101 Bolivia 146 104 +16 Algeria 147 110 +11 78 Eritrea 148 n/a Jordan 149 64 +58 52 Kenya 150 106 +17 72 Bahrain 151 35 +89 Pakistan 152 124 +1 79 Botswana 153 79 +47 Guatemala 154 83 +44 North Korea 155 n/a Libya 156 113 +15 Comoros 157 n/a Swaziland 158 135 -6 South Africa 159 52 +78 56 United Arab Emirates 160 24 +107 Bahamas 161 n/a Iraq 162 n/a Iran 163 66 +66 54 South Sudan 164 n/a Hong Kong 165 9 +124 Honduras 166 90 +44 Namibia 167 92 +43 68 Brunei 168 28 +108 Somalia 169 n/a Maldives 170 n/a Trinidad and Tobago 171 84 +53 55 Haiti 172 142 -4 Fiji 173 n/a West Bank and Gaza 174 n/a Yemen 175 140 -1 Equatorial Guinea 176 n/a n/a WEF n/a WEF n/a +23 n/a n/a n/a n/a -1 n/a +23 +8 n/a n/a -6 n/a +21 +2 n/a -4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a +20 n/a n/a n/a +23 n/a n/a n/a +10 n/a n/a n/a +24 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Ranking differences have been adjusted for the number of countries available to allow for direct ranking comparisons Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 57 . adjusted WEF Index (GCI adjusted) Country Mali Malawi Cambodia Niger Belize Papua New Guinea Georgia Nepal Egypt Guinea Greenland Madagascar Togo Ukraine Mauritius Nicaragua Burkina Faso Bosnia and Herzegovina Azerbaijan Uganda Oman El Salvador Djibouti Thailand Lesotho Lebanon Angola Burma Panama Philippines Chile Vietnam Cuba Senegal Turkey Bangladesh Chad India Central African Republic Rwanda Mauritania Kuwait Burundi Morocco WEF Competitiveness SCI 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 GCI 128 129 85 77 125 107 141 130 73 54 108 133 88 46 123 32 101 38 137 91 40 65 33 75 117 43 118 139 59 63 134 37 144 70 +/-52 -52 -7 n/a n/a n/a +2 -45 -26 -59 n/a -47 n/a +11 +31 -22 -46 +43 -33 +59 -9 n/a +55 -43 +4 n/a n/a +56 +32 +65 +24 n/a -17 +58 -16 -36 +45 n/a +42 -28 +70 -36 +39 GCI adjusted 65 72 57 43 51 38 32 48 29 42 60 68 n/a n/a -9 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a -15 n/a n/a n/a n/a +1 +16 n/a n/a n/a +9 n/a n/a n/a n/a +23 n/a n/a n/a n/a +30 +15 +35 n/a n/a n/a +23 n/a n/a +6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a -1 Country GCI +/. Index (GCI) vs.Sustainable GCI adjusted Competitiveness SCIrankings: Mongolia +17 vs. Competitiveness 133 Index 93 (SCI) Syria 134 n/a Competitiveness Index (GCI) vs. Sustainable Competitiveness Rankings (89-176) Competitiveness rankings: Sustainable Competitiveness Index (SCI) vs.

However. the correlation is significantly less strong. SolAbility GSCI and WEF GCI vs. wit an R square value of 0.22 (i. due to the integration of factors that currently might have limited direct financial impacts. On the other hand. World Bank. Given the set of indicators chosen to measure competitiveness. as is Japan. albeit less positive correlation between GDP/GNI levels and the Sustainable Competitiveness Index. World Bank. GNI. in light of the coming resource scarcity (i. but also certain dissimilarities. are ranked high in both indexes.e. it is very probable that the GSCI is a more accurate forecast of future competitiveness and wealth creation and sustaining capabilities. The R square value (a statistical measurement quantifying the probability of two values matching a linear formula)for the WEF Index is a high 0. Eastern European nations are evaluated higher by the GSCI. South Korea). Which raises the question – why not just use the GDP as a graduator of competitiveness…? There seems to be a similar. i. a 67% exact correlation between GDP and Competitiveness. However. Sources: WEF. SolAbility A comparison of the rankings between the Competitiveness Index (GCI) and the Sustainable Competitiveness Index (GSCI) show similarities.Rankings and Economic Performance Why not just use GDP? High correlation to current GDP GSCI and WEF GCI vs. when “non-financial” factors become financial factors). Sources: WEF. (but influence long-term perspective.e. 22% probability of an exact match). The WEF Index might be a good measurement of current wealth.e. GNI 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 20 25 30 SCI 35 GCI 40 45 50 Linear (SCI) 55 60 65 Linear (GCI) Global Competitiveness and Sustainable Competitiveness Scores vs. other large economies – in particular the US and the UK – are ranked distinctively higher in the GCI than in the GSCI as are new and emerging Asian economic powerhouses (China. it is perhaps not really surprising that the Davos Man rankings show a very high correlation to current GDP levels of the respective country. often referred to as “non-financial” aspects). Scandinavian and other Northern European Countries e. GDP 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 20 25 30 SCI 35 GCI 40 45 50 55 60 65 Linear (SCI) Linear (GCI) Global Competitiveness and Sustainable Competitiveness Scores vs.67.g. Page 58 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents . However. GDP.

of. with no distinctive linear correlation visible. a more interesting question relates to whether the Indexes have any correlation to growth rates. GNI growth rates. to the addition to. WEF. In other words – do the indexes have any value in predicting the capability of creating new wealth? Given the spread of growth rates. i. the association of sustainable competitiveness and growth rate changes are also slightly negative. and the also expected not-so strong correlation of the same value to the Sustainable Competitiveness Ranking.Sustainable vs. However. wealth by a given economy (or what is commonly perceived as wealth as measured by GDP or GNI). GNI growth rate changes 2006-2011. Sources: World Bank. WEF. GNI growth changes 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% -8% -10% 20 GSCI 30 GCI 40 50 Linear (GSCI) 60 Linear (GCI) Global Competitiveness and Sustainable Competitiveness Scores vs. but rather intends to contribute to the discussion of what policies actually determine future wealth creation on the level of nations. higher competitiveness averages lower growth rates an vice-versa. or sustaining. the association of competitiveness according to Davos Man and growth is negative (i. GNI growth 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% 20 GSCI 30 GCI 40 50 Linear (GSCI) 60 Linear (GCI) Global Competitiveness and Sustainable Competitiveness Scores vs. This analysis is by no means scientific. SolAbility GSCI and WEF GCI vs. However. on average (looking at the average correlation). it is not really surprising that comparing index scores and growth rates (without adjustments for development stage of an economy) is scattered rather than aligned. even before adjustment to development stages. The average association of the sustainable competitiveness to growth is neutral. Sources: World Bank.e. indicating that neither index is able to fully grasp the essence of growth and growth changes. However.e. SolAbility Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 59 . Davos Man Competitiveness: Wealth & Growth So… how about growth rates? The previous page has shown the somehow expected correlations between current GDP levels and the WEF Competitiveness Index. Analysis the changes to growth rates (also without adjustment to development stage of an economy) produces a very similar picture. GSCI and WEF GCI vs.

Comparing the WEF rankings and actual income level raising levels of the respective countries unfortunately does not support this notion.5% Overvalued . (…). The reason why this important is the selfperception of the WEF and its competitiveness Index. it nevertheless gives interesting indications: According to the WEF Index. The hit rate of the Sustainable Competitiveness Index is 11% higher compared to the WEF index at marginally over 50%. Another statistical analysis consist of using of the average deviation of competitiveness and growth rates changes. 25. and offers an important tool in the formulation of improved economic policies and institutional reforms”.4% WEF Global Competitiveness rankings and growth change rankings deviation: percentage of correct correlations (high rank. that aims to “understand the key factors that determine economic growth. Page 60 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents . In 30% of all cases a higher growth rate than anticipated by the WEF ranking is observed.4% Sustainable Competitiveness rankings and growth change rankings deviation: percentage of correct correlations (high rank. GSCI and GNI growth changes: correleations Undervalue d. does not intent and cannot represent a bullet-proof scientific analysis. real growth rate. This exercise has been conducted in order to analyse whether the competitiveness ranking of a country correlates to the ranking in terms of growth rates changes. while in another 30% the growth rate is lower than the WEF ranking would suggest. While this. helps to explain why some countries are more successful than others in raising income levels.4% Overvalued . only 40% of all cases show a positive correlation. 24. 31.2% Correct.Growth Correlations Average Deviations Negative correlations WEF GCI and GNI growth changes: correleations Undervalue d. or whether the country ranking would suggest a higher or lower growth rate than the actual. again. 39. 50. 29.1% Correct. Data analysis suggest that a country that would take the WEF’s competitiveness blueprint as a development model has a statistical higher chance of such a strategy leading to undesired opposite results. high growth rate changes) – the correlation holds true in 50% of cases. high growth rate changes) – the correlation holds true in 40% of cases.

e. the current version is work in progress. While the high global number of respondents should lead to a representative picture.actually lead to new or higher growth. and due to the “brand-value” and international media presence is probably one of the most recognised indexes. However. the fossil-rich states in the Middle East). However. would require exact and accurate data. or environmental matters. and not integrated in the main competitiveness Index at this point in time. • The selection of indicators: the WEF Competitiveness Index is based on the notion that “competitiveness” is based on economic performance and drivers that enhance economic performance (infrastructure. In recognition that such economic activities might not be fully sustainable (i. i. selection of indicators. In other words: the Competitiveness Report is a ranking of past achievements and current wealth of nations.as defined through the selection of components by the WEF Index . and regulations that affect businesses). the definition of future competitiveness. The development of sustainability criteria by the WEF present a step in the right direction.Davos Man vs. and even less so to changes in growth rates. there is no statistical (empiric) evidence that would support the notion that competitiveness .e. However. the capability to sustain or create new growth . a country's capability to sustain and increase wealth in the future. Sustainability Conclusions High GDP level correlation . It is hoped that the WEF will continue to develop. this framework is limited in scope. on the other hand. which in turn requires the availability of data and application of streamlined data accounting across all countries – which. This is not necessarily a sign of competitiveness. but low GDP growth correlation The comparison of methodologies and empirical analysis of correlations with wealth levels and new wealth creation (growth and growth rate changes as measured in GDP or GNI per capital) leads to 4 major observations: • The data sources: the WEF index is to 69% based on qualitative opinion surveys (“the executive survey”). fully integrate the sustainability factors in their Global Competitiveness Index. i. not the sole ingredients of competitiveness in the longer term). policing).g. The WEF has begun developing a “sustainable competitiveness” framework. The Competitiveness Report aims to identify components of competitiveness and serve as tool for policy making to increase competitiveness. and more importantly. • Low correlation to new wealth creation (growth and changes of growth rates): empiric analysis of the WEF competitiveness scores and actual growth rates (measured in GDP or GNI) shows little correlation. Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 61 . Reliance on data. cannot be guaranteed for all relevant sustainable performance data. it is questionable whether opinion surveys based on a small bandwidth of the population (“the executives”) are a true reflection of the respective quality and/or performance – in particular when it comes to non-business aspects such as quality of public services (health education. • High correlation to current GDP: The WEF Competitiveness shows a distinctive correlation to current GDP levels under exclusion of any environmental or equality indicators. Comparative analysis with the Sustainable Competitiveness Index suggests that full integration of sustainability factors yields a higher correlation to growth and growth changes. The WEF ranking-GDP correlation also holds true in instances where current high GDP levels have been achieved mainly through the exploitation of natural resources (e. education. at this point in time.e.

Achieving sustainable competitiveness The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index .

Achieving sustainable competitiveness
Intro

Sustainable development , competitiveness, and wealth creation The leading nations according to the Sustainable Competitiveness Index mostly present highincome countries, suggesting a certain correlation between sustainable competitiveness and GDP per capita or income levels (high income = high sustainability). While a certain similarity between GDP rankings and sustainability levels seems to be visible, the correlation is superficial and refuted by too many exceptions to the rule. This indicates that the correlation is not from GDP to sustainable competitiveness, but rather from sustainable competitiveness to income levels. In other words: higher sustainable competitiveness can be associated with higher income levels. However, the correlation or the influence of the sustainable competitiveness on the GDP or income level is not immediate - it is time deferred. Like every endeavor or project, an upfront investment is required; the seeds have to be planted, the plants need to be cared for before the fruits can be harvested. In addition, the sustainable competitiveness level can be “cheated on” for a certain amount of time trough exploitation of the natural capital in the presence of large natural resources (e.g. the oil-rich countries of the Middle East). However, such wealth is highly unsustainable and the wealth generated will diminish with the depletion of the natural resources in the absence of development of an adequate alternative sustainable economy and the underlying fundament requirements for such an economy. The time-delay impact of sustainable competitiveness on wealth levels works both ways. A country that in the past has achieved a comparable high level of economic development will decline over time in the absence of initiatives and performance supporting sustainable competitiveness (as currently seems to be the case with the USA or the UK, for example). A country can sustain its current level for only a limited time by exploiting the historically accumulated sustainable capital (natural capital, efficiency capital, human capital, equality, and income). However, the decline in actual income level will occur at a later point (delayed) compared to the decline in actual sustainable competitiveness. By the time the decline commences to be felt in actual economic terms, it will be difficult to recuperated sustainable competitiveness because the weight of the momentum is pulling in the opposite direction. Politicians tend to turn to extremes and/or introduction of drastic economic policies in such moments. However, failure to consider the full long-term impacts of such policies often leads to a worsening of the situation rather than improvement and causes an even faster decline. The sustainable competitiveness level of an economy therefore can serve as an early warning indication for misguided development and policies. For countries with low current income or GDP levels, a low sustainability competitiveness score indicates low potential to achieve sustainable development in the short and mid-term future in the absence of significant changes to development and investment policies. Low-income countries with a comparable high sustainability competitiveness score, on the other hand, have the potential to improve their income and well-being levels based on sustainable fundamentals.

Table of contents

The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013

Page 63

Elements of Competitiveness
Problem-Solution Tree

64

Table of contents

Achieving Sustainable Wealth
Elements of Competitiveness

Maintaining the four basic pillars of competitiveness Sustainable competitiveness is the accumulated result of development policies and strategies, designed and implemented by governments, authorities, economic entities (businesses), individuals, and other players. Sustainable competitiveness is therefore subject to human influence and can be improved for the better, or will change for the worse in the absence of thoughtful and intelligent guidance. While short-term success might be achieved through limited initiatives in a single area, long-term sustainable competitiveness – i.e. the ability to sustain growth and wealth creation into the future - can only be achieved through polices, regulations, standards and incentives balancing all areas of national sustainable competitiveness. According to the methodology used for the Sustainable Competitiveness Index, these include: Natural Capital: fostering sustainable agriculture, protecting biodiversity and biomass (forest areas), protecting surface water and water reservoirs, and ensuring sustainable use (management) of renewable and non-renewable natural resources. Resource Intensity: increasing industrial efficiency trough regulations and intelligent incentives, advocating of efficient technologies, products and services, regulating through mandatory efficiency standards, and de-materialisation of production. Sustainable Innovation: increasing universal availability and quality of education, defining key national industrial and economic growth areas with supporting programs and policies, incentives fostering entrepreneurship, and eradicating corruption. Social Cohesion: Improving availability and affordability of health care services, guaranteeing equal economic opportunities, gender equality, integrating neglected communities, and crime counter-measurements, ensure freedom of thought.

Achieving sustainable competitiveness requires a combination of thoughtful policies that both regulate and stimulate the environment in a way that allows for both businesses and society to thrive while preserving the natural environment, i.e. sustainably manage natural environment and resources which in turn form the basis for continued business operations and social stability in terms of food security. Considering that many of the elements of competitiveness are inter-linked and directly or indirectly correlate with one another (e.g. quality and availability of education determines future innovation capabilities), it is vital to include all aspects in an intelligent model. Neglecting any of the pillars of sustainable competitiveness, on the other hand, will lead to decreasing competiveness because of these inter-linkages. Increasing inequality, for example, is leading to higher crime rates and insecurity with the associated cost for policing and the judicial system as well as cost for security for businesses, and ultimately shrink the domestic market due to lack of power purchasing parity, in turn a barrier to new investments – a vicious cycle as austerity-lead economies such as the UK or Greece are currently finding out the hard way.

Table of contents

The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013

Page 65

Problem-Solution Tree Natural Capital Page 66 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents .

and therefore the level of depletion – is a result of human activity and therefore can be directed through positive and negative incentives. a significant percentage of humanity) are highly likely to face barriers to sustainable and sustained development. is in its essence a conflict over water resources and pastures coupled with increasing population density). and the economy. The countries on the bottom of the natural capital ranking (which includes China and India. Israel's natural water reservoirs are limited and diminishing despite the technology applied.e. subsidies. i. Israel (rank 155. This measurement can be coupled with positive incentives.g.g. water) that reflect the inclusive value of the resource or internalizes non-financial depletion and/or pollution costs. the efficient and sustainable use . water resources. tourism • Designation of sustainable development demonstration projects and areas. These obstacles might include water constraints. ultimately leading to conflict over resources (the Darfur conflict. designation of protected areas • As a drastic measurement of last resort: introduction of contingents Positive natural capital incentives • Targeted R&D and policies conveying resource-efficiency technologies (a growth market with large economic potential) • Investment in restoring natural capital (e. However. or other programs • Introduction of environmental regulations. whereby the revenues so gained are redistributed in relevant R&D efforts. and possibly. Water availability in turn is the basis for a rich biodiversity and agricultural yield. Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 67 . climate. Israel's example demonstrates both the positive impact on the development level as well as the limitations of technology to guarantee long-term sustained development. affecting agriculture. for example. human needs.Sustaining the Eco-systems Sustainable Natural Capital Management Positive an negative incentives to protect and sustain the natural capital Most top ranked nations – with a few exceptions – are countries with a comparably low population density. coupled with sufficient water availability. support for technology. forests) with long-term benefits for renewable resources (such as groundwater). The natural capital of a country is mainly determined by factors beyond the influence of humanity: geography. excluding West Bank and Gaza) has achieved and maintained a high level of economic prosperity compared to other countries with similar characteristics. and support for sustainable agriculture and resource management • Market tools such as cap-and-trade systems unfortunately have proven to be ineffective due to the complexity of cap definition and administrative overheads requirements Compensation through technology Despite very limited natural resources. However. Negative natural capital protection incentives • Setting mandatory efficiency standards (possibly coupled with fines for non-compliance) • User-pays and polluter-pays principles: defining prices of resources (e. Israel has developed and applied intelligent technology (in particular in terms of irrigation) which allows to extract high yields from limited resources: the country is a net agricultural exporter. mineral resources. posing a serious challenge to the long-term sustainment of current output levels.

Resource Intensity Problem-Solution Tree Page 68 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents .

including higher costs compared to other nations to achieve or sustain growth and wealth. the analysis of the overall rankings finds countries from all regions and all development levels next to each other in the ranking with no obvious correlation to the economic or financial power. regulations and incentives.to mid-term future • Infrastructure investment: upgrading existing or building new efficient infrastructure (transport. and increase resource efficiency Countries with high resource intensity and low efficiency are likely to face a number of challenges. Japan) than similar economies with lower taxes. it might be argued that this measurement is currently not opportune considering the expected rise of costs of resources in the near. faster depletion of domestic resources. the economic competitiveness of an economy. In other words. Amongst the tools available to increase resource efficiency are: • Taxes: higher resource taxes increase incentives to increase efficiency.Sustaining Competitiveness Ensuring Efficiency in a Resource-Constraint World Incentives and taxes to educe resource intensity. electronic appliances. public awareness campaigns Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 69 . etc.g. and higher dependency on imports of energy and raw materials form the distinctively volatile global commodity markets. Economic actors in countries where resources (in particular energy) have been or are subsidised have even less incentives to increase efficiency. while lowering long-term operational cost and reduces dependency on resource imports. countries that would be expected to have a similar resource intensity based on development level and characteristic of their economies have fairly different resource intensity scores. In addition. While the top of the resource intensity rankings are dominated by countries that are generally referred to as “less developed”. This inclines that the resource intensity and resource efficiency is not directly correlated to the level of economic development and output. A decade of intelligent polices can therefore make immense differences to the national efficiency and resource intensity of a country – an ultimately. buildings. The absence of such correlations suggests that resource intensity and resource efficiency are to a considerable degree influenced by the nature of economic and industrial policies.) • Mandatory efficiency labels. buildings) increases efficiency. In addition. and technology applied. However. this measurements can have positive impacts on the job market and unemployment figures • Targeted R&D support and other measurements for key growth industries • Mandatory efficiency standards (cars. countries with higher taxes have more room for leveraging fluctuations and spikes in the global energy markets through temporary easing of taxes. Countries that have introduced resource taxes in the past have higher resource efficiency (e. power.

Sustainable & innovative economy Problem-Solution Tree Page 70 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents .

Interestingly. • Cutting unnecessary bureaucratic and administrative obstacles for businesses. R&D. China and Japan are all found on the top of the innovation ranking. it is probably fair to state that World Bank/IMF’s ideology-driven free market approach has not been particular helpful. they are in direct contradiction to what dominant players such as the World Bank and the IMF have been demanding from borrowing countries. However. formulating strategic industrial development priorities (priority clusters) on the national level has shown to be highly effective • Protective measurements: protecting key national industries (including agriculture) to allow the national industries to reach international competitiveness before competing on global markets • Increase allocation for the development of modern and intelligent infrastructure (which has the positive side-effect of creating employment in countries with high unemployment) to kickstart the economy. not only quantity • Formulate policies and incentives to increase allocation for R&D in areas key to a country’s characteristics. countries have a number of tools at their disposal. increasing financial allocation alone is never sufficient without careful and localised planning that also ensures quality. However. and raise incentives for school attendance. and regulating the financial market as so it does not grow into a systemic risk Unfortunately. Policies have to be designed intelligently and specific to the circumstances and characteristics of a country: • Increasing budget allocation for education. In many Asian countries. Countries with low sustainable innovation competitiveness on the other hand are facing difficulties to achieve meaningful growth as nations due to the lack of the basic fundamentals: • Limited availability and quality of education. Value-adding Economy Education. development strategies are too often driven by economic theories and ideology instead of pragmatism (a phenomena that can currently be observed in Europe). decline is equally reflected as progress in this ranking. developing prestige projects that often turn into white elephants and investment ruins is a waste of time & money • Eradicating corruption on all levels. there is no one-size-fits all solution. The USA (formerly considered powerful not only in size but also in terms of innovation & competitiveness) is ranked low in relation to its global status in most innovation and competitiveness indicators – in line with the widely perceived industrial decline of the country. leading to limited and costly access to markets • Insufficient R&D spending. and investments to foster an innovation-based economy South Korea. • Regulating and attaching conditions to the flow of international capital. Considering that development in most debtor countries (particularly Africa) has stalled over the last 50 years while Asian countries have boomed. leading to limited R&D capabilities and a lack of highly qualified workforce. in turn limiting economic opportunities and development • Lack of modern transport and communication infrastructure. limiting opportunities to develop value-adding industries In order to achieve sustainable economic development through innovation.Sustaining Growth Innovation-based. However. Know-ledge and innovation are key success factors for adding value and achieve sustained growth in an increasingly complex and globalised economy. Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 71 . While the above measurements have been highly successful in Asia. Singapore.

Problem-Solution Tree Social Cohesion Page 72 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents .

such policies have to be designed to allow sufficient room for awarding individual performance and accomplishments that serve as drivers for the overall economy and development • Increasing community development programs with a focus on fostering alternatives to criminal career paths • Adapt legislation to reduce criminality and incentives for criminal behaviour (for example treating drug addiction as a sickness rather than a crime) • Introducing incentives to increase birth rate in aging societies resp. countries with a low social cohesion are likely to face constraints in achieving sustainable and sustained development and wealth: • Higher cost of labour and lower labour efficiency to businesses due to ill health both on the lower end (poor man’s sicknesses. but facilitates economic growth. in rural areas). The exceptions to the rule.e. to what extend longterm economic development can be sustained without a certain level social cohesion. however. Combined with large income and asset ownership gaps. including history and culture. but comparably low social cohesion score) seem to indicate that social cohesion is not a default outcome of economic success – or an indication of the beginning decline of a society. e. frequency of cardiac diseases) • Lack of economic equality and equal opportunities leads to lack of incentives to follow an ambitious career path and low work motivation and identification.g. raising the question whether social cohesion is the result or the cause of increased economic wealth.) and at the higher end (e. Leaving aside the individual human tragedies. i. Social cohesion and the social consensus within a society or country is determined by a number of factors. incentives to decrease birth rate in countries with high birth rates • Avoiding unnecessary confrontations with internal minorities and in terms of geo-political engagement and foreign relations Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 73 . It is questionable.e. In extreme cases this can lead to the breakdown of order. However. effectively rendering development impossible. using modern technology and communication coupled with innovative business/financing models to simultaneously increase affordability of health care • Increase the affordability and quality of public services. However. which in turn negatively affects the efficiency and profitability of economic entities. including family and child care support to fully capitalise on the capabilities of the female population • Designing intelligent policies that limit income and asset ownership gaps. such as the USA (high GDP per capita. obesity. countries with high social cohesion and high income levels have some common characteristics that can be influenced through adequate policies: • Increasing access to adequate health care in geographical terms (i. The calculated social cohesion scores show a certain correlation to GDP per capita level. lack of economic opportunities is likely to increase crime rates. there is no on-size-fits all solution to improve social cohesion in a specific country.g. • Unbalanced demographic structure (aging population) affects a country’s social structure and constraints social services. malaria etc.The Basis of Continued Development Social Equality and Freedom Ensuring equal opportunities to facilitate social stability Social Cohesion does not seem to be an absolute necessary ingredient for short-term economic development. the correlation cannot be observed throughout all countries. However.

Sustainable competitiveness: spotlight on KoreaKorea The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index 74 .

raw materials). but significantly below global averages in Natural Capital and resource intensity Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 75 . but is considerably below the world average in terms of Natural Capital and Resource Efficiency.8 South Korea.Rank 31.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 South Korea 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Average Best Score Natural capital Resource Innovation intensity Social cohesion Korea is within the top 20%. food. While the economic indicators suggest that Korea is on a sustainable way to sustain existing and create new wealth. A series of measurements have already been taken in the wake of rising global oil prices.1 Average .) provided sufficient political intent and will to withstand the pressure of the beneficiaries of current lax legislations. 50. mandatory efficiency standards. The good news is that resource efficiency can be improved through government policies (pricing. 62. The country score very high in sustainable economic and innovation. The country scores very high in terms of sustainable innovation and economic indicators (ranked 2nd globally). 43. just within the top 20%. Sustainable Competitiveness Best. influence on crime rates). and might have time-delayed impact in reality (e. the low availability of natural capital and low resource efficiency could undermine or reverse economic gains in the medium and long term. if not addresses comprehensively. leading to a certain dissatisfaction within the society that could undermine the stability required for continued growth. slightly above average in Social Cohesion.g. etc. The low level of available Natural Capital is difficult to tackle. but closer to the World average than to the World best. taxing. Social Cohesion can also be improved through policies. but are more difficult to implement fair and intelligent. particularly in the private sector. The score in Social Cohesion indicates that wealth is somewhat unequally distributed. and needs to be addressed with policies increasing efficiency and securing stable supply of basic goods (water. 20% Below Best Score Koreas & Sustainable Competitiveness Global Sustainable Competitiveness Rank: 31 Korea ranks 31st in the Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index. smart incentives. but are not yet on a level required to ensure long-term competitiveness.

e. Limited Resources Natural Capital Ranking. Table of contents 2002 Denmark 2007 Germany Japan 2011 China Renewable freshwater resource in Korea are significantly below other industrialised countries. total (% of internal resources) Korea 2009 Denmark Germany 2011 Japan China A very large percentage of Korea’s available fresh water is used for human purposes. The high withdrawal rate underlines the importance of waste-water treatment and water purification to ensure adequate sanitation and hygiene: water is highly likely being used several times for human purposes between the spring and the seas – where it should also provide living space for water flora and fauna. the natural capital available per capita is comparably small. Best. the annual withdrawal rate of available freshwater stands at nearly 40% (significantly above the relevant definition of water stress).9 Average . 63. Increasing internal efficiency is therefore key to lower the dependence and exposure of price fluctuations. 34. It is not yet clear if and how climate change will affect rain patterns on the Korean peninsula. the country’s land area is comparably small.Small Land Area. should they change significantly. and have decreased over the past 10 years 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Annual freshwater withdrawals. the current theoretical water stress eventually might turn into a real water stress. More importantly. The availability of Natural Capital is more or less given and therefore beyond the direct influence of government policies. 40. The high population density coupled with the lack of relevant domestic mineral or fossil resources leads to a low Natural Capital score. Water is the basic of all life and civilisation.7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Renewable internal freshwater resources per capita (cubic meters) 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Korea Water Given regular rain and streams criss-crossing the country. Korea is ranked 133 amongst 176 nations globally.8 South Korea. raw materials. However. Education on water usage and increased industrial efficiency in water usage are therefore highly important to ensure availability of sufficient and clean water for all purposes required. and food – and therefore highly exposed to price fluctuations of commodities on the global market place. but makes the country dependent on imports of energy. it comes as a surprise to many Koreans that their country is suffering from “water stress” according the UN definition: the availability of renewable fresh-water is fairly low compared to other countries. The withdrawal rate is high above what constitutes a “water stress” situation Page 76 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 . and further increasing. i. and has further declined over the past 10 years (although still significantly above the “water stress” definition). water Natural Capital Ranking Considering the size of Korea’s economy. and is home to 49 million people. International trade can compensate for the availability of local resources.

characterised by steep slopes.3 0. it is not surprising that the available arable land per capita is small (comparable to Japan. testimony to intact biodiversity.2 0. It therefore sees advisable to simultaneously look for and invest in new innovative solutions domestically. However. land lease contracts are normally signed with government authorities. but only 40% of China. again making the country dependent on imports and the fluctuations on the food commodity markets to feed its population. making the country dependent on food imports and global grain price volatility 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Cereal yield (kg per hectare) 2007 Korea 2008 Denmark 2009 Germany 2010 Japan 2011 China Agricultural yields per area) is amongst the highest in the World. the continued return and sustainability of these projects cannot be guaranteed (it is suggested that Daewoo International’s land lease deal with the Madagascar Government over 1.35 0. despite the much larger population. roughly equal to the 65% of area covered by forests).4 0.45 0. The combination of these two factors means that there is little room for increasing domestic food supply. and terrace farming. This is not only important from the perspective of the locals. While it is understandable to look overseas for supplies in the absence of obvious domestic resources. but poor countries in Africa. and significantly lower than in Western European countries).3 million hectares was a key element that led to the revolution of 2009 and the subsequent cancellation of the deal by the new government). indicating limited upward potential through domestic efficiency improvement Forest area (% of land area) 0 China 10 Japan 20 Germany 30 Denmark 40 Korea 50 60 70 80 Large areas are covered by forest. often without the consent of local affected people – NGOs therefore refer to this practice as “land grab”.Securing Food Supplies Food & Agricultural Resources Agriculture & Food Agriculture & food Given the small land mass. Imported supplies depend on the economic. Korea’s strategic answer is to lease land for agricultural purposes overseas – mostly in fertile.15 0.25 0. including vertical agriculture. The are of forest cover is equal to mountainous areas not suitable for human settlements or conventional agriculture purposes Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 77 . 0. high population density and geographical specifications of the country (large areas are mountainous. Where land lease deals lead to local resistance and/or social unrest. Agricultural efficiency and yields on the other hand are amongst the highest in the World. environmental.1 0.5 0.05 0 Arable land (hectares per person) 2007 Korea 2008 Denmark 2009 Germany 2010 Japan 2011 China Availability of arable land (land that can be used for agricultural purposes) is low. and socio-political circumstances in the location of sourcing. it is highly questionable whether such an approach is truly sustainable in the sense of achieving secure long-term supplies.

The low efficiency suggests that there is a large yet untapped water savings potential which can be realised trough pricing. GHG emissions per capita. Water intensity (water used to produce a certain amount of GDP. efficiency improvements and recycling of process water in the industry. underlying the importance on increasing water efficiency. water as a good is “just available” and therefore not a real concern to private and industrial consumers. Considering that Korea is technically speaking already facing a water-stress situation (annual fresh-water withdrawal of more than 30%). preventing a higher ranking in the overall sustainable competitiveness.Below Global Average Resource Intensity Resource Efficiency Resource Intensity Ranking Korea ranks in the bottom 10% on the resource efficiency ranking.0 South Korea. 70. total (constant 2000 US$ GDP per cubic meter of total freshwater withdrawal) 2007 Korea Denmark Germany 2011 Japan China Water Due to the lack of adequate pricing and education. and have not ben reduced in recent years Page 78 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 . 48. and available freshwater withdrawal rate significantly higher than in other advanced economies.2 Average . contributing to a lower score (the score reflects both absolute values and trends over the past 5 years).9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Water productivity. • Dependence on raw material and energy imports (97% of energy used is imported) • High energy and GHG intensity of the economy compared to OECD countries • Negative tends: energy and raw material usage as well as GHG intensity has further increased over the past years. Best. 31. The low ranking has a variety of reasons: • The Korean economy is composed of a higher percentage of energy intensify industries (metal). petrochemical) and heavy industry. and energy usage per capita are all above the average of industrialised nations. At the same time. and have been increasing while leading economies have managed to educe raw material and energy consumption per GDP and per capita. However. water availability is lower. in particular compared to OECD averages. the Koran water efficiency is comparably low (high amount of water used to generate economic value) CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2007 Korea Denmark 2008 Germany 2009 Japan China CO2 emission per capita are 10-20% higher than in other industrialised countries. it is advisable to re-think water-related policies and water management. considerably below the global average. Korea’s current water intensity is more than double compared to advances economies (or only half as efficient). Table of contents In addition to low water availability.

Energy use (kg of oil equivalent) per $1. Korea does not have any domestic fossil energy resources to speak of. In addition. This implies two main – and urgent – issues: • Energy efficiency needs to be further and drastically increased through smart incentives and ending subsidies for large consumers • Increasing energy independence trough forcing renewables If Korea could achieve energy efficiency (measured by intensity) similar to other industrialised countries.Need for an Alternative Energy Policy Energy & GHG emissions Energy Korea consumes more energy to generate wealth than other comparable economies (both relative to GDP and per capita). gas. excluding hydroelectric (% of total) 2007 Korea 2008 Denmark 2009 Germany 2010 Japan 2011 China Renewable energy production in Korea remains close to inexistent.000 GDP (constant 2005 PPP) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2007 Korea 2008 Denmark 2009 Germany Japan 2010 China Energy intensity has been stable or only slightly increasing. the renewable energy potential is barely exploited (especially in terms of on-and off-shore wind energy). but is 50+% above other industrialised economies Energy usage & import cost 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Costs of importing primary energy (oil.g. To make matters worse. and has fallen below China’s level of renewable electricity generation. equivalent of savings of a highly significant 2. making the country highly dependent on the global commodity markets with its fluctuations: cost of energy imports have nearly tripled since 2000. coal. a direct result of misguided energy polices 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Electricity production from renewable sources. Korea’s strategic answer to gain independence from the oil market fluctuations seems to be going nuclear. 97% of the energy needs are imported. and more importantly. This would require higher and smarter incentives to save energy (e. And global energy prices are not expected to decrease. However. through progressive rather than the current regressive tariff structure). renewable energy capacity is marginal. economically viable and renewable alternatives available that would reduce the burden of import cost in the long term. the cost associated with energy imports – could be reduced by at least 25%. It is questionable whether the all-eggs-in-one basket strategy on the controversial nuclear path and its unresolved nuclear waste problematic is a wise strategy. especially when there are other. and investments in installing renewable energy capacity remain marginal . energy consumption. representing more than 10% of GDP. equivalent to more than 10% of GDP.5% of GDP (or more).despite all the government and business talk related to green growth. uranium) have exploded since the early 2000s. with 17 new reactors planned in addition to the existing 22. significantly bellow other leading industrialised countries Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 79 .

It is also worth noting that the key drivers for employment and wealth generation in the industrial countries less hit by the financial crises tend to be the small and medium sized industrial companies (Germany.Sustainable Innovation Economic Development Ranked Second Globally Innovation and Economic Development Sustaining Innovation Ranking Korea ranks second to Singapore only in the innovation and economic development pillar. 74. Coupled with strategic investments and counter-cycle government investment focus. The Chaebols. 41. More importantly. Switzerland. Korea seem well placed to sustain or increase wealth levels in a competitive global market based on continued innovation. the UK – have been it significantly harder by the crises. high above the global average in this section.7 South Korea. on the other hand. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Employment in industry (% of total employment) 2007 Korea China 2008 2009 Germany United Kingdom 2010 Japan United States Economies hardest hit by the slump following the financial crises show a stronger decline in manufacturing employment. 70. including modern infrastructure (transport and communication). The high performance is a result of the high emphasises traditionally placed on education in the Korean culture that lead to quality manufacturing and innovation culture and capabilities. Countries with a higher reliance on the service sector – e. The same applies in Korea.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Sector balance It is worth noting that countries with larger employment base in the manufacturing sector (such as Germany. the score is. but generate more than 60% of Korea’s GDP – an imbalance that might threaten the economic stability of the country on the long term trough wakening of the middle classes. accordingly.g. their share of GDP is significantly smaller. and not the well-known internationally operating conglomerates. 80 Best. Switzerland). provide less than 10% of employment. countries with a weaker industry have seen further losses in the manufacturing sector following the crisis – a development Korea is well advised to take notice of. in particular in the light of the recent and growing tendencies of outsourcing production and manufacturing to countries with lower labour cost. While the small and medium sized companies provide nearly 90% of employment. Denmark) have been much less affected by the continuing fallout of the financial market crises that started in 2008. the US.1 Average . IN other words: economies with a sound industrial and manufacturing base with lower dependence on the service sector have had less problems to smoother the fall-out of the financial crises Page 80 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents .

Japan) The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 81 . a proxy for technological innovation. cheaper competitors are now pushing into the global markets (in particular China).But Too Much School? Education and Innovation Education & Innovation Education Scholl enrolment in Korea is as high as it is possible. In addition. It is therefore only consequent that spending for R&D has been increasing constantly. And is now surpassing most other industrialise economies. tertiary education enrolment (university level) is second to none globally.5 0 Research and development expenditure (% of GDP) 2007 Korea 2008 Denmark 2009 Germany Japan 2010 China R&D spending on Korea has been rising with the global rise of Korean companies. there is a danger to creation an army of generals that has no soldiers 4 3. Table of contents 2008 Korea Denmark 2009 Germany 2010 Japan China Patent registrations. it is questionable whether all jobs really require a university degree and 16+ years in education. quality and design against cheaper competitors. highlighting the value attached to education and quality of labour force. e.5 1 0. countries known for high quality industrial products such as Germany. An army consisting exclusively of generals will not win a battle. tertiary (% gross) 2007 Korea 2008 Denmark 2009 Switzerland Japan 2010 China University education in Korea is nearly universal.5 2 1. by learning job-related trades and skills rather than theoretical knowledge.Ensuring Quality and Innovation . this would require a cultural shift on the part of parents. However. Switzerland or Japan have a much lower tertiary enrolment rate.5 3 2. There has been some movement in recent times with the establishment of “Meister schools”. and is now surpassing the levels of most OECD countries (measured as % of GDP) in order to enable Korean companies to distinct themselves through innovation. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School enrollment. Besides the human tragedy of the negative side effects (and the high financial cost through private tuition: 9% of GDP is spent on education). which might be more difficult to achieve than policy changes. and whether some of this time could not be used in a more meaningful way. The high university enrolment rate is a further sign of the cultural importance of education. Formal apprenticeship (learning on the job combined with specific schooling) is also an option worth exploring. However. However. Patent applications per 1 million population 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Innovation Korean companies have historically entered the global markets on the basis of price competitiveness combined with decent quality. is rising. and average years spent in education are amongst the highest in the World. putting huge pressure on children to become economically successful – which is often cited as one of the main reason for Korea’s high teenage suicide rate (the highest in the World). and not everybody can be a teamleader in the economic reality – there is also a need for team members.g. but still somewhat below industrial powerhouses (Germany. which has only grown with the massive reduction of the average family size over the past 3 decades. However.

crime rates. leading to an underrepresentation of women in management and political decision making positions. it is expected to take more time for these changes to become truly common and generally accepted. given the cultural shift required (in particular amongst the ruling male management class). these values and models are slowly changing with the development of the economy. 44. Gender equality index 1. social equality is lower than in the advanced OECD countries. 80 100 Best. the UK. Maybe most surprising. whereby 0 represents perfect equality and 100 perfect inequality): Korea’s income inequality is higher than most highincome countries Gender Equality Korea’s gender dynamic is still heavily influenced by traditional (Confucian) values and a family model in which the male part is the bread provider and the female part the family carer.6 0. 49. but lower than some other countries. The Chaebol at the top of the value chain garn the highest profit and pay high salaries.2 0 20 40 60 Income Equality Income inequality in Korea is higher than the more sustainable competitive countries within the OECD. Koreas daycare schools and improved government support for pre-school day-care facilitate these changes. However. and perception of life quality and social services. While Korea scores high in the medical sphere.Low Equality Affecting The Score Social Cohesion Social Cohesion Social Cohesion Ranking Korea ranks 61 in the social Cohesion pillar of sustainable competitiveness. Social Cohesion in the Sustainable Competitiveness Index is composed of medical service availability and health performance indicators. enabling economic participation of the female population and allow women to follow more ambitious career paths than in the past. but still lags leading The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents . Rep. but also income and gender equality indicators. while the small suppliers are struggling to pay adequate salaries. 77. including the US.0 0.1 Average . including the complex cross-subsidising tax and tariff systems that often favour large companies.7 0.8 0.5 Germany Japan Korea (Republic of) Denmark China Gender equality has industrialised countries Page 82 been improving. In order to increase social equality – which is in turn a pillar of social stability – economic democratisation needs to be deepened. GINI coefficient (deviation of household income from the average income. but more than 30% below the highest score. 10 % above the global average. However. crime rates are considerably above OECD averages. and China. 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 GINI coefficient (high coeffixent = unequal income distribution) China Denmark Germany Japan Korea.2 South Korea. freedom indicators.9 0.

Albeit some countries have a higher number of trained doctors measured against the population. This requires a long term planning and overhaul of the current pension systems on part of policy makers. A further indication is the high suicide rate . The homicide rate is higher that the OECD average. 0. In order to reduce crime rates. the collapse of the birth rates over the past 3 decades suggest that Korea will be an over-aged society similar to Japan with less than 3 decades Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Page 83 .5 1 Physicians (per 1. as well as a re-think of the work-force recruitment and retaining on part of companies 15 10 5 0 2007 Korea 2008 Denmark 2009 Germany 2010 Japan 2011 China Koreas demographic distribution is normal. and the World’s highest teenage suicide rate.0 20 1. key health performance indicators such as child mortality and general mortality are in line with the most advanced economies in the World. indicating unequal wealth distribution 25 Population ages 65 and above (% of total) 20 Aging Society Korea’s population is currently fairly even distributed by age groups. 30 2.000 people) Crime While physical theft and petty theft is not very common in Korea. the homicide rate is higher than the OECD average (despite a complete ban on private possession of fire arms). birth rates have slumped dramatically over the last 20-30 years. with less pressure to perform.Healthy. it is therefore important to ensure a certain level of equal distribution of income and provision of equal economic opportunities. 40 Suicide rate 3. most industrialised economies have a still higher doctor availability. and the country will be facing the problems of an aging population within les than 2 decades. 4 3. international surveys reveal a low average life satisfaction. it is also argued that the performance-driven attitude and culture is a key element of the recent economic development that raised Korea from poverty to wealth over the past few decades. All this factors are often attributed to the constant burden of the workload and the pressure to perform better than other in order to achieve higher economic and social status. However. It therefore seems advisable to aim at a better work-life balance.0 Homicide rate Happiness Despite a fairly high standard of life.5 0 2008 Korea Denmark Germany 2010 Japan China Key health indicators put Korea amongst the highest developed nations.0 10 0 Japan Denmark Germany Korea (Republic of) 0.5 3 2. But Not Very Happy Crime & Happiness Health & Happiness Health Koreas health services are modern and widely available.5 2 1. However. However.0 China Germany Korea (Republic of) Japan Denmark A very high suicide rate is an indication for low life satisfaction and high exposure to stress. However. the perceived happiness of Koreans is the lowest within OECD nations. Amongst teenagers. and his been rising steadily over the past 10 years – a sign of the increasing social inequality.

Rankings at a glance The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index 84 .

0 140 38.2 139 38.9 90 41.3 54.7 48 46.9 Country Mali Malawi Cambodia Niger Belize Papua New Guinea Georgia Nepal Egypt Guinea Greenland Madagascar Togo Ukraine Mauritius Nicaragua Burkina Faso Bosnia and Herzegovina Azerbaijan Uganda Oman El Salvador Djibouti Thailand Lesotho Lebanon Angola Burma Panama Philippines Chile Vietnam Cuba Senegal Turkey Bangladesh Chad India Central African Republic Rwanda Mauritania Kuwait Burundi Morocco Rank Score 89 41.4 44.0 42.6 49 46.7 144 37.1 151 37.1 39.0 53.5 43.6 39.6 145 37.8 47.5 146 37.0 41.0 42.3 44.9 60.2 42.9 47 46.7 42.7 41.3 40.9 38.2 138 38.4 135 38.9 46 46.0 41.Sustainable Competitiveness Rankings at a glance Country Denmark Sweden Finland Norway Switzerland Germany Canada Ireland Austria Luxembourg Netherlands Japan Iceland New Zealand France Slovenia Czech Republic Estonia Spain Portugal Belarus Italy Lithuania Australia United Kingdom Belgium USA Brazil Hungary South Korea Poland Singapore Bhutan Romania Slovakia Latvia Croatia China Uzbekistan Argentina Costa Rica Montenegro Indonesia Uruguay Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Score 62.4 52 46.9 153 36.3 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 46.9 92 41.5 44.5 39.3 48.2 41.5 51.7 43.2 149 37.1 150 37.8 42.2 40.0 52.3 39.4 51 46.7 56.0 152 36.6 44.4 41.6 34.8 42.7 57.9 47.9 49.2 47.1 54.1 44.6 50.3 136 38.8 49.5 40.2 42.8 39.1 52.1 42.6 Country Mongolia Syria Gabon Kazakhstan Afghanistan Benin Turkmenistan Nigeria Jamaica Seychelles Mexico Macedonia Saudi Arabia Bolivia Algeria Eritrea Jordan Kenya Bahrain Pakistan Botswana Guatemala North Korea Libya Comoros Swaziland South Africa United Arab Emirates Bahamas Iraq Iran Hong Kong South Sudan Honduras Namibia Brunei Somalia Maldives Fiji Trinidad and Tobago Haiti West Bank and Gaza Equatorial Guinea Yemen Rank Score 133 38.7 40.9 91 41.8 39.7 40.9 49.9 44.8 59.0 33.7 44.7 40.0 51.2 42.7 43.6 156 36.1 41.4 50.9 142 37.3 39.6 60.0 39.7 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 41.3 43.7 51.2 34.8 38.2 30.2 50.3 157 36.2 Country Malta Timor-Leste Israel Russia Peru Serbia Albania Bulgaria Republic of Congo Tajikistan Tanzania Greece Ghana Malaysia Colombia Zambia Cyprus Sri Lanka Cameroon Qatar Dominica Liberia Moldova Guyana Guinea-Bissau Mozambique Laos Armenia Macao Venezuela Ethiopia Ecuador Cote d'Ivoire Dominican Republic Paraguay Suriname Tunisia Sudan Kosovo Democratic Republic of Congo Kyrgistan Sierra Leone Gambia Zimbabwe Rank Score 45 46.1 44.9 44.1 56.3 47.1 34.3 148 37.5 40.5 41.8 40.7 40.8 54.0 40.6 44.9 59.2 32.6 38.1 40.9 51.1 158 35.6 45.5 52.1 44.4 134 38.1 49.2 52.0 43.0 Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 63 85 .6 51.6 38.1 34.9 38.7 93 41.6 42.8 40.3 42.5 41.6 50 46.3 41.3 48.1 46.1 40.5 48.3 137 38.9 55.8 143 37.7 31.6 155 36.1 44.0 43.0 45.6 52.7 38.1 39.3 55.1 38.0 141 37.9 159 35.0 28.5 57.4 26.4 147 37.3 47.2 47.3 33.7 33.4 34.4 41.2 55.8 61.6 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 35.1 43.8 34.8 154 36.4 31.6 48.2 35.3 45.

All criteria: Rank 1-44
Rankings at a glance

Country Denmark Sweden Finland Norway Switzerland Germany Canada Ireland Austria Luxembourg Netherlands Japan Iceland New Zealand France Slovenia Czech Republic Estonia Spain Portugal Belarus Italy Lithuania Australia United Kingdom Belgium USA Brazil Hungary South Korea Poland Singapore Bhutan Romania Slovakia Latvia Croatia China Uzbekistan Argentina Costa Rica Montenegro Indonesia Uruguay

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Score Natural Capital 62.8 61.6 60.9 60.8 59.9 59.7 57.5 57.1 56.7 56.3 55.9 55.2 55.1 54.8 54.3 54.0 53.0 52.6 52.5 52.2 52.1 52.0 51.9 51.7 51.6 51.5 51.2 50.6 50.4 50.1 49.9 49.9 49.8 49.6 48.5 48.3 48.3 48.2 47.9 47.8 47.3 47.3 47.2 47.2 12 30 36 16 82 69 5 28 118 67 53 85 64 8 42 87 71 39 135 107 19 89 45 31 154 109 22 7 81 133 127 197 20 108 136 17 84 149 49 25 77 123 29 33 55.3 51.5 50.8 54.0 40.4 41.9 60.6 51.8 36.9 42.7 44.8 40.1 42.9 58.6 49.2 39.8 41.8 50.2 34.7 38.0 53.1 39.7 46.6 51.4 31.8 37.5 52.6 59.7 40.4 34.9 35.6 21.7 52.9 37.8 34.6 53.9 40.1 32.5 45.1 52.2 40.9 36.1 51.5 51.2

Resource Intensity Innovation

Social cohesion

81 55 85 148 31 86 124 93 71 82 129 107 158 98 109 136 133 165 38 77 118 44 22 122 50 110 134 43 73 164 111 156 8 62 72 128 69 143 78 90 9 96 74 99

51.2 55.3 50.8 39.2 59.7 50.7 44.5 49.7 52.8 51.0 43.7 47.3 34.7 48.9 47.1 41.1 42.5 30.0 58.2 51.7 45.0 57.5 62.0 44.7 56.1 46.9 41.9 57.5 52.2 31.2 46.3 35.1 64.9 53.9 52.7 43.9 53.0 40.0 51.5 50.4 64.3 49.1 51.9 48.8

5 10 8 6 7 3 19 24 15 13 18 4 14 28 21 16 17 9 29 20 27 25 34 26 32 23 22 36 35 2 33 1 91 37 40 47 60 11 46 55 43 38 65 57

66.1 63.4 64.2 65.9 64.9 68.8 58.1 55.5 61.8 62.5 59.5 68.5 62.1 54.1 56.8 60.4 60.2 63.7 54.0 57.2 54.9 55.1 51.0 55.0 53.2 56.2 56.3 50.2 51.0 70.1 52.8 74.7 37.9 49.9 47.7 46.0 43.4 62.8 46.9 44.3 47.3 48.5 42.3 44.0

2 3 4 1 7 10 13 9 6 14 8 35 5 32 19 11 20 33 15 27 47 37 56 48 12 17 59 125 29 61 16 54 44 31 23 55 21 65 60 69 98 36 66 67

74.6 74.0 73.9 77.2 71.5 70.3 64.2 71.3 71.8 64.1 71.4 55.3 72.9 57.0 61.4 68.5 61.3 55.8 63.0 58.7 52.6 54.7 50.0 52.6 64.9 61.7 49.2 36.3 58.1 49.1 62.6 50.3 53.2 57.2 60.2 50.1 60.3 47.1 49.2 46.8 39.6 55.0 47.0 47.0

86

64

The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013

Table of contents

All criteria: Rank 45-88 Rankings at a glance

Country Malta Timor-Leste Israel Russia Peru Serbia Albania Bulgaria Republic of Congo Tajikistan Tanzania Greece Ghana Malaysia Colombia Zambia Cyprus Sri Lanka Cameroon Qatar Dominica Liberia Moldova Guyana Guinea-Bissau Mozambique Laos Armenia Macao Venezuela Ethiopia Ecuador Cote d'Ivoire Dominican Republic Paraguay Suriname Tunisia Sudan Kosovo Democratic Republic of Congo Kyrgistan Sierra Leone Gambia Zimbabwe

Rank 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Score Natural Capital 46.9 46.9 46.7 46.6 46.6 46.4 46.4 46.3 46.1 46.0 45.6 45.3 45.1 44.9 44.9 44.7 44.6 44.6 44.5 44.4 44.3 44.1 44.1 44.1 44.0 43.7 43.7 43.5 43.3 43.1 43.0 43.0 42.8 42.8 42.7 42.6 42.3 42.2 42.2 42.2 42.1 42.0 42.0 41.9 126 79 173 23 9 117 119 102 23 86 27 103 60 66 6 14 178 122 40 57 143 47 121 3 13 37 4 166 189 10 58 61 18 52 15 2 147 41 186 11 104 32 62 35 35.6 40.5 28.0 52.4 57.3 37.2 36.8 38.4 52.4 40.0 52.0 38.3 43.7 42.7 59.9 55.0 26.9 36.2 49.3 44.3 33.3 46.1 36.3 62.1 55.2 50.7 61.5 28.9 24.0 57.0 44.2 43.4 53.2 44.9 54.9 63.8 32.7 49.2 24.8 56.2 38.2 51.4 43.2 51.0

Resource Intensity Innovation

Social cohesion

119 16 142 152 88 144 15 131 1 27 28 108 4 140 56 19 139 20 26 154 6 24 102 92 10 46 115 66 151 123 25 61 80 65 47 117 95 7 132 41 84 49 3 70

45.0 63.7 40.2 36.6 50.7 39.5 63.8 43.6 70.0 61.5 61.5 47.2 66.6 40.5 55.2 62.7 40.5 62.7 61.7 35.2 65.3 61.9 48.3 49.8 64.3 57.2 45.6 53.3 36.7 44.6 61.8 54.2 51.2 53.3 56.9 45.0 49.4 65.3 42.9 57.6 50.8 56.3 66.8 52.9

44 69 12 30 59 42 70 49 94 97 86 56 89 41 75 96 39 63 102 81 61 101 68 93 147 106 156 74 31 105 135 80 103 83 150 146 64 134 62 115 92 129 124 87

47.1 41.6 62.7 53.9 43.4 47.5 41.5 45.4 37.7 37.4 38.6 44.1 38.0 47.7 40.1 37.5 48.1 42.4 37.0 39.5 43.2 37.1 41.8 37.8 31.6 36.5 30.2 40.6 53.9 36.5 33.4 39.5 36.9 39.1 31.0 31.7 42.3 33.4 42.6 35.3 37.8 33.6 34.1 38.6

26 63 78 114 110 25 58 30 140 45 118 49 95 70 164 157 22 86 117 24 96 105 50 154 128 120 71 38 52 104 85 103 132 113 119 121 72 158 28 166 75 138 146 162

59.5 47.6 44.9 37.5 37.8 59.6 49.4 57.9 33.5 53.0 37.3 52.5 40.0 46.3 29.0 30.9 60.2 41.3 37.4 60.0 39.8 38.4 52.0 31.3 35.8 37.2 45.9 54.6 51.0 38.5 41.7 38.7 35.0 37.7 37.3 37.0 45.9 30.3 58.5 26.3 45.8 34.4 32.9 29.2

Table of contents

The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013

Page 87

All criteria: Rank 89-132 Rankings at a glance

Country Mali Malawi Cambodia Niger Belize Papua New Guinea Georgia Nepal Egypt Guinea Greenland Madagascar Togo Ukraine Mauritius Nicaragua Burkina Faso Bosnia and Herzegovina Azerbaijan Uganda Oman El Salvador Djibouti Thailand Lesotho Lebanon Angola Burma Panama Philippines Chile Vietnam Cuba Senegal Turkey Bangladesh Chad India Central African Republic Rwanda Mauritania Kuwait Burundi Morocco
Page 88

Rank 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132

Score 41.9 41.9 41.9 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.5 41.5 41.4 41.4 41.3 41.2 41.1 41.0 41.0 40.8 40.8 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.5 40.5 40.3 40.2 40.1 40.1 40.0 39.8 39.8 39.6 39.5 39.3 39.3 39.1 39.1 39.1 38.9 38.9 38.8 38.7 38.6 38.6 38.6

Natural Capital

Resource Intensity

Innovation

Social cohesion

46 74 48 96 38 1 134 164 55 50 180 26 95 156 91 65 68 92 158 76 100 130 137 129 54 187 43 21 63 98 105 75 146 131 183 78 93 151 51 59 116 90 124 139

46.4 41.4 45.9 39.1 50.4 63.8 34.8 29.7 44.4 45.0 26.2 52.1 39.2 31.6 39.5 42.7 42.0 39.5 31.1 41.3 38.4 35.0 34.2 35.2 44.6 24.7 49.0 52.7 42.9 38.7 38.1 41.4 32.8 35.0 25.8 40.6 39.4 32.2 44.9 43.8 37.3 39.5 36.0 33.8

48 35 30 75 29 94 57 12 130 37 166 32 17 147 101 5 53 162 34 54 174 14 21 161 2 126 18 42 68 45 105 153 91 103 138 100 39 120 40 33 89 176 23 76

56.3 59.2 59.8 51.8 60.1 49.5 55.1 64.2 43.6 58.2 28.4 59.7 63.0 39.5 48.3 66.2 55.7 32.3 59.5 55.6 17.9 64.1 62.6 33.4 68.6 44.1 62.9 57.6 53.0 57.5 47.4 36.1 50.0 48.1 40.8 48.6 58.2 44.9 58.1 59.5 50.4 13.6 62.0 51.8

123 127 145 85 144 173 67 128 154 133 54 162 138 77 72 169 132 98 126 100 45 113 107 48 142 79 119 170 139 141 90 136 73 99 50 164 130 111 118 117 114 71 158 137

34.2 33.9 31.7 38.9 31.8 24.3 41.9 33.7 30.8 33.4 44.8 28.9 32.8 39.8 41.2 27.3 33.4 37.3 33.9 37.1 47.0 35.3 36.3 45.9 32.1 39.7 34.5 26.5 32.6 32.2 37.9 33.1 40.8 37.3 45.2 28.3 33.5 35.9 35.2 35.2 35.3 41.3 29.8 33.0

112 91 100 92 142 89 124 68 43 123 18 136 108 42 129 99 101 39 74 141 51 135 131 84 168 46 175 139 116 107 115 53 137 97 88 64 153 77 171 174 126 40 127 87

37.7 40.7 39.1 40.6 33.5 40.9 36.4 46.9 53.7 36.6 61.5 34.8 37.9 53.7 35.8 39.5 39.1 54.5 45.8 33.5 51.6 34.9 35.5 41.8 25.2 52.8 21.2 34.2 37.4 38.3 37.4 50.7 34.6 39.7 41.2 47.2 31.7 45.5 23.0 22.1 35.9 54.2 35.9 41.2

The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013

Table of contents

4 44.3 15.7 47.0 28.7 30.7 22.5 27.3 21.1 27.0 34.0 37.8 32.7 Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 67 89 .2 23.3 39.9 33.8 29.7 30.1 33.2 33.3 38.3 34.7 24.2 41.9 33.1 31.7 28.6 27.1 26.0 24.2 35.5 54.8 51.1 14.0 33.6 31.6 40.1 26.9 30.0 26.3 40.All criteria: Rank 132-186 Rankings at a glance Country Sierra Leone Democratic Republic of Congo Central African Republic Malawi Uganda Djibouti Hong Kong Niger Mauritania Botswana Bolivia Chad Guinea Pakistan Namibia Thailand Brunei Bahamas South Africa Nicaragua Zimbabwe Iran Honduras Lesotho Burkina Faso United Arab Emirates Rwanda Togo Maldives Eritrea Burundi Guatemala Kenya Benin Comoros South Sudan Trinidad and Tobago Somalia Macao West Bank and Gaza Iraq Haiti Fiji Yemen Rank 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 Score 35.8 29.6 24.7 50.1 29.8 44.6 78 83 62 71 96 81 150 54 97 135 138 44 66 122 134 119 171 161 169 20 110 168 55 41 108 174 85 68 129 32 52 87 79 159 69 109 173 100 154 145 102 102 172 149 47.9 37.1 25.5 26.3 48.1 35.4 38.1 32.4 22.7 43.3 28.7 29.2 35.5 27.9 33.6 27.8 28.9 29.5 24.1 50.8 32.1 47.0 27.0 40.7 33.4 44.9 31.8 29.4 51.5 54.6 42.9 34.6 29.6 32.4 30.4 40.8 39.2 151 170 166 124 150 108 128 154 119 159 160 138 139 93 105 147 98 89 158 141 171 118 161 175 130 43 176 140 75 149 142 122 167 137 157 146 113 168 144 133 127 174 169 143 27.6 29.4 32.5 30.9 49.5 42.6 33.3 30.4 33.7 21.4 19.7 17.0 Natural Capital Resource Intensity Innovation Social cohesion 49 20 39 76 63 100 206 122 112 146 52 82 53 176 165 134 169 132 101 73 47 194 92 65 71 171 75 105 193 148 139 182 172 91 140 170 87 143 208 187 163 160 88 178 47.2 28.8 33.1 32.6 28.4 16.1 46.4 34.7 27.0 48.1 33.4 44.7 33.5 29.6 42.6 33.0 37.0 43.0 32.2 20.2 24.1 34.3 25.6 22.4 30.4 43.9 26.7 33.9 23.1 34.9 40.6 20.6 33.4 20.0 36.1 28.3 39.6 39.1 26.4 31.1 47.6 48.9 34.4 52.6 28.3 18.6 32.5 31.3 44.5 38.9 32.5 30.6 43.2 34.3 25.8 28.3 29.7 34.4 25.8 43.6 26.0 50.7 38.6 47.5 46.7 21.7 49.8 33.8 28.0 22.3 34.2 50.5 24.3 48.3 32.3 43.2 24.5 23.5 20.2 29.2 27.0 27.0 23.8 24.3 21.9 41.2 21.8 21.3 36.1 28.4 42.5 32.6 46.5 40.2 47.7 32.4 33.0 31.4 22.6 32.6 25.1 27.2 16.1 21.6 32.4 27.5 34.4 24.2 149 150 154 152 138 157 39 135 140 92 137 162 173 122 112 114 75 117 80 174 147 61 161 160 169 123 132 165 142 163 166 146 134 145 171 158 151 170 99 156 176 172 155 175 25.0 30.9 43.4 34.4 46.1 30.3 28.5 26.2 35.4 33.7 34.4 23.9 31.8 28.8 23.2 23.4 43.

1 51.2 39.8 33.8 44.8 31.9 42.4 35.4 39.9 59.4 43.0 39.9 44.4 52.7 42.4 38.2 35.9 28.4 51.0 25.7 58.9 44.4 41.8 32.8 30.0 35.7 29.2 Country Lithuania Mali Liberia Cambodia Uzbekistan Guinea Central African Republic Dominican Republic Netherlands Lesotho Egypt Trinidad and Tobago Qatar Ethiopia Rwanda Ghana Ecuador Gambia Panama Iceland Nicaragua Malaysia Luxembourg Burkina Faso Germany Bahamas Czech Republic South Africa Equatorial Guinea Malawi Vietnam Uganda Costa Rica Bangladesh Timor-Leste North Korea Hungary Switzerland Croatia Japan Tajikistan Slovenia Swaziland Italy Rank Score 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 46.7 22.2 51.3 28.3 37.2 36.4 50.6 59.1 52.9 53.8 31.2 49.8 24.2 43.2 31.7 38.8 63.1 45.1 38.0 37.6 40.3 32.3 38.6 36.2 55.1 38.5 21.2 26.6 57.5 26.2 52.7 31.6 35.4 37.9 32.2 42.7 41.6 44.4 38.0 51.7 50.4 37.9 41.4 32.8 39.2 49.2 53.0 30.4 44.2 36.7 34.8 25.4 46.2 Page 90 68 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents .6 52.2 38.8 43.8 34.3 44.7 52.8 37.0 38.7 32.0 35.9 34.8 41.0 28.5 39.0 28.5 39.6 33.9 34.6 34.1 30.0 19.4 39.4 40.6 35.7 Country Kuwait Mauritius Bosnia and Herzegovina Chad Fiji Togo Niger Philippines Oman Benin Bulgaria Greece Kyrgistan Chile Seychelles Portugal Romania Belgium Mexico Kazakhstan Saudi Arabia Turkmenistan Mauritania Serbia Austria Albania Syria Moldova Sri Lanka Montenegro Burundi Mongolia Malta Poland Algeria Thailand El Salvador Senegal Honduras South Korea Georgia Spain Slovakia Djibouti Rank Score 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 39.7 42.1 45.6 31.4 51.8 33.0 34.4 37.8 27.2 49.5 40.7 21.0 54.4 37.0 33.0 47.5 31.0 27.9 52.0 56.7 42.3 28.8 62.3 40.9 31.2 Country Botswana Morocco United Arab Emirates Guatemala Dominica Eritrea Cuba Tunisia Nigeria China Macedonia India Bahrain Iraq United Kingdom Somalia Ukraine Libya Azerbaijan Afghanistan Comoros Yemen Nepal Kenya Armenia Namibia Brunei West Bank and Gaza Israel South Sudan Jamaica Haiti Cyprus Greenland Iran Turkey Pakistan Kosovo Lebanon Maldives Singapore Hong Kong Jordan Rank Score 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 34.9 36.5 51.9 26.1 52.1 40.6 41.7 35.0 29.0 44.2 55.5 40.0 50.3 57.7 43.1 61.5 32.9 54.4 44.3 36.5 60.1 36.8 50.8 51.3 49.5 39.4 52.8 36.7 28.4 24.8 41.5 37.0 53.Rankings at a glance Natural Capital Country Papua New Guinea Suriname Guyana Laos Canada Colombia Brazil New Zealand Peru Venezuela Democratic Republic of Congo Denmark Guinea-Bissau Zambia Paraguay Norway Latvia Cote d'Ivoire Belarus Bhutan Burma USA Russia Republic of Congo Argentina Madagascar Tanzania Ireland Indonesia Sweden Australia Sierra Leone Uruguay Bolivia Zimbabwe Finland Mozambique Belize Estonia Cameroon Sudan France Angola Gabon Rank Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 63.1 40.9 42.7 39.4 38.0 41.4 41.6 46.3 55.4 40.9 45.9 40.5 51.6 32.

7 49.5 Country Philippines Mozambique Paraguay Mali Sierra Leone United Kingdom Haiti Namibia Burkina Faso Uganda Sweden Colombia Georgia Kenya Somalia Swaziland Ecuador Romania Afghanistan Guatemala Dominican Republic Armenia South Sudan Panama Croatia Zimbabwe Austria Slovakia Hungary Indonesia Niger Morocco Portugal Uzbekistan Pakistan Cote d'Ivoire Denmark Luxembourg Honduras Kyrgistan Finland Germany Botswana Peru Rank Score 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 57.1 45.9 56.2 51.6 36.5 47.5 60.9 41.5 57.6 45.1 57.9 48.3 37.1 41.1 44.2 65.5 39.9 64.6 44.3 56.8 50.0 45.4 50.3 48.8 50.5 34.6 55.7 54.7 36.5 59.2 35.8 49.2 58.5 41.6 57.0 68.5 44.2 55.1 48.2 38.7 51.5 45.5 19.4 50.7 61.7 45.0 50.3 24.0 53.0 28.7 Country Mauritania Argentina Cuba Guyana Ireland Papua New Guinea Tunisia Montenegro Syria New Zealand Uruguay Bangladesh Mauritius Moldova Senegal West Bank and Gaza Chile Gabon Japan Greece France Belgium Poland Bolivia Yemen Benin Laos North Korea Suriname Belarus Malta India Fiji Australia Venezuela Canada Jamaica Lebanon Macedonia Latvia Netherlands Egypt Bulgaria Kosovo Rank Score 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 50.5 51.7 59.0 44.9 62.3 46.3 33.6 66.7 55.7 43.7 34.4 47.8 63.3 47.5 61.1 47.6 62.7 50.2 51.1 34.7 63.3 65.6 57.9 61.6 41.1 54.5 44.9 48.9 53.0 55.2 30.3 48.4 32.8 61.8 53.8 59.5 53.9 Country Czech Republic USA Seychelles Slovenia Hong Kong Turkey Cyprus Malaysia Iraq Israel China Serbia Mexico Bahamas Ukraine Norway Algeria Jordan Macao Russia Vietnam Qatar Turkmenistan Singapore Maldives Iceland Equatorial Guinea Libya Thailand Bosnia and Herzegovina South Africa South Korea Estonia Greenland Mongolia Iran Brunei United Arab Emirates Bahrain Trinidad and Tobago Kazakhstan Oman Saudi Arabia Kuwait Rank Score 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 42.2 53.7 52.8 51.3 18.0 62.0 51.0 39.7 22.1 56.0 45.5 26.0 61.5 39.3 31.0 49.5 49.5 40.3 53.2 64.1 35.4 26.0 40.4 47.7 59.5 59.7 44.6 43.2 58.2 31.4 49.1 13.2 56.9 44.3 40.8 48.9 52.8 66.9 46.2 58.3 56.6 54.1 63.2 64.0 52.8 40.3 64.1 59.0 62.8 19.2 53.5 40.9 43.5 57.3 55.6 66.7 62.9 51.1 35.8 54.2 47.3 53.Resource Intensity & Efficiency Rankings at a glance Country Republic of Congo Lesotho Gambia Ghana Nicaragua Dominica Sudan Bhutan Costa Rica Guinea-Bissau Comoros Nepal Nigeria El Salvador Albania Timor-Leste Togo Angola Zambia Sri Lanka Djibouti Lithuania Burundi Liberia Ethiopia Cameroon Tajikistan Tanzania Belize Cambodia Switzerland Madagascar Rwanda Azerbaijan Malawi Eritrea Guinea Spain Chad Central African Republic Democratic Republic of Congo Burma Brazil Italy Rank Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 70.9 44.3 46.2 35.3 64.5 36.6 42.1 46.9 17.1 64.8 52.0 56.6 Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 69 91 .5 39.8 51.2 40.1 43.5 58.2 58.7 50.3 64.7 62.3 51.5 39.2 51.3 17.6 48.

4 33.2 28.7 70.0 30.8 62.5 26.0 36.4 35.5 47.4 31.9 21.7 31.4 Country Sudan Ethiopia Vietnam Morocco Togo Panama Swaziland Philippines Lesotho Iraq Belize Cambodia Suriname Guinea-Bissau Syria Afghanistan Paraguay United Arab Emirates Maldives Guatemala Egypt North Korea Laos Bahamas Burundi Comoros Bolivia Trinidad and Tobago Madagascar South Sudan Bangladesh Namibia Somalia Honduras Gabon Nicaragua Burma Equatorial Guinea Haiti Papua New Guinea Fiji West Bank and Gaza Yemen Rank Score 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 33.6 42.0 31.4 33.4 35.5 30.8 40.4 60.5 55.6 33.1 44.6 38.5 32.9 64.4 45.4 33.2 34.9 28.6 38.8 27.3 44.6 40.Sustainable Innovation & Competitiveness Rankings at a glance Country Singapore South Korea Germany Japan Denmark Norway Switzerland Finland Estonia Sweden China Israel Luxembourg Iceland Austria Slovenia Czech Republic Netherlands Canada Portugal France USA Belgium Ireland Italy Australia Belarus New Zealand Spain Russia United Kingdom Poland Lithuania Hungary Brazil Romania Montenegro Cyprus Slovakia Malaysia Serbia Costa Rica Malta Oman Rank Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 74.4 62.8 30.6 41.2 29.4 32.9 46.8 39.0 33.0 31.6 29.3 32.4 15.0 54.0 43.2 31.3 42.7 28.3 36.7 28.0 Country Chile Bhutan Kyrgistan Guyana Republic of Congo Algeria Zambia Tajikistan Bosnia and Herzegovina Senegal Uganda Liberia Cameroon Cote d'Ivoire Jordan Venezuela Mozambique Djibouti South Africa Jamaica Benin India Kenya El Salvador Mauritania Democratic Republic of Congo Mexico Rwanda Central African Republic Angola Botswana Eritrea Pakistan Mali Gambia Macedonia Azerbaijan Malawi Nepal Sierra Leone Chad Nigeria Burkina Faso Guinea Rank Score 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 37.9 64.2 40.6 34.2 63.5 58.1 65.3 26.9 53.7 27.2 42.0 41.3 30.5 48.8 30.2 30.2 49.3 41.2 56.5 39.3 22.0 44.2 30.8 56.0 32.2 59.8 29.1 31.6 31.6 34.5 41.8 68.8 32.7 47.3 32.6 24.7 39.7 63.6 29.5 62.3 27.1 35.7 31.1 61.9 33.5 39.9 38.2 36.0 31.0 Country Uzbekistan Latvia Thailand Bulgaria Turkey Bahrain Hong Kong Iran Greenland Argentina Greece Uruguay Saudi Arabia Peru Croatia Dominica Kosovo Sri Lanka Tunisia Indonesia Kazakhstan Georgia Moldova Timor-Leste Albania Kuwait Mauritius Cuba Armenia Colombia Mongolia Ukraine Brunei Lebanon Ecuador Qatar Seychelles Dominican Republic Libya Niger Tanzania Zimbabwe Turkmenistan Ghana Rank Score 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 46.8 44.5 33.9 54.0 45.8 60.2 31.1 24.1 32.8 29.3 42.2 31.1 57.8 51.5 31.6 92 70 The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 Table of contents .6 29.6 31.1 40.3 39.0 50.7 47.4 31.2 52.4 43.1 47.0 45.0 44.2 32.2 55.3 47.1 29.9 28.6 32.3 56.2 30.4 43.9 48.0 38.1 28.6 34.9 41.8 27.0 53.4 33.2 31.1 33.5 27.1 39.1 54.1 37.0 51.7 35.3 32.8 39.6 38.9 31.8 41.2 45.7 62.5 28.1 37.0 39.9 29.9 45.1 68.8 32.8 31.1 47.5 66.4 42.1 45.1 55.

3 68.7 35.8 32.1 22.7 50.0 52.6 47.9 40.5 29.7 49.8 34.2 25.8 39.0 39.9 57.1 39.5 39.6 40.Social Cohesion Rankings at a glance Country Norway Denmark Sweden Finland Iceland Austria Switzerland Netherlands Ireland Germany Slovenia United Kingdom Canada Luxembourg Spain Poland Belgium Greenland France Czech Republic Croatia Cyprus Slovakia Qatar Serbia Malta Portugal Kosovo Hungary Bulgaria Romania New Zealand Estonia Jordan Japan Montenegro Italy Armenia Bosnia and Herzegovina Kuwait United Arab Emirates Ukraine Egypt Bhutan Rank Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 77.0 73.6 59.2 37.6 36.6 51.4 34.2 25.8 46.2 33.0 50.8 23.2 53.8 35.8 45.9 31.8 41.4 37.6 74.1 21.2 49.6 52.3 41.5 58.9 37.0 36.2 60.7 53.5 37.9 72.3 60.7 41.1 63.0 22.2 Country Papua New Guinea Pakistan Malawi Niger Turkmenistan Mexico Ghana Dominica Senegal Costa Rica Nicaragua Cambodia Burkina Faso Gabon Ecuador Venezuela Liberia Libya Philippines Togo Algeria Peru Iraq Mali Dominican Republic Russia Chile Panama Cameroon Tanzania Paraguay Mozambique Suriname Brunei Guinea Georgia Brazil Mauritania Burundi Guinea-Bissau Mauritius North Korea Djibouti Cote d'Ivoire Rank Score 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 40.5 33.8 45.4 32.0 31.8 45.4 49.0 54.4 38.2 29.8 43.1 48.4 37.5 33.4 37.8 37.1 39.9 32.1 50.0 49.7 40.4 38.7 53.3 26.0 47.7 37.1 29.1 43.2 47.4 61.3 40.2 64.8 31.3 26.2 74.3 40.5 44.0 28.2 Country Tajikistan Lebanon Belarus Australia Greece Moldova Oman Macao Vietnam Singapore Latvia Lithuania Kazakhstan Albania USA Uzbekistan South Korea Mongolia Timor-Leste Bangladesh China Indonesia Uruguay Nepal Argentina Malaysia Laos Tunisia Maldives Azerbaijan Kyrgistan Jamaica India Israel Saudi Arabia Afghanistan Bahrain Macedonia Syria Thailand Ethiopia Sri Lanka Morocco Turkey Rank Score 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 53.9 64.8 41.9 45.6 52.0 34.9 30.3 37.1 47.3 33.0 35.1 24.6 29.1 38.9 53.8 71.3 31.9 35.0 55.0 46.9 30.3 29.7 39.8 52.3 35.6 61.6 39.0 51.3 42.2 13.6 45.6 54.3 60.0 59.0 Country Guatemala Benin El Salvador Madagascar Cuba Sierra Leone Burma Republic of Congo Uganda Belize South Sudan Iran Bahamas Gambia Kenya Trinidad and Tobago South Africa Seychelles Fiji Botswana Chad Guyana Namibia West Bank and Gaza Zambia Sudan Honduras Comoros Bolivia Zimbabwe Nigeria Colombia Eritrea Democratic Republic of Congo Somalia Lesotho Hong Kong Haiti Central African Republic Swaziland Yemen Rwanda Angola Equatorial Guinea Rank Score 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 35.7 Table of contents The Sustainable Competitiveness Index 2013 71 93 .5 64.8 35.9 37.5 35.5 43.3 45.3 37.2 49.5 52.9 40.9 71.4 22.2 57.7 37.6 34.7 61.1 57.2 41.9 46.3 55.3 50.0 62.7 54.9 35.4 71.8 55.8 31.7 38.3 70.9 34.4 36.5 54.7 31.5 38.5 58.2 32.4 47.5 71.5 61.5 29.9 45.3 55.7 58.4 33.2 60.7 37.2 30.3 37.9 44.6 36.5 33.

SolAbility Ltd Ilsan.com contact@solability.com 14 The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index . South Korea www.solability.