Applied Energy 265 (2020) 114755

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Composite index as a measure on achieving Sustainable Development Goal 9 T

(SDG-9) industry-related targets: The SDG-9 index
⁎
Petra Kynčlováa, , Shyam Upadhyayaa, Thomas Niceb
a
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Wagramerstr. 5, P.O. Box 300, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
b
Humboldt University Berlin, Centre for Rural Development, Hessische Strasse 2-3, 10115 Berlin, Germany

H I GH L IG H T S

• The paper introduces an index to measure the progress towards meeting the industry-related targets of the 2030 Agenda.
• The SDG-9 index benchmarks industrial performance while preserving the environment and promoting inclusiveness.
• The final ranking compares performance of 128 economies over the period 2000–2016.
• Economic growth should be accompanied by technological changes and efficient use of natural resources.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This article introduces the SDG-9 index as a measure of country progress towards achieving industry-related
Inclusive and sustainable industrial targets of Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG-9). The SDG-9 index represents a comprehensive but
development straightforward approach to assess the extent to which countries have industrialized while promoting social
Sustainable Development Goals inclusiveness and minimizing natural resource use and environmental impacts. The selection of indicators is
Composite index
based on the global indicator framework for the Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly. The resulting SDG-9 index benchmarks inclusive and sustainable industrial devel-
opment in 128 economies over the period 2000–2016. In general, industrialized economies outperform other
countries, with the top five leading the 2016 ranking being Ireland, Germany, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland
and Japan. The calculated scores of the SDG-9 index can show in which dimensions countries represent the
leaders or lag behind other economies. Thus, the SDG-9 index forms a valuable tool for policy makers and
analysts.

1. Introduction
The Lima Declaration, adopted by Member States of the United
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) introduced a
new global vision of inclusive and sustainable industrial development
(ISID) in December 2013, promoting the role of industrialization as a
driver for development [1]. Industrialization is a dynamic economic
process that generates income and employment, facilitates trade and
promotes efficient resource use. Although the world is facing climate
change challenges, industrial development still remains a major driver
of poverty alleviation and shared prosperity [2]. Through innovation
and technological progress, ISID contributes to reaching environmental
objectives, such as greater resource and energy efficiency [3]. Im-
proving energy efficiency in industry is one of the most cost-effective
measures to help supply-constrained developing and emerging
countries meet their increasing energy demands and loosen the link
between economic growth and environmental degradation, such as
climate change [4].
Although industrialization contributes to economic growth, its im-
pact differs depending on the country’s stage of development [5]. In-
dustrial growth in developed economies will largely depend on the level
of adoption of new technologies, intelligent production processes and
on limiting the impact of industrial production on the local natural
environment and the global climate [6]. For developing economies,
industrialization implies structural transformation of the economy from
traditional sectors such as agriculture and fishery to a modern manu-
facturing industry based on innovation and technology [7]. Such an
expansion of the manufacturing sector creates jobs, helps reduce in-
come poverty, introduces and promotes new technologies and produces
essential goods and services for the market [8]. Manufacturing

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: P.Kynclova@unido.org (P. Kynčlová), S.Upadhyaya@unido.org (S. Upadhyaya), nicethom@hu-berlin.de (T. Nice).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114755
Received 20 September 2019; Received in revised form 20 February 2020; Accepted 26 February 2020
0306-2619/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Kynčlová, et al.
emissions largely result from energy generation – directly through fossil
fuel combustion or indirectly through electricity use. As lower middle-
income countries typically have the highest emissions intensities due to
the technologies used and the type of production [9], sustainable in-
dustrialization paths are particularly relevant to these countries’ de-
velopment paths [10].
On 25 November 2015, the United Nations General Assembly
adopted the 2030 Development Agenda “Transforming our world: the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” [11]. The 2030 Agenda
calls for collaborative partnerships on all levels and emphasizes the
achievement of sustainable development for all by building on the
principle of “leaving no one behind”. The new Goals and targets, known
as Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), came into effect on 1 Jan-
uary 2016, becoming the main reference point for development policies
to foster sustainable development in all dimensions – economic, social
and environmental – until 2030. ISID is recognized under Goal 9,
calling for “Building resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and
sustainable industrialization and foster innovation”.
The 2030 Agenda provides a multidimensional view of development
resulting in possible synergies or trade-offs among the 17 Goals, for
instance, ISID as potential synergy with the target 7.3 on energy in-
tensity [12]. Hence, achieving the SDGs will require profound struc-
tural changes across all segments of society [13]. A comprehensive
assessment of global sustainability must not only consider economic
stability and environmental integrity but also the social equity of well-
being, which will ensure lasting prosperity for all people on the planet
[14].
Rapid population growth in the Global South and increasing pres-
sure on the environment are the two major challenges for global de-
velopment. Economic development is closely linked with energy con-
sumption and thus a significant increase in carbon dioxide emissions
[15]. However, the mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions is very costly
and might not be affordable for developing countries as it relies on
extensive investments in low-carbon climate-resilient industrial infra-
structure and production technologies. Some energy sustainability
strategies call for building an energy-efficient society by reducing en-
ergy requirements in industrial production, and thus slowing down the
increase in global energy consumption [16,17].
Energy decarbonization and sustainable industry has been identified
as one of the six key transformations that need to take place to achieve
the SDGs. Three aspects are highlighted – decarbonization of electricity
generation by shifting from fossil fuels to zero-carbon sources, im-
proving energy efficiency in final energy use and electrification of
current uses of fossil fuels outside power generation [13].
These environmental objectives remain crucial for a number of
emerging concepts towards a green energy economy transformation,
which gained increased policy attention after the 2008–2009 global
financial crisis [18]. The green economy paradigm exemplifies a
strategy to enhance economic growth and job creation through the
sustainable use of natural resources, energy efficiency, and valuation of
ecosystem services [19]. It envisages a world in which industrial sectors
minimize waste in every form, utilize renewable resources as input
materials and fuel, and take every possible precaution to avoid harming
workers, communities, the climate, or the environment. Moreover,
structural change towards less carbon intensive sources, such as gas and
renewables, implies a gain in employment [20].
Sustainable development is a multi-dimensional process that can be
measured by a number of indicators representing its different dimen-
sions. Because benchmarking country progress on various targets cor-
responding to different dimensions might be too difficult, an aggregated
measure of a country’s relative position can be useful as a point of re-
ference for policy formulation and advocacy. Policy analysts and policy
makers therefore turn to composite indicators, which are better
equipped to capture the multi-dimensional nature of sustainable in-
dustrial development.
If composite indices are to measure progress, they need to
2
Applied Energy 265 (2020) 114755
incorporate a sufficient number of indicators so that multi-
dimensionality is captured without compromising the interpretability
of the index. Hence, the selection of underlying indicators is the result
of a trade-off between possible redundancies caused by overlapping
information and the risk of losing information.
Composite indices, which facilitate assessments of country perfor-
mance rather than identification of common trends across many sepa-
rate indicators, may be helpful in setting policy priorities [21]. They
can, however, also send misleading policy messages if they are poorly
constructed or misinterpreted [22]. Since composite indices facilitate
the interpretation of many separate indicators into one single measure,
further analysis is necessary to identify the main drivers of the com-
posite indicator results. Composite measures are thus better considered
as invitations to closer investigation of the various components that
underlie them [23].
As the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development represents an
essential blueprint for development policies and to enable monitoring
progress towards achieving SDGs, the global indicator framework for
the Goals and targets was established by the Inter-agency and Expert
Group on SDG Indicators (IAEG-SDGs). This framework introduces a
wide range of statistical and non-statistical indicators to track progress
on the SDGs at the global level. It was agreed upon by the UN Statistical
Commission in March 2017 and subsequently adopted by the General
Assembly on 6 July 2017 [24]. The proposed SDG-9 index introduced in
this paper is exclusively constructed on the basis of those indicators to
provide a new measure of ISID. Such a constructed composite index
allows countries and policy makers measure the performance on
achieving industry-related targets of SDG 9. The SDG-9 index also gives
insights regarding which dimensions of sustainable industrial devel-
opment countries lag behind or represent leaders.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Following the
introduction, Section 2 provides an overview of existing indices that
aim to capture progress on ISID. Section 3 presents the methodology
and computation of the SDG-9 index. Section 4 describes the main
findings by applying the index methodology together with a more de-
tailed analysis of the respective dimensions. Section 5 compares the
SDG-9 index 2016 with other indices that are based on a similar con-
ceptual framework. The conclusions and ideas for future research are
summarized in Section 6.
2. Review of existing composite indices on inclusive and
sustainable industrialization
The adoption of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda has
initiated a number of efforts to rank countries using composite in-
dicators to capture their progress towards achieving all SDGs or their
specific dimensions.
The SDG index and Dashboards [25] track countries’ progress to-
wards achieving all SDGs. The final SDG index selects indicators from
the global indicator framework. The assigned score shows a country’s
position between the worst and the best result. The overall index in-
dicates where a country stands on average compared to the best pos-
sible result across all 17 SDGs. The methodology sets an upper bound
for each indicator to provide a comprehensive assessment of the dis-
tance to the targets based on the most recent data available. Capturing
all 17 Goals is a tremendous feat given the large amount of missing
data, particularly in the case of environmental indicators. Moreover,
cross-country differences in the selection of indicators, data availability
and methodologies make international comparisons difficult. The SDG
index excludes indicators to which quantitative thresholds are not ap-
plicable to all countries, for instance, SDG-9 indicators that are relevant
for manufacturing industries. Although manufacturing may be useful
for developing long-term strategies for (re-) industrialization in in-
dividual countries, it is not possible to define a common global
threshold for such strategies.
Other composite indicators have been developed trying to capture
P. Kynčlová, et al.
countries’ economic development with a special focus on its impact on
another given dimension such as inclusiveness, sustainability, structural
change or the level of investments [26].
The Inclusive Development Index (IDI) published by the World
Economic Forum (WEF) [27] monitors countries’ progress towards
overall economic development and does not only consider economic
growth but its inclusiveness, intergenerational equity and sustainability
as well. The WEF’s report demonstrates that the traditional measure of
growth, i.e. gross domestic product (GDP), does not reflect the popu-
lation’s well-being. In the past five years, nearly one third of the 103
economies included in the IDI saw a drop in their score, despite GDP per
capita growth. Although the index provides a useful approach to
benchmarking the inclusive economic development of countries, it does
not investigate economic activities by sector (for instance, manu-
facturing).
The Partnership for Action on Green Economy (PAGE) has in-
troduced the Green Economy Progress (GEP) Measurement Framework
[28], which is composed of a GEP Index and Dashboard of Sustain-
ability indicators. The GEP index tracks countries’ progress in achieving
the transition to an inclusive green economy at the national and global
level. It captures characteristics of the green economy by including
multidimensional indicators such as the link between health and the
environment. Although the GEP index includes “economy” in its name,
none of its indicators are economic or employment variables.
Moll de Alba and Todorov [29] developed the Green Industrial
Performance (GIP) index to analyse the performance of countries in
different dimensions of green manufacturing. They classify green
manufacturing products and services based on a list derived from the
U.S. Department of Commerce [30] to benchmark countries’ perfor-
mance in three dimensions: (i) the capacity to produce and export green
manufactured goods, (ii) the role of green manufacturing, and (iii) so-
cial and environmental aspects of green manufacturing.
Lin et al. [31] introduced the Inclusive Sustainable Transformation
(IST) index, which considers structural change to be the foundation of
sustained and inclusive growth and the condition for achieving the
SDGs. The IST index ranks countries based on the strength of their
manufacturing sector and of their exports, their technological expertise,
the equity and inclusiveness of their labour market and their environ-
mental performance.
The structural modernization index was developed by Lavopa and
Szirmai [32] to investigate the structural trajectories followed by dif-
ferent countries on their path towards achieving sustainable develop-
ment. The trajectories of economic development are analysed in a
single measure that is based on two dimensions, namely the process of
structural modernization and the ability of countries to escape poverty
and middle-income traps.
UNIDO developed a CO2-adjusted Competitive Industrial
Performance (CIP) index in 2016, constructed on an experimental basis,
to complement its CIP index edition [9]. The CIP index monitors three
dimensions of countries’ industrial performance: (i) their capacity to
produce and export manufactured goods, (ii) their level of technolo-
gical deepening and upgrading, and (iii) the impact of the country’s
economy on the world market. The CO2-adjusted CIP index represents
an additional instrument in cross-country comparisons of competitive-
ness by taking environmental externalities into account. The CIP index’s
adjustment to include carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from manu-
facturing rearranges the CIP ranking to the benefit of countries that
effectively protect natural capital through measures of pollution
abatement in manufacturing.
This review reveals that no existing index takes account of the
targets of the 2030 Agenda as a global blueprint for development po-
licies and with a particular focus on the sustainability and inclusiveness
of the manufacturing sector.
3
Applied Energy 265 (2020) 114755
3. Design of the SDG-9 index: methodology and computation
3.1. Development of conceptual framework
The SDGs have become the world’s shared action plan for achieving
sustainable development; but countries need greater clarity on how to
operationalize and track progress towards realizing all 17 Goals.
Moreover, the achievement of the SDGs must also be supported by other
stakeholders such as businesses, academia, and civil society. Six
transformations to achieve the SDGs were introduced to help identify
priority investments and regulatory challenges, calling for action all
stakeholders to work together [13].
One of these transformations entails energy decarbonization and
sustainable industry, with the aim of promoting changes in consump-
tion and production patterns. This can contribute to a decoupling of
human well-being from environmental degradation through circularity,
which involves the reuse and recycling of materials, among other
strategies [13]. Such a transformation is strongly associated with
changes in the structure of the economy; the manufacturing industry
plays a key role in this process [5]. Manufacturing is clearly a driver of
economic growth as it creates jobs and generates income [33] but it also
poses challenges in terms of its effect on natural resource depletion and
climate change [34].
From the perspective of technology and innovation, high-tech in-
dustries can be more environmentally sustainable because they pollute
less than other industries [35]. The recycling industry, for example, is
the best candidate for achieving sustained growth, as it generates em-
ployment and equity and is environmentally friendly [36]. Chakraborty
and Mazzanti [37] found that increasing research and development
investment in green energy technologies is essential for reducing energy
intensity.
The objective of developing a new composite measure is to provide
a tool for researchers and policy makers to evaluate countries’ perfor-
mance based on how successful economies industrialize while preser-
ving the environment and simultaneously promote inclusiveness. Since
ISID is a multidimensional process that cannot be captured by a single
indicator, constructing a composite indicator is the best solution for a
benchmarking exercise that analyses the performance of countries
along the various dimensions of ISID. Such a constructed index will also
help countries track their progress in implementing the six transfor-
mations outlined by Sachs et al. [13].
An intuitive solution for constructing a composite measure to
monitor the progress of countries towards achieving ISID is using in-
dicators that are assigned to the industry-related targets under Goal 9 of
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The global indicator
framework includes indicators covering all three dimensions and a new
composite measure can thereby be introduced. The index is called the
SDG-9 index and explores the level and growth patterns of manu-
facturing activities and their impact on production, employment as well
as on the environment. Due to the small number of individual in-
dicators, the index can be easily interpreted by any user and thus caters
to the general public [22].
3.2. Selection of indicators
As mentioned above, the data is based on the global indicator fra-
mework of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The aim of
constructing the SDG-9 index is to measure countries’ progress on ISID,
thus the focus is on indicators assigned to the industry-related targets
under Goal 9. The overview of SDG-9 targets and indicators is presented
in Table 2.
Four targets building on seven indicators are directly linked to the
process of industrialization. These indicators refer to all three dimen-
sions of ISID - economic (9.2.1a, 9.2.1b, 9.3.1, 9.3.2, 9.b.1), social
(9.2.2) and environmental (9.4.1). Although the target 9.5 calls for
enhancing scientific research and upgrading industries’ technological
P. Kynčlová, et al.
capabilities, the indicators assigned to this target by the IAEG-SDGs
refer to the economy as a whole. Moreover, data disaggregated by
economic activity are not available to carry out a global comparison. As
the SDG-9 index was designed to cover the industry-related targets,
indicators 9.5.1 and 9.5.2 were not considered in the construction
process.
The IAEG-SDGs classifies indicators into Tier I, II and III depending
on the availability of a precise statistical methodology and institutional
capacity of countries to compile the required data.1 All industry-related
indicators are classified as Tier I or Tier II. The indicators assigned to
the target 9.3 reflecting the role of small-scale industrial and other
enterprises were reclassified from Tier III at the sixth IAEG-SDGs
meeting in November 2017. The reporting mechanism is currently
being established starting with an initial data collection based on the
approved methodological concept. Due to the limited number of
countries reporting on the target 9.3, these indicators were excluded
from the construction of the SDG-9 index.
The indicators selected for the compilation of the SDG-9 index are
manufacturing value added (MVA) as a proportion of GDP (MVAsh) and
per capita (MVApc), manufacturing employment as a proportion of total
employment (EMP), CO2 emissions from manufacturing industries per
unit of MVA (CO2) and the share of medium–high and high-tech
manufacturing value added in total value added (MHT). The data used
to construct the composite indicator are sourced from the SDG Global
Database, which offers internationally comparable data series [38]. The
final dataset are unbalanced panel data. The coverage of indicators and
their sources are shown in Table 1. The number of countries corre-
sponds to the total number of countries with data entries across all
years from 2000 to 2018. The 2030 Agenda aims to provide global
monitoring over the next 15 years starting from 2015. The complete
dataset from 2000 to 2016 is used for our preliminary analysis followed
by the construction of the SDG-9 index.
The performance of countries is also analysed using the UNIDO
country groupings [39], i.e. industrialized economies, emerging in-
dustrial economies, other developing economies and least developed
countries (LDCs). The SDG-9 index analysis is presented in the next
chapter and it focuses on performance by dimension and by develop-
ment group in the year 2016.
First, all indicators are normalized according to the min–max
method within the range [0, 1] to standardize the variables for further
data aggregation as they have different measurement units. The in-
dicators MVAsh, MVApc, EMP and MHT are considered to be “positive”,
i.e. the country with the best performance is assigned the highest score,
a value of 1, and the country with the worst performance is assigned by
the lowest score, a value of 0. Because reductions in CO2 are desirable,
we reverse the meaning of the indicator and use an inverse normal-
ization. The country with the highest level of manufacturing CO2 in-
tensity is assigned a value of 0 and the country with the lowest CO2
intensity a value of 1. The min–max method is a useful approach to
normalize indicators with a small range of values; on the other hand, it
can distort indicators including extreme values or outliers.
Fig. 1 presents the normalized indicators in 2016 and their dis-
tribution together with their correlation measures and the distribution
of the pairs of indicators with 0.975 tolerance ellipses. The distribution
of the indicators MVApc and CO2 is highly skewed, which is preserved
after normalization. This feature reflects the unequal distribution of
1
The Tier I indicator is conceptually clear, is based on an internationally
established methodology, standards are available and data are regularly pro-
duced by at least 50 per cent of the countries and of the population in every
region where the indicator is relevant. The Tier II indicator is conceptually
clear, is based on an internationally established methodology, standards are
available but data are not regularly produced by countries. Tier III refers to
indicators for which no internationally established methodology or standards
are yet available but the methodology/standards for the indicator are being (or
will be) developed or tested.
4
Applied Energy 265 (2020) 114755
manufacturing production in the world since production capacity is
concentrated in a few countries including China, USA, Japan and Ger-
many. All normalized indicators reveal positive cross-correlation pat-
terns resulting in a more robust composite measure and rather low
sensitivity when changing weights [40].
The correlation structure of the underlying indicators can be further
investigated through multivariate statistical methods such as a prin-
cipal component analysis (PCA) [22]. PCA is a widely used method
aiming to reduce the dimensionality of complex datasets by trans-
forming a large set of variables into a smaller one that preserves most of
the original information. The reduced data set is easier to visualize and
explore [41].
Fig. 2 illustrates a biplot using the results from the PCA. A biplot is a
widely used statistical tool to visualize the resulting loadings and scores
of a dimension reduction technique applied to multivariate data. A
resulting biplot represents a simple two-variate scatterplot displaying
both observations and variables in one graph. The observations
(countries) are represented as data points while the variables (nor-
malized indicators) are displayed as arrows. The biplot for the data set
from 2016 (Fig. 2) is based on the first two principal components ex-
plaining 82.7% of the total variance.
The biplot reveals already mentioned correlation patterns, as all
variables are positively correlated considering that they all point in the
same direction. Arrows close to each other, for instance the normalized
MVApc and the normalized MHT or the normalized EMP and the nor-
malized MVAsh respectively, show high positive correlations. This
variable is particularly dominant in countries located close to the ar-
rows, for instance China has the second highest share of MVA in GDP
after Ireland and Singapore has the highest share of medium–high and
high-tech MVA. The resulting groups of countries with respect to single
variables (indicators) as depicted in the biplot are observed in the final
ranking of the SDG-9 index.
3.3. Methodology
Constructing the final SDG-9 composite indicator requires a nor-
malization of indicators to make them comparable. The OECD
Handbook on Composite Indicators [22] provides a step-by-step ap-
proach for the construction and use of such composite measures in
practice. Each of the five indicators considered for the SDG-9 index
compilation are normalized into the range of [0, 1] using the min–max
method, where the minimum and maximum values are taken from each
indicator sample,
x ict − min x it
c
Iict = ,
max x it − min x it
c c (1)
max x it − x ict
c
Iict = ,
max x it − min x it
c c (2)
where x ict
signifies the value of the i-th indicator for the c-th country at
time t. Eq. (1) is valid for indicators with higher values representing
better performance (MVAsh, MVApc, EMP and MHT); Eq. (2) is valid for
indicators with lower values representing better performance (CO2).
After all five indicators are normalized, the SDG-9 index is con-
structed as a geometric mean using equal weights for each of the k
indicators and each country c as
1
k k
⎛ ⎞
(SDG − 9)tc = ⎜∏ Iict ⎟ ,
⎝ i=1 ⎠ (3)
with values varying within the range [0, 1]. The selection of equal
weighting makes the index highly transparent, a key feature of well-
designed indices [22]. The logic behind choosing equal weights was
also supported by the positive correlation patterns between normalized
P. Kynčlová, et al. Applied Energy 265 (2020) 114755

Table 1
SDG-9 industry-related indicators and data sources.
Indicator Description Source Countries

9.2.1 Manufacturing value added as a proportion of GDP and per capita MVAsh UNIDO and UNSD National Accounts 206
MVApc
9.2.2 Manufacturing employment as a proportion of total employment EMP UNIDO and ILO Employment by sex and economic activity 188
9.3.1 Proportion of small-scale industries in total industry value added SSI.VA UNIDO INDSTAT 57
9.3.2 Proportion of small-scale industries with a loan or line of credit SSI.FIN UNIDO and World Bank Enterprise Surveys 134
9.4.1 CO2 emissions per unit of value added CO2 UNIDO and IEA CO2 emissions from fuel combustion 140
9.b.1 Proportion of medium and high-tech industry value added in total value added MHT UNIDO INDSTAT 151

Table 2
SDG-9 targets and indicators (as of 4 April 2019).
Target Indicators Custodian Tier
agency

9.1 Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional 9.1.1 Proportion of the rural population who live within World Bank II
and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well- 2 km of an all-season road
being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all
9.1.2 Passenger and freight volumes, by mode of transport ICAO, ITF-OECD I
9.2 Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and, by 2030, significantly raise 9.2.1 Manufacturing value added as a proportion of GDP UNIDO I
industry’s share of employment and gross domestic product, in line with national and per capita
circumstances, and double its share in least developed countries
9.2.2 Manufacturing employment as a proportion of total UNIDO I
employment
9.3 Increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises, in particular in 9.3.1 Percentage share of small-scale industries in total UNIDO II
developing countries, to financial services, including affordable credit, and their industry value added
integration into value chains and markets
9.3.2 Percentage of small-scale industries with a loan or UNIDO II
line of credit World Bank
9.4 By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, 9.4.1 CO2 emission per unit of value added UNIDO I
with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and IEA
environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, with all countries
taking action in accordance with their respective capabilities
9.5 Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial 9.5.1 Research and development expenditure as a UNESCO-UIS I
sectors in all countries, in particular developing countries, including, by 2030, percentage of GDP
encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and
development workers per 1 million people and public and private research and
development spending
9.5.2 Researchers (in full-time equivalent) per million UNESCO-UIS I
inhabitants
9.a Facilitate sustainable and resilient infrastructure development in developing countries 9.a.1 Total official international support (official OECD I
through enhanced financial, technological and technical support to African countries, development assistance plus other official flows) to
least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island infrastructure
developing States
9.b Support domestic technology development, research and innovation in developing 9.b.1 Percentage of medium and high-tech manufacturing UNIDO I
countries, including by ensuring a conducive policy environment for, inter alia, value added in total value added
industrial diversification and value addition to commodities
9.c Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and 9.c.1 Percentage of population covered by a mobile ITU I
strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed network, by technology
countries by 2020

Source: UN Statistics Division.

indicators that should have a smaller impact on the selection of weights
[40].
The robustness of the SDG-9 index can be tested by taking un-
certainty factors into consideration and conducting a sensitivity ana-
lysis. Different scenarios were tested to identify the composite index’s
level of sensitivity to the change in parameters – different weighting
schemes, aggregation methods and a successive exclusion of indicators.
The resulting variation of countries’scores and rankings are depicted in
Figs. 3 and 4. The countries are ordered according to their median and
the original value of the SDG-9 index is marked in red.
The ranking of countries is very robust for economies in the top and
bottom quintiles of the scale. Although the countries that are listed
between those tails reveal a wider interquartile range, the original SDG-
9 index ranking remains very close to the median. More than half of the
economies only shifted by maximum one position from the median
rank. The scores are positively skewed, which is caused by changes in
the weighting system. If equal weights are abandoned, greater im-
portance is given to the environmental dimension represented by CO2
emissions intensity. The distribution of normalized CO2 is heavily
skewed and dominated by high values close to 1.
Major differences in scores and ranks are usually witnessed when an
indicator that represents country’s comparative advantage is excluded.
In other words, if the country performs very well in one dimension only
or in one indicator only, it is more sensitive to any change in the index’s
weighting setting or the exclusion of the particular indicator. Testing
alternative scenarios by excluding indicators showed that the least in-
fluential indicator is CO2 emission intensity and the MVA per capita
carries the most weight.
4. The SDG-9 index
4.1. Global analysis of sustainable and inclusive industrial development
based on the SDG-9 index
The SDG-9 index is calculated for 128 economies for which data are
available for all indicators to improve the comparability of the

5
P. Kynčlová, et al.
Fig. 1. Correlation analysis of the normalized indicators.
Fig. 2. Biplot displaying normalized indicators used to construct the SDG-9 index.
performance over the years 2000–2016. This chapter focuses on the
ranking and scores of the SDG-9 index, particularly on the year 2016.
The final ranking and its components are available in Table 3. The
global distribution of SDG-9 scores in 2016 is depicted in Fig. 5. The
6
Applied Energy 265 (2020) 114755
SDG-9 score varies from 0 to 0.73, however values are skewed towards
lower scores with a median value of 0.26.
In 2016, the top 10 ranked economies were Ireland, Germany, the
Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Japan, Czechia, Taiwan Province of
China, Slovakia, Singapore and Austria. All of them belong to the group
of industrialized economies according to the UNIDO country grouping
system [39].
Fig. 5 reveals some regional patterns towards achieving SDG in-
dustry-related targets. The highest scores are for the most part reached
by economies situated in Central Europe and Eastern Asia. In contrast,
the poorest SDG-9 index performance is observed in LDCs, especially
those located in sub-Saharan Africa.
The comparison of the 2016 SDG-9 index with the ranking and
scores of the year 2010 shows how countries improved their perfor-
mance over time. In terms of scores, the biggest jump upwards was
achieved by Ireland, increasing its overall score by 0.165 and thereby
climbing from the 7th to 1st in the rankings. This is mainly related to
the fact that a number of large manufacturing corporations have re-
located their activities to Ireland in recent years. Due to low corpora-
tion tax rates, sales (production) generated from the use of intellectual
property boosted Irish GDP and MVA [39]. Looking at the rankings,
Viet Nam experienced the biggest increase, jumping 17 positions from
the 85th to the 68th rank. Although Lebanon and Israel dropped sig-
nificantly, by 16 and 13 places respectively, their scores changed only
slightly.
P. Kynčlová, et al.
Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis results for the SDG-9 index rankings.
4.2. Investigation of dimensions and country groupings
The final SGD-9 index is constructed from five indicators covering
different dimensions of ISID. Another step to investigate performance of
countries leads to a further analysis of single components. Fig. 6 shows
how the scores are distributed by country groups taking into account
not only the final composite measure (SDG-9), but also separate scores
for included indicators (MVAsh, MVApc, EMP, CO2 and MHT).
Industrialized economies performed best in all dimensions of the
SDG-9 index, including almost all countries achieving the top normal-
ized scores equal to 1. The leading countries in respective dimensions
are Ireland (MVAsh with 31.6%, MVApc with $22,217), Czechia (EMP
with 27.8%), Namibia (CO2 with 0.02 kg/USD) and Singapore (MHT
with 78.1%). The normalized MVApc by country groups indicates the
same pattern as already recognized by the correlation analysis. The
distribution is heavily positively skewed, suggesting unequal allocation
of manufacturing production capacities globally. The median scores are
successively decreasing with the level of industrial development as
Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis results for the SDG-9 index scores.
7
Applied Energy 265 (2020) 114755
classified by UNIDO groupings - from industrialized economies to LDCs.
The distribution of the normalized CO2 emissions intensity is also very
skewed with high values concentrated in the group of industrialized
economies and countries specialized in low-technology manufacturing
activities.
Fig. 7 presents the performance of selected countries by individual
indicators according to the results of the SDG-9 scores and rankings in
2016. The radar chart is a useful visualization tool to help countries to
develop and improve their national development strategies. The graph
can reveal dimensions that should be addressed for a countries’ further
development. Moreover, it can help identify economies with a higher
level of development to serve as role models.
The left side of Fig. 7 depicts the top five industrialized economies
(Ireland, Germany, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland and Japan)
showing their scores in various dimensions. All countries perform very
well in all dimensions, their scores varying between 0.5 and 1, and
therefore they represent also the top five countries of the overall SDG-9
ranking. The right part of the graph shows the top five emerging
P. Kynčlová, et al. Applied Energy 265 (2020) 114755

Table 3 Table 3 (continued)

SDG-9 index and ranking 2016. Figures are displayed in following units: MVAsh
(%), MVApc (USD), EMP (%), CO2 (kg/USD), MHT (%). Rank Country SDG-9 MVAsh MVApc EMP CO2 MHT
score
Rank Country SDG-9 MVAsh MVApc EMP CO2 MHT
score 71 India 0.252 16.8 311 12.0 1.3 38.8
72 Mauritius 0.252 12.5 1230 15.1 0.2 9.8
1 Ireland 0.735 31.6 22,217 11.7 0.0 54.4 73 Bosnia & 0.250 12.0 644 15.9 0.8 18.4
2 Germany 0.651 21.1 9,730 19.2 0.1 61.5 Herzegovina
3 Rep. of Korea 0.643 28.4 7,304 17.1 0.2 63.7 74 Suriname 0.241 17.7 1433 6.4 0.0 11.6
4 Switzerland 0.641 19.0 14,521 12.8 0.0 64.6 75 Peru 0.232 13.1 798 9.3 0.3 15.9
5 Japan 0.622 20.9 9,863 16.8 0.2 56.2 76 Sri Lanka 0.226 15.4 588 18.8 0.1 7.6
6 Czechia 0.612 23.6 5,136 27.8 0.2 52.4 77 Paraguay 0.220 11.1 435 11.2 0.1 21.9
7 Taiwan, Prov. of 0.607 22.5 4,555 24.5 0.4 68.9 78 Oman 0.220 9.3 1545 5.1 3.5 21.9
China 79 Ecuador 0.214 12.3 638 10.8 0.3 12.1
8 Slovakia 0.584 24.1 4,637 24.5 0.3 51.4 80 Ukraine 0.212 10.6 295 12.3 2.8 30.4
9 Singapore 0.583 18.0 9,415 11.0 0.2 78.1 81 Egypt 0.210 14.9 401 11.5 0.8 14.0
10 Austria 0.553 17.7 8,500 15.9 0.1 45.7 82 Kazakhstan 0.206 10.2 1084 6.5 2.2 14.2
11 Slovenia 0.522 18.7 4,538 25.3 0.2 37.5 83 Brunei Darussalam 0.201 15.0 4705 3.7 0.2 3.3
12 Hungary 0.502 18.5 2,789 21.7 0.2 59.7 84 Kuwait 0.200 4.9 1717 4.4 2.5 29.3
13 China 0.494 31.4 2,123 22.9 0.9 41.5 85 Pakistan 0.196 12.9 149 15.3 1.5 24.6
14 Italy 0.489 14.7 5,149 18.2 0.1 42.9 86 Honduras 0.193 16.2 346 15.0 0.3 7.2
15 Denmark 0.487 12.4 7,550 11.8 0.1 54.2 87 Bangladesh 0.190 19.8 203 14.4 0.5 9.8
16 Finland 0.483 14.9 6,833 13.4 0.2 41.4 88 Cyprus 0.189 4.2 875 7.2 0.6 25.4
17 Sweden 0.478 13.3 7,581 10.3 0.1 53.0 89 Nigeria 0.186 9.2 226 7.8 0.2 33.4
18 Belgium 0.476 13.9 6,286 12.4 0.3 49.5 90 Myanmar 0.181 22.9 269 10.7 0.1 6.6
19 Malaysia 0.461 23.1 2,549 16.9 0.4 44.1 91 Rep. of Moldova 0.175 11.7 212 10.0 0.9 16.4
20 Romania 0.442 21.0 2,108 18.9 0.3 42.5 92 Bolivia 0.169 11.0 271 9.8 0.7 11.7
21 USA 0.436 11.4 5,990 10.8 0.2 47.8 93 Jamaica 0.169 7.7 370 6.6 0.4 18.8
22 Poland 0.435 17.5 2,616 20.3 0.3 35.4 94 Lebanon 0.169 5.1 361 9.7 0.5 20.0
23 Thailand 0.429 27.5 1,641 16.7 0.4 40.7 95 Georgia 0.166 11.4 441 5.5 0.7 11.5
24 Netherlands 0.422 10.7 5,593 10.4 0.2 48.9 96 Cte d’Ivoire 0.161 14.0 219 5.8 0.3 15.0
25 France 0.419 10.4 4,496 12.3 0.1 50.1 97 Namibia 0.161 9.5 575 6.6 0.0 7.4
26 Spain 0.411 12.8 4,035 12.5 0.1 39.9 98 Cameroon 0.158 14.1 211 10.2 0.1 7.6
27 Belarus 0.406 22.6 1,406 18.1 0.3 40.6 99 Azerbaijan 0.148 5.7 333 5.1 0.8 20.3
28 Lithuania 0.404 18.4 2,892 15.4 0.1 27.9 100 Armenia 0.143 9.8 411 8.3 0.3 4.5
29 Israel 0.402 11.6 4,092 11.5 0.1 42.4 101 Senegal 0.142 10.3 113 6.1 1.0 21.7
30 Turkey 0.397 16.2 2,289 18.1 0.3 31.5 102 Panama 0.138 5.3 578 7.3 0.9 6.2
31 Estonia 0.393 14.5 2,629 18.8 0.1 27.8 103 Botswana 0.131 6.2 467 6.1 0.1 5.8
32 Qatar 0.386 9.2 6,019 7.0 0.9 54.2 104 Albania 0.131 5.8 269 9.7 0.7 6.7
33 Mexico 0.373 15.3 1,505 16.4 0.3 41.6 105 Montenegro 0.129 4.1 307 5.6 0.8 14.9
34 Portugal 0.370 12.5 2,781 16.9 0.2 25.6 106 Zambia 0.127 8.1 131 4.1 0.2 21.1
35 Canada 0.363 10.0 5,043 9.4 0.3 30.6 107 Kenya 0.116 10.1 115 3.5 0.6 15.0
36 Bahrain 0.359 14.9 3,328 12.1 0.5 22.2 108 Zimbabwe 0.114 8.6 78 3.9 0.8 21.8
37 Trinidad and Tobago 0.352 16.2 2,622 7.8 1.2 39.6 109 Mongolia 0.111 5.6 217 7.5 1.5 5.6
38 Croatia 0.352 12.4 1,800 17.1 0.3 30.8 110 Kyrgyzstan 0.111 13.7 145 7.6 0.9 3.0
39 Norway 0.351 6.6 5,927 8.3 0.2 39.8 111 Syrian Arab Republic 0.108 3.3 54 15.7 3.6 21.5
40 United Kingdom 0.348 8.1 3,405 9.5 0.2 45.4 112 China, Hong Kong 0.102 1.4 523 3.0 1.9 37.4
41 Iceland 0.339 12.5 6,129 10.1 0.2 13.1 SAR
42 Russian Federation 0.332 13.6 1542 14.4 0.8 30.3 113 Algeria 0.099 4.3 209 11.8 0.8 2.7
43 Indonesia 0.331 21.4 850 13.5 0.4 35.1 114 Haiti 0.098 10.4 77 6.2 0.7 5.3
44 Bulgaria 0.326 13.2 1051 19.5 0.5 29.7 115 Tajikistan 0.090 12.7 117 5.2 0.1 2.2
45 Saudi Arabia 0.325 11.9 2546 7.8 1.4 37.9 116 Congo 0.090 3.9 111 17.4 0.1 2.4
46 Iran 0.318 12.2 826 16.9 1.4 45.2 117 Mozambique 0.089 8.8 46 4.0 0.2 10.9
47 Argentina 0.316 14.4 1475 12.7 0.5 26.0 118 Gabon 0.089 4.5 397 2.3 1.5 5.4
48 Venezuela 0.316 13.4 1403 11.1 0.6 34.3 119 Ethiopia 0.079 5.5 25 5.5 1.4 16.1
49 Tunisia 0.311 15.7 658 18.7 0.7 33.7 120 Nepal 0.076 5.3 37 6.2 2.6 8.4
50 New Zealand 0.310 9.9 3681 9.9 0.4 18.5 121 Angola 0.074 7.1 255 1.6 0.3 3.4
51 Malta 0.310 7.7 2085 12.5 0.0 32.5 122 Tanzania 0.074 6.7 56 3.0 0.4 6.8
52 Latvia 0.302 11.3 1659 13.8 0.2 21.5 123 Ghana 0.067 5.3 90 13.9 0.7 0.8
53 Brazil 0.300 11.2 1214 11.4 0.3 35.4 124 Eritrea 0.066 5.8 34 5.0 0.1 4.3
54 Philippines 0.297 22.4 617 8.3 0.2 44.7 125 Yemen 0.060 6.5 34 6.4 1.1 2.1
55 United Arab 0.296 8.5 3487 8.1 2.1 25.5 126 Niger 0.055 6.3 25 7.2 0.4 1.8
Emirates 128 Cambodia 0.000 16.4 177 16.3 0.2 0.3
56 Australia 0.293 6.2 3919 8.2 0.3 27.0 128 Iraq 0.000 0.9 50 8.2 4.7 8.9
57 Serbia 0.293 15.4 721 16.5 0.7 26.4
58 Macedonia 0.287 13.7 720 19.0 0.6 23.0 Source: Authors’ calculations based on [42–44,9,45].
59 El Salvador 0.285 19.2 732 15.2 0.2 19.1
60 Uruguay 0.277 12.3 1722 11.3 0.1 15.3
61 Costa Rica 0.275 13.1 1268 10.2 0.2 20.8
industrial economies – China (13th rank), Romania (20th), Poland
62 Guatemala 0.270 18.2 565 13.5 0.2 22.4 (22nd), Thailand (23rd) and Turkey (30th). This reveals significantly
63 South Africa 0.265 12.5 936 10.7 0.9 24.4 lower scores for MVA per capita, close to zero. The untapped potential
64 Greece 0.264 8.3 1824 9.5 0.3 20.9 in emerging industrial economies is visible with regards to the MHT
65 Chile 0.262 9.9 1479 11.0 0.3 17.8
indicator. Promoting medium–high and high-tech manufacturing ac-
66 Jordan 0.262 15.8 516 13.0 0.6 26.3
67 Luxembourg 0.258 5.2 5741 4.8 0.3 22.0 tivities might help these countries to increase their competitive ad-
68 Viet Nam 0.258 16.2 281 16.7 2.3 37.8 vantage and thus raise MVA per capita.
69 Colombia 0.257 11.2 843 11.8 0.4 22.8
70 Morocco 0.253 15.5 526 10.3 0.3 27.8

8
P. Kynčlová, et al.
Fig. 5. Global distribution of SDG-9 index scores in 2016.
Fig. 6. Distribution of SDG-9 scores by indicators and country groupings.
5. Comparison of the SDG-9 index to other indices
For further analysis, the SDG-9 index is compared to other perfor-
mance indicators on ISID mentioned in Section 2. A focus of this
comparative study is given to the top performing economies from each
country group – five industrialized countries (Ireland, Germany, the
Republic of Korea, Switzerland and Japan), five emerging industrial
economies (China, Romania, Poland, Thailand and Turkey), three other
developing economies (Philippines, El Salvador and Guatemala) and
three LDCs (Bangladesh, Myanmar and Senegal). The local regression
method is applied to explore the relation between indices since the
structure seems to be highly complex and non-linear in the selected
Fig. 7. SDG-9 scores for single indicators in the top 5 ranked industrialized countries (left) and top 5 ranked emerging industrial economies (right).
9
Applied Energy 265 (2020) 114755
cases.
All figures show apparent clusters for country groupings and rela-
tion between corresponding composite measures. Fig. 8 illustrates a
relation of the SDG-9 index to other indices developed by UNIDO, i.e.
the CO2-adjusted CIP index and the GIP index. The CO2-adjusted CIP
index was chosen rather than the widely-used CIP index due to its ex-
tension for the environmental effects of manufacturing production.
That makes its relationship to the SDG-9 index stronger than to the CIP
index, which is solely established on economic indicators.
Industrialized economies dominate the top positions of both the
SDG-9 and CO2-adjusted CIP rankings. Other countries are gathered
around the regression line that indicates a proportional behavior be-
tween both indicators: an increase in the SDG-9 scores accompanies a
raise in the scores of the CO2-adjusted CIP index. In both rankings, the
top five ranked countries are almost the same – with the exception of
the Republic of Korea, which is replaced by Italy in the case of the CO2-
adjusted CIP index.
The comparison with the GIP index shows more scattered results.
However, the relation between both indices reveals a similar pattern as
for the CO2-adjusted CIP index. It is evident that the group of emerging
industrial economies overlaps with lower ranked industrialized coun-
tries.
Fig. 9 compares the SDG-9 index to indices with a similar con-
ceptual framework to capture inclusive and sustainable (industrial)
development, i.e. the IDI and the IST index. A clear pattern of a positive
correlation is observed between the SDG-9 index and both indices. In
general, the higher the IDI or IST score, the higher the score of the SDG-
9 index. These two indices are of special interest with respect to the
SDG-9 index since they incorporate similar indicators.
The IDI index contains indicators such as GDP per capita, employ-
ment and carbon intensity of GDP. However its focus is on the impact of
P. Kynčlová, et al.
Fig. 8. Comparison of the SDG-9 index with the CO2-adjusted CIP index (left) and the GIP index (right).
the whole economy. It should be noted that data for the IDI are not
available for many LDCs, which do therefore not appear in the com-
parison. Fig. 9 reveals the inverse U-shaped relation between the IDI
and the SDG-9 index with visible clusters of countries according to their
stage of industrial development. The curve suggests that there are sig-
nificant differences within the group of industrialized economies. Al-
though they perform very well in terms of economic growth and en-
vironmental performance, they face a critical challenge represented by
increasing economic and social inequalities.
The closest relationship to the SDG-9 index can be observed with the
IST index. The IST index is constructed using 23 indicators along 8
dimensions including manufacturing. Indicators selected for the SDG-9
index are all included in the framework for the IST index. The only
distinction comes with carbon dioxide intensity, which is calculated for
manufacturing industries only in the case of the SDG-9 index. Although
the data points are widely scattered, they follow the regression line as
countries industrialize.
Fig. 9. Comparison of the SDG-9 index with the IDI index (left) and the IST index (right).
10
Applied Energy 265 (2020) 114755
6. Concluding remarks
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognizes the im-
portance of encompassing all dimensions of sustainable development to
ensure sustainable social and economic progress worldwide. The uni-
versal adoption of the 2030 Agenda makes it the key guidelines for
achieving sustainable future for all. Through the localization of the
Sustainable Development Goals, governments should implement the
Goals and targets into their national development strategies and create
a plan of action. The paper introduces a new index to measure the
progress of countries towards meeting the industry-related targets of
Sustainable Development Goal 9 and thus achieving inclusive and
sustainable industrial development. The SDG-9 index builds on a series
of contributions on other composite indicators tracking paths of coun-
tries on their way to sustainable development. Adding to this literature,
the SDG-9 index is directly linked to global goals of the 2030 Agenda
and thus the final results can help countries assess their own positioning
towards inclusive and sustainable industrial development with respect
to their national development plans. Furthermore, policy makers are
equipped with a tool examining countries’ performance relative to
P. Kynčlová, et al.
other globally.
The paper proposes a straightforward tool to help countries track
performance in different dimensions of sustainable development and to
enable policy makers and researchers to develop strategies towards
achieving inclusive and sustainable industrial development. For this
reason, the indicators for the construction of the SDG-9 index are se-
lected based on the global indicator framework for monitoring
Sustainable Development Goals. Mainstreaming inclusive and sustain-
able industrial development in national policies expects governments to
gain a solid understanding of the relationships, synergies and trade-offs
of industry-specific strategies and policy instruments leading to eco-
nomic growth, social inclusiveness and environmental sustainability.
One important contribution of the paper is the verification of the
existence of different stages of industrial development. The SDG-9 index
shows that industrialized economies dominate the overall ranking as
they perform best in all dimensions captured in the composite measure.
Evidence indicates that developing countries at an early stage of in-
dustrialization have more opportunities to achieve inclusive industrial
development experiencing fast economic growth with limited en-
vironmental damage. Labour-intensive industries, such as food and
beverages, chemicals, non-metallic minerals, textiles and wearing ap-
parel, are most likely to generate the most significant employment
opportunities because low wages can provide developing countries with
a comparative advantage in these industries.
As countries further develop the skills of their workforce and expand
their infrastructure, opportunities for growth and employment gen-
eration arise in other industries, but usually draw on increasing
amounts of production factors, such as natural resources and energy.
Most emerging industrial economies reveal a large share of manu-
facturing in total economic activity, yet lag behind in the ranking due to
the high carbon dioxide emission intensity. Reducing green house gas
emissions can be achieved through the use of more efficient technolo-
gies, exploitation of alternative energy sources or the change of spe-
cialization towards the production of more environmentally-friendly
goods.
As least developed countries appear mostly at the bottom of the
SDG-9 ranking, true political commitment and better institutional ca-
pacity is needed to include inclusive and sustainable industrial devel-
opment policies in the countries’ long-term strategies. Least developed
countries are dominated by the agricultural sector and the existing
manufacturing industry is based on low technology products with very
low levels of pollution; however, these countries often face the worst
impact of climate change. Achieving inclusive and sustainable in-
dustrial development in least developed countries implies introducing
policies which are not exclusively focused on economic growth but
more on structural transformation that will help to generate jobs while
limiting damage to the environment.
The final ranking confirms that economic growth should be ac-
companied by technological change and efficient use of natural re-
sources and energy to mitigate the impact of expanding production on
the environment. The foremost challenge for low-income countries is
sustaining the process of industrialization; for middle-income countries,
it is environmental sustainability, and for deindustrializing high-income
countries, it is continued employment generation and inclusive in-
dustrial development.
Several potential improvements could be considered for future re-
search activities on the SDG-9 index. To ensure that no one is left be-
hind, the index can be extended for gender disaggregated indicators to
support gender inclusiveness. Finally, as data on indicators for small-
scale industrial enterprises will be regularly collected, the indicators
9.3.1 and 9.3.2 can be included into the final SDG-9 index construction
in future editions.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
11
Applied Energy 265 (2020) 114755
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Disclaimer
The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not reflect
the views of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Petra Kynčlová: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Visualization, Writing - original draft, Validation. Shyam Upadhyaya:
Supervision. Thomas Nice: Investigation, Data curation, Writing - re-
view & editing.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank participants of the UNIDO and
PAGE workshop “Green Industry and ISID Measurement” held in
Vienna on 23 May 2018 for their valuable inputs. The authors are
grateful to Nicola Cantore, Niki Rodousakis, Michael Windisch and
Xiaole Zheng for their valuable feedback to improve the manuscript.
The authors would also like to thank the anonymous referees and the
editors for their review and helpful comments and suggestions.
References
[1] Kaldor N. Strategic factors in economic development. Ithaca: New York: State
School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University; 1967.
[2] Zhang Le-Yin. Is industrialization still a viable development strategy for developing
countries under climate change? Climate Policy 2011;11(4):1159–76.
[3] Worrell E, Bernstein L, Roy J, Price L, Harnisch J. Industrial energy efficiency and
climate change mitigation. Energ Effi 2009;2(109).
[4] Wang Chunhua. Changing energy intensity of economies in the world and its de-
composition. Energy Econ 2013;40:637–44.
[5] Haraguchi Nobuya, Cheng Charles Fang Chin, Smeets Eveline. The importance of
manufacturing in economic development: has this changed? World Dev
2017;93:293–315.
[6] Ringel Marc, Schlomann Barbara, Krail Michael, Rohde Clemens. Towards a green
economy in Germany? The role of energy efficiency policies. Appl Energy
2016;179:1293–303.
[7] Szirmai A. Industrialisation as an engine of growth in developing countries,
1950–2005. Struct Change Econ Dyn. 23. SI: Firm Dynamics and SI: Globelics
Conference; 2012. p. 406–20.
[8] Rodrik Dani. The past, present, and future of economic growth. Challenge
2014;57(3):5–39.
[9] UNIDO. Competitive Industrial Performance Report 2019. UNIDO, Vienna; 2019.
[10] Mundaca Luis, Markandya Anil. Assessing regional progress towards a ‘Green
Energy Economy’. Appl Energy 2016;179:1372–94.
[11] UN General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, October 2015. A/RES/70/1, Available at https://undocs.org/A/RES/
70/1.
[12] Pradhan Prajal, Costa Luís, Rybski Diego, Lucht Wolfgang, Kropp Jürgen P. A sys-
tematic study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future
2017;5(11):1169–79.
[13] Sachs Jeffrey D, Schmidt-Traub Guido, Mazzucato Mariana, Messner Dirk,
Nakicenovic Nebojsa, Rockström Johan. Six Transformations to achieve the
Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainabil 2019;2:805–14.
[14] Sugiawan Yogi, Kurniawan Robi, Managi Shunsuke. Are carbon dioxide emission
reductions compatible with sustainable well-being? Appl Energy 2019;242:1–11.
[15] Fernández-Amador Octavio, Francois Joseph F, Oberdabernig Doris A, Tomberger
Patrick. Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: an assessment based on
production and consumption emission inventories. Ecol Econ 2017;135:269–79.
[16] Chen Shaoqing, Kharrazi Ali, Liang Sai, Fath Brian D, Lenzen Manfred, Yan Jinyue.
Advanced approaches and applications of energy footprints toward the promotion
of global sustainability. Appl Energy 2020;261:114415.
[17] Ehigiamusoe Kizito Uyi, Lean Hooi Hooi, Smyth Russell. The moderating role of
energy consumption in the carbon emissions-income nexus in middle-income
countries. Appl Energy 2020;261:114215.
[18] Barbier E. How is the global green new deal going? Nature 2010;464:832–3.
[19] Reilly JM. Green growth and the efficient use of natural resources. Energy Econ. 34.
Green Perspectives; 2012. p. S85–93.
[20] Markandya Anil, Arto Iñaki, González-Eguino Mikel, Román Maria V. Towards a
green energy economy? Tracking the employment effects of low-carbon technolo-
gies in the European Union. Appl Energy 2016;179:1342–50.
[21] Saisana Michaela, Saltelli Andrea. Rankings and ratings: instructions for use. Hague
J Rule Law 2011;3(2):247–68.
P. Kynčlová, et al.
[22] OECD. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user
guide; 2008.
[23] Stiglitz JE, Sen AK, Fitoussi J-P. Report by the commission on the measurement of
economic performance and social progress. Commission on the Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris; 2009.
[24] UN General Assembly. Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development, July 2017. A/RES/71/313, Available at
https://undocs.org/A/RES/71/313.
[25] Sachs J, Schmidt-Traub G, Kroll C, Lafortune G, Fuller G. SDG Index and
Dashboards Report 2018. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development
Solutions Network (SDSN), New York; 2018.
[26] Mori Koichiro, Christodoulou Aris. Review of sustainability indices and indicators:
Towards a new City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environ Impact Assess Rev
2012;32(1):94–106.
[27] World Economic Forum. The Inclusive Development Index 2018; 2018.
[28] Partnership for action on Green Economy (PAGE). The Green Economy Progress
Measurement Framework – Methodology; 2017.
[29] Moll de Alba Jaime, Todorov Valentin. Green industrial performance: the GIP index.
World Rev Sci, Technol Sustainable Develop 2018;14(2–3):266–93.
[30] US Department of Commerce. Measuring the Green Economy; 2010.
[31] Lin JY, Monga C, Standaert S. The inclusive sustainable transformation index. Social
Indicat Res 2018;143:47–80.
[32] Lavopa Alejandro, Szirmai Adam. Structural modernisation and development traps.
An empirical approach. World Develop 2018;112:59–73.
[33] Cantore Nicola, Clara Michele, Lavopa Alejandro, Soare Camelia. Manufacturing as
an engine of growth: Which is the best fuel? Struct Change Econ Dyn
12
Applied Energy 265 (2020) 114755
2017;42(C):56–66.
[34] Muñoz-Villamizar Andrés, Santos Javier, Viles Elisabeth, Ormazábal Marta.
Manufacturing and environmental practices in the Spanish context. J Clean Prod
2018;178:268–75.
[35] UNIDO. Industrial Development Report 2016. UNIDO, Vienna; 2016.
[36] Sandin Gustav, Peters Greg M. Environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling
– A review. J Cleaner Prod 2018;184:353–65.
[37] Chakraborty SK, Mazzanti M. Energy intensity and green energy innovation:
Checking heterogeneous country effects in the OECD. Struct Change Econ Dyn
2020;52:328–43.
[38] UN Statistics Division. SDG indicators database. New York: UN Statistics Division;
2019.
[39] UNIDO. International Yearbook of Industrial Statistics 2019. Edward Elgar books.
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2019.
[40] Foster James E, McGillivray Mark, Seth Suman. Composite indices: rank robustness,
statistical association, and redundancy. Econom Rev 2013;32(1):35–56.
[41] Johnson RA, Wichern DW, editors. Applied multivariate statistical analysis. 6th
ed.Prentice-Hall Inc.; 2007.
[42] IEA. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2018. International Energy Agency,
Paris; 2018.
[43] ILO. World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2019. ILO, Geneva; 2019.
[44] UNIDO. Industrial Statistics 2-Digit Level, ISIC Revision 3 (INDSTAT2). Available
at: https://stat.unido.org/, 2018.
[45] UNIDO. Manufacturing Value Added 2019 Database. Available at: https://stat.
unido.org/, 2019.