Entrepreneurship and Well-being: Exploring the UN Sustainable Development Goals through the lenses of GEM and other indicators 3031191803, 9783031191800

Citation preview

Sustainable Development Goals Series

SDG: 17 Partnerships for the Goals

Entrepreneurship and Well-being Exploring the UN Sustainable Development Goals through the lenses of GEM and other indicators Edited by Slavica Singer · Nataša Šarlija Miroslav Rebernik · Barbara Bradač Hojnik

Sustainable Development Goals Series

The Sustainable Development Goals Series is Springer Nature’s inaugural cross-imprint book series that addresses and supports the United Nations’ seventeen Sustainable Development Goals. The series fosters comprehensive research focused on these global targets and endeavours to address some of society’s greatest grand challenges. The SDGs are inherently multidisciplinary, and they bring people working across different fields together and working towards a common goal. In this spirit, the Sustainable Development Goals series is the first at Springer Nature to publish books under both the Springer and Palgrave Macmillan imprints, bringing the strengths of our imprints together. The Sustainable Development Goals Series is organized into eighteen subseries: one subseries based around each of the seventeen respective Sustainable Development Goals, and an eighteenth subseries, “Connecting the Goals,” which serves as a home for volumes addressing multiple goals or studying the SDGs as a whole. Each subseries is guided by an expert Subseries Advisor with years or decades of experience studying and addressing core components of their respective Goal. The SDG Series has a remit as broad as the SDGs themselves, and contributions are welcome from scientists, academics, policymakers, and researchers working in fields related to any of the seventeen goals. If you are interested in contributing a monograph or curated volume to the series, please contact the Publishers: Zachary Romano [Springer; zachary. [email protected]] and Rachael Ballard [Palgrave Macmillan; [email protected]].

Slavica Singer  •  Nataša Šarlija Miroslav Rebernik Barbara Bradač Hojnik Editors

Entrepreneurship and Well-being Exploring the UN Sustainable Development Goals Through the Lenses of GEM and Other Indicators

Editors Slavica Singer J.J. Strossmayer University in Osijek Osijek, Croatia

Nataša Šarlija J.J. Strossmayer University in Osijek Osijek, Croatia

Miroslav Rebernik University of Maribor Maribor, Slovenia

Barbara Bradač Hojnik University of Maribor Maribor, Slovenia

ISSN 2523-3084     ISSN 2523-3092 (electronic) Sustainable Development Goals Series ISBN 978-3-031-19180-0    ISBN 978-3-031-19181-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19181-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

At first glance, the connection between entrepreneurship and sustainable development may not be immediately obvious to everyone. In the past, entrepreneurship, in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) primarily interpreted as the creation of new ventures, did not usually mean sustainable development or sustainable growth, but was associated with purely economic aspects. The GEM, the world’s largest and oldest research consortium for the analysis of entrepreneurial activities, attitudes and framework conditions, also ignored the issue of sustainable development for a long time. This book provides many plausible arguments for the fact that sustainable development and entrepreneurship must and can be thought together in the sense of a “one world” idea. Entrepreneurs, including those who start new businesses today, are of course important actors who (can) influence the achievement or failure to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As an example, the type of products of the new companies and the form of production of these products (can) differ significantly in terms of sustainability. This applies to the global v

vi Foreword

perspective, but also to each continent, each individual country and each individual sub-national region within the countries. The book is also timely for another reason. The motivation for running a new venture seems to be changing in many countries, in favor of motivations that are closely related to the achievement of (some of ) the SDGs. Since 2019, the Adult Population Survey (APS) differentiates between four motivations. One of them is “To make a difference in the world”, which is quasi-representative for several SDGs—and clearly differs from the other three classic, more economically oriented motivations for running a new business. For me, initially surprisingly, the motivation “To make a difference in the world” received high approval ratings globally in the first reference year 2019 (across all countries 46% “somewhat or strongly agree”, as % of surveyed adults with a new business). Significantly, in most countries this motivation is much more common among younger founders than older ones and more common among women than men. The data from the most recent GEM cycle 2021 show that this motivation to run a business has not lost its popularity even in times of global crisis (47% agreement on named motivation). From the perspective of a GEM veteran, another aspect should be pointed out. The GEM data collected since 1999 (excluding pilot year 1998) now provide such a rich repertoire of empirical data on entrepreneurship activities and attitudes themselves, but also on entrepreneurial framework conditions, that it is obvious to use this treasure trove of data for the content-related references to the SDGs. Although not all countries participate in the GEM every year, well over 100 different countries have taken part over the years, the majority of them in at least five years. Since the pilot year 1998, there have been 1076 survey waves (sum of participating countries per year over all years) of the Adult Population Survey and 940 survey waves of the National Expert Survey (NES). If the opportunities arising from the use of GEM data at the sub-national level are also taken into account, the analysis potential is multiplied, also for the detailed investigation of the relationship between entrepreneurship and SDGs within a country. In the book, the two chapters on the country case studies of Slovenia and Spain provide very good illustrative material; they are my favored chapters in this book. The presented analysis primarily covers the “high-income countries” (26 of the total 40 GEM

 Foreword 

vii

countries included in the report), 16 countries alone belong to Europe. The authors would certainly have wished for greater coverage here, which may well be achievable in the future. However, since most of the economically stronger countries are also those that—in absolute terms cause the most ecological damage globally (resource consumption, CO2 emissions, etc.)—this shortcoming is less serious. China and Japan, however, should be included in future editions of such analysis. To sum it up: the book is an important pioneering work that will hopefully be followed by further efforts in this direction, both by GEM national teams and outside GEM. Leibniz University Hannover Hannover, Germany

Rolf Sternberg

Acknowledgements

Behind this book, there are many people and quite a long timeline of work on bringing together GEM indicators and UN SDGs. Our acknowledgments and thanks go to all members of the GEM community for their dedicated work on researching national entrepreneurship, and especially to the members of the GEM Research and Innovation Advisory Committee 2014–2021 (Nezameddin Faghih, Jian Gao, Mike Herrington, Jonathan Levie, Ehud Menipaz, Cesare Riillo, Rolf Sternberg and Rodrigo Varela), who participated in many rounds of the discussion on the relevance of GEM for monitoring the UN SDGs. Our acknowledgments and thanks go to the GEM data team led by Alicia Coduras Martinez. Our acknowledgments and thanks go to Barbara Bradač Hojnik, GEM Slovenia; Ana Fernández-Laviada and Mahsa Samsani, GEM Spain; and Simara Maria de Souza Silveira Greco, GEM Brazil, for providing three good examples of how GEM indicators are used for monitoring national policies towards UN SDGs. Finally, our acknowledgments and thanks go to Niels Bosma, Senior Research Advisor at the GEM consortium, for his comments on the previous version of this manuscript. As always, a critical perspective from outside the writers’ team helped us be clearer about the book’s purpose and intended messages to the UN, overall research community, especially to GEM researchers, and policy makers at international and national levels. ix

Executive Summary

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a unique global consensus on issues that everyone (from individuals to institutions) should be accountable to act on for the well-being of people and the planet. With this book Entrepreneurship and Well-being—Exploring the UN Sustainable Development Goals through lenses of GEM and Other Indicators, a group of researchers from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) takes a step forward to analyse the capacity of GEM to add value to the global discussion on well-being and the Sustainable Development Goals. As a result of the evidence-based analysis conducted and presented in the book, the points of connection between UN SDGs and GEM conceptual framework, methodology and indicators were identified. Wellbeing is an important connecting point that is deeply rooted in both the UN SDGs and the GEM conceptual framework. When the UN began diagnosing the state of our planet in 2019 to create a platform for identifying targets relevant to the 2050 SDGs, António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN Environment, 2019: XXVI), emphasised that “(T)he only missing ingredient for success is our collective resolve”. We have taken this as a call for collaboration, and the book aims to show what we, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor researchers, can contribute to building collective capacity to achieve this significant shift in trajectory for achieving well-being for both the people and the planet.

xii 

Executive Summary

With its main assets (conceptual framework and data collected annually with standardised survey instruments around the world), GEM can contribute to the monitoring process of the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to the global discussion on creating sustainable well-being. The book has two objectives:

• To provide a platform for discussion with UN on a possible partnership in the work of SDG 17—to strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the partnership for sustainable development. Particularly relevant are the sub-goals related to mobilising and s­ haring knowledge and expertise to support the achievement of the SDGs in all countries, especially developing countries, and contributing to the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, ethnicity, migration status and geographical location. • To invite researchers from GEM to contribute to making the GEM survey a relevant and reliable partner of UN in building a better world based on the well-being of all people. The editors and authors also hope to attract the interest of policy makers at national and international levels, financial development institutions and activists who will join this effort and leave no one behind. We aim to show what GEM can contribute to the UN SDGs, why the UN can see the GEM research community as a partner and when such collaboration can be implemented in monitoring progress towards the 2030/2050 UN SDGs. The novelty of our approach is to link the well-being of people and the planet as a global long-term goal with UN SDGs as a tool to achieve this goal, with entrepreneurship playing a facilitator role in this process. The facilitator role of entrepreneurship stems from the definition of entrepreneurship: being proactive, being innovative in defining problems and finding solutions and being responsible for one’s own decisions. In the hope that the reader understands the “special” role of this special report— to provide a solid research basis for future collaboration based on a detailed, some would say “technical”, analysis of why and how GEM survey instruments generate indicators that are relevant for monitoring progress towards the achievement of the UN SDGs. And to qualify the

  Executive Summary 

xiii

GEM consortium as a reliable partner, we conclude this special report with some challenges addressed to us researchers—not recommendations, but an invitation to work together.

 ell-Being, UN SDGs and Global W Entrepreneurship Monitor Both conceptual frameworks (UN SDGs and GEM) perceive the individual as a central actor and use a holistic approach in addressing indicators about the interactions between individuals and institutions to achieve the well-being of people and the planet. The UN SDGs explicitly see this process as an intensive, innovative and trustful collaboration between responsible individuals and responsible institutions. GEM, as a research community, builds a knowledge portfolio related to entrepreneurial activities (trends and patterns in creating new jobs and new value with economic, social and environmental impacts). At the same time, the perspective of inclusion (gender, age, household income) is taken into account when creating the GEM indicators. Thanks to this approach, GEM is used by governments, researchers and the education and business sectors to develop appropriate actions that contribute primarily to the well-being of people but also to the well-being of the planet (by focusing on innovative approaches in production and consumption to reduce waste and pollution). To gain insight into how GEM researchers (in GEM national teams) have participated in the global discussion on the UN SDGs and where they saw opportunities to contribute with research using GEM data, a review of selected studies was conducted. The criteria used were quite restrictive: GEM researchers, papers published since 2000, GEM consortium database and contributions from national teams. The keywords used for the search were UN SDGs and sustainable development. Thematically, most papers focus on Goal 8—decent work and economic growth, followed by Goal 10—reducing inequalities, Goal 5—gender equality and Goal 9—industry, innovation and infrastructure. As the

xiv 

Executive Summary

sample of papers identified is unbalanced, it is not possible to draw more general conclusions about trends and patterns of evolving issues, but it does provide interesting observations.

 lobal Composite Indices: Competition or G Potential Collaboration? The UN SDGs challenged the whole industry of indicators, which led to some of the indicators being updated by including questions on specific UN SDGs. A brief overview of some of the most prominent composite indices and their relationship to the SDGs provides an overview of the industry of indicators and how GEM indicators can be positioned within it. The following composite indicators were analysed: the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report and Index, Gallup-Sharecare’s Well-being and Global Well-being Index, Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, the World Values Survey, the Human Development Index, the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report and Index, and the Global Innovation Index. Only indices that have a broad international reach given the global scope of the SDGs and are published regularly (annually) were considered. Each composite index was presented by stating the intention or goal that the index is intended to fulfil, who the users are and how it is linked to UN SDGs.

 easurement and Monitoring: The UN SDGs M and the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor The differences in measurement methodology between UN and GEM provide a platform for collaboration in measuring and monitoring progress towards the UN SDGs and established targets. UN uses “hard” data (from dedicated statistical sources as well as from scientific sources, especially for environment-related indicators), while GEM uses individual-­ level perception data. The indicators of GEM are based on data collected from randomly selected individuals (on their perception of their own

  Executive Summary 

xv

behaviour in relation to entrepreneurial activities) and a group of selected experts (on their opinion about the quality of entrepreneurship context/ institutions). This data collection makes GEM a qualified partner in the global partnership for producing relevant data needed to monitor progress towards the UN SDGs. A robust portfolio of indicators allows comparisons over time and between countries, while the data can always be contextualised due to the conceptual framework. According to the UN classification, indicators from GEM can be categorised as Tier 2 category—conceptually clear but not regularly produced by at least 50% of countries (which is a prerequisite for Tier 1 status).

GEM Lenses on 2030 UN SDGs To illustrate the relevance of the indicators of GEM, UN SDG 8—decent work and economic growth—was chosen. It provides the opportunity to show the links with some other SDGs, such as SDG 5—gender equality and SDG 4—quality of education. To compare the data by time (pre-­ pandemic vs. pandemic time) and income level of countries (above and up to USD 30,000 GNI per capita), methods of descriptive statistics, ANOVA, correlation analysis and simple linear regression are used. Several important observations were made that are useful for interpreting the process of achieving the identified goals. Entrepreneurial intentions increased in the less wealthy income group in the 2020 pandemic year compared to the 2016–2019 pre-pandemic period, while they remained stable in the wealthier income group. Moreover, entrepreneurial intentions are higher in the less rich countries. The same is true for entrepreneurial activity, as measured by the indicator TEA (percentage of the adult population with a venture not older than 42 months). At the same time, business closures are higher in the less rich countries, and the increase in closures in 2020 is much higher among entrepreneurs in this income group than among entrepreneurs in the richer group of countries. This is due to the less supportive institutional context in which entrepreneurial activities are carried out, the expert group notes. The level of education plays a role, which is evident in both income groups and in both observed periods: adults with a higher level of

xvi 

Executive Summary

education are more entrepreneurially active. The gender ratio in TEA activities is quite stable, ranging from 0.68 to 0.76. The cases presented by GEM Slovenia and GEM Spain provide illustrative examples of how GEM indicators are (or can be) used in developing national strategies to achieve specific 2030 UN SDGs. The analysed GEM indicators confirm their relevance for monitoring the process of achieving the selected UN SDGs in the context of national strategic development policies.

L ooking to the Future: Sustainable Development Goals 2050 The long-term vision for UN SDGs 2030–2050 (UN Environment, 2019) is based on the same 17 SDGs that are the guiding goals for the period 2015–2030, but emphasises the well-being of people and the well-­ being of the planet as core values. This perspective was used in the analysis of the validity of the GEM indicators relevant to the UN SDGs. The analysis confirmed that the data from GEM can be a very useful source for developing such indicators, especially for some SDGs in the areas of human well-being and sustainable production and consumption. The existing GEM database enables GEM to be a respectable player in the global discussion on UN SDGs, but the GEM consortium should be alert to possible new opportunities. As the UN SDGs Agenda 2050 emphasises the need for broad public awareness of the integrated function of each personal or institutional decision (chained impacts of decisions) and the trade-offs between decisions (on the environmental, economic and social dimensions of well-being), GEM should reconsider the extent to which its data contribute to creating such public awareness. GEM started collecting data on the social and environmental dimensions of entrepreneurship activities in 2009 (Terjesen et  al., 2012); this was repeated in 2015 (Bosma et  al., 2016). The Brazilian GEM team conducted pioneering work in 2014 by testing the understanding of the economic, social and environmental aspects of the SDGs 2030 UN in the context of national policies. The addition of several questions for the adult population related to the UN SDGs in the 2021 survey cycle will further enrich this database.

  Executive Summary 

xvii

The advantage that GEM brings to the global discussion is the perception dimension of the data collected and the annual dynamics. Based on the analysis presented, some research challenges have been identified (to learn more about the contexts around which the conceptual framework of GEM has been built; to find out the appropriate structure and dynamics of the collection of primary data). Related to this is the question of how to increase the number of participating countries, especially low-­ income countries, to qualify as a Tier 1 data provider. Even as a Tier 2 data provider, the indicators from GEM are a useful guide for governments, researchers, non-governmental organisations, education, the business sector, and so on to shape their strategies, policies, programmes and activities to contribute to the well-being of people and the well-being of the planet, the two major global goals to be achieved in the period 2030–2050.

Contents

1 I ntroduction  1 Slavica Singer and Miroslav Rebernik References  4 2 Well-Being,  UN Sustainable Development Goals and Global Entrepreneurship Monitor  5 Slavica Singer 2.1 Well-Being as a Global Bottom-Line Target   5 2.2 Global Millennium Goals and Their Transformation into Sustainable Development Goals 2030   8 2.3 Looking to the Future: Sustainable Development Goals 2050  11 2.4 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Research  14 2.5 Measurement and Monitoring: The UN SDGs and the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor  16 References 22 3 Composite  Indices and Their Potential Contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals 25 Kevin Walker 3.1 Introduction  25 xix

xx Contents

3.2 Composite Indices  27 3.3 Prominent Composite Indices  33 3.4 Conclusions  57 References 58 4 Overview  of Selected Studies on GEM Indicators and SDGs 61 Petra Mezulić Juric and Tihana Koprivnjak Popović 4.1 Introduction  61 4.2 Methodology  62 4.3 Timeframe  63 4.4 Geographical Affiliation of Authors of Selected Papers  65 4.5 Did Income Level of Countries Play a Role in Empirical Research of the Reviewed Papers?  69 4.6 Thematic Focus  70 4.7 Conclusion  83 References 85 5 GEM  Lenses on UN SDGs 89 Slavica Singer, Nataša Šarlija, Alicia Coduras Martinez, Sanja Pfeifer, Sunčica Oberman Peterka, Miroslav Rebernik, Barbara Bradač Hojnik, Ana Fernández-Laviada, and Mahsa Samsami 5.1 Introduction  89 5.2 Methodological Framework  90 5.3 Relevance of GEM Indicators for Specific UN SDGs  95 5.4 GEM Lenses on Equality (UN SDGs 1, 8, 10) 104 5.5 GEM Lenses on Entrepreneurial Capacity (UN SDG 8) 108 5.6 GEM Lenses on Gender Equality (UN SDG 5) and Education (UN SDG 4) 118 5.7 GEM Lenses on Entrepreneurial Environment 120 5.8 Good Examples of How GEM Indicators Can Be Used for Monitoring National Policies Towards UN SDGs 125 References150

 Contents 

xxi

6 Future  Challenges for GEM: Increasing the Relevancy to UN SDGs 2050153 Slavica Singer and Miroslav Rebernik 6.1 On WHY 154 6.2 On WHAT 155 6.3 On HOW 157 6.4 On WHEN 157 6.5 On WHAT, HOW and WHEN 158 6.6 Global Discussion Is Not Possible Without Data 160 References161 Appendix 1: GEM New Questions in the 2021 Cycle163  Appendix 2: Lessons Learned from UN SDG Questions in Brazil165  Appendix 3: Overview of Suggested Items to GEM to Measure Sustainability and Eco-Innovation169 Appendix 4: In Search for GEM Composite Index171 I ndex177

Notes on Contributors

Alicia Coduras Martinez  is the National Experts Survey Coordinator at Global Entrepreneurship Project and senior statistician at Opinometre Institute, GEM Global, Barcelona, Spain. Simara  Maria  de  Souza  Silveira  Greco is a statistician acting as GEM Brazil Team Leader at ANEGEPE—National Association of Entrepreneurship and Small Management Studies. Barbara  Bradač  Hojnik  is Full Professor of Entrepreneurship at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor, and the head of the Institute for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management at the Faculty. In recent years, she has been involved in almost 20 national and international research projects. She is a leader of the Slovenian Entrepreneurship Observatory research and a member of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Slovenia team and the longitudinal research programme Entrepreneurship for Innovative Society. She is an expert for the EU SME Performance Review project for Slovenia and an expert in the STEP project for EC. Her main teaching and researching interests are startup and sustainable entrepreneurship, corporate, international and digital entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship ecosystem. She is the author or co-author of several s­cientific articles, books and chapters in xxiii

xxiv 

Notes on Contributors

scientific monographs, as well as contributions to numerous international scientific conferences. Petra Mezulić Juric  is a postdoctoral researcher at University of Osijek, Faculty of Economics in Osijek, Croatia. Ana  Fernández-Laviada is an associate professor at Universidad de Cantabria, Cantabria, Spain, and the president of the Observatory of Entrepreneurship in Spain. Sunčica Oberman Peterka  is a professor at University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia, and a member of the Croatia Global Entrepreneurship Monitor team. Sanja Pfeifer  is a professor at University in Osijek, Osijek, Croatia, and a member of the Croatia Global Entrepreneurship Monitor team. Tihana Koprivnjak Popović  is a postdoctoral researcher at University of Osijek, Faculty of Economics in Osijek, Croatia. Miroslav  Rebernik is Professor  Emeritus of Entrepreneurship and Business Economics at the University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia. Until recently, he was head of the Institute of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management and chairman of the Department of Business Economics and Entrepreneurship. He was a visiting professor at Portland State University and a Fulbright Scholar at Babson College, USA.  In 1992, he founded the first undergraduate programme in entrepreneurship at the University of Maribor. He has participated in many domestic and foreign professional and scientific conferences, authored several books and chapters in numerous monographs, chaired numerous domestic and international conferences, edited their proceedings and managed various projects in the field of entrepreneurship. He has been a member of several editorial and review boards of scientific journals in the field of entrepreneurship. From 1999 to 2020, he headed the Slovenian Entrepreneurship Observatory, and for 20 years, he led the Slovenian team of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. He is a co-founder of the

  Notes on Contributors 

xxv

university business incubator Tovarna podjemov, was for a longer period the chairman of the International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship PODIM and played an active role in the startup community in Slovenia. For a long period of time, he was also a member of the EC expert committee for SME policy relevant research. Mahsa Samsami  is a doctoral candidate at Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain and University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway. Nataša Šarlija  is a tenured professor at Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Faculty of Economics in Osijek. She defended her doctorate in the field of credit risks at the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics. Research and educational work is focused on the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises, financial management and credit risk management. In addition to working at the University, she also does consulting work in the field of credit risks. Her areas of interest include credit risk modelling, credit risk management, credit analysis, scoring models for small businesses, assessment of the growth potential of small and mediumsized businesses. Slavica  Singer is Professor Emeritus of Entrepreneurship at the J.J. Strossmayer University in Osijek, Osijek, Croatia. She started the first university-­based programme in entrepreneurship in Croatia in 2000. From 2010 she leads the interdisciplinary doctoral program Entrepreneurship and Innovativeness designed by collaborative efforts of five universities (Osijek, Croatia; Turku, Finland; Maribor, Slovenia; Klagenfurt, Austria and Durham, UK). From 2008 she is a holder of the UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship Education. Slavica’s research focus is on connecting holistic approach with understanding of entrepreneurship as a mindset, the role of small businesses in the economic development, gender gap in entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship ecosystem and the role of the entrepreneurial university in the Quintuple Helix model (academia, government, business, civil society and environment). Since 1996 she is actively involved in developing an entrepreneurship ecosystem in Croatia (microfinance institution, centre for entrepreneurship, SMEs policy centre). Slavica is often engaged by the OECD as a consul-

xxvi 

Notes on Contributors

tant/expert in the field of reviewing national policies on entrepreneurship, inclusivity and entrepreneurship education. In 2010 she was awarded with an honorary doctorate by the University of Turku, Turku School of Economics. In 2021, she was awarded with the European Entrepreneurship Education Award by the Lund University, Sweden. Kevin  Walker  is a lecturer at RIT Croatia, Dubrovnik, Croatia, and PhD candidate in Entrepreneurship and Innovation at University in Osijek, Croatia.

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1

Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2

Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4

A framework for the classification and grouping of the SDGs in the 2030–2050 cycle. Source: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2017) as presented in UN Environment (2019), Ch. 20 A Long-Term Vision for 2050, p. 474 12 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor conceptual framework. Source: Bosma et al. (2021, p. 22) 15 Structure of GEM indicators, based on the GEM conceptual framework. Source: authors 19 Criteria for the review of selected papers. Source: authors 63 Sustainable Development Goals 96 In my country…people prefer equal standard of living for all (% of 18–64 population, answering YES). Note: only 31 countries included this optional question in both observed periods105 Average percentages of 18–64 population who has entrepreneurial intentions in two income groups before and during the first year of the pandemic. Source: authors 110 Average percentages of 18–64 population who has skills in two groups of income before and during the first year of the pandemic. Source: authors 110

xxvii

xxviii 

Fig. 5.5 Fig. 5.6 Fig. 5.7 Fig. 5.8 Fig. 5.9 Fig. 5.10 Fig. 5.11 Fig. 5.12 Fig. 5.13 Fig. 5.14 Fig. 5.15 Fig. 5.16 Fig. 5.17 Fig. 5.18 Fig. 5.19 Fig. 5.20 Fig. 5.21

List of Figures

Average percentages of TEA rates in two groups of income before and during the first year of the pandemic. Source: authors 111 Average percentages of established business in two groups of income before and during the first year of the pandemic. Source: authors 112 Average percentage of closures of companies in two groups of income before and during the first year of the pandemic. Source: authors 112 High job creation expectation % within TEA: average for two groups of income before and during the pandemic. Source: authors 113 Nascent entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial skills 114 Nascent entrepreneurs and identifying entrepreneurial opportunities115 Nascent entrepreneurs and knowing other entrepreneurs 115 Nascent entrepreneurs and fear of failure 116 Average percentages of TEA female in two groups of income before and during the first year of the pandemic. Source: authors 119 Average percentages of TEA male in two groups of income before and during the first year of the pandemic. Source: authors 119 Gender ratio in TEA. Source: authors 119 Educational level % within TEA: average for two groups of income before and during the pandemic 119 NECI scores 121 Framework of Slovenian Development Strategy 2030. Source: Government of the Republic of Slovenia, 2017 126 Linking of Slovenian development goals with strategic orientations. Source: Government of the Republic of Slovenia, 2017 128 Linking of Slovenian development goals with SDGs. Source: Government of the Republic of Slovenia, 2017 129 Educational level of early-stage entrepreneurs by age groups from 18 to 34 years and from 35 to 64 years in 2020 in Slovenia. Source: GEM Slovenia 2020, APS 131

  List of Figures 

Fig. 5.22 Gender distribution of early stage and established entrepreneurs in 2020 in Slovenia and European countries. Source: GEM Slovenia 2020, APS Fig. 5.23 Gender distribution of entrepreneurs regarding the internationalisation targets in 2020 in Slovenia. Source: GEM Slovenia 2020, APS Fig. 5.24 Entrepreneurial pipeline in 2019 and 2020 in Slovenia. Source: GEM Slovenia 2020, APS Fig. 5.25 Motives for entrepreneurship in 2020 Slovenia and European countries. Source: GEM Slovenia 2020, APS Fig. 5.26 Entrepreneurs’ employment plans in 2019 and 2020 in Slovenia and European countries. Source: GEM Slovenia 2020, APS Fig. 5.27 The innovative entrepreneurship model

xxix

133 134 136 138 139 141

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as defined for the 2015–2030 period Five elements of the Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index World Values Survey and its relevance to SDGs HDI relevance to SDGs Selected papers by year of publication Geographical affiliation of authors and level of analysis (national vs global) Selected papers by thematic coverage Selected examples of used GEM indicators, referring to specific UN SDGs List of economies included in the analysis according to GNI per capita (current USD) GEM indicators for the UN SDG 8 Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all Prefer a similar standard of living—% of adults opting for YES, grouped by income and time Spearman’s coefficients Societal values towards entrepreneurship—% of adults opting for YES Relationships among skills, opportunities, knowing entrepreneurs and fear of failure

9 39 46 50 64 67 71 79 92 99 106 108 109 117 xxxi

xxxii 

Table 5.7

List of Tables

Experts’ scores on national entrepreneurial environment— scale 0 to 10 Table 5.8 Women’s and men’s participation in entrepreneurship in recent decades Table 5.9 The participation in entrepreneurship process of people in urban and rural areas Table 5.10 The participation in entrepreneurship process of people with different incomes Table 5.11 The participation in entrepreneurship process of people of different ages

122 145 147 148 149

1 Introduction Slavica Singer and Miroslav Rebernik

Since 1999, when it was launched by a small group of people with a vision, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) community of about 300 researchers from around the world has been collecting perception data on entrepreneurship every year, converting it into indicators, analysing patterns and trends and presenting the research findings at conferences and to policy makers. By researching the phenomenon of entrepreneurship (proactivity, innovativeness and responsibility for one’s own decisions) since 1999, GEM has provided insights into interrelationships that determine the entrepreneurial capacity of an individual, a country and the world, as an important “ingredient” needed to achieve well-being for all. The relevance of GEM has always been verified by the interest of those who use GEM indicators: policy makers, financial institutions, educational institutions and researchers. The sustained relevance of the

S. Singer (*) J.J. Strossmayer University in Osijek, Osijek, Croatia e-mail: [email protected] M. Rebernik University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Singer et al. (eds.), Entrepreneurship and Well-being, Sustainable Development Goals Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19181-7_1

1

2 

S. Singer and M. Rebernik

indicators produced is the responsibility of the GEM research community. For this reason, a group of GEM researchers (from GEM Croatia and GEM Slovenia) set themselves the task to test the relevance of the GEM indicators in the context of global value change focused on the well-being of people and the planet, promoted by the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) (UN, 2016). The first aim of the book is to present the interpretive value of the already available GEM indicators for monitoring the progress and contribution of entrepreneurship to the UN SDGs and their targets, not only for those planned for 2030 but also for the UN SDGs for 2050. The informational value of GEM indicators is recognised at international, national and sub-national levels by policy makers as well as by financial institutions, business associations, educational institutions and civil sector institutions. The operational format of the survey GEM is based on the Quadruple Helix concept of collaboration between academia, governments, the business sector and civil society. Policy makers use the indicators from GEM for research-based policy interventions (strategies, programmes) related to building a supportive entrepreneurial ecosystem. Financial institutions use the indicators from GEM to guide the design of financial instruments to support actors at each stage of a venture’s life cycle (from starting, growing, maturing and even exiting from a venture). Business organisations may be interested in using the indicators from GEM as research-based confirmation of their views on bottlenecks in the entrepreneurship ecosystem, as well as insights into individual capacity for venturing (skills, opportunity recognition and fear of failure). Educational institutions can use the research from GEM to design research-based educational programmes. Civil society organisations can use the indicators from GEM to gain insights into the level of involvement in entrepreneurial activities (taking into account gender, age and education). As a continuation of GEM research activities related to the social and environmental dimensions of entrepreneurship from 2009 (Terjesen et al., 2012), a group of GEM researchers started in 2014 to explore the connection points between the 2030 UN SDGs (UN, 2014), well-being and GEM, as well as to identify information gaps (and overlaps), which was publicly announced in the GEM Global Report 2014/2015 (Singer et  al., 2015, p.  63–64). The design of the

1 Introduction 

3

GEM survey provides insights on entrepreneurship capacity at individual and institutional levels and at country level by focusing on inclusion (women, youth, seniors, migrants…) and high-impact entrepreneurship. Additionally, GEM provides insights into differences among country groups based on the income criterion, which is also very valuable information for international organisations such as UN, OECD, IMF, and so on. The discussion between UNCTAD and GEM, which has been going on since 2014, helps to find a platform for cooperation. The second aim of the book is to set out why and how GEM can be part of a global partnership in developing a data platform to effectively monitor the progress of the new cycle of Sustainable Development Goals 2050 UN SDGs, which focus on the well-being of people (“no one is left behind”) and the well-being of the planet. The third aim of the book is to identify challenges to make GEM even more relevant to contribute to the global discussion on well-being and UN SDGs. This requires the implementation of the “creative destruction” approach, from the survey instruments to the conceptual framework, which is the only way to achieve and maintain sustainable relevance. Following the experience of data availability for monitoring the 2030 UN SDGs, it is important to build global collaboration among data producers to provide a better information base for monitoring progress towards the 2050 UN SDGs, as a “business as usual” policy is no longer acceptable. The demonstrated delays in achieving some goals demand capability of collaboration in order to identify synergies between different policies and trade practises. When the UN began diagnosing the state of the planet in 2019 to create a platform for identifying targets relevant to the 2050 SDGs, António Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General (UN Environment, 2019: XXVI), emphasised that “we need a significant shift in trajectory … we have the necessary policy guidance and the science to back it up. The only missing ingredient for success is our collective resolve”. We took this as an invitation, and the book aims to show what we, as Global Entrepreneurship Monitor researchers, can contribute to building the collective capacity for this significant change in direction. To do so, we need to expand our research interest to the Quintuple Helix (by adding the planet as a fifth actor). One step in this direction is to expand a

4 

S. Singer and M. Rebernik

survey instrument to collect perception data from the adult population with questions on green economy and environmental values in 2021. GEM Global Report 2021–2022 (GEM, 2022: 25) emphasised the need for “entrepreneurial contribution to achieving social and environmental goals, including the UN SDGs”.

References GEM (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor). (2022). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2021/2022 Global Report: Opportunity Amid Disruption. GEM. Singer, S., Amorós, J.  E., & Arreola, D.  M. (2015). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor; 2014 Global Report. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA). ISBN: 978-1-939242-05-1. Terjesen, S., Lepoutre, J., Justo, R., & Bosma, N. (2012). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor - 2009 Report on Social Entrepreneurship. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA). UN. (2014). The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet. Synthesis Report of the Secretary-General on the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda. United Nations. Available online: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/700&Lang=E United Nations. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals Report 2016. United Nations. http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2016/ UN Environment. (2019). Global Environment Outlook  – GEO-6: Healthy Planet, Healthy People. United Nations. https://doi.org/10.1017/ 9781108627146

2 Well-Being, UN Sustainable Development Goals and Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Slavica Singer

2.1 Well-Being as a Global Bottom-Line Target The reason for using well-being as a connecting point between the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor lies primarily in the UN Resolution “Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” of September 25, 2015, which established a set of goals to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a unique global consensus on issues that should be the responsibility of everyone (from individuals to institutions, governments, businesses, academia, and civil society) to promote the well-being of all, people and the planet. In addition, the global discussion on the well-being of all people as a moral dimension of policy has intensified at national and international levels (e.g., OECD’s How’s Life, from 2011, biannual). S. Singer (*) J.J. Strossmayer University in Osijek, Osijek, Croatia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Singer et al. (eds.), Entrepreneurship and Well-being, Sustainable Development Goals Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19181-7_2

5

6 

S. Singer

Well-being is deeply rooted in the conceptual framework of GEM—as visionarily stated in the first GEM report in 1999 (Proposition 1) (Reynolds et al., 1999): Proposition 1: Promoting entrepreneurship and enhancing the entrepreneurial dynamic of a country should be an integral element of any government’s commitment to improving economic well-being.

This is also recognised in the Policy Briefs 2017 special report (Herrington, 2017): … what could be done by policy makers to improve the levels of entrepreneurial activities and stimulate SMME development which is vital for the well-being and prosperity of a country.

GEM researchers initiated a discussion on the social dimension of entrepreneurship in 2009 (Terjesen et al., 2012), when many questions related to definition(s) and measurement were raised. In 2016, Bosma et al. presented the updated study on social entrepreneurship, which continued the discussion on definitions and measurement, emphasising that “the broad measure considers individuals who start or lead any type of activity, organisation or initiative that has a particularly social, environmental or community goal”. Well-being is a complex phenomenon with many interrelated influences. In its How’s Life? study, the OECD identifies three pillars for understanding and measuring people’s well-being (OECD, 2011, p. 18): 1 . material living conditions, 2. quality of life, and 3. sustainability. Significant footprints in the recent discussion on well-being are found in the work of Stiglitz et al. (2009), Stiglitz et al. (2019), Sen (1999), and Piketty (2014, 2022). Based on the How’s Life survey, it is possible to group OECD countries according to the relationship between inequality and well-being: countries with lower inequality have higher average

2  Well-Being, UN Sustainable Development Goals and Global… 

7

well-­being—for example, Sweden, Iceland, the Netherlands, Finland, and Norway (OECD, 2020a, 2020b). Countries with comparatively low average well-being and high inequality include Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Greece, as well as the United States and Israel. Since 2012, the Boston Consulting Group has used the Sustainable Economic Development Assessment (SEDA) to determine the relative well-being of a country’s citizens. SEDA is intended to provide information on how well a country converts its wealth into well-being. SEDA is designed to capture economic performance, objective well-being, and subjective well-being (Hrotko et al., 2019, p. 6). Inequality as THE major hindering factor of achieving well-being for all comes in different forms but with the same effect: lack of access to health and education for many, discrimination based on gender, colour, age, sexual orientation, religion or political views, lack of access to finance and networks. The discussion of inequalities in well-being is important to sort out the definitions and meanings (personal well-being, subjective well-being, community well-being, country well-being, economic well-­ being…). Sen (1980) proposed the concept of “basic capability equality” based on a person’s ability to function and achieve. Quick and Devlin (2018, p.  3) brought up the question of how to measure well-being and inequalities. They identified three different reasons why people worry about inequalities in well-being: • Dispersion aversion—that large differences in life experiences are inherently undesirable. • Suffering aversion—attributing special status to people whose well-­ being is below a certain threshold. • Weighted universalism—valuing improvements in well-being for everyone, but placing more value on improvements in well-being for those at the bottom of the distribution (those who are most distributed). Inequality and its effects have been a part of our lives for generations, and the UN SDGs are the first global attempt to change this. The recent global health crisis triggered by the COVID-19 virus has once again revealed the huge differences in countries’ ability to deal with this issue: access to vaccines is creating a new inequality around the globe. Even the

8 

S. Singer

World Health Organization warns us that the pandemic could be fought more effectively if there was more balanced access to vaccines; apart from some isolated interventions, there is no effective global response.

2.2 Global Millennium Goals and Their Transformation into Sustainable Development Goals 2030 With the Millennium Development Goals 2000–2015, the UN began global cooperation to fight extreme poverty in many different areas (from hunger to reducing child mortality and improving maternal health, to achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, combating HIV/AIDS and ensuring environmental sustainability). When the United Nations General Assembly adopted Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in September 2015, global cooperation moved away from addressing social development in isolation towards an approach that aims for sustainable prosperity, dignity for people, and a healthy planet through national actions and partnerships. Global cooperation for 2015–2030 was built around 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 169 targets, and 231 unique indicators (247 including overlaps) (United Nations, 2016b), which were recognised as a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that all people can live in peace and prosperity by 2030 (Table 2.1). All 17 UN SDGs are interlinked, as action in one area affects outcomes in others. These interlinkages underpin the important message to all stakeholders, from individuals to institutions, about why development policy must balance economic, social, and environmental sustainability. The role of monitoring progress towards the UN SDGs is to provide a continuous record that should remind us all where we stand with global expectations in eliminating inequality and achieving well-being for all. Using UN SDG 4 Quality Education as an example, the connectedness between well-being, UN SDGs, and Global Entrepreneurship Monitor is clear.

2  Well-Being, UN Sustainable Development Goals and Global…  Table 2.1 Sustainable 2015–2030 period

Development

Goals

(SDGs),

as

defined

for

9 the

Goal

Description

Goal 1: No poverty

Economic growth must be inclusive to provide sustainable jobs and promote equality. The food and agriculture sector offer key solutions for development and is central for hunger and poverty eradication. Ensuring healthy lives and promoting the well-being for all at all ages is essential to sustainable development. Obtaining a quality education is the foundation to improving people’s lives and sustainable development. Gender equality is not only a fundamental human right, but a necessary foundation for a peaceful, prosperous, and sustainable world. Clean, accessible water for all is an essential part of the world we want to live in. Energy is central to nearly every major challenge and opportunity. Sustainable economic growth will require societies to create the conditions that allow people to have quality jobs. Investments in infrastructure are crucial to achieving sustainable development.

Goal 2: Zero hunger

Goal 3: Good health and well-being Goal 4: Quality education Goal 5: Gender equality Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation Goal 7: Affordable and clean energy Goal 8: Decent work and economic growth Goal 9: Industry, innovation, and infrastructure Goal 10: Reduced inequalities Goal 11: Sustainable cities and communities Goal 12: Responsible consumption and production Goal 13: Climate action Goal 14: Life below water Goal 15: Life on land

To reduce inequalities, policies should be universal in principle, paying attention to the needs of disadvantaged and marginalised populations. There needs to be a future in which cities provide opportunities for all, with access to basic services, energy, housing, transportation, and more. Worldwide consumption and production—a driving force of the global economy—rest on the use of the natural environment and resources in a way that continues to have destructive impacts on the planet. Climate change is a global challenge that affects everyone, everywhere. Careful management of this essential global resource is a key feature of a sustainable future. Sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversity loss. (continued)

10 

S. Singer

Table 2.1 (continued) Goal

Description

Goal 16: Peace, justice, and strong institutions Goal 17: Partnerships

Access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable institutions at all levels. Revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development.

Source: United Nations (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable­development-­goals/)

A better educated population has higher chances of succeeding when assessing employment opportunities—for example, there is more detailed evidence that an upper secondary qualification can significantly reduce the risk of precarious and informal employment (UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report, 2016, p. 58). In 2016, UNESCO estimated that the achievement of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals for education will be significantly delayed: universal upper secondary education is estimated to be achieved only in 2084 (after 2100 in low-­ income countries and 2048 in high-income countries) (UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report, 2016, p.  153). It is worth noting that these estimates were calculated long before the COVID-19 global health crisis. As education facilitates the process of value change based on critical learning and holistic perspectives needed to address complex sustainability issues, the expected delays will slow down this process. If there is a global consensus on UN SDGs, then without changes in values, worldviews and behaviours at the individual, community and societal levels, the goals will not be achieved, the (in)equality gap will not be closed and the achievement of prosperity for all will be further delayed (UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report, 2016, p.  11). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor surveys confirm that education correlates with the identification of business opportunities and with entrepreneurial activity (higher education levels, more intense entrepreneurial activity). For the purposes of this report, the descriptive statistics of adults by educational background and early entrepreneurial activity show a very convincing pattern, regardless of countries’ per capita income. See Fig. 5.16 in Chap. 5 for more details.

2  Well-Being, UN Sustainable Development Goals and Global… 

11

It is a fraction of the evidence, in this case from UN SDG 4 and GEM, that contributes to a better understanding of the complex process of achieving well-being for all. Delaying the attainment of upper secondary education by more than 50 years (from 2030 to 2084) or by 18 (for high-­ income countries) to more than 70 years (for low-income countries) will significantly increase inequality and consequently contribute to widening the wealth gap. These findings confirm what Piketty (2020, p. 546) found when analysing development in Western Europe and the United States over the last 200 years: “educational equality has played a more important role in economic development than the sacralisation of inequality, property and stability”. Reducing investment in education has slowed productivity growth and improving access to quality education has had a positive impact on the country’s productivity levels.

2.3 Looking to the Future: Sustainable Development Goals 2050 The ongoing discussion on UN SDGs 2050 (UN Environment 2019) addresses the same 17 goals, but clustered according to the criteria of their contribution to human well-being and the well-being of the planet. The confirmed interconnectedness between the goals/targets provided the basis for grouping them in the new 2030–2050 period according to the intensity of their interdependencies (Fig.  2.1). This clustering provides useful guidance to governments, researchers, non-governmental organisations, education, the business sector, etc. on how to design their strategies, policies, programmes and activities to contribute to the well-­ being of people and the well-being of the planet as the two main global goals to be achieved in the 2030–2050 period. As shown in Fig. 2.1, the SDGs form several clusters: • Human well-being cluster: SDG 1—no poverty; SDG 3—good health and well-being; SDG 4—quality education; SDG 5—gender equality; SDG 10—reducing inequalities.

12 

S. Singer

Poverty and human wellbeing

Governance overnance and d institutions and d means of implementation plementation

Sustainable producon and consumpon and equitable distribuon of goods and services

Natural resources base (planetary boundaries)

Fig. 2.1  A framework for the classification and grouping of the SDGs in the 2030–2050  cycle. Source: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2017) as presented in UN Environment (2019), Ch. 20 A Long-Term Vision for 2050, p. 474

• Sustainable production and consumption cluster: SDG 2—no hunger; SDG 6—clean water and sanitation; SDG 7—affordable and clean energy; SDG 8—decent work and economic growth; SDG 9— industrial production and infrastructure; SDG 11—sustainable cities and communities; SDG 12—responsible consumption and production. • Cluster well-being of the planet (natural resource base): SDG 13—climate action; SDG 14—life below water; SDG 15—life on land. • The “Transversal” cluster supports all other goals: SDG 16—governance: peace, justice and strong institutions and implementation SDG 17—partnerships for the goals.

2  Well-Being, UN Sustainable Development Goals and Global… 

13

Figure 2.1 shows the interlinkages between all the SDGs and in particular the key role of the goals in relation to sustainable production and consumption and the equitable distribution of goods and services. “Unsustainable resource use, waste and pollution can negatively impact both natural resources and human well-being” (UN Environment, 2019, p. 474). From an environmental perspective, the goals are clustered in the natural resource base (as the planet’s life support system), the sustainable consumption and production base, and the individual/institutional capacity to contribute to the well-being of people and the planet. The process of achieving the goals requires a global partnership (explicitly referred to as Goal 17). The interpenetration of all goals with the feature of cooperation further emphasises the holistic nature of the goals. Understanding the linkages between the SDGs is a prerequisite for identifying synergies and trade-offs as a difference to achieving the identified targets/goals. This process can only be effectively and conscientiously monitored if data and knowledge about the intersectionality between society and the environment are available. There are information gaps on both sides that require radically new way of working together to define indicators and to design, produce and collect the data needed (researchers, governments, business sector, civil society). Some steps in this direction are visible, especially in the area of environmental indicators related to the UN SDGs (the environmental dimension is not only included in Goal 10—reducing inequalities). To develop the needed indicators, UN uses multilateral environmental agreements as well as science-based scenarios, but for 58 of the 93 environment-related SDG indicators there is not enough data to assess global progress (UN Environment, 2019, p. 630). To maintain a vibrant global discussion on human well-being, planetary well-being and an effective partnership in achieving these goals, monitoring capacity is critical to provide feedback on whether this process is delivering what was envisaged. Monitoring capacity depends on the availability of data to produce meaningful indicators for specific targets/goals. The indicators introduced by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development were selected on the criteria of science-based arguments and multilateral environmental agreements, although a critical

14 

S. Singer

assessment of the suitability of the selected indicators is foreseen. In the further analysis, we will refer to the ongoing discussion on UN SDGs relevant for 2030–2050 and the corresponding targets and indicators.

2.4 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Research The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor survey (gemconsortium.org) was launched in 1999 by research teams in the 10 most developed countries led by the Babson College, USA, and London Business School, UK, with the visionary leadership of Michael Hay, William Bygrave and Paul Reynolds. The purpose of establishing the survey was to gain insights into entrepreneurship and its role in economic and social development. The survey is conducted annually in economies around the world, covering countries at different income levels. Standardised survey instruments to capture the opinions of a representative sample of adults and a group of experts in each economy allow trends and patterns to be identified. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor survey can help shape the policies of many societal actors (government, business, civil society) in relation to some of the UN SDGs, in particular the areas of sustainable production and consumption and the equitable distribution of goods and services, in a more effective way. Since its inception (1999), the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor study was conceptually focused on understanding the interconnectedness of individuals and the environment in which individuals conduct their entrepreneurial activities. However, the conceptual framework of GEM has further granulated this basic interaction and explored how cultural and societal values and individual attitudes are related to the intensity and type of entrepreneurial activity, how entrepreneurial activity is related to the creation of new jobs and new value creation, and how the components of the environment influence societal values, individual attitudes, entrepreneurial activity and entrepreneurial output (Fig. 2.2). Some of those interlinkages (marked with circles) are presented in more detail in Chap. 5.

2  Well-Being, UN Sustainable Development Goals and Global… 

15

Fig. 2.2  Global Entrepreneurship Monitor conceptual framework. Source: Bosma et al. (2021, p. 22)

Both conceptual frameworks (UN SDGs and GEM) see the individual as the central actor when it comes to realising the well-being of people and the planet. The UN SDGs are based on the most global perspective and use a holistic approach to identify goals and targets for achieving well-being of people and the planet. The GEM study uses a holistic approach to look for patterns and trends in the creation of new jobs and new values. At the same time, the perspective of inclusion (gender, age, household income) is taken into account in the construction of the data collected. With such an approach, GEM aims to be a useful tool for governments, researchers, the education and business sectors to design appropriate policies to contribute primarily to the well-being of people but also to the well-being of the planet (by focusing on innovative approaches in production and consumption to reduce waste and pollution).

16 

S. Singer

2.5 Measurement and Monitoring: The UN SDGs and the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Without measurement, it is not possible to monitor progress towards a goal. Therefore, measurement, together with the conceptual framework, is a key component of any survey. The validity of measurement is checked whenever the activities envisaged in the conceptual framework contribute to the expected outputs/outcomes/impacts. The availability of appropriate data is critical and “the data requirements for the global indicators are almost as unprecedented as the SDGs themselves” (United Nations, 2016a, p. 3). This requires collaboration between official statistical systems and other data sources (especially those based on a robust research approach). The differences in measurement methodologies used by UN and GEM provide a platform for collaboration in measuring and monitoring progress towards the UN SDGs and the targets set. The UN uses “hard” data, while GEM uses individual-level perception data. Identifying appropriate indicators relevant to the defined UN SDGs/ targets has been a constant topic of discussion among experts since 2000, when the Millennium Development Goals were introduced. The major issue was (and still is) how to provide indicators for which data exists worldwide. The current status of SDGs indicators can be divided into three categories (UN Environment, 2019, p. 60): • Tier 1: The indicator is conceptually clear, has an internationally established methodology and standards are available, and data are regularly produced by countries for at least 50 per cent of the countries and population in each region where the indicator is relevant. • Tier 2: The indicator is conceptually clear, has an internationally established methodology and standards are available, but data are not regularly collected by countries. • Tier 3: There are no internationally established methodologies or standards for the indicator yet, but methodologies/standards are being (or will be) developed or tested. (At the time of the 51st meeting of the

2  Well-Being, UN Sustainable Development Goals and Global… 

17

UN Statistical Commission, the global indicator framework does not contain any indicators of Tier III indicators.) The sources for the development of the SDG indicator framework are multilateral environmental agreements and scientific literature. The global SDG indicator framework consists of 231 indicators (some of them are used for two or three different goals/targets, resulting in the list of 247 SDG indicators), with the expectation that these indicators will provide reliable data for monitoring the process of achieving the set goals until at least 2030 (United Nations, 2018). As there is already an ongoing discussion on the monitoring of the SDGs and their targets in the period 2030–2050, the main points relevant to the cooperation with GEM in this process are listed here. The cluster of SDGs on human well-being and the cluster of SDGs on sustainable production and consumption are most relevant for analysing the capacity of GEM indicators to contribute to monitoring progress towards sustainability. In planning the future pathways towards sustainability, the focus is on long-term systemic changes based on social and technical innovations. This process must be accompanied by the creation and maintenance of “an enabling policy environment in which to scale these ideas and solutions appropriately” (UN Environment, 2019, p. 547). These enabling conditions are specified as follows: • supportive conditions for scaling innovation (establishing and supporting markets for innovation; supporting innovation e­ xperimentation and learning; mobilising financial resources; engaging and enabling actors and stakeholders), • disruptive conditions for weakening existing, problematic structures (control policies; rules reform; reducing existing regime support). Another lesson learned from monitoring progress towards the SDGs and their targets is that the selected indicators are expected to monitor progress at the global level, not always at the national or sub-national level. The SDG Index was launched in parallel with the adoption of the UN SDGs for 2030, as complementary information to the set of official SDG indicators used to monitor progress in implementing the SDGs. The

18 

S. Singer

intention of the SDG Index is to provide aggregate information on countries’ overall performance in achieving all 17 SDGs (Lafortune et  al., 2018). The history of the SDG Index (Sustainable Development Report) is similar to that of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor survey—in 1999, the founders of GEM wanted to know why the 10 most developed countries were entrepreneurial and why the United States was more entrepreneurial than the most developed countries; with the SDG Index, UN wanted to explore how 34 high-income countries were performing against the identified Sustainable Development Goals by finding an answer to the question: are rich countries ready for the SDGs? (Kroll, 2015). In both cases, differences were found that led to important conclusions about the need for a more detailed understanding of how to monitor processes to achieve the goals/targets and that only contextual policies can be effective. It is interesting to learn that this first “stress test” of the use of the composite SDG Index which summarises the performance of all 17 goals, revealed five countries that are best prepared for the SDGs (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Switzerland; Kroll, 2015, p.  88). The 2021 Sustainable Development Report introduced new and revised indicators that required retroactive calculation of the SDG Index to maintain a comparison over time (Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Belgium are among the top five) (Sachs et al., 2021). The GEM indicators are based on the conceptual framework of GEM (see Fig. 2.2). Using the UN classification, they can be labelled as a Tier 2 category—conceptually clear but not regularly produced by at least 50 per cent of countries (which is a prerequisite for Tier 1 status). The GEM indicators are based on data collected from randomly sampled individuals (on their perceptions of their own behaviour in relation to entrepreneurial activity) and a group of selected experts (on their opinions of the quality of entrepreneurship context/institutions) (Fig. 2.3). Interrelations among those groups of indicators are shown in Fig. 2.2. Societal values: • • • •

Similar standard of living is desirable. Being an entrepreneur is a good career choice. High societal status for a successful entrepreneur. Positive media attention to entrepreneurship.

2  Well-Being, UN Sustainable Development Goals and Global… 

19

GEM indicators Focused on individuals' behaviour (Adult population survey)

Societal values

Individual attributes

Focused on the quality of entrepreneurship context (institutions) (National environment survey)

Entrepreneurial activity

Fig. 2.3  Structure of GEM indicators, based on the GEM conceptual framework. Source: authors

Individual attributes: • Perception of good opportunities to start a business in the area where a person lives. • Perceived personal capabilities about having the required skills and knowledge to start a business. • Perceived intentions about starting a business within three years. • Perceived fear of failure which prevents a person to start a business. Entrepreneurial activity: • Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA), as a percentage of the adult population who are in the process of starting a business (a nascent entrepreneur) or started a business less than 42 months old. This indicator can be observed from the perspective of motivation (opportunity vs. necessity), inclusiveness (gender, age), impact of the business (new jobs, innovation, internationalisation) and industry sectors. • Rate of “established” businesses, as a percentage of the adult population who are currently an owner of an “established” business, that is, managing their own business that has paid salaries to employees and the owner for more than 42 months.

20 

S. Singer

• Business discontinuation rate, as a percentage of the adult population who are either a new entrepreneur or an owner of an “established” business that has discontinued a business in the past 12 months, either by selling, shutting down or otherwise. • Entrepreneurial Employee Activity (EEA), as a percentage of the adult population who, as employees, have been involved in entrepreneurial activities such as developing new goods/services or setting up a new business unit. • Social Entrepreneurial Activity (SEA), as a percentage of the adult population who are engaged in early-stage entrepreneurial activity with a social goal (not produced annually). Perception of the quality of the entrepreneurship context (entrepreneurial framework conditions): • Access to entrepreneurial finance. Sufficient funds are available to new start-ups, from informal investment and bank loans to government grants and venture capital. • Government policy: –– Government policy: support and relevance. Government policies promote entrepreneurship and support those starting a new business venture. –– Government policy: taxes and bureaucracy. Business taxes and fees are affordable for the new enterprise. Rules and regulations are easy to manage, without undue burden on the new business. • Government entrepreneurship programs. Quality support programs are available to the new entrepreneur at local, regional and national levels. • Entrepreneurial education: –– Entrepreneurial education at school. Schools are introducing ideas of entrepreneurship and instilling students with entrepreneurial values such as enquiry, opportunity recognition and creativity. –– Entrepreneurial education post-school. Colleges, universities and business schools offer effective courses in entrepreneurial subjects, alongside practical training on how to start a business.

2  Well-Being, UN Sustainable Development Goals and Global… 

21

• Research and development transfer. Research findings, including from universities and research centres, can readily be translated into commercial ventures. • Commercial and professional infrastructure. There are sufficient affordable professional services such as lawyers and accountants to support the new venture, within a framework of property rights. • Ease of entry to the market: –– Ease of entry: market dynamics. There are free, open and growing markets where no large businesses control entry or prices. –– Ease of entry: market burdens and regulations. Regulations facilitate, rather than restrict, entry. • Physical infrastructure. Physical infrastructure (such as roads), Internet access and speed, the cost and availability of physical spaces are adequate and accessible to entrepreneurs. • Social and cultural norms. National culture encourages and celebrates entrepreneurship, including through the provision of role models and mentors, as well as social support for risk-taking. The GEM informational products are indicators presenting the perceptual evaluation of each component of the GEM conceptual framework. There is no overall composite index, except the National Entrepreneurial Context Index (NECI) based on all components of the entrepreneurial environment. The GEM survey is using standardised surveying tools: • Adult population survey (APS)—is designed to capture the attitudes, behaviours and expectations of at least randomly selected 2000 adults, 18–64 years of age, statistically representative of age, gender, education and territorial distribution in an economy. The APS is conducted via a mix, appropriate to each economy, of face-to-face or telephone interviews, increasingly supplemented by online participation. • National environment survey (NES)—is conducted with a minimum of 36 experts in each country, who provide assessments of the extent to which the statements about the entrepreneurial framework conditions (EFC) are completely untrue (0) to completely true (10). In 2018, GEM introduced the National Entrepreneurship Context Index

22 

S. Singer

(NECI), which summarises, in one number, the average state of an economy’s environment for entrepreneurship. The NECI score for any given economy is the arithmetic mean of that economy’s EFC scores, and, like those scores, it is measured on a Likert scale from 0 to 10. A stable portfolio of indicators provides comparisons over time— interventions in measurement are carefully calibrated by cost/benefit thinking (benefit of better measures vs. loss because the comparison with the past is damaged). There are no global targets to monitor, but two aspects of comparison are offered to identify patterns and trends: • Horizontal comparison (between countries participating in the same year). • Vertical comparison (over a period of several years, for one country— in this case, it is possible to monitor progress towards targets set at country level or even at sub-national level). With its main assets (conceptual framework and data collected through standardised survey instruments), GEM can contribute to the discussion on building sustainable human well-being.

References Bosma, N., Schøtt, T., Terjesen, S. A., & Kew, P. (2016). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2015 to 2016: Special Topic Report on Social Entrepreneurship. Available at SSRN 2786949. Bosma, N., Hill, S., Ionescu-Somers, A., Kelley, D., Guerrero, M., & Schott, T. (2021). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2020/2021 Global Report. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, London Business School. Herrington, M. (2017). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Policy Briefs 2017. https://www.gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId=49813 Hrotko, J., Rueda-Sabater, E., Lang, N., & Chin, V. (2019). Measure Well-­ Being to Improve it. The 2019 Sustainable.

2  Well-Being, UN Sustainable Development Goals and Global… 

23

Kroll, C. (2015). Sustainable Development Goals: Are the Rich Countries Ready? Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Bertelsmann Stiftung, Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI). Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., Moreno, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., & Kroll, C. (2018). SDG Index and Dashboards Detailed Methodological Paper. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. OECD. (2011). How’s Life?: Measuring Well-Being. OECD Publishing. https:// doi.org/10.1787/9789264121164-­en OECD. (2020a). How’s Life? 2020: Measuring Well-being. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9870c393-­en OECD. (2020b). How’s Life? 2020: Measuring Well-being. The Facts in a Few Slides. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/statistics/how-­s-­ life-­23089679.htm Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. In Capital in the Twenty-­ First Century. Harvard University Press. Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and Ideology. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Piketty, T. (2022). A Brief History of Equality. Harvard University Press. Quick, A. and Devlin, S. (2018). Measuring Wellbeing Inequality: What Are Appropriate Indicators of Wellbeing Inequality? Working Paper on the Selection of a Headline Indicator. New Economics Foundation. Reynolds, P. D., Hay, M., & Camp, M. (1999). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 1999, Executive Report. Babson College, Kaufmann Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership and London Business School. Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., & Fuller, G. (2021). Sustainable Development Report 2021: The Decade of Act on for the Sustainable Development Goals (Includes the SDG Index and Dashboards). Cambridge University Press. Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press. Sen, A. K. (1980). Equality of What? In S. McMurrin (Ed.), Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Cambridge University Press. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. http://www.stiglitz-­ sen-­fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf Stiglitz, J. E., Fitoussi, J.-P., & Durand, M. (2019). Measuring What Counts: The Global Movement for Well-being. The New Press. Terjesen, S., Lepoutre, J., Justo, R., & Bosma, N. (2012). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2009 Report on Social Entrepreneurship. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA).

24 

S. Singer

UNESCO, Global Education Monitoring Report. (2016). Education for People and Planet: Creating Sustainable Futures for All. UNESCO Publishing. United Nations. (2016a). Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators. United Nations. https://unstats. un.org/unsd/statcom/48th-­session/documents/2017-­2-­IAEG-­SDGs-­E.pdf United Nations. (2016b). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2016. United Nations. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2016/the%20sustainable%20development%20goals%20report%202016.pdf United Nations. (2018). Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/71/313. E/CN.3/2018/2. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/ Global%20Indicator%20Framework%20after%20refinement_Eng.pdf United Nations Environment Programme. (2019). Global Environment Outlook  – GEO-6: Healthy Planet, Healthy People. https://wedocs.unep. org/20.500.11822/27539.

3 Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals Kevin Walker

3.1 Introduction The UN SDGs with their targets have challenged the entire indicator industry and opened up an opportunity for partnership on the goals through SDG 17, especially with two targets related to data, monitoring and accountability: • By 2020, significantly increase the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migration status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in the national context (Target 17.18). • By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measures of progress towards sustainable development that complement gross domestic product and support statistical capacity building in developing countries (Target 17.19).

K. Walker (*) RIT Croatia, Dubrovnik, Croatia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Singer et al. (eds.), Entrepreneurship and Well-being, Sustainable Development Goals Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19181-7_3

25

26 

K. Walker

The expected time to achieve Target 17.18 is already behind us, and Target 17.19 is just around the corner. Such timelines require a more intensive discussion on the available metrics needed to monitor the process of achieving the identified targets of the UN SDGs, which is a prerequisite for more effective collaboration among indicator producers. In addition to GEM indicators, there are several other indices that can be relevant for such collaboration. Composite indexec have been regularly used to operationalise a variety of multidimensional constructs such as competitiveness and corruption. In some cases, these indices are reflexive in nature and use indicators that represent incidental outcomes of the construct. Such an approach is often used in psychology and management sciences. Other indices take a formative approach, measuring the presence or extent of antecedent factors for the unit under study. Sociological and economic studies usually follow this approach (Coltman et al., 2008). A more recent exponent in the field of composite indices is the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with their 17 goals, 169 targets and 231 associated indicators (United Nations, 2017a). The SDGs reflect changing values in society and aim to highlight and improve the well-being of individuals and the planet. With these efforts comes the need to monitor progress. As Peter Drucker once said, “If you can not measure it, you can not manage it” (Zak, 2013). Existing composite indices can potentially contribute to SDG efforts, as some of the information they capture is related to the SDGs. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) is one such example, as evidenced by the number of papers that apply data from GEM to the SDGs (see Chap. 4). In addition to a number of questions that have long targeted the SDGs, indicators have been added to the 2021/2022 report that explicitly ask respondents about the social and environmental impact of their new ventures on communities. Respondents are also asked whether they are aware of the 17 SDGs and whether they have selected SDGs as priorities for their ventures (GEM, 2022). See Appendix 1 for the exact wording of the questions. Other indices covering a variety of topics, from competitiveness to values, also have the potential to contribute to the pursuit of the SDGs.

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

27

The next section will address issues around composite indices. A brief overview of some of the best-known composite indices and their relationship to the SDGs follows: the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report and Index, Gallup-Sharecare’s Well-being and Global Well-being Indices, Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, the World Values Survey, the Human Development Index, the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report and Index, and the Global Innovation Index. Only indices that have a broad international scope, given the global nature of the SDGs, and are published regularly (annually) were considered. The purpose of this review is not to analyse and critique the indices but to provide information about them and how they support or can potentially support the SDGs. A summary follows with reflections on what the future holds for composite indices and SDGs.

3.2 Composite Indices Composite indices are a means of crystallising a multidimensional construct into a single value. The fundamental purpose of a composite index is to distil a number of different inputs describing or related to a phenomenon into a single summary number (Szerb & Acs, 2010). In an attempt to find a quantitative measure of non-measurable phenomena, composite indices combine measurable antecedent or related indicators. Viewed mathematically, the score of a composite index is based on the individual indicators and the way they are aggregated, taking into account their weights and the means of aggregation. The result of an index, a score or rank for the unit in question (countries, schools, etc.) provides fodder for data-driven policy discussions (Saisana & Saltelli, 2008).

28 

K. Walker

3.2.1 Arguments For and Against Composite Indices The debates about adequacy and utility have been described as pitting those who value the pragmatic aspect of composite indices against those who are not satisfied with their analytical rigour (Saltelli, 2007). Support for composite indices exists in at least four areas (Saisana & Tarantola, 2002 and Nardo et al. 2005a, 2005b, as cited in Saltelli, 2007). As mentioned earlier, composite indices can distil multidimensional concepts into a single number. Composite indices take a top-level view, allowing complex topics to be ranked. Composite indices can create buzz through their ranking reports and draw attention to the index topic. Finally, composite indices are efficient because they reduce a potentially large number of indicators and data to a single number. Saisana and Saltelli (2011) note that the acceptance of composite indices is increasing because they can be used to benchmark best practices. Opponents of composite indices also point to four problems (Saisana & Tarantola, 2002 and Nardo et al., 2005a, 2005b, as cited in Saltelli, 2007). If the index is flawed or poorly constructed, policymakers might draw less than optimal conclusions from the results. The construction of the composite index requires judgement, which leads to uncertainty. When considering composite indices compared to indicators, the potential for disagreement between stakeholders or affected parties is greater with composite indices. Finally, composite indices can increase the amount of data needed, as ideally data is needed for all individual indicators. Another criticism is that composite indices hide or waste data (Saisana et al. 2005 as cited in Saltelli, 2007).

3.2.2 Constructing Composite Indices The OECD (2008) has published its manual on the construction of composite indicators, which describes 10 steps for the construction of a composite index. These steps are taken from the OECD manual and include:

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

29

1. Theoretical/conceptual framework construction—a model of the phenomenon in question that clearly defines how it is created, identifying components and sub-components. 2. Data selection—individual indicators should be selected based on several criteria, including coverage, measurability, relation to one another and connection to the index phenomenon. 3. Data treatment—includes dealing with missing data and testing for and treating outliers. 4. Multivariate analysis—this analysis examines the structure of the dataset, including weights and aggregation, evaluating its suitability to capture the phenomenon in question (principal components analysis, or PCA, factor analysis and Cronbach alpha are common techniques). 5. Normalisation—transforming varied data with no common unit of measurement into a comparable form; also includes scaling if necessary. 6. Weighting and aggregation—applied index weights and aggregation should match the theoretical framework. 7. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis—uncertainty analysis, or robustness testing, evaluates how individual sources of uncertainty (imputed data, weighting method, weights, normalisation, aggregation rule) move through the computation of the index score, affecting rankings, and sensitivity analysis examines the extent to which any one unique uncertainty source impacts the variance of scores and ranks. 8. Relation to other indicators—attempt to link the composite index to other indicators, aiding in the progression of data-driven discussions. 9. Decomposition into the underlying indicators—the composite index should be transparent so that scores are fully understandable, and one can understand why and how a score was achieved. 10. Visualisation of the results—the composite index results should be presented and explained in the most clear and accurate fashion. Based on modelling, uncertainty, it should be noted, can enter a composite index at a number of stages, at least nine (Nardo et al. 2005a as cited in Saisana & Saltelli, 2008):

30 

K. Walker

1 . Measurement error in the data. 2. Elected approach for selecting indicators. 3. Selected truncation or trimming technique of data. 4. Amount of missing data and, if done, imputing methodology. 5. Chosen normalisation technique. 6. Weighting method (for example, equal weights or those based on expert opinion). 7. Selection of weights attached to each individual indicator. 8. Level of aggregation, if more than one is used. 9. Aggregation technique (additive, multiplicative, or non-compensatory). One argument in support of composite indices is that aggregating a set of indicators actually helps to reduce the measurement errors associated with the individual indicators, provided there is no correlation in measurement errors, as can be the case when using “single source” data (Kaufmann & Kraay, 2008).

3.2.3 Literature Review of Composite Indices A number of papers have examined various aspects of the formation of composite indices, pointing to some of their perceived weaknesses. As mentioned earlier, composite indices can mislead policymakers or individuals into making simplistic or flawed decisions. For example, an analysis of two widely respected global university ranking indices suggests that the results of the indices reflect the perspective of the index creators rather than the users of the indices, that is, students and policymakers (Saisana et al., 2011). In addition, the paper states that composite indices, including the two analysed in the chapter, frequently violate Step 10 of the OECD’s composite index formation guide, overstating the results and not clearly indicating how they should be interpreted. Rankings are often presented as if little or no uncertainty has entered into the considerations, which is not the case, and that all interested parties should accept them as given. Consumers of composite index scores are rarely

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

31

reminded of or made aware of the inherent uncertainty that is included in the scores (Saisana et al., 2011). Uncertainty or robustness and sensitivity analyses should indeed be carried out, as indicated in Step 7 of the OECD’s composite index formulation suggestions, as a way to determine how accurate and reliable the index results are. Monte Carlo simulations that introduce change into the index’s parameters (e.g. in weighting, aggregation and normalisation) are often used to test robustness. For other techniques, see Permanyer (2011). Another common complaint lodged against composite indices relates to their normative nature, which relates to the subjective construction of their theoretical models (Paolo et al., 2013). The decisions made regarding the structure of the composite index, its pillars, sub-pillars, components, individual indicators, weights, etc. are all normative decisions based on the developer’s “… system of norms and values”. The topic of weights has received much attention in the literature. A common misconception is that weights are equated with importance, and sometimes they are presented as such. Developers of composite indices are aware of this misunderstanding but do little to correct it. In fact, linear or additive aggregations use the weights associated with two individual indicators to form a ratio that represents the rate of substitutability between them. This ratio represents the relative importance of the two individual indicators. The actual importance of each indicator can be compared ex post with the desired relative importance (Boyssou et  al. 2006 as cited in Paolo et al., 2013). A study was conducted to determine whether the intended composite indices or the stated importance of the individual indicators reflected their actual importance. To this end, the study measured the importance of each indicator using Karl Pearson’s correlation ratio and referred to this measure as the “main effect”. The results indicated that in some cases the intended or stated importance differed greatly from the “main effect”. This, of course, has implications for policy as composite indices may provide misleading information to policymakers (Boyssou et al. (2006) as cited in Paolo et al., 2013). Furthermore, the above-mentioned study, using an analysis of the 2009 Human Development Index (HDI), suggests that the data

32 

K. Walker

correlation structure of a composite index may actually create a situation where index developers cannot produce the meaning of indicators that they intended or indicated. The study notes that in the case of the 2009 HDI, although four indicators had weights ranging from 0.11 to 0.33, all four indicators were roughly equally important. Other problems with the data set can cause the developers’ intention to weight the indicators to become invalid. For example, if one of the pillars in a composite index has relatively low variance associated with it or the pillar is not correlated with the other pillars, then the pillar in question will likely have a very small contribution to the index (Boyssou et al. (2006) as cited in Paolo et al., 2013). PCA has been used to determine weights, but the resulting values do not necessarily match the normative description of the index. Consequently, the weighting scheme is counterintuitive and difficult to explain, leading to the limited use of PCA to determine the weights (Boyssou et al. 2006 as cited in Paolo et al., 2013). Moreover, the use of a simple weighted average has the advantage that the developer is protected from accusations of employing a random methodology (Szerb & Acs, 2010). Permanyer (2011) and the OECD (2008) handbook have listed a number of other well-known weighting techniques: data-driven techniques (such as data envelopment analysis or DEA), factor analysis, cluster analysis, repression-based weights and normative approaches (public or expert opinion). Arithmetic weighting draws additional criticism due to its “compensatory” nature, which refers to the fact that when an arithmetic (or linear) aggregation is used, strengths in some dimensions can compensate for weaknesses in other dimensions. In other words, the loss of a unit loss in one pillar, dimension or individual indicator can be recovered or substituted with a unit gain elsewhere. Moreover, this substitutability characteristic of the arithmetic mean is the same regardless of the level of the individual indicator in question. This fact is met with criticism, as it is pointed out that when using arithmetic aggregation, an increase in life expectancy of one year is equally important for all countries, regardless if the life expectancy in the country is 35 of 75 (Permanyer, 2011). Non-­ linear aggregation methods exist, such as geometric averaging, but the

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

33

linear approach is widely used (Boyssou et  al. 2006  as cited in Paolo et al., 2013). The literature distinguishes between important and determinant factors/indicators. A sample of tourism experts revealed that while certain factors are important for destination competitiveness, they are not considered crucial in determining travellers’ destination choices. Safety/security, for example, was considered one of the top 10 factors for a destination, but not a deciding factor in the choice of destination selection. It is suggested that all destinations considered safe by travellers are safe and that safety is therefore not a major factor in choosing a destination (Crouch, 2011).

3.2.4 Goals of Composite Indices Despite the criticism levelled at composite indices, they continue to gain in importance, as already mentioned. Their end is not in sight. What are all these composite indices trying to achieve? The brief review of the composite indices in this study revealed that a large proportion of the indices desire to help policymakers and provide them with a tool for their deliberations. For others, such as Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), the main objective seems to be lobbying. Note, for example, that Transparency International uses its CPI in an effort to reduce corruption in the public sector. Similarly, some indices aim to raise awareness of what is being measured by the index. Finally, there are indicators such as Newsweek’s World’s Best Countries index that appear to be financially motivated, even though they are not covered here. If Newsweek succeeds in generating interest and enthusiasm for its index, it may be able to sell more magazines and charge advertisers more money.

3.3 Prominent Composite Indices Following are brief reviews of seven well-known and respected composite indices: World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report and Index; Gallup-Sharecare’s Well-being and Global Well-being Indices;

34 

K. Walker

Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index; World Values Survey; Human Development Index; World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report and Index; and Global Innovation Index. Key information including indices’ intention/goals/objectives, description and users or target audiences is provided. Additionally, connections or ties between the indices and SDGs are addressed. Note that unless otherwise noted, all information pertaining to the following composite indices was taken from the respective reports and indices’ websites.

3.3.1 World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report and Index1 One of the most comprehensive and widely recognised composite indices, the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Competitiveness Index (GCI)  and associated Global Competitiveness Report ranks countries’ competitiveness as defined as “the set of institutions, policies and factors that determine the level of productivity”. While the GCI was introduced in 2004, the first Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) was launched in 1979. Responding to an ever-changing environment, the GCI’s methodology has changed over the years, with the fourth and current iteration arriving in 2018.

Intention/Goals/Objectives The GCI strives to rank economies based on their competitiveness, measuring the roles played by both macroeconomic and microeconomic factors. In this process, the index examines the production potential of countries, providing insight as to why some countries, economically speaking, outperform other countries. These insights will potentially provide policymakers and people of influence with valuable information that could be useful in shaping policies and institutional changes intended to improve country competitiveness in productivity, growth and human development in the Fourth Industrial Revolution environment.  Source: http://www.weforum.org/reports/.

1

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

35

Furthermore, the index’s author, the WEF, will use the index’s results to gather and pull together practices from around the world that have increased countries’ competitiveness. The GCI positions itself as a unique benchmarking tool that many economic stakeholders can use. Governments can use the GCI as a means to identify hindrances to competitiveness and economic growth, and aid in the development of new policies. Academics can use the GCI while analysing business environments, comparing and contrasting them. Community organisations will be better informed in terms of understanding their country’s competitiveness and what impacts it. Following research and academic literature trends, the GCI, since 2011, has been attempting to ascertain how the concept of sustainability interacts with and affects economic competitiveness. Specifically, social and environmental sustainability and their impacts on competitiveness have been considered.

Description The most recent GCI, 2019 (2020’s effort was impacted by Covid-19 and a special edition was published in lieu of the standard GCI and Report), covered 141 countries that produce 99% of the world’s GDP. As a composite index, the GCI comprises 12 pillars (Institutions, Infrastructure, ICT Adoption, Macroeconomic Stability, Health, Skills, Product Market, Labour Market, Financial System, Market Size, Business Dynamism and Innovation Capability) that contain 103 individual indicators. Indicator data is taken from the WEF’s Executive Opinion Survey that surveys approximately 15,000 business executives from around the world each year. From an index aggregation standpoint, the index is un-weighted and uses arithmetic means to aggregate index components at one level to the next. As such, the imputed weighting of each of the 12 pillars is approximately 8.3%. Note that the GCI groups the 12 pillars into four sub-indices (Enabling Environment, Human Capital, Markets, and Innovation Ecosystem) for analysis and presentation purposes, but the sub-indices are not part of the GCI’s computation.

36 

K. Walker

Country profiles constitute the bulk of the GCR, providing a comprehensive three-page summary of countries’ competitiveness. In addition to providing the top-level GCI score and rank, the highest values and ranks for all 103 indicators and 12 pillars are provided for each country. Top-­ performing country information for indicators and pillars is also supplied. To provide context for each country, the GCR shares additional information for each country, including its population and economic-­ related metrics (GDP per capita, 10-year average annual GDP growth %, GDP (PPP) % of world GDP, and 5-year average FDI inward flow % GDP). Environmental and social performance metrics are also provided: environmental footprint gha/capita, renewable energy consumption share %, unemployment rate %, Global Gender Gap Index (gender parity), and Income Gini.

Users As previously mentioned, the GCI and GCR are primarily directed at policymakers, and index’s insights are intended to provide policymakers and others (businesses, academics, community groups, etc.) with valuable information that could be useful in shaping policies and institutional changes intended to improve country competitiveness and ensuing economic growth as well as standards of living. The GCR and GCI scores and rankings (available in pdf and Excel) are available free of charge on the GCR website.

Connections to UN Sustainable Development Goals The GCR has explicitly recognised the UN SDGs and has identified links between the GCI and its focus on growth and SDGs. Through the GCI, the GCR has been supplying economies with evaluations of their drivers of growth, their competitiveness. And the GCR argues that growth has been recognised as the most effective way to reduce poverty and improve standards of living. This is directly connected to SDG 8 which strives for “sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth”. Pertaining to

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

37

SDG 8, the WEF (2019) regrettably notes that the least developed countries have not been meeting the 7% targeted growth rate since 2015. The GCR also connects economic growth as a contributor to meeting Goal 1 (ending poverty). Notably, the 2019 GCR (WEF, 2019) dedicates a chapter to describing linkages among growth, shared prosperity (or income equality/inequality), sustainability and competitiveness. The GCR argues that economies must no longer see economic growth and sustainability as a zero-sum game, whereby growth must come at the expense of sustainability, but must consider new policies and approaches that allow for growth, inclusion and sustainability—tenets of the SDGs (WEF, 2019).

3.3.2 Gallup-Sharecare’s Well-Being and Global Well-Being Indices2 The index, initially limited to the United States, began in January 2008, with the formation of an envisioned 25-year partnership between Gallup and Healthways (Sharecare later acquired Healthway’s health business). The index extended its reach in 2013 and created a global survey that included 135 countries, the Gallup Global Well-Being Index.

Intention/Goals/Objectives This index intends to be the largest ever database related to well-being of people from around the globe, providing detail regarding people’s attitudes and actions related to five intertwined dimensions of well-being: career (or purpose), social, financial, community and physical. These five dimensions are a modification to the original model which had six dimensions: Life Evaluation, Emotional Health, Work Environment, Physical Health, Healthy Behaviour and Basic Access.  Source: How Does the Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index Work? Global Indicator: Employee Wellbeing - Gallup Country Well-Being Varies Greatly Worldwide (gallup.com) https://www.globalwellbeinginitiative.org/.

2

38 

K. Walker

The survey is intended to allow for a greater understanding of how well-being factors influence the financial health of firms and communities. Survey data will provide community leaders, policymakers, employers and others with valuable information that will help guide them to make decisions that positively impact individuals’ well-being. Various leaders and people of influence, armed with data from this survey, will be well positioned to develop strategies and policies to meet the needs of their communities. It should be noted that Gallup has teamed with the Wellbeing for Planet Earth Foundation in 2019 to form the Global Wellbeing Initiative, seeking to broaden the scope and monitoring of well-being. To that end, consideration will be given to culture, community, governance and nature in the development of new well-being models, providing additional dimensions to the consideration of well-being and making it more inclusive. Outcomes from this undertaking are intended to be shared in a report, the World Wellbeing Report.

Description From a philosophical perspective, the survey derives its sweeping approach to well-being from the World Health Organization’s broad definition of health as “not only the absence of infirmity and disease, but also a state of physical, mental, and social well-being”. More formally, the index draws on work performed by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman in the area of well-being for the theoretical foundation of the index questions and construction. Building on Kahneman’s discussion of experienced and evaluative well-being, the index developed experience-related questions pertaining to what respondents experienced in the prior 24  hours and evaluative questions regarding how they feel about various aspects of their lives. The Cantril “self-anchoring striving scale” is employed for the life evaluation. The index has been updated and the most recent version, as of January 1, 2014, uses a new set of questions, Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being 5™. While previously composed of six elements, the top-level Gallup-­ Sharecare Well-Being Index now has five elements (or indices in Gallup’s

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

39

Table 3.1  Five elements of the Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index Index

Description

Purpose

Liking what you do each day and being motivated to achieve your goals Social Having supportive relationships and love in your life Financial Managing your economic life to reduce stress and increase security Community Liking where you live, feeling safe and having pride in your community Physical Having good health and enough energy to get things done daily

terminology; note that other indices typically refer to lower-level indices as sub-indices or pillars), as seen in Table 3.1. The survey employs a number of so-called bridge questions so as to allow for continuity and comparability between the two versions of the survey. As done before, the survey also asks respondents about their daily emotions and life evaluation. The survey was initially restricted to the United States (the Well-Being Index) and now, starting in 2013 when over 133,000 interviews were conducted in 135 countries, includes countries from around the world (the Global Well-Being Index). Both the United States and world surveys employ the same five aforementioned indices. The Global survey has two questions/indicators with a 0–10 response set for each of the five indices. No similar information is publicly available for the US survey. The US survey is conducted on a daily basis and results are presented in selected time-frames: daily, weekly and monthly; however, the global survey only provides results on a monthly basis. An explicit description of the Well-­ Being Indices is not publicly available in that interested parties are directed to contact Gallup via email.

Users Gallup and others publish a number of stories on Gallup survey data. Gallup alone published over 100 articles reflecting attitudes and behaviours of people from more than 140 countries. A simple Google search of well-being provides an extensive list of (American) media outlets that

40 

K. Walker

generate new stories based on the Well-Being Index, including LiveScience, Business Week, USA Today, The New York Times, ABC News and others. If one desires a particular data set or something for custom research, one can request such information from Gallup via its webpage.

Connections to UN Sustainable Development Goals The Well-Being Indices are not explicitly connected to SDGs by Gallup (Gallup does not state that its survey can assist in the monitoring of SDGs), but it is readily apparent that such a connection exists. Gallup acknowledges that objective metrics such as GDP, life expectancy and unemployment rates capture a measure of a country’s and its people’s success; however, Gallup posits that well-being is a broader concept that includes subjective measures. As an example of the relevancy and importance of subjective metrics, Gallup notes that GDP does not correlate with well-being. Gallup notes that studies suggest the existence of relationships between well-being and health, productivity and resiliency with those individuals having higher levels of well-being more healthy, productive and resilient (when facing difficulties). Additionally, these individuals (with higher levels of well-being) are more capable of attending to their own needs and, importantly for obtainment of SDGs, feel more capable of contributing to the success of others around them. Noting that subjective well-being correlates with commonly tracked items such as healthcare costs, productivity and business performance, Gallup recommends that policymakers include well-being as a measure of performance along with traditional objective indicators like GDP (Standish & Witters, 2014).

3.3.3 Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index3 Transparency International (TI), an organisation committed to rooting out corruption worldwide, publishes the Corruption Perceptions Index  Source: 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index - Explore the… - Transparency.org.

3

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

41

(CPI), an index that scores countries based on how corrupt their public sectors are perceived to be. The CPI’s publisher, TI, was established in 1993 with the expressed interest of addressing a then taboo topic—namely, corrupt practices of public officials. At this time, there was no measure of corruption on a global scale. TI strove to build an international network of national chapters. With more than 100 national chapters, TI published its first CPI in 1995 and has done so since on an annual basis. Data is comparable from 2012 to the present.

Intention/Goals/Objectives In the broadest sense, TI and its index seek to help create a world in which government, business, civil society and people’s daily lives are corruption free. Moreover, in addition to stamping out corruption, TI has a parallel goal of encouraging transparency, accountability and integrity throughout society’s sectors. TI is more than an index that provides, as do other indices, information to policymakers. TI uses its own CPI index as a means of advancing its own agenda of increasing transparency and alleviating corruption. To that end, TI has mission (“Our mission is to stop corruption and promote transparency, accountability and integrity at all levels and across all sectors of society”), vision (“Our vision is a world in which government, politics, business, civil society and the daily lives of people are free of corruption”) and values (“transparency, accountability, integrity, solidarity, courage, justice, and democracy”) statements on its website (Transparency International, n.d.). Also included are 11 guiding principles, most recently updated in 2011, regarding how they will conduct themselves in their efforts to complete their mission and achieve their vision. These principles are based on their aforementioned values. The CPI serves TI’s greater purpose by raising awareness related to global corruption and by providing a forceful advocacy tool for those encouraging government to enact reforms. TI practices what it preaches. Its sources of funding as well as its spending practices are transparent.

42 

K. Walker

Description The index annually examines, as determined by expert opinion and business people (TI supplements the CPI with its Global Corruption Barometer that surveys ordinary people regarding corruption), the perceived levels of public sector corruption in countries around the world, assigning them a score from zero (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). The 2021 index measured perceived corruption in 180 countries. The CPI is a composite index that is built on a combination of assessments and surveys of corruption. Data (indicators) for the index must meet specific criteria (from a trusted source; based on a valid methodology; quantifiable representation of public sector corruption; variable such that differences between countries are identifiable; includes a large number of countries; relies solely on experts or business people; and current/ timely). Data is standardised to a 0–100 scale, with 0 indicating very corrupt and 100 signifying very clean. Countries must have a minimum of three sources in order to be included, and countries’ scores are the average of the available sources, rounded to a whole number. The index points out that it evaluates perceived public sector corruption, not society-level corruption. The CPI does not include, for example, private sector corruption activities. Scores, in addition to being provided at the country level, are also provided at the world and region levels, including the Americas, EU and Western Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East and North Africa, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Users Any and all people interested in combatting, analysing or working on public sector corruption are the intended audience of this survey. Survey results are available on the website, free of charge.

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

43

Connections to UN Sustainable Development Goals Transparency International explicitly recognises and identifies its works’ connections with the UN SDGs. TI states that it has 17 priority areas (related to corruption) and two of them mention SDGs, Grand Corruption and Sustainable Development Goals. Grand Corruption, in an extreme form, involves the transformation of government into the equivalent of a criminal organisation that works to benefit itself rather than the governed. In this case, government structures are altered to support this activity. It is clear that SDGs, in general, are not obtainable when the governing class has enriching itself as its top priority. TI’s Sustainable Development priority webpage includes a section dedicated to explaining why anti-corruption efforts are critical for SDGs. It is remarked that corruption harms marginalised citizens as it hinders economic growth, promotes inequality and misallocates resources. TI has developed a tool that directly monitors SDG targets 16.4, 16.5, 16.6 and 16.10 that serves as a “shadow report” that supplements the CPI. TI has made additional efforts to support the SDGs, specifically SDG 1 (poverty), SDG 3 (health) and SDG 4 (education). To that end, TI has developed a resource guide and e-learning course that monitor, prioritise and identify corrective actions against corruption in these areas. Additionally, TI has turned its attention to the misuse of money that could be directed at meeting SDGs, publishing a working paper on corruption in the area of blended finance.

3.3.4 World Values Survey4 The survey is produced by the World Values Survey Association, a non-­ profit group located in Stockholm, Sweden. The World Values Survey (WVS) traces its origins to a study conducted by the European Values Survey (EVS) group in 1981. Ten West European countries participated in this initial study, and, after learning of the effort, an additional 14  Source: WVS Database (worldvaluessurvey.org) https://europeanvaluesstudy.eu/.

4

44 

K. Walker

countries followed suit, giving rise to the WVS. The WVS and the EVS, then, are two separate cross-national longitudinal research programmes. Countries, to a large extent, participate in one survey or the other, but not both. In an effort to merge their data, the two survey groups have elected to harmonise their variables and terminology. Additionally, they make each other’s data available on each other’s websites, as well as producing integrated data files. The initial WVS work from 1981 constitutes what the surveys term the first wave study. Subsequent waves have followed. The WVS waves have occurred in the 1981–1984, 1989–1993, 1994–1999, 1999–2004, 2005–2007, 2010–2017 and 2017–2020 periods. The WVS is currently focusing on in its eight waves, surveying from 2023 to 2026. Following waves are anticipated to occur every five years.

Intention/Goals/Objectives The WVS is dedicated to documenting and tracking different societies’ beliefs, values and motivations on a wide range of topics, including political and social life. As the survey name states, this is a global effort that strives to cover the bulk of the world’s people. To date, the WVS, in conjunction with the EVS, has completed surveys in approximately 100 countries that collectively comprise almost 90% of the world’s population. Equipped with such an extensive database, the survey attempts to provide researchers and policymakers with a tool to explore a society’s feelings regarding cross-level and longitudinal links between, for example, public values and economic growth. The survey provides a means for researchers and others to explore changing beliefs, values and norms of people from around the world. In order to facilitate the implementation of world-wide surveys, the survey group seeks to build a world-wide network of social scientists who are interested in conducting surveys and participating in gaining a more complete understanding of social change. Included in this effort is the desire to create and share a state-of-the-art methodology for social surveys.

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

45

Description The WVS researches a number of topics and contains close to 250 or more questions in total. Topics and questions do vary to some degree from one wave to the next. The next wave, for example, will retain about 150 questions (or 60%) from the prior wave and introduce around 100 new questions. This approach allows for a level of continuity as well as for the introduction of new and emerging issues. The last (seventh) wave, having 290 questions, for example, covered 11 topics from the earlier (sixth) wave (gender, family, religion, poverty, education, health, security, social tolerance, trust, multilateral institutions and cultural differences/ similarities between societies) and introduced 7 new topics (justice, moral principles, corruption, accountability and risk, migration, national security and global governance). These topics were grouped in a way that produced 14 sub-sections, each having 6–49 questions. Additionally, three unique thematic and regional modules (Political Trust, Gender, and Middle East and North Africa) were produced.

Users The WVS has as its main aim the facilitation of research and understanding longitudinal and cross-sectional evolutions and relationships in societal beliefs, values and norms. Policymakers and researchers are certainly an intended audience for the WVS, yet survey data is available for anyone who has a related interest, including NGOs, schools and foundations. Aiding researchers and others in their efforts, the WVS has an online analysis tool that allows one to access specific waves and perform analyses. Reflective of the WVS’s broad appeal, the WVS claims that over 30,000 publications are based on the WVS and over 60,000 citations can be found for WVS in Google Scholar. The WVS has an official online paper series with its own ISSN.  Submitted papers, of course, must be based on WVS data. The website has a full list of downloadable documents as well as books that have utilised WVS data.

46 

K. Walker

According to the survey, news media, including Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Economist, the World Development Report and the UN Human Development Report, have carried stories related to the WVS.

Connections to UN Sustainable Development Goals The WVS has made a commitment to monitoring the progress of the SDGs and their targets, having 100 indicators tracking them. Specifically, WVS has questions related to SDG 1 (poverty), SDG 2 (hunger), SDG 3 (health), SDG 4 (education), SDG 5 (gender), SDG 8 (work and growth), SDG 11 (sustainability), SDG 13 (climate), SDG 16 (institutions) and SDG 17 (partnerships). As previously mentioned, the WVS introduces new topics in each wave. Fortuitously, of the seven proposed topics for the next wave, wave eight, three address or map to SDGs, as seen in Table 3.2.

3.3.5 Human Development Index5 The United Nations Development Programme, through its publication of the Human Development Report (HDR), publishes the Human Development Index (HDI) annually, covering 189 countries. The HDI’s Table 3.2  World Values Survey and its relevance to SDGs Proposed WVS Wave 8 topic

SDG mapping

Climate change and environmental protection

SDG 12: Responsible consumption and production SDG 13: Climate action SDG 16: Peace, justice and strong institutions SDG 3: Good health and well-being

Authoritarianism (authoritarian principles and values, norms and practices) Responses to disasters (pandemic or other)

 Source: Human Development Index | Human Development Reports (undp.org).

5

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

47

first development is traced to a dissatisfaction of GDP as the generally accepted measurement for development. Instead of solely relying on monetary or economic-oriented metrics as measures of human development, the HDI takes a more expansive approach, looking at aspects of human life when gauging human development and examining people’s opportunities and choices. The index’s human development approach was developed by Mahbub ul Haq, a Pakistani economist, who used Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s research as a foundation. As stated by the HDI’s authors, economic growth is not seen as the end goal, but as a means to increase human development.

Intention/Goals/Objectives As the index’s name suggests, the index attempts to provide a summary measure of human development, a measure that is not restricted to per capita income, but one that captures multiple dimensions of human development (Fukuda-Parr, 2003). The intention is transitioning the examination of human development from being economic-centred to people-centred. The index and report were never intended to be a one-off snapshot capturing human development. It has always had an eye towards outlining a comprehensive approach to development, one that analyses policy, supplies tools for analysis and provides an overall theoretic framework for development discussions. Ultimately, the index intends to give policymakers the capability to examine varied difficulties that disadvantaged people face, providing policymakers with a multidimensional framework to address difficulties as opposed to set established practices (Fukuda-­Parr, 2003). The HDRs go beyond simply providing results to the annual index, but the reports use the index as a basis to analyse trends and developments and use these analyses to recommend and suggest policies.

Description The HDI is an annual composite index, 1990 being the first year, that distils the state of human development, as defined by the index, into a

48 

K. Walker

single number. The index’s approach and modelling are very similar to and rely on the concept of human capabilities (Klugman et al., 2011). Per the index’s theoretical understanding of human development, the three main drivers of human development include the ability of people to lead a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and obtainment of a decent standard of living (Klugman et al., 2011). The index strives to include as many UN member states as possible. In order to be included, countries must be able to provide data via their national statistical office and relevant international data agencies. The functional form of the index is quite sparse and straight-forward. The index utilises four indicators to create three indices or dimensions, which are, in turn, used to create the HDI. A somewhat unique aspect of the HDI is that since 2010 it is determined with a geometric and not arithmetic mean, decreasing substitutability (when a poor performance in one dimension is offset by a strong dimension) among dimensions that can occur when arithmetic means are used. Regarding weights, equal weights are used to reflect the notion that people value the index’s three dimensions equally. The four indicators include life expectancy at birth (representing the ability of people to lead a long and healthy life), mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling (together serving as a proxy for access to knowledge), and Gross National Income (GNI) per capita (PPP$), reflecting obtainment of a decent standard of living. Two of the three dimension indices, the Life Expectancy Index and GNI Index, are derived solely from their accompanying indicators. The Education Dimension Index is formed by combining the two schoolingrelated indicators, mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling. In addition to HDI scores and rankings, the report provides raw, non-­ normalised data for indicator values. The report also categorises countries based on their score and rank into four quartiles: very high human development, high human development, medium human development and low human development.

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

49

Users Since its inception, the index and HDR have enjoyed high levels of interest from a number of groups, including policymakers, academics and the media. Its success has been attributed to its ability to simplify and represent with a single number the extent of human development in any given country (Klugman et al., 2011). The index is considered the most influential in its area, much more so than its main competitor, the World Bank’s World Development Report (Gartner & Xu 2006 as cited in Klugman et al., 2011). The report, in addition to its annual launch, creates interest and notoriety by commissioning a number of research papers.

Connections to UN Sustainable Development Goals While the HDR and HDI do not explicitly identify their potential ties to the SDGs, connections are readily identified. The three dimensions map well to specific SDGs, as seen in Table 3.3. Additionally, a central tenant of the HDI and to human development is the issue of human choice; the more choices people have, the more developed the society. Arguably, choice is connected to well-being and the SDGs in that choice is inherent to many of them. As an obvious observation, people living above the poverty line have more choices in terms of what they eat, where they live, leisure time activities and so on.

3.3.6 World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report and Index6 The World Economic Forum is responsible for producing the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI). The index was first published in 2006 and evaluated 115 countries. It has been published annually since 2006, and the latest edition, 2022, considers 146 countries of which 102 have participated every year.  Source: https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2022/digest.

6

50 

K. Walker

Table 3.3  HDI relevance to SDGs HDI Dimension

HDI Indicator(s)

Long and healthy life Knowledge

Life expectancy at birth Expected years of schooling Mean years of schooling GNI per capita (PPP$)

Decent standard of living

HDI Dimension Index Life expectancy Education

GNI

SDG 3—Health and well-being 4—Quality education

1—No poverty

Intention/Goals/Objectives The index strives to quantify the differences in female/male economic, political, education and health-based criteria, providing a framework to do so that facilitates country, region and income level comparisons over time. Note that the index measures gaps and not levels, thus controlling for a country’s stage of development. The index outputs, scores and ranks pertaining to gender inequality are intended to raise awareness related to gender gaps as well as the benefits associated with reducing said gaps. As part of this effort, the index promotes countries that, within a certain region and/or income group, are performing relatively well, sharing resources between the sexes better than their regional and economic peers. Furthermore, the index highlights the correlation between a country’s gender gap and its overall national competitiveness. Overall, the index wants to initiate and encourage a global dialogue that works towards increasing visibility of the gender gap issue and rectifying it. As such, the index also wants to include as many countries as possible in its analyses.

Description The index produces scores ranging from 0 to 100 for each country. Based on the index’s construction, scores are interpreted as to what extent the

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

51

gender gap has reached parity. As such, a score of 100 indicates that no gender gap exists. Index scores can be used to estimate how many years will be required to close the gender gap. As an example, the 2022 report revealed that the global score is 68.1%, suggesting that 132 years will pass before gender equality is achieved on a global basis. The index’s foundation that drives its construction and selection of indicators is based on three concepts. First, as previously stated, the index analyses gaps and not levels. An impoverished country where men and women are economically equal scores are higher (or better) in this index (in the economic dimension) than does a wealthy country where men are economically advantaged vis-à-vis women. In this index, it does not matter that the wealthy country woman is economically better off than the impoverished country woman, what matters for this index is the gender gap. Second, the index measures gaps in output variables as opposed to input variables. For example, the index tracks differences in the number of women and men in public office (an output), but it does not look at length of maternity leave (an input variable). Third, the index ranks countries based on gender inequality and not women’s empowerment. This is a critical point in that it means that countries do not gain points in the index (they are not rewarded) if women outperform men in any indicators; there is no substitutability. Countries can only lose points in this index (based on inequality in index indicators). The index has four sub-indices that represent the four fundamental categories that are considered when evaluating the gender gap: Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment. Dispersed among the sub-indices are 14 indicators, of which only one, “Wage equality for similar work” from the WEF’s Executive Opinion Survey, is “soft” data. So as to include as many countries as possible, a minimum of 12, not all 14, indicators are required for inclusion in the index. Given the aforementioned three concepts upon which the index is built, it is instructive to review the process by which index scores are determined. Notably, the index’s methodology has remained stable since its inception, allowing for comparability and longitudinal studies. Country index scores are computed via a four-step process (WEF, 2022).

52 

K. Walker

In the first step, all the aforementioned female/male comparison data is transformed to ratios. The index points out, again, that this allows the index to gauge gaps and not attainment levels. The second step involves truncating ratios at a value of one. This is done so that countries are not rewarded for areas in which women outperform men. Such an approach, again, would measure empowerment of women as opposed to equality, the intent of the index. Two variables are not truncated, the gender variable at birth (the “normal” gender ratio at birth is 1.06 males per females, creating a “normal” truncation value of 0.944) and healthy life expectancy variables. Using weighted averaging, sub-index scores are calculated in the third step. Weights are assigned to indicators via a normalisation process that equalises the indicators’ standard deviations. This is done so that each indicator has the same relative impact on the sub-index’s score. The fourth and final step is the calculation of the index score. Data must be available for 12 of the 14 indicators in order for a country to be included in the study. The arithmetic average of the four sub-indices produces the index score.

Users The index is interested in influencing policymakers and others as they address gender inequality. The index takes pains to point out that it is concerned with inequality and not empowerment. As such, women’s strong performance in one of the index’s four sub-indices cannot make up for a poor performance in another sub-index. The report and all the index scores are available online, free of charge. Additionally, an interactive digital Data Explorer tool is provided, allowing report readers to explore the data. An Excel spreadsheet containing report data is also available.

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

53

Connections to UN Sustainable Development Goals Given the GGGI’s apparent obvious connection to SDG 5 (Gender inequality), it is interesting to note that SDG 5 is not mentioned in the Global Gender Gap Report, especially when the WEF did mention SDGs in its 2019 Global Competitiveness Report (WEF, 2019, 1). It is clear, however, that the GGGI does follow and adhere to SDG activities as it changed one of its education indicators so that it matched an SDG 4 indicator. Also note that when reviewing the WEF’s web presence, one does find a page explicitly connecting the Global Gender Gap Report to SDG 5, including an interactive graphic that allows one to explore different aspects of gender inequality in five areas: Gender-based Violence, Gender and Religion, The Care Conundrum, Economic Opportunity and Poverty and Gender Wage Gaps.

3.3.7 Global Innovation Index7 The World Intellectual Property Organization and the Portulans Institute publish the Global Innovation Index (GII) along with a number of corporate sponsors, including the Brazilian National Confederation of Industry (CNI), Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Ecopetrol (Colombia) and the Turkish Exporters Assembly (TIM). The GII assessed 107 countries in its first publication in 2007. Since 2007, the index has expanded its scope of interest and analysed 132 countries in regard to their innovation ecosystems.

Intention/Goals/Objectives The GII, as stated in its first publication, endeavours to determine and describe how countries innovate. As the concept of innovation becomes more complex, the index hopes to uncover appropriate metrics that embody the fullness of innovation.  Source: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/Home.

7

54 

K. Walker

The motivation behind the index is multi-faceted. As innovation is widely accepted as playing a role in spurring economic growth and governments increasingly incorporate innovation into their growth strategies, an advanced understanding of innovation is desirable in order to enable sound policymaking. As innovation has become more widely studied, there is a growing appreciation for the horizontal nature of innovation, for its existence in areas other than those that have been traditionally identified, such as levels of research and development, and the index meets the associated need for a more full measure of innovation. Furthermore, efforts such as the GII serve to celebrate and draw attention to innovation, encouraging future innovators, particularly those in emerging markets, to act. As stated in index documentation, the index and its publication pursue a number of objectives. The index strives to encourage the global discussion surrounding innovation. As such, the index provides metrics that allow researchers and policymakers to gauge innovation and its associated policies, highlighting areas of strength and weakness and acting as a benchmarking tool and promoting innovation-related discussions. As innovation’s nature is rich in content and evolving, the index is constantly adjusting and fine-tuning its methodology in an attempt to more completely capture it.

Description This annual indices, currently covering 132 economies, comprises two sub-indices, the Innovation Input Sub-Index and the Innovation Output Sub-Index, which have five and two pillars, respectively. Each of the seven pillars has three sub-pillars that contain two to five individual indicators. And note that some of the indicators are actually indices. The Input Sub-Index’s five pillars include: Institutions, Human Capital and Research, Infrastructure, Market Sophistication and Business Sophistication. The three sub-pillars, respectively, for these pillars are: Political Environment, Regulatory Environment, and Business Environment; Education, Tertiary Education, and R&D; ICTs, General Infrastructure, and Ecological Sustainability; Credit, Investment, and

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

55

Trade, Diversification, and Market share; Knowledge Workers, Innovation Linkages, and Knowledge Absorption. The Output Sub-Index has Knowledge & Technology Outputs and Creative Outputs as pillars. The corresponding sub-pillars are Knowledge Creation, Knowledge Impact, and Knowledge Diffusion and Intangible Assets, Creative Goods & Services, and Online Creativity. In sum, the GII has two sub-indices, seven pillars and 81 indicators. Note that this structure is not fixed as the index is constantly modified, seeking to improve. For example, the initial GII in 2007 had three pillars as part of the Innovation Output Sub-Index as compared to the current two. Additionally, 20 of the 84 indicators from the 2012 edition were modified for the 2013 edition. Furthermore, 11 changes to indicators were made in the 2021 edition versus 2020. As such, the index states that it should be viewed more as a cross-sectional study than a time-series, longitudinal one as year to year comparisons are cumbersome (Cornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO, 2021). GII sub-pillar, pillar, sub-index and index values are not aggregated via simple arithmetic means, but are somewhat unique. As a starting point, certain indicators are weighted. Weights do not represent “importance coefficients”, but, rather, “scaling coefficients”. The weights provide scaling that allows for the balancing in the underlying components of sub-­ pillar and pillar scores. As such, the weighted indicators produce a situation in which the contribution of the individual indicator in the indicator/sub-pillar relationship is balanced with the variance in the sub-­ pillar/pillar relationship (Cornell University et al., 2015). Once the weights have been assigned, the sub-pillar scores are computed as the weighted average of the indicators. Likewise, pillar scores are the weighted average of the sub-pillars. The Innovation Input Sub-Index and Innovation Output Sub-Index are both simple averages are their respective pillars. Finally, the top level GII is a simple average of the Innovation Input and Output Sub-indices. One additional measure, the Innovation Efficiency Ratio, is determined by dividing the Innovation Output Sub-Index by the Innovation Input Sub-Index. It should be noted that the GII takes pains to position itself as an effort that pursues the highest standards in index creation by adhering to best practices in composite index formation and doing so in a transparent

56 

K. Walker

fashion. To that end, since 2011, the index has been reviewed by the European Commission Joint Research Centre’s (JRC) Econometrics and Applied Statistics Unit. In 2013, the JRC was asked to both confirm the statistical coherence and conceptualisation of the index and to assess the ramifications of modelling assumptions on GII outputs. The JRC’s statistical audit of the 2013 index consisted of four steps: conceptual consistency; data checks; statistical coherence, including principal component analysis, uncertainty analysis, and sensitivity analysis; and qualitative review. This analysis supports the notion that the 2013 GII conceptual model is statistically coherent and balanced. Moreover, the analysis supported the selection and application of the weights as well as the aggregation of levels methodology. Results can be found in the country rankings as well as individual country profiles. Each country profile provides five variables (population, GDP PPP$, GDP per capita PPP$, income group and region of the world) that place the country in context. Input Rank, Output Rank, current year GII Rank, and prior year GII Rank are provided for the country in question. Additionally, individual scores and rank for each indicator, sub-pillar and pillar are provided. Note that indicators that are weighted are indicated. The combined information allows the reader to recreate sub-pillar, pillar, sub-index and GII values. The country report also indicates identifies strengths and weaknesses, per indicator, in the country.

Users The index states that its efforts to create an ever-improving transparent index are directed at policymakers. By providing more transparent and reliable information, the index hopes to aid policymakers in their efforts. The index is available in pdf format from the index website. This report was not able to confirm if all 81 indicators are freely available. Links are provided to the reports that provide the data, but it was not confirmed if the general public has access.

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

57

Connections to UN Sustainable Development Goals The latest GII Report does not explicitly connect its work and findings to SDGs, yet it does collaborate with the SDG effort. Note that WIPO does have what is termed a Special Representative on the UN SDGs. Additionally, the GII has been identified by the UN Economic and Social Council in its 2019 resolution on Science, Technology and Innovation for Development as “an authoritative benchmark for measuring innovation in relation to the SDGs” (Cornell et al., 2021). This same information can be found on WIPO’s online pressroom (WIPO, 2021).

3.4 Conclusions Composite indices have their supporters and detractors. It is difficult to refute, however, that they represent an appealing way to summarise and condense multidimensional constructs into one manageable value. As mentioned earlier, one of the keys to indices success is data—the data used in determining index values. Composite indices, particularly those that are established and reputable, are uniquely suited to assist in the UN SDGs project as one of its guiding principles is that data collection should not place new burdens pertaining to the collection of national-level data; composite index data already exists (United Nations, 2017b). Data sourced from such indices add credibility and rigour to the UN SDG efforts. Importantly, from a data standpoint, this study’s reviewed surveys are almost all conducted annually (with the World Values Survey being the exception) and include a large number of countries, providing substantial coverage. On another promising note, four (World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report and Index; Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index; World Values Survey; and World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report and Index) of the seven reviewed indices explicitly make a connection between what they survey and SDGs. The Global Innovation Index does not connect its work directly to SDGs in its report; however, they do collaborate with the SDG effort,

58 

K. Walker

having a Special Representative to the SDG effort as well as being recognised as the official benchmark for innovation as associated with SDGs. Gallup-Sharecare, while not stating a connection to the SDGs, indirectly supports SDGs as its literature highlights how well-being influences aspects of personal and business/economic life. Likewise, the Human Development Index does not explicitly mention SDGs, yet its indicators are representative of individual SDGs and, when combined in the HDI, address aspects of human (as opposed to planet) well-being. Performance evaluation has been undergoing a change. It is no longer accepted that economic-related metrics fully and completely capture performance and development. The Global Competitiveness Report, Gallup-­Sharecare and the Human Development Index, for example, directly argue economic metrics alone do not effectively capture performance and development. A more holistic and inclusive model, as encapsulated by the UN SDG, is taking hold. In some cases, composite indices are already aligned with this movement as they consider impacts of activities on people as well as the planet. Given that it seems unlikely that most SDGs will be met by the 2030 deadline (WEF, 2019), work remains so as to fully consider how indices can play a contributory role in the overall SDG effort.

References Boyssou, D., Marchant, T., Pirlot, M., & Tsoukias, A. (2006). Evaluation and Decision Models with Multiple Criteria: Stepping Stones for the Analyst. Springer. Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative Versus Reflective Measurement Models: Two Applications of Formative Measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250–1262. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.013 Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO. (2015). The Global Innovation Index 2015 Effective Innovation Policies for Development. WIPO. Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO. (2021). Global Innovation Index 2021 Tracking Innovation Through the COVID-19 Crisis. WIPO.

3  Composite Indices and Their Potential Contribution… 

59

Crouch, G. I. (2011). Destination Competitiveness: An Analysis of Determinant Attributes. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 27–45. https://doi. org/10.1177/0047287510362776 Fukuda-Parr, S. (2003). The Human Development Paradigm: Operationalizing Sen’s Ideas on Capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2/3), 301–317. Gaertner, W., & Xu, Y. (2006). Capability Sets as the Basis of a New Measure of Human Development. Journal of Human Development, 7(3), 311–321. GEM (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor). (2022). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2021/2022 Global Report: Opportunity Amid Disruption. GEM. Kaufmann, D., & Kraay, A. (2008; 2007). Governance Indicators: Where Are We, Where Should We Be Going? The World Bank Research Observer, 23(1), 1-30. Klugman, J., Rodríguez, F., & Choi, H. (2011). The HDI 2010: New Controversies, Old Critiques. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 9(2), 249–288. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., & Giovannini, E., (2005a). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 2005/03, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/533411815016 Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005b). Tools for Composite Indicators Building. EUR 21682 EN. 2005. JRC31473. OECD. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators. Methodology and User Guide. OECD. Paolo, P., Saisana, M., & Saltelli, A. (2013). Ratings and Rankings: Voodoo or Science? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 176(3), 609–634. Permanyer, I. (2011). Assessing the Robustness of Composite Indices Ranking. The Review of Income and Wealth, 57(2), 306–326. Saisana, M., & Saltelli, A. (2008). Expert Panel Opinion and Global Sensitivity Analysis for Composite Indicators (pp. 251–275). Springer. Saisana, M., & Saltelli, A. (2011). Rankings and Ratings: Instructions for Use. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2), 247–268. Saisana, M., & Tarantola, S. (2002). State-of-the-Art Report on Current Methodologies and Practices for Composite Indicator Development. European Commission, Joint Research Centre. EUR 20408 EN. Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Techniques as Tools for the Quality Assessment of Composite Indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 168(2), 307–323.

60 

K. Walker

Saisana, M., d’Hombres, B., & Saltelli, A. (2011). Rickety Numbers: Volatility of University Rankings and Policy Implications. Research Policy, 40(1), 165–177. Saltelli, A. (2007). Composite Indicators Between Analysis and Advocacy. Social Indicators Research, 81(1), 65–77. Standish, M & Witters, D. (2014). Country Well-Being Varies Greatly Worldwide. Retrieved from Country Well-Being Varies Greatly Worldwide (gallup.com). Szerb, L., & Acs, Z. J. (2010, June). The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index methodology. Paper presented at the Druid Summer Conference on Opening Up Innovation: Strategy, Organization and Technology. Transparency International (n.d.). Mission, Vision, Values. Retrieved from Mission, Vision, Values - The Organisation - Transparency.org. United Nations. (2017a). Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2039 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/71/313. E/CN.3/2018/2. New York. United Nations. (2017b). Report of the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators. Retrieved from https://tcg.uis. unesco.org/wp-­content/uploads/sites/4/2020/10/TCG-­7-­REF-­1.pdf WEF (World Economic Forum). (2019). The Global Competitiveness Report 2019. WEF. WEF (World Economic Forum). (2022). Global Gender Gap Report 2022. WEF. WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). (2021). Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2021/article_0008. html#:~:text=The%20Global%20Innovation%20Index%202021%20 (GII)%2C%20in%20its%2014,(Colombia)%2C%20and%20the%20 Turkish Zak, P. (2013). Measurement Myopia. Retrieved from https://www.drucker. institute/thedx/measurement-­myopia/

4 Overview of Selected Studies on GEM Indicators and SDGs Petra Mezulić Juric and Tihana Koprivnjak Popović

4.1 Introduction The SDGs were created as part of the largest participatory process ever undertaken by the UN as 10 million people around the world expressed their views in the discussion on how to shape the 2030 Agenda. Therefore, the UN 2030 SDGs are not only seen as a guide for all countries in the world but also seen as their responsibility to contribute to the achievement of the UN 2030 SDGs. Entrepreneurship is traditionally seen as a key factor for economic development (Harper, 2003). The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has broadened this traditional perspective by emphasising the sustainability aspect of achieving socio-economic and environmental stability. In addition, the new concept of sustainable entrepreneurship has been recognised by scholars as an important factor for both economic

P. Mezulić Juric (*) • T. Koprivnjak Popović J.J. Strossmayer University in Osijek, Osijek, Croatia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Singer et al. (eds.), Entrepreneurship and Well-being, Sustainable Development Goals Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19181-7_4

61

62 

P. Mezulić Juric and T. Koprivnjak Popović

and non-economic development, as it offers solutions to various environmental and social problems (Hall et al., 2010). Since 1999 (when the first survey was conducted in the 10 most developed countries), the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) survey has become the largest study on entrepreneurship, with 115 countries from around the world participating (in different years) (GEM Consortium, 2021). GEM Consortium publishes its research findings in annual global reports, and national teams present country findings in national reports. In addition, GEM produces special reports on a variety of topics important for a deeper understanding of the entrepreneurship phenomenon, such as entrepreneurial education, gender analysis, social entrepreneurship, innovation and growth, and finance (see https://www. gemconsortium.org/report). From the beginning, GEM reports (global, national, and special reports) have mainly focused on the phenomenon of entrepreneurship as conceptualised in the conceptual framework of GEM, without explicitly referring to other global indicators (sustainable development, well-being, competitiveness, etc.). It is therefore important to examine how GEM researchers (involved in GEM national teams) have participated in the global discussion on UN Sustainable Development Goals and where they saw opportunities to contribute with research using GEM data.

4.2 Methodology The main objective of this analysis was to provide an overview of the research on UN SDGs conducted by researchers through GEM surveys and using GEM data. These rigorous (and narrow) criteria were intended to test whether researchers so heavily involved in the GEM survey recognised the opportunity to contribute to the global discussion on UN SDGs. Two sources were used to collect papers produced by GEM researchers: all national GEM research teams were invited in 2021 to submit information on papers published by GEM researchers using GEM data and referencing UN SDG(s). Six national teams provided references for 14 papers that were not available on the GEM consortium website. A total of 1180 papers listed on the GEM Consortium website (https:// www.gemconsortium.org/research-­papers) for the period 2003–2021

4  Overview of Selected Studies on GEM Indicators and SDGs 

TIMEFRAME OF THE RESEARCH

63

GEOGRAPHICAL AFFILIATION OF AUTHORS

Criteria for literature review analysis DEVELOPMENT LEVEL OF COUNTRIES COVERED BY RESEARCH development level of countries analysed in the papers

THEMATIC COVERAGE thematic focus of the reviewed papers (which SDGs were analysed using GEM data)

Fig. 4.1  Criteria for the review of selected papers. Source: authors

were searched using the following keywords: United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals, UN SDGs, SDGs. A further 16 papers from five different countries were identified. Subsequently, 31 papers were analysed in depth, focusing on the following four criteria (Fig. 4.1). The following analysis is aware of the bias in the sample of papers identified. This limitation does not allow us to draw more general conclusions about trends and patterns of the evolving themes but does not prevent us from making observations that can be understood as an open invitation to be challenged by mainstream academic research.

4.3 Timeframe UN SDGs received wider attention after 2015, when they were adopted by the UN General Assembly for the period 2015–2030. However, they build on the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which covered the period 2000–2015. UN MDGs consisted of eight goals that the UN member states sought to achieve by 2015.

64 

P. Mezulić Juric and T. Koprivnjak Popović

Selected reviewed papers have shown that it took 15 years for researchers to see the UN SDGs as a research challenge. All papers analysed were published in the period after 2015 (Table 4.1). The papers presented show an increasing interest in using GEM data to discuss the UN SDGs (by explicitly referring to UN SDGs or SDGs), and at the same time some researchers are recognised by their research interest in this area. The majority of the papers use time series of GEM data to show changes over time and identify trends. This confirms the stable portfolio of GEM indicators that allow comparisons over time. One paper focuses on the theoretical discussion of how and why GEM data is relevant in the context of UN SDGs without conducting an empirical investigation using a specific dataset from GEM (Maslak, 2018). Table 4.1  Selected papers by year of publication Year of publication

Used GEM data from the period

2016

2013 2001–2012 2011–2014 2011–2013 2011–2013 2011–2014

2017

2001–2012 2011–2014 2011–2016 2010–2014

2018 2019

/ 2005–2013 2012–2013 2011–2016 2017

Authors Annink, A., Den Dulk, L. & Amorós, J.E. (2016) Černý, J., Pilková, A., & Rehák, J. (2016) Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., Kovačičová, Z. (2016a) Holienka, M., Pilková, A., & Jancovicová, Z. (2016b) Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., & Kovačičová, Z. (2016c) Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., Kovačičová, Z (2016d) Pilková, A., & Rehák, J. (2017) Pilková, A., Holienka, M., & Jančovičová, Z. (2017a) Pilková, A., Mikuš, J., Holienka, M. (2017b) Rehák, J., Pilková, A., Jančovičová, Z., Holienka, M. (2017) Maslak M.A. (2018) Amorós, J. E., Ciravegna, L., Mandakovic, V. and Stenholm, P. (2019) Guerrero, M., Amorós, J. E., & Urbano, D. (2019) Pilková A., Mikuš J. & Káčer J. (2019) Moya-Clemente, I., Ribes-Giner, G. & Pantoja-Díaz, O. (2019) (continued)

4  Overview of Selected Studies on GEM Indicators and SDGs 

65

Table 4.1 (continued) Year of publication

Used GEM data from the period

2020

2017

2012–2013 2018 2015–2018 2007–2012 2011–2017 2009

2021

2013 2004–2016 2013 2014–2017 2016–2017 2018 2016, 2019 2009

2022

2008, 2010, 2019–2020

Authors Cervelló-Royo, R., Moya-Clemente, I., Perelló-Marín, M. R., & Ribes-Giner, G. (2020) Guerrero, M. (2020) Huđek, I., & Bradač Hojnik, B. (2020) Mitra, B., Dwivedi, A.K. (2020) Murzacheva, E., Sahasranamam, S., & Levie, J. (2020) Pilková A., Mikuš J., Káčer J. (2020) Sahasranamam, S., & Nandakumar, M. K. (2020) Tam B.T.M., Leetrakun P. (2020) Ul Ain, N., Sabir, S., & Asghar, N. (2020) Amorós, J. E., Cristi, O., & Naudé, W. (2021) Crecente, F., Sarabia, M., & del Val, M. T. (2021) Guerrero, M., Mandakovic, V., Apablaza, M., & Arriagada, V. (2021) Ouazzani, K. E., González-Pernía, J. L., Jung, A., & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2021) Roomi, M. A., Saiz-Alvarez, J. M., & Coduras, A. (2021) Sahasranamam, S., Nandakumar, M. K., Pereira, V., & Temouri, Y. (2021) Zabala, A., Ghalwash, S., Ismail, A. & Peña-Legazkue, I. (expected to be published 2022)

Source: authors

4.4 Geographical Affiliation of Authors of Selected Papers UN SDGs were launched as a universal call to build a better world, a world where there is a perspective for ending poverty and inequality and protecting the planet. Despite many important global initiatives, the process to achieve these goals is still slow and requires more action from everyone in the world. Therefore, the second criterion for reviewing the selected papers focuses on the parts of the world from which researchers

66 

P. Mezulić Juric and T. Koprivnjak Popović

come to explore the UN SDGs using GEM data. It was also important to analyse whether their geographic affiliation influences their research focus on a national or global level. The question underlying this part of the analysis is whether GEM researchers from developed countries are more interested in researching the Sustainable Development Goals or whether researchers from underdeveloped countries may be more sensitive to issues related to well-being, inequality, and sustainable development. Table 4.2 provides an overview of the geographical spread of the papers analysed as well as the level of analysis conducted by the authors. In the case of an international collaboration of authors from different countries, the papers were assigned to the continent where most of the authors come from or where the first author comes from. Using the criterion of the geographical location of the authors, the analysis of 31 papers provides some interesting points (again, not a generalisation, but a challenge for further research): • There is not a single paper from Africa and Australia. • The majority of papers are from Europe (21), followed by South America (5), Asia (4), and North America (1). In Europe, researchers from Slovakia are the most active (with 11 papers), followed by researchers from Spain. • All but one of the papers are the result of teamwork and there are 12 international author teams, which is a very good sign of building networked research capacity. • Most of the papers have a global focus, which varies from comparing two countries, to analysing countries belonging to one world region (e.g. Europe), to countries belonging to a specific political/economic group (e.g. Visegrad countries) or a broader coverage of countries around the world (with up to 70 countries). • There are only three papers that focus on a single country (Slovakia, the United Kingdom, and Chile—the latter is also the only paper that focuses on the sub-national level, analysing 16 Chilean regions). • Two papers use the methodological perspective to demonstrate the possibility of using GEM data to better understand progress towards the UN SDGs (Maslak, 2018; Roomi et al., 2021).

Australia

North America South America

Africa Asia

(continued)

• Guerrero, M. - Chile, Amorós, J.E. - Mexico & Urbano, D. - Spain (2019) - international collaboration - global-­level analysis of 28 countries • Amorós, J.E. - Mexico, Ciravegna, L. - United Kingdom and Costa Rica, Mandakovic, V. - Chile & Stenholm, P. - Finland (2019) - international collaboration - global-level analysis of 51 countries • Guerrero, M. - Chile, Mandakovic, V. - Chile, Apablaza, M. - Chile, & Arriaga- da, V. - Chile (2021) - national-level analysis of 16 Chilean regions • Guerrero, M. - Chile (2020) - global-level analysis of 20 countries • Amorós, J. E. - Mexico, Cristi, O. - Chile, & Naudé, W. - The Netherlands (2021) - international collaboration – global-level analysis of 70 countries /

/ • Ul Ain - Pakistan, N., Sabir, S. - Pakistan & Asghar, N. - Pakistan (2020) – global-level analysis of 33 developing countries • Mitra, B. - India, Dwivedi, A.K. - India (2020) – national-­level analysis India • Tam B.T.M. - Thailand & Leetrakun P. - Thailand (2020) - analysis of six Southeast Asian countries • Roomi, M. A. - Saudi Arabia, Saiz-Alvarez, J. M. - Ecuador, & Coduras, A. - Spain (2021) - international collaboration • Maslak M.A. - Unites States of America (2018) - global perspective, importance of goals as a route towards economic equality

Geo­ graphical location of authors Authors/level of analysis national versus global

Table 4.2  Geographical affiliation of authors and level of analysis (national vs global)

• Černý, J. - The Netherlands, Pilková, A. - Slovakia & Rehák, J. - Slovakia (2016) -international collaboration - European analysis of 30 countries • Pilková, A. - Slovakia & Rehák, J. - Slovakia (2017) - European analysis of 32 countries • Pilková A. - Slovakia, Mikuš J. - Slovakia & Káčer J. - Slovakia (2019) - Europe - an analysis of 30 countries • Huđek, I. - Slovenia & Bradač Hojnik, B. - Slovenia (2020) – global-level analysis of 46 countries • Pilková, A. - Slovakia, Holienka, M. - Slovakia & Jančovičová, Z. - Slovakia (2017a) - European analysis of Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) • Pilková A. - Slovakia, Mikuš J. - Slovakia & Káčer J. - Slovakia (2020) - European analysis of 30 countries • Holienka, M. - Slovakia, Jančovičová, Z. - Slovakia & Kovačičová, Z. - Slovakia (2016c) - European analysis of Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) • Holienka, M. - Slovakia, Jančovičová, Z. - Slovakia & Kovačičová, Z. - Slovakia (2016a) - European analysis of Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) • Rehák, J. - Slovakia, Pilková, A. - Slovakia, Jančovičová, Z. - Slovakia & Holienka, M. - Slovakia (2017) - European analysis • Pilková, A. - Slovakia, Mikuš, J. - Slovakia & Holienka, M. - Slovakia (2017b) - national-level analysis of Slovakia • Holienka, M. - Slovakia, Pilková, A. - Slovakia & Jancovicová, Z. - Slovakia (2016b) - European analysis of Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) • Sahasranamam, S. - United Kingdom & Nandakumar, M.K. - India (2020) - international collaboration - global-level analysis of 53 countries • Murzacheva, E. - United Kingdom, Sahasranamam, S. - United Kingdom & Levie, J. - Ireland (2020) - international collaboration national-level analysis of United Kingdom • Moya-Clemente, I. - Spain, Ribes-Giner, G. - Spain & Pantoja-Díaz, O. - Ecuador (2019) - international collaboration - global-level analysis of 50 countries • Annink, A. - The Netherlands, Den Dulk, L. - The Netherlands & Amorós, J.E. - Mexico (2016) - international collaboration - global-level analysis of 51 countries • Holienka, M. - Slovakia, Jančovičová, Z. - Slovakia, & Kovačičová, Z. - Slovakia (2016d) - European analysis of Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) • Crecente, F. - Spain, Sarabia, M. - Spain, & del Val, M. T. - Spain (2021) - European analysis of 22 countries • Cervelló-Royo, R. - Spain, Moya-Clemente, I. - Spain, Perelló-Marín, M. R. - Spain, & Ribes-Giner, G. - Spain (2020) - global-level analysis of 57 countries • Ouazzani, K. E. - Morocco, González-Pernía, J. L. - Spain, Jung, A. - Uruguay, & Peña-Legazkue, I. - Spain (2021) - international collaboration comparison of two countries Spain and Morocco • Zabala, A. - Spain, Ghalwash, S. - Egypt, Ismail, A. - Egypt & Peña-Legazkue, I. - Spain (2022) unpublished - international collaboration - comparison of two countries Egypt and Spain • Sahasranamam, S. - United Kingdom, Nandakumar, M. K. - India, Pereira, V. - United Arab Emirates, & Temouri, Y. United Kingdom (2021) international collaboration - global perspective

Source: authors

Europe

Geo­ graphical location of authors Authors/level of analysis national versus global

Table 4.2 (continued)

4  Overview of Selected Studies on GEM Indicators and SDGs 

69

These findings reaffirm the validity of GEM indicators for cross-­ country comparisons based on standardised survey instruments anchored in GEM conceptual framework.

4.5 Did Income Level of Countries Play a Role in Empirical Research of the Reviewed Papers? In the analysis of selected papers, the income level of the countries was used for verification: • Whether researchers’ empathy with the basic messages of UN SDGs is related to the income level of the countries to which they belong. Most of the 31 papers analysed are from countries with lower per capita incomes, even if they are high-income countries, for example, Slovakia is a high-income country with USD 18,920, or Chile with USD 13,470, or Uruguay with USD 15,790—but they are not far from the threshold criterion for the group of high-income countries (˃USD 12,695) (World Bank, 2020). Apart from several authors from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Ireland, Finland, and the United States, other authors are from lower-middle-income countries—USD 1046 to USD 4095 (Egypt, India, Pakistan)—or from upper-middle-­ income countries—USD 4096 to USD 12,695 (Ecuador, Mexico, Thailand). This suggests that researchers from less developed economies are more sensitive to differences in achieving the UN SDGs, which provide a pathway to prosperity for all. • Whether research interest was triggered by the core importance of the UN SDGs—reducing disparities in well-being among people around the world and how GEM indicators can help understand the role of entrepreneurial activities in closing development gaps between countries. Using the United Nations classification (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021), the majority of papers analysed focused on high-income countries. In all papers, only 10 low-income countries are included in the empirical research (5 of them in Ul Ain

70 

P. Mezulić Juric and T. Koprivnjak Popović

et  al. (2020), the only paper dealing with upper-middle-, lower-­ middle-, and low-income countries, excluding high-income countries). An in-depth analysis of the papers reviewed has shown that even where the structure of high-income countries and other countries would allow meaningful comparisons, the cross-country analysis does not apply the income-level perspective. If closing the gap in achieving well-being for all, along with the well-­ being of the planet, is an important guiding principle for the UN SDGs 2050, it would be important for GEM researchers to see this as an opportunity to contribute to understanding why and how a country’s entrepreneurial capacity differs in relation to income levels.

4.6 Thematic Focus Most authors of the selected papers refer to several SDGs when using data from GEM. Nevertheless, some SDGs receive more attention from researchers (Table 4.3). The main finding of this review of selected papers is the confirmation of the links between UN SDGs and the relevance of GEM indicators for dealing with such features of UN SDGs. Such an analysis was carried out for several selected papers (Table 4.4). The following SDGs (referred to directly or indirectly) have attracted the attention of most researchers, as shown in the selected papers analysed: • • • • • • • • •

Goal 8: Decent work and economic growth—25 papers; Goal 10: Reduced inequalities—17 papers; Goal 5: Gender equality—8 papers; Goal 9: Industry, innovation, and infrastructure—5 papers; Goal 4: Quality education—3 papers; Goal 1: No poverty—2 papers; Goal 13: Climate action—2 papers; SDG Index—2 papers; No papers for Goal 2: Zero hunger; Goal 3: Good health and well-­ being; and Goal 14: Life below water.

(continued)

• Cervelló-Royo, R., Moya-Clemente, I., Perelló-Marín, M. R., & Ribes-Giner, G. (2020). Sustainable development, economic and financial factors, that influence the opportunity-driven entrepreneurship. An fsQCA approach. Journal of Business Research, 115, 393–402 • Mitra, B., Dwivedi, A.K. (2020) Women Entrepreneurship in India: A Socio-Cultural Perspective. International conclave on globalizing Indian thought 2020 - Conference proceedings. Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode • Zabala, A., Ghalwash, S., Ismail, A. & peña-Legazkue, I. (2022). Women’s Self-Employment Intentions after Global Shocks: Insights from Egypt and Spain. (Unpublished)

• Maslak M.A. (2018) Global Initiatives for Female Entrepreneurship: The Sustainable Development and Millennium Development Goals. In: Education and Female Entrepreneurship in Asia. Palgrave Macmillan, New York • Tam B.T.M., Leetrakun P. (2020) Starting Up a Business in ASEAN: A Gender Perspective. In: Joshi D., Brassard C. (eds) Urban Spaces and Gender in Asia. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Cham / /

Goal 1: No poverty

Goal 2: Zero hunger Goal 3: Good health and well-being Goal 4: Quality education

Authors/topics

UN SDG

Table 4.3  Selected papers by thematic coverage

• Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., & Kovačičová, Z. (2016c). Drivers of women entrepreneurship in Visegrad countries: GEM evidence. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 220, 124–133 • Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., Kovačičová, Z (2016d) Women entrepreneur- ship in Visegrad region and its drivers. In: Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis. Vol. 64, No. 6, s. 1809–1910 • Maslak M.A. (2018) Global Initiatives for Female Entrepreneurship: The Sustainable Development and Millennium Development Goals. In: Education and Female Entrepreneurship in Asia. Palgrave Macmillan, New York • Mitra, B., Dwivedi, A.K. (2020) Women Entrepreneurship in India: A Socio-Cultural Perspective. International conclave on globalizing Indian thought 2020 - Conference proceedings. Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode • Murzacheva, E., Sahasranamam, S., & Levie, J. (2020). Doubly disadvantaged: gender, spatially concentrated deprivation and nascent entrepreneurial activity. European Management Review, 17(3), 669–685 • Ouazzani, K. E., González-Pernía, J. L., Jung, A., & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2021). Gender, family and cultural perspectives on venture growth aspirations. European Journal of International Management, 16(2), 332–357 • Tam B.T.M., Leetrakun P. (2020) Starting Up a Business in ASEAN: A Gender Perspective. In: Joshi D., Brassard C. (eds) Urban Spaces and Gender in Asia. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Cham • Zabala, A., Ghalwash, S., Ismail, A. & peña-Legazkue, I. (2022). Women’s Self-Employment Intentions after Global Shocks: Insights from Egypt and Spain. (Unpublished) • Moya-Clemente, I., Ribes-Giner, G., & Pantoja-Díaz, O. (2020). Configurations of sustainable development goals that promote sustainable entrepreneurship over time. Sustainable Development, 28(4), 572–584 • Moya-Clemente, I., Ribes-Giner, G., & Pantoja-Díaz, O. (2020). Configurations of sustainable development goals that promote sustainable entrepreneurship over time. Sustainable Development, 28(4), 572–584

Goal 5: Gender equality

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation Goal 7: Affordable and clean energy

Authors/topics

UN SDG

Table 4.3 (continued)

Goal 8: Decent work and economic growth

(continued)

• Amorós, J. E., Ciravegna, L., Mandakovic, V. and Stenholm, P. (2019) “Necessity or Opportunity? The Effects of State Fragility and Economic Development on Entrepreneurial Efforts” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 43(4) 725–750 • Amorós, J. E., Cristi, O., & Naudé, W. (2021). Entrepreneurship and subjective well-being: Does the motivation to start-up a firm matter? Journal of Business Research, 127, 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.044 • Annink, A., Den Dulk, L. & Amorós, J.E. (2016) “Different strokes for different folks? The impact of heterogeneity in work characteristics and country contexts on work-life balance among the self-employed”. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22(6), 880–902 • Crecente, F., Sarabia, M., & del Val, M. T. (2021). Climate change policy and entrepreneurial opportunities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163 • Guerrero, M., Amorós, J. E., & Urbano, D. (2019). Do employees’ generational cohorts influence corporate venturing? A multilevel analysis. Small business economics, 1–28 • Guerrero, M., Mandakovic, V., Apablaza, M., & Arriagada, V. (2021). Are migrants in/from emerging economies more entrepreneurial than natives? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1–22 • Guerrero, M. (2020). Does workforce diversity matter on corporate venturing? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1–19 • Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., Kovačičová, Z. (2016a) Drivers of senior entrepreneurship in Visegrad countries. In: Innovation, management, entrepreneurship and corporate sustainability: Proceedings of the 4th international conference. Praha: Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze, 236–246 • Holienka, M., Pilková, A., & Jancovicová, Z. (2016b). Youth entrepreneurship in Visegrad countries. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 4(4), 105–121 • Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., & Kovačičová, Z. (2016c). Drivers of women entrepreneurship in Visegrad countries: GEM evidence. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 220, 124–133 • Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., Kovačičová, Z (2016d) Women entrepreneurship in Visegrad region and its drivers. In: Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis. - Vol. 64, No. 6, s. 1809–1910 • Maslak M.A. (2018) Global Initiatives for Female Entrepreneurship: The Sustainable Development and Millennium Development Goals. In: Education and Female Entrepreneurship in Asia. Palgrave Macmillan, New York • Mitra, B., Dwivedi, A.K. (2020) Women Entrepreneurship in India: A Socio-Cultural Perspective. International conclave on globalizing Indian thought 2020 - Conference proceedings. Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode

UN SDG

Table 4.3 (continued)

• Moya-Clemente, I., Ribes-Giner, G., & Pantoja-Díaz, O. (2020). Configurations of sustainable development goals that promote sustainable entrepreneurship over time. Sustainable Development, 28(4), 572–584 • Murzacheva, E., Sahasranamam, S., & Levie, J. (2020). Doubly disadvantaged: gender, spatially concentrated deprivation and nascent entrepreneurial activity. European Management Review, 17(3), 669–685 • Ouazzani, K. E., González-Pernía, J. L., Jung, A., & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2021). Gender, family and cultural perspectives on venture growth aspirations. European Journal of International Management, 16(2), 332–357 • Pilková, A., & Rehák, J. (2017). Regional aspects of inclusive entrepreneurship of seniors in Europe. Society and Economy, 39(1), 49–64 • Pilková, A., Holienka, M., & Jančovičová, Z. (2017a). Investigating youth entrepreneurial intentions’ drivers in Visegrad countries. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 65(6), 2055–2065. • Pilková, A., Mikuš, J., Holienka, M. (2017b) Regional aspects of inclusive entrepreneurship in Slovakia: GEM evidence. In: Innovation, management, entrepreneurship and corporate sustainability (IMES 2017): Proceedings of the 5th international conference, Praha, 739–748. • Rehák, J., Pilková, A., Jančovičová, Z., Holienka, M. (2017) Do senior entrepreneurs differ from youth entrepreneurs? Evidences from global entrepreneurship monitor. In: Innovation, management, entrepreneurship and corporate sustainability (IMES 2017) Praha, 836–848. • Sahasranamam, S., & Nandakumar, M. K. (2020). Individual capital and social entrepreneurship: Role of formal institutions. Journal of Business Research, 107, 104–117. • Sahasranamam, S., Nandakumar, M. K., Pereira, V., & Temouri, Y. (2021). Knowledge capital in social and commercial entrepreneurship: investigating the role of informal institutions. Journal of International Management, 27(1), 100833 • Tam B.T.M., Leetrakun P. (2020) Starting Up a Business in ASEAN: A Gender Perspective. In: Joshi D., Brassard C. (eds) Urban Spaces and Gender in Asia. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Cham • Ul Ain, N., Sabir, S., & Asghar, N. (2020). Financial inclusion and economic growth: Empirical evidence from selected developing economies. Review of Economics and Development Studies, 6(1), 179–203 • Zabala, A., Ghalwash, S., Ismail, A. & peña-Legazkue, I. (2022). Women’s Self-Employment Intentions after Global Shocks: Insights from Egypt and Spain. (Unpublished)

Authors/topics

Goal 9: Industry, innovation, and infrastructure

(continued)

• Amorós, J. E., Ciravegna, L., Mandakovic, V. and Stenholm, P. (2019) “Necessity or Opportunity? The Effects of State Fragility and Economic Development on Entrepreneurial Efforts” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 43(4) 725–750 • Cervelló-Royo, R., Moya-Clemente, I., Perelló-Marín, M. R., & Ribes-Giner, G. (2020). Sustainable development, economic and financial factors, that influence the opportunity-driven entrepreneurship. An fsQCA approach. Journal of Business Research, 115, 393–402 • Pilková, A., Mikuš J. & Káčer J. (2019) Senior, Youth and Women in the European Regions. In: Innovation management, entrepreneurship and sustainability 2019 Proceedings - Praha: Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze, 733–745 • Pilková, A., Mikuš J. & Káčer J. (2020). Inclusive Entrepreneurship in the Selected CEE Countries: Do Contextual and Framework Conditions Matter? In: Innovation management, entrepreneurship and sustainability (IMES) 2020: proceedings of the 8th international conference May 28–29, 2020, Prague. Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze, 2020. S. 492–505 • Sahasranamam, S., & Nandakumar, M. K. (2020). Individual capital and social entrepreneurship: Role of formal institutions. Journal of Business Research, 107, 104–117

Authors/topics

Goal 10: Reduced inequalities • Amorós, J. E., Ciravegna, L., Mandakovic, V. and Stenholm, P. (2019) “Necessity or Opportunity? The Effects of State Fragility and Economic Development on Entrepreneurial Efforts” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 43(4) 725–750 • Cervelló-Royo, R., Moya-Clemente, I., Perelló-Marín, M. R., & Ribes-Giner, G. (2020). Sustainable development, economic and financial factors, that influence the opportunity-driven entrepreneurship. An fsQCA approach. Journal of Business Research, 115, 393–402 • Guerrero, M. (2020). Does workforce diversity matter on corporate venturing? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1–19 • Guerrero, M., Mandakovic, V., Apablaza, M., & Arriagada, V. (2021). Are migrants in/from emerging economies more entrepreneurial than natives? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1–22 • Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., Kovačičová, Z. (2016a) Drivers of senior entrepreneurship in Visegrad countries. In: Innovation, management, entrepreneurship and corporate sustainability: Proceedings of the 4th international conference. Praha: Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze, 236–246 • Holienka, M., Pilková, A., & Jancovicová, Z. (2016b). Youth entrepreneurship in Visegrad countries. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 4(4), 105–121 • Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., & Kovačičová, Z. (2016c). Drivers of women entrepreneurship in Visegrad countries: GEM evidence. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 220, 124–133 • Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., Kovačičová, Z (2016d) Women entrepreneurship in Visegrad region and its drivers. In: Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis. - Vol. 64, No. 6, s. 1809–1910 • Maslak M.A. (2018) Global Initiatives for Female Entrepreneurship: The Sustainable Development and Millennium Development Goals. In: Education and Female Entrepreneurship in Asia. Palgrave Macmillan, New York • Ouazzani, K. E., González-Pernía, J. L., Jung, A., & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2021). Gender, family and cultural perspectives on venture growth aspirations. European Journal of International Management, 16(2), 332–357

UN SDG

Table 4.3 (continued)

Goal 11: Sustainable cities and communities Goal 12: Responsible consumption and production Goal 13: Climate action

(continued)

• Tam B.T.M., Leetrakun P. (2020) Starting Up a Business in ASEAN: A Gender Perspective. In: Joshi D., Brassard C. (eds) Urban Spaces and Gender in Asia. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Cham • Cervelló-Royo, R., Moya-Clemente, I., Perelló-Marín, M. R., & Ribes-Giner, G. (2020). Sustainable development, economic and financial factors, that influence the opportunity-driven entrepreneurship. An fsQCA approach. Journal of Business Research, 115, 393–402 • Crecente, F., Sarabia, M., & del Val, M. T. (2021). Climate change policy and entrepreneurial opportunities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163 • Moya-Clemente, I., Ribes-Giner, G., & Pantoja-Díaz, O. (2020). Configurations of sustainable development goals that promote sustainable entrepreneurship over time. Sustainable Development, 28(4), 572–584

• Pilková, A., Mikuš J. & Káčer J. (2019) Senior, Youth and Women in the European Regions. In: Innovation management, entrepreneurship and sustainability 2019 Proceedings - Praha: Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze, 733–745 • Pilková, A., Mikuš J. & Káčer J. (2020). Inclusive Entrepreneurship in the Selected CEE Countries: Do Contextual and Framework Conditions Matter? In: Innovation management, entrepreneurship and sustainability (IMES) 2020: proceedings of the 8th international conference May 28–29, 2020, Prague. Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze, 2020. S. 492–505 • Pilková, A., & Rehák, J. (2017). Regional aspects of inclusive entrepreneurship of seniors in Europe. Society and Economy, 39(1), 49–64 • Pilková, A., Mikuš, J., Holienka, M. (2017b) Regional aspects of inclusive entrepreneurship in Slovakia: GEM evidence. In: Innovation, management, entrepreneurship and corporate sustainability (IMES 2017): Proceedings of the 5th international conference, Praha, 739–748 • Rehák, J., Pilková, A., Jančovičová, Z., Holienka, M. (2017) Do senior entrepreneurs differ from youth entrepreneurs? Evidences from global entrepreneurship monitor. In: Innovation, management, entrepreneurship and corporate sustainability (IMES 2017) Praha, 836–848 • Ul Ain, N., Sabir, S., & Asghar, N. (2020). Financial inclusion and economic growth: Empirical evidence from selected developing economies. Review of Economics and Development Studies, 6(1), 179–203 • Zabala, A., Ghalwash, S., Ismail, A. & peña-Legazkue, I. (2022). Women’s Self-Employment Intentions after Global Shocks: Insights from Egypt and Spain. (Unpublished)

/ • Moya-Clemente, I., Ribes-Giner, G., & Pantoja-Díaz, O. (2020). Configurations of sustainable development goals that promote sustainable entrepreneurship over time. Sustainable Development, 28(4), 572–584 • Amorós, J. E., Ciravegna, L., Mandakovic, V. and Stenholm, P. (2019) “Necessity or Opportunity? The Effects of State Fragility and Economic Development on Entrepreneurial Efforts” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 43(4) 725–750 • Ul Ain, N., Sabir, S., & Asghar, N. (2020). Financial inclusion and economic growth: Empirical evidence from selected developing economies. Review of Economics and Development Studies, 6(1), 179–203 • Moya-Clemente, I., Ribes-Giner, G., & Pantoja-Díaz, O. (2020). Configurations of sustainable development goals that promote sustainable entrepreneurship over time. Sustainable Development, 28(4), 572–584 • Huđek, I., & Bradač Hojnik, B. (2020). Impact of Entrepreneurship Activity Sustainable Development. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 15(2). DOI: 10.35784/pe.2020.2.17

Goal 14: Life below water Goal 15: Life on land

Source: authors

SDG Index

Goal 16: Peace, justice, and strong institutions Goal 17: Partnerships

Authors/topics

UN SDG

Table 4.3 (continued)

4  Overview of Selected Studies on GEM Indicators and SDGs 

79

Table 4.4  Selected examples of used GEM indicators, referring to specific UN SDGs UN SDG Goal

Paper

Moya-Clemente, I., Goal 6: Clean Ribes-­Giner, G., & water and sanitation Pantoja-Díaz, O. Goal 7: (2020). Affordable Configurations of and clean sustainable energy development Goal 8: Decent goals that work and promote economic sustainable growth entrepreneurship Goal 13: Climate over time. action Sustainable Goal 15: Life on Development, land 28(4), 572–584 Goal 8: Decent Amorós, J. E., Ciravegna, L., work and Mandakovic, V. economic and Stenholm, P. growth Goal 9: Industry, (2019) “Necessity or Opportunity? innovation, The Effects of and State Fragility and infrastructure Economic Goal 10: Development on Reduced Entrepreneurial inequalities Efforts” Goal 16: Peace, Entrepreneurship justice, and Theory and strong Practice 43(4) institutions 725–750

GEM indicator Adult population survey EBO (established business ownership): Percentage of 18–64 population who are currently an owner-manager of an established business, for more than 42 months TEA: Percentage of 18–64 population who are either a nascent entrepreneur or owner-manager of a new business

Adult population survey: • TEA opportunity • TEA necessity • Knowing other entrepreneurs • Self-efficacy • Fear of failure • Education • Gender • Age National entrepreneurial environment: • Government support and policies • Burden of taxes and bureaucracy on entrepreneurship

(continued)

80 

P. Mezulić Juric and T. Koprivnjak Popović

Table 4.4 (continued) UN SDG Goal

Paper

GEM indicator

Goal 5: Gender equality Goal 8: Decent work and economic growth Goal 10: Reduced inequalities

Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., & Kovačičová, Z. (2016c). Drivers of women entrepreneurship in Visegrad countries: GEM evidence. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 220, 124–133

The explanatory variables included the following: • Entrepreneurial self-efficacy— perception of having knowledge, skills, and experience required to start a new business (yes = 1, no = 0) • Alertness to business opportunities— belief in good opportunities for starting a business in the area where respondent lives • Fear of failure—having a fear of failure would prevent one from starting a new business • Social capital—knowing personally someone who started a business in recent two years • Perceived social status of entrepreneurs’ age category • Education—highest educational attainment; and • Household income—total annual household income classified for country into one of three ranges (lowest/middle/upper 33rd percentile). (continued)

4  Overview of Selected Studies on GEM Indicators and SDGs 

81

Table 4.4 (continued) UN SDG Goal

Paper

Goal 9: Industry, Pilková, A., Mikuš J. & Káčer J. (2020). innovation, Inclusive and Entrepreneurship infrastructure in the Selected Goal 10: CEE Countries: Do Reduced Contextual and inequalities Framework Conditions Matter? In: Innovation management, entrepreneurship and sustainability (IMES) 2020: proceedings of the 8th international conference May 28–29, 2020, Prague. Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze, 2020. S. 492–505

GEM indicator Data from the 2009 GEM survey on social entrepreneurship Dependent variable—social entrepreneurship entry: “alone or with others is/are currently trying to start any kind of activity, organization, or initiative that has social, environmental, or community objectives or is currently the owner-manager of an organization with such objectives” Independent variables—entrepreneurship-specific • Human capital (the knowledge, skills, and experience required to start a new business); • Financial capital (middle- or higherincome group relevant for a country); • Social capital (personally knew someone who had started a business in the past two years) Moderating variables—The strength of a country’s commercial financial system was operationalised using the GEM National Expert Survey (NES) dataset Financial system questions from the GEM survey on entrepreneurial environment: In my country… • there is sufficient equity funding available for new and growing firms • there is sufficient debt funding available for new and growing firms • there are sufficient government subsidies available for new and growing firms • there is sufficient funding available from private individuals (other than founders) for new and growing firms • there is sufficient venture capitalist funding available for new and growing firms. • there is sufficient funding available through initial public offerings (IPOs) for new and growing firms (continued)

82 

P. Mezulić Juric and T. Koprivnjak Popović

Table 4.4 (continued) UN SDG Goal

Paper

Goal 5: Gender equality Goal 8: Decent work and economic growth Goal 10: Reduced inequalities

Dependent variable: growth aspirations Ouazzani, K. E., of early-stage entrepreneurs González-Pernía, Explanatory variables: female; nonJ. L., Jung, A., & family business; family-managed (not Peña-Legazkue, I. family-owned) business; family-owned (2021). Gender, (not family-managed) business; family and family-owned and family-managed cultural business; traditional cultural context perspectives on Control variables: post-secondary venture growth education or higher; knowing another aspirations. entrepreneur; opportunity perception; European Journal fear of failure; confidence in one’s of International skills; necessity motivation; age; Management, current business size; service business 16(2), 332–357

GEM indicator

All other objectives are covered by one of the 31 peer-reviewed papers. The largest group of papers (25) related to Goal 8 (aiming to promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all) and implemented different research perspectives. The granulation of GEM data enabled researchers to analyse Goal 8 from an age perspective (Cervený et al., 2016; Guerrero et  al., 2019; Holienka et  al., 2016a, 2016b; Murzacheva et  al., 2020; Pilková & Rehák, 2017; Pilková et al., 2017a; Rehák et al., 2017), gender (Holienka et al., 2016c; Mitra & Dwivedi, 2020), and growth and development (Amorós et  al., 2019; Guerrero et  al., 2021; Moya-Clemente et al., 2019; Pilková et al., 2017b; Sahasranamam & Nandakumar, 2020; Ul Ain et al., 2020). One paper used data from GEM to highlight five goals: SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 13 (climate action), and SDG 15 (life on land) (Moya-Clemente et al., 2019). The authors aimed to analyse sustainable entrepreneurship over time by focusing on identifying the combinations of environmental factors and economic development factors. None of the other papers reviewed had such a clear focus on SDGs related to environmental factors (SDGs 6, 7, 13, 15).

4  Overview of Selected Studies on GEM Indicators and SDGs 

83

Huđek and Bradač Hojnik (2020) looked for linkages between GEM indicators of entrepreneurial activity and the SDG Index as a composite index that is an assessment of each country’s overall performance on 17 SDGs. The results confirmed that there are links between entrepreneurial activity and the SDG Index. The linkage depends on motivation (entrepreneurial activity based on opportunity recognition and innovation has a positive impact on the SDG Index, while necessity-driven activity has a negative impact). There are two papers that take a broader approach to analysing the conceptual and data complementarity between UN SDGs and Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Roomi et  al. (2021) and Maslak (2018). Roomi et al. (2021) propose a shift away from traditional measures of entrepreneurial success based mainly on economic indicators. Using the conceptual framework GEM, they propose a new set of indicators that would enable a better understanding of sustainable entrepreneurship in the context of the UN SDGs. Maslak (2018) also proposes a different approach to using GEM data to understand specific targets of the UN SDGs related to female entrepreneurship (SDGs 1, 5, 8, 10).

4.7 Conclusion The papers analysed were collected on the gemconsortium.org website or in direct communication with the national teams of GEM to get some answers about the process of encountering the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and UN SDGs, from GEM researchers—members of the national teams of GEM. GEM has a huge database, built since 1999 on the basis of a theoretically sound conceptual framework, which offers the possibility to identify trends and patterns of different aspects of entrepreneurial activities as well as the context in which individuals act entrepreneurially. The selected papers analysed confirmed how GEM data and GEM indicators can be used to track the progress of many UN SDGs (perceptual data on entrepreneurial attitudes and activities collected through opinion surveys of the adult population were predominantly used in the papers analysed).

84 

P. Mezulić Juric and T. Koprivnjak Popović

It took some time for UN SDGs to be recognised as a research challenge—of the 31 papers studied, not a single one was published during the first cycle of UN development goals (called Millennium Development Goals) from 2000 to 2015. The increasing intensity of participation of GEM researchers and researchers around the world using GEM data in the global discussion on UN SDGs should be maintained and even increased to show how the uniqueness of GEM data can contribute to more effective and efficient monitoring of progress towards specific goals/ targets. This is particularly important now that the discussion on the new cycle of 2050 UN SDGs, and the selection of indicators to be used to monitor the activities of this cycle is underway. Reviewed papers confirmed two main features of the data from GEM as very useful for monitoring the process of achieving the UN SDGs: • Data is produced based on an agreed, theoretically underpinned conceptual framework and collected using standardised survey instruments, which allows for comparison between countries. • A stable portfolio of indicators over time allows for comparison over years. Reviewed papers revealed that the income level perspective is not used to examine differences in entrepreneurial performance across countries. Given the nature of the UN SDGs (which seek the well-being of people and the planet), such a perspective would further enhance the value of the indicators from GEM in explaining the process of achieving the SDGs/targets. Most papers are the result of teamwork, and international research teams are a good sign of building networked research capacity among researchers using GEM indicators. The interlinkages between the different UN SDGs are expressed in many papers that focus on multiple goals. Nevertheless, researchers’ interest is mainly focused on Goal 8—Decent work and economic growth (25 papers); Goal 10—Reduced inequalities (17 papers); and Goal 5—Gender equality (8 papers). The GEM data is based on the collected opinions of a randomly sampled adult population and selected experts. As they are perception data collected annually, they should be used as complementary indicators to

4  Overview of Selected Studies on GEM Indicators and SDGs 

85

the UN SDGs portfolio of indicators based on multilateral environmental agreements and other scientific sources. The introduction of new specific questions related to the social, economic, and environmental SDGs into GEM research in 2021 may further encourage GEM researchers and other parties interested in this important topic to use these data to measure progress towards achieving the UN SDGs. Based on the UN SDG indicators and GEM indicators, countries can implement different evidence-based policies.

References Amorós, J. E., Ciravegna, L., Mandakovic, V., & Stenholm, P. (2019). Necessity or Opportunity? The Effects of State Fragility and Economic Development on Entrepreneurial Efforts. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(4), 725–750. Amorós, J. E., Cristi, O., & Naudé, W. (2021). Entrepreneurship and Subjective Well-being: Does the Motivation to Start-up a Firm Matter? Journal of Business Research, 127, 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2020.11.044 Annink, A., Den Dulk, L., & Amorós, J.  E. (2016). Different Strokes for Different Folks? The Impact of Heterogeneity in Work Characteristics and Country Contexts on Work-Life Balance Among the Self-Employed. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22(6), 880–902. Cervelló-Royo, R., Moya-Clemente, I., Perelló-Marín, M. R., & Ribes-Giner, G. (2020). Sustainable Development, Economic and Financial Factors, That Influence the Opportunity-Driven Entrepreneurship. An fsQCA Approach. Journal of Business Research, 115, 393–402. Cervený, J., Pilcová, A., & Rehák, J. (2016). Senior Entrepreneurship in European Context: Key Determinants of Entrepreneurial Activity 1. Ekonomicky Casopis, 64(2), 99–117. Crecente, F., Sarabia, M., & del Val, M. T. (2021). Climate Change Policy and Entrepreneurial Opportunities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120446. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). GEM Consortium Webpage. Retrieved December 1, 2021., from https://www.gem-­consortium.org/

86 

P. Mezulić Juric and T. Koprivnjak Popović

Guerrero, M. (2020). Does Workforce Diversity Matter on Corporate Venturing? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 31, 1–19. Guerrero, M., Amorós, J. E., & Urbano, D. (2019). Do Employees’ Generational Cohorts Influence Corporate Venturing? A Multilevel Analysis. Small Business Economics, 57, 1–28. Guerrero, M., Mandakovic, V., Apablaza, M., & Arriagada, V. (2021). Are Migrants in/from Emerging Economies more Entrepreneurial than Natives? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17, 1–22. Hall, J. K., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2010). Sustainable Development and Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future Directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 439–448. Harper, D. A. (2003). Foundations of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203380215 Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., Kovačičová, Z. (2016a) Drivers of Senior Entrepreneurship in Visegrad Countries. In Innovation, Management, Entrepreneurship and Corporate Sustainability: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference (pp. 236–246). Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze. Holienka, M., Pilková, A., & Jancovicová, Z. (2016b). Youth Entrepreneurship in Visegrad Countries. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 4(4), 105–121. Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., & Kovačičová, Z. (2016c). Drivers of Women Entrepreneurship in Visegrad Countries: GEM Evidence. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 220, 124–133. Holienka, M., Jančovičová, Z., & Kovačičová, Z. (2016d). Women Entrepreneurship in Visegrad Region and Its Drivers. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunen, 64(6), 1809–1910. Huđek, I., & Bradač Hojnik, B. (2020). Impact of Entrepreneurship Activity Sustainable Development. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 15(2), 175. https://doi. org/10.35784/pe.2020.2.17 Maslak, M.  A. (2018). Global Initiatives for Female Entrepreneurship: The Sustainable Development and Millennium Development Goals. In Education and Female Entrepreneurship in Asia. Palgrave Macmillan Mitra, B., & Dwivedi, A.  K. (2020). Women Entrepreneurship in India: A Socio-Cultural Perspective. In International Conclave on Globalizing Indian Thought 2020  – Conference Proceedings. Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.

4  Overview of Selected Studies on GEM Indicators and SDGs 

87

Moya-Clemente, I., Ribes-Giner, G., & Pantoja-Díaz, O. (2019). Configurations of Sustainable Development Goals that Promote Sustainable Entrepreneurship Over Time. Sustainable Development, 28(4), 572–584. Murzacheva, E., Sahasranamam, S., & Levie, J. (2020). Doubly Disadvantaged: Gender, Spatially Concentrated Deprivation and Nascent Entrepreneurial Activity. European Management Review, 17(3), 669–685. Ouazzani, K. E., González-Pernía, J. L., Jung, A., & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2021). Gender, Family and Cultural Perspectives on Venture Growth Aspirations. European Journal of International Management, 16(2), 332–357. Pilková, A., & Rehák, J. (2017). Regional Aspects of Inclusive Entrepreneurship of Seniors in Europe. Society and Economy, 39(1), 49–64. Pilková, A., Holienka, M., & Jančovičová, Z. (2017a). Investigating Youth Entrepreneurial Intentions’ Drivers in Visegrad Countries. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 65(6), 2055–2065. Pilková, A., Mikuš, J., Holienka, M. (2017b). Regional Aspects of Inclusive Entrepreneurship in Slovakia: GEM Evidence. In Innovation, Management, Entrepreneurship and Corporate Sustainability (IMES 2017): Proceedings of the 5th International Conference (pp. 739–748). Pilková, A., Mikuš, J. & Káčer, J. (2019) Senior, Youth and Women in the European Regions. In Innovation Management, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability 2019 Proceedings (pp.  733–745). Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze. Pilková, A., Mikuš J., & Káčer, J. (2020). Inclusive Entrepreneurship in the Selected CEE Countries: Do Contextual and Framework Conditions Matter? In Innovation Management, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability (IMES) 2020: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, May 28–29, 2020, Prague (pp. 492–505). Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze. Rehák, J., Pilková, A., Jančovičová, Z., & Holienka, M. (2017). Do Senior Entrepreneurs Differ from Youth Entrepreneurs? Evidences from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. In Innovation, Management, Entrepreneurship and Corporate Sustainability (IMES 2017) Praha (pp. 836–848). Roomi, M. A., Saiz-Alvarez, J. M., & Coduras, A. (2021). Measuring Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Eco-Innovation: A Methodological Proposal for the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). Sustainability, 13(7), 4056. Sahasranamam, S., & Nandakumar, M.  K. (2020). Individual Capital and Social Entrepreneurship: Role of Formal Institutions. Journal of Business Research, 107, 104–117.

88 

P. Mezulić Juric and T. Koprivnjak Popović

Sahasranamam, S., Nandakumar, M.  K., Pereira, V., & Temouri, Y. (2021). Knowledge Capital in Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Investigating the Role of Informal Institutions. Journal of International Management, 27(1), 100833. Tam, B. T. M., & Leetrakun, P. (2020). Starting Up a Business in ASEAN: A Gender Perspective. In D.  Joshi & C.  Brassard (Eds.), Urban Spaces and Gender in Asia. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer. Ul Ain, N., Sabir, S., & Asghar, N. (2020). Financial Inclusion and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from Selected Developing Economies. Review of Economics and Development Studies, 6(1), 179–203. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2021). World Economic Situation and Prospects 2021. United Nations. World Bank. (2020). https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-­world-­bank-­ country-­classifications-­income-­level-­2021-­2022; and https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD, downloaded 10 January 2022. Zabala, A., Ghalwash, S., Ismail, A. & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2022). Women’s Self-­ Employment Intentions after Global Shocks: Insights from Egypt and Spain. (Unpublished).

5 GEM Lenses on UN SDGs Slavica Singer, Nataša Šarlija, Alicia Coduras Martinez, Sanja Pfeifer, Sunčica Oberman Peterka, Miroslav Rebernik, Barbara Bradač Hojnik, Ana Fernández-Laviada, and Mahsa Samsami

5.1 Introduction Despite its limited scope, the review of the selected papers published by GEM researchers in the period 2003–2021 (Chap. 4) has shown that researchers from the GEM community are increasingly interested in using GEM indicators in discussions on sustainable development in general and specifically in relation to the UN SDGs. This increased interest

S. Singer (*) • N. Šarlija • S. Pfeifer • S. Oberman Peterka J.J. Strossmayer University in Osijek, Osijek, Croatia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] A. Coduras Martinez Opinometre Institute, GEM Global, Barcelona, Spain e-mail: [email protected] M. Rebernik • B. Bradač Hojnik University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Singer et al. (eds.), Entrepreneurship and Well-being, Sustainable Development Goals Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19181-7_5

89

90 

S. Singer et al.

has been observed since 2015, suggesting that UN Millennium Development Goals 2000–2015 were far below the radar of researcher interest. The literature review also identified several research groups that are very active in researching sustainable development and the UN SDGs using GEM indicators (GEM teams in Slovakia, Spain, Slovenia, Chile, the United Kingdom and India). The researchers mainly referred to the following four UN SDGs (some papers refer to more UN SDGs): • • • •

Goal 8: Decent work and economic growth—25 papers, Goal 10: Reduced inequalities—17 papers, Goal 5: Gender equality—8 papers, Goal 9: Industry, innovation, and infrastructure—5 papers.

To gain a more comprehensive insight into the relevance of GEM indicators for monitoring progress towards the 2030 UN SDGs, these four UN SDGs are analysed in more detail by identifying their specific targets and official indicators to measure them.

5.2 Methodological Framework The methodological framework for determining the information capacity of GEM indicators for monitoring the process of achieving the UN SDGs is focused on two sets of criteria: (a) external perspectives and (b) internal categorisation of GEM indicators.

A. Fernández-Laviada Universidad de Cantabria, Cantabria, Spain e-mail: [email protected] M. Samsami Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway e-mail: [email protected]

5  GEM Lenses on UN SDGs 

91

The implementation of the GEM survey since 1999 in countries around the world provides two important perspectives for the assessment of GEM indicators: • Time • Income level of economies For the time perspective, the period 2016–2020 was used for two reasons: 2030 UN SDGs were adopted by the UN Assembly in 2015, and the inclusion of 2020 made it possible to review the impact of the pandemic on different aspects of the entrepreneurship phenomenon. Only countries that participated in GEM surveys in at least one year during 2016–2019 and 2020 were included in the database. For the calculation of statistical measures, the oldest year was compared to 2020. This time frame provided insights between a more stable period in 2016–2019 and a possible disruption in 2020. To look at the income levels of the economies, the economies selected according to the time criterion were grouped according to the GNI per capita (in current USD) categories defined by the World Bank (2021): low income