In Search of a Global Approach to Air Pollution: Some Legal Reflections on the Role of the SDGs

To Achieve a Sustainable Blue Future, Progress Assessments Must Include Interdependencies between the Sustainable Development Goals

PurposeTo assess the relevance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework for adolescent health measurement, both in terms of age disaggregation and different health domains captured, and how the adolescent health indicators recommended by the Global Action for Measurement of Adolescent Health (GAMA) can complement the SDG framework. MethodsWe conducted a desk review to systematically map all 248 SDG indicators using the UN metadata repository in three steps: 1) age-related mandates for SDG reporting; 2) linkages between the SDG indicators and priority areas for adolescent health measurement; 3) comparison between the GAMA indicators and the SDG framework. ResultsOf the 248 SDG indicators, 35 (14%) targeted an age range overlapping with adolescence (10–19 years) and 33 (13%) called for age disaggregation. Only one indicator (3.7.2 “adolescent birth rate”) covered the entire 10–19 age range. Almost half (41%) of the SDG indicators were directly related to adolescent health, but only 33 of those (13% of all SDG indicators) overlapped with the ages 10–19, and 15 (6% of all SDG indicators) explicitly mandated age disaggregation. Among the 47 GAMA indicators, five corresponded to existing SDG indicators, and eight were adolescent-specific age adaptations. Several GAMA indicators shed light on aspects not tracked in the SDG framework, such as obesity, mental health, physical activity, and bullying among 10–19-year-olds. DiscussionAdolescent health cannot be monitored comprehensively with the SDG framework alone. The GAMA indicators complement this framework via age-disaggregated adaptations and by tracking aspects of adolescent health currently absent from the SDGs.

BackgroundCities are an important driving force to implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the New Urban Agenda. The SDGs provide an operational framework to consider urbanization globally, while providing local mechanisms for action and careful attention to closing the gaps in the distribution of health gains. While health and well-being are explicitly addressed in SDG 3, health is also present as a pre condition of SDG 11, that aims at inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities.Health in All Policies (HiAP) is an approach to public policy across sectors that systematically takes into account the health implications of decisions, seeks synergies, and avoids harmful health impacts in order to improve population health and health equity. HiAP is key for local decision-making processes in the context of urban policies to promote public health interventions aimed at achieving SDG targets. HiAPs relies heavily on the use of scientific evidence and evaluation tools, such as health impact assessments (HIAs). HIAs may include city-level quantitative burden of disease, health economic assessments, and citizen and other stakeholders’ involvement to inform the integration of health recommendations in urban policies.The Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal)‘s Urban Planning, Environment and Health Initiative provides an example of a successful model of translating scientific evidence into policy and practice with regards to sustainable and healthy urban development. The experiences collected through ISGlobal’s participation implementing HIAs in several cities worldwide as a way to promote HiAP are the basis for this analysis.AimThe aim of this article is threefold: to understand the links between social determinants of health, environmental exposures, behaviour, health outcomes and urban policies within the SDGs, following a HiAP rationale; to review and analyze the key elements of a HiAP approach as an accelerator of the SDGs in the context of urban and transport planning; and to describe lessons learnt from practical implementation of HIAs in cities across Europe, Africa and Latin-America.MethodsWe create a comprehensive, urban health related SDGs conceptual framework, by linking already described urban health dimensions to existing SDGs, targets and indicators. We discuss, taking into account the necessary conditions and steps to conduct HiAP, the main barriers and opportunities within the SDGs framework. We conclude by reviewing HIAs in a number of cities worldwide (based on the experiences collected by co-authors of this publication), including city-level quantitative burden of disease and health economic assessments, as practical tools to inform the integration of health recommendations in urban policies.ResultsA conceptual framework linking SDGs and urban and transportplanning, environmental exposures, behaviour and health outcomes, following a HiAP rationale, is designed. We found at least 38 SDG targets relevant to urban health, corresponding to 15 SDGs, while 4 important aspects contained in our proposed framework were not present in the SDGs (physical activity, noise, quality of life or social capital). Thus, a more comprehensive HiAP vision within the SDGs could be beneficial.Our analysis confirmed that the SDGs framework provides an opportunity to formulate and implement policies with a HiAP approach. Three important aspects are highlighted: 1) the importance of the intersectoral work and health equity as a cross-cutting issue in sustainable development endeavors; 2) policy coherence, health governance, and stakeholders’ participation as key issues; and 3) the need for high quality data.HIAs are a practical tool to implement HiAP. Opportunities and barriers related to the political, legal and health governance context, the capacity to inform policies in other sectors, the involvement of different stakeholders, and the availability of quality data are discussed based on our experience. Quantitative assessments can provide powerful data such as: estimates of annual preventable morbidity and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) under compliance with international exposure recommendations for physical activity, exposure to air pollution, noise, heat, and access to green spaces; the associated economic impacts in health care costs per year; and the number of preventable premature deaths when improvements in urban and transport planning are implemented. This information has been used to support the design of policies that promote cycling, walking, public, zero and low-emitting modes of transport, and the provision of urban greening or healthy public open spaces in Barcelona (e.g. Urban Mobility, Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plans, or the Superblocks’s model), the Bus Rapid Transit and Open Streets initiatives in several Latin American cities or targeted SDGs assessments in Morocco.ConclusionsBy applying tools such as HIA, HiAP can be implemented to inform and improve transport and urban planning to achieve the 2030 SDG Agenda. Such a framework could be potentially used in cities worldwide, including those of less developed regions or countries. Data availability, taking into account equity issues, strenghtening the communication between experts, decision makers and citizens, and the involvement of all major stakeholders are crucial elements for the HiAP approach to translate knowledge into SDG implementation.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 2015 to “end poverty and set the world on a path of peace prosperity and opportunity for all on a healthy planet” by 2030. This ambitious framework includes 17 goals (e.g., no poverty, zero hunger, good health, quality education, etc.) with 169 targets and 231 unique indicators. The SDGs have been widely adopted to guide policy makers in development efforts around the world, but they also have been criticized as too unwieldy and all-encompassing. The Economist (March 26, 2015) concluded that the “SDGs are unfeasibly expensive” and “are so sprawling and misconceived that the entire enterprise is being set up to fail.” Nevertheless, the SDGs are now an integral part of the global development movement and are often cited by advocates of specific interventions. The Sustainable Development Report 2020 (SDR2020) was prepared by teams of independent experts at the Sustainable Development Solutions Network and the Bertelsmann Stiftung. It is separate from the The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020 published by the UN. The project is directed by Jeffry Sachs, who was an advisor to UN Secretaries-General Kofi Annan and Ban-Ki Moon in the creation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and SDGs. As in previous years, the SDR2020 presents and aggregates data from all UN member states to describe each country's progress towards achieving the SDGs and indicates areas requiring faster progress. Estimates of indicators rely on the most up-to-date data from variety of official and nonofficial sources. In order to summarize levels and trends in country performance, the report calculates indices for each SDG with a scale from 0 to 100 (worst to best). A country's overall SDG Index score and its scores on individual SDGs can be interpreted as a percentage of optimal performance. The overall SDG index score ranges from a high of 84.7 in Sweden to a low of 38.5 in Central African Republic. The report's central chapter summarizes global and regional trends in index scores, and appendix tables present two-page summaries of levels and trends for SDG indicators for each country. Besides struggling with a range of methodological issues, the authors faced the difficult task of succinctly summarizing a very large set of data (115 SDGs indicators for 193 countries). Unfortunately, there are few general findings, because the degree of progress towards achieving the SDGs depends on (i) country/region, (ii) the specific SDG, and (iii) level or trend. On average, progress since 2015 has been fastest in low- and middle-income countries especially in East and South Asia. Africa scores low but showed significant improvements in a number of SDGs. OECD countries, which have on average the highest scores, made only limited progress. The report provides a valuable but rather brief summary of these regional differences. A second objective of SDR2020 is to review policy efforts to implement the SDGs. This assessment is based on information gathered in new expert and public opinion surveys to gauge political leadership in support of the SDGs at the country level. Results confirm that the SDGs framework is increasingly used at many national and international statistical institutes and other data providers. The adoption of the SDG framework by policy makers is growing but more limited. The report's clear exposition in graphs and tables and the many country and regional statistics will no doubt be appreciated by policy makers and researchers in national and international organizations. However, the value of the findings is somewhat limited by the lack of current data for many indicators. As the authors discovered, most estimates are not up to date and a substantial proportion of the data points available now even have a year of reference that predates the adoption of the SDGs. This diminishes the value of publishing country-level estimates on an annual basis, as indicators for many countries change little from one year to the next. The report was in preparation when the Covid-19 epidemic struck. A brief discussion of this huge new human and economic crisis is included, and the authors identify which SDGs will likely be most heavily affected. The epidemic will cause massive disruption of progress on the SDGs for years to come, but it was too early to assess this damage at the time of the publication of the report (July 2020).

Objective: This study examines the role of customs cooperation in trade facilitation within the ASEAN region, with a particular focus on its alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, the research aims to analyze the impact of ASEAN’s customs integration initiatives on regional economic growth (SDG 8), cross-border trade efficiency, and sustainable industrial development (SDG 9), while emphasizing the role of international and regional partnerships (SDG 17) in strengthening trade governance. Theoretical Framework: The study is grounded in international trade law and regional economic integration theories, emphasizing the role of regulatory cooperation in trade facilitation. It draws upon WTO’s Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), the World Customs Organization (WCO) standards, and ASEAN’s legal instruments governing trade and customs procedures. The SDG framework is utilized to evaluate the broader socio-economic and environmental impacts of trade facilitation, with a particular emphasis on its contribution to inclusive economic growth (SDG 8), industrial development and innovation (SDG 9), and global trade partnerships (SDG 17). Method: A qualitative research approach is adopted, utilizing legal and policy analysis of ASEAN trade facilitation agreements, reports from international organizations, and empirical studies on regional trade efficiency. Comparative analysis is employed to assess the disparities in customs infrastructure, digitalization, and regulatory alignment among ASEAN member states, highlighting how these factors influence the achievement of sustainable industrialization (SDG 9) and the facilitation of cross-border trade partnerships (SDG 17). Results and Discussion: The findings indicate that ASEAN’s customs cooperation mechanisms have significantly streamlined cross-border trade procedures, reducing transaction costs and improving regional economic integration. These advancements have enhanced economic productivity and job creation (SDG 8) and supported the modernization of trade-related infrastructure (SDG 9). However, challenges persist, including legal inconsistencies in customs regulations, disparities in digital capabilities among AMS, and institutional barriers arising from ASEAN’s consensus-based decision-making model. These limitations hinder the full implementation of paperless trade initiatives and the efficiency of customs data exchange, restricting ASEAN’s ability to foster strong international trade partnerships (SDG 17). Research Implications: The study highlights the necessity for ASEAN to develop a harmonized legal framework for cross-border data flows, enhance digital infrastructure in less-developed AMS, and advance the legal unification of customs regulations. Strengthening institutional agility in ASEAN decision-making is also critical for expediting trade facilitation reforms. These recommendations are essential for enhancing economic opportunities (SDG 8), promoting digital and industrial innovation (SDG 9), and fostering a more integrated and rules-based multilateral trade system (SDG 17). Originality/Value: This research contributes to the literature by providing a comprehensive legal and policy analysis of ASEAN customs cooperation in the context of trade facilitation and sustainable development. By integrating trade law principles with sustainable economic growth (SDG 8), industrial modernization (SDG 9), and global trade partnerships (SDG 17), the study offers valuable insights for policymakers, trade negotiators, and businesses engaged in ASEAN’s economic integration.

Environmental monitoring in European regions using the sustainable development goals (SDG) framework

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals Requires Transdisciplinary Innovation at the Local Scale

Planetary health: from concept to decisive action

Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy offers profound insights into achieving sustainable development by integrating environmental stewardship, social justice, and economic equity. His core principles of ahimsa (non-violence), swaraj (self-rule), satyagraha (truth force), and sarvodaya (welfare of all) align closely with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), offering a holistic approach to addressing contemporary global challenges like poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation. Ahimsa, for example, emphasizes ecological harmony, encouraging sustainable resource use and conservation, directly aligning with SDGs such as climate action (SDG 13) and life on land and water (SDGs 14 and 15). Similarly, swaraj promotes self-reliance and local governance, which supports SDGs related to economic growth (SDG 8), reduced inequalities (SDG 10), and sustainable communities (SDG 11). Gandhi’s concept of satyagraha advocates for peaceful resistance and justice, echoing SDG 16, which calls for strong institutions and inclusive decision-making. Meanwhile, sarvodaya prioritizes the welfare of all, particularly marginalized communities, aligning with SDGs that aim to eradicate poverty (SDG 1), ensure food security (SDG 2), and promote good health (SDG 3). In the modern context, Gandhi’s principles remain highly relevant as global efforts aim to address pressing challenges such as climate change, social inequality, and economic disparity. His commitment to non-violence and ethical living provides a foundation for environmental sustainability, advocating for practices that reduce harm to the planet. Furthermore, his vision of inclusive development—where the welfare of the weakest is prioritized—directly informs current global movements seeking social justice and equitable economic growth. Gandhi’s call for unity and global cooperation resonates with SDG 17, emphasizing partnerships and collective action in tackling shared global issues. By embracing Gandhi’s philosophy, contemporary societies can create more ethical, inclusive, and sustainable systems that address the challenges of the 21st century while fostering global solidarity.

The <scp>SDGs</scp>: A change agenda shaping the future of business and humanity at large

Purpose This paper aims to contribute to existing academic work and business practice by presenting original empirical findings and by providing insights into priority setting on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in organizations. From an academic viewpoint, it not only adds to previous work on the topic of SDG materiality (e.g. Van Tulder and Lucht, 2019) but also aims to contribute new insights into the steps that are crucial and influence the adoption of the SDGs in materiality assessments. It may also add to the literature by providing new knowledge on the strategic considerations that organizations may make and institutional dynamics that encourage organizations to implement the SDG materiality method. Design/methodology/approach By executing a national survey research in Belgium through a collaboration between academics of Antwerp Management School, Louvain School of Management (UCLouvain) and the University of Antwerp, and supported by Belgium’s Federal Institute of Sustainable Development, the authors have obtained several insights into the SDG landscape in Belgium for various types of organizations, including companies, governmental and nongovernmental organizations and educational institutions. This research builds further on a first national survey (SDG Barometer Belgium, 2018) on the adoption and implementation of the SDGs. However, an important aim of this research is to shift the emphasis to more prominent new elements, such as whether or not organizations use the SDGs in materiality assessments. While the main part of the data for this research were collected through an online questionnaire, document analyses were conducted based on the sustainability reports of BEL 20 companies, the benchmark stock market index of Euronext Brussels consisting of 20 companies traded at the Brussels Stock Exchange, and seven interviews were held to obtain additional insights. Findings A total of 386 organizations across sectors responded to the question “Does your organization perform a materiality analysis”, of which 210 organizations completed the question “Does your organization align the materiality analysis with the SDGs,”after an “exit route” based on a positive answer to the first question. When diving into the survey results, the authors see that no more than 12% of the 210 organizations performing a materiality analysis align their materiality analysis with the SDGs, while 14% indicate that they do not account for the SDGs at all in their materiality analyses. The results show that 41% of the organizations take into account the SDGs to a certain degree when performing their materiality analysis. Speculating on an explanation for these results, it may be the case that organizations do not yet think about coupling the SDGs to their materiality assessment, experience difficulties in practice or generally lack the knowledge for relating the SDGs to the sustainability topics that are relevant to them. This seems in line with other research (e.g. Van Tulder and Lucht, 2019), as the results of this study indicate that it seems to be difficult for organizations to relate the SDGs to the existing sustainability priorities or materiality analyses of companies. Originality/value The real contribution of this paper essentially lies in the description of the Janssen Pharmaceuticals case. The company recognized that today’s internally focused approach to goal setting is not enough to address global challenges. Hence, looking at what is needed externally from a global perspective, taking into account sustainability thresholds and setting ambitions accordingly, is needed to bridge the gap between current performance and required performance. From the Janssen Pharmaceuticals case, the authors learned that external stakeholders are an extremely useful source of information to address the required performance by using the SDG framework. For sure, SDG materiality analyses are still in an early phase of development and knowledge on how to conduct such an analysis may be lacking. Future efforts – or the lack thereof – may indicate whether or not companies consider such analyses as sufficiently relevant. Although the uptake of the SDGs is in progress, it remains to be seen which, if any, materiality method will eventually turn out as a new dominant way of defining material issues. The findings presented in this study hopefully serve as a basis for further investigation of the topic.

Assessing the impacts of ageing and natural resource extraction on carbon emissions: A proposed policy framework for European economies

Growing public interest in environmental, social, and governance issues requires all organizations to address the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Because the metals industry has been less likely to report engagement with the SDGs than other sectors, exploring its relationship with the SDGs is essential in accelerating its engagement with these goals. This study examines the relationship between the metals industry and the SDGs by analyzing reports of 61 metal companies. The analysis adopts the number of activities associated with SDGs as a proxy indicator in measuring the intensity of association between the company and 17 SDGs. The results show that the metals industry places most focus on SDGs 8, 3, and 12, but its activities are less associated with SDGs 14, 2, and 1 on the whole. Furthermore, this relationship with the SDGs shows different trends among metal producers: the steel industry places great weight on SDG 12 and less on SDGs 1 and 2, whereas the copper industry recognizes the relevance to SDGs 1 and 2. This is attributed to the different positions of the production companies in the supply chain because current SDG reporting seems to be strongly affected by the circumstances and stakeholders they face directly. For further commitment to the SDGs, these findings recommend that metal producers consider the values and benefits that the metals provide throughout the value chain. This study is of value in increasing knowledge about the metal industry's strengths and weaknesses within the SDG framework and suggests future involvement.

Re-defining Sustainability: Living in Harmony with Life on Earth

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a global development agenda designed to address economic, social, environmental, legal, and governance challenges. Tourism, including the hospitality industry, is a key sector highlighted within the SDGs framework. This study aims to examine the role of five-star hotels in Bali in advancing the SDGs, particularly focusing on the social development pillar. Using a descriptive qualitative method, the findings reveal that both five-star hotels in this study have implemented several relevant indicators of the SDGs' social pillar. Hotel A supports SDG 1 (No Poverty) through local employment and social security programs; SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by distributing food packages to employees and their families; SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) through employee welfare programs; SDG 4 (Quality Education) via career development; and SDG 5 (Gender Equality) by promoting women in management roles. Meanwhile, Hotel B emphasizes SDG 1 through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, SDG 3 by providing health insurance, SDG 4 through staff training, and SDG 5 by fostering an inclusive work environment. These findings demonstrate that the hospitality sector can contribute significantly to the SDGs in Indonesia, particularly in Bali as a major tourist destination. The measures taken by these hotels can serve as a model for sustainable social development practices within the hospitality industry.