The Global Sustainable Competitiveness index 2016
Scandinavia tops GSCI 2016; Germany ranked 14, UK 21, US 32, China 37
Zurich/Seoul, December 2016. The 5th edition of the Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index (GSCI) sees Sweden on the top spot, followed by the other 4 Scandinavia nations. Of the largest economies, Germany is ranked 14th, Japan 15th, the UK 21st, the US 32nd, and China 37th.
Contrary to conventional evaluation of “competitiveness” that are based on financial and/or economic figures, the GSCI takes an inclusive view on competitiveness – looking at the fundamentals that allow a nation-economy to thrive. The GSCI evaluates the cause of success/failure – and comparison of the results to sovereign bond ratings suggest that the latter do not cover all investor risks. The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index is based on 109 quantitative performance indicators only to ensure total subjectivity. The 109 indicators are grouped in the 5 themes of competitiveness:
• natural capital,
• resource efficiency,
• intellectual capital,
• social capital,
• and governance.
All data is derived from renowned sources (the World Bank, various UN databases). All data sets are scored for the latest available data as well as the development over the last 5 years.
The Sustainable Competitiveness Model:
Key takeaways of the 2016 GSCI:
• The top 20 are dominated by Northern-European countries and Eastern European nations, Slovenia notching up place 6. The Baltic states are also doing notably well.
• The only non-European contenders in the top 20 of the GSCI 2016 are New Zealand (12) and Japan (15).
• The World’s largest economies show a mixed picture: Germany is ranked 14, Japan 15, the UK 21, and the US 32. The US is scoring particularly low in social issues, and resource intensity – indicating not only development potential, but also significant cost reduction opportunities.
• The BRICs: China scores highest on rank 37, Brazil 41, Russia 45, and India 153. Social cohesion is the basis for any working economy. China is amongst the leading Nations when it comes to Intellectual capital and investments; however, the combination of limited natural resources, arid areas, and low resource efficiency could possibly jeopardise the future development of the country.
While there seems to be a certain correlation between the rankings of this index to current wealth levels as expressed in the GDP, these correlations are superficial. Some of the World’s richest countries, particularly the oil-rich countries of the Middle East, score significantly lower on the index than their GDP output would suggest. Some of the nominally poorest countries, on the other hand (e.g. Bhutan, Bolivia, Laos) are ranked considerably higher than their current GDP would indicate.
The Sustainable Competitiveness World Map:
A detailed Report as well as individual country scores for 180 nations can be downloaded.
Breakdowns:
• Countries with high abundance of water, regardless of location and cold/tropical zones, poses the highest levels of natural capital
• Resource intensity rankings are lead mostly by lesser developed countries. However, Sweden on rank 5 proves that high wealth levels and low resource intensity are not mutually exclusive
• Asian nations (South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and China) and Scandinavia lead the Intellectual Capital ranking. However, achieving sustained prosperity in China might be compromised by Natural Capital constraints and current high resource intensity/low resource efficiency
• The Social Cohesion ranking is headed by Northern European (Scandinavian) countries, indicating that Social Cohesion is the result of economic growth combined with social consensus
Download the Global Sustainable Competitiveness Report