2.1.

1 : Ecological Footprint (dấu chân sinh thái)

Lý do chọn đề tài (dịch từ hình) : Dấu chân sinh thái là công cụ đo
lường xem chúng ta có bao nhiêu tài nguyên thiên nhiên và chúng ta đã
sử dụng bao nhiêu tài nguyên ấy. Dấu chân sinh thái giúp cho :
+ Các nước cải thiện sự bền vững và well-being
+ Các nhà lãnh đạo : tối ưu hóa các khoản đầu tư vào các dự án công
+ Các cá nhân : hiểu rõ về ảnh hưởng của mình lên trái đất
Định nghĩa : Ecological footprints are the measure of impacts of an
individual or community on the environment and can be expressed as the
amount of resources consumed. The concept of ecological footprints was
introduced in 1990 for the evaluation of environmental
impacts associated with human activities (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996).
Định nghĩa theo WWF : The first metric - Ecological Footprint -
measures the amount of biologically productive land and water area
(biocapacity) required to produce the food, fibre and renewable raw
materials an individual, population or activity consumes, and to absorb
carbon dioxide emissions they generate, given prevailing technology
and resource management. The six demand categories considered are:
cropland, grazing land, fishing grounds, forest products, carbon and
built-up land Footprints
The simplest way to define an ecological footprint is the amount of
environmental resources necessary to produce the goods and services
that support an individual's particular lifestyle.[13] In other words, it
measures the demand versus the supply of nature.
An area is considered unsustainable if a land’s ecological footprint is
greater than its biocapacity (if its demand of nature is greater than its
supply).

Cách tính :
The ecological footprint considers many variables, and the calculations can
become complicated. To calculate the ecological footprint of a nation, you
would use the equation found in this research paper by Tiezzi et al.:
EF = ΣTi/Yw x EQFi,
where Ti is the annual amount of tons of each product i that are consumed in
the nation, Yw is the yearly world-average yield for producing each product i,
and EQFi is the equivalence factor for each product i.

Ứng dụng vào chính sách quốc gia & các bài học thuật, case study
liên quan :
A rich and accessible introduction to the theory and practice of the
approach is available in the book Ecological Footprint: Managing Our
Biocapacity Budget (2019). The European Commission provides a short
summary here. Fuller methodological explanations and applications to
national policy are available in a Nature Sustainability paper (2021), an
two MDPI papers, one on the national accounts method, and the other
one on its implications.

https://www.footprintnetwork.org/2017/11/09/ecological-footprint-
climate-change/#:~:text=The%20Ecological%20Footprint%20is
%20a,ecosystems%20on%20which%20humanity%20depends.
Potential of the Ecological Footprint for monitoring environmental
impacts from natural resource use Analysis of the potential of the
Ecological Footprint and related assessment tools for use in the EU’s
Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Report
to the European Commission, DG Environment FINAL :
REPORThttps://ec.europa.eu/environment/natres/pdf/footprint.pdf

2.2.1 : Sustainability Society Index (Chỉ số phát triển xã hội bền vững)
Chú ý giải thích cách tính aggregration geometric của nó.
1 (th-koeln.de)

Có thể giải thích definition từng chỉ trong chỉ số này : Sustainability là gì, Society là gì => Kết hợp lại thì
chỉ số cho ta biết j

A sustainable society is a society ¾ that meets the needs of the present generation, ¾ that does not
compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, ¾ in which each human being
has the opportunity to develop itself in freedom, within a well-balanced society and in harmony with its
surroundings

To be able to measure the extent of sustainability we have elaborated the Brundtland+ definition into
five distinct elements: a sustainable society is a society in which every human being ¾ is able to develop
itself in a healthy manner and to obtain a proper education, ¾ lives in a clean environment, ¾ lives in a
well-balanced and safe society, ¾ uses non-renewable resources in a responsible manner so that future
generations are not left empty-handed and ¾ contributes to a sustainable world. The research question
is now: is there a set of indicators available to measure these five elements adequately?
Lý do chọn đề tài : Chỉ số phát triển xã hội bền vững xem xét sự bền
vững của các quốc gia dựa trên ba phương diện chính :
+ Human wellbeing : Con người
+ Environmental wellbeing : Môi trường
+ Economic wellbeing : Kinh tế
 Xem xét sự bền vững một cách bao quát
Các chỉ số khác ko xem xét đủ các yếu tố tác động tới môi trường (HDI
thì chỉ quan tâm tới con người mà ko màn tới hệ lụy tác động môi
trường )
Abstract : In search of an adequate set of indicators to measure the level of sustainability of a
country, the main existing indexes have been examined. However, the conclusion must be that none of
them seem to fit our needs completely. The main shortcomings are a limited definition of sustainability,
a lack of transparency and an absence of regular updates. For this reason, a new index – the Sustainable
Society Index (SSI) – has been developed. The SSI integrates the most important aspects of sustainability
and quality of life of a national society in a simple and transparent way. Consisting of only 22 indicators,
grouped into 5 categories, it is based upon the definition of the Brundtland Commission, extended to
the Brundtland+ definition by explicitly including the social aspects of human life. Using data from
scientific institutes and international organizations, the SSI has been developed for 150 countries for
which the SSI could be calculated. The resulting SSI scores allow a quick comparison between countries
and – as two-yearly updates become available – show developments over time. The underlying data
allow in-depth analysis of the aspects that cause the differences between countries. This article outlines
the development of the SSI and the calculation methodology as well as giving the main results. It also
summarizes the need for further research and development of the SSI. Keywords: sustainable society
index; sustainable development indicators; sustainable development; sustainability indicators

Thông tin bên lề : From SSI 2018 onwards, SSI editions are hosted by
TH Köln under the supervision of professors at TH Köln’s
Schmalenbach School of Business, Economics and Law.
 
Cologne is at the center of an international research and policy cluster relevant to sustainability
issues. The Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, the German Economic Institute, and
last but not least TH Köln’s nineteen academic programs focusing on sustainability provide a
stimulating local environment. With German federal ministries, institutions from the field of
development cooperation, academia and major UN organizations located in nearby Bonn, the
cluster is wide spread and well diversified.
 
Since 2022 SSI versions V2 was published. It delivers time series abilities for data since SSI
2002 on a yearly basis for all countries listed at world bank. At the same time the key advantages
of SSI, i. e. its clear focus and ease of use is preserved.

As for V3 of the SSI we are working on a renewal of some of the indicators while adding
indicators for deeper societal and economic analyses. Nevertheless, time series ability will be
preserved anyway.
 
Presently, the SSI project is a construction site. Therefore, we welcome all parties interested in
analyzing, discussing and developing solutions for global sustainability to join us in our
endeavors. We will be happy to share our insights with you and learn from your experiences and
would invite you to contact us under the address provided via the link Contact.
Định nghĩa :
The SSI shows at a glance the level of sustainability of countries along
three dimensions:
Human wellbeing (HUW)
Environmental wellbeing (ENW)
Economic wellbeing (ECW)

The SSI is structured along the lines of the Triple Bottom Line of social
(HUW), environmental (ENW) and economic (ECW) sustainability.
HUW consists of three categories based on nine indicators. ENW
consists of two categories based on seven indicators. Finally, ECW
consists of two categories based on five indicators.All scores are given
on a sustainability scale of 1(weakest) to 10 (strongest). There is no
overall sustainability score, which would combine the three dimensions.
Since 2006 the SSI, developed by the Dutch Sustainable Society Foundation, published
datasets bi-annually (mỗi 2 năm) for 154 countries/territories. After TH Köln took over
responsibility for further development and maintenance of the SSI, the number of
countries/territories was extended to 213. In 2022, a recalculation for every year since
2000 will be published. This data collection opens up an even better opportunity for
cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses.
Differentiation to other sustainability index systems The SSI is listed in the EU’s
COIN list. Besides the SSI, this list contains only three other index systems covering all
three sustainability pillars at once: the SDG Index, the Global Sustainable
Competitiveness Index (GSCI) and the Transition Performance Index (TPI).
Compared to the SSI, the GSCI is more narrowly focused on economic
competitiveness; the TPI follows a concept more akin to the SSI, but with limited scope
of countries and time, leaving the SSI as the one general TBL based index consistently
covering the largest number of countries over the longest time period. Furthermore, with
21 indicators it is easier to handle than the SDG and thus has a wider target group.

https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/composite-indicators/coin-
open-days_en : EU COIN Open Day : COIN Open Days
A COIN Open Day brings together your organisation with
scientists from the Competence Centre on Composite
Indicators and Scoreboards (COIN) to discuss how to further
improve your index or scoreboard, and to ensure that it is
developed using the highest standards in composite
indicator methodology. 
In general, we recommend booking a COIN Open Day, when developers: (1) have
consulted with their stakeholders and have already agreed on an indicator
framework, (2) have populated the framework with data, and (3) are at the phase
of dealing with methodological and conceptual challenges.
This is when the expertise of the Competence Centre ( The term Competence Centre is used in
different contexts to describe an infrastructure dedicated to knowledge organization and transfer, and may
have different meanings according to focus area, scope, domain, and socio-economic framework. It is usually
associated with excellence, training and knowledge transfer, interdisciplinarity, standardization, and a
collaborative approach of different institutions or departments. Also, the structure, operational mode and
organization of existing Competence Centres vary very widely.The name European  Competence Centre for the
Conservation of Cultural Heritage broadly defines the ambit (Europe), scope (Cultural Heritage), and focus
(Conservation). Such definition, however, cannot be interpreted in a strict way, because of the broad
interrelations inherent to the concept of culture, which prevent circumscribing the Centre’s action to a strictly
limited framework.The mission assigned by the European Commission to the Centre already indicates that it
should consider heritage valorisation together with conservation and preservation.) is best at use.  

The SSI is enlisted in EU’s COIN list. Besides the SSI, this list
contains only three other index systems covering all three
sustainability pillars at once: SDG Index, the Transition
Performance Index (TPI) and the Global Sustainable
Competitiveness Index (GSCI). In comparison to SSI, GSCI is
orientated towards the competitiveness of the economy, TPI
concentrates on developments. In contract to all three index system,
the SSI delivers time series abilities back to the year 2000 and covers
more countries than nearly all of them.

ỨNG DỤNG Societal impact:

 By covering all three pillars of sustainability, the SSI allows a holistic view
on sustainability aspects of the entire society and economy and fosters
discussions among social (sociology, economics,
business) and natural sciences.
In education the SSI can be used for date driven awareness-raising for
sustainability issues in secondary and tertiary education, e. g. as a
baseline for exercises of data handling and analysis, for empirical research
teaching in sustainability issues etc. Because the SSI has a quite easy
understandable and clear structure it is especially suitable for
inexperienced users.
For companies and businesses, the SSI can be applied in international
 strategic planning and risk management, e. g. to measure supply chain
sustainability, to deliver a basis for decision-making in country specific
risk assessment etc. Again, because of the clear structure of the SSI it is
easy for the companies to comprehend the system and apply it quickly and
easily. Just to name one explicit example: Bosch had asked for SSI data in
order to decide about the reliability of their supplier countries.
In research, the SSI supports the analysis of TBL-processes (Team based
learning : Học theo nhóm) and -structures, e. g. it is used in empirical
studies about consumer behavior and sustainability, in the identification of
additional social and environmental sustainability categories etc.
The SSI can support the UN and its organizations as well as initiatives and
NGOs to drive their own transformation as well as the transformation in its
maintained area.
In connection with development cooperation, the SSI can initiate
discussions about new trends of the development cooperation and how to
implement them in a sustainable way.
By observing the Distance to Best Performer, which is shown on our
website, politicians can find out who the leader in a certain sustainability
area is and try to follow it.
Last but not least, because the SSI opens up the opportunity of time series
analyses, it is possible to find out, which sustainability measures lead to
the projected objectives and which does not.

Case study : (bài này là về SDI , sự hạn chế của HDI hơn là về SSI
nhưng có thể tận dụng lý do có bài này cho SSI : HDI là chỉ số phát
triển con người nhưng nếu chỉ chăm phát triển con người thì sẽ kéo
theo hậu quả về sau cho môi trường, với dẫn chứng là hầu như các
nước có chỉ số HDI cao đều xả ra lượng rác thải lớn,..vv Suistainable
Society Index sẽ quan tâm tới sự bền vững của môi trường hơn =>
NGHĨ CHO TƯƠNG LAI VỀ SAU DÀI CỦA CON NGƯỜI =>
KÉO THEO CẢ CHỈ SỐ HDI) The sustainable development
index: Measuring the ecological efficiency of human development
in the anthropocene
(Back story củ a bà i này : When the Human Development Index (HDI) was
introduced in the 1990s, it was an important step toward a more sensible measure
of progress, one defined less by GDP growth and more by social goals. But the
limitations of HDI have become clear in the 21 st century, given a growing crisis of
climate change and ecological breakdown. HDI pays no attention to ecology, and
retains an emphasis on high levels of income that – given strong correlations
between income and ecological impact – violates sustainability principles. The
countries that score highest on the HDI also contribute most, in per capita terms,
to climate change and other forms of ecological breakdown. In this sense, HDI
promotes a model of development that is empirically incompatible with ecological
stability, and impossible to universalize. In this paper I propose an alternative
index that corrects for these problems: the Sustainable Development Index (SDI).
The SDI retains the base formula of the HDI but places a sufficiency threshold on
per capita income, and divides by two key indicators of ecological impact: CO2
emissions and material footprint, both calculated in per capita consumption-based
terms and rendered vis-à-vis planetary boundaries. The SDI is an indicator of
strong sustainability that measures nations’ ecological efficiency in delivering
human development.)

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.029 | Elsevier
Enhanced Reader : A comprehensive index
for a sustainable society: The SSI — the
Sustainable Society Index (có Calculation
methodology, Proposed use of the SSI)
Calculating the indicators

3.2.3.1. Sustainability value is known. If the sustainability

value of an indicator is known, the value of the indicator is

scored with a 10 in the case of 100% sustainability. If there is

no sustainability at all, the value for the indicator is 0. The

basic data for these indicators is transformed to the scale of 0

to 10 (Ebert and Welsch, 2004).

3.2.3.2. Educated guess for the sustainability value. For

indicators 18, 20 and 21, an educated guess of the sustain-

ability value is possible, as has been outlined in Table 3.

3.2.3.3. Sustainability value is unknown. Wherever even an

educated guess is not possible, we have chosen to give the

highest score of the 150 assessed countries for that indicator a

10 and the lowest score a 0. Often the calculated maximum

value is slightly lower than 10, depending on the chosen

formula, so the calculation does not have to be adjusted every

time new maximum basic data is made available. The same

applies for the calculated minimum values.

The transformation from basic data to indicator values has

been done by standardization, apart from indicators 11, 13, 14

and 18. For these indicators, more complex formulas have

been used, in line with the characteristics of the indicator.

The formulas used for all 22 indicators can be found on the

website www.sustainablesocietyindex.com

mentioning of VN : .4.1. SSI calculated with equal weights

Calculating the SSI by giving all five categories the same

weight raises the average SSI score by 0.082 from 5.473 to 5.555,

i.e. by 1.5%. However, the ranking is only slightly affected. At

the top end, nothing changes very much, as can be seen in

Table 5. At the sub-top, countries like Vietnam and Bhutan end

up in a lower position. Their relatively high scores for the

category Sustainable World brought these countries to the top

of the SSI ranking list, due to the fact that this category has

been given a double weight.

By calculating the SSI indirectly — as we have done:

aggregating indicators into categories and then aggregating

into the SSI — we have assigned more or less unnoticed

weights. Since not every category comprises the same number

of indicators, indicators making up a category with only three

indicators receive a higher weight than indicators that are part

of a category with six indicators. As might be expected, there is

a greater difference compared with the SSI, calculated with

weights as shown in paragraph 3.3, than if we give ‘only’ the

categories the same weight. The average score is raised by

0.318, from 5.473 to 5.791, i.e. by 4.3%

(PDF) Sustainable society index (SSI): taking

societies' pulse along social, environmental
and economic issues (researchgate.net)

Sustainable Society Index (SSI): Taking societies' pulse along social,

environmental and economic issues. The Joint Research Centre
audit on the SSI (This report discusses how the SSI appears to be a
comprehensive and quantitative method to measure and monitor the health
of coupled human-environmental systems at the national level worldwide
by going beyond a purely protectionist approach that would aim to maintain
natural systems with minimal human impact. Undoubtedly, the SSI is not
the only way to monitor sustainability. But it is a conceptually and
statistically sound tool that is widely applicable for ongoing assessment of
the human-environmental systems and a key benchmark against which to
compare future progress and inform comprehensive societal policies.)
 Fuchs, D., Schlipphak, B., Treib, O., Le Long, A. N., & Lederer, M. (2020). Which Way Forward
in Measuring the Quality of Life? A Critical Analysis of Sustainability and Well-Being Indicator
Sets. Global Environmental Politics, 20 (2), 12–36. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00554
 Kowalski, S., Veit, W. (2020). 2018 Summary Report.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24022.06721/1
 Luukkanen, J.,Kaivo-oja, J.,Vähäkari, N., T. O’Mahony, T., Korkeakoski, M., Panula-Ontto, J.,
Phonhalath, K., Nanthavong, K., Reincke, K., Vehmas, J., & Hogarth, N. (2019). Green economic
development in Lao PDR: A sustainability window analysis of Green Growth Productivity and
the Efficiency Gap. Journal of Cleaner Production (211), 818-
829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.149
 Ding, Y., Fu, Y., Lai, K. K., & John Leung, W. K. (2018). Using Ranked Weights and
Acceptability Analysis to Construct Composite Indicators: A Case Study of Regional Sustainable
Society Index. Social Indicators Research, 139(3), 871–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-
1765-3
 Kowalski, S., Veit, W. (2018). "Aligning Sustainability and Competitiveness in International
Supply Chains: A Consumer Driven Approach," L'industria, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 4,
pages 583-614.
 Wu, S., Fu, Y., Shen, H., & Liu, F. (2018). Using ranked weights and Shannon entropy to modify
regional sustainable society index. Sustainable Cities and Society, 41, 443–
448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.052
 Savić, D., Jeremić, V., & Petrović, N. (2016). Rebuilding the Pillars of Sustainable Society Index:
a Multivariate Post Hoc I-distance Approach. PROBLEMY EKOROZWOJU – PROBLEMS OF
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, 12(1), 125–134. Retrieved
from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2856356
 Gallego-Álvarez, I., Galindo-Villardón, M. P., & Rodríguez-Rosa, M. (2015). Analysis of the
Sustainable Society Index Worldwide: A Study from the Biplot Perspective. Social Indicators
Research, 120(1), 29–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0579-9
 Kaivo-oja, J., Panula-Ontto, J., Vehmas, J., & Luukkanen, J. (2013). Relationships of the
dimensions of sustainability as measured by the sustainable society index
framework. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 21(1), 39–
45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2013.860056
 Saisana, M., & Philippas, D. (2012). Sustainable society index (SSI): Taking societies' pulse
along social, environmental and economic issues. EUR (Luxembourg. Online): Vol.
25578. Luxembourg: Publications Office.
 Van de Kerk, G., & Manuel, A. R. (2008). A comprehensive index for a sustainable society: The
SSI — the Sustainable Society Index. Ecological Economics, 66(2-3), 228–
242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.029

Sustainable Society Index, Tool for Measuring Well-Being | SpringerLink

bgdp-ve-ssi.pdf (europa.eu) : Beyond GDP… … there is the Sustainable Society Index, an easy and
transparent tool to measure wellbeing. GDP, maybe the oldest and worldwide most used indicator,
certainly is a valuable tool to measure the state of a country’s economy. But that is only as far as money
is concerned. Therefore, these days most people are convinced that GDP certainly is not an adequate
tool to measure a country’s wellbeing or progress on the way towards a sustainable society. Already
over twenty years ago, Mrs Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Prime Minister of Norway and the
famous chairperson of the World Commission on Environment and Development, strongly advocated a
balanced development towards a sustainable society. She brought sustainable development high on the
agenda, all around the world. Her definition of a sustainable society, complemented with a third
sentence, runs as follows: A sustainable society is a society that  meets the needs of the present
generation,  does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, and  in
which each human being has the opportunity to develop itself in freedom, within a wellbalanced society
and in harmony with its surrounding
Các định nghĩa khác :
Khung lý thuyết (framework) bao gồm tập hợp các khái niệm, sử dụng để giải thích, mô tả cho
một hiện tượng được nghiên cứu, được xây dựng dựa trên các học thuyết. Nhà nghiên cứu sẽ
giải thích mối quan hệ giữa các khái niệm.

min-max method in 1-10 scale (10 = most sustainable score)

In the SSI-2012, the aggregation formula was changed from an arithmetic to a geometric mean,
because the latter formula: (a) implies only partial substitutability, i.e. poor performance in one
indicator cannot be fully compensated by good performance in another, (b) rewards balance by
penalizing uneven performance in the underlying indicators, (c) provides incentives for improvement in
the weak dimensions: the geometric mean considers that the lower the performance in a particular
indicator, the more urgent it becomes to improve achievements in that indicator (
LBNA25578ENN_002.pdf )

Note : Nhóm Đan bị ko giải thích được cách tính hình học : geometric aggregation formula :
+ There’s a new KPI aggregation type called geometric mean. It’s a way of calculating the

average of multiple numbers that is used in various statistical models. The technical

definition of geometric mean is the nth root of a product of n numbers.

In practice, the math is fairly simple. With the “average” aggregation type, three numbers
are aggregated using ((a + b + c))⁄3. For geometric mean, the equation is ∛(a * b * c).

+ 2. Geometric aggregation

As discussed previously, an undesirable feature of additive aggregations is the full

compensability they imply: poor performance in some indicators can be compensated by
sufficiently high values of other indicators. For example if an hypothetical composite indicator
was formed by inequality, environmental degradation, GDP per capita and unemployment, two
countries, one with values (21,1,1,1) and the other with (6,6,6,6) would have equal composite
indicator value (=6) under an additive aggregation. Obviously the two countries would represent
very different social conditions that would not be reflected in the composite.

Geometric aggregation (i.e. the product of weighted indicators) is a less compensatory

approach. In our simple example the first country would have a much lower composite indicator
value (=2.14) than the second country (=6.00) under the geometric aggregation. The use of
geometric aggregation can also be justified on the grounds of the different incentives they apply
to countries in a benchmarking exercise. Countries with low scores in some indicators would
prefer a linear rather than a geometric aggregation (as explained previously). On the other
hand, an increase in an indicator value would have higher marginal utility on the composite
indicator if the indicator value is low: let us assume an increase of 1 unit for the second
indicator, then the first country would increase its composite from 2.14 to 2.54, while the second
country would score from 6.00 to 6.23. In other terms the first country would increase its
composite by 19% while the second only by 4%. The lesson is that a country should be more
interested in increasing those sectors/activities/alternatives with the lowest score in order to
have the highest chance to improve its position in the ranking if the aggregation is geometric
rather than linear.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1470160X17303357 : When to use

what: Methods for weighting and aggregating sustainability indicators
Sustainability indices (SIs) have become increasingly important to
sustainability research and practice. However, while the validity of SIs is
heavily dependent on how their components are weighted and
aggregated, the typology and applicability of the existing weighting and
aggregation methods remain poorly understood.

Weighted indicators : What are weighted indicators?

Within this framework, methods for weighting indicators can be broadly categorized into
three main groups: (1) equal weighting, (2) statistic-based weighting, and (3)
public/expert opinion-based weighting. Equal weighting means that all the indicators
are given the same weight

Aggregating indicators : Aggregation combines the values of a set of indicators

into a single summary ‘composite’ or ‘aggregate’ measure.
https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/composite-indicators/10-step-guide/
step-7-aggregating-indicators_en

https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/home_en

competence centre : https://www.4ch-project.eu/what-is-a-competence-centre/