Effective Results Frameworks for Sustainable Development

2. Integrating sustainable development in results frameworks – Key considerations

Guiding principle

Managing for Sustainable Development Results approaches should maximise the impact of efforts towards achieving social, economic and environmentally sustainable development that leaves no-one behind. […] Set clear expected results measured by indicators aligned to the SDGs. […] Promote coherent, cross-sector and cross-disciplinary approaches and incorporate them into measurement, learning and reporting systems, in line with the integrated approach of the SDGs.

OECD (2019[1]) Managing for Sustainable Development Results, Guiding Principle 1

Issues covered in this chapter

• Mapping existing global and regional frameworks for sustainable development, and how they relate to each other

• A deep dive into the SDG indicator framework, including:

  • Its key characteristics

  • How it is organised

  • How to assess the depth of alignment of results frameworks to the SDGs

  • How to assess and decide on the inclusion of SDG indicators in results frameworks

  • Individual assessment of all SDG indicators – see Supplementary Material

2.1. Importance of integrating sustainable development in results frameworks

Integrating sustainable development into results frameworks is crucial for several reasons:

• Balanced progress: Sustainable development promotes a balanced approach to economic, social, and environmental dimensions, which is crucial for long-term success and stability. Incorporating it into results frameworks ensures all these dimensions are considered in planning, implementing, and evaluating initiatives.

• Long-term vision: Sustainable development encourages long-term thinking and planning. Integrating it into results frameworks helps organisations focus not just on immediate outputs, but also on long-term outcomes and impacts.

• Alignment with global ambitions: Many sustainable development frameworks have been adopted by countries worldwide, or in specific regions, as a common framework for their development. Integrating these into results frameworks helps align organisational objectives with global agreements and goals.

• Resilience and adaptability: Sustainable development principles foster resilience and adaptability to changes and challenges. By integrating them into results frameworks, development actors can better anticipate and respond to future uncertainties and risks.

• Stakeholder engagement: Sustainable development often involves engaging a wide range of stakeholders, promoting inclusivity and shared ownership. Integrating it into results frameworks can improve stakeholder relations, accountability, and transparency.

2.1.1. Anticipating challenges and disincentives

While integrating sustainable development into results frameworks is largely seen as beneficial, some common misperceptions, challenges or risks discourage practitioners from considering this step:

• Complexity: Sustainable development includes economic, social, and environmental dimensions, all of which can be challenging to incorporate and balance within a single results framework. This might increase perceived complexity and make it harder to set clear, focused objectives and indicators.

• Measurement challenges: Measuring progress towards sustainable development can be seen as difficult due to its long-term, multi-dimensional nature. This might create the perception that tracking progress will be more difficult and raise concerns about how to demonstrate results in the short term, which is often a requirement for many funders or stakeholders.

• Resource-intensive: Incorporating sustainable development considerations might require additional resources for data collection, monitoring, and evaluation. Organisations with limited resources might be concerned about how to proceed.

• Potential for greenwashing or SDG-washing: There's a risk that development strategies and initiatives might claim to be sustainable without making substantive changes, also known as "greenwashing" or “SDG-washing”. For example, one could claim alignment to a certain SDG without meaningful consideration of its content, implications or measurement practices. This could undermine the credibility of results frameworks if sustainable development is not genuinely integrated and demonstrated in practice.

• Risk of overemphasis on environmental factors: While environmental sustainability is important, there could be a risk of overemphasising this dimension at the expense of social and economic factors if not carefully balanced. This could lead to unintended negative impacts on certain communities or economic sectors.

These challenges, however, are not reasons to avoid integrating sustainable development into results frameworks, but rather considerations to address in the process. With proper planning, stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to genuine change, these challenges can be managed and overcome.

2.1.2. Self-assessment questions

• Reflect on your organisation's current approach to results reporting. To what extent does it incorporate the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social, and environmental)? Are there any areas where the balance could be improved?

• Consider the potential challenges of integrating sustainable development into your results framework discussed above. Which of these challenges resonate most with your organisation's context, and what strategies could you employ to address them?

• Evaluate the extent of stakeholder engagement in your current results framework. How might integrating sustainable development principles improve this engagement, and what specific steps could your organisation take to promote inclusivity and shared ownership?

2.2. Prominent results frameworks for sustainable development

Global and regional results frameworks provide invaluable insights into strategies and metrics that have proven effective in promoting sustainable development. By aligning results framework with these models, providers of development co-operation can ensure that their efforts contribute to broader development goals, leverage shared learnings, harmonise ways of measuring development and foster synergies with initiatives at multiple levels. Using prominent results frameworks as a reference point can enhance individual impact while helping drive collective progress towards a more sustainable future. The following is a list of prominent frameworks that explicitly define expected results for one or many dimensions of sustainable development:

2.2.1. Global frameworks for sustainable development

United Nations: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The SDG framework is the most prominent framework for sustainable development. It comprises 17 interconnected goals, 169 targets and 249 indicators aimed at addressing the world's most pressing challenges. The goals, ranging from poverty eradication to climate action, are designed to be achieved by 2030. The SDGs provide a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity, aspiring to guide global, national, and local actions towards sustainable development for all. Discussions are ongoing on ways to improve the framework for continued relevance beyond 2030.

Given its importance, the SDG framework is assessed in detail in this chapter (from section 3 onwards).

Link: https://sdgs.un.org/

UNFCCC: Paris Agreement monitoring, reporting and verification framework

Adopted in 2015, the Paris Agreement is an international treaty aimed at combatting climate change and its impacts. While lacking a standalone results framework, it sets up a system for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) of nations' climate actions. This includes Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) whereby countries outline their climate targets and measures, a transparency framework for regular reporting on greenhouse gas inventories and implementation progress, a five-yearly global stocktake assessing collective progress, and a non-punitive compliance mechanism. Although not a conventional results framework, the Paris Agreement's MRV components track progress towards climate goals, focusing primarily on the climate-related aspects of sustainable development.

Link: https://unfccc.int/

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-30)

The Sendai Framework is a global agreement designed to significantly decrease disaster risk and losses across various sectors, focusing on preventing and reducing hazard exposure and increasing preparedness. It involves comprehensive measures at the economic, structural, legal, social, and other levels to boost resilience. It recognises the need for political commitment and collaboration among state-level governments, local authorities, the private sector and non-state actors. The framework sets out four action priorities and uses a results-oriented approach with specific, measurable global targets and indicators to assess progress in its implementation.

Link: https://www.unece.org/sendai-framework

United Nations: Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

The MDGs were a set of eight global development targets established in 2000, aimed at reducing poverty, improving health and education, and promoting gender equality and environmental sustainability by 2015. Due to measurement inertia, some countries and organisations still measure the MDGs as part of their “unfinished business”. Some elements and MDG indicators were incorporated into the SDG framework.

Link: https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

2.2.2. Regional and thematic frameworks for sustainable development

African Union: Agenda 2063 Results Framework

The African Union's Agenda 2063 is a strategic framework for the socio-economic transformation of the African continent over a 50-year period. Its results framework outlines a series of goals, priorities and indicators to monitor progress towards the vision of an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa driven by its citizens. Key focus areas include inclusive growth and sustainable development, political and economic integration, good governance, democracy and human rights. The results framework also emphasises the importance of Africa's cultural identity, heritage and values, as well as its role in the global arena. Agenda 2063 promotes African solidarity and unity while addressing challenges such as climate change, conflicts and health issues by harnessing the continent's natural resources, human capital and innovative potential.

Link: https://au.int/en/agenda2063/overview

European Union’s Results and Indicators for Development Co-operation

The European Union provides an open suite of standard indicators that integrate sustainable development organised in thematic clusters, including: green alliances and partnerships; human development, peace and governance; sustainable growth and jobs; migration and mobility; science, technology, innovation and digitalisation; and gender equality.

Link: https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/results-and-indicators

Sustainable development frameworks for Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

SIDS face unique challenges due to their small size, isolation, and vulnerability to climate change and natural disasters. While they often use global frameworks such as the SDGs to track their progress, some SIDS-specific frameworks and initiatives have been developed to address their particular development needs and priorities. These frameworks include:

1. The Barbados Programme of Action (BPOA): Adopted in 1994, the BPOA is the first global framework that specifically addresses the challenges faced by SIDS. It outlines 14 priority areas for sustainable development in SIDS, including climate change, natural disasters, coastal and marine resources, freshwater resources, land resources, energy resources, tourism, biodiversity and waste management.

Link: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/conferences/bpoa1994

2. The Mauritius Strategy for the Further Implementation of the BPOA (MSI): The MSI, adopted in 2005, builds on the BPOA and provides a detailed plan for its implementation. It emphasises the need for enhanced support from the international community, effective partnerships, and regional co-operation to address the unique challenges faced by SIDS.

Link: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/conferences/msi2005

3. The SAMOA Pathway: The Small Island Developing States Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway, adopted in 2014, is a global framework that reaffirms the commitments made in the BPOA and MSI. It highlights the need for a renewed partnership between SIDS and the international community, and it identifies specific priority areas for sustainable development results in SIDS, including climate change, disaster risk reduction, oceans and seas, waste management, sustainable tourism and renewable energy.

Link: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/samoapathway.html

4. Regional frameworks: Many SIDS are also involved in regional frameworks that include results components tailored to their specific contexts. Examples include the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Strategic Plan, the Pacific Roadmap for Sustainable Development, and the Indian Ocean Commission's Regional Strategy for Sustainable Development.

Link: https://caricom.org/doctype/strategic-plan-strategy/

Link: https://www.pcreee.org/publication/pacific-roadmap-sustainable-development

While these frameworks are tailored to address the specific challenges and priorities of SIDS, they often complement and align with global sustainable development frameworks, such as the SDGs.

OECD Green Growth indicators

The OECD Green Growth Indicators provide a comprehensive framework for assessing countries' progress in achieving green growth, focusing on environmental efficiency, natural assets, and socioeconomic context and policies.

Link: https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/green-growth-indicators/

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards

The GRI Standards provide a framework for sustainability reporting, offering metrics for environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. They aim to promote transparency and accountability in businesses.

Link: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/

Social Progress Index (SPI)

The Social Progress Index evaluates countries based on social and environmental indicators. It focuses on people's quality of life, assessing societal needs and wellbeing beyond economic measurements.

Link: https://www.socialprogress.org/

The list above does not intend to be exhaustive, but all the results frameworks and models presented are currently used by governments and international development partners to measure one or more dimensions of sustainable development.

Box 2.1. Comparing sustainable development frameworks

While each of the frameworks discussed above serves a different purpose and context, there are several key similarities among them:

1. Focus on Sustainable Development: All the frameworks are centred around the concept of sustainable development, addressing its economic, social and environmental dimensions. They aim to balance immediate human needs with the long-term health of the planet.

2. Results-Oriented: The frameworks are results-oriented, focusing on outcomes and impacts rather than just inputs and activities. They emphasise the importance of achieving meaningful, substantive change.

3. Performance Indicators: Each of the frameworks uses a set of indicators to measure progress towards their objectives – with emphasis on outcomes and impacts. These indicators provide a way to quantify and track changes over time.

4. Stakeholder Engagement: The frameworks recognise the importance of involving a wide range of stakeholders, reflecting the interconnected nature of sustainable development. They promote inclusivity and shared responsibility.

5. Long-Term Vision: The frameworks all embody a long-term vision for a more sustainable future. They encourage forward-thinking and long-term planning.

6. Adaptability and Flexibility: Given the complex and dynamic nature of sustainable development, the frameworks are designed to be adaptable and flexible. They allow for adjustments and modifications based on changing circumstances and new information.

7. Global Alignment: Although some of the frameworks have a specific regional focus, they all align with the global vision of sustainable development as encapsulated in the SDGs. This reflects a shared commitment to a common set of principles and goals.

8. Accountability and Transparency: The frameworks emphasise the importance of accountability and transparency, often requiring regular reporting and review to ensure progress is being made and commitments are being met.

2.2.3. Global frameworks with a focus on means of implementation and effectiveness

The previous mapping included global and regional agreements which focus on development outcomes and include a form of results framework or indicators associated with the agreement.

It is important to mention other significant references in the development sphere, such as the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the Grand Bargain, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness or the Busan Partnership Agreement. These frameworks predominantly aim to mobilise and streamline resource mobilisation for sustainable development, and to enhance the effective delivery of development finance, rather than directly outlining development outcomes. In other words, these global agreements serve as operational guides focusing on the 'how' of development, not the 'what.'

In designing results frameworks, the usefulness of these global references lies in helping define input indicators and targets (i.e. financial and non-financial resources), and in ensuring effective and efficient operational processes and activities that can increase the chances of development impact, rather than in defining and tracking sustainable development outcomes.

Recognising this distinction is critical to appropriately utilising these global normative references in designing effective strategies and results frameworks.

2.2.4. Self-assessment questions

• Examine the various sustainable development frameworks presented earlier. Which framework or combination of frameworks aligns best with your organisation's mission, objectives and context?

• Evaluate your organisation's current approach to long-term planning and adaptability. How do these compare to the common characteristics found in the sustainable development frameworks presented?

• Reflecting on the importance of accountability and transparency in sustainable development frameworks, assess your organisation’s current practices. How frequently and transparently does your organisation report on its progress towards its development objectives? How could this be improved in line with the principles of these frameworks?

• Consider how your government or organisation, at a strategic and operational level, is integrating other global reference frameworks in defining financial and non-financial input indicators, quality assurance of processes, and partnership approaches needed to deliver on your results framework. Are current financing and delivery practices and processes aligned with the principles underpinning those supporting frameworks?

2.3. Deep dive: The Sustainable Development Goals framework

2.3.1. Introduction to the SDG framework

The SDG framework was created to offer a shared blueprint for navigating complex multidimensional challenges and can help bolster development co-operation’s collective impact to effectively support sustainable development everywhere (OECD, 2021[2]). The SDGs can serve as a common standard to co-ordinate efforts by governments, development partners, the private sector and other development actors.

Origins, strengths, and limitations

The SDG framework was the result of international negotiations culminating in the UN's adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015. Political consensus among member states, informed by extensive stakeholder consultations, set the initial framework. Post-adoption, continuous technical improvements have been made, particularly around refining the indicator framework, to ensure its robustness and relevance.

Figure 2.1. The 17 Global Goals

That iterative process of political and technical consensus-building led to a truly universal and integrated framework of 17 goals and 169 targets that reflects diverse perspectives. This inclusive process, however, made the framework larger and more complex than that of the preceding Millennium Development Goals. Additionally, due to the consensus-based nature of the process, some targets may lack the specificity needed for easy measurement, while others reflect political compromises that could limit their ambition or clarity. These limitations are being addressed over time with regular reviews and improvements, or by allowing elements of the framework to be adjusted to the specific contexts where it is applied.

Using the SDG framework and focusing on pursuing SDG results through development interventions offers many advantages, including the ability to navigate complex challenges using the same language and data, build partnerships around a consensus agenda and maximise the impact and value of every investment (OECD, 2021[2]).

2.3.2. Key characteristics of the SDG framework

Universality

The SDG framework, unlike past development models, introduces the concept of universality, asserting that all countries, regardless of their development stage, bear responsibility for achieving sustainable development. This shift acknowledges that challenges are global, not isolated, demanding collective and equitable responses. Such universality enriches results frameworks by endorsing a shared narrative and mutual accountability, leading to more harmonised efforts and measurement practices. By applying the SDGs as a shared reference point, governments and development agencies can enhance coherence, strengthen partnerships, and promote global solidarity that is critical in tackling our shared developmental challenges. Less noted is the possibility of building bridges and fostering more productive policy dialogue around development outcomes, particularly in contexts of low mutual trust between partners, as the SDGs provide a consensus agenda and a streamlined language for discussing sustainable development issues.

Integration of social, economic and environmental dimensions

The SDG framework uniquely integrates social, economic and environmental dimensions, reflecting the interconnectedness of these aspects in achieving sustainable development. By drawing on the SDG indicators, results frameworks can ensure a holistic approach, addressing these three dimensions concurrently rather than in silos. For example, SDG 8 indicators promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth (environmental, social and economic dimensions combined), full and productive employment (economic and social concerns in balance) and decent work for all (various social dimensions addressed). Similarly, SDG 11 indicators aim to make cities inclusive (social), safe and resilient (environmental), and sustainable (economic). Incorporating such multidimensional SDG indicators into results frameworks encourages a balanced perspective, fostering comprehensive solutions that consider the intricate interplay of social, economic and environmental factors in development.

Inclusiveness and multi-stakeholder approaches

The SDG framework underscores the value of inclusiveness and a multi-stakeholder approach, as sustainable development is a collective task requiring diverse perspectives, pooled resources and concerted efforts. Integrating the SDG framework into results frameworks fosters an inclusive process by actively encouraging contributions from all societal sectors, including governments, civil society, the private sector and academia. Inclusive, multi-stakeholder approaches not only incentivise addressing a wide range of development challenges, but also promote ownership, responsibility, and commitment among diverse actors. In practice, results frameworks that benefit from inclusive approaches for their development, monitoring and usage tend to be more effective and lead to more durable development endeavours.

2.3.3. Organisation of the SDG results framework

A results framework of 17 goals, 169 targets and 249 SDG indicators

The structure of the SDG framework revolves around three components. There are 17 overarching goals, each addressing a critical aspect of sustainable development. These goals are further divided into targets, which are monitored through indicators to assess progress.

To note:

• SDG targets: The 169 targets are a mix of quantifiable objectives and open-ended ambitions. Two thirds of the targets (107) are considered "outcome/impact targets", as they are specific and measurable. The remaining 62 targets are "means-of-implementation targets" that are more process-oriented and thus tend to be more open-ended, i.e. without a specified target value.

• SDG indicators: The 249 SDG indicators are all quantifiable metrics. They take the form of single, multi-layered, or composite indicators. Some SDG indicators are re-used for various goals. The total number of unique SDG indicators is 232. Find our detailed analysis in the Supplementary Material.

In terms of content, the 17 SDGs encapsulate a broad spectrum of development issues, ranging from poverty eradication to climate action, from quality education to gender equality. While each goal has a specific focus, they are intrinsically interrelated, reflecting the complex and interconnected nature of sustainable development. Their collective realisation represents a balanced and comprehensive approach to achieving a sustainable future for all. The following section will further explore these interlinkages.

Interlinkages between goals, targets and indicators

Interlinkages within the SDG framework refers to the intricate relationships and dependencies among the goals, targets, and indicators. These interconnections may take various forms, such as synergies, trade-offs, or indirect impacts. Synergistic interlinkages imply that progress in one area can spur advancements in others. Conversely, trade-offs suggest that progress in one goal may hinder progress in another. Indirect impacts denote subtler, cascading effects that may not be immediately apparent.

The diversity and multitude of these interlinkages are immense, reflecting the complexity of sustainable development. For instance, sustainable agriculture (SDG 2) can positively impact climate change mitigation (SDG 13), while also influencing water quality (SDG 6) and rural development (SDG 15). Similarly, quality education (SDG 4) can empower women and girls (SDG 5), thereby promoting gender equality, which in turn can spur economic growth (SDG 8).

Significant strides have been made in understanding these interlinkages, thanks to innovative analytical tools and methodologies. These include network analysis, systems thinking, and scenario modelling, which have shed light on the complexity and dynamics of these interconnections, providing valuable insights for policy design and implementation (Kroll, Warchold and Pradhan, 2020[3]) (Bennich, Weitz and Carlsen, 2020[4]).

Integrating an understanding of SDG interlinkages into results frameworks can enhance the effectiveness and coherence of development initiatives by enabling a more strategic, holistic and nuanced approach to achieving sustainable development.

Some tools to explore SDG interlinkages include:

• Enabling SDGs (Joint European Research Council)

• SDG Accelerator and Bottleneck Assessment (UNDP)

• SDG Compass (United Nations)

• SDG Toolbox (UN Global Compact)

• Analysis of SDG indicators characteristics (OECD)

Thematic groupings and synergies

The SDG framework can be strategically organised around thematic groupings or clusters of synergies. These clusters represent areas where multiple goals intersect and can be mutually reinforcing, providing a more cohesive and integrated approach to sustainable development. Table 2.1 describes frequently used ways to consider thematic groupings for the purposes of results framework development.

Table 2.1. Thematic clusters of SDG indicators

Thematic Priority	Priority SDG indicators
Poverty and Inequality	SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and some SDG 8 indicators (Decent Work and Economic Growth).
Health and Well-being	SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and some SDG 6 indicators (Clean Water and Sanitation).
Education and Skills	SDG 4 (Quality Education), some SDG 8 indicators (Decent Work and Economic Growth).
Climate Action and Environmental Sustainability	SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 15 (Life on Land), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), and some SDG 12 indicators (Responsible Consumption and Production).
Peace and Justice	SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), and some SDG 10 indicators (Reduced Inequalities).
Urban Development and Infrastructure	SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), and some SDG 6 indicators (Clean Water and Sanitation).
Rural Development and Infrastructure	SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 15 (Life on Land), and some indicators across the SDG framework where urban-rural data disaggregation is relevant, such as SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) on rural settlements, and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).
Gender Equality and Empowerment	SDG 5 (Gender Equality), some SDG indicators across the framework where gender is a cross-cutting issue (see Chapter 7 on Leaving No One Behind).
Partnerships and Global Co-operation	SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), and SDG indicators across all the other SDGs that require international co-operation and/or refer to the international transfer of resources, financing, technology, data or knowledge.

By organising the SDGs into these thematic groupings, a results framework can better leverage the synergies among them, allowing for more effective and efficient planning, implementation, and monitoring of sustainable development initiatives.

2.3.4. Criteria to assess the SDG indicators

As seen in the Introduction, indicator selection should primarily consider the relevance of the indicator to the priorities, specific objectives and context of the strategy, programme or project. The ultimate driver of indicator selection should be to meet an information need in terms of learning, decision-making, accountability or communication.

However, other considerations (e.g. cost, complexity, synergies, sustainability) are equally important in order to develop effective results frameworks. As such, the six DAC Evaluation Criteria can serve as a useful guide in selecting SDG indicators for results frameworks. These criteria help link specific characteristics of the SDG indicators with dimensions of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability (see Table 2.2).

Table 2.2. Assessing SDG indicators with an evaluative eye

Criterion	Considerations	Possible variables (to assess the criterion)
Relevance	Does the SDG indicator align with the intervention objectives and the needs and priorities of the target population/country? It is worth considering if the indicator is frequently included in national development plans and other development co-operation results frameworks, and whether it will generate relevant data on the intended change, which can be effectively used for decision-making, learning, accountability and communication?	Reflects a strategic priority Nature of indicator (ideal: outcomes/impact) Relevance of the issue for development co-operation results frameworks (ideal: very high) Inclusion in national development plans and development co-operation results frameworks (ideal: very high) Communication effectiveness (ideal: very effective)
Coherence	Does the SDG indicator align with other interventions or policies, both within the programme and externally? This is where the number of synergies the indicator has with other SDGs becomes important, and whether the complexity of an indicator (e.g. multi-layered, composite) can support coherence between economic, social and environmental factors.	Synergies with other SDGs (ideal: more) Complexity (ideal: comprehensively reflects the issue)
Effectiveness	Can the SDG indicator accurately measure the desired changes in the world? The complexity of the indicator, its communication effectiveness, and the type of change it signals can influence this.	Type of change (ideal: absolute change) Level of control (ideal: internal) Communication effectiveness (ideal: very effective) Aggregability for reporting (ideal: high)
Efficiency	This measures the cost-effectiveness of data collection and communication for the SDG indicator. Factors such as the number of available data sources, the frequency of data collection, and the level of data aggregation and disaggregation can be significant.	Data sources (ideal: many available) Complexity (ideal: low) Frequency of data collection and levels of data disaggregation increase the cost of monitoring.
Impact	Potential of the action to contribute to broader SDG achievements. Factors relevant for this criterion include whether the indicator reflects outcomes and impacts, the number of synergies the indicator has with other SDGs, whether it's a leading or lagging indicator, and whether the indicator is also driven by external factors.	Nature (ideal: outcomes/impact) Synergies with other SDGs (ideal: high number) Degree of influence (internal or externally driven) Level of control (Leading or lagging indicator)
Sustainability	Potential for the impact to continue after the action ends. The frequency of data collection signals the extent to which the indicator is a standard measure, and the indicator's typical inclusion in other plans and strategies can indicate its sustainability, as it links with broader development efforts in the same direction.	Frequency of data collection (ideal: typically, data is frequently collected in many contexts) Inclusion in national development plans and development co-operation results frameworks (ideal: very high)

Source: Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on the assessment included in the Supplementary Material. See discussion there on the assessment framework presented above. A preliminary assessment for each of the 249 SDG indicators is also included in the Supplementary Material.

A guide to selecting SDG indicators

A thorough understanding of the characteristics of 249 SDG indicators, and clear criteria to consider in selecting them for use in results frameworks, can help ensuring that results frameworks produce strategically and contextually relevant information, do so in coherent, effective, and efficient manner, and they emphasise outcomes and impacts. It can also help anticipate additional investments needed for data collection for some, less widespread, SDG indicators.

To guide your SDG indicator selection based on the evaluative criteria described above, please consult the Supplementary Material, which includes explanations for the 13 assessment variables, and an indicator-by-indicator review. The dashboard (Figure 2.2) provides an overview of how the 249 SDG indicators fare against the variable suggested in the previous table.

Figure 2.2. Dashboard: Assessment of the SDG framework

 

 

• To what extent your organisational structure and ways of working allow you to strategize, plan and deliver programmes and projects that simultaneously integrate the three dimensions of sustainable development, cross-sector approaches, holistic approaches, etc? What are the key obstacles or hurdles?

• Does your government or organisation use the SDGs as an anchor or frame to establish (co-financing, implementation) partnerships with other governments or organisations? If not through the SDGs, what other narrative or framework is being used to discuss sustainable development issues?

• If SDG indicators are being used in your strategies, programmes and projects, take a moment to reflect on the approach your government or organisation is currently using to select SDG indicators:

  • Are there clear criteria for indicator selection used across the institution?

  • What are the dominant drivers?

    • To what extent data availability, political priorities, diagnostics and/or consultative processes determine what gets measured in terms of SDG indicators?

    • At what levels of results reporting is the use of SDG indicators more common?

  • Are these SDG results being monitored and reported regularly? Is the reporting a standalone, separate exercise, or does it happen as part of overall results reporting? What are the key audiences or users for that information?

2.4. Measuring alignment of development efforts to the SDG framework

Measuring the percentage of SDG indicators (or similar indicators) used in results framework has become a standard practice in assessing the SDG orientation of results frameworks. This section presents a systematic approach on how to do so.

2.4.1. Depth of SDG alignment

SDG alignment can start at the level of goals, targets or indicators. Alignment to goals (considered soft alignment) is easier than aligning to targets and indicators. OECD research shows the costs and benefits of the three levels of SDG alignment, which is summarised in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3. Depth of alignment to the SDG framework: What do we mean?

Source: Authors’ elaboration on the basis of (OECD, 2019[5]), Sustainable Results in Development: Using the SDGs for results and impact, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/dac/sustainable-results-in-development-368cf8b4-en.htm and (OECD, 2021[2]), Achieving SDG results: Summary for policy makers, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/achieving-sdg-results-in-development-co-operation_5b2b0ee8-en.html

A more nuanced way of assessing SDG alignment is to look at whether, in selecting SDG indicators, the official international definition and methodology for the indicator are used, or whether the indicators have been adjusted or a suitable alternative (i.e., a proxy indicator) replaces it:

• Full alignment: The SDG indicator follows the official definition and methodology

• Partial alignment: The SDG indicator closely follows the official definition or methodology, but it has been adjusted to refer to a sub-set of the target (e.g., a specific region, social group or industry).

• Proxy indicator: The indicator is different to the relevant SDG indicator, but it closely aligns with the associated SDG target.

These two steps for thinking about SDG alignment can help officials in charge of policy, strategy, programme or project design to monitor the degree of alignment to SDG results across their government or agency.

2.4.2. Status and prospects

By using the common SDG framework to its full potential, development actors can contribute to increased co-ordination and decreased fragmentation at the country level, enhanced synergies and maximised collective impact. The more the SDG indicators are used to measure the results of development interventions, the better data and evidence can be generated. Using the SDG indicators can enhance the availability of data for more informed decision-making.

Governments

Progressively, governments across the world have instituted mechanisms to monitor and report on SDG progress, while increasingly integrating elements of the SDG framework into their country planning documents and systems.

In practice, the process of establishing linkages between national or sector results frameworks and the SDGs has been non-linear, with three take-aways useful to note:

• Most countries had to reconcile competing global and regional frameworks (see section 2.2 above) with political priorities, and most national development plans tend to reflect a mix of intentions.

• Faced with data constraints or legacy indicators, countries developed national monitoring frameworks that include a mix of official SDG indicators and country-tailored alternatives (proxy indicators). That said, the share of official indicators used in practice has increased over time.

• Integrated cross-sector approaches were rare in national strategies developed between 2015 and 2019, but countries are increasingly acknowledging synergies, multipliers and trade-offs in their strategies and results frameworks. Experiences in integrated short-term planning in response to the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to this trend.

Overall, these national trends towards integrating sustainable development concerns enable, in turn, greater collective use of the SDG framework at lower levels of policymaking, planning, programming, partnerships and statistics (Figure 2.4).

International development partners

Among international development partners, more than half have set a corporate results framework that fully or partially aims to achieve SDG results. Use of the SDG framework for planning and measuring results at country level remains more limited, with only one third of development partners systematically or frequently using SDG indicators in their country-level results frameworks (OECD, 2021[2]).

Progress in embracing the SDG framework as a results framework has been slow but steady. Ensuring that the selection of indicators is harmonised with best practices is paramount for broader data availability and co-ordinated impact on sustainable development.

This OECD toolkit is a contribution in that direction.

Figure 2.4. Use of the SDG framework by countries and international development partners

Note: Samples include, respectively, governments from UN member states, and 57 bilateral and multilateral development organisations, representing 97% of all official development financing reported to the OECD.

Source: Authors’ calculations based on (GPEDC, 2023[6]) data, a sample review of new national development plans from 2019-21, (UN, 2023[7]) and (OECD, 2021[2]).

2.4.3. Self-assessment questions

• Reflect on the depth of alignment to SDG results:

  • How deeply are the SDGs embedded into your government’s or institution's strategies and programmes? Is SDG integration done mostly at the level of goals, targets, or indicators?

  • Does your government or institution follow the official SDG definitions and methodologies when selecting indicators, or does it adapt or replace them with suitable proxies? Is the approach clear and understood by those in charge of applying it to the development of results frameworks?

  • Does the overall approach lead to any unintended consequence that could be addressed?

• Consider the prospects for further SDG integration:

  • If your government or organisation has initiated a process of integrating SDG priorities and indicators internally, what is driving the pace of SDG integration?

  • What are some key achievements and challenges your government or agency has faced in integrating the SDG framework into your national (or high-level, corporate) results frameworks? What about the level of integration downstream, into sectors, programmes or projects?

  • How does your institution reconcile other global and regional frameworks, and, with internal or context-specific political priorities in aligning with the SDGs? Is there a prioritisation exercise or conscious approach on how to proceed?

• Reflect on the potential to use the SDG framework as a common standard for results monitoring, internally and across development partners:

  • Are there mechanisms in place to encourage the wider use of the SDG framework at various levels of policymaking, planning, programming, partnerships, and statistics?

  • How is your institution promoting cross-sector approaches and acknowledging the synergies, multipliers, and trade-offs that exist in development, such as the ones that the different SDGs show?

  • How does your institution harmonise its indicator selection with best practices to ensure broader data availability and co-ordinated impact on sustainable development?

References

[4] Bennich, T., N. Weitz and H. Carlsen (2020), “Deciphering the scientific literature on SDG interactions: A review and reading guide”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 728/1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138405.

[6] GPEDC (2023), GPEDC Monitoring Dashboard, Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, https://effectivecooperation.org/landing-page/monitoring-data (accessed on 5 April 2023).

[3] Kroll, C., A. Warchold and P. Pradhan (2020), “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies?”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 5/15, pp. 1562-1571, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0335-5.

[2] OECD (2021), Achieving SDG Results in Development Co-operation: Summary for Policy Makers, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5b2b0ee8-en.

[1] OECD (2019), Managing for Sustainable Development Results: Guiding Principles, Best Practices in Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/44a288bc-en.

[5] OECD (2019), Sustainable Results in Development: Using the SDGs for Shared Results and Impact, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/368cf8b4-en.

[7] UN (2023), Country tracker of Voluntary National Reviews, https://hlpf.un.org/countries.