Authentic
Sustainability
Assessment
A User Manual for the Sustainable
Development Performance Indicators 
M A N U A L

The content of the report is the sole responsibility 
of the author and does not necessarily reflect the 
position of UNRISD. The designations employed in 
this publication and the presentation of material 
herein do not imply the expression of any opinion 
whatsoever on the part of UNRISD concerning the 
legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of 
its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its 
frontiers or boundaries.
Suggested citation
Ilcheong Yi, Samuel Bruelisauer, Peter Utting, Mark 
McElroy, Marguerite Mendell, Sonja Novkovic and Zhen 
Lee. 2022. Authentic Sustainability Assessment: A User 
Manual for the Sustainable Development Performance 
Indicators. Geneva, UNRISD.
ISBN 978 92 9085 131 8
November 2022
Copyright © United Nations Research Institute
for Social Development (UNRISD)
Financial support to this project was provided by the 
Center for Social Value Enhancement Studies,
Republic of Korea.
The preparation, research and writing for this Manual 
were undertaken by a team of UNRISD researchers. 
Senior Research Coordinator Ilcheong Yi led 
UNRISD’s Sustainable Development Performance 
Indicators (SDPI) project, drafting and finalizing the 
Manual for publication; Research Analyst Samuel 
Brülisauer played a key role in preparing the early 
drafts until his departure to pursue a doctorate; 
and Research Analyst Zhen Lee provided invaluable 
editorial and logistical support, navigating the 
Manual on the last legs of the journey to publication.
Core members of the SDPI Expert Advisory Group 
(Mark McElroy, Margie Mendell, Sonja Novkovic, 
and Peter Utting) provided significant feedback 
on early drafts of the Manual, and essential 
guidance throughout the SDPI Project (including 
the development of the indicators and feedback 
on the final drafts of the Manual). Bill Baue and 
Ralph Thurm of r3.0 also provided valuable inputs 
throughout the process. A special thanks to James 
Hopeward, Paul Sutton and Tony Xuantong Wang 
who contributed their technical expertise on GHG 
emissions and water use indicators.
Karima Cherif oversaw the editorial process, 
Osiame Molefe copyedited the Manual and Sergio 
Sandoval designed the layout. Financial support for 
the SDPI project was provided by Center for Social 
value Enhancement Studies (CSES) and UNRISD 
institutional funds.

Contents
Executive Summary
1
Introduction: Manual on Applying the Sustainable Development Performance 
Indicators (SDPI)
2
Part 1: Overview of Sustainable Development Performance Indicators (SDPI)
and the Methodologies
4
What needs to change?
5
Pushing the envelope with ambitious and aspirational targets
9
SDPI as an alternative to environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting
11
SDPI for SSE organizations and enterprises
11
The SDPI: A two-tier approach
15
Part 2: Sustainable Development Performance Indicators (SDPI):
User Manual of the Two-Tier Approach
19
Tier 1: Trend indicators: Spotting a trend of UNCTAD’s core indicators
20
Tier 1:  A. Economic area
20
Tier 1:  B. Environmental Area
23
Tier 1:  C. Social area
25
Tier 1:  D. Institutional area
27
Tier 2: Context-Based and Transformative Disclosure Indicators:
Contextualizing Impact and Disclosing Transformative Potential
29
Tier 2: A. Environmental area
29
Tier 2: B. Socioeconomic area
32
Tier 2: C. Institutional area
44
Appendix: Measurement Methodology
48
Abbreviations and Acronyms
106

List of boxes and figures
Box 1. The UNRISD Sustainable Development Performance Indicators Project
2
Box 2. Assessing performance in context
6
Box 3. Terminology
8
Box 4. What are sustainability norms and how are they set?
10
Box 5. The Social and Solidarity Economy
12
Sustainable Development Performance Indicators (SDPIs)
17
Figure 1. Outside-In Versus Inside-Out Impacts & Risks
11

1
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Executive 
Summary
Measuring the sustainability performance of economic entities—i.e. their positive and negative 
impacts on resources that are vital for the well-being of beings on the planet and the planet itself—
has proved a challenging task. Despite improvements in sustainability measurement and disclosure 
over several decades, current indicators, methodologies and reporting models still fail to provide 
an adequate basis for assessing impacts related to socio-economic, governance and environmental 
dimensions of sustainable development. Several blind spots that render sustainability reporting 
ineffective need to be addressed to create meaningful assessments. Reporting overload and an 
excessive number of indicators are also problematic. Furthermore, as current frameworks and 
indicators are designed mainly for for-profit entities, sustainability reporting often bypasses 
entities, such as those in the social and solidarity economy, that pursue social and environmental 
goals in addition economic goals. In September 2018, in partnership with the Center for Social 
Value Enhancement Studies (CSES) and multistakeholder platform r3.0, UNRISD commenced 
a four-year project to address these issues. The project’s aim was to develop methodologies and 
indicators to meaningfully measure and evaluate the performance of a broad range of economic 
entities in relation to the vision and goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 
This Manual presents the main findings, including new methodologies and indicators from the 
project that address the blind spots of conventional measurement and reporting models. Key 
interventions in this regard include highlighting the importance of trend analysis to indicate the 
trajectory of change of reported performance over a longer period and context-based reporting 
to measure past and current performance relative to norms and thresholds consistent with the 
notion of sustainable development. In Part 1, the Manual outlines the issues, indicators and targets 
that should figure far more centrally in sustainability disclosure and reporting if accounting is to 
facilitate the type of transformative change needed to realise the 2030 Agenda. Part 2 presents 
a two-tiered framework comprised of 61 indicators for measuring and assessing sustainability 
performance and progress at the organizational level. Each indicator includes a definition, a 
description of how the indicator is contextualized, and its relevance to the SDGs.

2
UNRISD
Introduction:
Manual on Applying the 
Sustainable Development 
Performance Indicators (SDPI)
In response to growing concerns over the negative impacts economic activity can have on both 
people and the planet, enterprises and organizations have attempted to measure and assess their 
performance in relation to sustainable development. Companies, non-governmental organizations, 
cooperatives, social enterprises and others must account not only for how they are performing in 
terms of economic efficiency and good governance, but also in relation to environmental, social 
and human rights impacts. The global agreement on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)1 
and heightened concerns about climate change, precarious employment and inequality have 
fuelled the demands on businesses and other economic entities to demonstrate that they are part 
of the solution rather than the problem.
In recent decades, the effectiveness of sustainability measurement and reporting has improved 
significantly due to numerous standard-setting initiatives and revisions of existing tools and 
models. Yet, questions remain on whether and how fully economic entities contribute to the 
SDGs. There is growing consensus that conventional approaches for measuring the performance 
of enterprises do not adequately assess meaningful progress toward the achievement of sustainable 
development. These concerns lie at the heart of the UNRISD project on Sustainable Development 
Performance Indicators (SDPI) (see Box 1).
Box 1. The UNRISD Sustainable Development Performance Indicators Project
UNRISD’s SDPI project (2018–2022) aims to contribute to the measurement and evaluation of the 
performance of economic entities in both the mainstream and social and solidarity economy (SSE) in 
relation to the vision and goals of the 2030 Agenda. Phase 1 of the project developed a state-of-the-
art review of key performance issues, indicators and targets. This phase assessed the adequacy of 
existing methods and data associated with sustainability accounting. It also expanded the scope of 
sustainability measurement, disclosure and reporting beyond publicly traded or privately owned for-
profit enterprises (FPEs) to encompass enterprise models in the social and solidarity economy (SSE). 
In the second phase that began in 2021, the project developed and pilot tested a set of indicators 
aimed at measuring and reporting performance more meaningfully to ensure that decision-makers 
and stakeholders understood better the impacts of economic entities on environmental and social 
resources needed for sustainable development. For more information, visit www.unrisd.org/sdpi.
The project is funded by the Center for Social Value Enhancement Studies, Republic of Korea.

3
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The SDPI project developed a framework for measuring and assessing sustainability performance 
in two categories of organizations: conventional for-profit enterprises (FPE); and organizations in 
the social and solidarity economy (SSE), which include cooperatives, associations, mutual societies, 
foundations, social enterprises, self-help groups and other entities operating in accordance with 
the values and principles of the SSE. With regard to the FPE category, the SDPI paid particular 
attention to large corporations with 250 or more employees, their affiliates and other enterprises 
in their value chains. These corporations tend to have large economic, social, environmental and 
political impacts, but their methods for assessing sustainability performance often do not capture 
the scale and scope of these impacts nor do they identify the trajectory of change in reported 
performance over a longer period of time. SSE organizations and enterprises (SSEOEs), on the 
other hand, face increasing pressure to prove—rather than simply assume—their worth from a 
sustainability perspective. Not only are they often heavily constrained in their ability to do so, but 
what they are called upon to disclose (e.g. by impact investors, donors or government authorities) 
may ignore what in fact are key attributes of SSE.
This Manual summarizes the main findings of the project. Importantly, based on these findings, 
the Manual also introduces new methodologies and indicators, which address blind spots in 
conventional reporting. The new methodologies and indicators incorporate concerns such as 
the need to measure performance against norms and thresholds based on historical precedent, 
international agreements and scientific evidence. Part 1 of the Manual explains why conventional 
disclosure related to both the FPE and SSE sectors needs to change. As such, it identifies a set 
of issues, indicators and targets that should figure far more centrally in sustainability disclosure 
and reporting if accounting is to facilitate the type of transformative change needed to achieve 
the SDGs. It also highlights the data points and indicators related to SSE that may inform 
conventional approaches to sustainability measurement associated with FPEs. Part 2 presents 
a two-tiered framework comprised of 61 indicators (including 6 indicators specific to SSEOEs) 
for measuring and assessing sustainability performance and progress at the organizational level. 
It introduces the proposed issue areas and indicators, specifies the data required, and suggests 
how the data can be contextualized to allow users to better grasp the implications for sustainable 
development.

4
UNRISD
Part 1
Overview of 
Sustainable 
Development 
Performance 
Indicators 
(SDPI) and the 
Methodologies

5
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
What needs to change?
The SDPI project paid particular attention to the following concerns with current sustainability 
reporting:
Toward context-based sustainability accounting  
The users of sustainability reports are often unable to effectively assess where an organization 
is positioned in relation to sustainable development. This is not only because key issues may be 
ignored, but also because whatever data are presented are often devoid of context. This is similar to 
being unable to see the forest for the trees. Our gaze may be directed to the fact that a significant 
number of branches and tree trunks are in a healthy condition, but we have little idea, if any, of 
the overall state of the forest. Such a limitation is illustrated in Box 2, which contrasts the types of 
positive examples often found in sustainability reports with omissions related to key performance 
issues and context.
Omissions and blind spots
A major concern with sustainability reporting relates to the fact that what is not reported often 
relates to an issue area that is key from a sustainability perspective. For example, a company 
may report in detail on efforts to improve occupational health and safety or other working 
conditions but say little, if anything, about core labour rights such as collective bargaining. Other 
common blind spots relate to corporate taxation; inequalities of income distribution within the 
corporation or value chain; or what support, if any, is being provided for employees with caregiving 
responsibilities—responsibilities that can especially impact women’s pay and promotion in the 
workplace.
As already noted in relation to SSE, evaluation frameworks and guidance for impact investing may 
ignore important attributes of SSE organizations related to democratic governance and equitable 
distribution.

6
UNRISD
Box 2. Assessing performance in context
Conventional disclosure
•	 Company A reduced its carbon emissions per unit of revenue or output by 5% 
between 2015 and 2020.
•	 Company B reduced its consumption of water by 15% over the past three years.
•	 Company C met its fair remuneration target by ensuring that all entry level 
employees earned above the minimum wage. The target of equal pay for equal work 
was also achieved. 
•	 Company Y covered a significant 70% of employees by collective bargaining 
agreements.
•	 Company Z paid 5 million dollars in corporate taxation.
Context-based accounting
•	 While Company A reduced its levels of emissions intensity, absolute levels of 
emissions increased by 5% due to 10% growth in manufacturing output, and also 
failed to align with science-based climate change mitigation targets.
•	 Company B reduced water consumption, but this means relatively little unless we 
know what the carrying capacity of the local watershed was or what a fair allocation 
of water resources would have been, taking into account other users in the area.
•	 While Company C achieved its fair remuneration targets, average workers’ wages 
were still 30% below the living wage; the CEO–worker pay gap had increased from 
100:1 to 300:1 over the last ten years; and the “unadjusted” gender pay gap was in 
excess of 20%.
•	 While a significant proportion of Company Y’s employees were covered by 
collective bargaining agreements, over five years this declined from 85% to 70%. 
Furthermore, the data only related to full-time regular employees. During this period 
the company reduced the proportion of full-time employees and relied more on 
sub-contracted or part-time labour that was denied core labour rights. Additionally, 
the company-wide figure of 70% masked wide variations in coverage by affiliate or 
region where the company operated.
•	 While Company Z provided millions of dollars in taxes to local and federal 
government authorities, it also engaged in tax avoidance strategies involving 
significant profit shifting to low tax jurisdictions, and had a considerable tax gap; 
that is, its effective tax rate was substantially below the statutory tax rate.

7
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Complexity and comparability
As increasing numbers of issues and indicators have been added to the list of reporting 
requirements that companies and other organizations are expected to meet, major concerns have 
arisen regarding the reporting burden. Furthermore, variations in which indicators are used and 
what data are reported often make it extremely difficult to compare the performance of different 
organizations. This has led to a number of initiatives by the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI), the 
International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and the United Nations Conference on Trade 
and Development (UNCTAD), among others, to streamline sustainability reporting. The challenge 
is how to do this without rendering what is disclosed meaningless or promoting cherry-picking that 
leaves out key issues and indicators.
Cherry-picking
What organizations choose to report or highlight often reflects their more positive or less negative 
attributes. While this is to be expected, it runs the risk of diverting attention from key issues and 
indicators that are part and parcel of sustainable development. As the Brundtland Commission 
definition of sustainable development makes clear, the notion of integrated development is key. 
This can be interpreted as the simultaneous pursuit of economic, social, environmental and 
democratic objectives. For this reason, the multiple capital approach, which is the basis of some 
forms of integrated reporting, is important as it draws attention to multiple capitals or sets of vital 
assets: financial, human, social, physical, intellectual, natural, etc. (see Box 3). Similarly, recent 
efforts to encourage organizations to assess their performance in relation to the SDGs serves a 
similar purpose.
Some standard-setting organizations have undertaken considerable work to address the concerns of 
cherry-picking, complexity and comparability. However, the central issues of omissions and blind 
spots within sustainability reporting frameworks, including the issue of contextualization noted 
above remains unresolved. Addressing these limitations has been a central objective of the SDPI 
project.

8
UNRISD
Box 3. Terminology2
Sustainable development
Defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs”,3 the concept conveys three key ideas relevant for organizations: (i) development should not be
defined narrowly in economic terms, for at its core are broader objectives related to human well-being and planetary health; 
(ii) an organization should pursue an integrated approach that addresses these broader objectives simultaneously; and (iii) an 
organization should be guided by not only short-term but also long-term goals aimed at ensuring the future health and longevity of 
the organization itself, and the well-being of the resource base on which both current and future generations depend.
Sustainability reporting
The practice of disclosing in the public domain data related to an organization’s performance that impacts sustainable 
development. Data that matter relate not only to economic and financial dimensions but also to environmental, social and 
governance (ESG) aspects. Sustainability reporting serves the dual purpose of minimizing risks and identifying opportunities both 
for the organization concerned and for its stakeholders. Large organizations often produce sustainability or integrated reports, 
following standards and guidelines produced by standard-setting and ratings organizations.
Integrated reporting
This not only combines data related to both financial and non-financial aspects of performance but also understands the process 
of value preservation and creation in terms of the growth in the stocks and flows of different sets of vital assets or multiple 
capitals. These include financial, manufactured, human, social and relationships, intellectual and natural capital. Value creation 
may also involve maintaining these capitals at levels sufficient to ensure and sustain well-being. Integrated reporting aims to 
measure changes in these resources and also considers their interdependent nature.
Contextualization of sustainability performance
A measure of the performance of an organization. It is expressed in terms of the organization’s impacts on vital capitals relative to 
what the standards or sustainability norms must be to ensure the well-being of stakeholders. Actual impacts divided by normative 
impacts provide a measure of sustainability. Gathering the necessary data and calculating how actual performance compares with 
sustainability norms is the task of sustainability accounting.
Sustainability Quotient
S = A/N
Where
S = Sustainability performance
A = Actual impacts on carrying capacities of vital capitals
N = Normative impacts on carrying capacities of vital capital
Reproduced with permission.4
Stakeholders
Generally refers to those groups or individuals who can affect the ability of an organization to achieve its objectives, or who are 
affected by its activities (Freeman 1984).5 From the perspective of a company, a stakeholder is any individual, group or entity 
to whom that company owes a duty or obligation to manage its impacts on vital capitals in ways that can affect their well-being 
(McElroy and Van Engelen 2012).6 The term “rightsholders” is increasingly used, as it can also remind us of the principle of 
intergenerational equity and the needs of future generations.
Value
Sustainability performance involves a broader notion of value: an organization should be concerned not only with value related 
to financial or shareholder returns and other commercial benefits, but also with how its products, services and operations create 
benefits that are of value to the broader society.
Impact valuation
A method used to quantify or calculate the value of the magnitude of an impact. Impact valuation indicators are incrementalist in 
the sense that they are used to assess the size and marginal change, if any, in the stocks and flows of vital capitals from, say, one 
year to the next. Such changes are often expressed in terms of their relationships with other variables, such as greenhouse gas 
(GHG) emissions per unit of revenue or per unit of production. This is sometimes referred to as performance intensity.

9
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Pushing the envelope with ambitious
and aspirational targets
Establishing sustainability norms, then, is key if we want to assess progress in a meaningful way 
in relation to sustainable development (see Box 4). It is important to note, however, that certain 
norms may amount to long-term and highly ambitious or aspirational targets. They may be difficult 
to achieve under existing institutional, economic or technological conditions. Furthermore, the 
organization in question may not have full responsibility or full control over the process of change 
required to meet the sustainability norm. Take the case, for example, of carbon emissions. While 
a company may have the ability to significantly reduce emissions from the factories and buildings 
it owns outright (so-called scope 1 emissions) and those related to the energy it purchases from 
others (scope 2), it will be more difficult to reduce emissions by enterprises in the supply chain for 
which it is indirectly responsible (scope 3). An increasing number of companies, however, are now 
measuring all three types of emissions and formulating long-term strategies to reduce them.
It is important that organizations know the scale of both their direct and indirect impacts and take 
measures to address them. Those that claim to uphold principles and goals related to sustainable 
development should want to know where they are positioned on the sustainable development 
trajectory and the scale or scope of the challenge ahead (Box 4).

10
UNRISD
Box 4. What are sustainability norms and how are they set?
A norm is a standard used to guide performance in ways that stakeholders or society more 
generally consider fair and just. Within sustainability reporting, norms are often quite broad: 
do less harm, respect labour rights, promote worker safety, reduce carbon dioxide emissions, 
etc. They are often expressed in terms of qualitative indicators; for example, a policy to 
combat harassment, or training all employees on anti-corruption. Sustainability performance 
accounting attempts to establish more precise, often quantifiable, normative targets against 
which behaviour can be judged. Since different organizations and stakeholders may have 
different views on what is just or fair, there needs to be a level of consensus on what the norm 
should be. Internationally accepted principles such as equal pay for equal work, or workers’ 
rights to freedom of association, point to issues where such a consensus exists. So do science-
based targets to reduce carbon emissions to a level that could keep global warming to no more 
than 1.5ºC or 2ºC above pre-industrial levels.
 
Establishing quantifiable sustainability norms within the field of sustainability reporting is, 
however, in its infancy. In several issue areas, quantitative norms are not yet widely recognized. 
For example, while there is growing recognition that extremes of income inequality within 
corporations need to be contained, and that an indicator such as the CEO–average employee 
pay ratio can illustrate how an organization is performing in this regard, little attention has 
been paid to what an actual fair pay ratio might be.
In the absence of a widely accepted norm, several reference points can provide guidance. In 
the case of income distribution, for example, these include distribution levels consistent with 
recognized best practice among organizations or sectors, norms set by ratings organizations 
to judge good performance, norms contained in existing or proposed public policies and 
government regulations, or norms associated with historical periods or varieties of capitalism 
generally considered to be fairer.
Norms also need to be tailored to the specific circumstances of the organization involved 
in sustainability performance accounting. This occurs in different ways. First, while all 
organizations may be expected to comply with general norms—for example, reduce carbon 
emissions by 2050 to levels consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5ºC above 
pre-industrial levels—the actual reduction required will vary by organization, depending on 
its current emission levels and the rate at which they are growing, as well as the projected 
economic growth and eco-efficiency of the organization itself. Second, the level of responsibility 
an organization may have for maintaining a threshold—for example, an adequate supply of 
water in a watershed—will vary depending on such factors as its size or economic importance 
in the area. Third, in all cases, the organization will have to adopt an organization-specific 
strategy based on its economic circumstances and governance arrangements to achieve the 
normative goal. It is important that the organization identifies the multiple stakeholders to 
whom duties and obligations may be owed in order to manage its impacts on vital capitals 
in ways that can or should affect their well-being in normative ways. Ultimately, the norm 
will have to be agreed by those with legal responsibility for the organization in question. For 
these reasons, while some norms may apply universally to all organizations, norms are also 
considered to be organization specific.

11
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
SDPI as an alternative to environmental, 
social and governance (ESG) reporting
ESG reporting has come to dominate much of today’s sustainability discussion. As a field of 
practice, ESG generally takes an outside-in approach. It assesses the impacts and risks the external 
world imposes on the enterprise in terms of environmental, social and governance in order to 
ascertain the enterprise’s value. This contrasts an inside-out approach that assesses the impacts and 
risks the enterprise imposes on the external world, which would be necessary to assess system value 
(see Figure 1). The SDPI approach offers an alternative to ESG or a qualitatively different form of 
ESG reporting (which might be called as neo-ESG). It takes an inside-out perspective on impacts 
and risks, assessing the impacts of a company on the external world. It transcends ESG assessment 
by contextualizing impacts and performance and pushing economic entities to pursue ambitious 
and aspirational targets.
Figure 1. Outside-In Versus Inside-Out Impacts & Risks
SDPI for SSE organizations and enterprises
Certain objectives and practices of the FPE sector—profit maximization, growing market share 
and prioritizing the interests of shareholders, for example—pose certain risks from a sustainability 
perspective. In contrast, SSEOEs have innate characteristics that, potentially at least, are conducive 
to sustainable development while maintaining their vitality as economic actors. Measuring and 
assessing the sustainability performance of such organizations, however, encounters several 
challenges, particularly given that conventional disclosure is not designed specifically for the SSE.
Outside-In Impacts & Risks (Enterprise Value)
Inside-Out Impacts & Risks (System Value)

12
UNRISD
Box 5. The Social and Solidarity Economy
The SSE encompasses enterprises, organizations and other entities that are engaged 
in economic, social and environmental activities to serve the collective and/or general 
interest, based on the principles of voluntary cooperation and mutual aid, democratic and/
or participatory governance, autonomy and independence, and the primacy of people and 
social purpose over capital in the distribution and use of surpluses and/or profits as well as 
assets. SSE entities aspire to long-term viability and sustainability, and to the transition from 
the informal to the formal economy and operate in all sectors of the economy. They put into 
practice a set of values which are intrinsic to their functioning and consistent with care for 
people and planet, equality and fairness, interdependence, self-governance, transparency 
and accountability, and the attainment of decent work and livelihoods. According to national 
circumstances, the SSE includes cooperatives, associations, mutual societies, foundations, 
social enterprises, self-help groups and other entities operating in accordance with the values 
and principles of the SSE.
Source: International Labour Organization (2022). Resolution concerning decent work and the social 
and solidarity economy [ILC.110/Resolution II]. International Labour Conference – 110th Session, 2022, 
Geneva, Switzerland, 10 June 2022.
Capturing the transformative potential of SSE
In a context where impact investing and results-based management have gained ground, SSE 
entities are being urged to measure aspects of performance that relate to the preferences of 
investors, donors and governments. The issues and indicators that tend to be prioritized—for 
example, the number of people who benefit from work integration or the provision of health, 
education and caregiving services—often ignore key features of the sustainability credentials and 
transformative potential of SSEOEs. These usually include democratic forms of governance 
and decision making, forms of ownership and profit distribution that prioritize the equitable 
distribution of income and other resources, and economic activities that strengthen the social 
fabric and sense of community or have a small environmental footprint.
Resilience—the capacity to continue to operate and defend livelihoods in the context of external 
shocks or crises—is also a key feature of SSE. And whereas processes associated with globalization, 
such as outsourcing and long-distance trade, pose considerable sustainability risks, SSE is 
essentially concerned with developing local production and trade circuits, as well as healthier and 
more environmentally friendly consumption patterns.
Focusing on such issues and indicators is not only important for SSE and stakeholders but also 
for FPE that are concerned with sustainability. The for-profit sector has much to learn from 
sustainability accounting associated with SSE. But for this to happen, the SDPI must focus on 
issues that capture the transformative potential of SSE.

13
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
UNRISD’s research has identified several broad issue areas that capture this potential. They 
include:
•	 promoting human dignity for workers, consumers, producers and community residents;
•	 equitable distribution of income;
•	 multiple interconnected social, environmental and economic objectives;
•	 democratic governance (empowerment, self-help and participation);
•	 decent work (work integration, quality of work, long-term stable employment);
•	 decommodification (protecting labour, land, technology, knowledge, production, trade 
and consumption from market forces);
•	 positive community impact (economic initiatives rooted in community and responding 
to expressed needs and aspirations, not market imperatives);
•	 resilience to external shocks and crises;
•	 collaboration with partners, including the private sector and government;
•	 new, customized tools for sustainable finance and labour market integration;
•	 influencing people-centered and planet-friendly policy design; and
•	 countering the failure of markets to meet certain basic needs, care for the environment 
and facilitate fair competition.
Raising the visibility of SSE as a viable model
SSE must interact with the mainstream economy and institutions, not least to obtain finance 
and access to government or philanthropic resources, as well as to comply with policy measures 
and regulations. This may result in so-called isomorphism—the process by which the objectives 
and practices of an organization change when influenced by norms, pressures and opportunities 
that arise through its interaction with other institutions. Also, as SSE organizations grow in size, 
they may adopt management systems and organizational cultures that resemble those of larger 
corporations. Such a process may have negative implications from the perspective of sustainable 
development. SSE principles and aspects of SSE performance, such as those related to workplace 
democracy, income and gender equity, and environmental protection may be undermined by 
changing economic, financial and managerial priorities and practices. Sustainability assessment 
needs to be able to discern such changes.
While advocacy for SSE often cites attributes that relate to multiple dimensions of sustainable 
development, in practice, however, positive performance in other issue areas may be constrained. 
For example, cooperatives may pay limited attention to environmental issues. Traditional social 
relations and cultural norms may also undermine gender equality within organizations. Therefore, 
the SDPI is intended to not only measure the socio-economic and environmental contribution of 
SSE and its transformative potential, but also to be a useful tool for SSEOE to identify gaps related 
to core sustainability issues.
Specificity of SSE sustainability reporting
Efforts to promote sustainability disclosure need to recognize that the many small community 
and not-for-profit entities and organizations that are part of the SSE are often under serious 
resource constraints. Considerable flexibility needs to be granted to smaller organizations in

14
UNRISD
determining issues and indicators that will be useful, not only for external stakeholders, but for 
enhancing (rather than constraining) the developmental and transformative potential of SSE. The 
focus should not be limited only to aspects of sustainability performance of interest to investors. 
It should capture: (i) transformative aspects that are essential to any meaningful definition of 
sustainable development; and (ii) whether such attributes are being strengthened or weakened 
through time. They are best positioned to determine what issues and indicators they believe best 
reflect their sustainability mission, and which they themselves will find useful for achieving their 
goals associated with social and environmental protection, redistribution, equality, emancipation 
and empowerment.
Sustainability accounting for the SSE sector, then, confronts a somewhat different set of challenges 
when compared to the for-profit sector. Its purpose is to both highlight and safeguard the inherent 
sustainability attributes that are part and parcel of SSE, and to do so in a way that is not only 
manageable for the organizations involved but that actually facilitates their mission.
As in the case of sustainability accounting for the for-profit sector, integrated reporting is 
important in the case of SSE, but the rationale is somewhat different. In the case of companies, 
it serves to ensure that impacts that are material from the perspective of sustainable development 
are not left out of the equation. In the case of SSE, it is to ensure that the core sustainability or 
transformative attributes are not ignored by mainstream evaluation and accounting processes, or 
sidelined within SSE management practice.

15
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The SDPI: A two-tier approach 
The SDPI comprises a two-tier approach that has established a list of 61 context-based indicators 
that aims to: facilitate trend analysis; contextualize impacts or performance with thresholds and 
norms; and activate the transformative change necessary to address key structural challenges by 
shedding light on ignored or neglected issue areas. In applying a structural and contextualized 
approach to assessing sustainability performance, the SDPI project identified indicators with the 
following four key features:
1.	 Trend
Most of the indicators span a minimum period of 5 years, as opposed to the conventional 
annual and prior year comparative data snapshots. The longer period of comparison 
illustrates the trajectory of change and helps to identify instances of contradictory 
performance.
2.	 Granularity and transparency
Information on performance is expected by country, region, affiliate or suppliers, when 
applicable. This helps to identify contradictory performances measured by different 
indicators.
3.	 Sustainability threshold or norm
These are thresholds or norms of sustainability that economic entities performance should 
abide by in order to be considered sustainable. While these thresholds and norms may 
appear highly ambitious, they are critical for alerting management and other stakeholders to 
the scale of the challenge ahead and for developing a long-term strategy.
4.	 Transformative disclosure
These are indicators that take a transformative approach to sustainability disclosure to 
instantiate sufficient change and address the key structural conditions that foster behaviours 
undermining sustainable development. This involves disclosure that would often raise the 
bar above conventional disclosure.
Indicators within this category also include disclosure of innovative and alternative 
approaches drawn from the SSE to transform unsustainable economic relations and activities 
for economic growth, profit distribution and value appropriation into sustainable ones that 
promote values of cooperation, self-help, democratic self-management, human rights, ethics 
and justice.
The trend feature is associated with SDPI’s contextualization of performance with temporality 
(“soft contextualization” or “soft context”), which aims to show the performance on the longer-
term period such as five years. However, they do not assess performance in relation to a norm 
or threshold within which economic entities can be considered to be operating sustainably. A 
normative target or threshold, the third element above, provides “hard contextualization” or “hard

16
UNRISD
context”. A good example is indicator on living wage—a wage that allows an employee to provide 
their family with a basket of essential goods and services sufficient to enable all members of the 
(average) household to afford a decent standard of living. Unlike minimum wage or an industry 
norm, a living wage is a sustainability norm for fair remuneration as it contributes to the economic 
and social stability aspects of sustainable development.
Hard context indicates whether an organization is making progress in relation to sustainable 
development. It reports what the end goal is. Without such a sustainability norm or end goal, it is 
impossible to know whether incremental improvements in performance are meaningful. Indicators 
with hard context report on sustainability performance itself, since they indicate impacts relative 
to sustainability norms. By contrast, indicators with soft context reveal aspects of performance that 
are necessary for assessing progress by shedding light on the bigger picture. Both hard and soft 
context are needed to see the entire picture.
Tier one indicators:
Spotting a trend of UNCTAD’s core indicators
Tier 1 indicators consist of 20 indicators based on UNCTAD’s core indicators in four key areas,7 
namely, economic, social, environmental and governance. These indicators have been developed 
to standardize and harmonize reporting metrics that are more systematically aligned with the 
SDGs. Tier 1 indicators differ from UNCTAD’s core indicators in that they provide information 
on performance over five years, and they are applicable to both for-profit and SSE enterprises and 
organizations.
These indicators are not contextualized in relation to a sustainability threshold or norm. This may 
be either because norm-setting is not relevant to the type of impact being measured or because 
there is no basis for establishing a norm in terms of historical precedent, scientific evidence or 
international consensus.
Tier two indicators:
Contextualizing impact and disclosing transformative potential
Tier 2 indicators comprise 41 newly developed indicators in three key areas, namely environmental, 
socioeconomic and institutional (or governance) dimensions, and include 6 indicators that are 
applicable to SSEOEs only. Tier 2 specifically emphasizes the inseparability of the economic and 
the social, with the premise that all economic activities are embedded in society.
Tier 2 includes 17 context-based indicators, which have clearly defined sustainability norms or 
thresholds for assessing progress in relation to sustainable development. Tier 2 also includes 24 
transformative disclosure indicators, which provide data on performance in areas that are neglected 
but critical to transformation. This also includes indicators highlighting the features of SSE that, 
while key from the perspective of sustainable development, are often neglected within conventional 
reporting. 
The full list of all 61 indicators can be found here:

17
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Sustainable Development Performance Indicators (SDPIs)
Tier 1. Trend indicators: Spotting a trend of UNCTAD’s core indicators
Tier 1. A. Economic area
I.A.1 Revenue
I.A.2 Net value added
I.A.3 Taxes and other payments to the government
I.A.4 Green investment
I.A.5 Community investment
I.A.6 Total expenditures on Research & Development (R&D)
I.A.7 Percentage of local procurement
 Tier 1. B. Environmental area
I.B.1 Water recycling and reuse
I.B.2 Reduction of waste generation by reused, re-manufactured and recycled
I.B.3 Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and chemicals
 Tier 1. C. Social area
I.C.1 Average hours of training per year per employee
I.C.2 Expenditure on employee training per year per employee
I.C.3 Employee wages and benefits as a proportion of revenue,
with breakdown by employment type and gender
I.C.4 Expenditures on employee health and safety as a proportion of revenue
I.C.5 Percentage of employees covered by collective agreements
 Tier 1. D. Institutional area
I.D.1 Number of board meetings and attendance rate
I.D.2 Board members by age range
I.D.3 Number of meetings of audit committee and attendance rate
I.D.4 Compensation: Total compensation per board member
(both executive and non-executive directors)
I.D.5 Average hours of training on anti-corruption issues per year per employee

18
UNRISD
Tier 2. Context-based and transformative disclosure indicators: 
Contextualizing impact and disclosing transformative potential
Tier 2. A. Environmental area
II.A.1 GHG emissions (scope 1 and 2)
II.A.2 GHG emissions (scope 3)
II.A.3 Water use
II.A.4 Hazardous waste treatment
II.A.5 Renewable energy
II.A.6 Life cycle assessment and circularity indicators 
 Tier 2. B. Socioeconomic area
II.B.1 Fiscal disclosure
II.B.2 Tax gap
II.B.3 CEO–worker pay ratio
II.B.4 Living wage gap
II.B.5 Distribution of surplus/profits
II.B.6 Gender pay gap: Equality of remuneration
II.B.7 Gender diversity: Hiring at different occupational levels
II.B.8 Gender diversity: Promotion at different occupational levels
II.B.9 Gender equality: Proportion of women in managerial positions
II.B.10 Caregiving support programmes
II.B.11 Frequency/incident rates of occupational injuries
II.B.12 Harassment and discrimination at the workplace
II.B.13 Access to remedy
II.B.14 Discrimination in hiring and promotion
II.B.15 Union density and collective bargaining coverage
II.B.16 Worker participation
II.B.17 Contingent and subcontracted workers
II.B.18 Hiring of vulnerable groups
II.B.19 Long-term work contracts
II.B.20 Employee turnover rate
II.B.21 Responsible and ethical sourcing
II.B.22 Training of vulnerable groups (applicable to SSEOEs only)
II.B.23 Work integration (applicable to SSEOEs only)
 Tier 2. C. Institutional area
II.C.1 Corporate political influence: Policies, programmes and practices
II.C.2 Context-based triple bottom line (TBL) accounting
II.C.3 Amount of total fines paid or payable due to settlements
II.C.4 Amount of corruption-related fines paid or payable due to settlements
II.C.5 Public sharing of information and knowledge
II.C.6 Number and percentage of women board members
II.C.7 Term limits for board of directors
II.C.8 Resilience
II.C.9 Attendance at annual general meetings (applicable to SSEOEs only)
II.C.10 Democratic elections (applicable to SSEOEs only)
II.C.11 Legitimation of management (applicable to SSEOEs only)
II.C.12 Stakeholder participation (applicable to SSEOEs only)

19
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Part 2
Sustainable 
Development 
Performance 
Indicators: 
User Manual 
for the Two-Tier 
Approach
This part of the Manual provides definitions and descriptions of the indicators, 
and links them to the SDG Indicators Framework. The appendix to the Manual 
explains the methodologies, where relevant.

20
UNRISD
Tier 1
Trend indicators: Spotting a trend of UNCTAD’s core 
indicators
 Tier 1:  A. Economic area
I.A.1 Revenue
definition
Revenue is the value generated from the sale of goods or services, or any other use of capital 
or assets, recognized by an entity in a given reporting period. Revenue (also known as Sales or 
Turnover) is shown usually as the top item in an income (profit and loss, P&L) statement.8
trend
To disclose revenue for the last five years to 
gauge a trend.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG Indicator 8.2.1.
I.A.2 Net value added
definition
Value added (VA) is defined as the difference between the revenues and the costs of bought-
in materials, goods and services. Value added is the wealth the entity has been able to create 
and that can be distributed among different stakeholders (employees, lenders, authorities and 
shareholders). In other terms, VA is the sum of the value added to employees, to providers of 
loan capital, to governments and to owners (in the case of cooperatives, members).
Net value added (NVA) consists of value added from which depreciation has been subtracted.
trend
To disclose NVA for the last five years to gauge 
a trend.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG Indicators 8.2.1, 9.b, 9.4.1.

21
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
I.A.3 Taxes and other payments to the government
definition
The amount of taxes (encompassing not only domestic taxes, but also other levies and taxes, 
such as property taxes or value-added taxes) plus related penalties paid, plus all royalties, licence 
fees and other payments to the government (certain fees, concessions, contributions or royalty 
fees imposed on industries that are regulated by the government, e.g. telecommunications, 
mining, aviation, banking, insurance, dairy, energy and natural resources) for a given period. 
This figure does not include: deferred taxes as they may not be paid; amounts related to the 
acquisition of government assets (e.g. purchases of formerly state-owned enterprises); and 
penalties and fines for non-compliance issues unrelated to tax payment (e.g. environmental 
pollution).
trend
To disclose taxes and other payments to the 
government for the last five years to gauge a 
trend.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 17.1.2.
I.A.4 Green investment
definition
Green investment refers to investment that can be considered positive for the environment 
directly or indirectly. In other words, this indicator includes all the expenditures for those 
investments whose primary purpose is the prevention, reduction and elimination of pollution 
and other forms of degradation to the environment.9
trend
To disclose the amount of green investment 
made for the last five years to gauge a trend.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 7.b.1.

22
UNRISD
I.A.5 Community investment
definition
Community investment refers to charitable and voluntary donations, and investments of 
funds in the broader community where the target beneficiaries are external to the entity. This 
excludes legal and commercial activities or investments whose purpose is driven primarily by 
core business needs or to facilitate the business operations of the entity (e.g. building a road to a 
factory). The calculation of community investment can include infrastructure built outside the 
main business activities of the organization, such as a school or hospital for workers and their 
families.
trend
To disclose charitable and voluntary donations 
for the last five years to gauge a trend.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 17.17.1.
I.A.6 Total expenditures on research & development (R&D)
definition
Total expenditures on R&D include all costs related to original and planned research 
undertaken with the prospect of gaining new scientific or technical knowledge and 
understanding (i.e. expenditures on research activities), and which are related to the application 
of research findings or other knowledge to a plan or design for the production of new or 
substantially improved materials, devices, products, processes, systems or services before the start 
of commercial production or use (i.e. expenditures on development activities). This indicator 
requires disclosure, in monetary units, of the expenditure on R&D by the reporting entity 
during the reporting period. Examples of such activities may include: research to discover new 
knowledge; modification of formulas, products or processes; design of tools that involve new 
technology; and design and test of prototypes, new products and processes.
trend
To disclose the last five years on (i) whether 
there has been a policy to align R&D 
expenditures with sustainability-related goals 
or performance targets; (ii) whether such 
targets are set, and (iii) whether these have 
been achieved.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG Indicator 9.5.1.

23
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
I.A.7 Percentage of local procurement
definition
Percentage of local procurement is the proportion of spending of a reporting entity at local 
suppliers. Costs of local procurement are a general indicator of the extent of an entity’s linkages 
with the local economy.
trend
To disclose the percentage of local 
procurement for the last five years to gauge a 
trend.
relevance to the sdgs
Indicator 9.3.1.
 Tier 1:  B. Environmental area
I.B.1 Water recycling and reuse
definition
Water recycling and reuse is defined as the “act of processing used water and wastewater (treated or 
untreated) through another cycle before discharge to surface water, groundwater, or third party (in the same 
process, in a different process but within the same facility, or at another of the organization’s facilities.”10
“[R]eused water is wastewater supplied to another user for further use with or without prior treatment. 
This excludes recycling of water within the same economic unit. Information on these flows, although 
potentially useful for analysis of water use efficiency, is not generally available. Reused water is considered 
a product when payment is made by the receiving unit.”11 Therefore, when possible, reused water should 
be reported separately from recycled water.
Water recycling and reuse refers to the total volume of water that a reporting entity recycles and/or reuses 
during the reporting period.
Water recycling and reuse can be implemented by almost any country. This includes: 
•	 Direct reuse: An entity can reuse wastewater that is clean enough for the purpose for which 
it is being reused. Water can potentially be reused many times and by other entities, and this 
is one of the most important ways to minimize water consumption. Water can be reused for 
different purposes, for example: irrigation (in agriculture), heating and cooling, washing, 
cleaning, pH adjustment, fire protection, and production line needs.
•	 Treat and reuse (recycling): Sometimes wastewater cannot be directly reused; for example, 
because it has been polluted. To make it safe for reuse (or discharge in the environment), it 
would need to be treated to reduce the level of contaminants and impurities to a level that 
is safe for reuse. The choice of the treatment procedure depends on the quality required to 
reuse the water.
trend
To disclose the practice of recycling and 
reusing of water for the last five years to gauge 
a trend.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG Indicator 6.3.1.

24
UNRISD
I.B.2 Reduction of waste generation by reused,
re-manufactured and recycled
definition
This indicator measures the change in the entity’s waste generation per non-value added. 
Specifically, waste is intended as a non-product output. Water and air polluting emissions, 
although they are non-product output, are not regarded as waste. The options for waste 
treatment should first prioritize reuse, re-manufacturing and recycling, accordingly in this order, 
whenever recoverable. This is aligned with the circular economy principles.
Reuse is the further use of a component, part or product after it has been removed from a 
clearly defined service cycle. Reuse does not involve a manufacturing process; however, cleaning, 
repair or refurbishing may be performed between uses.
Re-manufacturing is the further use of a component, part or product after it has been removed 
from a clearly defined service cycle in a new manufacturing process that goes beyond cleaning, 
repair or refurbishing.
Recycling is recovery and reuse of materials from scrap or other waste materials for the 
production of new goods. Energy recovery (or thermal recycling) is regarded as incineration and 
not recycling. Pre-treatment processes that condition the waste for recycling are regarded as part 
of the recycling path.
It is possible to further distinguish between open- and closed-loop reuse, re-manufacturing and 
recycling. Open-loop means that the recycled, reused or re-manufactured material is returned to 
the market, not to the processes of the reporting entity; and closed-loop means that the recycled, 
reused or re-manufactured material is returned to the processes of the reporting entity.
trend
To disclose the waste generation and the 
practice of reusing, remanufacturing and 
recycling for the last five years to gauge a trend.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG target 12.5., SDG indicator 12.5.1.

25
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
I.B.3 Ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and chemicals
definition
This indicator aims to quantify an entity’s dependency on ozone-depleting substances (ODS) 
and chemicals, per NVA. ODS are all bulk chemicals/substances, existing either as a pure 
substance or as a mixture. These are generally chemicals containing chlorine and/or bromine. 
The most important ODS and chemicals are controlled under the Montreal Protocol and are listed 
in annex A, B, C or E of the Protocol.12
trend
To disclose the use of ODS and chemicals for 
the last five years to gauge a trend.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 12.4.2.
 Tier 1: C. Social area
I.C.1 Average hours of training per year per employee
definition
This indicator suggests the scale of an entity’s investment in employee training (i.e. in human 
capital) and the degree to which this investment is made across the entire employee base, in 
terms of hours of training. 
trend
To disclose the average hours of training per 
year per employee for the last five years.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 4.3.1.
I.C.2. Expenditure on employee training per year per employee
definition
This indicator suggests the scale of an entity’s investment in employee training (i.e. in human 
capital) and the degree to which this investment is made across the entire employee base, in 
terms of hours of expenditures. The direct and indirect costs of training are to be considered; for 
example, course fees, trainers’ fees, training facilities, training equipment and related travel costs.
trend
To disclose the expenditure on employee 
training per year per employee for the last five 
years.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 4.3.1.

26
UNRISD
I.C.3. Employee wages and benefits as a proportion of revenue,
with breakdown by employment type and gender 
definition
This indicator should reflect the total costs of the employee workforce for the entity in the 
reporting period, segmented by employee type and gender as a proportion of the total revenue.
trend
To disclose employee wages and benefits as 
a proportion of revenue, broken down by 
employment type and gender for the last five 
years.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicators 8.5.1, 10.4.1.
I.C.4 Expenditures on employee health and safety as a proportion of revenue
definition
This indicator refers to the total expenses incurred by an entity to guarantee employees’ health 
and safety as a proportion of total revenue. Occupational accidents not only lower productivity 
and divert management attention, but they also undermine human capital development and 
may be indicative of poor management quality and practice.
trend
To disclose expenditures on employee health 
and safety as a proportion of revenue for the 
last five years.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG targets 8.8, 3.8., SDG indicators 3.8.1, 
3.8.2.
I.C.5 Percentage of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements
definition
This indicator is the ratio of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements to the total 
number of employees of the reporting entity.
trend
To disclose the percentage of employees 
covered by collective agreements for the last 
five years.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 8.8.2.

27
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
 Tier 1:  D. Institutional area
I.D.1 Number of board meetings and attendance rate
definition
This indicator comprises the number of board meetings convened on an annual basis and the 
attendance rate at these meetings.
trend
To the disclose the number of board meetings 
and attendance rate for the last five years.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG target 16.6.
I.D.2 Board members by age range
definition
Board members by age range. This indicator presents a profile of the board members by age 
range.
trend
To disclose board members by age range for 
the last five years.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 16.7.1.
I.D.3. Number of meetings of audit committee and attendance rate
definition
Number of meetings of audit committee and attendance rate. This indicator provides a 
quantitative measure of whether the entity has developed effective, accountable and transparent 
governance.
trend
To disclose the number of meetings of audit 
committee and attendance rate for the last five 
years.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG target 16.6.

28
UNRISD
I.D.4 Compensation: Total compensation per board member
(both executive and non-executive directors) 
definition
This indicator assesses total compensation per board member. It covers both executive and 
non-executive directors, where the former is a member of the board of a firm who also has 
management responsibilities while the latter is a board member without responsibilities for daily 
management or operations.13
trend
To disclose total compensation per board 
member (both executive and non-executive 
directors) for the last five years.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG target 16.6.
I.D.5 Average hours of training on anti-corruption issues per year per employee
definition
This indicator refers to the average number of training hours that employees receive in the area 
of anti-corruption issues.
trend
To disclose the number of hours all workers 
are trained on anti-corruption policies, 
programmes and practices in the organization 
for the last five years.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 16.5.2.

29
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Tier 2
Context-based and transformative disclosure indicators: 
Contextualizing impact and disclosing transformative 
potential
 Tier 2: A. Environmental area
II.A.1. GHG emissions (scope 1 and 2)
definition
A measure of the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by an organization that contributes to global 
warming. They include both scope 1 (emissions by a company that commonly relate to fuel 
combustion, physical or chemical processing and leakages) and scope 2 (purchased electricity, 
heat, steam or cooling) emissions.14
trend
To gauge the degree of progress, emissions data 
should be disclosed for the last five years at 
least.
sustainability threshold or norm
GHG emissions by an organization shall be no 
more than zero. The indicator also presents 
science-based interim thresholds or targets 
consistent with mitigation pathways that limit 
warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. 
(See Appendix for several methodologies).
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 13; SDG indicator 9.4.1.

30
UNRISD
II.A.2. GHG emissions (scope 3)
definition
GHG scope 3 emissions measure gases contributing to global warming that are emitted into the 
Earth’s atmosphere from sources in the organization’s value chain that are not directly owned or 
controlled by the organization. This indicator calls for disclosure of whether efforts are taken to 
measure scope 3 GHG emissions, as well as to require others in the organization’s supply chain 
to themselves measure scope 1 and scope 2 GHG emissions.
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years whether efforts 
are taken by an organization to require others 
in its supply chain to measure their own 
scopes 1 and 2 GHG emissions (i.e., the 
organization’s scope 3 emissions).
transformative disclosure
To disclose whether a scope 3 GHG emissions 
accounting tool or framework are being used 
to measure and report organization’s scope 
3 emissions and whether entities within the 
organization’s value chain are being required 
to measure their scope 1 and scope 2 GHG 
emissions.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 13; SDG indicator 9.4.1.
II.A.3 Water use
definition
Water use refers to the degree to which the consumption of water resources by an organization is 
quantitatively sustainable. 
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress
sustainability threshold or norm
Net water consumption at specific locations 
shall not exceed facility-specific fair, just 
and proportionate allocations of available 
renewable supplies. (See Appendix for the 
methodology).
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 6.

31
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
II.A.4 Hazardous waste treatment
definition
This indicator refers to the total amount of hazardous waste, in absolute terms, as well as to 
the proportion of hazardous waste treated, given total waste reported by the reporting entity. 
Hazardous waste can be classified according to the Basel Convention on the Control of 
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention).15 
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress. 
sustainability threshold or norm
Organization’s hazardous waste, if any, shall be 
treated entirely.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 12.4.2.
II.A.5 Renewable energy 
definition
This indicator is defined as the ratio of an entity’s consumption of renewable energy to its 
total energy consumption during the reporting period. Types of renewable energy include, for 
example, solar energy, biomass, geothermal energy and ocean energy. 
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress
sustainability threshold or norm
Total energy consumption shall be in the form 
of renewable energy entirely. 
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicators 7.2.1. and 7.3.1.

32
UNRISD
II.A.6 Life cycle assessment and circularity indicators
definition
This indicator includes both circularity indicators and life cycle assessment (LCA) to establish 
clear relationship between sustainability and circularity by ensuring that the circularity of the 
system also leads to an improvement in environmental performance.16 LCA is a methodology 
that involves the compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and potential environmental 
impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle.17 Circularity indicators applied at the 
product level track the material flows or the material circularity of a product; i.e. percentage 
circular inflow (resources that enter the company, e.g. materials, parts or products are renewable 
or non-virgin); and percentage circular outflow (material flows that leave the company, 
e.g. materials, parts, products, by-products and waste streams are designed and treated or 
demonstrably recovered).18
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress
transformative disclosure
Organization should disclose whether it 
applies LCA to all of its goods and services 
and whether it tracks circular material inflow 
and outflow, or the circularity of material 
flows.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 12.
 Tier 2: B. Socioeconomic area
II.B.1 Fiscal disclosure
definition
This indicator calls for enhanced fiscal disclosure to promote granular disclosure and 
transparency in relation to international tax justice. Fiscal disclosure refers to the external 
reporting of a company’s revenue, profits, employees and corporate taxes. Disclosure of fiscal 
information about the company shall be made in: (a) the top three countries in which it does 
business (based on revenue, employees or physical capital); and (b) the top three countries based 
on profits.
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years 
transformative disclosure
To disclose revenue, profits, number of 
employees, corporate taxes paid, and physical 
capital for the top three countries (a) in which 
it does business and (b) based on profits.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG target 17.1.

33
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
II.B.2. Tax gap
definition
This indicator assesses the tax gap, measured by the difference between a company’s statutory 
tax rate (STR) and its estimated effective tax rate (ETR). Aggressive tax planning by corporations 
and tax competition by governments can give rise to a significant gap between the statutory and 
effective tax rates; that is, between what companies are expected to pay according to official fiscal 
policy and what they actually pay.
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress, and if any, in the top 
three countries (by revenue) in which it does 
business. 
sustainability threshold or norm
The tax gap (if any) each year, and on average 
over a five-year period, shall not exceed 5% as 
suggested by Sayani’s methodology.19
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 17.1.2.
II.B.3 CEO-to-worker pay ratio
definition
This indicator focuses on the importance of tackling horizontal inequalities by measuring 
the CEO-to-worker pay ratio. It indicates the ratio of total compensation of the highest-paid 
executive in a company relative to the median compensation of the lowest quartile of employees.
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
sustainability threshold or norm
The CEO-to-worker pay ratio shall not exceed 
30:1.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 10.

34
UNRISD
II.B.4 Living wage gap
definition
Paying a living wage is imperative if one is to be abided by the principle of fair remuneration. A 
living wage is defined as:
Remuneration received […] by a worker in a particular place sufficient to afford a decent 
standard of living for the worker and her or his family […] [including for] food, water, 
housing, education, health care, transportation, clothing, and other essential needs, 
including provision for unexpected events.20
This indicator measures the living wage gap, which is the gap between actual wages and benefits 
paid to a worker and a normative living wage. It is reported annually and for all employees in the 
aggregate.
trend
To disclose the living wage gap for the last 5 
years to gauge the degree of progress. 
sustainability threshold or norm
Wage levels should meet the locally relevant 
living wage and thus the living wage gap shall 
be no greater than zero. 
relevance to the sdgs
SDGs 1, 5, 8, 10.
II.B.5 Distribution of surplus/profits 
definition
This indicator is drawn from the social business model whereby the surplus generated is 
reinvested into the business and the target group of beneficiaries rather than being passed on to 
investors. This indicator calls for disclosure of: (i) the extent to which surpluses and profits are 
distributed; and (ii) to whom such distributions are made and in what proportions.
transformative disclosure
Disclosure of the percentage of surpluses/
profits distributed to: (i) members/workers/
producers; (ii) employee stock ownership plans 
(ESOP); (iii) shareholders; (iv) reinvestment 
in the organization; and (v) other: specify (e.g. 
community investment).
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 10.

35
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
II.B.6 Gender pay gap: Equality of remuneration
definition
This indicator refers to disparities in the average remuneration of men and women in an 
organization at each occupational level. This indicator has two sub-indicators associated with it: 
indicator 1, which measures the overall gender pay gap, if any, at the organizational level; and 
indicator 2, which measures gender pay gaps at each occupational level (to be identified by the 
entity).
trend
To disclose the gender pay gap for the last 5 
years to gauge the degree of progress.
sustainability threshold or norm
The difference between the average 
remuneration of men and women in an 
organization shall not exceed 3%.21
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 5.
II.B.7 Gender diversity: Hiring at different occupational levels
definition
The extent to which there is gender parity in the hiring of women at different occupational 
levels of an organization.
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
sustainability threshold or norm
The hiring of women in an organization shall 
be no less than 40% of total hiring in any 
given year.22
relevance to the sdgs
SDGs 5 and 10.

36
UNRISD
II.B.8 Gender diversity: Promotion at different occupational levels
definition
The extent to which there is gender parity in the promotion of and women at different 
occupational levels of an organization.
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
sustainability threshold or norm
The promotion of women in an organization 
shall be no less than 40% of total promotion 
in any given year.
relevance to the sdgs
SDGs 5 and 10.
II.B.9 Gender equality: Proportion of women in managerial positions
definition
This indicator is expressed as the number of women in managerial positions divided by the total 
number of managers in a given reporting period.
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
sustainability threshold or norm
The percentage of women in managerial 
positions in an organization shall be no less 
than 40% in any given year.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 5.5.2.

37
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
II.B.10 Caregiving support programmes
definition
This indicator recognizes the need for some level of support for an employee’s caregiving needs 
associated with prekindergarten, pre-teen and elder care. It calls for provisions in corporate 
compensation and benefits programmes that allow employees to periodically suspend or 
reschedule their work without penalty or compromise to their employment status in order to 
provide care to their dependents.
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
sustainability threshold or norm
All eight defined programmes listed below 
shall be offered to all full- and part-time 
employees: 
1. Paid parental leave for childbirth 
or adoption (both maternity and 
paternity) beyond legal minimum 
2. Flextime and/or compressed work 
weeks
3. Teleworking
4. Access to on-site childcare facilities 
or subsidized services for longer-
term care
5. Emergency back-up childcare 
services or subsidized support for 
short-term needs
6. Emergency back-up, paid leave or 
subsidized support for eldercare
7. Emergency back-up, paid leave or 
subsidized support for people with 
disabilities
8. Smooth transition assistance to/
from extended leaves.23
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicators 4.2 and 5.4.

38
UNRISD
II.B.11 Frequency/incident rates of occupational injuries
definition
This indicator is related to the number of workdays lost due to occupational accidents, injuries 
and diseases24 during the reporting period. It suggests the effectiveness of an entity’s employee 
health and safety policy and its ability to build a healthy, safe and productive work environment.
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
sustainability threshold or norm
The rate at which occupational accidents, 
injuries, illnesses and deaths occur shall be 
zero.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG targets 8.8, 3.8.; SDG indicators 3.8.1, 
3.8.2, 8.8.1.
II.B.12 Harassment and discrimination at the workplace
definition
This indicator calls for disclosure related to whether the entity has a policy, training courses or 
mechanisms to address harassment and discrimination at the workplace, and whether it provides 
confidential grievance, resolution and non-retaliation mechanisms to ensure an environment 
free of violence, harassment and sexual exploitation.
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
transformative disclosure
To disclose policies, training or other 
mechanisms that exist on matters related 
to harassment and discrimination in the 
workplace and to gauge their workings and 
effectiveness.
relevance to the sdgs
SDGs 8 and 10.

39
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
II.B.13 Access to remedy
definition
This indicator calls for disclosure related to whether the entity has mechanisms for access to 
remedy (i.e. non-state-based grievance mechanisms) for any issues related to working conditions 
and labour rights.
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
transformative disclosure
To disclose whether mechanisms for access to 
remedy exist for any issues related to working 
conditions and labour rights exist and to gauge 
their workings and effectiveness.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 8.
II.B.14 Discrimination in hiring and promotion
definition
This indicator calls for whether the entity has specific, written anti-discrimination policy to hire, 
promote and pay employees without discrimination and a system to monitor compliance of this 
policy.
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
transformative disclosure
This indicator calls for disclosure of whether 
policies to hire, promote and pay employees 
without discrimination exist and it aims to 
gauge their workings and effectiveness.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 10.

40
UNRISD
II.B.15 Union density and collective bargaining coverage
definition
Trade union density is the percentage of workers belonging to a trade union and collective 
bargaining coverage is the percentage of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements. It 
should be noted that certain legal contexts may limit both workers and companies in their ability 
to enable unionization. The same need not apply for collective bargaining, however, given the 
possibility of diverse forms of worker participation and representation in governance within the 
enterprise which do not necessarily require a trade union.
trend
This indicator calls for the five-year trend 
in union density and collective bargaining 
coverage.
transformative disclosure
To disclose the extent to which employees 
are covered by trade union and/or collective 
bargaining agreements in an organization.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 8.8.2.
II.B.16 Worker participation
definition
This indicator emphasizes the importance of participative standards that promote workers’ 
empowerment within governance systems. It calls for the extent to which employers enable and 
support their workers’ rights to exert claims on management through different forms and levels 
of participation. 
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
transformative disclosure
To disclose whether employers enable and 
support their workers’ rights to exert claims 
on management through different forms and 
levels of participation.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 8.

41
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
II.B.17 Contingent and subcontracted workers
definition
Regressive trends related to a significant decline in permanent or fixed-term employment and/or 
increased reliance on subcontracted labour, often associated with weak labour rights and profit 
maximization. This indicator calls for the extent to which the entity relies on contingent and/or 
subcontracted workers and its relevant policies and practices.
trend
To provide time-series data of 5 years. 
transformative disclosure
The organization shall disclose the extent 
to which it utilizes contingent and/or 
subcontracted workers and to gauge the 
relationship between the use of contingent 
and/or subcontracted workers and the 
additional profit gains.
relevance to the sdgs
SDGs 8 and 10.
II.B.18 Hiring of vulnerable groups
definition
Vulnerable groups in society refer to those who are discriminated against (or disadvantaged) 
owing to age, sex, race, ethnicity or interpersonal relationships (such as family structure and 
marital status), or because of constrained access to resources (such as schools, jobs, income and 
housing). This indicator calls for disclosure on the percentage of the vulnerable population in 
permanent employment (e.g. ethnic or religious minorities, immigrants, refugees, persons with 
disabilities, those on social benefits, ex-long-term unemployed or other minorities defined in 
terms of sexuality or age).
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
transformative disclosure
The entity shall identify vulnerable groups in 
society, then disclose the percentage of its total 
permanent employees who fall into at least one 
of the identified groups.
relevance to the sdgs
SDGs 1 and 10.

42
UNRISD
II.B.19 Long-term work contracts
definition
The age of the entity and the share of employees with long-term contracts.
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
transformative disclosure
To disclose the age of the entity and the share 
of employees with long-term contracts.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 8.
II.B.20 Employee turnover rate
definition
The percentage of employees who leave an entity in a given year.
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
transformative disclosure
To disclose the percentage of employees who 
leave an organization in a given year.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 8.
II.B.21 Responsible and ethical sourcing
definition
This indicator calls for disclosure of the extent to which an entity engages in responsible 
sourcing and purchasing practices. It does so bearing in mind that suppliers are often subject 
to pressures related to: (i) aggressive pricing that may constrict wages and benefits; (ii) product 
development and short production lead times, which can result in excessive and unplanned 
overtime; and (iii) short-term or insecure contractual relationships between affiliates and 
suppliers.
transformative disclosure
To disclose the extent to which policies and 
programmes are engaged to ensure responsible 
sourcing and purchasing practices and it aims 
to gauge their working and effectiveness.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 12.

43
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
II.B.22 Training of vulnerable groups (applicable to SSEOEs only)
definition
The percentage of people hired for job skill training purposes for future employment who 
belong to vulnerable groups in society. Vulnerable groups in society refer to those who are 
discriminated against, or disadvantaged, owing to age, sex, race, ethnicity or interpersonal 
relationships (such as family structure and marital status) or because of constrained access to 
resources (such as schools, jobs, income and housing).
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
transformative disclosure
To disclose the percentage of people hired 
for job skill training purposes for future 
employment who belong to vulnerable groups 
in society.
relevance to the sdgs
SDGs 4 and 10.
II.B.23 Work integration (applicable to SSEOEs only)
definition
The percentage of workers who receive job skill training through work integration programmes 
and who subsequently move on to find employment or pursue education. 
trend
To disclose for the last 5 years to gauge the 
degree of progress.
transformative disclosure
To disclose of the percentage of workers who 
received job skill training and subsequently 
went on to find employment or pursue 
education.
relevance to the sdgs
SDGs 4 and 8.

44
UNRISD
 Tier 2: C. Institutional area
II.C.1 Corporate political influence: Policies, programmes and practices
definition
The degree to which an entity engages in political influence by way of political contributions, 
lobbying and other activities aimed at shaping public policies.
transformative disclosure
To disclosure of the descriptions of all material 
aspects of its corporate political influence, 
including its policies, programmes and 
practices.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 16.
II.C.2 Context-based triple bottom line (TBL) accounting
definition
The degree to which an entity uses context-based tools, methods and metrics (i.e. measurement 
systems that express performance relative to sustainability norms and not only in incremental 
terms) to measure, manage and report its TBL performance and assess progress in relation to 
sustainability criteria.
sustainability threshold or norm
The organization shall utilize context-based 
accounting tools, methods and metrics 
to measure, manage and report its TBL 
performance, and shall meet the criteria 
explained in the methodology (see the 
Appendix for the methodology).25
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 12.6.1.
II.C.3 Amount of total fines paid or payable due to settlements
definition
The total of all fines paid by the entity, or payable due to settlements, which are attributable to 
unlawful behaviours of all types (including, but not limited to, corruption).
sustainability threshold or norm
Fines paid or payable by the entity, due to 
unlawful behaviours of all types, shall be no 
more than virtually zero.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 16.5.2.

45
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
II.C.4 Amount of corruption-related fines paid or payable due to settlements
definition
This indicator refers to the total monetary value of paid and payable corruption-related fines 
imposed by regulators and courts in the reporting period. Corruption includes practices such as 
bribery, facilitation payments, fraud, extortion, collusion and money laundering. It also includes 
the offer or receipt of gifts, loans, fees, rewards or other advantages as an inducement to do 
something that is dishonest or illegal, or that represents a breach of trust. It may also include 
practices such as embezzlement, trading in influence, abuse of function, illicit enrichment, 
concealment and obstructing justice.26
sustainability threshold or norm
Fines paid or payable by the entity, due to 
unlawful behaviours of all types, shall be no 
more than virtually zero.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 16.5.2.
II.C.5 Public sharing of information and knowledge
definition
Whether the information, knowledge and data generated by an entity is freely available to the 
public.
transformative disclosure
The entity shall determine and disclose 
whether the information, knowledge and data 
(including code) it produces is freely available 
to the public.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 16.
II.C.6 Number and percentage of women board members
definition
This indicator comprises the number and percentage of women board members, and provides a 
quantitative measure of gender diversity within an organization.27
sustainability threshold or norm
The organization shall have at least 40% 
representation of women on the board in any 
given year.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG indicator 5.5.2.

46
UNRISD
II.C.7 Term limits for board of directors
definition
Whether there is a term limit for members of the board of directors in an entity.
transformative disclosure
The entity shall determine and disclose 
whether there is a term limit for members of 
the board of directors.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 16.
II.C.8 Resilience
definition
An entity’s capacity to learn, innovate and adapt in the face of disruptive change.
transformative disclosure
This indicator calls for disclosure of an 
entity’s own assessment of its capacity to learn, 
innovate and adapt in the face of disruptive 
change.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 9.
II.C.9 Attendance at annual general meetings (applicable to SSEOEs only)
definition
Disclosure of attendance at the annual general meeting (AGM) or an equivalent mechanism (for 
members’ participation in decision making).
transformative disclosure
The organization shall determine and disclose 
the average level of attendance at AGMs or 
equivalent meetings/mechanisms by members 
in the past five years.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 16.

47
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
II.C.10 Democratic elections (applicable to SSEOEs only)
definition
Whether or not the election of persons in an organization’s managerial, executive and 
organizational governance roles occurs by way of a democratic process.
transformative disclosure
The organization shall determine and disclose 
whether it utilizes a “one person, one vote” 
system (with or without delegation of votes) 
for electing persons in an organization’s 
managerial, executive and organizational 
governance roles.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 16.
II.C.11 Legitimation of management (applicable to SSEOEs only)
definition
The percentage of persons in an organization’s managerial roles who are selected by their own 
employees (through a formal consultation process, selection committee participation, etc.). 
This indicator calls for two disclosures: (i) the organization shall determine and disclose the 
proportion of managers who are selected by their own staff (in any way); and (ii) the specific 
way(s) in which staff have in fact participated in making such selections, in cases where they have 
(through a formal consultation process, selection committee participation, etc.).
transformative disclosure
The organization shall disclose the proportion 
of persons in managerial roles who are selected 
by their own staff in some way.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 16.
II.C.12 Stakeholder participation (Applicable to SSEOEs only)
definition
Whether there are formal mechanisms in place for non-employee stakeholders (members, 
consumers, communities, etc.) to participate in decision-making on strategic issues.
transformative disclosure
The organization shall determine and disclose 
whether there are formal mechanisms in place 
for non-employee stakeholders (members, 
consumers, communities, etc.) to participate in 
decision-making on strategic issues.
relevance to the sdgs
SDG 16.
.

48
UNRISD
Appendix: 
Measurement 
Methodology

49
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Tier 1
Trend indicators: Spotting a trend of UNCTAD’s core 
indicators	
 Tier 1:  A. Economic area
I.A.1 Revenue
Measurement methodology
The figure for total revenues should correspond to the same data as reported elsewhere in the 
entity’s management accounts and in its audited financial statements.
For the entity applying International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 15 or using IFRS for 
small and medium-sized entities (IFRS for SMEs), five steps are provided for a reporting entity to 
apply to recognize revenue:
•	 Identify the contract(s) with a customer.
•	 Identify the performance obligations in the contract(s). Performance obligations are 
promises in a contract to transfer to a customer goods or services that are distinct.
•	 Determine the transaction price. The transaction price is the amount of consideration 
to which an entity expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring promised goods or 
services to a customer. If the consideration promised in a contract includes a variable 
amount, an entity must estimate the amount of consideration to which it expects to be 
entitled in exchange for transferring the promised goods or services to a customer.
•	 Allocate the transaction price to each performance obligation on the basis of the relative 
stand-alone selling prices of each distinct good or service promised in the contract.
•	 Recognize revenue when a performance obligation is satisfied by transferring a promised 
good or service to a customer (which is when the customer obtains control of that 
good or service). A performance obligation may be satisfied at a point in time (typically 
for promises to transfer goods to a customer) or over time (typically for promises to 
transfer services to a customer). For a performance obligation satisfied over time, an 
entity would select an appropriate measure of progress to determine how much revenue 
should be recognized as the performance obligation is satisfied.28
If an entity is neither applying IFRS 15 nor using IFRS for SMEs, this should be clearly stated 
and explained. The entity is expected to compile information for economic disclosures using 
figures from its audited financial statements or from its internally audited management accounts, 
whenever possible.

50
UNRISD
Potential sources of information
Revenues are to be found as the first line of the income statement. The information about the 
single transactions to calculate revenues in the reporting period are recorded within financial 
accounting systems (accounts receivable, revenue cycle).29 Management accounting systems 
and internal management reports usually present segment revenues with reference to different 
dimensions (segment reporting).
I.A.2 Net value added
Measurement methodology
Value added can be calculated using the following:
Direct economic value generated (revenues and other income) minus operating costs (the 
costs of goods and services purchased from external suppliers). This is normally referred to as 
gross value added (GVA).
Net value added is calculated by subtracting depreciation of tangible assets from value added. 
Equation:
Value Added = 1a + 1b − 2a − 2b 
Net Value Added = 1a + 1b − 2a − 2b − 3a − 3b
where: 	
1a = Revenue;
1b = Other income (investment income, other gains and losses);
2a = Cost of sales (costs of goods and services from external suppliers);
2b = Operating expenses (costs of goods and services from external suppliers); 
3a = Cost of sales (depreciation); and
3b = Operating expenses (depreciation).
Potential sources of information
Value-added statement: A financial statement that depicts wealth created by an organization and 
how that wealth is distributed among various stakeholders comprising employees, shareholders, 
government, creditors and the wealth that is retained in the business.
The preparation of a value-added statement is based on the data collected within the traditional 
accounting system, so that value added is calculated on an accruals basis.
If an entity does not prepare a value-added statement, the calculation of value added should be 
made from data in the organization’s audited profit and loss statement, or its internally audited 
management accounts (internal management reports for the country-specific data should be used). 
In particular, if an entity wishes to prepare a value-added statement, operating costs can be derived 
from all the bills to external suppliers of goods and services (recorded in the accounts payable); 
the data on employee wages and benefits and the related information flows are normally managed

51
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
by the human resources function, typically within a compensation and payroll management 
information system. Many entities use specialized software for collection and elaborating payroll 
information; payments to the different providers of capital are recorded in specific accounts (e.g. 
interest or dividends payable) and can be found in the P&L as interest expenses or in the cash flow 
statement as dividends paid; and community investments in the form of donations are recorded 
in a specific account that is usually called charitable contributions (in an internal report they will 
appear as a discrete expense line item most likely called charitable contributions).
I.A.3 Taxes and other payments to the government
Measurement methodology
An organization can calculate this indicator by summing up all of the organization’s taxes (which 
can include income and property) as well as excise duties; value-added tax (VAT); local rates and 
other levies and taxes that may be industry- or country-specific; and all royalties, licence fees and 
other payments to the government.
Potential sources of information
Taxes and other payments to the government can be found either as an expense or as a liability on 
the balance sheet.
I.A.4 Green investment
Measurement methodology
An organization can determine its expenditures in green investment by using various frameworks 
or checklists developed by international organizations. They include the full sustainability 
taxonomy developed by the High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (HLEG), in 
collaboration with the Action Plan on Sustainable Finance of the European Commission;30 
a list of environment-related technologies by researchers of the European Patent Office and 
the Organization for European Co-operation and Development (OECD); and the European 
Union’s Classification of Environmental Protection Activities (CEPA) list of expenditures for 
environmental protection.
To understand which types of underlying technologies are related to green investments, and as a 
starting point to decide which investments can be incorporated in the calculation of this indicator, 
the following checklist is suggested:
•	 General environmental management (including waste management, air and water 
pollution abatement, soil remediation)
•	 Renewable energy (including biofuels)
•	 Combustion technologies for improved efficiency
•	 Climate change mitigation (e.g. capture, storage, sequestration, disposal GHG)
•	 Indirect contribution (e.g. energy storage)

52
UNRISD
•	 Transportation (emissions abatement, efficiency)
•	 Buildings (energy efficiency).
The European Union’s CEPA list also includes the expenditures for environmental protection, 
outlays and other transactions related to:
•	 capital formation and the purchase of land for environmental protection activities;
•	 the purchase of environmental protection products, i.e. goods that directly contribute to 
preservation efforts (e.g. septic tanks, rubbish containers and compost containers); and
•	 investment in adapted goods, which are goods that have been specifically modified to be 
greener (e.g. mercury-free batteries; chlorofluorocarbon- (CFC)- free products). Only the 
extra cost paid in excess of the cost of the normal product is counted.
In any case, given the lack of a shared definition across industries and that the definition of green 
investment is likely to depend on the entity’s location and operational context, it is important to 
complement the disclosure of this indicator with a consistent explanation of why an investment 
has been categorized as green.
These frameworks provide useful information on how to identify, classify and calculate the total 
amount of green investments over a certain reporting period. By using these frameworks or 
checklists, two indicators can be calculated: 
•	 the total amount of green investments over a certain reporting period. This indicator 
should be measured in monetary units (the costs as indicated on the corresponding 
invoices); and 
•	 a ratio expressing a firm’s green investment in period t as a percentage of the entity’s 
period t total assets (and/or revenue). These indicators would be expressed in 
percentage terms.
Potential sources of information
Information on these expenditures can be found as an operating expense when the corresponding 
expenses are not capitalized. These expenditures can be found in the P&L statement as part of 
production costs, or as part of selling expenses, depending on the nature of the corresponding 
investment. When these investments are material, they are most likely capitalized, and they are 
budgeted at the beginning of the reporting period. So, it is possible to find the corresponding 
amounts in internal management reports such as capital budgets. Once the entity has capitalized 
such expenses, they are included in the fixed assets in the balance sheet of the entity (typically as 
part of plant, property and equipment).
I.A.5 Community investment
Measurement methodology
The amount of community investment should be expressed in monetary terms and comprise the 
expenditures (both capital expenditure and operating ones if applicable) incurred in the reporting 
period.

53
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Two indicators can be calculated:
•	 the total amount of community investments over a certain reporting period. 
Community investments should be expressed in monetary terms and should comprise 
the expenditures (both capital expenditure and operating ones if applicable) incurred in 
the reporting period; and
•	 a ratio expressing a firm’s community investments in period t as a percentage of the 
entity’s period total assets (and/or revenue). These indicators would be expressed in 
percentage (%) terms. 
To calculate the first indicator and the numerator of the second indicator(s) the following 
classification can be used to keep track of community investments over a certain reporting period.
•	 Contributions to charities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and research 
institutes (not related to the entity’s commercial research and development).
•	 Funding of community infrastructures (e.g. education, medical and recreational 
facilities) including infrastructures outside the main business activities of the entity, 
such as a school or hospital for employees and their families.
•	 Direct costs of social programmes (e.g. arts and educational events) or of provision of 
emergency relief in times of natural disaster.
With respect to support for community infrastructures, if the entity buys an existing infrastructure, 
the calculation should refer to the amount of expenditures incurred. If the entity contributes to 
building the facility, then the costs of materials, labour and all construction costs specific to the 
facility need to be included in the calculation. If the entity is funding the daily operations of a 
community facility, the reported amount should include the related operating costs. Regarding the 
support of social programmes, the amount to calculate the indicator should refer to the specific 
operating costs related to the programmes financed by the entity. The calculation of this indicator 
should also include non-monetary contributions by entities, for instance in the context of an entity 
whose workers lend their time and capabilities to build infrastructure for a community project, as 
well as in-kind donations (at fair value).
Potential sources of information
Donations or charitable contributions are generally recorded in an entity’s general ledger in a 
separate account. This is necessary for tax purposes: entities should use a dedicated account for tax-
deductible contributions. Information for computing this indicator is found there and is usually 
recorded by the finance, treasury or accounting departments.
I.A.6 Total expenditures on research & development (R&D)
Measurement methodology
There are different accounting treatments of R&D expenses. Under US generally accepted 
accounting principles (GAAP), all R&D costs are expensed as incurred (i.e. they are written off 
to the income statement as an expense when incurred). Under IFRS (International Accounting

54
UNRISD
Standards 38; IAS 38), research costs are expensed, while development expenditures need to 
be capitalized (i.e. treated as an intangible asset, amortized and reported in the balance sheet). 
An example of research expense could be the expenditures for tests aimed at obtaining new 
knowledge to develop a new vaccine by an entity in the pharmaceutical industry. An example of 
development expense could be the design, construction and testing of a pre-production car model 
by an automotive entity. Therefore, according to IFRS, distinguishing development activities 
from research activities is crucial and the most important criterion to decide between expensing 
or capitalizing R&D expenditure is represented by the technical feasibility of completing the 
intangible asset so that it will be available for use or sale.
Apply (and disclose) which approach (GAAP or IFRS) the entity uses in its accounting and 
reporting.
To calculate this indicator, all R&D expenditures incurred in a certain reporting period should be 
considered, independently from their accounting treatment.
There could be two ratio indicators, which would be calculated as in Equations (I.3) and (I.4):
Total R&D expenditures / Total assets
Total R&D expenditures / Total revenue
Potential sources of information
Information to calculate this indicator can be found in financial statements/financial accounting 
systems, either in the P&L statement or in the balance sheet, depending on whether R&D costs 
incurred in a certain reporting period are expensed (there is a specific line in the P&L for R&D 
expenses, included as part of the operating costs) or capitalized (as intangible assets).
Management accounting systems and internal management reports can be consulted for the 
country-specific data.
I.A.7 Percentage of local procurement
Measurement methodology
The indicator can be calculated using invoices or commitments made during the reporting period 
based on the accrual accounting principle. Invoices or commitments to local suppliers are those 
toward organizations or people that provide products or services to the organization and that are 
based in the same geographical market as the reporting organization.
The definition of same geographical market and local may refer to the community surrounding 
operations (within a certain reach defined in terms of kilometres or miles), a region within a 
country or a country. Therefore, as there could be considerable variation in how organizations 
define local and as tracking local purchases requires systems, staff time and specific skills that 
are not part of the procurement operations of many entities, it is suggested that the country is 
considered to be a distinguishing criterion. In line with UNCTAD’s Guidance on Core Indicators

55
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
for Entity Reporting, purchasing is defined as local when it concerns products or services produced 
in the same country as the reporting entity, or provided by an entity that is incorporated in the 
same country as the reporting entity, or otherwise meets the local content or entity requirements 
as defined by the government of that country. Following this line of reasoning, as a starting point 
to decide whether or not to include certain purchases in the calculation of this indicator, it could 
be useful to check whether transnational payments to the suppliers have been made. By looking 
at invoices in this way, reporting entities can identify the items of local purchasing included in the 
reporting period and calculate the costs on an accrual basis.
The total amount of local purchasing is presented both as an absolute figure (in monetary terms) 
and as a percentage of total purchasing of the reporting entity.
Potential sources of information
Information about local procurement can be found by looking at the bills of the entity’s suppliers 
(accounts payable) and, if applicable, at the internal reporting system—in particular, the operational 
information system for recording supplier master data. This is a reference to the enterprise 
resource planning system that records information on the entity’s suppliers, including records of 
payments and other transactions.
 Tier 1:  B. Environmental area
I.B.1 Water recycling and reuse
Two indicators can be calculated. 
The total volume of water recycled and reused: this indicator should be expressed in total cubic 
metres (m3). If the entity has water or flow meters, it is suggested that the indicator is calculated 
at the level of facility/individual business site, where appropriate documentation and reporting 
should exist, based on water or flow meters that are used to directly measure the quantity of water 
recycled and/or reused at the site. Data on the total volume of water recycled and/or reused 
need to be collected with reference to a relevant time unit (e.g. day, week, month) so they can be 
cumulated with reference to the total reporting period. If the entity does not have water or flow 
meters, the water recycled and reused needs to be estimated. Calculation of the volume of recycled 
and reused water can be based on the volume of water demand by the entity that is satisfied by 
recycled and/or reused water, rather than by further withdrawals/supplies from third parties.
The total volume of water recycled and reused as a percentage of the total water withdrawal and 
total water received from a third party, expressed in percentage terms. The denominator takes into 
account water withdrawn either directly by the organization or through intermediaries such as 
water utilities. More specifically, total water withdrawal is calculated as the sum of all water drawn 
into the boundaries of the entity for any use over the course of the reporting period, and from 
different sources, including fresh surface water; groundwater; seawater water; produced/process 
water; and third-party water.31

56
UNRISD
It is suggested that the entity should report the total volume of water recycled and reused (total 
m3), as well as the total volume of water recycled and reused as a % of the total water withdrawal 
plus total water received from a third party (where total water withdrawal is calculated as the sum 
of all water drawn into the boundaries of the organization from all sources for any use over the 
course of the reporting period. Sources of water withdrawal can include fresh surface water + 
groundwater + seawater/brackish water + produced/process water). The total volume withdrawn 
and received from a third party is a proxy for the organization’s relative size and importance as a 
user of water, as well as a baseline figure for other calculations relating to efficiency and use. The 
indicator is thus expressed in both m3 and percentage terms.
Potential sources of information
The calculation of the indicators involves water data collected at each facility/site by direct 
measurement (through water meters). Determining water use and recycling involves water 
withdrawal, delivery, release and return flow data collected at each business unit/facility by 
direct measurement (through water meters). Water should be metered and measured in litres or 
m3. If such information is collected, it can be found in internal reporting systems (operational 
information system tracking physical units and recording water flows) and/or environmental 
accounting systems/environmental management systems, especially regarding resource recycling 
quantities and costs. Reporting entities would need to disclose if these instruments are not used at 
their facilities, and an estimation thus required. Estimates are based on coefficients (area statistics) 
relating water use to another characteristic, usually representing a proxy for the volume of business 
activity, such as number of employees or production values and volume, and applying it to a site-
specific quantity of that characteristic. In addition, information collected in accounts payable based 
on water suppliers’ bills can be used to calculate this indicator.
I.B.2 Reduction of waste generation by reused, re-manufactured and recycled
Measurement methodology
Total waste generated during a reporting period is defined as the sum of the amounts of all 
mineral, non-mineral and/or hazardous waste treated by any waste treatment technology. This 
excludes the amount that is treated either on-site or off-site through closed-loop recycling, reuse or 
re-manufacturing processes (i.e. the recycled, reused or re-manufactured waste materials returned to 
the processes of the reporting entity). Waste should be weighed or metered. As waste can be solid, 
liquid or have a paste-like consistency, it can be measured in kilograms (kg) and metric tonnes (mt), 
litres or m3. However, for the purpose of this indicator, waste should be reported according to 
weight (kg, t) and not volume (litres, m3).
Waste generated should be presented in absolute volumes (in terms of kg or t of waste) and also 
normalized. To normalize data concerning waste generation figures, total waste generated should 
be divided by the amount of NVA (expressed as EUR, USD, GBP, etc.) generated in the same 
reporting period (see NVA indicator). Therefore, the unit of measure of this indicator is kg or t of 
waste per EUR, per USD, etc.

57
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The difference between year t and year t−1 should be computed so it is possible to monitor the 
level of progress the organization has made toward waste reduction efforts (i.e. the change in the 
entity’s waste generation). For the entity, such difference may also signal improvements in process 
efficiency and productivity and, from a financial perspective, some cost savings on materials 
processing and disposal.
The amount of reused, re-manufactured and recycled waste should be recognized in the period in 
which it is treated and should be measured in kg and t (see I.B.2.1 Reduction of waste generation). 
If possible, it is preferable to distinguish among the three options; specifically, between reuse and 
recycling versus re-manufacturing.
Reused, re-manufactured and recycled waste should be presented in absolute amounts (in terms of 
waste in kg or t) and normalized.
Potential sources of information
Waste should be weighed or metered at each specific business site. However, some entities may 
find it difficult to meter the volume of waste produced. Therefore, as waste is normally collected 
from an organization by a third party, it is possible to calculate the amount of waste generated in a 
reporting period via bills from the waste management company (information provided by the waste 
disposal contractor usually includes—along with the type of waste—the amount of waste managed, 
in kg or t).
The data required for the calculation of these indicators and the related information flows are 
normally managed by a facility manager or a general services administrator. When such positions 
are not present in an entity, the related information is to be found in the accounts payable as part 
of the waste management costs calculation of the reporting period.
In many countries, various forms of waste treatment are required by law, and (normally) a waste 
disposal contractor is involved in open-loop recycling. Therefore, relevant information for a specific 
reporting period can be found on the bills from the waste management company (information 
provided by the waste disposal contractor usually includes, along with the type of waste, the 
amount of waste managed in kg or t). When the waste generated by an entity can be sold (e.g. 
because it represents a suitable raw material for another manufacturing company), relevant 
information can be found on the invoice issued by the entity selling waste materials (accounts 
receivable).
When the recycled, reused or re-manufactured material is returned to the processes of the 
reporting entity (closed-loop processes), the related figures should be collected at each business site 
and reported through operational reporting.

58
UNRISD
I.B.3 ODS and chemicals
Measurement methodology
In the annex of the Montreal Protocol, every substance controlled is listed, together with a value 
expressing the ozone-depletion potential. An ozone-depletion potential value indicates how much 
impact a certain substance has on the depletion of the ozone layer relative to a reference substance. 
The reference substance normally taken is trichlorofluoromethane (CFC 11), which has been given 
an ozone-depletion potential of 1; therefore, ozone-depletion potential values are expressed in kg 
CFC 11 equivalents per kg of the respective substance.
The dependency of an entity on ODS is defined as: production of ODS + purchases of ODS 
+ stocks of ODS, where production of ODS means the amount of virgin (i.e. not recovered, 
reclaimed or recycled) ODS added by the reporting entity.
Potential sources of information
ODS should be weighed or metered at each specific business site (ODS should be measured in 
kg, tonnes, litres and m3). This is an area that is regulated in many countries and therefore the 
information regarding this indicator should be found in the following locations. 
•	 When ODS are produced: in the operating information systems of each specific plant 
(as part of amounts of outcomes produced in a specific reporting period t see also the 
bills of materials). 
•	 When ODS are purchased/stocked:
•	 When relating to ODS for production processes: in the accounts payable and 
in the operating information systems of each specific plant. The owner of such 
information in this case should be the plant manager/purchasing manager.
•	 When relating to ODS embodied in equipment in use outside production 
processes and part of general services (e.g. air conditioning, firefighting 
equipment), it can be derived from the description of the specific equipment 
bought by the entity at each facility. The owner of such information in this case 
should be the facility manager/general services administrator.
 Tier 1:  C. Social area
I.C.1 Average hours of training per year per employee
Measurement methodology
The first step in calculating the number of hours is to identify all the training programmes 
undertaken by an entity in a reporting period so that the related hours can be cumulated. These 
may include internal training courses, external training or education (supported by the entity), the 
provision of sabbatical periods with guaranteed return to employment (supported by the entity, e.g. 
paid educational leave provided by the reporting entity for its employees), and training in specific 
topics such as health and safety.

59
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The denominator should be expressed as either headcount or full-time equivalent (FTE), and the 
approach applied consistently in the period, and between periods. The data should be presented 
with a breakdown by employment category and possibly by gender (see description for I.C.1.1. 
Proportion of women in managerial positions).
Equation:
Average training hours per employee =
total number of training hours provided to employees/
total number of employees
If possible, this indicator should be broken down by category as in the following equation: 
Average training hours per employee category =
total number of training hours provided to each category of employees/
total number of employees in category. 
Multinational entities are encouraged to disclose hours of training by country, and possibly by 
gender, similar to recommendations for other economic indicators included in this Manual.
Potential sources of information
Information to calculate these indicators is typically found in human resources information 
systems (employee records available at the national or site level). Many entities use specialized 
software (human resource software) for collecting and elaborating information regarding 
employees, including the other data that are necessary to calculate this indicator. The software 
and related information flows are normally managed by the human resources function that is also 
usually in charge of defining a training budget.
Training expenses can also be found in the P&L statement as a specific line item that is part of 
the operating costs (general expenses). Entities usually employ a specific account to record training 
costs that can be called employee training expenses (in the accounts payable). Management 
accounting systems/internal management reports can be also used for the hour-specific, category-
specific and country-specific data (if an entity has a balanced scorecard, these indicators are often 
included as key performance indicators in the learning and growth perspective).
I.C.2 Expenditure on employee training per year per employee
Measurement methodology
To calculate the expenditure referred to training programmes, it is suggested that direct and 
indirect costs of training be considered; for example course fees, trainers’ fees, training facilities, 
training equipment and related travel costs.
The denominator should be expressed as either headcount or FTE, and the approach should 
be applied consistently in the period and between periods. The data should be presented with a 
breakdown by employment category (see description relating to I.C.1.1. Proportion of women in 
managerial positions).

60
UNRISD
Average training expenditures per employee =
total amount of training expenses/total number of employees. 
If possible, this indicator should be broken down by category in the following way:
Average training expenditures per employee category =
total amount of training expenses for each category of employees/
total number of employees in category 
Multinational entities are encouraged to disclose training expenditures and hours of training 
by country, and possibly by gender, similar to recommendations for other economic indicators 
included in this Manual.
I.C.3 Employee wages and benefits as a proportion of revenue,
with breakdown by employment type and gender
Measurement methodology
The first step in calculating this indicator is to compute total payroll, including employee salaries 
and amounts paid to government institutions on behalf of employees, plus total benefits (excluding 
training costs, costs of protective equipment or other cost items directly related to the employee’s 
job function). In this context, payments to the government can include contributions, pensions, 
employment taxes, levies and employment funds. Then, the amount of employee benefits and 
wages will be divided by the total revenue in that reporting period.
If an entity prepares a value-added income statement, the total amount of employee wages and 
benefits is already disclosed there (among the items included in the economic value distributed). 
The total amount of employee wages and benefits should be broken down according to the 
following categories:32
•	 employees and supervised workers,
•	 type of employment contract (permanent or temporary),
•	 type of employment (full time or part time),
•	 age group: under 30 years of age, 30–50 years of age, over 50 years of age,
•	 region, and
•	 gender.
Potential sources of information
Information to calculate these indicators is typically found in human resources information 
systems (employee records available at the national or site level). Many entities use specialized 
software (human resource software) for collecting and elaborating information on employees, 
including the other data that are necessary to calculate this indicator. The software and the related 
information flows on wages and benefits are normally managed by the human resources function 
in a specific module that is usually labelled payroll accounting. Many firms also have a payroll 
accounting specialist in the accounting department who is the owner of this information. The total 
revenue can be obtained from the P&L statement.

61
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
I.C.4 Expenditures on employee health and safety as a proportion of revenue
Measurement methodology
This indicator is expressed as a % and is calculated by adding up the expenses for occupational 
safety- and health-related insurance programmes, for health care activities financed directly by the 
entity and all expenses sustained for working environment issues related to occupational safety 
and health incurred during a reporting period. This amount is divided by the total revenue in this 
reporting period.
Given the increasing importance of the services sectors and its intrinsic characteristics, this 
indicator should also reflect reporting on mental health and stress.
Some of these elements are related to operating costs, for example the entity’s cost of health care 
activities financed directly by the entity as such, either through self-insurance or in operating the 
entity’s own health care facilities or any other expense related to the supervision of the health of 
workers. Some other elements are capital expenditures, such as investments in radiation protection 
equipment or in fire prevention kits. 
Total expenditure on health and safety (expressed in monetary terms) should be divided by total 
revenue in period t. This indicator would be expressed in percentage terms. 
Multinational entities are encouraged to disclose health and safety expenditures by country, similar 
to recommendations for other economic indicators included in this Manual.
Potential sources of information
Some entities have occupational safety and health management and reporting systems that are used 
to collect all the relevant information for calculating this indicator. The related information flows 
are owned by the occupational safety and health manager/programme administrator/committee 
when present. As part of this information system, and depending on the specific legislation of 
the country where the entity operates, entities also keep specific registers, such as the register of 
medical visits.
For those expenses that are material and thus can be capitalized by the entity, it is possible to 
use capital budgets to find the relevant amounts. In contrast, when the amount spent on health 
and safety is immediately expensed in the reporting period, the related costs are to be found in 
the P&L statement as part of the operating costs of an entity (depending on the nature of the 
expenses, they can be found as part of the production overheads or as part of the selling expenses, 
etc.). The revenue (denominator) can be obtained from the P&L statement.

62
UNRISD
I.C.5 Percentage of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements
Measurement methodology
Collective bargaining refers to all negotiations that take place between one or more employers or 
employers’ organizations, on the one hand, and one or more workers’ organizations (trade unions), 
on the other, for determining working conditions and terms of employment or for regulating 
relations between employers and workers.
Negotiations can take place at various levels. Collective bargaining agreements may comprise 
agreements at the sectoral, national, regional, organizational or workplace level. This standard 
is based on the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154) of the International Labour 
Organization.33
This indicator should be calculated by taking into consideration the employee numbers at the end 
of the reporting period. Employee numbers may be expressed as headcount or FTE. In any case, 
the approach chosen should be applied consistently between periods. 
As a first step, it is necessary to express the total workforce of the reporting entity at the end of the 
reporting period, either in terms of headcount or FTE (denominator of the indicator).
Next, those employees who are covered by collective agreements should be identified, and 
expressed either in terms of headcount or FTE, consistent with the denominator.
Beyond the percentage figure, narrative information is essential to clarify the entity context since, 
in some instances, agreements are not allowed by regulators, requested by employees or reached 
among relevant stakeholders.
Potential sources of information
Entities should set up arrangements, in accordance with national laws or regulations, to define 
collective employment agreements/contracts. These are usually negotiated collectively between 
management (on behalf of the entity) and union representatives. Information relevant to 
calculating this indicator can be found in these contracts (number of employees covered by 
collective agreements). Such information can be found also in human resources information 
systems. When involved, the legal affairs department can also be one of the owners of such 
information.

63
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
 Tier 1:  D. Institutional area
I.D.1 Number of board meetings and attendance rate
Measurement methodology
Identify the number of board meetings conducted, and the attendance rate at each meeting. This 
rate is determined by identifying the number of board members in attendance at each meeting as 
the numerator, with the overall number of board members as the denominator. An overall annual 
attendance rate can be determined by averaging the attendance rates over the year.
Potential sources of information
The relevant information to calculate this indicator is usually recorded by the investor relations 
office, the company secretary and/or the human resources manager.
I.D.2 Board members by age range
Measurement methodology
To calculate this indicator, entities need to define the age ranges they wish to map. In line with the 
other indicators, the following groups are suggested: 
•	 Under 30 years of age.
•	 30–50 years of age.
•	 Over 50 years of age.
Potential sources of information
The relevant information to calculate this indicator is usually recorded by the investor relations 
office, the company secretary and/or by the human resources manager.
I.D.3 Number of meetings of audit committee and attendance rate
Measurement methodology
Identify the number of audit committee meetings conducted, and the attendance rate at each 
meeting. This rate is determined by identifying the number of audit committee members in 
attendance at each meeting as the numerator, with the overall number of audit committee 
members as the denominator. An overall annual attendance rate can be determined by averaging 
the attendance rates over the year.
Potential sources of information
The relevant information to calculate this indicator is usually recorded by the investor relations 
office, the company secretary and/or by the human resources manager. In addition to these 
sources, information concerning this indicator can also be recorded by the internal audit function.

64
UNRISD
I.D.4 Compensation: total compensation per board member
(both executive and non-executive directors)
Measurement methodology
To calculate this indicator, entities need to compute the amount of total compensation referred to 
a specific reporting period, summing up the following elements of a compensation package: 
•	 fixed pay (base salary), 
•	 variable pay (including performance-based pay, equity-based pay, bonuses and deferred 
or vested shares),
•	 sign-on bonuses or recruitment incentive payments,
•	 termination payments (i.e. all payments made and benefits given to a departing 
executive or member of the highest governance body whose appointment is terminated),
•	 clawbacks (i.e. repayment of previously received compensation required to be made by 
an executive to his or her employer in the event that certain conditions of employment 
or goals are not met), and
•	 retirement benefits. 
Total annual compensation is calculated for each executive director and each non-executive 
director. 
Potential sources of information
The data required for the calculation of this indicator and the related information flows are 
normally managed by the human resources function, typically within a compensation and payroll 
management information system. Many entities use specialized software for collecting and 
elaborating this type of information. The data may also be obtained from the company secretary.
Another source of information is the remuneration report, where the compensation of board 
members (both executives and non-executives) is presented. The information is owned by the 
remuneration committee which, when present, is in charge of defining the compensation strategy 
and policy.
I.D.5 Average hours of training on anti-corruption issues per year per employee
Measurement methodology
The organization shall calculate the aggregate number of hours each year in which its employees 
and other workers are engaged in anti-corruption training, disclosed over the past five years.
Report annual and five-year trend in hours of training on anti-corruption issues as follows:
Year
t
t−1
t−2
t−3
t−4
THT

65
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
where:
THT = total hours of anti-corruption training, and
t = most recent year.
Potential sources of information
All data regarding an organization’s expenditures for anti-corruption training and related 
disclosures can be obtained from its own human resources, finance and legal functions.

66
UNRISD
Tier 2
Thresholds-based and transformative indicators
 Tier 2: A. Environmental area
II.A.1 GHG emissions (scope 1 and 2)
The ultimate goal set by the SDPI methodology on GHG emissions (scope 1 and 2) indicator is 
achieving zero GHG emissions—that is, no direct GHG emissions that occur from sources that are 
controlled or owned by an organization (e.g., emissions associated with fuel combustion in boilers, 
furnaces, vehicles) and no indirect GHG emissions associated with the purchase of electricity, 
steam, heat, or cooling. The achievement of negative emissions, while desirable in the long-run, is 
beyond the scope of the current indicator.
Accordingly, the sustainability threshold or norm of an organization’s GHG emissions is zero (i.e. 
Net Zero) and the indicator assesses the sustainability of an organization as follows: 
•	 When actual GHG emissions (scopes 1 and 2) of a specific year are less than or 
equal to zero (i.e. Net Zero), the organization’s performance can be qualified as being 
sustainable; and
•	 When actual GHG emissions (scopes 1 and 2) of a specific year are greater than zero 
(i.e. Net Zero), the organization’s performance can be qualified as being unsustainable.
The SDPI methodology sets the minimum goal of Net Zero GHG emissions which have been 
recognized by the UN and the IPCC. Net Zero GHG emissions means that some greenhouse 
gases may still be released, but if so, these are offset by anthropogenic removals of an equivalent 
(or greater) amount of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and storing them permanently in 
soil, geological formations, plants or materials. Achieving a Zero GHG emissions goal (in absolute 
terms) would, by definition, also achieve the Net Zero GHG emissions goal, but not the other way 
around. Both concern the maximum impact (e.g., maximum GHG emissions) the environment 
can sustain without undergoing changes perceived to be unacceptable, agreed to be represented by 
a global change of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.
The need for interim targets
In recognition of the fact that worldwide GHG emissions will take some decades to reduce to the 
sustainability threshold of zero (or Net Zero) GHG emissions, the impact of organisations’ GHG 
emissions can be assessed relative to an interim (non-zero) target on a yearly basis: 
RGGt = 
AGGt 
NGGt

67
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
where:
RGGt = ratio of actual scopes 1 and 2 GHG emissions to a normative emissions target
AGGt = actual GHG emissions (scopes 1 and 2);
NGGt = normative GHG emissions target from a science-based tool (see below); and
t = a specific year.
When RGGt ≤ 1, the organisation’s GHG emissions are aligned to the global 1.5°C pathway.
When RGGt > 1, the organisation’s GHG emissions are not aligned to the global 1.5°C pathway.
Following this logic, the impact of organizations’ GHG emissions in cumulative terms can be 
assessed:
Where: 
t = current year, b = baseline year and c = cumulative
RGGc = ratio of actual scopes 1 and 2 GHG emissions to a normative allocation of 
emissions (cumulative)
General specification for tools
Several tools are available to derive a normative allocation from the reducing global pool of GHG 
emissions. The list below provides a set of requirements for tools to derive an interim allocation of 
GHG emissions to an organisation consistent with the global emissions reduction pathway:
1.	 Tools should be based on a peer-reviewed, science-based 1.5°C mitigation scenario(s) per 
the Paris Agreement
2.	 Tools should include a mechanism for making organization-specific allocations of 
global and/or regional GHG budgets and mitigation targets (e.g., economic, per capita, 
activity-based, etc.)
3.	 Tools should express targets in both annual and cumulative terms starting with a 
defined baseline year* per the science-based mitigation scenario(s) being used (in 
absolute terms)
4.	 Tools minimally require entry of scopes 1 and 2 emissions, with scope 3 emissions being 
optional (all in absolute terms at a minimum) 
5.	 Tools should report performance annually and cumulatively (i.e. actual emissions 
relative to targets)
* For organizations without continuous data extending back to the baseline year (e.g., organizations 
that did not exist, or have undergone significant restructuring such as mergers or disaggregation, a 
major change in core business, diversification or divestiture, etc.), tools should offer an alternative 
mechanism for deriving meaningful targets, including how to consider cumulative emissions in 
such cases.
∑t AGGt
RGGc = 
b
∑t NGGt
b

68
UNRISD
Interpretation of results
The ethical and scientific principles for allocating emissions and setting targets from steadily 
declining global GHG budgets to individual entities are diverse, and result in various indicators. 
Depending on which indicators are used, specific targets for individual companies will therefore 
vary. To help make sense of such company-level target emissions and their performance against 
them, SDPI also offers a “traffic light” or checklist system in which multiple metrics can be 
combined to enable a company’s performance to be assessed both in terms of its outright 
position relative to where it should be, and the direction and magnitude of the change it is 
undergoing. An organization contributing to sustainability would be one with all green lights, 
whereas a combination of green and red lights would offer rapid insights into the organization’s 
performance. An example is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Basic “traffic light” system
Sustainability threshold
Metric
 Sustainable
 Unsustainable
AGGt
AGGt ≤ 0
 Meaning: organisation’s 
emissions are at sustainable levels
AGGt > 0
 Meaning: organisation’s 
emissions are not yet sustainable: 
proceed to interim targets
Interim targets
Metric
1.5°C-aligned: moving towards 
sustainability
Moving further away from 
sustainability
Magnitude of emissions:
RGGt ≤ 1
 Meaning: organisation’s 
emissions are lower than the 
target level
RGGt > 1
 Meaning: organisation’s 
emissions are higher than the 
target level
RGGc ≤ 1
 Meaning: organisation’s 
cumulative emissions are lower 
than the cumulative emissions in 
the target pathway
RGGc > 1
 Meaning: organisation’s 
cumulative emissions are higher 
than cumulative emissions in the 
target pathway
Change in emissions intensity:*
ΔEI ≤ 0
 Meaning: organisation’s 
emissions intensity is decreasing.
ΔEI > 0
 Meaning: Organisation’s 
emissions intensity is increasing.
Relative rate of change:
R ≤ 0
 Meaning: change in 
organisation’s emissions is better 
than change in emissions on 
target pathway.
R > 0
 Meaning: change in 
organisation’s emissions is worse 
than change in emissions on 
target pathway.
RGGt = 
AGGt 
NGGt
∑t AGGt
RGGc = 
b
∑t NGGt
b
ΔEI = 
AGGt−1
CGDPt−1
AGGt
CGDPt
AGGt−1
CGDPt−1
−
R = 
|ΔNGGt|
R = ΔAGGt, ΔNGGt = 0
(ΔAGGt
ΔNGGt)
−
, ΔNGGt ≠ 0

69
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Where: 
AGGt = Actual company GHG emissions in year t; 
∆AGGt = annual change in actual company emissions; 
NGGt = target company emissions (tonnes CO2-e/yr) in year t provided by the adopted tool; 
∆NGGt = change in target emissions (tonnes CO2-e/yr) in year t on the adopted pathway; 
∆EI = relative change in emissions intensity; 
RGGt = ratio of actual to target GHG emissions in year t; 
CGDPt = company’s contribution to GDP (for-profit organisations); and 
R = relative rate of change in emissions compared to rate of change of target emissions.
* Note that CGDPt can be replaced with population (headcount) for non-profit organisations.
Calculation examples
Below is an example calculation to illustrate how allocations (NGGt) may be derived using the 
science-based-target approach. The variance of these interim targets reflects different principles 
or choices on how to allocate or specify fair shares of allowable emissions, sectoral differences of 
carbon budgets, baseline years, and emission pathways. 
For organizations with data extending to a “baseline” year
Companies with continuous data extending back to a baseline year may choose to adopt the 
Centre for Sustainable Organisations’ (CSO) method. There have been two comprehensive 
scientific studies on science-based climate target-setting methods, Bjorn et al 2021 and Rekker et al 
2022, and both found the CSO method to be the strongest.34 This is one tool that can be used to 
set interim annual targets for emissions when an organization’s GHGs are not already zero or less.  
This context-based carbon metric (first piloted with Ben & Jerry’s in 2006) measures the GHG 
emissions of a company against reduction targets rooted in science-based mitigation scenarios, two 
of which it now supports: SSP1-1.9 scenario, a “well-below 1.5 °C” warming model with a 2015 
baseline year, and a CERC-LED-OECD scenario, an equity-sensitive, “No BECCS” (Bioenergy 
with Carbon Capture and Storage) “1.5°C” warming model, also with a 2015 baseline year. The 
CSO metric allocates emissions entitlements (and reduction burdens) to individual organizations 
based upon their contributions to GDP and adjusts them annually in these terms, while also 
keeping them aligned with the annual global carbon budgets specified in SSP1-1.9 (Shared 
Socioeconomic Pathways) on the one hand, and CERC-LED-OECD (Climate Equity Reference 
Calculator – Low Energy Demand) on the other. Targets and performance scores for both are 
reported. The latest version of CSO’s Context-Based Carbon Metric (an Excel spreadsheet) is 
available free of charge (for non-commercial end-user applications only) and can be downloaded 
by clicking here.35 Allocations made in the CSO tool are based, in part, on the “grandfathering” 
principle (Bjorn 2021), which allows the initial emissions for a company (in the baseline year, 2015) 
to influence annual targets for ongoing emissions thereafter, creating a more gradual entry path for 
reducing GHG emissions no matter what an organisation’s emissions might be at the outset. For 
for-profit organizations, CSO’s allocation principle goes on to set targets in terms of contributions 
to GDP; for non-profit organizations, it does so in terms of the headcount size of an organization 
as calculated in the method.

70
UNRISD
The target company-level emissions (tonnes/yr) in the current year t is given by CEt,target:
NGGt = CEt,target = GEt,target ×               ×               
where:
GEt,target is the target global emissions (tonnes CO2-e/yr) in year t on the adopted pathway;
CGDPt is the company’s contribution to global gross domestic product (GDPt) in year t;
CEbaseline and GEbaseline are the company and global emissions in the baseline year (nominally 
2015) respectively in tonnes CO2-e/yr; and
CGDPbaseline and GDPbaseline are the company’s contribution to GDP and global GDP 
respectively in the baseline year.
The calculation above can be adapted to non-profit organizations by swapping the GDP terms for 
corresponding population terms (headcount in the organization versus global population).
For organizations without data extending to a “baseline” year
For companies that lack continuous data extending back to the baseline year, e.g., for one or more 
of the reasons listed above (see General specification for tools), the CSO’s calculation of NGGt 
could, in principle, be simplified by removing the final ratio in the above equation, thus providing 
an alternative allocation without “grandfathering”:
NGGt = CEt,target = GEt,target ×               
This provides an instantaneous emissions allocation based simply on the organization’s current 
(year t) contribution to GDP (or population, in the non-profit case) and is consistent with other 
SDPI allocation procedures, such as that used for equitable water allocation.36 The result of this 
calculation can be interpreted within the traffic light system above to provide valuable insights. 
However, this simplified (non-grandfathering) calculation option is not currently available within 
the CSO tool, due to a key disadvantage: it does not create a pathway from the organization’s 
historical emissions, meaning it may over- or under-allocate emissions depending on the nature 
of the organization (i.e. relatively high-emitting organizations may receive a much lower allocation 
compared to the grandfathering calculation, and vice versa). Therefore, alternative approaches may 
be recommended by individual tool providers for organizations without continuous data.
For brevity, the formulas shown above are for annual emissions. The calculation procedures to 
derive targets for cumulative emissions are more complex and users are referred to the individual 
tool providers for more information.
CGDPt
GDPt
CEbaseline
CGDPbaseline
GEbaseline
GDPbaseline
CGDPt
GDPt

71
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
II.A.2 GHG emissions (scope 3)
Measurement methodology
It is important that organizations know the scale of both their direct and indirect impacts and take 
measures to address them. As such, an increasing number of companies are now measuring all 
three types of emissions (scope 1, 2 and 3) and formulating long-term strategies to reduce them.
To disclose whether:
•	 The organization is measuring scope 3 GHG emission based on a given scope 3 
framework?37
•	 The organization requires its suppliers to measure scope 1 and scope 2 GHG 
emissions?38
Potential sources of information
All scope 3 GHG emissions data can be obtained from an organization’s suppliers, customers and 
other third parties in its value chain.
II.A.3 Water use
Measurement methodology
This indicator is based on hydrological models of stream flows and human withdrawals (for both 
consumptive and non-consumptive use). Using satellite images, national statistics and the water 
withdrawal and consumption data, the indicator measures the gross water available, the net water 
available, and allocated water available for the use of economic entity at different geographical 
scales (the circular regions of 10, 50, 100, 200 and 300 km surrounding the facility location). By 
performing this calculation at several “scales” we gain insight as to the “context” sensitive nature of 
the metric.39
There are four water allocations based on gross withdrawals (GW), consumptive use (C), GDP, and 
population (Pop).
Wfacility (GW,GDP) = QGW,max                                        &                    Wfacility (C,GDP) = QC,max 
Wfacility (GW,POP) = QGW,max                                        &                    Wfacility (C,POP) = QC,max 
These allocations represent the maximum sustainable water use for the facility based on each cell 
in the 2x2 matrix of attributes (GW vs Con, and GDP vs Pop). 
The sustainability indicator uses the allocation relative to the actual water use of the facility
where Wfacility,gross and Wfacility,con are the actual gross and consumptive use of the facility, respectively.
GDPfacility
GDPregion
GDPfacility
GDPregion
POPfacility
POPregion
POPfacility
POPregion

72
UNRISD
Information the economic entity is supposed to collect for this indicator is as follows. 
•	 Pop Facility (e.g. the number of employees) 
•	 GW Facility (m3) (e.g. the volume of water used in the utility bill) 
•	 GDP Facility (e.g. the value added) 
•	 Con Use Facility (m3)
(e.g. Con Use Facility = GW Facility – water drained off through sewerage system) 
•	 GPS (Global Positioning System) coordinates of Facility (e.g. using Google Map to find 
largitude and longitude coordinates)
II.A.4 Hazardous waste treatment
Measurement methodology
Total hazardous waste generated during a reporting period is defined as the sum of the amounts of 
all types of hazardous waste listed in the Basel Convention definitions and should be measured in 
kilos and metric tonnes.
An entity should also disclose the proportion of hazardous waste treated to reduce or eliminate 
their danger to people and the environment compared to the total waste reported by the reporting 
entity (indicator expressed in percentage terms).
Where applicable, the total weight of hazardous waste should be broken down by disposal methods 
(i.e. reuse; recycling; composting; recovery, including energy recovery; incineration (mass burn); 
deep well injection; landfill; on-site storage; and/or other (to be specified by the organization)). 
Any hazardous waste left untreated will be deemed as unsustainable.
Potential sources of information
Hazardous waste should be weighed or metered at each specific business site. However, some 
entities may find it difficult to meter the quantity of hazardous waste produced. Therefore, in 
line with what is advised for other indicators on waste management included in this Manual, it is 
suggested that the bills from the waste management company be used to reconstruct the relevant 
information required to calculate this indicator.
II.A.5 Renewable energy
Measurement methodology
To calculate the numerator, the entity should consider only the amount of renewable energy 
consumed. Therefore, the numerator can be calculated as: renewable fuel sources (such as 
biofuels), solar energy, biomass, hydropower, geothermal energy and ocean energy,40 including heat 
from renewable sources and electricity from renewable sources.41

73
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The denominator, total energy consumption within the organization, can be calculated as: non-
renewable fuel consumed + renewable fuel consumed + electricity, heating, cooling and steam 
purchased for consumption + self-generated electricity, heating, cooling and steam (which are not 
consumed) − electricity, heating, cooling and steam sold.
In calculating this indicator, when computing the numerator, it is suggested that a distinction 
be made between different types of renewable energy resources, as these range from infinitely 
renewable sources (such as solar power) to cyclically renewable resources (such as biomass).
Fuel consumption is expressed in joules (J) or multiples. Electricity, heating, cooling and steam 
consumption are expressed in J, watt hours (Wh) or multiples. However, both the numerator and 
the denominator should be expressed in J, and so conversion factors are needed. Different energy 
commodities have a different caloric content. To make them comparable, they are converted into 
thermal equivalents using their respective net caloric content. If the energy commodity is used in 
a country for which specific values are listed (i.e. there are local conversion factors), these values 
should be used; otherwise, the default value should be applied.
The sustainability norm or threshold for renewable energy is to use 100% renewable energy 
Equation:
where:
PRE = Proportion of renewable energy
RE= Renewable energy consumed
TEC = Total energy consumption
t = most recent year.
And where:
PRE scores of ≥ 1.0 are sustainable; and
PRE scores of < 1.0 are unsustainable.
Potential sources of information
As the majority of entities purchase energy, the amount of energy consumed for a reporting period, 
subdivided into the different types, can be found by collating the bills of the energy suppliers and 
of fuel providers.
In many countries, renewable energy certificates (RECs) are used to claim renewable energy 
purchased. Thus, specific information about renewable energy can also be derived from these 
certificates, when present.
PREt = 
REt 
TECt

74
UNRISD
II.A.6 Life cycle assessment (LCA) and circularity indicators
Measurement methodology
This indicator focuses on the use of LCA and the tracking of product material flows by 
organizations as an indicator of activity or practice in circular economies. Determine and disclose 
the degree to which the company applies LCA to all of its goods and services, and whether circular 
material inflow and outflow are being tracked?
Circular material inflow: Resources that enter the company, e.g. materials, parts or products are 
renewable or non-virgin
Circular material outflow: Material flows that leave the company, e.g. materials, parts, products, 
by-products and waste streams are recovered42
Potential sources of information
Information about a company’s LCA studies and product material flows can be obtained from 
its corporate social responsibility (CSR), sustainability or product/service engineering and design 
functions.
 Tier 2: B. Socioeconomic area
II.B.1 Fiscal disclosure
Measurement methodology 
Disclosure of fiscal information about the company shall be made in: 
the top three countries in which it does business (based on revenue, employees or physical capital); 
and the top three countries based on profits.
For (a) the top three countries in which the company does business (based on revenue, employees 
or physical capital), disclose its: 
•	 revenue, 
•	 profits, 
•	 number of employees, 
•	 corporate taxes paid, and 
•	 physical capital. 
For (b) the top three countries in which the company does business (based on profits), disclose its: 
•	 revenue, 
•	 profits, 
•	 number of employees,
•	 corporate taxes paid, and 
•	 physical capital.

75
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Potential sources of information 
All fiscal data can be obtained from a company’s own finance, human resources, payroll and 
accounting functions.
II.B.2 Tax gap
Measurement methodology 
Calculations of actual taxes paid by organizations (ETR) shall be compared to calculations of 
statutory taxes due (STR) to determine if there are any gaps. The tax gap is calculated as the 
difference between a company’s STR and its ETR. The STR is the tax rate that companies would 
have to pay on the basis of the geographical mix of their revenue (at least three countries/regions 
with the biggest revenue). That is, it is the average tax rate, weighted by revenue, from (each) 
respective country/region. The ETR is the average of the ratio of the annual income tax payable to 
the annual earnings before tax (EBT) as disclosed by companies, weighted by revenue, from each 
respective country/region. When calculated in this way, actual average taxes paid in any one year 
(ETR) should not be any less than 95% of statutory taxes due (STR).
Equation:
Annual tax gap calculation with tax credits regularly subtracted: 
Report five-year trend as follows:
Year
t
t−1
t−2
t−3
t−4
5-year 
average
ATG
where:
ATG = annual tax gap (percentage),
ETR = effective tax rate,
STR = statutory tax rate, and
t = most recent year.
And where:
ATG scores of ≥ 1.0 are sustainable, and
ATG scores of < 1.0 are unsustainable.
Potential sources of information
All ETR data can be obtained from a company’s own finance and accounting functions; all STR 
data can be obtained from the taxation authorities in each country.
ATGt = 
ETRt 
(STR*.95)t

76
UNRISD
II.B.3 CEO-to-worker pay ratio
Measurement methodology
Total compensation of the CEO (i.e. the highest-paid executive) is defined as including salary, 
bonuses, benefits, restricted stock grants, long-term incentive payouts and options realized and/or 
options granted. Worker compensation is similarly defined as wages including all benefits (but not 
overtime). 
Equation:
where:
CWP = CEO:worker pay ratio;
CC = CEO compensation;
WC = median compensation of lowest-paid quartile of workers; 
t = a specific year; and
30 = normative maximum CEO:worker pay ratio in any year.
And where:
CWP scores of ≤ 1.0 are sustainable; and
CWP scores of > 1.0 are unsustainable.
Potential sources of information
All compensation-related data can be obtained from an organization’s own human resources, 
payroll and accounting functions.
II.B.4 Living wage gap
Measurement methodology
Actual wages and benefits paid shall be calculated as the annual compensation paid to individual 
employees, and shall include regular pay only, and not overtime pay or productivity bonuses 
or allowances. In-kind or other benefits may be included if they have the effect of reducing the 
amount of cash income employees need for a decent living standard.
Normative living wages shall be expressed in nominal national currency terms at the highest end 
of the monthly ranges specified for living wages for individuals in average households in specific 
countries by the Wage Indicator Foundation (i.e. which represent the 50th percentile of wage 
norms).43 Such monthly wages shall be multiplied by 12 to arrive at annual norms. Comparable 
norms or standards from other sources that are expressed at a more local level, if available, may be 
used instead.
CWPt = 
CCt / WCt
30

77
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The sum of all individual living wage gaps greater than zero shall then be calculated and reported 
as such (i.e. in the aggregate) for each of the most recent five years. For purposes of this indicator, 
all living wage gaps less than zero shall be disregarded.
Equation:
LWGt =           (LWNit – AWPit)
Report five-year trend in living wage gap (LWG) as follows:
Year
t
t−1
t−2
t−3
t−4
LWG
where:
LWG = living wage gap for all employees for whom AWP < LWN (in the aggregate),
LWN = regional/national living wage norm for a specific employee (annual),
AWP = actual wages paid to a specific employee (annual),
i = a specific employee for whom AWP < LWN,
n = total number of employees for whom AWP < LWN, and
t = most recent year.
And where:
LWG scores of ≤ 0 are sustainable, and
LWG scores of > 0 are unsustainable.
Potential sources of information
All compensation-related data can be obtained from a company’s own human resources, payroll 
and accounting functions. Regional or national norms for living wages can, in turn, be obtained by 
reference to the Global Living Wage Coalition’s Anker Methodology for Estimating a Living Wage44 or 
to local government agencies in cases where such datasets exist.
II.B.5 Distribution of surplus/profits
Measurement methodology
This aspect of performance has six sub-indicators associated with it.
Equation:
Distribution of surplus/profits = TSPt = MWPt + ESOt + SHRt + RIOt + OTHt
Percentage of surplus/profits distributed to MWP = MWPt / TSPt
Percentage of surplus/profits distributed to ESO = ESOt / TSPt
Σ
n
i = 1

78
UNRISD
Percentage of surplus/profits distributed to SHR = SHRt / TSPt
Percentage of surplus/profits distributed to RIO = RIOt / TSPt
Percentage of surplus/profits distributed to OTH = OTHt / TSPt
where:
TSP = total surplus/profits distributed,
MWP = total TSP distributed to members/workers/producers,
ESO = total TSP distributed to ESOPs,
SHR = total TSP distributed to shareholders,
RIO = total TSP for reinvestment in the organization,
OTH = total TSP distributed to other purposes or programmes, and
t = a specific year.
Potential sources of information
Information regarding a company’s distributions of surplus/profits can be obtained from its own 
finance and accounting functions.
II.B.6 Gender pay gap: Equality of remuneration
Measurement methodology
This indicator has two sub-indicators associated with it: indicator 1, which measures the overall 
gender pay gap, if any, at the organizational level; and indicator 2, which measures gender pay gaps 
at each occupational level (to be identified by the entity).
Gender pay gaps shall be calculated in terms of women’s pay as a percentage of men’s, and in a way 
that includes not only base salary or wages, but also compensation associated with incentives and 
rewards (but no overtime).
In addition, all such calculations shall not be adjusted in ways that take differences in other factors 
into account, such as hours worked, age, experience or education. All calculations shall also 
include both full- and part-time employees, with all averages to be expressed in terms of the median 
rather than the mean.
The first sub-indicator is:
Equation:
Annual gender pay gap indicator 1 (percentage disparity at organizational level) =
GPGt = 
AWPt 
AMPt

79
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
where:
GPG = annual gender pay gap,
AWP = average women’s pay,
AMP = average men’s pay, and
t = a specific year.
And where:
annual gender pay gap indicator 1 scores of 1.0 ± 0.03 are sustainable, and
annual gender pay gap indicator 1 scores of > 1.03 or < 0.97 are unsustainable.
The second sub-indicator is:
Equation:
Annual gender pay gap indicator 2 (percent disparity at various occupational levels) =
where:
GPG = annual gender pay gap, 
AWP = average women’s pay, 
AMP = average men’s pay, 
t = a specific year, and
y = a specific occupational level.
And where:
annual gender pay gap indicator 1 scores of 1.0 ± 0.03 are sustainable, and
annual gender pay gap indicator 1 scores of > 1.03 or < 0.97 are unsustainable.
Both indicators 1 and 2 shall be reported for the last five years.
Report five-year trend as follows:
Year
t
t−1
t−2
t−3
t−4
GPG (indicator 1) 
[organizational level]
GPG (indicator 2): [for 
each occupational level]
Potential sources of information
All compensation-related data can be obtained from a company’s own human resources, payroll 
and accounting functions.
GPGty = 
AWPty 
AMPty

80
UNRISD
II.B.7 Gender diversity: Hiring at different occupational levels
Measurement methodology
This indicator should be calculated by first identifying the total number of hiring of women in 
an organization at the end of the reporting period (denominator of the indicator). This number 
may be expressed as head count or FTE.45 The latter choice is especially recommended when an 
entity employs a substantial number of part-time staff. In any case, the approach chosen should be 
applied consistently between periods.46 The information shall be reported annually for the past five 
years.
Equation:
Report five-year trend as follows:
Year
t
t−1
t−2
t−3
t−4
PWM
where:
PWM = percentage of women hired in the organization,
TWM = total number of hiring in the organization (headcount or FTE);
TNM = total number of all hired in the organization (headcount or FTE), and
t = most recent year.
And where:
PWM scores of ≥ 0.4 are sustainable, and
PWM scores of <0.4 are unsustainable.
Potential sources of information
All hiring and promotion-related data can be obtained from a company’s own human resources, 
payroll and accounting functions.
II.B.8 Gender diversity: Promotion at different occupational levels
Measurement methodology
This indicator should be calculated by first identifying the total number of promotion of women 
in an organization at the end of the reporting period (denominator of the indicator). This number 
may be expressed as head count or FTE. The latter choice is especially recommended when an 
entity employs a substantial number of part-time staff. In any case, the approach chosen should be 
applied consistently between periods. The information shall be reported annually for the past five 
years.
PWMt = 
TWMt 
TNMt

81
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Equation:
Report five-year trend as follows:
Year
t
t−1
t−2
t−3
t−4
PWM
where:
PWM = percentage of women promoted in the organization,
TWM = total number of women promoted in the organization (headcount or FTE),
TNM = total number of all promotion in the organization (headcount or FTE), and
t = most recent year.
And where:
PWM scores of ≥ 0.4 are sustainable, and
PWM scores of <0.4 are unsustainable.
Potential sources of information
All hiring and promotion-related data can be obtained from a company’s own human resources, 
payroll and accounting functions.
II.B.9 Gender equality: Proportion of women in managerial positions
Measurement methodology
This indicator should be calculated by first identifying the total number of managers in an 
organization at the end of the reporting period (denominator of the indicator). This number 
may be expressed as head count or FTE. The latter choice is especially recommended when an 
entity employs a substantial number of part-time staff. In any case, the approach chosen should be 
applied consistently between periods. The information shall be reported annually for the past five 
years.
Equation (II.9):
Report five-year trend as follows:
Year
t
t−1
t−2
t−3
t−4
PWM
PWMt = 
TWMt 
TNMt
PWMt = 
TWMt 
TNMt

82
UNRISD
where:
PWM = percentage of women managers in the organization,
TWM = total number of women managers in the organization (headcount or FTE),
TNM = total number of all managers in the organization (headcount or FTE), and
t = most recent year.
And where:
PWM scores of ≥ 0.4 are sustainable, and
PWM scores of <0.4 are unsustainable.
Potential sources of information
Information to calculate this indicator is typically found in human resources information systems 
(employee records and payroll information available at the national or site level).
II.B.10 Caregiving support programmes
Measurement methodology
This area of impact has one indicator associated with it, which is to be calculated and reported 
separately for full- and part-time employees:
Equation:
DCSt score for full-time employees
DCSt score for part-time employees
where:
DCS = dependent caregiving support,
CPO = actual number of defined caregiving programmes offered,
8 = normative number of defined caregiving programmes offered, and
t = a specific year.
And where:
DCS scores of ≥ 1.0 are sustainable, and
DCS scores of < 1.0 are unsustainable.
Potential sources of information
All dependent-care-related data can be obtained from a company’s own human resources, payroll 
and accounting functions.
DCSt = 
CPOt 
8

83
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
II.B.11 Frequency/incident rates of occupational injuries
Measurement methodology
In calculating this indicator, lost days should be regarded as time off work by workers affected 
by occupational accidents, injuries and diseases. In other words, these are days that could not be 
worked, and thus are lost, as a consequence of workers being unable to perform their usual job 
because of an occupational accident, injury or disease.
The frequency rate is calculated as:
 
Number of new injury cases/
total number of hours worked by workers in the reporting period 
The incident rate is calculated as:
Total number of lost days expressed in terms of number of hours/
total number of hours worked by workers in the reporting period47
When calculating lost days, the entity needs to specify whether “days” means calendar days or 
scheduled workdays and at what point the lost-days count begins (for example, the day immediately 
after the accident or three days after the accident).
Given the increasing importance of the services sectors and its intrinsic characteristics, this 
indicator should also reflect reporting on mental health and stress. Multinational entities are 
encouraged to disclose this indicator by gender, similar to recommendations for other indicators in 
this Manual.
Any occupational injuries, illnesses and deaths resulting from an occupational accident will be 
deemed as unsustainable.
Potential sources of information
Entities need to set up arrangements, in accordance with national laws or regulations, to record 
occupational accidents, occupational diseases, commuting accidents, dangerous occurrences and 
incidents, including the identification of a person authorized to prepare and keep records of all 
these occurrences. Organizations should prepare appropriate records for inspection purposes 
and as information for workers’ representatives and health services. These accidents are typically 
recorded within a register of accidents, in accordance with national laws or regulations.48
Generally, all workplace accident, injury, illness and death-related data can be obtained from a 
company’s own human resources and/or environment, health and safety (EHS) functions.

84
UNRISD
II.B.12 Harassment and discrimination at the workplace
Measurement methodology
Determine and disclose: (i) whether the entity has a policy, or training courses or mechanisms to 
address harassment and discrimination at the workplace; and (ii) whether there are any incidents 
relating to harassment and discrimination, and if yes, (a) has the issues been notified to the 
designated unit, senior management or board of directors (b) are there safeguards in place to 
prevent retaliation, and (c) are there mechanisms to protect the confidentiality of the complainant?
Potential sources of information
Information about a company’s harassment and discrimination policies and programmes can be 
obtained from its own human resources function.
II.B.13 Access to remedy
Measurement methodology
Determine and disclose: (i) whether the entity has mechanisms for access to remedy (i.e. non-state-
based grievance mechanisms) for any issues related to labour rights; (ii) whether there are clear and 
known procedures with an indicative time frame of the grievance process; and (iii) whether there 
are any cases where access to remedy have been demanded?
Potential sources of information
Information about a company’s mechanisms for access to remedy for any issues related to labour 
rights can be obtained from its own human resources function.
II.B.14 Discrimination in hiring and promotion
Measurement methodology
Determine and disclose: (i) whether the entity has policies to hire, promote and pay employees 
without discrimination; (ii) whether the entity has policies for equal pay for equal work; (iii) 
whether the entity has any positive, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) action plan in place; and 
(iv) whether the entity regular review or report the result of these policies?
Potential sources of information
Information about a company’s policies to hire, promote and pay employees without 
discrimination can be obtained from its own human resources function.

85
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
II.B.15 Union density and collective bargaining coverage
Measurement methodology
The organization shall disclose the following information:
•	 Does the organization, or any of its suppliers, in any way discourage, obstruct or forbid 
worker participation in trade unions over the most recent five-year period of time? 
(Y/N).
•	 Is union membership by an organization’s own workers, or those of any of its suppliers, 
forbidden by law or regulation in any of the places where it/they does/do business on a 
country-by-country [CbC] basis over the most recent five-year period of time? (Y/N).
•	 What is the percentage of an organization’s own workers belonging to a trade union, on a 
CbC basis, reported annually over the most recent five-year period of time?
•	 What is the percentage of an organization’s own workers covered by collective bargaining 
agreements in the aggregate and in the places where it does business, on a CbC basis, 
reported annually over the most recent five-year period of time?
•	 What is the percentage of an organization’s Tier 1 suppliers’ workers belonging to a trade 
union, on a CbC basis, reported annually over the most recent five-year period of time?49
•	 What is the percentage of an organization’s Tier 1 suppliers’ workers covered by collective 
bargaining agreements in the aggregate and in the places where they do business, on a 
CbC basis, reported annually over the most recent five-year period of time?
•	 What is the percentage of workers in an organization and its suppliers who are employees 
versus subcontracted or contingent workers over the same five-year period, reported both in 
the aggregate and on a CbC basis (itemized by employer, including the organization 
itself and its suppliers)?
Potential sources of information
All union density and collective agreement data can be obtained from a company’s own human 
resources, payroll and accounting functions, and those of its suppliers.
II.B.16 Worker participation
Measurement methodology
The organization shall disclose the extent to which it takes steps to enable and support its workers’ 
and its suppliers’ workers’ rights to exert claims on management through collective bargaining and 
freedom of association. Support for the following specific forms of participation shall be indicated 
(Y/N; please indicate all that apply).
Forms of participation
•	 Consultative participation (Y/N)
•	 Informative participation (Y/N)
•	 Administrative participation (Y/N)
•	 Decision/decisive participation (Y/N)

86
UNRISD
•	 Associative participation (Y/N)
•	 Full participation (Y/N)
Levels of participation
•	 Collective bargaining (Y/N)
•	 Work committees (Y/N)
•	 Shop/department councils (Y/N)
•	 Joint councils (Y/N)
•	 Board representations (Y/N)
•	 Workers’ ownership of enterprise (Y/N)
•	 Workers’ ownership of enterprise with democratic control (Y/N)
•	 Kaizen (or quality circles) (Y/N)
Brief definitions for each of the forms and levels of participation listed above are provided below.
Forms of participation:
Consultative participation
Under this kind of workers’ participation in management, employees may be consulted on matters 
of workers’ safety, health and their welfare at the workplace. Even so, while employees’ views are 
considered, ultimate decisions lie in the hands of management.
Informative participation
This ensures that employees are able to receive information and express their views pertaining to 
matters of general importance.
Administrative participation
Managers and employees share the managerial functions. Employees participate in making 
decisions by selecting the best option for implementation from those proposed by the 
management. 
Decision/decisive participation
Employees and management take decisions together on matters related to workers’ welfare and 
production-related issues.
Associative participation
This is a higher level of participation compared to consultation. Under associative participation, 
in a collective of equals, managers are morally bound to accept and implement the opinion of 
employees. While there is an (informal) expectation that managers will accept employees’ opinion, 
managers are solely responsible for the final decision.
Full participation
Workers make autonomous decisions on all issues in the organization, in consultation with peers 
who are affected by the decisions taken.

87
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Levels of worker participation:
Collective bargaining
Collective bargaining is a voluntary process through which employers and workers discuss and 
negotiate their relations, in particular terms and conditions of work. It can involve employees 
directly (or as represented through their organizations) and trade unions (or, in their absence, 
representatives freely designated by the workers).
Work committees
(workers’ councils, consultative committees, office committees or joint panels)
Work committees are permanent bodies based on legal statutes or collective agreements. They 
consist of representatives of employers and workers. In general, they are consultative bodies, and 
their recommendations are suggestive and not binding.
Shop/department councils
Shop floor or plant councils are composed of representatives of employers and employees of 
a plant. They are under the leadership of the chief executive of the plant. They discuss and 
determine the issues associated with production, schedules, training and welfare schemes. 
Department councils are the department version of shop floor or plant councils.
Joint councils (or joint management councils)
These councils are similar to work committees in terms of their composition and functions. The 
scope of issues that joint councils deal with is slightly broader than that of work committees. It 
includes matters associated with administration, restructuring, closure, production, sales, welfare, 
safety, training, etc.
Board representations
Board representation (or co-determination) refers to employees’ representation on corporate 
boards of directors. It allows employees to vote for representatives on a board of directors. Many 
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and European Union 
(EU) countries have some form of law guaranteeing the right of employees to vote for board 
representation.
Workers’ ownership of enterprise
Employee ownership of enterprise (investment shares) allows employee participation according 
to rights afforded by ownership of capital shares. ESOPs are the most common form, where 
employees may have a range of ownership rights, from negligible to 100%.
Workers’ ownership of enterprise with democratic control
Enterprise is jointly owned and controlled by the workers. Workers’ control is exercised via a “one 
person one vote” system. Workers’ control extends to all decisions, from operations through to 
governance and finance. Enterprise forms include worker cooperatives; producer cooperatives 
owned and self-managed by the worker-owners; and democratic partnerships with indivisible shares 
held in a trust.

88
UNRISD
Kaizen (or quality circles)
Quality circles or Kaizen are voluntary groups of employees who work on similar tasks or share 
an area of responsibility, and who meet on a regular basis to discuss and solve problems related to 
particular tasks.
Potential sources of information
All worker empowerment data can be obtained from a company’s own human resources, finance 
and executive functions.
II.B.17 Contingent and subcontracted workers
Measurement methodology
The organization shall disclose the extent to which it utilizes contingent and/or subcontracted 
workers, and additional related information, as follows: 
•	 The total number of its contingent and/or subcontracted workers, both in terms of 
actual headcount and as a percentage of its total number of workers.
•	 The proportion of its total contingent and/or subcontracted workers that are under 
contract with its suppliers versus independent workers directly under contract with the 
organization itself.
•	 Whether or not it abides by formalized ethical recruitment practices and/or formal 
international standards or protocols of any kind (e.g. IRIS).50
•	 A time series comparison of how trends in company growth (or contraction) in turnover 
and net profits have compared to changes, if any, in the proportion of contingent and/
or subcontracted workers in the organization’s total number of workers over the most 
recent five years.
Potential sources of information
All contingent and/or subcontracted worker and financial performance data can be obtained from 
an organization’s own human resources and finance/payroll functions, respectively.
II.B.18 Hiring of vulnerable groups
Measurement methodology
The entity shall identify vulnerable groups in society, then disclose the percentage of its total 
permanent employees who fall into at least one of the identified groups.
Vulnerable groups in society are those who are discriminated against, or disadvantaged, owing to 
age, sex, race, ethnicity or interpersonal relationships (such as family structure and marital status) 
or because of constrained access to resources (such as schools, jobs, income and housing).

89
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Equation:
where:
PVP = percentage of employees in vulnerable populations,
EVP = number of employees in vulnerable populations, and
TNE = total number of employees.
Potential sources of information
All employment, training and work integration data can be obtained from an organization’s own 
human resources function.
II.B.19 Long-term work contracts
Measurement methodology
The entity shall determine and disclose the age of the organization and the percentage of 
employees who fall into each of the following categories of contract length:
•	 0–6 months,
•	 6–12 months,
•	 12–24 months, and
•	 more than 24 months.
Potential sources of information
Information (and software) needed to calculate this indicator is typically found in human resources 
information systems. Many entities use specialized software (human resources software) for 
collecting and elaborating information on employees, including the other data that are necessary 
to calculate this indicator.
II.B.20 Employee turnover rate
Measurement methodology
Determine and disclose the number of employees who left the entity during a given year, divided 
by the average number of employees during that same year.
Potential sources of information
All employee turnover data can be obtained from an organization’s own human resources 
function.
PVP =
EVP
TNE

90
UNRISD
II.B.21 Responsible and ethical sourcing
Measurement methodology
The entity shall disclose whether or not it engages in responsible sourcing and purchasing practices 
as follows.51
•	 Policies and programmes aimed at ensuring consistency and alignment between 
commercial and sustainability goals and outcomes (e.g. related due diligence and 
management systems) (Y/N).
•	 Policies that guard against subjecting suppliers to:
•	 aggressive pricing that may constrict workers’ rights, wages or benefits; place workplace 
and/or product safety at risk; or otherwise result in negative social or environmental 
outcomes (Y/N);
•	 product development and short production lead times that can result in excessive and 
unplanned overtime (Y/N); or
•	 short-term or insecure contractual relationships between affiliates and suppliers (Y/N).
•	 The capacity of workers to contest and help shape the upgrading of supply chains (Y/N).
•	 The level of financial support and incentives provided to suppliers in support of their 
own efforts to upgrade their labour standards and their social and environmental 
impacts, including the percentage of suppliers and/or facilities receiving such incentives 
and support (Y/N).
Potential sources of information
All responsible sourcing and purchasing information can be obtained from an organization’s own 
finance and procurement functions.
II.B.22 Training of vulnerable groups (applicable to SSEOEs only)
Measurement methodology
The organization shall identify vulnerable groups in society, then determine the percentage of its 
employees hired for job skill training purposes who fall into at least one of the identified groups.52
Equation:
where:
VPH = vulnerable population hired to be trained,
VPT = number of employees from vulnerable populations hired to be trained,
TNE = total number of employees, and
t = a specific year.
VPHt = 
VPTt 
TNEt

91
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Potential sources of information
All data regarding the training of vulnerable groups can be obtained from an organization’s own 
human resources function.
II.B.23 Work integration (applicable to SSEOEs only)
Measurement methodology
The organization shall determine and disclose the percentage of workers who received job 
skill training through its work integration programme(s), who subsequently went on to find 
employment or pursue education in the last two years.
Equation:
where:
WIQ = work integration quotient,
WFE = number of workers in work integration programme(s) who found employment or 
education in a specific two-year period,
WIP = total number of workers in work integration programme(s) in a specific two-year 
period, and
t = a specific two-year period.
Potential sources of information
Information regarding the percentage of workers who received job skill training and subsequently 
moved on to find employment or pursue education can be obtained from programme participants 
themselves.
 Tier 2: C. Institutional area
II.C.1 Corporate political influence: Policies, programmes and practices
Measurement methodology
The entity shall disclose descriptions of all material aspects of its corporate political influence, 
including its policies, programmes and practices, as follows.53
•	 Group- or company-wide expenditure divided by revenue (both direct and indirect) 
related to political campaigns/candidates and advocacy/lobbying (last five years),
•	 Whether this expenditure includes national, state/provincial level and local 
jurisdictions,
•	 Top five issues according to expenditure,
•	 Top five recipients of expenditure,
WIQt = 
WFEt 
WIPt

92
UNRISD
•	 Indirect payments to lobbying firms/organizations and business/trade associations/
industry groups,
•	 Whether the entity has a policy to align lobbying with its own commitments to CSR, 
environmental social and corporate governance (ESG) performance, SDGs or other 
sustainability performance framework, and
•	 To what extent lobbying is aligned with the above policy: fully, mainly, partly or not 
aligned (tick box for whichever applies).
Potential sources of information
All data can be obtained from an entity’s own governance and human resources functions.
II.C.2 Context-based triple bottom line (TBL) accounting
Measurement methodology
The organization shall utilize context-based accounting tools, methods and metrics to measure, 
manage and report its TBL performance, and shall meet the following four criteria in particular:
1.	 The entity measures, manages and reports its performance (at least internally) in TBL 
terms (i.e. social, economic and environmental).54
2.	 The entity determines the scope and materiality of its TBL accounting.55 The materiality 
determination process involves:
(a)	 assessing and prioritizing impacts on the carrying capacities of resources that are 
vital for human well-being and planetary health56; and 
(b)	 stakeholder engagements: to incorporate the views of a broad range of 
stakeholders; and to discharge its duties and obligations of managing its impacts 
affecting stakeholder well-being.
3.	 The entity defines sustainability norms or targets for material areas of impact in terms of:
(a)	 identifying thresholds in the carrying capacities of resources that are vital for 
stakeholder well-being (social foundations) and planetary health (ecological 
ceilings); and 
(b)	 identifying the fair, just and proportionate allocations of responsibilities to 
maintain such resources at required levels.
4.	 For each material area of impact, the entity measures performance by assessing actual 
impacts against normative, context-based thresholds and allocations; and subsequently 
the entity reports its sustainability performance.57
This area of impact has one indicator associated with it.
Equation:
TBLt = 
CBAt 
4

93
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
where:
TBL = extent of context-based TBL accounting practiced by entity,
CBA = actual number of defined context-based TBL accounting criteria met in year t,
4 = normative number of defined context-based TBL accounting criteria met in year t, and
t = a specific year.
And where:
TBL scores of ≥ 1.0 are sustainable, and
TBL scores of < 1.0 are unsustainable.
Potential sources of information
All data can be obtained from an entity’s own executive and governance functions, as well as any 
other functions to which performance accounting responsibilities are assigned.
II.C.3 Amount of total fines paid or payable due to settlements
Measurement methodology
All fines paid or payable by the entity, due to unlawful behaviours (including, but not limited to, 
corruption), shall be summed up on an annual basis and disclosed. Any fines paid, or payable due 
to settlements, attributable to unlawful behaviours of all types, by the entity in any one year; will be 
deemed as unsustainable.
Potential sources of information
Data regarding the amount paid or payable in fines due to settlements by the entity can be 
obtained from its finance and legal functions.
II.C.4 Amount of corruption-related fines paid or payable due to settlements
Measurement methodology
The steps involved in the computation of this indicator are to:
1.	 identify all convictions and other settlements for violations of corruption-related laws or 
regulations,
2.	 identify the amount paid/payable in fines for each of the convictions, and
3.	 sum up all the amounts identified with reference to the reporting period.
The total number of convictions relevant to the reporting entity and the total amount of fines paid 
and or payable should be disclosed. Any fines paid, or payable due to settlements, attributable to 
unlawful behaviours of all types, by the entity in any one year; will be deemed as unsustainable.
Potential sources of information
The amount paid in fines is to be found among the expenses included in the income statement 
during the reporting period. Such costs would be directly charged to the income statement. They 
are often recorded in a separate expense account that may be called fines and penalties.

94
UNRISD
When an obligation to pay fines or penalties under the legislation is likely to arise because the 
obligating event has occurred, the entity should set up a provision account (for this purpose the 
entity will recognize a liability in the balance sheet against an expense account in the income 
statement). 
The owners of this information are usually the legal affairs department and the finance and 
accounting department.
II.C.5 Public sharing of information and knowledge
Measurement methodology
The entity shall determine and disclose whether the information, knowledge and data (including 
code) it produces is freely available to the public.
Potential sources of information
Data regarding the public sharing of information, knowledge and data produced by an entity can 
be obtained from its executive and legal functions.
II.C.6 Number and percentage of women board members
Measurement methodology
There are two sub-indicators or metrics for this dimension of performance, one for an annual 
measure and another for a five-year trend.
Equation:
Report the five-year trend as follows:
Year
t
t−1
t−2
t−3
t−4
RWB
where:
RWB = ratio of women members on a board (as a percentage) to the sustainability norm of 
no less than 40%,
WB = actual percentage of women on the board of directors or governance function of an 
organization,
40 = normative minimum percentage of women on the board of directors or governance 
function of an organization, and
t = most recent year.
RWBt = 
WBt 
40

95
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
And where:
RWB scores of ≥ 1.0 are sustainable, and
RWB scores of < 1.0 are unsustainable.
Potential sources of information
Data regarding the composition of an organization’s board or other governance function can be 
obtained from the human resources or governance function itself.
II.C.7 Term limits for board of directors
Measurement methodology
The entity shall determine and disclose whether there is a term limit for members of the board of 
directors (Yes/No).
Potential sources of information
Data regarding term limits for board members in an entity can be obtained from its legal function.
II.C.8 Resilience
Measurement methodology
The entity shall rate the strength of each of the following attributes in its culture and operations at 
this time (low, medium, high):
 
Low
Medium
High
Financial strength (cash flow, profitability or return on investment)
 
 
 
Capacity of the entity to mobilize internal and/or external 
resources and networks (including government support) to help 
face disruptive events or crises
 
 
 
Degree of awareness and alertness of the entity to possible 
disruptive events or crises (continuous monitoring and analysis, 
access to information, etc.)
 
 
 
Culture, environment or system to easily adopt innovative 
measures in dealing with disruptive events or crises
 
 
 
Engagement and involvement of employees in dealing with 
disruptive events or crises
 
 
 
Leadership in dealing with disruptive events or crises

96
UNRISD
Potential sources of information
Data regarding the resilience of the entity can be obtained from its executive and governance 
functions.
II.C.9 Attendance at annual general meetings (applicable to SSEOEs only)
Measurement methodology
The organization shall determine and disclose the average level of attendance at AGMs or 
equivalent meetings/mechanisms by members in the past five years.
Equation:
Report five-year trend in rate of attendance at AGM or equivalent mechanism as follows:
Year
t
t−1
t−2
t−3
t−4
ROA
where: 
ROA = rate of attendance at each AGM or equivalent mechanism,
NOM = number of members at AGM or equivalent mechanism,
TSM = total standing members at the time of specific AGM or equivalent mechanism, and
t = most recent year.
Potential sources of information
Data regarding members’ participation in the AGM events or equivalent mechanisms of an 
organization can be obtained from its membership and/or governance functions.
II.C.10 Democratic elections (applicable to SSEOEs only)
Measurement methodology 
The organization shall determine and disclose whether it utilizes a “one person, one vote” system 
(with or without delegation of votes) for electing persons in an organization’s managerial, executive 
and organizational governance roles (Yes/No). 
Potential sources of information 
Information regarding whether an organization follows a democratic process to elect its officers 
and/or board members can be obtained from its executive or governance functions.
ROAt = 
NOMt 
TSMt

97
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
II.C.11 Legitimation of management (applicable to SSEOEs only)
Measurement methodology
This indicator calls for two disclosures: (i) the organization shall determine and disclose the 
proportion of managers who are selected by their own staff (in any way); and (ii) the specific 
way(s) in which staff have in fact participated in making such selections, in cases where they have 
(through a formal consultation process, selection committee participation, etc.).
There are two sub-indicators for this dimension of performance:
Proportion of managers selected by staff as:
where:
PMH = percentage of managers selected by their own staff,
MSS = total number of managers selected by their own staff,
TME = total number of managers employed, and
t = a specific year.
Disclosure of specific participation process(es) or mechanism(s):
Specific processes or mechanisms by which staff participate in selection of their own managers
1.
2.
3.
Potential sources of information
Information regarding the proportion of managers who are selected by their own staff through 
consultation, discussion, participation (including election) and co-determination can be obtained 
from the organization’s executive or governance functions.
II.C.12 Stakeholder participation (applicable to SSEOEs only)
Measurement methodology
The organization shall determine and disclose whether there are formal mechanisms in place for 
non-employee stakeholders (members, consumers, communities, etc.) to participate in decision 
making on strategic issues.
PMHt =                * 100
MSSt 
TMEt

98
UNRISD
Potential sources of information
Information regarding non-employee stakeholder participation in the strategy-related decision-
making processes of the organization can be obtained from its community relations, executive or 
governance functions.

99
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Endnotes
1	
United Nations General Assembly. 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda 
for Sustainable Development. 21 October 2015, A/RES/70/1. https://www.refworld.
org/docid/57b6e3e44.html, accessed on 7 December 2020.
2	
Utting, Peter, with Kelly O’Neill, 2020. Corporate Sustainability Accounting: What 
Can and Should Corporations Be Doing? Research Report. Geneva: UNRISD. https://
www.unrisd.org/en/library/publications/corporate-sustainability-accounting-what-
can-and-should-corporations-be-doing-full-report; McElroy, Mark. 2019. Making 
Materiality Determinations: A Context-Based Approach. UNRISD Working Paper 2019-
6. Geneva: UNRISD. https://www.unrisd.org/en/library/publications/making-
materiality-determinations-a-context-based-approach; Baue, Bill. 2019. Compared 
to What? A Three-Tiered Typology of Sustainable Development Performance Indicators 
From Incremental to Contextual to Transformational. Working Paper 2019-5. Geneva: 
UNRISD. https://www.unrisd.org/en/library/publications/compared-to-what-a-
three-tiered-typology-of-sustainable-development-performance-indicators-from-incr
3	
World Commission on Envrionment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 43. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/
content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf. 
4	
McElroy, Mark. 2008. “Social Footprints: Measuring the Social Sustainability Performance 
of Organizations.” PhD Thesis, University of Groningen. https://www.rug.nl/research/
portal/files/13147569/DISSERTATION-2.pdf
5	
Freeman, R. Edward. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: 
Pitman.
6	
McElroy, Mark and Jo Van Engelen. 2012. Corporate Sustainability Management: The 
Art and Science of Managing Non-Financial Performance. London: Earthscan.

100
UNRISD
7	
UNCTAD, in accordance with the agreed conclusions with International Standards 
of Accounting and Reporting (ISAR), developed several core indicators to assist 
entities to provide baseline data on sustainability issues in a consistent and 
comparable manner, and to assess the private sector contribution to the SDG 
implementation. See UNCTAD’s Guidance on core indicators for entity reporting on 
contribution towards implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals https://unctad.
org/system/files/official-document/diae2019d1_en.pdf
8	
UNCTAD. 2020. Core SDG Indicators for Entity Reporting – TRAINING MANUAL, 
p. 7: https://isar.unctad.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/UNCTAD_
DIAE_2020_2.pdf.
9	
This means that investments that are beneficial to the environment but that 
primarily satisfy the technical needs or the internal requirements for hygiene or 
safety and security of an entity are excluded from this definition.
10	
Global Reporting Initiative. 2017. Exposure Draft GRI 303: Water and Effluents: Public 
Consultation Form for Submitting Comments to the Draft Standard. 20 December 2017, p. 
29. https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1775/revised-exposure-draft-
gri-303-water-and-effluents-20dec17-18feb18.pdf.
11	
System of Environmental and Economic Accounting. 2017. SEEA Technical Note: 
Water Accounting. 27 October 2017, p. 10. https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/
files/water_note_final_27-10-17_clean_0.pdf.
12	
United Nations Environment Programme Ozone Secretariat. 2020. Handbook for 
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Fourteenth edition. 
https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Handbooks/MP-Handbook-2020-
English.pdf. 
13	
This indicator is consistent with “Disclosure 102-35: Remuneration policies,” 
GRI 102: General Disclosures, 2016. https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/
media/1037/gri-102-general-disclosures-2016.pdf#page=25. In addition, IFRSs 
require companies to disclose key management personnel compensation in total and 
for certain categories.
14	
Greenhouse Gas Protocol. GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance: An amendment to the GHG 
Protocol Corporate Standard. https://www.ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/
standards/Scope%202%20Guidance_Final_0.pdf.
15	
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous 
Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention). Protocol on Liability and Compensation 
for Damage Resulting from Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their 
Disposal: Texts and Annexes. United Nations Environment Programme. http://www.
basel.int/Portals/4/Basel%20Convention/docs/text/BaselConventionText-e.pdf; 
see Annex III.

101
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
16	
Rigamonti, L., Mancini, E. Life cycle assessment and circularity indicators. Int J Life 
Cycle Assess 26, 1937–1942 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01966-2
17	
ISO 14040:2006(en), Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — 
Principles and framework. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14040:ed-
2:v1:en.
18	
WBCSD (2022). Circular Transition Indicators v3.0 https://www.wbcsd.org/
contentwbc/download/14172/204337/1
19	
Sayani, A. 2017. The Tax Gap: Regulatory Responses and Implications for Institutional 
Investors. pp. 11-12.https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/93765fb6-7685-4a04-
b124-d71d4f6195a2
20	
From the Global Living Wage Coalition’s Anker Methodology for Estimating a 
Living Wage: https://www.globallivingwage.org/about/what-is-a-living-wage/.
21	
Equileap. 2018. Bridging the Gap: How Governments, Companies and Investors 
Can Tackle Gender Pay Inequality. Research Paper. May. http://equileap.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/Equileap_Bridging-the-Gap_EN.pdf.
22	
Based in part on the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on 
stock exchanges and related measures at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/
EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012PC0614: “The proposed objective of 40% for the 
minimum share of both sexes is in line with the targets currently under discussion 
and set out in a number of EU Member States/EEA countries. This figure is 
situated between the minimum of the ‘critical mass’ of 30%, which has been found 
necessary in order to have a sustainable impact on board performance and full 
gender parity (50%).” This norm is extended to hiring, promotion and managerial 
positions on the same grounds.
23	
See, for example, McKinsey 2019 Women in the Workplace  https://www.mckinsey.
com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insights/Gender%20Equality/Women%20
in%20the%20Workplace%202019/Women-in-the-workplace-2019.pdf); 
Bloomberg’s Gender Equality Reporting framework (https://data.bloomberglp.
com/company/sites/46/2020/05/GEI2021-Framework_PDF_FNL.pdf); and the 
EU Directive on Work-Life Balance (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017PC0253).
24	
Occupational accidents and injuries are non-fatal or fatal injuries arising out of or in 
the course of work; occupational diseases are those arising from the work situation 
or activity (e.g. stress or regular exposure to harmful chemicals), or from a work-
related injury.

102
UNRISD
25	
See UNEP. 2015. Raising the Bar: Advanced Environmental Disclosure in Sustainability 
Reporting. Accessed 30 September 2019. https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/ 
report/raising-bar-advancingenvironmental-disclosuresustainability-reporting; GRI 
101 Foundation (2016a, p. 9); Reporting 3.0 Data Blueprint (2017); and SAI Triple 
Bottom Line Accounting Certification (2019–2020).
26	
Corruption is broadly linked to several negative effects such as damage to the 
environment, abuse of human rights, abuse of democracy, misallocation of 
investments and undermining the rule of law.
27	
This indicator is consistent with “Disclosure 405-1: Diversity of governance 
bodies and employees” in GRI 405: Diversity and Equal Opportunity. 2016. https://
www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1020/gri-405-diversity-and-equal-
opportunity-2016.pdf#page=6.
28	
International Financial Reporting Standards. IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with 
Customers, https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ifrs-15-revenue-
from-contracts-with-customers/.
29	
The figure for total revenues should correspond to the same data as reported 
elsewhere in the entity’s management accounts and in its audited financial 
statements.
30	
European Commission. 2018. Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growth. https://
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0097.
31	
The total volume withdrawn and received from a third party is a proxy for the 
organization’s relative size and importance as a user of water, as well as a baseline 
figure for other calculations relating to efficiency and use.
32	
For definitions of employment types and contracts, see International Labour 
Organization. 2007. Resolution Concerning Updating the International Standard 
Classification of Occupations. 6 December 2007. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/
bureau/stat/isco/docs/resol08.pdf.
33	
International Labour Organization. 1981. C154 - Collective Bargaining Convention, 
No. 154. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:
:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312299.
34	
“The CSO method, followed by the SDA method, has the overall lowest emission 
imbalance across all scenarios… our results indicate that concerns over emission 
imbalance should favour the CSO and SDA methods, rather than ACA and SDA.” 
Bjørn, A., Lloyd, S., and Matthews, D. 2021. From the Paris Agreement to corporate 
climate commitments: evaluation of seven methods for setting ‘science-based’ 
emission targets. Environmental Research Letters, Volume 16, Number 5. 22 April 
2021. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abe57b

103
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
	
“[W]e find that the SDA and Context-based Carbon Metric by the CSO are the only 
two methods that meet our two conditions, whilst the CSO also meets the desirable 
condition of differentiated responsibilities, with companies in developed countries 
required to decarbonise much faster than those in developing countries.” Rekker, 
S., Ives, M.C., Wade, B. et al.  2022. Measuring corporate Paris Compliance using 
a strict science-based approach. Nature Communications, 13, 4441. 10 August 2022. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31143-4
35	
See https://www.sustainableorganizations.org/context-based-metrics-public-domain/
36	
Wang, X., Ward, J., Yi, I., McElroy, M. W., & Sutton, P. (2022). Supporting the 
Sustainable Development Goals: A context sensitive indicator for sustainable use of 
water at the facility level. Sustainable Development.
37	
See, for example The GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting 
and Reporting Standard (WRI & WBCSD, 2011), together with the Scope 3 
Calculation Guidance, which provides detailed guidance on how to complete a 
scope 3 inventory; and SBTi Corporate Manual to set a science-based target on 
scope 3 sources.
38	
See, for example WBCSD”s Value Chain Carbon Transparency Pathfinder to track 
end-to-end emissions 
39	
Wang, X., Ward, J., Yi, I., McElroy, M. W., & Sutton, P. (2022). Supporting the 
Sustainable Development Goals: A context sensitive indicator for sustainable use of 
water at the facility level. Sustainable Development.
40	
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division. 
2018. International Recommendations for Energy Statistics (IRES). Statistical Papers Series 
M No. 93. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/energy/ires/IRES-web.pdf. 
41	
Renewable sources of electricity are composed of hydro, wind, solar (photovoltaic 
and solar thermal), geothermal, wave, tide and other marine energy, as well as the 
combustion of biofuels. Renewable sources of heat are solar, thermal, geothermal 
and the combustion of biofuels.
42	
WBCSD (2022). Circular Transition Indicators v3.0 https://www.wbcsd.org/
contentwbc/download/14172/204337/1
43	
https://wageindicator.org/salary/wages-in-context, with selections set for (i) national 
currency; (ii) living wage; and (iii) typical family.
44	
Global Living Wage Coalition. N.d. “What is a Living Wage?” https://www.
globallivingwage.org/about/what-is-a-living-wage/.

104
UNRISD
45	
FTE is calculated by summing up all the hours worked in one reporting period by 
both part-time and full-time workers and dividing this number by the number of 
hours worked by a full-time worker.
46	
Resolution Concerning Updating the International Standard Classification of 
Occupations. https://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/docs/resol08.pdf.
47	
This indicator can also be calculated as: number of cases/number of workers.
48	
For details on the data include in these registers, see International Labour Office. 
1996. Recording and Notification of Occupational Accidents and Diseases, in particular 
pp.25-26. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---
safework/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_107800.pdf. 
49	
A Tier 1 supplier is a supplier from whom goods or services are provided directly, 
as opposed to suppliers from Tiers 2, 3 or beyond, from whom goods or services are 
supplied indirectly by way of other suppliers.
50	
See: Iris Standards: https://iris.iom.int/iris-standard
51	
See, for example, ILO 2017b Purchasing practices and working conditions in global supply 
chains: Global Survey results. INWORK Issue Brief No. 10. Accessed 30 September 
2019. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/ groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---
travail/documents/publication/ wcms_556336.pdf; Merk, Jeroen. 2005. From 
Code Compliance to Fair Purchasing Practices: Some Issues for Discussion. Clean Clothes 
Campaign. Accessed 30 September 2019. https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.
edu/ globaldocs/1018/; and Blasi, Jeremy and Jennifer Blair. 2019. An Analysis 
of Multiparty Bargaining Models for Global Supply Chains. Conditions of Work and 
Employment Series. Number 105. Geneva: ILO. Accessed 30 September 2019. 
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/ public/---ed_protect/---protrav/--- travail/
documents/publication/ wcms_655541.pdf.
52	
All to be determined and specified by the organization itself, based on its local 
context.
53	
See, for example, SustainAbility and WWF UK. 2005. Influencing Power: Reviewing 
the Content of Corporate Lobbying. Accessed 30 December 2018. https://www.eldis.
org/document/A19837; OECD. 2010. Recommendation of the Council on OECD Legal 
Instruments Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying. Accessed 30 September 
2019 https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/public/doc/256/256.en.pdf; GRI. 2016b. 
GRI 415: Public Policy 2016.; and RobecoSAM. 2018. “The Good, the Bad, and 
the Ugly: Corporate Policy Influence Under Scrutiny in the Age of SDGs.” In The 
Sustainability Yearbook 2018.

105
AUTHENTIC SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: A USER MANUAL FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
54	
See UNEP. 2015. Raising the Bar: Advanced Environmental Disclosure in Sustainability 
Reporting. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/raising-bar-advancing-
environmental-disclosure-sustainability-reporting; GRI 101 Foundation (2016a, 
p. 9); Reporting 3.0 Data Blueprint (2017); and SAI Triple Bottom Line Accounting 
Certification (2019–2020); and see, for example, Thomas and McElroy 2016 The 
MultiCapital Scorecard.
55	
See, for example, Baue (2019) Compared to What? A Three-Tiered Typology of Sustainable 
Development Performance Indicators, pp. 6–7; r3.0 2018 Transformation Journey p. 24; 
and McElroy 2019 Making Materiality Determinations
56	
Adapted from the term “carrying capacities of vital capitals”. See McElroy (2013) The 
Carrying Capacities of Capitals
57	
This is demonstrated throughout the Manual whereby there are 17 indicators with 
clearly defined sustainability norms or thresholds for assessing progress in relation 
to sustainable development See, for example, McElroy (2015) Science- Versus Context-
Based Metrics.

106
UNRISD
Abbreviations and Acronyms
%
percentage
AGM
Annual General Meeting
CEPA
Classification of Environmental Protection Activities
CFC 11
trichlorofluoromethane
CFC
chlorofluorocarbon
CO2
carbon dioxide
CSR
corporate social responsibility
EDGE
Evidence and Data for Gender Equality
ESG
environmental, social and governance
ESOP
employee stock ownership plans
ET
evapotranspiration
EU
European Union
FPE
for-profit enterprise
FTE
full-time equivalent
GAAP
generally accepted accounting principles
GDP
gross domestic product
GHG
greenhouse gas
GIIN
Global Impact Investing Network
GPS
global positioning system
GRI
Global Reporting Initiative
GVA
gross value added
GWP
global warming potentials
HLEG
High Level Expert Group
IAS
International Accounting Standards
ICA
International Cooperative Alliance 
IFRS
International Financial Reporting Standards
IIRC
International Integrated Reporting Council
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISAR
International Standards of Accounting and Reporting
ISCO
International Standard Classification of Occupations
IWP
identified watershed polygon
j
joule
kg
kilogram
LCA
life cycle assessment
mt
metric tonne
NGO
non-governmental organization
NVA
net value added 
ODS
ozone-depleting substances
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
P&L
profit and loss
R&D
research and development
REC
renewable energy certificate
SASB
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board
SDG
Sustainability Development Goal
SDPI
Sustainable Development Performance Indicator
SME
small and medium-sized enterprise 
SSE
social and solidarity economy
SSEOEs
social and solidarity economy organizations and 
enterprises
t
time
TBL
triple bottom line
UNCTAD
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNRISD
United Nations Research Institute for Social 
Development
USD
US dollars
VAT
value added tax
Wh
watt hours

The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development 
(UNRISD) is an autonomous research institute within the United 
Nations system that undertakes interdisciplinary research 
and policy analysis on the social dimensions of contemporary 
development issues. Through our work, we aim to ensure that 
social equity, inclusion and justice are central to development 
thinking, policy and practice.
UNRISD depends entirely on voluntary contributions from national 
governments, multilateral donors, foundations and other sources, 
and receives no financial support from the regular budget of 
the United Nations. We gratefully acknowledge the support 
received from our funding partners at the Swedish International 
Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), the Swiss Agency 
for Development and Cooperation (SDC), the Swiss Federal 
Department of Foreign Affairs, the Finnish Ministry of Social 
Affairs and Health, the German Federal Ministry for Economic 
Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the Spanish Agency for 
International Cooperation (AECID), and Robert Bosch Stiftung.
UNRISD 
Palais des Nations
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland 
www.unrisd.org
info.unrisd@un.org

Authentic
Sustainability
Assessment
A User Manual for the Sustainable
Development Performance Indicators
This Manual proposes a new, more authentic approach for measuring and reporting 
on the sustainability performance of economic entities in relation to the 2030 Agenda 
for Sustainable Development and the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The 
approach is grounded in a two-tiered framework with a set of 61 sustainable development 
performance indicators (SDPIs) that assess sustainability impacts and performance 
against context-based normative thresholds and transformative change potential—thereby 
transcending the limitations of existing indicators and frameworks. Each SDPI includes 
a definition, trend analysis dimension, relevance to the SDGs and, where relevant, a 
sustainability threshold or norm. UNRISD’s SDPI approach empowers both for-profit 
enterprises (FPEs) and social and solidarity economy (SSE) entities to meaningfully 
assess the extent to which their economic behaviours are well-governed and contributing 
to maintaining environmental and socioeconomic resources at levels required for 
sustainable development.
The Manual was developed based on the findings of a pilot test of all 61 indicators that 
showed that implementing the SDPI approach is both feasible and desired by economic 
entities, standard setters and framework providers. It is the main output of the UNRISD 
SDPI project. UNRISD’s easy-to-use SDPI Online Platform helps users make the most of 
this novel approach to measuring sustainability.