## 1 Introduction
Applied equation:  
\[Q_{j}=S_{+j}+\frac{S_{-min}\sum_{j=1}^{n}S_{-j}}{S_{-j}\cdot\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac {S_{-min}}{S_{-j}}},\ j=\overline{1,\ n} \tag{6}\]  
Calculations:  
\[ \begin{array}{c}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}\frac{S_{-min}}{S_{-j}}=\frac{0.1661}{0.202}+\frac{0.1661}{0.3277}+\frac{0.1661}{0.2251}+\frac{0.1661}{0.1661}+\frac {0.1661}{0.1844}+\frac{0.1661}{0.2025}+\frac{0.1661}{0.2331}+\\ \frac{0.1661}{0.2439}+\frac{0.1661}{0.2164}+\frac{0.1661}{0.2914}+\frac{0.166 1}{0.339}+\frac{0.1661}{0.08}+\frac{0.1661}{0.0724}+\frac{0.1661}{0.2617}+\frac {0.1661}{0.3231}+\\ \frac{0.14661}{0.4076}+\frac{0.1661}{0.4256}+\frac{0.1661}{0.278}+\frac{0.166 1}{0.4793}+\frac{0.1661}{0.267}+\frac{0.1661}{0.2571}+\frac{0.1661}{0.2914}+\\ \frac{0.1661}{0.4076}+\frac{0.1661}{0.4256}+\frac{0.1661}{0.278}+\frac{0.1661} {0.4793}+\frac{0.1661}{0.267}+15.37543039\end{array} \]  
\[ \begin{array}{c}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}s_{-j}=0.202+0.3277+0.2251+0.1661+0.1844 +0.2025+0.2331\\ +0.2437+0.2164+0.2914+0.339+0.68+0.7724+0.2617+0.3231+0.4192+0.4601\\ +0.3123+0.3393+0.3764+0.2751+0.2914+0.4076+0.4256+0.278+0.4793+0.267=8.9999\end{array} \]  
\[ \begin{array}{c}Q_{1}=0.8226*\frac{0.1661*8.9999}{0.202*15.37543039}=0.8226 *\frac{1.49488339}{3.105836}=0.8226+0.4813143=1.3039\\ Q_{2}=1.0668\end{array} \]  
Stage 4. Determine the rank of the alternative. The greater is the significance \(Q_{j}\), the higher is the rank of the alternative: \(Q_{1}<Q_{2}\). The success \(Q_{j}\) of a country \(a_{j}\) shows to what degree the country has fulfilled the requirements and achieved its needs in the sustainable construction industry. Each country is assigned a success with the most efficient country always taking the top spot with the success \(Q_{max}\). Other countries that are below the best country in terms of their achievements related to the sustainable construction industry are, accordingly, assigned lower success. Stage 5. Calculate the quantitative utility of each alternative. A higher success of a country also means that the country's utility degree is higher and a lower success then means lower utility degree. National utility degrees are determined by comparing countries with their most efficient counterpart in terms of the performance related to the sustainable construction industry. The countries considered will, therefore, have their utility degrees between 0% (worst case) and 100% (best case). Such ranking offers easier visual assessment of the efficiency of the countries. The utility degree \(U_{j}\) of a country \(a_{j}\) shows the country's performance in terms of the requirements. Higher utility degree shows that a bigger number of more important requirements were achieved. Applied equation:  
\[U_{j}=\Big{(}Q_{j}:Q_{max}\Big{)}100\% \tag{7}\]  
Calculations:  
\[U_{1}=(1.3039/1.5)*100\%=86.93\%\]\[U_{2}=(1.0668/1.5)*100\%=71.12\%\]  
The multiple criteria evaluation outcomes for the countries considered (see Table 2) show that Norway (\(a_{5}\)) scored best (significance \(Q_{max}=Q_{5}=1.5\) and utility degree \(U_{max}=U_{5}=100\%\)) in terms of the criteria considered here. Lithuania (\(a_{8}\)) ranked eleventh with its significance \(Q_{8}=1.0863\), well below the top performer. The country's utility degree was \(U_{8}=72.42\%\) (see Table 2). Lithuania and Portugal in Table A1 can be examples for discussion. The evaluation of the 1990-2019 period shows that, at 4.22%, Lithuania recorded a similar average annual GDP growth to Portugal with 4.16%. The 2019 data show that the GDP per capita in PPP terms was lower in Portugal (30,487.7 USD) than in Lithuania (32,378.6 USD). At 8.81, the average 1999-2019 unemployment rate in Portugal was about 21% lower than that in Lithuania (10.89), and the 2019 unemployment rate in Portugal (6.10) was equal to that in Lithuania (6.10). Between 1995 and 2019, the average inflation growth in Lithuania (3.65%) was 1.825 times as high as in Portugal (2.00%).