The FEEM Sustainability Index: An Integrated Tool for Sustainability Assessment

  • Carlo Carraro
  • Lorenza Campagnolo
  • Fabio Eboli
  • Silvio Giove
  • Elisa Lanzi
  • Ramiro ParradoEmail author
  • Mehmet Pinar
  • Elisa Portale
Part of the EcoProduction book series (ECOPROD)


The FEEM Sustainability Index (FEEM SI) proposes an integrated methodological approach to quantitatively assess sustainability performance across countries and over time. Three are the main features of this approach: (1) the index considers sustainability based on economic, environmental and social indicators simultaneously; (2) the framework used to compute the indicators, i.e. a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model, allows to generate projections on the future evolution of sustainability; and (3) the methodology used for the normalisation and aggregation of the indicators delivers a unique and comprehensive measure of sustainability. These features along with the multi-regional nature of the CGE model consent to perform policy evaluations and sustainability assessments for different countries or regions in the world. This chapter offers a methodological overview of the FEEM SI approach. To illustrate the potential of the methodology for the measurement of sustainability, the chapter also illustrates results from a climate policy scenario. In the mitigation scenario considered Annex I and Non-Annex I countries taking action towards climate change achieve the lower end of the pledges proposed at the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen. For countries putting into practice the policy, the environmental sphere more than offsets the related costs (economic pillar), leading to an overall improvement in sustainability. At world level, the outcome is positive even though carbon leakage in countries that are not acting reduces the effectiveness of the policy and the sustainability performance.


Sustainability Composite indicators Computable general equilibrium model Climate policy 



This chapter is part of the research of the Climate Change and Sustainable Development Research Programme of the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. The FEEM Sustainability Index has benefited from support from researchers outside the FEEM SI team as well as the contribution of a set of experts who responded a questionnaire. We would like to thank them for their patience and help. The authors would also like to acknowledge the anonymous referee for the useful comments provided.


  1. Böhringer C, Löschel A (2006) Computable general equilibrium models for sustainability impact assessment: status quo and prospects. Ecol Econ 60(2006):49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carraro C, Campagnolo L, Eboli F, Lanzi E, Parrado R, Portale E (2012) Quantifying sustainability: a new approach and world ranking. In: Working Papers 2012.94. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, MilanGoogle Scholar
  3. Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (2009) Report of the commission on the economic and social progress. Accessed 15 Nov 2012
  4. Cruciani C, Giove S, Pinar M, Sostero M (2012) Constructing the FEEM sustainability index: a choquet-integral application. In: Working papers 2012.50. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, MilanGoogle Scholar
  5. Daly HE, Cobb JJ (1989) For the common good: redirecting the economy toward community, the environment and a sustainable future. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. Eurelectric (2011) Power choices—pathways to carbon-neutral electricity in Europe by 2050. Accessed 15 Nov 2012
  7. European Commission (2008) Energy sources, production costs and performance of technologies for power generation, heating and transport. EU Energy Secur Solidarity Action Plan. SEC (2008) 2872Google Scholar
  8. FAO and IIASA (2000) Global agro-ecological zones. Accessed 10 Feb 2011
  9. FEEM (2011) FEEM Sustainability Index Methodological Report 2011. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei:
  10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2011) Aquastat database. Accessed 10 Feb 2011
  11. Grabisch M (1995) Fuzzy integral in multicriteria decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst 69:279–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grabisch M (1996) The application of fuzzy integrals in multicriteria decision making. Eur J Oper Res 89:445–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grabisch M, Labreuche C, Vansnick JC (2003) On the extension of pseudo-Boolean functions for the aggregation of interacting criteria. Eur J Oper Res 148(1):28–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. GRI—Global Reporting Initiative (2006) Sustainability reporting guidelines, version 3.1. Global Reporting Initiative, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  15. GRI—Global Reporting Initiative (2010) Global reporting initiative sustainability report 2009/2010, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. GTZ (2009) Energy-policy framework conditions for electricity markets and renewable energies. EschbornGoogle Scholar
  17. Hertel TW (ed) (1997) Global trade analysis: modeling and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Horridge M (2008) SplitCom: programs to disaggregate a GTAP sector. Centre of Policy Studies, Monash University, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  19. IEA (2005) Projected costs of generating electricity. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  20. IEA (2010) World Energy Outlook 2010. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. IMF (2010) World economic outlook 2010 rebalancing growth. International Monetary Fund, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. IUCN—International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2010) Red list of threatened species. Accessed 10 Feb 2011
  23. Krajnc D, Glavic P (2005) A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development. Resour Conserv Recycl 43:189–208Google Scholar
  24. Lee H (2008) The combustion based CO2 emission data for GTAP version 7 data base. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, West LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  25. Marichal J-L, Roubens M (2000) Determination of weights of interacting criteria from a reference set. Eur J Oper Res 124(3):641–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meyer P, Ponthière G (2011) Eliciting preferences on multiattribute societies with a Choquet integral. Comput Econ 37(2):133–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murofushi T, Soneda S (1993) Techniques for reading fuzzy measures (III): interaction index. In: 9th fuzzy system symposium. Sapporo, pp 693–696Google Scholar
  28. Murofushi T, Sugeno M, Machida M (1994) Non-monotonic fuzzy measures and Choquet integral. Fuzzy Sets Syst 64:73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Narayanan B, Walmsley TL (eds) (2008) Global trade, assistance, and production: the GTAP 7 data base. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, West LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  30. OECD (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  31. Parris TM, Kates RW (2003) Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Ann Rev Environ Resour 28(1):559–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ragwitz M, Resch G, Morthorst PM, Coenraads R, Konstantinaviciute I, Heyder B (2007) OPTRES: assessment and optimisation of renewable support schemes in the European electricity market, Intelligent Energy Europe.
  33. REN21 (2011) Renewable energy policy network for the 21st century. Accessed 10 Feb 2011
  34. Rose SK, Lee H (2008) Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions data for climate change economic analysis. In: GTAP working paper no. 43Google Scholar
  35. Singh RK, Murty H, Gupta S, Dikshit A (2009) An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol Ind 9(2):189–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, Collingham YC, Erasmus BFN, de Ferreira Siqueira M, Grainger A, Hannah L, Hughes L, Huntley B, van Jaarsveld AS, Midgley GF, Miles L, Ortega-Huerta MA, Townsend Peterson A, Phillips OL, Williams SE (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. UN CSD (2005) Indicators of sustainable development—CSD theme indicator framework, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. UN (2010) World population prospect. Accessed 10 July 2011
  39. UN (2012) The future we want. Draft resolution submitted by the President of the general assembly, Sixty-sixth session, Agenda item 19, Sustainable development A/66/L.56, 24 July 2012Google Scholar
  40. UNDP (1990) Human development report. Accessed 10 July 2011
  41. WCED—World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Published as annex to general assembly document A/42/427, Development and international co-operation: environment August 2, 1987Google Scholar
  42. World Bank (2010a) World development indicators. Accessed 10 July 2011
  43. World Bank (2010b) Addressing the electricity access gap. Background paper for the World Bank group energy sector strategy, World BankGoogle Scholar
  44. World Health Organization (2010) Accessed 10 July 2011
  45. Yusuf JA, El Serafy S, Lutz E (1989) Environmental accounting for sustainable development. In: UNEP World Bank symposium, Washington Google Scholar
  46. Yale and Columbia Universities (2010) 2010 environmental performance index, summary for policymakers. Accessed 10 July 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlo Carraro
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Lorenza Campagnolo
    • 1
  • Fabio Eboli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Silvio Giove
    • 3
  • Elisa Lanzi
    • 1
  • Ramiro Parrado
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Mehmet Pinar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Elisa Portale
    • 1
  1. 1.Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), Isola di San Giorgio MaggioreVeniceItaly
  2. 2.Euro Mediterranean Centre on Climate Change (CMCC)VeniceItaly
  3. 3.Ca’ Foscari University of VeniceVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations