Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Economies’ inclusive and green industrial performance: An evidence

based proposed index
George Halkos a, *, Jaime Moll de Alba b, Valentin Todorov b
a
Department of Economics, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece
b
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Vienna International Centre, Vienna, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper develops and introduces a new evidence-based tool to systematically measure and bench-
Received 27 May 2020 mark the industrial performance of economies with emphasis on their inclusive and green dimensions.
Received in revised form By means of international data sources, we build up a composite index, the inclusive and green industrial
10 July 2020
performance (IGIP) index, which captures different dimensions of the industrial socio-economic inclu-
Accepted 29 July 2020
Available online 31 July 2020
siveness and green performance of the world’s economies. We carry out an analysis of 83 economies in
2016 to conclude that industrialized economies (Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, the Czech Republic
^ as de
Handling Editor. Cecilia Maria Villas Bo and Austria) outperform significantly other economies even if we notice remarkable differences in
Almeida performance among economies. Our analysis opens up new avenues for future research supporting new
approaches for the structural transformation of economies in line with the aspirations put forward by the
Keywords: international 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
SDGs © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Green manufacturing
Composite index
Green industrial performance
Inclusiveness
Sustainable development

1. Introduction the world’s total final energy consumption. At the same time, in-
dustry was responsible for approximately 19% of CO2 emissions
Climate change is one of the most important issues that the worldwide, since it led to the emission of 6.288 metric tons per
world has faced in the last decades. The industrial revolution led to capita in 2017. From 1990 to 2017, industry energy consumption
a new world, with a rapid economic growth and excessive usage of was increased by 56.93% and industry related CO2 emissions were
fossil fuels, which had a major negative impact on the environment increased by 57.31% (IEA, 2020). It is obvious that there is an urgent
(Ho€o
€k and Tang, 2013). Global warming caused by human activities need to implement environmentally friendly measures and stra-
was, in 2017, 1
C above pre-industrial levels and is expected to tegies in the field of industry, which would lead to a cleaner and
increase even more in the future (IPCC, 2018). The challenge that energy-efficient production.
the industrialized world faces today is to maintain a high economic The industrial sector and its development are extremely
and social development and to minimize the environmental harm important in every country, from an economic and social
at the same time. Many countries have already made commitments perspective, but often leads to environmental degradation that
to mitigate climate change and to transit to sustainable develop- needs to be overcome in order to meet the Sustainable Develop-
ment, by changing the way that necessary but environmentally ment Goals (UNIDO, 2011). For the last two decades, since the early
harmful sectors operate (Meena, 2013). 2000s, many industries all over the world have started to show
According to IEA, the field of industry consumed 2.820.887 interest for measures that would lead to cleaner production and
thousand tonnes of oil equivalent in 2017, which counted as 29% of low environmental impact (Aksoy and Gonel, 2015).
Green industry refers to a sustainable way of production and
consumption, where no environmental harm is caused throughout
the production of the goods and their future lifecycle (UNIDO,
* Corresponding author. 2011). Sustainability is the key in decision-making of the green
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G. Halkos), [email protected]
industry and the goal is to minimize environmental damage that
(J. Moll de Alba), [email protected] (V. Todorov).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123516
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 G. Halkos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516

comes from the production or the consumption of its goods and  Share of green manufacturing employment in total
services (Sarkar et al., 2013). manufacturing employment
A transition to green industries has become more and more  CO2 emissions from manufacturing per unit of manufacturing
essential, especially since the large quantities of natural resources value added.
that have been consumed the last years have led to problems in
energy supply and to an energy crisis. In addition, customers are Moll de Alba and Todorov (2018) used their GIP index meth-
more and more conscious and prefer to choose green products over odology to analyze the performance of 107 countries for 2014,
products that harm the environment throughout their lifecycle. The compared it with that in 2011. They showed that industrialized
last few years, governments and policy makers have implemented economies have a much better performance compared to devel-
policies that favor the green industry sector (Chen et al., 2017). oping economies, while there seems to be a stability among the top
Green industry is considered to be necessary for developing a green and bottom countries in the period 2011e2014. Using a refined GIP
economy (Chen et al., 2017) and an important step towards a sus- index, the analysis of 104 economies for the period 2012e2015 Moll
tainable future (Aksoy and Gonel, 2015). de Alba and Todorov (2020) reached similar conclusions.
Inclusive and sustainable industrial development (ISID) refers to Even though the GIP index in its current form faces specific
all the services that promote all three dimensions of sustainable limitations, it is considered to be a significant tool used to evaluate
development (society, economy and environment) in the field of ISID and countries’ progression towards the SDGs and sustainabil-
industry. It is an action that promotes industrialization, while ity. Additional research and the inclusion of more indicators could
minimizing environmental harm and promoting social integration optimize the GIP index and would help to overcome the current
and equity (Yuan et al., 2020). According to UNIDO (2015), for a limitations, evolving it into an important tool that will promote and
successful implementation of inclusive and sustainable industrial support ISID, the SDGs and the 2030 Sustainable Agenda in general.
development, it is important that higher levels of industrialization This paper makes a leading contribution to the existing body of
are achieved, while economic and social growth is promoted in an knowledge by developing and introducing a new index that pro-
environmentally friendly framework and the benefits of industrial vides policy-makers and scholars with a straightforward and evi-
growth are distributed equally to everyone. In addition to that, it is dence based tool to measure and benchmark the performance of
important that knowledge, technology and innovation are shared economies in terms of their inclusive and green industrial pro-
and multi-stakeholder partnerships support every step towards duction. By introducing inclusiveness, the new IGIP index addresses
inclusive and sustainable industrialization. the three dimensions of development, i.e., social, economic and
Inclusive and sustainable industrialization (ISID) is considered environmental, contained in the 2030 Sustainable Development
as an important part of the Sustainable Development Goal number Agenda (UNGA, 2015) with emphasis on industrialization. It is
9, “Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable worth recalling that the 2030 Agenda places outmost importance
industrialization and foster innovation”, that promotes, among on leaving no one behind so everyone takes part in the develop-
others, the increase of inclusive and sustainable industries’ share ment process regardless of age, sex, economic status, etc. hence
until 2030 (UNGA, 2015). UNIDO (2015) has provided detailed why we decide in this paper to add the social and economic di-
programs for specific countries and conditions, which concern so- mensions of inclusiveness. Such additional dimension is closely
cial inclusion, economic competitiveness and environmental sus- linked to a number of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
tainability, which could be implemented in order to support ISID including SDG 4 on inclusive and equitable quality education for all,
and, therefore, SDG 9. To evaluate the progression in the promotion SDG 5 that seeks to achieve gender equality and empower all
of ISID and in the raise of industry’s share of employment and GDP, women and girls, SDG 8 on good jobs and economic growth for all
the United Nations use two indicators: Manufacturing value added and SDG 10 to reduce inequality. The GIP index contributes to the
as a proportion of GDP and per capita and Manufacturing research and policy debate on the measurement of inclusive and
employment as a proportion of total employment. In addition, to green industrial performance, which lies at the core of the SDGs.
evaluate the progression of the industries to become more sus-
tainable, the indicator used is: CO2 emissions per unit of value 2. Methodology and data sources
added. Information about the progression of SDG 9 in 2019 shows
that this goal does not have a rapid progress, due to the current UNIDO’s competitive industrial performance (CIP) index seeks
global economic environment (United Nations, 2019). to assess and benchmark national industrial competitiveness
To measure the progression of every SDG in country levels, a (UNIDO, 2017). It is based exclusively on objective data measures
plethora of indicators has been proposed. Among others and spe- and comprises eight indicators, coming from recognized interna-
cifically for ISID and green industry, Moll de Alba and Todorov tional sources, which are usually used to benchmark the industrial
(2018, 2020) developed the Green Industrial Performance Index performance and competitiveness of countries. Inspired by this
(GIP index), an index that reflects the performance of countries in leading index for measuring competitive manufacturing perfor-
the field of green manufacturing. This index is inspired by the mance, Moll de Alba and Todorov (2018, 2020) developed a com-
UNIDO’s Competitive Industrial Performance Index (UNIDO, 2017) posite index (Green Industrial Performance, GIP, Index) which
and provides a useful tool in the monitoring process of SDGs’ per- helps to gain an overall understanding of the status of green in-
formance and of inclusive and sustainable industrialization pro- dustry at the country level. This index can be used also as a com-
gression. The six quantitative indicators used to estimate the GIP plementary tool to the CIP index for analysing the sustainable
index cover every aspect of green growth (economic, social and industrial development at the country level. Now we extend this
environmental) and two of them are similar to the ones that UNIDO index to cover also the inclusiveness aspects of the competitiveness
uses to estimate the progression of SDG 9. These six indicators are: and the manufacturing performance. The selection of indicators
that capture the various facets of green growth to form the GIP and
 Green MVA per capita their compilation were presented in detail in Moll de Alba and
 Green manufactured exports per capita Todorov (2018, 2020). A further study of the rank shifts caused by
 Share of green MVA in total MVA extreme observations in sub-indicators using distribution-driven
 Share of green manufactured exports in total manufactured winsorisation approach to reduce the influence of extreme values
exports on the composite index ranking, was proposed recently by Boudt
 G. Halkos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516 3

et al. (2020). Therefore, here we will briefly review the approach, earnings of women in manufacturing.
the framework and computation, and will focus on the changes that An important criterion for the selection of the indicators is the
were introduced to the methodology. availability of data over time and across countries. One important
For building the GIP index two equally important aspects of disadvantage of the composite indices is the fact that all sub-
economic development were considered: the domestic production indicators must be present in order to compute the correspond-
of goods and their international trade. For this purpose, both the ing index; even if a single indicator is missing for a given country,
share of green industrial production in the overall manufacturing this country has to be excluded from the index. Therefore, in-
production and the share of exported green products in the total dicators that lack data for long periods or have very low coverage
exported manufacturing products are measured. Next to produc- across countries will be excluded from consideration. Furthermore,
tion, another important concept in our analysis is that of green jobs. the indicators must come from official, reliable data sources with
These ideas can be wrapped up into a simple, straightforward clear methodology behind the data collection and estimation pro-
framework, which captures different aspects of the country’s green cess and to be sustained also in the future. These four indicators are
industrial performance through three key dimensions: (a) the ca- collected into one dimension, Inclusiveness, and they are added to
pacity to produce and export green products; (b) the role of green the rest six indicators of GIP to form the new proposed index, In-
manufacturing; and (c) the social and environmental aspects of clusive Green Industrial performance (IGIP) with a summary of
green manufacturing. Each of these three dimensions is based on these indicators presented in Table 2.
two underlying indicators with a summary of the indicators pre- Let us next describe the data sources and the methodology of
sented in Table 1. It is interesting to note that one of these indicators data collection for each of the four additional indicators and then
is closely related to the SDG 9 indicator “9.2.1: Manufacturing value continue with a brief overview of the descriptive statistics of these
added as a proportion of GDP and per capita” and another indicator indicators. Eventually, the computation of the index based on the
is identical to the SDG 9 indicator “9.4.1: CO2 emission per unit of 10 indicators will be briefly described.
value added”.
The most important component for measuring the indicators 2.1. Labor force participation of women in manufacturing (FEMsh)
related to green industrial production and trade is a list of products
considered ‘green’. Different approaches to comprehensively list The first indicator to consider is the labor force participation of
the products that qualify as ‘green’ have been developed for pur- women in manufacturing (FEMsh) which is an important driver (and
poses of research but also to facilitate trade negotiations by outcome) of growth and development. The most reliable source of
reducing or removing tariffs. There is, however, no universally these data are establishment surveys in manufacturing routinely
agreed definition of what constitutes such a list of green products. done by the NSOs in the countries and maintained in the UNIDO
In Moll de Alba and Todorov (2020) a consolidated list of green Statistics database INDSTAT. However, not many countries report
products is developed, its properties are studied and its limitations regularly these data to UNIDO and we could calculate the indicator
and other issues are pointed out. for around 47 countries which is insufficient for the constructing of
To calculate the composite index, values for all six sub- the index, therefore we turn to the ILO database ILOSTAT
indicators must be available, and the dealing with missingness “Employment by sex and economic activity (thousands)
through imputation takes place before normalization and aggre- 2006e2018“ (ILO, 2019). The employed comprise all persons of
gation. The procedures for handling missing data and outliers are working age who, during a specified brief period, were in the
described in Annex 2 of Moll de Alba and Todorov (2018). following categories: a) paid employment (whether at work or with
To add a manufacturing related inclusiveness component to the a job but not at work); or b) self-employment (whether at work or
index we will look for indicators which measure the participation with an enterprise but not at work). The data are disaggregated by
of a broad range of people including the poor and marginalized, economic activity according the International Standard Industrial
such as women and ethnic minorities as well as the equal distri- Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) (Revision 3 or Revi-
bution of wealth and economic opportunities. Thus, the green in- sion 4).
dustrial performance will contribute to the development only if it is An economic activity refers to the main activity of the estab-
related to the inclusiveness in terms of employment, gender, edu- lishment in which a person worked during the reference period and
cation and income. The last on, the income inequality measure is does not depend on the specific duties or functions of the person’s
general and not related to manufacturing while the others reveal job, but on the characteristics of the economic unit in which this
the equal opportunities for access to employment, education and person works. Main data source is a kind of labour force survey

Table 1
Summary of the GIP indicators.

Indicator Description Source

First dimension: Capacity to produce and export green manufactures

1 GMVApc Green MVA per capita (current USD) UNIDO INDSTATb
2 GMXpc Green manufactured exports per capita (current USD) UN COMTRADEc
Second dimension: Role of green manufacturing
3 GMVAsh Share of green MVA in total MVA (%) UNIDO INDSTATb
4 GMXsh Share of green manufactured exports in total manufactured exports (%) UN COMTRADEc
Third dimension: Social and environmental aspects of green manufacturing
5 GEMPsh Share of green manufacturing employment in total manufacturing employment (%) UNIDO INDSTATb
6 CO2VAa CO2 emission from manufacturing per unit of manufacturing value added (ton/USD) IEAd, UNIDO MVAe

Notes.
a
Indicators for which higher values indicate lower performance in the measured phenomenon.
b
UNIDO (2020b).
c
United Nations Statistics Division (2020).
d
OECD (2020a).
e
UNIDO (2020a).
4 G. Halkos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516

Table 2
Summary of the inclusiveness indicators in IGIP.

Indicator Description Source

Fourth dimension: Inclusiveness

1 FEMsh Labor force participation of women in manufacturing (in per cent) ILOb
2 GPG Gender pay ratio (in per cent) ILOc
3 EDUsh Share of female in relevant tertiary education (in per cent) UISd
4 GINIa Inequality measure WBe

Notes.
a
Indicators for which higher values indicate lower performance in the measured phenomenon.
b
ILO (2020a).
c
ILO (2020b).
d
UIS (2020).
e
WB (2020).

however, for many developing countries, particularly in Africa, the analysis of the two series. After removing several multivariate
data comes from Household surveys and also in a few cases the data outliers (visible in the scatterplot in the top right panel), the cor-
come from population census, administrative sources or official relation becomes 90%. The numbers in the bottom left panel are the
estimates. The data source contains all available data for a given robust (in red) and classical correlation. The top right panel pre-
country, i.e. more then one survey is used for the same years. This sents a scatter plot of the indicators with 0.975 tollerance ellipses
leads to duplicated observations and we had to decide country by (robust and classical). Also, comparing visually the numbers (for
country which particular data item to choose. countries and years where data in both database are available), we
From the ILO database we could extract 173 countries but many see that the differences are minimal. Therefore, we recover several
of them have data for only one single year (mainly in Africa) and on countries (China, Jordan, Lebanon, Kenya, and Iraq) from INDSTAT
the other hand countries like China, Jordan, Lebanon, Kenya, Iraq and thus increase the number of countries to 180.
and Congo are missing (i.e., even if data are provided, they are not
disaggregated by sex). In 2016, 106 countries are present. The data 2.2. Gender pay ratio (GPG)
are stored as integer numbers in thousands, which leads to loosing
information for small numbers (for example Micronesia has in The second indicator of inclusiveness which we will consider is
2014 100% female occupation in manufacturing, because the related to the gender pay gap (in manufacturing) which reflects
numbers recorded are 1 and 0 (for female and male respectively). inequalities that affect mainly women, notably horizontal and
We try to recover some of the missing countries from the IND- vertical segregation of the labour market. The strict definition of
STAT database (UNIDO, 2020b) and first compare the indicator gender pay gap (OECD, 2020b) is “the difference between the me-
computed in these two databases. Fig. 1 presents the correlation dian earnings of men and of women as a proportion of the median

Fig. 1. Correlation analysis of the indicator female labour force participation in manufacturing (FEMsh) computed from the two databases (ILOSTAT and INDSTAT).
Source: ILO (2020a) and UNIDO (2020b).
 G. Halkos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516 5

earnings of men”. The most significant factors associated with the of programmes.2 As a most relevant to the inclusiveness in
gender pay gap are part-time work, education and occupational manufacturing we consider the indicator “Share of female in rele-
segregation (less women in leading positions and in fields like vant tertiary education: Engineering, Manufacturing and
STEM). The World Economic Forum provides data from 2015 that Construction”.
evaluates the gender pay gap in 145 countries. Their evaluations Data on this indicator is available from the UNESCO database
take into account also economic participation and opportunity, (UIS, 2020). There is already a large volume of work dedicated to
educational attainment, health and survival, and political empow- measuring equity, and much of this work is founded in analysis of
erment scores but the data are useful only as a ranking, not in ab- economic inequality. UNESCO has adapted such principles to edu-
solute values as estimates of wages disaggregated by sex. The cation and has published a Handbook on Measuring Equity in Ed-
indicator “Wage equality between men and women for similar ucation (UIS, 2018). The gender gap in the participation rate of
work” was obtained from the World Economic Forum’s Executive adults in formal and non-formal education varies greatly across
Opinion Survey, using the response to the survey question, “In your countries, with women in some countries, and men in other
country, for similar work, to what extent are wages for women countries, less likely to participate. In general, the gender gap fa-
equal to those of men?” (1 ¼ not at all, significantly below those of vours girls in education, but men in the labour market (OECD,
men; 7 ¼ fully, equal to those of men). The data is then converted to 2018).
a female-over-male ratio. Fig. 2 presents the distribution of tertiary graduates by gender
The gap is usually unadjusted (not corrected for gender differ- and field of study in 2016, averaged over all countries for which
ences in observable characteristics that may explain part of the data were available. While some fields are on the equity line
earnings gap). Data on gender pay gap calculated by this formula (Agriculture, Natural sciences, mathematics and statistics, Business,
are available from OECD (OECD, 2020b), but unfortunately only for administration and law) others are significantly in favor of women,
the OECD countries. EUROSTAT uses mean instead of median to the field we are interested in, namely Engineering, Manufacturing
average the earnings, on an hourly base (Eurostat, 2020). ILO has and Construction, is strongly biased towards men.
also data on gender pay gap, however with relatively low coverage
and disaggregated by occupation only. We cannot use any of these 2.4. Measuring inequality (GINI)
data sets to find the gender pay gap in manufacturing.
The most suitable data for calculating the gender pay gap, To compare and rank inequality of income distribution between
available from ILO, are the mean nominal monthly earnings of countries we need an inequality measure, which could be a func-
employees by sex and economic activity in local currency (ILO, tion that designates a value to a specific distribution of income
2020b). Data are disaggregated by economic activity according to within an economy. This mapping should be done in such a way
the latest version of the International Standard Industrial Classifi- that allows direct and objective comparisons across different dis-
cation of All Economic Activities (ISIC) (United Nations, 2002, 2008) tributions. Several such measures are defined and used in the
available for that year. Economic activity refers to the main activity literature, starting from the simple graphical presentation through
of the establishment in which a person worked during the refer- a Lorenz curve, different indices and ratios (United Nations, 2015).
ence period and does not depend on the specific duties or functions The GINI index is the most widely cited measure of inequality,
of the person’s job, but on the characteristics of the economic unit which measures the extent to which the distribution within an
in which this person works. Using these data we will create a simple economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. The index can
indicator to reflect gender pay gap e the ratio of women’s average be defined graphically through the Lorenz curve, which plots the
earnings to men’s average earnings, expressed in percent. A ratio of cumulative percentages of total income received against the cu-
100 per cent indicates that there is no gender pay gap: women are mulative number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual
paid the same as men while a ratio below 100 indicates that women or household. It is computed as the ratio of the area between the
earn less than men. From this data set we could calculate the Lorenz curve and 45-degree line (a hypothetical line of absolute
gender pay ratio for 137 countries, but still countries like USA, India, equality) to the area beneath the 45-degree line. In the example
China, and the Netherlands are missing. We were able to obtain presented in Fig. 3, it is equal to A/(A þ B) with the dotted line
data for some of these countries from other sources. Namely for the presenting the line of perfect equality.
USA from we use data from US Department of Labor,1 for India from The Gini coefficient yields a value between 0 and 1, with
UNIDO (2014), and for the Netherlands from United Nations 0 signifying perfect equality and 1 signifying perfect inequality.
Statistics Division (2015). According to World Bank data, between 1981 and 2013, the Gini
index ranged between 0.3 and 0.6 worldwide. The coefficient al-
lows direct comparison of two populations’ income distribution,
2.3. Share of female in relevant tertiary education (EDUsh)
regardless of their sizes.
Our main data source is the World Bank (World Bank, 2020) but
The SDG framework has a specific goal on Education - SDG 4
not all countries can be covered by these data. As a secondary data
adopts a lifelong learning approach to education and introduces
source we use the CIA World Fact Book (Central Intelligence Agency,
vocational and tertiary education into the global agenda. It makes
2020). From this data source we take China, Hong Kong SAR,
explicit reference to higher education, promising to “ensure equal
Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Cambodia and New Zea-
access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical,
land. The third source is Liberati (2015) where we found the GINI
vocational, and tertiary education, including university”. The SDG 4
coefficient for Kuwait, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. Several
agenda provides a range of indicators to measure the participation
other countries come from different sources: Afghanistan and Qatar
and skills of individuals throughout their lives, encompassing levels
from the Human Development Report of the United Nations
in and outside compulsory education and considering a wide range
Development Program (2020) and New Zealand in 2014 from
OECD (2020c).
1
https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/NEWSTATS/facts/earn_earnings_ratio.
htm#earn-genderratio.
2.5. Exploratory data analysis of the new indicators
2
A list of all the indicators and their methodologies is available at http://
SDG4monitoring.uis.unesco.org. Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of the indicators.
6 G. Halkos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516

Fig. 2. Distribution of tertiary graduates by gender and field of study (2016) on average of all countries for which data were available in the world.
Source: UIS (2020).

Fig. 3. Example of a Lorenz curve (solid line).

 G. Halkos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516 7

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of the indicators.

Indicator Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. sd MAD CV skewness

GMVApc 0.00 8.84 50.30 176.69 216.18 2310.08 0.17 0.03 1.81 3.97
GMVAsh 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.18 0.24 0.25 0.74 0.48
GEMPsh 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.21 0.24 0.25 0.73 0.64
GMXsh 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.40 0.17 0.15 0.78 2.82
GMXpc 0.08 25.32 179.62 581.78 709.19 4472.58 0.21 0.05 1.48 2.03
CO2VA 0.04 0.17 0.31 0.60 0.75 3.53 0.18 0.09 1.18 2.18

FEMsh 1.39 27.68 32.99 34.20 39.93 74.94 0.18 0.14 0.38 0.31
GPG 0.87 74.44 79.41 78.62 85.43 100.00 0.13 0.09 0.16 2.67
EDUsh 6.02 21.72 27.04 27.61 32.68 64.59 0.16 0.14 0.33 0.71
GINI 25.00 30.88 34.60 35.73 39.72 63.00 0.20 0.24 0.20 0.99

Note: MAD is the median absolute deviation from the median and CV is the coefficient of variation.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the sources listed in Tables 1 and 2.

Additionally to the standard descriptive statistics (minimum, however the countries shown in red were included in the IGIP
maximum, mean, median, standard deviation, first and third index.
quartile) also the median absolute deviation (MAD), coefficient of Obviously, an obstacle in ours and in any similar research is the
variation (CV) and skewness are presented. The CV measures the limited data coverage which forced us to drop a number of coun-
relative variability by dividing the standard deviation by the mean tries not reporting data during the considered period on particular
and then multiplying by 100 to render a percent (in our case it indicators. The industrial production data has lower coverage than
makes sense to use CV since all indicators are nonnegative). The the international trade data. Employment and CO2 emissions data
MAD, calculated as the median of the absolute deviations from the are also missing for some countries. From the 104 countries which
median and multiplied by a suitable consistency factor is a robust we analyzed on the GIP index in Moll de Alba and Todorov (2020)
measure of scale, which differently from the standard deviation, (reference year 2015) remained only 83 countries when we added
will not be influenced by outliers in the data. The median and MAD the four new indicators on inclusiveness. It should be noted that in
are used to construct the boxplots shown in Fig. 4, which are useful the meantime the GIP can be computed for two more countries
for detection of outliers. The skewness is the third standardized (Niger and United Arab Emirates) which are already included in
central moment of a distribution and if its values are far from zero, IGIP. Thus, there are 23 countries for which GIP can be computed
the distribution is skewed: to the left if the value of the skewness but not IGIP. First of all, China was dropped out because it does not
measure is negative and to the right if this value is positive. report data disaggregated by gender and thus neither GPG nor
The large gaps between the mean and median of subindicators EDUsh could be computed. Similarly, data by gender is missing for
GMVApc and GMXpc indicate that the sub-indicators have a Senegal and Turkmenistan. Brunei Darussalam was dropped
skewed distribution with long tails. The large differences between because of missing data on GINI. For the following 11 countries data
the standard deviation (sd) and the median absolute deviation on education by gender (EDUsh) are missing: Bolivia, Botswana,
(MAD) also indicate that there are extreme values in these sub- Cameroon, Mauritius, Montenegro, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay,
indicators. The distribution of the four new indicators is much Russian Federation, Tanzania and Yemen and finally, there are 8
smoother. countries without data on GPG: Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Fig. 4 indicates some outliers in the four new inclusiveness in- Morocco, Oman and Tunisia.
dicators. The outliers shown in blue colour are not that important, Only five African countries (Egypt, South Africa, Ethiopia, Niger
because these countries did not participate in the calculation of the and Ghana) report data on education and inequality.
final index (due to missing data in some of the other indicators),

Fig. 4. Outliers in the four new inclusiveness indicators.

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the sources listed in Table 2.
8 G. Halkos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516

2.6. Compilation of the index analysis. Moreover, it is also worth noting that, unfortunately,
Russia and China are missing from our sample. In both cases, data
Each of the ten indicators is normalized into the range [0, 1], on education by gender was missing. Moreover, China provides
with higher scores representing better outcomes (except for the data on salaries by gender only at the aggregate level with data for
two “negative” indicators, CO2 emissions by manufacturing value manufacturing not been available.
added and GINI, for which lower values mean better performance). Our future research extension will endeavour to find alternative
Normalization is carried out by the min-max method, where the ways to estimate the IGIP index for additional African economies
minimum and maximum values of each indicator sample values are and thus enlarge the IGIP index population.
taken. This is done to enable aggregation, as the indicators have It is worth noticing that in 2016, industrialized economies top
different measurement units. We do use geometric aggregation as the IGIP ranking. Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, the Czech Re-
aggregation method as under the geometric aggregation method, public and Austria hold the five first IGIP positions in 2016 with
the index is constructed as a weighted geometric average of all sub- values that range from 0.566 to 0.466. It is also interesting to see
indicators, using equal weights for each indicator and each country. that a similar pattern emerged from our earlier research (Moll de
Alba and Todorov, 2020) contained in the latest version of the
Green Industrial Performance index which did not consider inclu-
3. Analysis of inclusive and green industrial performance of siveness, and for which Denmark, Singapore, the Republic of Korea,
economies using IGIP index Germany and the Czech Republic were the top five GIP performers
in 2015.
The ultimate objective of the IGIP index is to enable gaining a Coming back to our IGIP index, it is worth stressing that 25
comparative overview of the inclusive and green industrial per- industrialized economies rank among the 26 IGIP index performers
formance at the economy level. Having already introduced the IGIP in 2016 with the sole exception of Poland, an emerging industrial
index and its components as well as the methodological approach, economy that ranks 16th. It is also noticeable that the best-ranked
we proceed to calculate it. In this section, we undertake an analysis developing economies top the bottom half of our IGIP population
of the inclusive and green industrial performance and progress over with Bosnia Herzegovina, Vietnam, Ecuador, Georgia and Jordan in
time of those economies. Due to data availability, we can compute positions 43 to 47. All seven LDCs included in our population are in
the IGIP index and its components for as many as 83 economies in the bottom quintile starting with Myanmar and Bangladesh in
2016. Readers can find the 2016 IGIP index and its components in ranks 68 and 69, respectively. Turkey (36), Thailand (37), and Ghana
Annex, Table A1. (70) top the rankings within the MENA region, South and Southeast
Fig. 5 serves to illustrate graphically the significant differences Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, respectively.
among economies in terms of the IGIP values in 2016. The darker an We are interested in analysing and presenting the changes of
economy is shadowed, the higher its IGIP index is. The index ranges our index per quintile as well as those economies that experienced
as widely as from 0.566 in Switzerland to almost nil in Niger. The significant changes over time in their rankings. Whereas, during
below map also serves to underline the very limited coverage of the period from 2013 to 2016, we observe overall stability in the
African economies due to the lack of the necessary data to compute rankings of economies, a limited number of economies moved from
the IGIP index. Out of 54 African economies only five, namely, one quintile to one other. All in all, 16 economies out of 83 changed
Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Niger and South Africa, are included in our

Fig. 5. Distribution of IGIP index worldwide in 2016.

Source: Annex, Table A1.
 G. Halkos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516 9

quintiles in that period. Poland moved up from the upper middle to improvement in their IGIP to reach 0.165, 0.133 and 0.131 in 2016,
the top quintile while Norway, France and Canada experienced the respectively. Sub-Saharan Africa remained at the bottom and its
opposite move. Mexico, the best performer in the LAC region, and IGIP index fell further during the period to reach a low value of
Japan moved to the upper-middle quintile whereas Australia and 0.0433 in 2016.
Luxembourg dropped to the middle quintile. Indonesia and Fig. 7 presents the scores and ranks of the top performers in the
Kyrgyzstan dropped from the lower-middle to the bottom quintile. whole sample, as well as per region and development grouping (see
Moreover, some economies made remarkable progress in terms Upadhyaya, 2013 for the industrial development groupings we use
of IGIP ranking including Iceland, which moved from the bottom to in this article). In its three sections, the figure shows (a) the top
the middle quintile, Vietnam and Malta gaining 38, 10 and 9 posi- three countries; (b) the leaders in the geographical regions and (c)
tions, respectively. One can look at the various components of the the top three countries leading each of the four development
IGIP index and seek to understand what has led the changes of a groups. If a country is already listed in the top three, then the
given economy. In the case of Iceland, for instance, the significant runner-up is highlighted in the group of regional leaders. Similarly,
move, i.e. 38 positions in the ranking, was led by a very significant if a country is included in the group of regional leader, the runner-
increase in green MVA and manufactured exports per capita that up will come in first among the development group leaders. For
reached US$ 289.62 and US$ 208.09 in 2016 compared to example for industrialized economies, six countries perform better
US$120.95 US$ 146.65 in 2013, respectively. The shares of both than Republic of Korea, but these have already been listed above,
indicators increased significantly to reach 4.55% (GMVAsh) and namely Denmark, Switzerland, Germany and Singapore as they all
2.45% (GMXsh) Iceland also experienced a significant increase of its perform better than Republic of Korea. In each bar is shown the
green employment share that reached 4.73% in 2016. On the other rank of the country and the slider on the right shows the change of
hand, the emissions per unit of MVA increased during the same the rank in 2016 compared to 2013.
period from 0.198 to 0.245 kg, which leads us to think that there is We are particularly interested in looking at the performance of
room for improvement on this particular area. countries in each of the ten IGIP components in 2016. The IGIP top
At the same time, other economies experienced a significant ranking economy, Switzerland with US$ 2,293.49 MVA per capita
drop including Ukraine, Indonesia and Kyrgyzstan that lost 11 po- more than doubled the value per capita of Germany with US$
sitions, as well as Ireland and Albania, which dropped by 15 and 51 1,033.93, second economy in this IGIP component and almost
positions, respectively. When looking at the IGIP components of tripled that of the third economy, the Republic of Korea with
Albania, one can conclude that its decline in terms of IGIP ranking US$774.26. Similarly, Switzerland with 17.8% GMVA share signifi-
over the period 2013e2016 is explained mainly by the vanishing of cantly outperformed Germany with 13.4% and the Republic of Ko-
its 2013 US$19.20 green MVA per capita and 4.93% green employ- rea with 12.9%. Switzerland also tops the sample when looking at
ment share. Fig. 6 provides us an analysis of the IGIP index per the green manufacturing employment share with 21 followed by,
world geographical region. once more, Germany with 13.4% and, surprisingly, by Azerbaijan
Despite remaining on the top region in terms of IGIP, North with 13.23%. A radically different picture emerges when looking at
America lost ground compared to other world regions and its index the value of green manufactured exports per capita. Singapore tops
dropped significantly from 0.466 to 0.383 during 2000e2016. our sample with US$4,322.55 with a significant lead over China,
Europe experienced some improvement as proven by its index that Hong Kong SAR and Denmark with US$2,882.85 and US$2,552.18,
increased from 0.317 to 0.336 while East Asia declined slightly to respectively.
reach 0.308 in 2016. With significant lower values, Latin America, If one focuses on the share of green manufactured exports and in
MENA and South and South East Asia displayed a moderate line with our previous research, one notices that Trinidad and

Average IGIP Index score by geographical region, 2000-2016, IGIP edition 2019

0.5

0.4
Average IGIP index score

East Asia
0.3 Europe
Latin America
MENA
North America
South and South East Asia
0.2 Sub-saharan Africa

0.1

0.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fig. 6. IGIP index per world geographical region.

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the sources listed in Tables 1 and 2.
10 G. Halkos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516

Fig. 7. Scores and ranks of the top performing countries in the IGIP Index.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the sources listed in Tables 1 and 2.

Fig. 8. Radar-type chart presentation of the IGIP normalized scores.

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the sources listed in Tables 1 and 2.
 G. Halkos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516 11

Tobago with 40.3% tops the sample, probably due to the limited size and has potential to improve in green MVA and green employment
of its manufacturing sector and concentration in a limited number share. Germany shows room for improvement in inequality and
of products, followed by Denmark and Hungary with 19.1% and EDUsh. Czechia performs comparatively poorly in green MVA per
14.4%, respectively. Also consistent with our previous research, capita while Austria could improve in most components, particu-
Ireland and Switzerland outperform other countries when looking larly in GMVAsh, GEMPsh and GPG.
at their emissions in kg per unit of MVA with 0.038 and 0.041, To illustrate the different performance of the top five performers
respectively. In the following paragraphs, we focus on the inclu- in each IGIP indicator and underline areas that might offer room for
siveness indicators comprised in the IGIP index. In terms of labour potential improvement, we also produce individual radar-type
force participation of women in manufacturing, Niger, Ghana, charts for each of those countries (see Fig. 9).
Cambodia and Ethiopia led our sample with more than 60% in 2016. Making use of a Pearson correlation (0.69), we compare the IGIP
When looking at the gender pay gap in manufacturing, Panama scores with UNIDO’s competitive industrial performance index CIP
jointly with some Gulf countries, likely due to the limited number index scores for countries for which both indices are computed. The
of female working in the manufacturing sector and focusing on CIP serves to assess and benchmark national industrial competi-
high-end activities, topped our sample in 2016. Myanmar and tiveness. In Fig. 10, which shows a scatterplot of IGIP scores against
Uruguay topped the EDU sh whereas Ukraine, Belarus, Slovenia and CIP scores, three groups of countries seem to emerge. We can first
Czechia displayed the lowest inequality measured with the GINI identify a group of countries such as Denmark, Czechia and
coefficient. Switzerland that outperform in terms of IGIP compared to their CIP
We further analyze the performance of Switzerland, Denmark, performance. Then we see a cluster of countries that perform very
Germany, Czechia and Austria, the top five performers in 2016 in well in terms of both the IGIP and CIP including Germany, the Re-
terms of the ten IGIP components. For that purpose, Fig. 8 seeks to public of Korea and Singapore. Finally, we notice a group of coun-
summarise such performance by making use of a radar-type chart tries such as Japan and Ireland that perform better in terms of the
that presents the normalized scores of the ten IGIP components. CIP index than on the IGIP index. Further research including an in-
The first conclusion that one can draw from the below figure is depth analysis of the existing national policy frameworks related to
the diverse performance of the top ranking economies when industrial, environmental and inclusiveness issues would be help-
focusing on different IGIP indicators. Switzerland, IGIP top ful to shed light on the above different patterns of performance.
performer in 2016, outperforms other economies in both per capita
and share terms of GMVA, as well as in terms of GEMP share. While
Switzerland performs well in terms of CO2 emissions, the country 4. Conclusions
displays significant room for improvement in terms of green
manufactured exports share eas well as per capitae, EDUsh and In this paper, we compute the new proposed IGIP index and
inequality. Denmark outperforms this group in GMX pc and GPG calculate the indicators it comprises for 83 economies for the
period 2013e2016. Our analysis underlines the significant

Fig. 9. Radar-type charts of the IGIP normalized scores for the top five performs.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the sources listed in Tables 1 and 2.
12 G. Halkos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516

Fig. 10. Correlation of the IGIP index with UNIDO’s Competitive Industrial Performance (CIP) index.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the sources listed in Tables 1 and 2 as well as UNIDO 2020(c).

differences among economies in terms of their inclusive and green investigated also other methods for imputation of missing data,
industrial performance as measured by the IGIP index. It is worth particularly multiple imputations that draw many different esti-
underlining that industrialized economies top the IGIP ranking. mates for each missing observation and the final result is obtained
Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, the Czech Republic and Austria, as average of all trials. One avenue to study is the multiple impu-
which are the top performers in 2016, show different patterns of tation with state space model proposed by Lin et al., 2019 which
performance when one analyses how they do in terms of each IGIP extends the multiple imputation by chain equations (MICE) of
indicator. It is also noticeable that despite a general stability, a Buuren and Groothuis-Oudshoor (2011) to time series data.
restricted number of economies experienced significant changes in Another method that worth studying is AMELIA, developed by
their rankings, e.g. Iceland moved up by 38 places during Honaker and King (2010) specifically to deal specifically with time-
2013e2016. Finally, while Europe managed to reduce the gap with series cross-section data at the country-level (see also Castellacci
North America, the IGIP top region whose performance declined and Natera, 2011). The preliminary results look promising, and
over the period 2013e2016. we intend to follow and further explore this approach in our future
The IGIP index offers an evidence-based tool, which builds upon research. When applying such novel imputation methods it will be
data produced by international sources ensuring their compara- of prime importance to study how these methods as well as other
bility and reliability, to monitor over time and benchmark the in- modelling choices contributing to uncertainty, affect the final IGIP
clusive and green industrial performance of the economies of the index.
world. Compared to our earlier GIP index, which focused exclu- Another important issue are the rank shifts caused by extreme
sively on green industrial performance, the IGIP index fills a gap in observations in sub-indicators, which can be investigated using the
the existing body of knowledge as it equips policy-makers and distribution-driven winsorisation approach as proposed recently
scholars with a sound tool to gain an understanding of the status of by Boudt et al. (2020).
green and inclusiveness dimensions of industry at the country Future research to enhance the IGIP index underlying method-
level. ology and to enlarge its geographical coverage will certainly pro-
A limitation of the study (and in any similar research) is the vide policy-makers and practitioners with a sound mechanism to
limited data coverage which forced us to drop a number of coun- measure and benchmark the status and progress of inclusive and
tries not reporting data during the considered period on particular green industrial performance of the world economies. This will, in
indicators. Details on the difference in coverage between GIP (Moll turn, make a substantial contribution to the ongoing policy debate
de Alba and Todorov, 2020) and IGIP are given in Section 2.5. One about the most appropriate tools and mechanism to achieve the
approach is to look for alternative sources in such cases, but we objectives set up by the international community in the framework
 G. Halkos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516 13

of the 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development and which are CRediT authorship contribution statement
encapsulated in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
George Halkos: All authors contributed equally to each section
of this paper. Authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript. Jaime Moll de Alba: All authors
Disclaimer
contributed equally to each section of this paper. Authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Valentin
The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do
Todorov: All authors contributed equally to each section of this
not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Industrial
paper. Authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
Development Organization. (As provided for in Administrative
manuscript.
Circular UNIDO/DA/PS/AC.69 of 17. December 1990). This document
has been produced without formal United Nations editing. The
designations employed and the presentation of the material in this Declaration of competing interest
document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations Industrial The authors declare that they have no known competing
Development Organization (UNIDO) concerning the legal status of financial interests or personal relationships that could have
any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or its economic
system or degree of development. Designations such as “devel- Acknowledgments
oped”, “industrialized” and “developing” are intended for statistical
convenience and do not necessarily express a judgment about the We thank the Editors and the anonymous reviewers for their
stage reached by a particular country or area in the development helpful and constructive comments. Any remaining errors are
process. Mention of firm names or commercial products does not solely the authors responsibility.
constitute an endorsement by UNIDO. The opinions, statistical data
and estimates contained herein are the responsibility of the au- ANNEX
thor(s) and should not necessarily be considered as reflecting the
views of bearing the endorsement of UNIDO.

Table A1
Green Industrial Performance Index and its rankings with country groups by industrialization level, quintile and change during 2013e2016

Quintile Rank 2016 Country group Country Score 2016 Rank 2013 Score 2013 Change in rank 2013e2016

TOP 1 IND Switzerland 0.566 2 0.592 1

TOP 2 IND Denmark 0.566 1 0.631 1
TOP 3 IND Germany 0.538 4 0.562 1
TOP 4 IND Czechia 0.538 3 0.587 1
TOP 5 IND Austria 0.466 6 0.510 1
TOP 6 IND Hungary 0.465 5 0.512 1
TOP 7 IND Republic of Korea 0.449 8 0.480 1
TOP 8 IND Slovenia 0.449 7 0.496 1
TOP 9 IND Singapore 0.445 11 0.456 2
TOP 10 IND Sweden 0.445 10 0.463 0
TOP 11 IND Slovakia 0.438 13 0.443 2
TOP 12 IND Italy 0.436 9 0.479 3
TOP 13 IND Finland 0.429 12 0.454 1
TOP 14 IND United States of America 0.401 14 0.422 0
TOP 15 IND Belgium 0.398 15 0.414 0
TOP 16 EIE Poland 0.386 19 0.394 3
TOP 17 IND Norway 0.382 18 0.399 1
U-MID 18 IND Estonia 0.375 24 0.357 6
U-MID 19 IND Lithuania 0.374 25 0.355 6
U-MID 20 IND France 0.370 16 0.404 4
U-MID 21 IND United Kingdom 0.368 20 0.371 1
U-MID 22 IND Portugal 0.365 26 0.354 4
U-MID 23 IND Canada 0.365 17 0.400 6
U-MID 24 IND Malaysia 0.355 27 0.353 3
U-MID 25 IND Spain 0.350 21 0.367 4
U-MID 26 IND Netherlands 0.350 22 0.365 4
U-MID 27 EIE Croatia 0.344 23 0.363 4
U-MID 28 EIE Romania 0.343 29 0.326 1
U-MID 29 EIE Bulgaria 0.309 30 0.322 1
U-MID 30 IND Trinidad and Tobago 0.304 33 0.313 3
U-MID 31 EIE Latvia 0.303 28 0.335 3
U-MID 32 EIE Mexico 0.299 34 0.308 2
U-MID 33 IND Japan 0.285 35 0.292 2
MID 34 IND Australia 0.276 31 0.317 3
MID 35 IND Luxembourg 0.274 32 0.315 3
MID 36 EIE Turkey 0.269 39 0.271 3
MID 37 EIE Thailand 0.265 40 0.263 3
MID 38 IND Iceland 0.262 76 0.040 38
MID 39 IND New Zealand 0.259 37 0.283 2
(continued on next page)
14 G. Halkos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516

Table A1 (continued )

Quintile Rank 2016 Country group Country Score 2016 Rank 2013 Score 2013 Change in rank 2013e2016

MID 40 IND Israel 0.239 44 0.234 4

MID 41 EIE Greece 0.232 42 0.253 1
MID 42 DEV Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.224 43 0.235 1
MID 43 DEV Viet Nam 0.202 53 0.175 10
MID 44 DEV Ecuador 0.197 45 0.209 1
MID 45 DEV Georgia 0.192 41 0.253 4
MID 46 DEV Jordan 0.192 46 0.203 0
MID 47 IND Belarus 0.189 52 0.176 5
MID 48 DEV Philippines 0.184 48 0.189 0
MID 49 EIE Ukraine 0.183 38 0.283 11
MID 50 EIE Cyprus 0.181 47 0.197 3
L-MID 51 IND Ireland 0.174 36 0.286 15
L-MID 52 EIE Argentina 0.170 50 0.182 2
L-MID 53 IND United Arab Emirates 0.168 54 0.174 1
L-MID 54 EIE Brazil 0.164 49 0.186 5
L-MID 55 EIE Colombia 0.160 57 0.156 2
L-MID 56 EIE Egypt 0.158 55 0.166 1
L-MID 57 DEV Sri Lanka 0.156 56 0.162 1
L-MID 58 EIE India 0.151 59 0.146 1
L-MID 59 DEV Azerbaijan 0.148 65 0.116 6
L-MID 60 DEV Panama 0.132 64 0.120 4
L-MID 61 EIE Chile 0.131 61 0.138 0
L-MID 62 EIE Kazakhstan 0.128 67 0.106 5
L-MID 63 DEV Republic of Moldova 0.122 60 0.142 3
L-MID 64 EIE Uruguay 0.120 63 0.129 1
L-MID 65 EIE Peru 0.110 66 0.114 1
L-MID 66 IND Malta 0.107 75 0.060 9
BOTTOM 67 LDC Myanmar 0.106 69 0.098 2
BOTTOM 68 LDC Bangladesh 0.102 70 0.098 2
BOTTOM 69 EIE Indonesia 0.100 58 0.150 11
BOTTOM 70 DEV Ghana 0.094 71 0.093 1
BOTTOM 71 IND China, Hong Kong SAR 0.087 68 0.100 3
BOTTOM 72 DEV Armenia 0.081 72 0.088 0
BOTTOM 73 DEV Kyrgyzstan 0.073 62 0.134 11
BOTTOM 74 LDC Ethiopia 0.050 79 0.028 5
BOTTOM 75 DEV Mongolia 0.050 73 0.071 2
BOTTOM 76 EIE Saudi Arabia 0.033 77 0.032 1
BOTTOM 77 EIE South Africa 0.029 78 0.031 1
BOTTOM 78 LDC Cambodia 0.024 80 0.022 2
BOTTOM 79 LDC Nepal 0.022 74 0.070 5
BOTTOM 80 DEV Syrian Arab Republic 0.005 81 0.006 1
BOTTOM 81 IND Qatar 0.004 82 0.003 1
BOTTOM 82 DEV Albania 0.001 51 0.180 31
BOTTOM 83 LDC Niger 0.000 83 0.000 0

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the sources listed in Tables 1 and 2.

Note: The country group codes in column “Country Group” (based on the industrial country groupings put forward in Upadhyaya, 2013) are as follows: IND¼Industrialized
economies, EIE ¼ Emerging industrialized economies, DEV ¼ Other developing economies, LDC ¼ Least developed countries.

References ILO, 2020b. Mean Nominal Monthly Earnings of Employees, by Sex and Economic
Activity. ILOSTAT database. https://ilostat.ilo.org/data. (Accessed 14 February
2020).
Aksoy, T., Gonel, F., 2015. How green is my industry? The case of Turkey. World J. Sci.
IPCC, 2018. Global Warming of 1.5
C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of
Tech. Sustain. Dev. 12 (2), 119e128.
Global Warming of 1.5
C above Pre-industrial Levels and Related Global
Boudt, K., Todorov, V., Wang, W., 2020. Robust distribution-based winsorization in
Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global
composite indicators construction. Soc. Indicat. Res. 149, 375e397. https://
Response to the Threat of Climate Change. sustainable development, and efforts
doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02259-w.
to eradicate (in press).
Buuren, S., Groothuis-Oudshoor, K., 2011. MICE: multivariate imputation by chained
Liberati, P., 2015. The world distribution of income and its inequality, 1970e2009.
equations in R. J. Stat. Software 45 (3), 1e67.
Rev. Income Wealth 61 (2), 248e273.
Castellacci, F., Natera, J.M., 2011. A new panel dataset for cross-country analyses of
Lin, J., Monga, C., Standaert, S., 2019. The inclusive sustainable transformation index.
national systems, growth and development (CANA). Innovation and develop-
Soc. Indicat. Res. 143, 47e80.
ment 1, 205e226.
Meena, R., 2013. Green banking: as initiative for sustainable development. Global J.
Central Intelligence Agency, 2020. The world factbook. Accessed May 2020. https://
Manag. Bus. Stud. 3 (10), 1181e1186.
www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rawdata_
Moll de Alba, J., Todorov, V., 2018. Green industrial performance: the GIP index.
2172.txt.
World Rev. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 14 (2e3), 266e293.
Chen, W., Chen, J., Xu, D., Liu, J., Niu, N., 2017. Assessment of the practices and
Moll de Alba, J., Todorov, V., 2020. Measurement of green industrial performance:
contributions of China’s green industry to the socio-economic development.
an enhanced GIP index. Int. J. Environ. Sustain Dev. 19 (No 4), 343e366.
J. Clean. Prod. 153, 648e656.
OECD, 2018. Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Eurostat, 2020. Gender pay gap in unadjusted form. accessed May 2020. https://ec.
https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/product?code¼tesem180.
OECD, 2020a. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Statistics. OECD, Paris accessed
Honaker, J., King, G., Blackwell, M., 2011. Amelia II: a program for missing data.
April 2020. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/data/iea-co2-emissions-
J. Stat. Software 45 (7), 1e47. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v45/i07/.
€o
€k, M., Tang, X., 2013. Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate from-fuel-combustion-statistics_co2-data-en.
Ho
OECD, 2020b. "Gender wage gap" (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/7cee77aa-en.
changeda review. Energy Pol. 52, 797e809.
(Accessed 27 May 2020).
Iea, 2020. Data and Statistics. https://www.iea.org.
OECD, 2020c. Income Distribution Database (IDD): Gini, Poverty, Income, Methods
ILO, 2020a. Employment by sex and age (thousands) e annual. ILOSTAT database.
and Concepts. Accessed may 2020. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?
https://ilostat.ilo.org/data. (Accessed 14 February 2020).
DataSetCode¼IDD.
 G. Halkos et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123516 15

Sarkar, A.N., 2013. Promoting eco-innovations to leverage sustainable development United Nations, 2002. International Standard Industrial Classification of All Eco-
of eco-industry and green growth. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2 (1), 171-171. nomic Activities (ISIC) Revision 3.1, Statistical Papers Series M NO. 4/REV.3.1.
UIS, 2018. Handbook on Measuring Equity in Education. UNESCO Institute for Sta- New York.
tistics, Montreal. http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/handbook- United Nations, 2008. International Standard Industrial Classification of All Eco-
measuring-equity-education-2018-en.pdf. (Accessed 30 March 2020). nomic Activities Revision 4, Statistical Papers Series M NO. 4/REV.4. New York.
UIS, 2020. Education: Distribution of Tertiary Graduates by Field of Study. Accessed United Nations, 2015. Development Issues No. 2: Inequality Measurement.
May 2020. http://data.uis.unesco.org/. Department of Economic and Social Affairs accessed May 2020. https://www.
UNGA, 2015. Transforming our world:the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop- un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_dev_issues/dsp_policy_02.pdf.
ment. United Nations General Assembly. Available at: https://www.refworld. United Nations, 2019. Sustainable Development Goal 9. Sustainable Development
org/docid/57b6e3e44.html. (Accessed 24 May 2020). Goals Knowledge Platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg9.
UNIDO, 2011. UNIDO Green Industry Initiative for Sustainable Development. Vienna, United Nations Development Program, 2020. Human development reports: income
Austria. Gini coefficient. Accessed May 2020. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/income-
UNIDO, 2014. In: Proceedings of the International Seminar on Industrial Statistics gini-coefficient.
"20 Years in Service of the Nations for Industrialization, Vienna 2014". Accessed United Nations Statistics Division, 2015. The World’s Women 2015 Trends and
may 2020). https://stat.unido.org/content/publications/proceedings-of-the- Statistics. Accessed May 2020. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/gender/downloads/
international-seminar-on-industrial-statistics-%252220-years-in-service-of- WorldsWomen2015_report.pdf.
the-nations-for-industrialization%252c-vienna-2014%2522. United Nations Statistics Division, 2020. UN COMTRADE. New York accessed April
UNIDO, 2015. Introduction to UNIDO e Inclusive and Sustainable Industrial 2020). https://comtrade.un.org/.
Development. Vienna, Austria. Upadhyaya, S., 2013. Country Grouping in UNIDO Statistics, Development Policy,
UNIDO, 2017. Competitive Industrial Performance Report 2016, vols. 1e2. http:// Statistics and Research Branch Working Paper 1/2013. Statistics Unit UNIDO,
stat.unido.org. Vienna [online] , accessed February 2018. Vienna.
UNIDO, 2020a. MVA Manufacturing Value Added Database, Vienna, Austria World Bank, 2020. GINI index (World Bank estimate) [indicator]. Accessed April
accessed April 2019. http://stat.unido.org. 2020. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI.
UNIDO, 2020b. INDSTAT 4 Industrial Statistics Database at 3- and 4-digit Level of Yuan, Q., Cheng, C.F.C., Wang, J., Zhu, T.T., Wang, K., 2020. Inclusive and sustainable
ISIC Revision 3 and 4. Vienna accessed April 2019. http://stat.unido.org. industrial development in China: an efficiency-based analysis for current status
UNIDO, 2020c. Competitive Industrial Performance (CIP) Index, Edition 2019. and improving potentials. Appl. Energy 268, 114876.
Vienna accessed April 2019. http://stat.unido.org.