By Livia Bizikova, IISD, and Bhim Adhikari, IDRC

The UN High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Beyond GDP has released its report titled, ‘Counting What Counts: A Compass of Progress for People and Planet,’ to address the well-recognized limitations of relying on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the primary measure of progress and well-being. The report contributes to the long-standing global debate by highlighting how economic growth, while essential, can coexist with persistent inequality, declining well-being, and environmental degradation.

Building on earlier work by international organizations and advances in research and country-level practice, it brings together approaches into a framework. Rather than replacing GDP, it proposes a complementary model in which GDP continues to measure economic activity while being paired with a broader set of indicators capturing well-being, inequality, and sustainability.

Importantly, the HLEG’s work does not exist in isolation. It feeds directly into several major international processes, including the implementation of the Pact for the Future, ongoing discussions on reforming the international financial architecture, the financing for development (FfD) agenda, and efforts to strengthen global governance for sustainable development and the follow-up to the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development. In this sense, the recommendations extend well beyond measurement debates. They are likely to shape how countries design national development strategies, as well as how multilateral institutions allocate resources, assess vulnerability, and support long-term development pathways. This political dimension is critical as it underscores both the transformative potential of moving beyond GDP and the practical challenges of embedding these approaches within the diverse existing and forthcoming decision-making systems.

From GDP to a multidimensional vision of progress

The report reflects a clear shift toward a more holistic understanding of development that captures not only economic performance but also people’s lived experiences and the condition of the planet. At its core, it recognizes that progress cannot be reduced to a single aggregate measure and must instead account for multiple, interconnected dimensions, including well-being, equity and inclusion, and sustainability.

To address the shortcomings of GDP, the report proposes a dashboard of indicators structured around three core dimensions: current well-being; equity and inclusion; and sustainability and resilience. This multidimensional approach moves beyond a single metric to provide a more nuanced and comprehensive picture of progress. Many of the indicators are aligned with the SDGs, supporting coherence with existing global frameworks, while the inclusion of wealth and capital accounting covering natural, human, and produced capital helps link present outcomes with the foundations of future well-being.

At the same time, the report does not go as far as many hoped it would. While it makes an important contribution by broadening the conversation on how progress is measured, several of the proposed indicators, particularly those related to human rights, peace, and social cohesion, raise practical concerns. The report provides limited guidance on how these dimensions can be operationalized in ways that are reliable, comparable across countries, and directly usable for policymaking. This raises questions about their feasibility and their capacity to inform concrete policy decisions. While the report represents an important step in advancing the Beyond GDP agenda and supporting more balanced and forward-looking policymaking, its ultimate impact will depend on whether the framework can be translated into practical tools for implementation, balancing global comparability with national relevance.

Universal ambition, national realities

A defining feature of the HLEG’s proposal is its ambition to establish a set of indicators that are universally applicable, much like GDP or the indicators underpinning the SDGs. These indicators are intended to provide a common and comparable framework for measuring progress across countries, supporting benchmarking, cross-country learning, and more coherent global coordination.

At the same time, this ambition introduces a fundamental tension that was strongly emphasized by Member States during the report’s launch. Countries operate in highly diverse contexts, with different development pathways, institutional capacities, structural challenges, and levels of exposure to risks and vulnerabilities. As a result, indicators designed for global comparability may not always align with national priorities or adequately reflect country-specific realities.

Addressing this tension will require careful consideration in the forthcoming intergovernmental process. This process will need to reconcile diverse measurement approaches and perspectives, with the aim of building a framework that is both globally consistent and adaptable to national circumstances. Ultimately, the success of the Beyond GDP agenda will depend on finding the right balance between standardization and flexibility, so that countries can meaningfully use them to inform policy decisions.

Capturing the dynamic and context-specific nature of resilience and vulnerability

Across diverse country contexts, an important challenge for the framework is to reflect resilience and vulnerability in a dynamic and context-specific way. While the report rightly emphasizes sustainability and long-term well-being, countries today face a complex mix of interconnected pressures – from climate impacts and global economic uncertainty to geopolitical tensions. Translating these evolving realities into clear, measurable indicators is therefore inherently complex.

Countries’ specific risks and vulnerabilities call for indicators that go beyond static snapshots, capturing exposure to multiple and overlapping shocks, the capacity to respond and adapt, and the ability to strengthen resilience in the face of current and emerging risks. Although the proposed framework incorporates elements of sustainability and resilience, further refinement will be needed to ensure that it fully reflects the dynamic and context-dependent nature of vulnerability. The report points to tools such as the Multidimensional Vulnerability Index (MVI) as a useful starting point, but these alone may not be sufficient. Without a more nuanced and comprehensive treatment, there is a risk that the framework does not adequately represent the realities of countries most exposed to shocks and systemic risks.

The need for a structured intergovernmental process and country ownership

The HLEG’s report provides a technical foundation, but its evolution and legitimacy will depend on continued engagement by Member States. A structured intergovernmental process will be critical to review, refine, and operationalize the proposed indicators. Importantly, it would also ensure that the framework is not perceived as externally imposed.  

Perhaps the most decisive challenge is implementation. The report emphasizes that moving beyond GDP is about embedding the indicators into decision making. This means integrating the indicators into national development plans, budgeting and fiscal frameworks, and monitoring and evaluation systems to review plans and implementation efforts. 

The report recommends using a dashboard of indicators to measure progress in national efforts and initiatives. However, creating such a dashboard depends on the availability of capacity and resources. Strengthening statistical systems, improving data availability, and developing technical expertise are all essential prerequisites. Many countries, particularly those with limited resources, will require sustained financial and technical support to adopt and use the indicators effectively. Without such support, there is a risk that the framework remains underutilized, limiting its potential impact.

Finally, while a measurement system is important, it is only the first step. The real challenge lies in implementation, navigating the tensions between global standards and national realities, strengthening the treatment of resilience and vulnerability, and establishing governance processes that ensure broad ownership and continuous improvement. With tailored support, sustained political engagement, and investment in capacity, the Beyond GDP framework has the potential to transform policymaking.

* * *

This story aims to inform and support sustainable development decision makers in their efforts to go beyond GDP. It is part of a project made possible through financial support provided by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC).

IISD’s e-course on GDP alternatives can be accessed here.. Information about IISD’s Beyond GDP Country Support Hub can be accessed here.