Vol. 14 No. 1 (2023)

Articles

The level of implementing sustainable development goal "Industry, innovation and infrastructure" of Agenda 2030 in the European Union countries: Application of MCDM methods

Published 25-03-2023

Jarosław Brodny
Silesian University of Technology

Magdalena Tutak
Silesian University of Technology

Abstract

Research background: Sustainable development of the modern world represents an opportunity to preserve economic growth and technological progress, as well as social development, without limiting the possibilities of this development for past generations. The directions of this development are included in the 17 goals and 169 tasks of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The achievement of these goals and the implementation of the adopted tasks is a huge challenge for individual countries and regions. This also applies to the European Union (EU), where economic development is closely linked to environmental protection and social inclusion. Of key importance in this context is Objective 9 of Agenda 2030, and thus its level of implementation in the EU-27 countries is the aim of the research presented in this paper.

Purpose of the article: The research involved assessing the level of EU countries in terms of building stable infrastructure, promoting sustainable industrialization and fostering innovation, i.e., the main areas of Goal 9 of Agenda 2030.

Methods: The assessment was based on the EU?27 countries' sustainable development index (SDG9) determined with the use of 14 indicators characterizing these areas between 2015?2020. The basis of the developed methodology was a multi criteria decision making approach (MCDM methods). TOPSIS, WASPAS and EDAS methods were used to determine the sustainability index, and the Entropy, CRITIC and standard deviation (SD) methods were used to determine weights for the adopted indicators. In addition, the use of the Spearman's and Kendall's Tau non-parametric tests enabled the analysis of the relationship between the SDG9 index and the basic economic, environmental and energy parameters, as well as the digitalization of the countries under study.

Findings & value added: The results show that the EU?27 countries vary widely in terms of implementing Sustainable Development Goal 9 of Agenda 2030 over the analyzed period. Now, the most advanced in this respect are Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Finland, and Sweden. By contrast, substantial problems are found in Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal, and Lithuania. The results also provide an opportunity to trace changes in the value of the designated index in individual countries, and in groups of countries of the "old" and "new" EU. These results significantly enrich the knowledge of the effectiveness of implementing Goal 9 of Agenda 2030 in the EU?27 countries and the relationship between the development of individual countries and sustainable development economy. These findings can also be used to create new EU?27 strategies for sustainable and solidarity-based development of the whole EU. In addition, the results can be helpful to decision-makers as they highlight important indicators related to innovation, industrialization and infrastructure that should be considered when formulating a country's sustainable development strategy. The added value of the study is the research procedure presented, which can be used in analyses on the study of various issues related to sustainable development for other groups of regions.

Keywords

sustainable development, innovativeness, EU-27, MCDM methods

PDF

References

  1. Achour H., & Belloumi M. (2016). Investigating the causal relationship between transport infrastructure, transport energy consumption and economic growth in Tunisia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 56, 988?998. doi: 10.1016/j. rser.2015.12.023.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.023
  2. Adenle, A., Azadi, H., & Arbiol, J. (2015). Global assessment of technological in-novation for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing world. Journal of Environmental Management, 161, 261?275. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015 .05.040.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.040
  3. Aytekin, A., Ecer, F., Korucuk, S., & Karamaşa, Ç. (2022). Global innovation effi-ciency assessment of EU member and candidate countries via DEA-EATWIOS multi-criteria methodology. Technology in Society, 68, 101896. doi: 10.1016/j.techs oc.2022.101896.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101896
  4. Bacior, S., & Prus, B. (2018). Infrastructure development and its influence on agri-cultural land and regional sustainable development. Ecological Informatics, 44, 82?93. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2018.02.001.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2018.02.001
  5. Barbier, E. B. (1987). The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental Conservation, 14, 101?110. doi: 10.1017/S0376892900011449.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900011449
  6. Bartolini, F., Gava, O., & Brunori, G. (2017). Biogas and EU?s 2020 targets: Evidence from a regional case study in Italy. Energy Policy, 109, 510?519. doi: 10.1016/j.enp ol.2017.07.039.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.039
  7. Bekhet, H., & Latif, N. (2018). The impact of technological innovation and govern-ance institution quality on Malaysia's sustainable growth: Evidence from a dynamic relationship. Technology in Society, 54, 27?40. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.01 .014.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.01.014
  8. Beynon, M., Jones, P., & Pickernell, D. (2023). Evaluating EU-Region level innova-tion readiness: A longitudinal analysis using principal component analysis and a constellation graph index approach. Journal of Business Research, 159,113703. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113703.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113703
  9. Berawi, M. A. (2019). The role of industry 4.0 in achieving sustainable develop-ment Goals. International Journal of Technology, 10, 644?647. doi: 10.14716/ijtech.v10i4. 3341.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v10i4.3341
  10. Börje, J., Hans, L., & Maxim, S. (2015). European R&D efficiency. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 24, 140?158. doi: 10.1080/10438599.2014.897857.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2014.897857
  11. Bocchini, P., Frangopol, D., Ummenhofer, T., & Zinke, T. (2014). Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: Toward a unified approach. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 20, 1?16. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177
  12. Bogers, M., Biermann, F., Kalfagianni, A., & Kim, R.E.(2022). Sustainable devel-opment goals fail to advance policy integration: A large-n text analysis of 159 international organizations. Environmental Science & Policy 138, 134?145. doi: 10.10 16/j.envsci.2022.10.002.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.10.002
  13. Bonilla, S. H., Silva, H. R. O., Silva, M. T., Gonçalves, R. F., & Sacomano, J. B. (2018). Industry 4.0 and sustainability implications: A scenario-based analysis of the impacts and challenges. Sustainability, 10, 3740. doi: 10.3390/su10103740.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103740
  14. Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2021). Assessing sustainable energy development in the central and eastern European countries and analyzing its diversity. Science of the Total Environment, 801, 149745. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149745.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149745
  15. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). In our common future. New York: Brundtland Commis-sion.
    View in Google Scholar
  16. Ciani, O., Armeni, P., Boscolo, P. R., Cavazza M., Jommi, C., & Tarricone, R. (2016). De innovatione: The concept of innovation for medical technologies and its implications for healthcare policy-making. Health Policy and Technology, 5(1), 47?64. doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2015.10.005.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2015.10.005
  17. Cigu, E., Agheorghiesei, D. T., Gavrilu?ă, A. F., & Toader, E. (2019). Transport in-frastructure development, public performance and long-run economic growth: A case study for the Eu-28 countries. Sustainability, 11, 67. doi: 10.3390/su11010067.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010067
  18. Cirella, G. T., Bąk, M., Kozlak, A., Pawłowska, B., & Borkowski, P. (2019). Transport innovations for elderly people. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 30, 100381. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2019.100381,
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2019.100381
  19. Cohen, J. P. (2010). The broader effects of transportation infrastructure: Spatial econometrics and productivity approaches. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 46, 317?326. doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2009.11.003.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2009.11.003
  20. Correia, A. G., Winter, M. G., & Puppala, A. J. (2016). A review of sustainable ap-proaches in transport infrastructure geotechnics. Transportation Geotechnics, 7, 21?28. doi: 10.1016/j.trgeo.2016.03.003.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2016.03.003
  21. Czyżewski, A., Grzyb, A., Matuszczak, A., & Michałowska, M. (2021). Factors for bioeconomy development in EU countries with different overall levels of eco-nomic development. Energies, 14, 3182. doi: 10.3390/en14113182.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113182
  22. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers and Operations Research, 22(7), 763?770. doi: 10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H
  23. Eurostat database. Retrieved form: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (05.09.2022).
    View in Google Scholar
  24. Fura, B., Wojnar, J., & Kasprzyk, B. (2017). Ranking and classification of EU coun-tries regarding their levels of implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, 968?979. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.088.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.088
  25. Gomes, S., Ferreira, J., Lopes, J. M., & Farinha, L. (2022). The impacts of the entre-preneurial conditions on economic growth: Evidence from OECD countries. Economies, 10(7), 163 doi: 10.3390/economies10070163.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10070163
  26. Gródek-Szostak, Z., Suder, M., Kusa, R., Szeląg-Sikora, A., Duda, J., & Niemiec, M. (2020). Renewable energy promotion instruments used by innovation brokers in a technology transfer network. Case study of the enterprise Europe net-work. Energies, 13, 5752. doi: 10.3390/en13215752.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en13215752
  27. Gunawan, J., Permatasari, P., & Tilt, C. (2020). Sustainable development goal dis-closures: Do they support responsible consumption and production? Journal of Cleaner Production, 246, 118989. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118989.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118989
  28. Hwang, C., & Yoon. K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applica-tions, a state-of-the-art survey. Berlin: Springer.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3
  29. Haraguchi, N., Cheng, C., & Smeets, E. (2017). The importance of manufacturing in economic development: Has this changed? World Development, 93, 293?315. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.013.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.013
  30. Heilig, L., & Voss, S. (2015). A scientometric analysis of public transport research. Journal of Public Transportation, 18, 111?141. doi: 10.5038/2375-0901.18.2.8.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.18.2.8
  31. Hess, J. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in Bulgaria and Romania: A compara-tive analysis. Thunderbird International Business Review, 62, 489?501. doi: 10.1002 /tie.22154.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.22154
  32. Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R., Suman, R., & Gonzalez, E. (2022). Understanding the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in improving environmental sus-tainability. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 203?217. doi: 10.1016/j.susoc.2022. 01.008.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.01.008
  33. Kardos, M. (2012). The relationship between entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainable development. Research on European Union countries. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 1030?1035. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00269-9.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00269-9
  34. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26, 435?451. doi: 10.15388/Infor matica.2015.57.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2015.57
  35. K?lk?ş, Ş. (2016). Sustainable development of energy, water and environment sys-tems index for Southeast European cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 130, 222?234. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.121.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.121
  36. Kuzior, A., Pidorycheva, I., Liashenko, V., Shevtsova, H., & Shvets, N. (2022). As-sessment of national innovation ecosystems of the EU countries and Ukraine in the interests of their sustainable development. Sustainability, 14(14), 8487 doi: 10.3390/su14148487.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148487
  37. Kynčlová, P., Upadhyaya, S., & Nice, T. (2020). Composite index as a measure on achieving Sustainable Development Goal 9 (SDG-9) industry-related targets: The SDG-9 index. Applied Energy, 265, 114755. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.1147 55.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114755
  38. Le Blanc, D. (2015). Towards integration at last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a network of targets. Sustainable Development, 23(3), 176?187. doi: 10.1002/sd.1582.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1582
  39. Liao, Q., Wang, X., Ling, D., Xiao Z., & Huang, H. (2011). Equipment reliability analysis based on the Mean-rank method of two-parameter Weibull distribu-tion. In 2011 international conference on quality, reliability, risk, maintenance, and safety engineering (pp. 361?364). IEEE doi: 10.1109/ICQR2MSE.2011.5976631.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICQR2MSE.2011.5976631
  40. Liu, Y., Li, Z., & Yin, X. (2018). Environmental regulation, technological innova-tion and energy consumption-a cross-region analysis in China. Journal of Clean-er Production, 203, 885?897. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.277.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.277
  41. Luthra, S., Kumar A., Zavadskas, E. K., Mangla, S .K., & Garza-Reyes, J. A. (2020). Industry 4.0 as an enabler of sustainability diffusion in supply chain: An analy-sis of influential strength of drivers in an emerging economy. International Journal of Production Research, 58, 1505?1521. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1660828.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1660828
  42. MacDonald, A., Clarke, A., Ordonez-Ponce, E., Chai, Z., & Andreasen, J. (2020). Sustainability managers: The job roles and competencies of building sustaina-ble cities and communities. Public Performance & Management Review, 43, 1413?1444. doi: 10.1080/15309576.2020.1803091.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1803091
  43. Małkowska, A., Urbaniec, M., & Kosała, M. (2021). The impact of digital transfor-mation on European countries: Insights from a comparative analysis. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 16(2), 325?355. doi: 10.24136/eq.2021.012.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2021.012
  44. Medda, G., & Piga, C. (2014). Technological spillovers and productivity in Italian manufacturing firms. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 41, 428?429. doi: 10.1007 /s11123-013-0351-1.
    View in Google Scholar
  45. Miłek, D. (2022). Disparities in the level of regional technical infrastructure devel-opment in Poland: Multicriteria analysis. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 17(4), 1087?1113. doi: 10.24136/eq.2022.036.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2022.036
  46. Modgil, S., Gupta, S., & Bhushan, B. (2020). Building a living economy through modern information decision support systems and UN sustainable develop-ment goals. Production Planning & Control, 31, 1?21. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2019.169 5916.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1695916
  47. Mulliner, E., Malys, N., & Maliene, V. (2016). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega, 59, 146?156. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013
  48. Oláh, J., Aburumman, N., Popp, J., Khan, M. A., Haddad, H., & Kitukutha, N. (2020). Impact of industry 4.0 on environmental sustainability. Sustainability, 12, 4674. doi: 10.3390/su12114674.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114674
  49. Olaoye, I., Ayinde, O., Ajewole, O., & Adebisi, L. (2021). The role of research and development (R&D) expenditure and governance on economic growth in se-lected African countries. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 13, 663?670. doi: 10.1080/20421338.2020.1799300.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2020.1799300
  50. Omri, A. (2018). Entrepreneurship, sectoral outputs and environmental improve-ment: international evidence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 128, 45?56. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.016.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.016
  51. Omri, A. (2020). Technological innovation and sustainable development: Does the stage of development matter? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 83, 106398. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106398.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106398
  52. Panetto, H., Iung, B., Ivanov, D., Weichhart, G., & Wang, X. (2019). Challenges for the cyber-physical manufacturing enterprises of the future. Annual Reviews in Control, 47, 200?213. doi: 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2019.02.002.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2019.02.002
  53. Pece, M., Oros, S., & Salisteanu, F. (2015). Innovation and economic growth: An empirical analysis for CEE countries. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 461?467. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00874-6.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00874-6
  54. Pegkas, P., Staikouras, C., & Tsamadias, C. (2019). Does research and development expenditure impact innovation? Evidence from the European Union countries. Journal of Policy Modeling, 41, 1005?1025. doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2019.07.001.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2019.07.001
  55. Peroni, C., & Ferreira, I. S. G. (2012). Competition and innovation in Luxembourg. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 12, 93?117. doi: 10.1007/s10842-011-0101-x.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-011-0101-x
  56. Pradhan, R., Arvin, M., Nair, M., & Bennett, S. (2020). Sustainable economic growth in the European Union: The role of ICT, venture capital, and innovation. Re-view of Financial Economics, 38, 34?62. doi: 10.1002/rfe.1064.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rfe.1064
  57. Prus, P., & Sikora M. (2021). The impact of transport infrastructure on the sustaina-ble development of the region?case study. Agriculture, 11, 279. doi: 10.3390/ag riculture11040279.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11040279
  58. Rasmus, L., Kraemer-Mbula, E., & Rakas, M. (2021). Innovation in developing countries: Examining two decades of research. Innovation and Development, 11, 189?210. doi: 10.1080/2157930X.2021.1989647.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2021.1989647
  59. Raszkowski, A., & Bartniczak, B. (2019). On the road to sustainability: Implementa-tion of the 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in Poland. Sustainability, 11, 366. doi: 10.3390/su11020366.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020366
  60. Ringel, M., Schlomann, B., Krail, M., & Rohde, C. (2016). Towards a green econo-my in Germany? The role of energy efficiency policies. Applied Energy, 179, 1293?1303. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.063.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.03.063
  61. Roszko-Wójtowicz, E., Dańska-Borsiak, B., Grzelak, M. M., & Pleśniarska, A. (2022). In search of key determinants of innovativeness in the regions of the Visegrad group countries. Oeconomia Copernicana, 13(4), 1015?1045. doi: 10.24136/oc.2022. 029.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2022.029
  62. Sabatini, A., Cucculelli, M., & GregoriG. L. (2022). Business model innovation and digital technology: The perspective of incumbent Italian small and medium-sized firms. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 10(3), 23?35. doi: 10.15678/EBER.2022.100302.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2022.100302
  63. Sakiewicz, P., Piotrowski, K., Rajca, M., Maj, I., Kalisz, S., Ober, J., Karwot, J., & Pagilla, K. R. (2022). Innovative technological approach for the cyclic nutrients adsorption by post-digestion sewage sludge-based ash co-formed with some nanostructural additives under a circular economy framework. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 11119. doi: 10.3390/ijer ph191711119.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191711119
  64. Sanders, M., Stenkula, M., Fritsch, M., Herrmann, A. M., Latifi, G., Páger, B., Szerb, L., Terragno Bogliaccini, E., & Wyrwich, M. (2020). A reform strategy for ger-many. In M. Sanders, A. Marx & M. Stenkula (eds). The entrepreneurial society. International studies in entrepreneurship, 44 (pp. 163?202). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-61007-7_7.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61007-7_7
  65. Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47, 1554?1567. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011
  66. Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-versity Press.
    View in Google Scholar
  67. Senise, R. S., Yogui, R., & Cirne, L. F. (2021). Role of science, technology, and inno-vation towards SDGS. In W. Leal Filho, A. Marisa Azul, L. Brandli, A. Lange Salvia, & T. Wall (Eds.). Partnerships for the goals. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustaina-ble Development Goals (pp. 1067?1078). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-9596 3-4_90.
    View in Google Scholar
  68. Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I., Karpavicius, T., Streimikiene, D., & Balezentis, T. (2022). The achievements of climate change and energy policy in the European Union. Energies, 15(14), 5128. doi: 10.3390/en15145128.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15145128
  69. Skvarciany, V., Lapinskaite, I., & Volskyte, G. (2021). Circular economy as assis-tance for sustainable development in OECD countries. Oeconomia Copernicana, 12(3), 671?700. doi: 10.24136/oc.2021.001.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2021.001
  70. Sobczak, E., Bartniczak, B., & Raszkowski, A. (2021). Implementation of the No Poverty Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) in Visegrad Group (V4). Sustainability, 13, 1030. doi: 10.3390/su13031030.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031030
  71. Sokolov-Mladenović, S., Cvetanović, S., & Mladenović, I. (2016). R&D expenditure and economic growth: EU28 evidence for the period 2002?2012. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 29, 1005?1020. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2016.1211 948.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2016.1211948
  72. Sonobe, T. (2019). Middle-income trap in emerging states. In T. Shiraishi & T. Sonobe (Eds). Emerging states and economies. Emerging-economy state and interna-tional policy studies (pp. 153?177). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-2634-9_7.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2634-9_7
  73. Sustainable Development Report Retrieved form: https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/ chapters (15.10.2022)
    View in Google Scholar
  74. Szirmai, A. (2012). Industrialisation as an engine of growth in developing coun-tries, 1950?2005. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 23. 406?420. doi: 10.1016/j .strueco.2011.01.005.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2011.01.005
  75. Szopik-Depczyńska, D., Kędzierska-Szczepaniak, K., Szczepaniak, K., Cheba, K., Gajda, W., & Ioppolo, G. (2018). Innovation in sustainable development: An investigation of the EU context using 2030 agenda indicators. Land Use Policy, 79, 251?262. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.004.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.004
  76. Świadek, A., Dzikowski, P., Gorączkowska, J., & Tomaszewski, M. (2022). The national innovation system in a catching-up country: Empirical evidence based on micro data of a Triple Helix in Poland. Oeconomia Copernicana, 13(2), 511?540. doi: 10.24136/oc.2022.016.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2022.016
  77. Thacker, S., Adshead, D., Fay, M., Hallegatte, S., Harvey, M., Meller, H., O?Regan, N., Rozenberg, J., Watkins, G., & Hall, J. (2019). Infrastructure for sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 2, 324?331. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0256-8.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0256-8
  78. Tsegaye, M. (2023). Impacts of internal R&D on firms? performance and energy consumption: Evidence from Ethiopian firms. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 7, 47?67. doi: 10.1016/j.ijis.2022.09.001.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2022.09.001
  79. Tutak, M., & Brodny, J. (2022). Business digital maturity in Europe and its implica-tion for open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8, 27. doi: 10.3390/joitmc8010027.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010027
  80. United Nations (1992). Conference on environment & development. Rio de Janer-io, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. AGENDA 21. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelo pment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (25.10.2022).
    View in Google Scholar
  81. United Nations (2000). Millennium declaration, 2000.
    View in Google Scholar
  82. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development(A/RES/70/1). New York: UN General Assembly. Retrieved from https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (20.02.2023).
    View in Google Scholar
  83. Valaskova, K., Vochozka, M., & Lăzăroiu, G. (2022). Immersive 3D technologies, spatial computing and visual perception algorithms, and event modeling and forecasting tools on blockchain based metaverse platforms. Analysis and Metaphysics, 21, 74?90. doi: 10.22381/am2120225.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.22381/am2120225
  84. Verdugo, G., & Wright, T. (2020). Relationship between innovation and sustaina-bility in Latin American countries: Differences by perceptual characteristics of early-stage entrepreneurs. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1?21. doi: 10.1080/23 311975.2020.1831766.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1831766
  85. Vinuesa, R., Azizpour, H., Leite, I. Balaam, M., Dignum, V., Domisch, S., Fellander, A., Langhans, S., Tegmark, M., & Nerini, F. (2020). The role of artificial intelli-gence in achieving the sustainable development goals. Nature Communications, 11, 233. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y
  86. Vyas-Doorgapersad, S. (2022). The use of digitalization (ICTs) in achieving sus-tainable development goals. Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies, 14(2), 265?278. doi: 10.1177/09749101211067295.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09749101211067295
  87. Xu, K., Loh, L., Liang, L., & Mei, R. (2023). Heterogeneous effects of influencing factors on innovation performance: Evidence from European Union countries. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2022.2163889.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2022.2163889
  88. Ziemba, P. (2022). Application framework of multi-criteria methods in sustaina-bility assessment. Energies, 15(23), 9201. doi: 10.3390/en15239201.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15239201
  89. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., & Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Optimi-zation of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika Ir Elektrotechnika, 122, 3?6. doi: 10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810.
    View in Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1-10 of 443

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.