MERGE: Measuring What Matters

The development of SIW frameworks is rarely a purely technical exercise. In most countries examined, progress has emerged where political demand intersects with entrepreneurial leadership inside NSIs. However, frameworks closely tied to specific political cycles can also become vulnerable. When government priorities shift, initiatives risk losing momentum or institutional support.

Where frameworks have proven more resilient, supportive institutional conditions are often present: strong NSI autonomy, engagement with civil society and academia and guidance from international organisations that legitimise methodological experimentation. At the same time, many statistical offices face a form of resource paralysis. Legal mandates to maintain core economic statistics, combined with limited budgets, frequently restrict the capacity to expand measurement systems toward broader wellbeing indicators.

A recurring tension across interviews concerns the balance between harmonisation and national flexibility. Statistical institutions broadly support the standardisation of individual indicators to ensure methodological credibility and cross-country comparability. Here, Eurostat is seen as a key actor in defining the mandate for data collection, securing agreement and commitment from Member States and determining how data should be collected, taking into account existing data regulations and funding opportunities. As one interviewee pointed out, “If there are indicators that are not yet harmonised, the right way would be through Eurostat”.

At the same time, they emphasise the importance of retaining freedom in how those indicators are organised. As one interviewee described it, the goal should be “to standardise the coats, not the coat rack.” In practice, this means agreeing on common measurement methods while allowing countries to structure their frameworks according to their own policy priorities and institutional contexts. This flexibility also creates space for engaging citizens in the development of these frameworks, helping ensure they resonate with public concerns and strengthening both ownership and uptake.

Within this approach, many experts highlighted the value of a limited set of internationally recognised headline indicators that could function as shared reference points. Harmonisation, however, is not a one-directional process. National initiatives often serve as laboratories of innovation, generating approaches that later inform international statistical standards.

Despite institutional and methodological constraints, statistical institutions are actively experimenting with new approaches to measuring wellbeing and sustainability.

Several initiatives focus on augmented indicators that extend traditional economic metrics. Examples include adjusted national accounts that incorporate environmental degradation, inequality or climate impacts, as well as experimental indicators designed to capture lived economic experiences.

At the same time, statistical offices are exploring alternative data sources. These include geospatial datasets to monitor biodiversity and environmental pressures, digital platforms that provide information on mobility and urban access and third-party datasets that complement traditional surveys.

Yet important blind spots remain. Interviewees consistently pointed to gaps in, for example, measuring social relations, loneliness and the quality or meaningfulness of work. Addressing these areas will likely require both methodological innovation and stronger international coordination.

• Develop cohesive SIW frameworks that organise existing indicators into accessible systems that provide a clear overview of societal progress.
• Prioritise a limited set of headline indicators which can help frameworks function as practical reference points for decision-makers and the public.
• Expand measurement through strategic experimentation to capture dimensions of wellbeing that remain difficult to measure (e.g., integrating geospatial data, administrative datasets and experimental indicators that reflect environmental and social outcomes).
• Strengthen collaboration with citizens, civil society, researchers and other public institutions to ensure that indicator systems remain both methodologically robust and socially relevant.

• Provide stable political mandates for wellbeing measurement frameworks to make sure indicators remain embedded in policymaking beyond individual government cycles.
• Support international coordination on core indicators (“the coats”) to strengthen cross-country comparability while allowing national flexibility in framework design (“the coat rack”).
• Invest in statistical capacity and data infrastructure, including survey capacity, data integration systems, and methodological development, within statistical institutions.
• Encourage policy use of wellbeing indicators by linking SIW indicators to policy monitoring, budgeting processes or strategic planning to inform real decision-making.