Assessing the Achievement of the SDG Targets for Health and Well-Being at EU Level by 2030

Abstract

In this period of extreme changes in our society, issues related to the health and well-being of citizens are considered essential for the future of a united and prosperous Europe. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at EU level by 2030 requires hard work done in a transformative way in order to implement a set of coherent, evidence-informed policies that address health, well-being and all their determinants throughout the course of life and across all sectors of government and society. The objective of this paper is to assess the stage of fulfillment of all SDG targets in relation to health and well-being at EU level, based on the current trend of each indicator, for each EU member country. Based on the Eurostat SDG data set for 2007–2018, the individual trends were forecast using the AAA (Holt-Winters) version of the exponential smoothing (ETS) algorithm. The research results are surprising, on the one hand showing the possibility that some targets will be reached, but also indicating that a large percentage of targets will not be reached if the current trend is continued, especially due to disruptive change generated by the current pandemic. There is a need to increase the involvement of all member states, but also ensure a deeper involvement at the level of EU institutions, to provide full support for meeting the targets proposed by the 2030 Agenda, ensuring prosperity and health for all European citizens, and becoming a model for all the states of the world.

1. Introduction

The planet, people, prosperity and the complex and specific problems they face today generate permanent concerns, different points of view, innovative actions in order to change and develop a sustainable society for the future. In these circumstances of changing and redefining the way society develops, we identify another way of action, with the involvement of governments, civil society, multinational corporations, public and private actors, NGOs and other associations in a “global partnership”, with common targets (the Sustainable Development Goals) for the purpose of sustainable development from the point of view of the environment, society and the economy.

The context of the “global partnership” is a consequence of the moment on 25 September 2015 when the 193 UN member states voted to formally adopt the SDGs, but also the alignment of all to a set of 17 objectives and 169 sub-targets as a basis for developing global policies by 2030. Moreover, the SDGs were conceived of as successors to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), being a response to critical social, economic and environmental concerns, in the form of the “invigorated global partnership” [1,2].

The objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) also provide a good opportunity to redefine and recreate the process of sustainable development of society for two main reasons. First of all, they include areas that can be analyzed, researched, redefined and innovated and that can be “mainstream” for all those directly and indirectly involved. Secondly, the fact that the UN and its member countries are committed to achieving the SDGs by 2030 underlined the urgency and need for quantitative and qualitative research so that their results stimulate the need to implement and act urgently in all economic, political and social sectors.

This aspect is justified by the fact that even today countries fail to resonate in a balanced and uniform way because the economy and society are represented by different multinational corporations, different public and private actors, with different resources, with more or less advantageous positions on the global market—aspects that categorically influence the achievement of the targets set by the 2030 Agenda.

All these clarifications are more and more obvious, especially in the economies and marginalized sectors of society where there is a risk of corporate capture, where there are democratic deficiencies in decision-making, where the absence of sanction mechanisms for non-participation is accentuated and where there is the tendency to deviate constantly from the dominant sustainable economic paradigms [3,4,5].

Important problems, such as eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, gender issues in labor rights, protecting the planet from degradation, access to prosperity for all people, eliminating violence and fear, are obvious and must be analyzed and viewed especially from the perspective of poorer and more vulnerable countries and their urgent needs [6].

This is all the more evident as the 17 SDGs have become landmarks of the global partnership, with each member state taking on concrete responsibilities in terms of eradicating poverty, improving health and education, reducing inequalities, stimulating economic growth [7].

Starting from these general considerations, the present paper highlights, in a dynamic and complex context, the way in which the sustainable development of the EU member states is possible regarding a series of the common objectives that they have assumed in the perspective of the 2030 horizon.

The paper focuses on the analysis of the dynamics and structure for the horizon 2025–2030 of those objectives that are “people-centered” and that pursue health, education and nutrition, people’s well-being, at the level of the EU member states. This analysis had as a starting point mainly the fact that different SDGs interact positively or negatively, and the management of these interactions can lead to gains or losses; consequently, their interaction is difficult to estimate and coordinate.

We also emphasize that health and education directly generate an increase in employment, which in turn supports personal well-being regardless of age, gender, country or geographical region. Equally important is the fact that employment generates a high economic level which in turn supports human security, safety, access to health and education, which reduces social inequalities. Thus, in the research methodology we highlighted the association of SDG 1, SDG 3, SDG 4, SDG 10, SDG 16, as conceptual elements of the well-being phenomenon, as a factor that contributes to the sustainable development of society in the future.

There are many valuable scientific papers published on health and well-being at the regional or global level [8,9,10,11,12], or in-depth analyses for certain countries or groups of countries [13,14,15,16], but there is no published research proposing an integrative approach to the prospective analysis of achieving SDG targets in terms of health and well-being in the European Union, as well as at the level of each member state. This study covers an existing knowledge gap regarding the prospects of achieving the SDG targets at the level of the European Union member states, for Horizon 2025–2030, proposing a unique perspective on the selected topic.

On the other hand, we justify the well-being analysis by the fact that analyses and data at EU level indicate that, although there has been continuous growth in the economy, the increase in life expectancy has begun to decline or even show signs of reversal [17].

In support of our research, not to be neglected was the fact that concrete and diverse actions on poverty, education, health, reducing inequality are the mainstay of the current economy and, consequently, of future prosperity. The same context of well-being and sustainable development is supported in the EU Strategic Agenda 2019–2024, through the European Pillar of Social Rights, respectively through the EU4Health project, which demonstrates that increased actions in the field of health, reducing inequalities within and between member states, should be a central pillar of the welfare economy [18].

It should be noted that there are very few studies, or almost none, to be conducted in the field of SDG at EU level, which predict the evolution of the main SDG indicators for Horizon 2030. Such a tool can show its true value if used by national governments or other stakeholders to anticipate any unfavorable developments in advance, thus providing the opportunity to act proactively to achieve the SDG targets.

Additionally, using the proposed methodology, an opportunity is created to more effectively calibrate public policies or public and private funds allocated for achieving the various SDG objectives; financial resources can be reallocated from the SDG objectives for which the forecast suggests exceeding the assumed limits for the SDG objectives for which the analysis indicates the possibility of missing the proposed targets.

The new unprecedented global context marks and will mark the level of achievement of SDGs targets, as the Covid-19 pandemic is not just an unprecedented global public health emergency (SDG-3), but it will also generate a deep economic crisis. Supporting economies with financial stimulus packages will not be available for a large number of countries, especially developing countries. Even if the UN has declared the 2020–2030 period as the “Decade of Action”, the current pandemic could undermine this, although countries are determined to cooperate with each other, to strive for sustainable global development. However, it is premature to estimate how the economies will evolve towards reaching SDG 2030 after the Covid-19 pandemic, in the context in which the well-being pillar and health may be seriously affected in the future.

2. Literature Review

“Transforming our world—The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” is certainly the theme, goal, strategy, plan, program, means and tool for which, regardless of the United Nations member state we refer to, we identify the same concerns and vision for peace and prosperity, for people and the planet, now and in the future under the auspices of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1].

The SDGs are based on decades of research and work by countries and the UN, being a result of debates and decisions at political and economic events: June 1992, Rio de Janeiro Summit, Brazil—with the adoption of Agenda 21; September 2000, Millennium Declaration at the Millennium Summit, New York; 2002, Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and Implementation Plan, adopted at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa; 2012, United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 2013, the General Assembly creates an open working group with 30 members to develop a proposal on the SDGs—the General Assembly begins the negotiation process on the post-2015 development agenda; September 2015, the UN Summit with the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with 17 SDGs at its core. The year 2015 could be considered as a landmark for shaping international policies and adopting several major agreements, such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (March 2015), the Addis Ababa Agenda for Action on Financing for Development (July 2015), the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (December 2015) [19,20,21,22,23].

The problem of permanent monitoring through numerous unique indicators that have been established to track progress towards the sustainable development of each state is obvious and not to be neglected. Moreover, today we identify procedures for the comparative assessment of the degree of sustainability of countries through the SDG Index, which today includes 99 indicators compared to the 77 initially established) [24].

One of the main objectives of the SDG Index is also to realize the differences between countries, to highlight opportunities and problems, to redefine actions and measures, whenever deviations are signaled. This is because the results obtained by each state in the implementation of the SDGs are different, they are a consequence of the interaction of local factors, thus complicating the system of reflecting the reality at the regional or local level [25].

On the other hand, some authors [26,27] argue that, although Agenda 21 focuses on environmental issues, the objectives are in fact oriented towards purely economic and social aspects, thus there are discrepancies between priorities and the reality in each country. It can thus be justified that the implementation of the SDGs represented and represents a challenge for all countries, and by creating the index system it was desired to highlight the unitary evolution of each country in a positive or negative sense [28,29].

This is all the more important in the context in which developed countries currently have the highest scores compared to several of the SDGs to the detriment of poorer states. From this point of view, we currently identify a grouping of economic and geographical regions into three problem groups, depending on the differences identified: Europe, North America and Oceania, Asia and Africa [19]. For the European Union, as an example, on average, in the last five years, progress has been made for almost all SDGs. On the other hand, for some objectives, the targets were reached more quickly with different results even within EU member states, from one sub-region to another [30,31].

Another important aspect is the one referring to the fact that the objectives depend on each other, thus revealing the need to identify the correlations between the SDGs but also the management of these correlations. Neglecting the correlations risks obtaining negative results if the aim is only to achieve the objectives one after the other and not to follow an overview, interconnected with the reality from other areas or other areas important for the environment and society. Moreover, from the point of view of the influence and association of the SDGs, it is important to mention the point of view of the working group of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission (ESCAP) from 2016, which for the Asia and Pacific region, in the case of SDG 6 identified its significant interaction with other SDGs, namely those relating to food, water and energy, which were also reflected in the links between SDG 2, SDG 6 and SDG 7 [32,33,34].

Such examples justify the need to analyze these interactions and associations in order to meet the main requirement of “sustainable development policy coherence” for each of the indicators. In practice, rapid identification of associated target groups to help decision-makers and researchers identify and test development directions, minimize negative interactions and improve positive ones becomes a priority.

Although the identification of these interactions is intuitive, relatively easy to use and generally replicable, there is a need to create formal, legal frameworks for governments, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the UN and other organizations involved in implementing and monitoring the SDGs [35,36].

Another issue that raises a number of questions and shortcomings regarding the achievement of the 2030 Agenda targets is the issue generated by the increase in globalization and trade in goods and services, which creates difficulties in pursuing objectives in a country because they can interact with targets in other countries. Specifically, any kind of interaction plays an important role because it generates implications for the implementation of the SDGs at the level of several countries or geographical regions [37,38].

Currently, from this point of view there are concepts and theories that define these interactions of SDG as a “gray” area, generated in turn by institutional, political, managerial and social interactions. Moreover, this “gray” area of interactions between SDGs is not sufficiently developed conceptually and scientifically as there is no common framework to analyze the causes but also the strengths of these interactions and their effects on achieving the objectives of the 2030 Agenda. Such advanced tools are needed to measure and identify the interactions between objectives to help decision-makers and investors to manage synergies, as well as compromises for reaching the 2030 targets [39,40].

It is important to note that while the SDGs have a global dimension, their implementation depends on the priorities given by each country and how sustainability issues compete with the main problems of each country. The current policies and measures existing at the level of each country show the evolution of the awareness in the local community of the sustainable development of the economy and its implications for society, the economy and the environment [41].

Starting from the previous context, we mention as extremely relevant for our research and the resulting conclusions The Report of the Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals (2014) which includes a classification and grouping framework of SDG as a result of their interaction. This report is, moreover, a starting point in justifying the fact that different objectives interact positively or negatively, and the management of these interactions can lead to gains or losses, their interaction being difficult to estimate and coordinate [42].

• The inner level—well-being—which includes the “people-centered” objectives and which pursues health, education and nutrition and people’s well-being, but also its equitable distribution within countries (SDG 1, SDG 3, SDG 4, SDG 10, SDG 16).
• The medium level—infrastructure—includes objectives relating to different types of networks and mechanisms for the production, distribution and delivery of goods and services in cities and other human settlements (SDG 2, SDG 6, SDG 7, SDG 8, SDG 9, SDG 11, SDG 12).
• The external-environmental level groups those objectives that refer primarily to the management of global resources—land, ocean, air, natural resources, biodiversity, climate change management (SDG 13, SDG 14, SDG 15).

In fact, as the above group suggests, the interactions between SDGs are closely associated with their positioning at different levels and can represent opportunities for positive results over time if monitored correctly and interdependently.

The reference to well-being is certainly a starting point but also a conclusion to a set of measures and actions that focus on the six SDGs: 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 16, and which through the content and objectives pursued respond to the concept of “people-centered” as seen in their content, but also in the strategies and measures defined for each of them [33,43].

Thus, SDG 1 aims to end poverty in all its forms by eliminating extreme poverty, both in terms of adults and children, by implementing social protection measures, with equal rights to economic resources, reducing the vulnerability of the poor to various shocks and disasters. SDG 1 is also identified through national, regional and international policy frameworks, pro-poverty development strategies and the elimination of gender discrimination by supporting investments in poverty eradication [44].

On the other hand, SDG 1 is an extended and concrete objective of the human rights framework, contributing to the protection of the basic needs of the individual, but also having certain limits when the objectives of sustainable development are applied [45].

From the perspective of SDG 3, which refers to ensuring a healthy life and promoting well-being for the entire global population, we identify targets ranging from reducing the overall maternal mortality rate and reducing epidemics of any kind to preventing the abuse of harmful substances. SDG 3 is, on the other hand, a general framework for strengthening the capacity of countries, especially developing countries, to reduce risks but also to manage national and global health issues. The implementation of SDG 3 also addresses research on health and biomedical science, as well as relations with global civil society, because, as the UN emphasizes, health and well-being are international issues and all social factors must be taken into account, as well as policies that determine the health of each country and region [46,47].

At the same time, achieving SDG 3 is only possible if actions in other sectors and areas of activity advance, such as poverty reduction (SDG 1), zero hunger (SDG 2), increasing quality education (SDG 4), improving gender equality (SDG 5), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), clean and accessible energy (SDG 7), decent work and equitable growth (SDG 8), industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), reducing inequalities (SDG 10), sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), sustainable production and consumption (SDG 12), climate action (SDG 13), underwater life (SDG 14), land life (SDG 15), peace (SDG 16) and governance (SDG 17) [48].

In the same category of “people-centered” targets, SDG 4 aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education by promoting lifelong learning opportunities. It is obvious that without continuous education and training, the global society cannot exceed its current level and the global objectives of sustainable development cannot be achieved by 2030. These aspects are also justified by the targets for 2030, which aim to provide all students with the knowledge and skills necessary to promote sustainable development but also sustainable lifestyles.

The importance of individual expertise, as well as the issue of schools and university education in relation to sustainable development issues, is currently increasingly debated. Moreover, there are views on the development of pilot schools under the auspices of the United Nations in different countries of the world. This emerging idea can allow the younger generations—the future decision-makers, to directly contribute to solving current problems, because they can affect their own future [46].

Achieving gender equality (SDG 5) is another priority that directly contributes to increasing the global well-being of society by eliminating all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere, violence and all such actions. By ensuring equal opportunities and participation of women in the management of companies, in political, economic, social decision-making; by creating reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as their access to forms of ownership and financial services, a real improvement of the present situation can be achieved in the horizon of 2030, especially among the economically underdeveloped regions.

On the other hand, regardless of the point of view taken, when we refer to people and their well-being we must also take into account the aspects aimed at reducing inequality within and between countries (SDG 10).

Global well-being, from the point of view of SDG 10 is a relevant objective in the long-term sustainability of society, reflected mainly by the following targets for 2030: increasing the income of the poor at a higher rate than the national average, promoting social and economic inclusion and policies of all, the progressive achievement of greater equality between social categories, ensuring a real representation of developing countries in decision-making in global international economic and financial institutions, implementing well-managed migration policies, encouraging foreign direct investment, especially in the least developed countries, African countries, small island developing countries and developing countries.

Moreover, as can be seen, the implementation of the SDGs does not only mean quantity, but it is about doing things together and creating inclusive partnerships at all levels—global, regional, national and local, an aspect contained and extended in SDG 16. It aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, through efficient, responsible institutions at all levels. The significant reduction of forms of violence, abuses of all kinds, the promotion of the rule of law at the national and international level and ensuring equal access to justice for all make SDG 16 the consequence of and a starting point in promoting and enforcing non-discriminatory laws and policies for lasting development.

Thus, as we can see, in terms of overall objectives, the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is based on an integrated approach of measures and actions between agreed objectives and targets. Promoting well-being for all people in all corners of the world is essential for achieving sustainable development [49].

Basically, the association of SDG 1, SDG 3, SDG 4, SDG 5, SDG 10 and SDG 16 outlines the analysis framework of well-being, considered as the most important factor of sustainable development of society in the future [42,50].

The Council of the European Union emphasizes that the “Economy of Wellbeing” is a policy orientation and governance approach which aims to put people and their well-being at the center of policy and decision-making. The well-being of the people is the responsibility of the European Union and its member states, and sustainable and inclusive economic growth act as an active factor for the well-being of people, society and the planet [51].

The “Economy of Wellbeing”, as part of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, is also supported by the share of investments in health, social protection and education, an aspect identified in the projects of various international organizations, such as the World Bank Group in the Human Capital Project, the International Monetary Fund in the Strategy on Social Spending, and the World Health Organization in the Tallinn Charter on Health Systems for Health and Wealth.

Furthermore, the importance of the well-being and health of society is supported in the WHO report (2019) which specifies that in the European Union, health inequalities are estimated at EUR 980 billion per year—or 9.4 percent of GDP—and accelerated investment in policy areas directly affects health equity and social equity [52].

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) also emphasizes that investment in improving health, education, employment and gender equality for all members of society contributes directly to economic growth. Moreover, it is emphasized that a greater civic involvement in social cohesion generates economic growth through higher productivity, with direct financial effects on stability and resistance to various shocks and negative situations [53].

Thus, there is a need to prioritize the well-being of citizens for all EU member states in order to become more competitive through high social inclusion with direct effects on global leadership in climate action. Moreover, by promoting the well-being of its citizens, the EU can achieve and strengthen a “welfare economy”. Such an approach will generate an understanding and assumption that through the well-being of people, productivity increases which generates economic growth, thus reducing long-term public spending.

How achievable the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are, how they can influence well-being and health, how vulnerable the EU is to future challenges and how the sustainable development of human society can be improved are the starting points in research undertaken in the present paper, with the awareness that the current path of human and environmental development is not sustainable in multiple dimensions.

3. Materials and Methods

The EU is fully committed to being a frontrunner in implementing the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. Moreover, according to the latest discussion at the European level, the new post-2020 multiannual financial framework aims to refocus the EU budget′s contributions towards achieving the EU′s long-term goals.

To investigate the extent to which EU countries could achieve the objectives assumed by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, we considered that it would be relevant for the scientific community and beyond to carry out an analysis of the forecasts for achieving the assumed SDGs, based on the set of indicators used at EU level and selecting those indicators for which Eurostat provides relevant information [44].

In 2017, the European Commission developed an indicator framework as a reference to monitor the SDGs in an EU context, as a response to the Communication COM (2016) 739 final “Next steps for a sustainable European future”. This SDG indicator framework serves as the basis for Eurostat’s monitoring reports on progress towards the achievement of the SDGs at EU level. The EU SDG indicator framework is aligned as far as appropriate with the UN list of global indicators, noting that the UN indicators are selected for global level reporting and are therefore not always relevant to the European Union [54].

The SDG indicators have been selected taking into account their policy relevance from an EU perspective, availability, country coverage, data freshness and quality. At the same time, many of the current SDG indicators were already used to monitor existing policies. The selected set of indicators is structured along the 17 SDGs and covers all the dimensions of sustainability as represented by the 2030 Agenda. Each SDG is covered by five or six main indicators. They have been selected to reflect the SDGs’ broad objectives and ambitions. Thirty-six indicators are ‘multi-purpose’, meaning that they are used to monitor more than one goal. This allows the link between different goals to be highlighted and enhances the narrative of this monitoring report. Sixty-five of the current EU SDG indicators are aligned with the UN SDG indicators [55].

As we have shown, achieving the good health and well-being SDGs by 2030 for EU countries is of particular importance. We started our investigation from an analysis of the statistical data related to the selected SDGs (namely, SDG 1, SDG 3, SDG 4, SDG 5, SDG 10, SDG 16) provided by Eurostat for the period of 2007 to 2018. Based on the analysis and forecasting tools, the individual trends were calculated for each indicator, in order to obtain a more accurate picture of the possibility to reach the proposed targets for 2030, but also of the estimated dynamics.

For each UN SDG indicator, we assessed and calculated the general trend until 2030, based on the entire data set available for the period 2007–2018. The data used for forecasting 52 SDG health and well-being-specific indicators consists of a total of 16,848 observations for the 27 EU countries, between 2007–2018. In order not to unnecessarily load the reader with the entire data set used, we present a summary of the key findings, respectively the values of the indicators for the years 2015 (or the year closest to it, as reported by Eurostat), 2025 and 2030, as well as the direction of the general trend followed in the forecast of the indicators’ evolution (

Table 1. SDG 1—End poverty in all its forms everywhere—Indicators 1–4.

Countries	People at Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion (sdg_01_10) (%)				People at Risk of Income Poverty after Social Transfers (sdg_01_ 20) (%)				Severely Materially Deprived People (sdg_01_30) (%)				People Living in Households with Very Low Work Intensity (sdg_01_ 40) (%)
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	23.8	22.0	21.4	DOWN	17.3	17.7	18.2	UP	8.1	0.7	0.0	DOWN	10.7	10.2	10.3	UP
Belgium	21.1	20.2	20.0	DOWN	14.9	17.1	17.6	UP	5.8	5.1	4.9	DOWN	14.9	14.5	15.2	UP
Bulgaria	41.3	23.3	15.0	DOWN	22	23.3	23.8	UP	34.2	7.8	0.0	DOWN	11.6	6.4	4.6	DOWN
Czechia	14	11.0	9.6	DOWN	9.7	9.5	10.3	UP	5.6	1.8	0.3	DOWN	6.8	3.9	3.0	DOWN
Denmnark	17.7	17.7	17.9	UP	12.2	12.7	12.8	UP	3.7	3.8	4.2	UP	11.6	12.8	13.6	UP
Germany	20	18.6	18.1	DOWN	16.7	17.3	17.9	UP	4.4	2.3	1.4	DOWN	9.8	6.5	5.0	DOWN
Estonia	24.2	26.4	27.6	UP	21.6	24.2	25.9	UP	4.5	0.6	0.0	DOWN	6.6	1.7	0.0	DOWN
Ireland	26.2	9.7	1.6	DOWN	16.2	15.0	14.9	DOWN	7.5	1.0	0.0	DOWN	18.7	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Greece	35.7	37.0	40.6	UP	21.4	7.1	0.0	DOWN	22.2	30.3	35.5	UP	16.8	6.3	0.4	DOWN
Spain	28.6	30.4	32.1	UP	22.1	23.6	24.7	UP	6.4	7.7	8.8	UP	15.4	19.9	23.2	UP
France	17.7	16.4	15.6	DOWN	13.6	13.7	14.0	UP	4.5	3.9	3.5	DOWN	8.6	5.7	6.6	UP
Croatia	29.1	18.6	14.1	DOWN	20	18.3	17.5	DOWN	13.7	3.3	0.0	DOWN	14.4	7.8	5.3	DOWN
Italy	28.7	32.1	33.8	UP	19.9	21.5	22.5	UP	11.5	10.8	12.4	UP	11.7	13.7	14.8	UP
Cyprus	28.9	25.4	26.5	UP	16.2	15.6	15.6	UP	15.4	0.0	0.0	DOWN	10.9	15.6	18.9	UP
Latvia	30.9	22.3	17.9	DOWN	22.5	22.5	22.0	DOWN	16.4	0.0	0.0	DOWN	7.8	6.4	5.5	DOWN
Lithuania	29.3	27.8	27.3	DOWN	22.2	24.2	25.6	UP	13.9	8.1	5.9	DOWN	9.2	10.8	12.0	UP
Luxembourg	18.5	25.4	27.1	UP	15.3	23.1	25.8	UP	2	2.2	2.6	UP	5.7	8.8	9.9	UP
Hungary	28.2	0.0	0.0	DOWN	14.9	15.5	16.3	UP	19.4	0.0	0.0	DOWN	9.4	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Malta	23	16.3	14.4	DOWN	16.6	18.0	18.9	UP	8.5	5.6	5.5	DOWN	9.2	5.5	4.3	DOWN
Netherlands	16.4	18.0	18.9	UP	11.6	16.3	18.3	UP	2.6	3.6	4.1	UP	10.2	9.7	10.1	UP
Austria	18.3	15.7	16.3	UP	13.9	14.6	14.8	UP	3.6	2.1	1.4	DOWN	8.2	8.4	8.5	UP
Poland	23.4	9.9	3.4	DOWN	17.6	13.7	12.9	DOWN	8.1	0.0	0.0	DOWN	6.9	3.8	2.5	DOWN
Portugal	26.6	23.1	22.4	DOWN	19.5	18.8	19.0	UP	9.6	6.3	5.3	DOWN	10.9	10.8	11.8	UP
Romania	37.4	8.6	0.0	DOWN	25.4	24.6	25.2	UP	22.7	5.7	0.0	DOWN	7.9	6.4	5.7	DOWN
Slovenia	19.2	17.9	17.8	DOWN	14.3	15.7	16.7	UP	5.8	3.9	3.2	DOWN	7.4	6.8	6.7	DOWN
Slovakia	18.4	13.2	11.1	DOWN	12.3	13.3	14.0	UP	9	3.4	0.7	DOWN	7.1	6.0	5.8	DOWN
Finland	16.8	15.0	15.4	UP	12.4	9.5	9.4	DOWN	2.2	1.5	1.0	DOWN	10.8	13.1	14.5	UP
Sweden	18.6	19.5	20.6	UP	16.3	19.0	20.9	UP	1.1	0.4	0.0	DOWN	8.7	10.4	11.3	UP

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.

,

Table 2. SDG 1—End poverty in all its forms everywhere—Indicators 5–8.

Countries	In work at-Risk-of-Poverty Rate (sdg_01_41)				Population Living in a Dwelling with a Leaking Roof, Damp Walls, Floors or Foundation or Rot in Window Frames of Floor (sdg_01_ 60) (%)				Self-Reported Unmet Need for Medical Examination and Care (sdg_03_60) (%)				Population Having neither a Bath, nor a Shower, nor an Indoor Flushing Toilet in Their Household (sdg_06_10) (%)
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	9.5	10.6	11.2	UP	15.2	11.7	10.2	DOWN	3.3	1.58	1.06	DOWN	2	1.2	0.6	DOWN
Belgium	4.6	5.2	5.5	UP	18.2	19.8	20.8	UP	2.4	3.97	4.96	UP	0.2	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Bulgaria	7.7	12.6	14.3	UP	12.9	4.9	0.1	DOWN	4.7	0.0	0.0	DOWN	11.1	3.0	0.0	DOWN
Czechia	4	3.5	3.6	UP	8.9	2.0	0.0	DOWN	0.8	0.32	0.16	DOWN	0.2	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Denmnark	5.5	5.5	5.6	UP	16.1	23.8	27.4	UP	1.3	1.45	1.59	UP	0.5	0.6	0.5	DOWN
Germany	9.7	11.5	12.9	UP	12.8	12.2	11.8	DOWN	0.5	0.0	0.0	DOWN	0	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Estonia	10	12.0	13.2	UP	13.4	8.4	4.9	DOWN	12.7	22.79	30.78	UP	4.9	1.7	0.0	DOWN
Ireland	4.9	4.1	3.7	DOWN	13.6	12.6	12.4	DOWN	2.7	3.22	3.53	UP	0	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Greece	13.4	11.4	10.6	DOWN	15.1	9.2	6.5	DOWN	12.3	16.29	19.49	UP	0.4	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Spain	13.1	14.7	16.0	UP	15.2	11.2	9.0	DOWN	0.6	0.0	0.0	DOWN	0.1	0.2	0.3	UP
France	7.5	8.5	9.0	UP	12.6	11.9	12.1	UP	1.2	0.61	0.15	DOWN	0.3	0.2	0.2	DOWN
Croatia	5.9	4.7	3.6	DOWN	10.9	5.1	0.8	DOWN	1.9	0.0	0.0	DOWN	1.5	1.4	1.6	UP
Italy	11.5	14.8	15.7	UP	24.1	15.9	14.1	DOWN	7.2	2.34	1.28	DOWN	0	0.3	0.4	UP
Cyprus	9.1	8.6	9.4	UP	26.5	28.1	27.7	DOWN	1.5	0.0	0.0	DOWN	0.8	0.1	0.0	DOWN
Latvia	9.2	7.0	6.1	DOWN	24.4	21.3	19.8	DOWN	8.4	0.23	0.0	DOWN	12.3	3.8	0.1	DOWN
Lithuania	9.9	7.4	6.8	DOWN	17	9.2	5.2	DOWN	2.9	0.72	0.0	DOWN	10.6	4.5	0.9	DOWN
Luxembourg	11.6	15.9	17.7	UP	14.4	18.5	19.3	UP	0.9	0.13	0.02	DOWN	0	0.1	0.0	DOWN
Hungary	9.3	12.3	14.3	UP	25.4	27.5	29.2	UP	2.6	0.10	0.0	DOWN	3.4	2.8	2.4	DOWN
Malta	5.5	6.9	7.3	UP	10.1	0.0	0.0	DOWN	0.8	0.0	0.0	DOWN	0	0.0	0.0	N/A
Netherlands	5	6.6	7.1	UP	15.7	14.9	14.5	DOWN	0.1	0.01	0.0	DOWN	0	0.1	0.1	N/A
Austria	7.9	8.7	8.4	DOWN	11.7	9.4	8.4	DOWN	0.1	0.0	0.0	DOWN	0.3	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Poland	11.2	9.2	8.5	DOWN	11.9	0.6	0.0	DOWN	7.3	2.06	0.52	DOWN	2.6	0.7	0.0	DOWN
Portugal	10.9	10.5	10.6	UP	28.1	37.8	42.9	UP	3	2.97	3.25	UP	0.9	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Romania	18.8	17.3	17.2	DOWN	12.8	1.7	0.0	DOWN	9.4	1.23	0.0	DOWN	30.5	15.2	7.8	DOWN
Slovenia	6.7	7.1	7.9	UP	26.9	15.9	11.8	DOWN	0.2	4.25	5.59	UP	0.3	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Slovakia	6	6.8	7.3	UP	6.3	5.2	4.5	DOWN	2.1	3.26	3.76	UP	0.7	1.2	1.4	UP
Finland	3.5	1.7	0.8	DOWN	4.4	4.3	4.0	DOWN	4.3	5.79	6.63	UP	0.3	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Sweden	8	7.0	6.9	DOWN	7.7	7.8	7.9	UP	1.3	0.88	0.45	DOWN	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.

,

Table 3. SDG 1—End poverty in all its forms everywhere—Indicators 9–10.

Countries	Population Unable to Keep Home Adequately Warm (sdg_07_ 60) (%)				Overcrowding Rate (sdg_11_10) (%)
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	9.4	3.4	0.7	DOWN	16.7	13.8	12.5	DOWN
Belgium	5.2	2.3	0.2	DOWN	1.6	14.1	20.0	UP
Bulgaria	39.2	6.5	0.0	DOWN	41.4	35.4	31.3	DOWN
Czechia	5	1.8	0.5	DOWN	18.7	12.5	10.3	DOWN
Denmnark	3.6	1.7	0.7	DOWN	8.1	10.1	10.8	UP
Germany	4.1	1.5	0.2	DOWN	7	7.4	7.7	UP
Estonia	2	2.5	2.4	DOWN	13.4	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Ireland	9	5.6	6.4	UP	3.8	1.7	1.1	DOWN
Greece	29.2	39.2	46.3	UP	28.1	31.4	33.0	UP
Spain	10.6	11.7	13.1	UP	5.5	4.8	4.4	DOWN
France	5.5	5.5	5.9	UP	7.4	5.6	4.5	DOWN
Croatia	9.9	6.3	5.4	DOWN	41.7	34.7	31.4	DOWN
Italy	17	6.7	1.5	DOWN	27.8	30.8	32.9	UP
Cyprus	28.3	17.7	14.7	DOWN	1.4	2.3	2.2	DOWN
Latvia	14.5	0.0	0.0	DOWN	41.4	50.3	55.2	UP
Lithuania	31.1	31.7	34.3	UP	26.4	3.5	0.0	DOWN
Luxembourg	0.9	2.8	3.4	UP	6.8	8.2	8.4	UP
Hungary	9.6	0.0	0.0	DOWN	41.1	8.9	0.9	DOWN
Malta	14.1	5.9	4.8	DOWN	3.8	2.7	2.3	DOWN
Netherlands	2.9	3.4	3.9	UP	3.3	6.0	7.3	UP
Austria	2.6	0.9	0.1	DOWN	15	14.2	14.6	UP
Poland	7.5	0.0	0.0	DOWN	43.4	31.2	25.5	DOWN
Portugal	23.8	8.3	0.5	DOWN	10.3	4.3	1.1	DOWN
Romania	13.1	0.0	0.0	DOWN	49.7	40.7	36.7	DOWN
Slovenia	5.6	3.8	3.5	DOWN	13.7	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Slovakia	5.8	5.2	5.4	UP	37.8	31.6	28.7	DOWN
Finland	1.7	1.8	2.1	UP	6.7	7.6	8.0	UP
Sweden	1.2	2.2	2.3	UP	13.9	17.5	19.2	UP

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.

,

Table 4. SDG 3—Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages—Indicators 1–4.

Countries	Life Expectancy at Birth (sdg_03_10) (Years)				Share of People with Good or Very Good Perceived Health (sdg_03_ 20) (%)				Smoking Prevalence (sdg_03_ 30) (%)				Standardised Death Rate due to Chronic Diseases (sdg_03_ 40) (Number per 100,000 Persons Aged Less than 65)
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2014	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	80.6	82.3	83.2	UP	67.1	70.06	70.80	UP	26	18.32	15.80	DOWN	122.1	91.02	75.48	DOWN
Belgium	81.1	83.1	84.0	UP	74.6	75.40	75.88	UP	25	15.25	11.86	DOWN	105.1	68.82	54.27	DOWN
Bulgaria	74.7	76.2	77.1	UP	65.6	67.57	68.34	UP	35	32.19	29.81	DOWN	202.4	162.93	145.13	DOWN
Czechia	78.7	80.8	81.8	UP	61.3	61.46	61.50	UP	24	24.08	24.42	UP	141.4	89.73	63.02	UP
Denmnark	80.8	83.1	84.4	UP	71.6	69.32	67.99	DOWN	23	10.70	5.35	DOWN	109.5	75.42	57.23	DOWN
Germany	80.7	81.8	82.2	UP	64.6	67.16	68.32	UP	27	23.40	22.10	DOWN	114.2	93.21	83.13	DOWN
Estonia	78	79.9	80.9	UP	51.5	51.24	50.66	DOWN	22	13.71	8.90	DOWN	157.6	90.89	55.16	DOWN
Ireland	81.5	83.8	84.9	UP	82.6	89.45	93.30	UP	22	11.39	6.34	DOWN	99.9	69.20	53.56	DOWN
Greece	81.1	83.0	83.8	UP	74.1	73.11	72.23	DOWN	38	33.08	30.75	DOWN	120.5	114.77	111.34	DOWN
Spain	83	85.2	86.3	UP	72.6	75.97	77.51	UP	29	21.73	18.29	DOWN	96.4	73.45	61.69	DOWN
France	82.4	84.0	84.8	UP	67.9	65.93	64.72	DOWN	32	36.37	37.61	UP	104.2	80.22	68.25	UP
Croatia	77.5	79.8	80.9	UP	58.2	77.66	88.36	UP	33	35.58	36.32	UP	180.8	141.32	124.27	UP
Italy	82.7	84.7	85.5	UP	65.8	80.55	85.59	UP	21	18.80	16.22	DOWN	88.1	61.91	50.91	DOWN
Cyprus	81.8	84.5	85.7	UP	80.3	79.81	81.19	UP	31	27.74	26.10	DOWN	88.9	63.61	53.61	DOWN
Latvia	74.8	75.8	76.3	UP	46.3	48.09	49.03	UP	30	24.28	21.14	DOWN	221.6	135.33	90.42	DOWN
Lithuania	74.6	78.9	81.0	UP	42.8	39.02	36.40	DOWN	26	23.94	21.72	DOWN	231.5	140.27	93.73	DOWN
Luxembourg	82.4	84.2	85.4	UP	70.5	64.80	63.31	DOWN	21	15.39	13.10	DOWN	85.7	75.19	63.66	DOWN
Hungary	75.7	78.1	79.2	UP	56.4	66.18	70.13	UP	30	19.10	12.78	DOWN	255.7	162.34	118.37	DOWN
Malta	82	84.7	86.0	UP	71.2	77.06	78.52	UP	20	16.36	13.93	DOWN	105.3	83.04	73.72	DOWN
Netherlands	81.6	82.9	83.6	UP	76.2	74.92	74.31	DOWN	23	16.82	15.45	DOWN	98.6	73.50	60.93	DOWN
Austria	81.3	82.9	83.6	UP	69.9	76.33	79.93	UP	26	19.16	14.83	DOWN	108.2	78.03	63.67	DOWN
Poland	77.5	79.9	81.1	UP	57.9	60.30	61.21	UP	28	22.48	19.88	DOWN	160.9	104.10	76.57	DOWN
Portugal	81.3	83.3	84.4	UP	46.5	48.56	48.82	UP	26	28.19	29.44	UP	113.7	102.36	95.96	UP
Romania	74.9	77.0	78.1	UP	70	71.21	71.64	UP	27	23.74	22.12	DOWN	230.9	180.86	153.93	DOWN
Slovenia	80.9	83.5	84.8	UP	64.8	70.60	74.32	UP	31	33.39	35.76	UP	131.3	76.08	51.91	UP
Slovakia	76.7	79.5	80.8	UP	66	73.29	77.91	UP	21	23.84	23.55	DOWN	195.2	139.25	119.40	DOWN
Finland	81.6	83.4	84.5	UP	69.9	70.57	71.17	UP	19	14.56	13.82	DOWN	101.6	66.08	47.91	DOWN
Sweden	82.2	83.6	84.2	UP	77.6	74.98	74.18	DOWN	11	0.18	0.0	DOWN	79.1	55.15	42.75	DOWN

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.

,

Table 5. SDG 3—Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages—Indicators 5–8.

Countries	Standardised Death Rate due to Tuberculosis, HIV and Hepatitis (sdg_03_ 41) (Number per 100,000 Persons)				Self-Reported Unmet Need for Medical Examination and Care (sdg_03_ 60) (% of Population Aged 16 and over)				Obesity Rate by Body Mass Index (sdg_02_ 10) (BMI)				People Killed in Accidents at Work (sdg_08_60) (Number per 100,000 Employees)
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2014	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	2.9	1.32	0.57	DOWN	2.6	1.48	0.96	DOWN	51.6	53.1	53.3	UP	1.4	0.32	0.0	DOWN
Belgium	1.4	0.0	0.0	DOWN	2.5	4.17	5.16	UP	49.3	50.1	50.3	DOWN	3.6	2.24	1.96	DOWN
Bulgaria	2.1	0.31	0.0	DOWN	2.8	0.0	0.0	DOWN	54	66.3	68.2	UP	2.8	1.14	0.82	DOWN
Czechia	1	0.87	0.78	DOWN	0.7	0.29	0.12	DOWN	56.8	66.1	67.4	UP	1.0	0.17	0.0	DOWN
Denmnark	0.9	0.70	0.17	DOWN	1.3	1.48	1.62	UP	47.7	47.7	47.7	UP	1.0	0.57	0.44	DOWN
Germany	1.8	1.02	0.69	DOWN	0.3	0.0	0.0	DOWN	52.1	52.1	52.1	UP	2.9	3.71	3.78	UP
Estonia	5.4	3.20	1.96	DOWN	15.3	25.98	32.38	UP	53.9	60.5	61.6	UP	2.5	1.73	1.59	DOWN
Ireland	1.3	0.0	0.0	DOWN	2.5	3.28	3.60	UP	55.7	60.8	61.8	UP	1.2	1.92	2.17	UP
Greece	1.4	1.44	1.34	DOWN	13.1	16.93	20.13	UP	56.7	57.4	57.6	UP	2.3	1.51	1.38	DOWN
Spain	3.7	0.44	0.0	DOWN	0.5	0.0	0.0	DOWN	52.4	50.6	50.4	DOWN	2.6	2.46	2.47	UP
France	2.1	0.24	0.0	DOWN	1.3	0.52	0.06	DOWN	47.2	49.0	49.5	DOWN	2.2	1.64	1.45	DOWN
Croatia	2.7	1.81	1.08	DOWN	1.7	0.0	0.0	DOWN	57.4	70.2	72.6	UP	2.4	1.05	0.67	DOWN
Italy	5.5	3.42	2.63	DOWN	5.5	2.13	1.07	DOWN	44.9	44.9	44.9	UP	1.3	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Cyprus	1.6	2.59	3.06	UP	0.6	0.0	0.0	DOWN	48.3	52.8	53.1	UP	3.3	2.65	2.49	DOWN
Latvia	11.6	12.96	13.89	UP	8.2	0.0	0.0	DOWN	56.5	58.9	59.4	UP	3.8	1.53	1.04	DOWN
Lithuania	7.8	4.48	2.52	DOWN	3.1	0.53	0.0	DOWN	55.6	57.8	58.2	UP	3.3	5.32	7.85	UP
Luxembourg	1.5	1.27	1.04	DOWN	0.4	0.11	0.0	DOWN	48	52.8	53.6	UP	2.3	1.74	1.64	DOWN
Hungary	3.3	3.96	4.43	UP	1.3	0.0	0.0	DOWN	55.2	57.3	57.7	UP	2.7	2.18	4.14	UP
Malta	1.2	0.0	0.0	DOWN	1	0.0	0.0	DOWN	61	64.3	64.9	UP	0.5	0.31	0.21	DOWN
Netherlands	0.8	0.19	0.0	DOWN	0.2	0.0	0.0	DOWN	49.4	40.6	39.0	DOWN	3.2	2.06	1.64	DOWN
Austria	4.3	2.65	2.06	DOWN	0.2	0.0	0.0	DOWN	48	50.0	50.1	UP	1.9	0.25	0.0	DOWN
Poland	2.8	1.68	1.43	DOWN	6.6	1.75	0.22	DOWN	54.7	57.5	58.0	UP	3.5	0.77	0.0	DOWN
Portugal	6.8	1.24	0.0	DOWN	2.4	3.03	3.30	UP	53.6	52.5	52.3	DOWN	5.6	3.29	2.83	DOWN
Romania	6.8	3.63	2.31	DOWN	6.5	0.79	0.0	DOWN	55.8	73.1	75.9	UP	2.8	1.22	0.91	DOWN
Slovenia	0.8	0.0	0.0	DOWN	0.4	4.52	5.86	UP	56.6	49.8	48.9	DOWN	2.7	3.21	3.45	UP
Slovakia	0.9	0.87	0.77	DOWN	2.3	3.36	3.85	UP	54.2	58.3	59.1	UP	1.4	0.89	1.19	UP
Finland	0.9 (*)	0.0	0.0	DOWN	4.1	5.96	6.80	UP	54.7	78.2	82.4	UP	0.7	0.23	0.03	DOWN
Sweden	1.2	0.61	0.0	DOWN	1.6	0.80	0.37	DOWN	49.9	49.9	49.9	UP	1.4	0.32	0.0	DOWN

Source: Eurostat, own calculations. ⁽*⁾ Estimated values.

,

Table 6. SDG 3—Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages—Indicators 9–11.

Countries	Population Living in Households Considering that They Suffer from Noise (sdg_11_20) (%)				People Killed in Road Accidents (sdg_11_30) (Number per 100,000 Persons)				Exposure to Air Pollution by Particulate Matter (sdg_11_50) (µg/m3)
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	18	14.91	12.48	DOWN	5.1	4.83	4.78	DOWN	14.6	11.17	9.34	DOWN
Belgium	18	17.06	17.97	UP	6.8	2.50	0.54	DOWN	13.5	6.83	1.95	DOWN
Bulgaria	9.7	3.52	0.09	DOWN	9.9	6.02	4.11	DOWN	25	9.23	2.58	DOWN
Czechia	13.9	10.19	8.00	DOWN	7	2.91	0.56	DOWN	17.4	16.91	16.01	DOWN
Denmnark	16.5	17.17	16.44	DOWN	3.1	0.31	0.0	DOWN	11.3	9.87	9.50	DOWN
Germany	25.8	27.67	27.70	UP	4.2	2.68	1.80	DOWN	13.3	9.52	7.55	DOWN
Estonia	9.4	1.82	0.0	DOWN	5.1	0.37	0.0	DOWN	6.7	3.90	2.81	DOWN
Ireland	8.2	7.14	5.53	DOWN	3.4	0.93	0.0	DOWN	7.9	6.49	3.60	DOWN
Greece	19.2	16.69	14.81	DOWN	7.3	0.07	0.0	DOWN	16.4	1.72	0.0	DOWN
Spain	15.7	11.25	7.60	DOWN	3.6	1.48	0.0	DOWN	13	9.33	8.10	DOWN
France	16.4	15.91	15.16	DOWN	5.2	3.37	2.35	DOWN	13.5	7.22	4.19	DOWN
Croatia	8.3	4.63	2.22	DOWN	8.3	1.63	0.0	DOWN	20.8	18.47	16.06	DOWN
Italy	18.3	3.22	0.0	DOWN	5.6	3.53	2.13	DOWN	21.6	11.17	6.64	DOWN
Cyprus	17.2	3.37	0.0	DOWN	6.7	2.18	0.0	DOWN	17.3	5.17	0.0	DOWN
Latvia	14.6	11.09	9.22	DOWN	9.5	2.50	0.0	DOWN	15.9	11.41	9.79	DOWN
Lithuania	15.4	12.96	11.64	DOWN	8.3	0.97	0.0	DOWN	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Luxembourg	20.1	19.64	19.74	UP	6.3	2.73	1.05	DOWN	11.7	5.39	1.74	DOWN
Hungary	13.7	8.43	7.34	DOWN	6.5	3.70	1.71	DOWN	20.5 (*)	20.83	20.81	DOWN
Malta	24.6	28.06	28.50	UP	2.5	4.65	5.16	UP	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Netherlands	24.7	25.11	23.68	DOWN	3.1	2.35	1.89	DOWN	12.7	5.64	2.20	DOWN
Austria	17.5	14.66	12.81	DOWN	5.5	1.75	0.0	DOWN	14.4	5.81	1.37	DOWN
Poland	12.4	9.58	6.56	DOWN	7.7	6.96	6.61	DOWN	23.8	15.59	8.85	DOWN
Portugal	23	21.52	20.46	DOWN	5.7	3.38	1.86	DOWN	10.3	18.63	23.18	UP
Romania	22.2	7.41	0.0	DOWN	9.6	5.34	3.10	DOWN	17.1	16.18	15.29	DOWN
Slovenia	12.9	8.64	5.96	DOWN	5.8	0.0	0.0	DOWN	21.6	18.13	16.92	DOWN
Slovakia	12.8	5.60	0.0	DOWN	5.7	0.83	0.0	DOWN	19	6.68	0.96	DOWN
Finland	11.7	11.01	9.55	DOWN	4.9	2.72	1.67	DOWN	6	2.93	1.30	DOWN
Sweden	12.6	17.95	19.41	DOWN	2.6	2.01	1.16	DOWN	5.8	2.10	0.17	DOWN

Source: Eurostat, own calculations. ⁽*⁾ Estimated values.

,

Table 7. SDG 4—Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all—Indicators 1–4.

Countries	Early Leavers from Education and Training (sdg_04_10) (% of Population Aged 18 to 24)				Tertiary Educational Attainment (sdg_04_20) (% of Population Aged 30 to 34)				Participation in Early Childhood Education (sdg_04_30) (% of the Age Group between 4 Years Old and the Starting Age of Compulsory Education)				Underachievement in Reading, Maths or Science (sdg_04_40) (% of 15-Year-Old Students)
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	11	6.57	4.26	DOWN	38.7	46.22	50.16	UP	94.9	99.03	100.00	UP	19.7	26.30	29.70	UP
Belgium	10.1	6.15	4.40	DOWN	42.7	47.67	51.02	UP	98.3	97.76	97.23	DOWN	19.5	20.38	20.79	UP
Bulgaria	13.4	11.67	10.93	DOWN	32.1	38.75	42.36	UP	89.2	86.57	87.03	UP	41.5	43.45	43.48	UP
Czechia	6.2	7.37	8.02	UP	30.1	38.32	41.62	UP	88	90.85	90.38	DOWN	22	21.58	22.02	UP
Denmnark	8.1	7.57	5.55	DOWN	45.7	55.07	59.78	UP	98.5	100.00	100.00	UP	15	15.17	14.56	DOWN
Germany	10.1	8.23	7.16	DOWN	32.3	39.55	42.91	UP	97.4	96.92	97.57	UP	16.2	15.62	14.19	DOWN
Estonia	12.2	9.47	8.22	DOWN	45.3	57.76	64.38	UP	91.9	91.72	90.96	DOWN	10.6	9.21	8.11	DOWN
Ireland	6.8	0.0	0.0	DOWN	53.8	61.98	66.10	UP	97.7	100.00	100.00	UP	10.2	10.55	10.46	DOWN
Greece	7.9	0.0	0.0	DOWN	40.4	55.87	64.13	UP	80.5	92.01	98.34	UP	27.3	29.47	30.50	UP
Spain	20	7.99	1.00	DOWN	40.9	41.72	41.87	UP	97.7	96.75	96.43	DOWN	16.2	13.41	11.91	DOWN
France	9.2	5.02	2.80	DOWN	45.1	47.85	49.61	UP	100	100.00	100.00	UP	21.5	23.24	24.60	UP
Croatia	2.8	1.68	0.62	DOWN	30.8	41.30	49.71	UP	73.8	88.26	94.37	UP	19.9	20.79	20.60	DOWN
Italy	14.7	9.64	6.66	DOWN	25.3	34.14	38.66	UP	96.2	91.21	88.61	DOWN	21	23.11	23.15	UP
Cyprus	5.2	2.18	0.0	DOWN	54.5	64.86	70.45	UP	89.6	97.46	100.00	UP	35.6	55.28	64.18	UP
Latvia	9.9	2.79	0.0	DOWN	41.3	43.60	43.75	UP	95	100.00	100.00	UP	17.7	18.57	16.87	DOWN
Lithuania	5.5	2.27	0.56	DOWN	57.6	75.89	86.72	UP	90.8	98.86	100.00	UP	25.1	24.21	24.09	DOWN
Luxembourg	9.3	3.00	0.72	DOWN	52.3	67.20	75.06	UP	96.6	97.62	98.70	UP	25.6	27.83	27.08	DOWN
Hungary	11.6	13.59	13.54	UP	34.3	44.09	50.27	UP	95.3	96.32	96.62	UP	27.5	27.30	28.57	UP
Malta	20.2	11.38	7.08	DOWN	29.1	44.23	51.03	UP	100	96.96	96.33	DOWN	35.6	35.46	35.23	DOWN
Netherlands	8.2	4.23	2.08	DOWN	46.3	57.80	63.29	UP	97.6	95.33	94.13	DOWN	18.1	26.78	30.33	UP
Austria	7.3	4.85	3.33	DOWN	38.7	57.66	68.67	UP	94.8	100.00	100.00	UP	22.5	23.61	24.49	UP
Poland	5.3	3.44	2.47	DOWN	43.4	46.52	47.03	UP	90.1	96.12	98.11	UP	14.4	11.08	8.90	DOWN
Portugal	13.7	5.96	1.79	DOWN	31.9	45.74	52.92	UP	93.6	97.13	99.58	UP	17.2	15.13	14.08	DOWN
Romania	19.1	18.66	19.04	DOWN	25.6	35.17	40.84	UP	87.6	87.33	87.83	UP	38.7	35.46	33.36	DOWN
Slovenia	5	4.00	3.85	DOWN	43.4	52.73	59.89	UP	90.5	97.51	100.00	UP	15.1	15.93	15.23	DOWN
Slovakia	6.9	10.73	12.26	UP	28.4	49.87	59.67	UP	78.4	83.08	83.71	UP	32.1	36.21	38.84	UP
Finland	9.2	7.16	6.41	DOWN	45.5	43.18	42.36	DOWN	83.6	100.00	100.00	UP	11.1	16.42	18.65	UP
Sweden	7	7.40	7.36	DOWN	50.2	54.54	56.46	UP	95	96.97	97.73	UP	18.4	23.00	25.13	UP

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.

,

Table 8. SDG 4—Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all—Indicators 5–7.

Countries	Employment Rates of Recent Graduates (sdg_04_50) (% of Population Aged 20 to 34 with at Least Upper-Secondary Education)				Adult Participation in Learning (sdg_04_60) (% of Population Aged 25 to 64)				Young People neither in Employment nor in Education and Training (sdg_08_20) (% of Population Aged 15 to 29)
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	76.8	93.09	100.00	UP	10.8	12.47	13.42	UP	14.8	9.06	6.34	DOWN
Belgium	79.5	80.53	80.19	DOWN	6.9	9.03	9.40	UP	14.4	7.88	4.98	DOWN
Bulgaria	74.6	75.82	77.22	UP	2	3.08	3.50	UP	22.2	10.79	5.58	DOWN
Czechia	82.2	91.06	92.11	UP	8.5	9.92	10.83	UP	11.8	3.31	0.0	DOWN
Denmnark	80.8	80.64	77.73	DOWN	31.5	27.30	26.89	DOWN	8.5	11.85	13.42	UP
Germany	90.4	96.64	99.94	UP	8.1	8.58	8.80	UP	8.5	5.44	3.76	DOWN
Estonia	80.4	84.20	86.00	UP	12.4	23.85	28.23	UP	12.5	10.05	8.92	DOWN
Ireland	77.9	89.17	92.56	UP	6.5	11.95	13.07	UP	16.5	2.79	0.0	DOWN
Greece	45.2	77.75	93.78	UP	3.3	5.13	5.83	UP	24.1	7.48	0.0	DOWN
Spain	65.2	100.00	100.00	UP	9.9	9.70	9.18	DOWN	19.4	6.72	0.59	DOWN
France	71.8	68.87	65.87	DOWN	18.6	32.18	40.21	UP	14.7	14.03	14.26	UP
Croatia	62.9	66.23	62.68	DOWN	3.1	2.71	2.65	DOWN	19.9	0.06	0.0	DOWN
Italy	48.5	41.59	35.52	DOWN	7.3	9.23	10.69	UP	25.7	29.43	32.13	UP
Cyprus	68.9	100.00	100.00	UP	7.5	5.27	4.31	DOWN	18.5	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Latvia	78.8	87.56	90.41	UP	5.7	7.95	7.78	DOWN	13.8	8.29	5.91	DOWN
Lithuania	82.1	89.31	92.63	UP	5.8	7.11	7.72	UP	11.8	3.25	0.0	DOWN
Luxembourg	84.7	85.14	84.67	DOWN	18	23.97	28.20	UP	7.6	6.13	5.81	DOWN
Hungary	80.4	100.00	100.00	UP	7.1	8.49	10.09	UP	15.1	8.25	4.93	DOWN
Malta	95	95.71	96.35	UP	7.4	13.21	15.22	UP	11.8	6.06	3.93	DOWN
Netherlands	88.2	86.67	85.08	DOWN	18.9	20.82	22.03	UP	6.7	7.16	7.59	UP
Austria	86.9	87.36	86.71	DOWN	14.4	16.77	17.74	UP	8.7	8.02	7.67	DOWN
Poland	77.4	90.79	96.28	UP	3.5	3.90	3.61	DOWN	14.6	6.43	2.39	DOWN
Portugal	72.2	88.09	93.03	UP	9.7	13.79	16.27	UP	13.2	1.17	0.0	DOWN
Romania	68.1	65.51	62.11	DOWN	1.3	0.66	0.36	DOWN	20.9	19.66	21.56	UP
Slovenia	71.5	74.54	72.91	DOWN	11.9	8.50	6.42	DOWN	12.3	12.62	13.70	UP
Slovakia	75.2	95.69	100.00	UP	3.1	3.17	3.03	DOWN	17.2	5.78	0.0	DOWN
Finland	75.5	75.73	74.15	DOWN	25.4	31.89	34.35	UP	12.4	12.79	13.76	UP
Sweden	85.9	90.77	92.64	UP	29.4	38.83	43.98	UP	7.4	5.70	4.89	DOWN

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.

,

Table 9. SDG 5—Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls—Indicators 2–5.

Countries	Gender Pay Gap in Unadjusted Form (sdg_05_20) (% of Average Gross Hourly Earnings of Men)				Gender Employment Gap (sdg_05_30) (%)				Inactive Population due to Caring Responsibilities (sdg_05_40) (% of Inactive Population Aged 20 to 64)				Seats Held by Women in National Parliaments and Governments (sdg_05_50) (%)
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	16.5	14.45	13.51	DOWN	11.6	9.13	7.36	DOWN	20.7	23.61	25.02	UP	28	35.88	39.66	UP
Belgium	6.5	2.27	0.0	DOWN	8.3	4.44	1.81	DOWN	16.8	14.57	12.95	DOWN	41.4	42.67	44.20	UP
Bulgaria	15.4	14.69	15.55	UP	6.6	9.95	11.21	UP	22.2	36.97	43.52	UP	19.6	24.50	25.25	UP
Czechia	22.5	17.83	15.91	DOWN	16.6	12.72	10.83	DOWN	24.7	35.17	41.04	UP	19.6	24.29	26.64	UP
Denmnark	15.1	12.61	11.19	DOWN	7.8	6.52	6.23	DOWN	4.8	5.28	5.91	UP	37.4	33.91	32.08	DOWN
Germany	22	20.01	19.19	DOWN	8.7	4.66	2.55	DOWN	19	17.21	16.10	DOWN	36.2	37.03	38.51	UP
Estonia	26.9	7.25	0.0	DOWN	7.9	9.17	10.15	UP	25.5	30.96	33.00	UP	25.7	31.91	35.32	UP
Ireland	13.9	14.06	13.86	DOWN	12.3	12.69	13.04	UP	40.5	78.90	100.00	UP	20.1	31.00	35.59	UP
Greece	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	18	15.11	10.90	DOWN	17.7	6.77	0.35	DOWN	19.7	20.71	22.43	UP
Spain	14.2	12.14	10.49	DOWN	11.2	13.64	14.74	UP	29.9	22.21	17.73	DOWN	39.9	45.56	49.41	UP
France	15.3	14.62	14.01	DOWN	7.2	5.05	3.60	DOWN	11.5	21.05	26.95	UP	26.3	47.88	55.65	UP
Croatia	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	9.5	6.44	3.75	DOWN	19	20.55	20.81	UP	25.2	18.76	17.53	DOWN
Italy	5.5	6.00	6.20	UP	20	14.69	11.79	DOWN	20.3	27.12	28.42	UP	30.2	45.09	53.12	UP
Cyprus	14	13.37	13.21	DOWN	8.3	2.39	0.0	DOWN	36	30.90	25.87	DOWN	12.5	20.44	22.04	UP
Latvia	17	18.98	20.47	UP	4.1	2.73	1.68	DOWN	23.6	19.10	19.21	UP	17	21.69	22.17	UP
Lithuania	14.2	10.54	8.07	DOWN	2.4	0.48	0.0	DOWN	15	23.96	28.22	UP	24.1	22.54	22.79	UP
Luxembourg	5.5	0.47	0.0	DOWN	11.7	6.57	5.55	DOWN	18.4	0.0	0.0	DOWN	28.3	27.77	29.60	UP
Hungary	14	4.03	0.0	DOWN	13.7	18.32	20.47	UP	19.1	26.41	29.69	UP	10.1	12.87	13.07	UP
Malta	10.4	14.83	16.89	UP	26.8	9.19	0.27	DOWN	33.5	20.25	11.68	DOWN	13	19.08	22.17	UP
Netherlands	16.1	11.78	9.69	DOWN	11.1	7.68	5.95	DOWN	11.1	7.01	4.09	DOWN	36.9	31.52	29.76	DOWN
Austria	21.7	15.52	12.94	DOWN	8.2	5.10	2.95	DOWN	19.2	16.94	15.57	DOWN	30.5	37.38	39.57	UP
Poland	7.4	6.63	5.08	DOWN	13.8	13.55	13.19	DOWN	24.6	34.90	39.32	UP	24.6	33.55	36.79	UP
Portugal	17.8	23.48	27.52	UP	6.7	3.03	0.33	DOWN	13.8	8.34	3.66	DOWN	34.3	40.66	44.20	UP
Romania	5.8	0.0	0.0	DOWN	17.5	20.33	23.11	UP	21.5	28.15	31.54	UP	12.1	43.83	61.27	UP
Slovenia	8.1	13.22	16.44	UP	8.6	6.03	5.12	DOWN	8.7	11.77	12.30	UP	26.2	42.33	51.48	UP
Slovakia	19.6	17.23	15.83	DOWN	14.7	10.91	9.24	DOWN	23.2	29.25	31.73	UP	20	23.10	24.75	UP
Finland	17.6	13.45	11.40	DOWN	2.1	2.16	1.62	DOWN	13.1	12.18	11.90	DOWN	41.5	42.92	43.40	UP
Sweden	14	9.34	7.10	DOWN	4.2	1.99	1.14	DOWN	6	6.52	6.74	UP	43.6	44.57	44.08	UP

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.

,

Table 10. SDG 5—Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls—Indicators 6–9.

Countries	Positions Held by Women in Senior Management Positions (sdg_05_60) (%)				Early Leavers from Education and Training (sdg_04_10) (% of Population Aged 18 to 24)				Tertiary Educational Attainment (sdg_04_20) (% of Population Aged 30 to 34)				Employment Rates of Recent Graduates (sdg_04_50) (% of Population Aged 20 to 34 with at Least Upper-Secondary Education)
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	22.7	37.97	46.01	UP	11	6.57	4.26	DOWN	38.7	46.22	50.16	UP	76.8	93.09	100.00	UP
Belgium	26	49.60	62.17	UP	10.1	6.15	4.40	DOWN	42.7	47.67	51.02	UP	79.5	80.53	80.19	DOWN
Bulgaria	19	21.79	20.01	UP	13.4	11.67	10.93	DOWN	32.1	38.75	42.36	UP	74.6	75.82	77.22	UP
Czechia	10.4	10.58	10.19	DOWN	6.2	7.37	8.02	UP	30.1	38.32	41.62	UP	82.2	91.06	92.11	UP
Denmnark	25.8	38.08	44.88	UP	8.1	7.57	5.55	DOWN	45.7	55.07	59.78	UP	80.8	80.64	77.73	DOWN
Germany	26.1	50.17	61.87	UP	10.1	8.23	7.16	DOWN	32.3	39.55	42.91	UP	90.4	96.64	99.94	UP
Estonia	8.1	7.71	7.54	DOWN	12.2	9.47	8.22	DOWN	45.3	57.76	64.38	UP	80.4	84.20	86.00	UP
Ireland	15.3	26.06	31.74	UP	6.8	0.0	0.0	DOWN	53.8	61.98	66.10	UP	77.9	89.17	92.56	UP
Greece	9.8	11.27	12.66	UP	7.9	0.0	0.0	DOWN	40.4	55.87	64.13	UP	45.2	77.75	93.78	UP
Spain	18.7	34.93	42.96	UP	20	7.99	1.00	DOWN	40.9	41.72	41.87	UP	65.2	100.00	100.00	UP
France	35.6	70.34	88.92	UP	9.2	5.02	2.80	DOWN	45.1	47.85	49.61	UP	71.8	68.87	65.87	DOWN
Croatia	22.2	26.01	29.43	UP	2.8	1.68	0.62	DOWN	30.8	41.30	49.71	UP	62.9	66.23	62.68	DOWN
Italy	28.6	59.89	76.66	UP	14.7	9.64	6.66	DOWN	25.3	34.14	38.66	UP	48.5	41.59	35.52	DOWN
Cyprus	9	18.11	23.30	UP	5.2	2.18	0.0	DOWN	54.5	64.86	70.45	UP	68.9	100.00	100.00	UP
Latvia	30.4	41.12	47.72	UP	9.9	2.79	0.0	DOWN	41.3	43.60	43.75	UP	78.8	87.56	90.41	UP
Lithuania	14.3	11.48	9.99	DOWN	5.5	2.27	0.56	DOWN	57.6	75.89	86.72	UP	82.1	89.31	92.63	UP
Luxembourg	12.1	21.54	27.42	UP	9.3	3.00	0.72	DOWN	52.3	67.20	75.06	UP	84.7	85.14	84.67	DOWN
Hungary	17.8	15.03	16.21	UP	11.6	13.59	13.54	DOWN	34.3	44.09	50.27	UP	80.4	100.00	100.00	UP
Malta	4.5	9.78	11.69	UP	20.2	11.38	7.08	DOWN	29.1	44.23	51.03	UP	95	95.71	96.35	UP
Netherlands	25.5	41.97	50.01	UP	8.2	4.23	2.08	DOWN	46.3	57.80	63.29	UP	88.2	86.67	85.08	DOWN
Austria	20	33.81	47.14	UP	7.3	4.85	3.33	DOWN	38.7	57.66	68.67	UP	86.9	87.36	86.71	DOWN
Poland	19.4	27.68	32.45	UP	5.3	3.44	2.47	DOWN	43.4	46.52	47.03	UP	77.4	90.79	96.28	UP
Portugal	13.5	29.56	37.41	UP	13.7	5.96	1.79	DOWN	31.9	45.74	52.92	UP	72.2	88.09	93.03	UP
Romania	11.8	6.46	3.89	DOWN	19.1	18.66	19.04	UP	25.6	35.17	40.84	UP	68.1	65.51	62.11	DOWN
Slovenia	21.5	36.26	42.50	UP	5	4.00	3.85	DOWN	43.4	52.73	59.89	UP	71.5	74.54	72.91	DOWN
Slovakia	12.7	16.79	15.76	UP	6.9	10.73	12.26	UP	28.4	49.87	59.67	UP	75.2	95.69	100.00	UP
Finland	29.2	44.24	51.20	UP	9.2	7.16	6.41	DOWN	45.5	43.18	42.36	DOWN	75.5	75.73	74.15	DOWN
Sweden	32.6	44.26	49.93	UP	7	7.40	7.36	DOWN	50.2	54.54	56.46	UP	85.9	90.77	92.64	UP

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.

,

Table 11. SDG 10—Reduce inequality within and among countries—Indicators 1–4.

Countries	Purchasing Power Adjusted GDP Per Capita (sdg_10_10) (EUR)				Adjusted Gross Disposable Income of Households Per Capita (sdg_10_20) (EUR)				Relative Median at-Risk-of-Poverty Gap (sdg_10_30) (% Distance to Poverty Threshold)				Income Distribution (sdg_10_41) (Quintile Share Ratio)
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	27,900	33,026	35,410	UP	21,805	25,080	26,716	UP	24.8	23.33	22.70	DOWN	5.22	5.27	5.36	UP
Belgium	33,300	39,825	42,965	UP	25,400	28,722	30,746	UP	17.4	19.03	21.50	UP	3.83	3.70	3.63	DOWN
Bulgaria	13,200	18,105	20,391	UP	10,272	14,227	16,315	UP	30.3	22.69	19.69	DOWN	7.11	8.13	8.21	UP
Czechia	24,200	36,347	42,664	UP	17,163	23,988	27,653	UP	19.2	8.82	4.04	DOWN	3.51	3.37	3.33	DOWN
Denmnark	35,300	42,696	46,113	UP	23,772	28,349	30,855	UP	22	20.20	20.34	DOWN	4.08	4.19	4.25	UP
Germany	34,300	42,277	46,118	UP	27,625	33,529	36,934	UP	22	19.41	18.01	DOWN	4.8	4.94	5.01	UP
Estonia	21,200	29,680	33,241	UP	15,227	20,511	23,144	UP	21	21.39	21.40	UP	6.21	6.02	6.22	UP
Ireland	49,700	68,925	79,685	UP	19,982	20,742	20,931	UP	18.4	10.62	6.67	DOWN	4.5	4.45	4.38	DOWN
Greece	19,300	26,123	29,998	UP	15,075	12,187	9906	DOWN	30.6	25.59	22.91	DOWN	6.51	5.71	5.84	UP
Spain	25,100	31,801	34,757	UP	19,201	23,425	25,832	UP	33.8	23.89	19.87	DOWN	6.87	7.26	7.70	UP
France	29,400	34,061	36,154	UP	24,842	27,527	29,452	UP	15.7	18.38	20.48	UP	4.29	4.25	4.27	UP
Croatia	16,500	20,055	21,493	UP	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	26.4	26.66	28.81	UP	5.16	4.36	3.97	DOWN
Italy	26,500	29,109	29,882	UP	21,416	22,022	22,216	UP	29.3	27.17	27.01	DOWN	5.84	6.68	7.08	UP
Cyprus	22,800	23,662	23,147	UP	17,655	17,551	17,063	DOWN	19.8	8.39	2.66	DOWN	5.2	5.13	5.32	UP
Latvia	17,800	25,239	28,398	UP	13,077	20,725	24,835	UP	25.5	33.46	37.94	UP	6.51	6.38	6.13	DOWN
Lithuania	20,700	30,567	35,073	UP	16,540	22,871	26,082	UP	26	37.30	43.39	UP	7.46	7.82	8.34	UP
Luxembourg	74,600	88,867	95,760	UP	33,089	35,153	36,496	UP	17.4	37.00	49.33	UP	4.26	8.94	11.41	UP
Hungary	19,200	24,442	27,079	UP	13,993	17,192	19,031	UP	21.8	21.97	22.19	UP	4.3	5.09	5.51	UP
Malta	26,000	39,094	45,729	UP	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	17.5	16.11	15.46	DOWN	4.15	4.25	4.40	UP
Netherlands	36,200	40,214	41,907	UP	24,948	29,275	31,867	UP	16.8	20.95	22.89	UP	3.82	4.51	4.84	UP
Austria	35,900	42,931	46,349	UP	26,807	29,635	31,264	UP	20.5	27.43	30.21	UP	4.05	4.14	4.18	UP
Poland	19,100	26,079	29,598	UP	15,135	19,953	22,595	UP	22.3	25.01	27.54	UP	4.92	4.08	3.77	DOWN
Portugal	21,300	28,155	31,628	UP	17,632	21,862	24,367	UP	29	16.80	10.10	DOWN	6.01	5.14	4.90	DOWN
Romania	15,500	23,320	26,798	UP	11,745	18,048	20,790	UP	38.2	32.95	31.64	DOWN	8.32	7.31	7.38	UP
Slovenia	22,700	27,224	28,924	UP	16,915	19,304	20,327	UP	20.3	12.82	9.28	DOWN	3.6	3.68	3.77	UP
Slovakia	21,500	25,189	27,407	UP	15,892	20,390	22,688	UP	28.9	18.11	11.65	DOWN	3.54	3.35	3.28	DOWN
Finland	30,600	34,028	35,309	UP	24,039	27,581	29,937	UP	13.2	14.86	16.32	UP	3.56	3.45	3.38	DOWN
Sweden	35,200	39,437	41,707	UP	24,575	27,383	29,170	UP	19.9	20.70	22.16	UP	4.06	4.61	4.91	UP

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.

,

Table 12. SDG 10—Reduce inequality within and among countries—Indicators 5–7.

Countries	Income Share of the Bottom 40% of the Population (sdg_10_50) (% of Income)				Asylum Applications by State of Procedure (sdg_10_60) (Number per Million Inhabitants)				People at Risk of Income Poverty after Social Transfers (sdg_01_20) (%)
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	20.9	20.73	20.59	DOWN	2467	1734	2154	DOWN	17.3	17.7	18.2	UP
Belgium	23.2	23.32	23.38	UP	3458	1756	1825	DOWN	14.9	17.1	17.6	UP
Bulgaria	17.8	15.34	14.55	DOWN	2809	1214	1795	DOWN	22	23.3	23.8	UP
Czechia	24.8	25.09	24.99	DOWN	117	189	234	UP	9.7	9.5	10.3	UP
Denmnark	23.2	22.65	22.31	DOWN	3664	1939	2315	DOWN	12.2	12.7	12.8	UP
Germany	21.4	21.21	21.04	DOWN	5409	8315	10,680	UP	16.7	17.3	17.9	UP
Estonia	18.5	18.50	17.98	DOWN	171	193	252	UP	21.6	24.2	25.9	UP
Ireland	21.6	21.98	22.18	UP	695	796	827	UP	16.2	15.0	14.9	DOWN
Greece	18.7	20.11	20.05	DOWN	1051	11,951	16,157	UP	21.4	7.1	0.0	DOWN
Spain	18.2	17.52	16.90	DOWN	314	1945	2530	UP	22.1	23.6	24.7	UP
France	22.6	22.94	22.98	UP	1060	3641	5073	UP	13.6	13.7	14.0	UP
Croatia	20.3	21.64	22.22	UP	33	441	539	UP	20	18.3	17.5	DOWN
Italy	19.7	18.57	18.06	DOWN	1363	2072	2824	UP	19.9	21.5	22.5	UP
Cyprus	20.1	19.98	19.39	DOWN	2483	32,282	49,096	UP	16.2	15.6	15.6	UP
Latvia	18.1	18.48	18.85	UP	167	271	341	UP	22.5	22.5	22.0	DOWN
Lithuania	17.3	16.44	15.61	DOWN	95	191	220	UP	22.2	24.2	25.6	UP
Luxembourg	22.4	18.61	17.34	DOWN	4143	4369	4824	UP	15.3	23.1	25.8	UP
Hungary	22.4	20.34	19.20	DOWN	17,722	0.0	0.0	DOWN	14.9	15.5	16.3	UP
Malta	22.3	21.79	21.51	DOWN	3809	2784	2158	DOWN	16.6	18.0	18.9	UP
Netherlands	23.7	22.05	21.35	DOWN	2540	1644	1980	DOWN	11.6	16.3	18.3	UP
Austria	23.1	22.96	22.86	DOWN	9893	0.0	0.0	DOWN	13.9	14.6	14.8	UP
Poland	21.1	23.01	23.74	UP	270	105	74	DOWN	17.6	13.7	12.9	DOWN
Portugal	19.4	20.94	21.48	UP	84	181	233	UP	19.5	18.8	19.0	UP
Romania	16.8	17.54	17.49	UP	62	211	256	UP	25.4	24.6	25.2	UP
Slovenia	24.4	23.99	23.64	DOWN	126	1507	1965	UP	14.3	15.7	16.7	UP
Slovakia	24.8	25.54	25.83	UP	50	0.0	0.0	DOWN	12.3	13.3	14.0	UP
Finland	24.2	24.53	24.72	UP	5867	969	1137	DOWN	12.4	9.5	9.4	DOWN
Sweden	22.9	21.52	20.64	DOWN	15,931	6152	7055	DOWN	16.3	19.0	20.9	UP

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.

,

Table 13. SDG 10—Reduce inequality within and among countries—Indicators 8–9.

Countries	EU Financing to Developing Countries by Financing Source (sdg_17_20) (Million EUR)				EU Imports from Developing Countries by Country Income Groups (sdg_17_30) (Million EUR)
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	178,101	191,952	239,425	UP	881,805	1,166,350	1,299,560	UP
Belgium	3276	−56	−1028	DOWN	50,467	65,272	79,560	UP
Bulgaria	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	4965	12,662	16,757	UP
Czechia	237	123	126	UP	16,673	24,604	33,568	UP
Denmnark	2642	4183	4498	UP	10,793	13,478	15,410	UP
Germany	42,926	64,593	75,784	UP	158,968	213,634	239,686	UP
Estonia	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	974	1681	1925	UP
Ireland	1107	−1564	−3207	DOWN	6372	8818	10,131	UP
Greece	−76	−2312	−3442	DOWN	12,268	16,133	16,974	UP
Spain	19,866	1558	−22	DOWN	77,589	104,219	114,938	UP
France	1112	−4098	−13,716	DOWN	83,147	97,731	105,385	UP
Croatia	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	2805	3395	3426	UP
Italy	14,080	26,452	31,056	UP	94,197	94,703	92,791	DOWN
Cyprus	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1010	1335	1471	UP
Latvia	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1153	1628	1828	UP
Lithuania	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	2910	4608	5519	UP
Luxembourg	327	417	455	UP	3504	0.0	0.0	DOWN
Hungary	140	−124	−150	DOWN	10,406	15,214	16,936	UP
Malta	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	664	1082	1314	UP
Netherlands	61,433	87,990	134,779	UP	129,765	192,974	221,890	UP
Austria	4229	−4500	−8495	DOWN	15,434	22,889	26,355	UP
Poland	450	1413	1737	UP	25,958	68,528	92,214	UP
Portugal	115	1924	2286	UP	10,002	11,385	11,768	UP
Romania	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	9916	15,455	17,466	UP
Slovenia	141	165	202	UP	5471	8515	9862	UP
Slovakia	77	131	154	UP	5401	9181	10,917	UP
Finland	−44	1818	3452	UP	4651	3917	3281	DOWN
Sweden	9342	11,925	13,833	UP	14,714	20,920	23,973	UP

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.

,

Table 14. SDG 16—Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels—Indicators 1–4.

Countries	Standardised Death Rate due to Homicide (sdg_16_10) (Number per 100,000 Persons)				Population Reporting Occurrence of Crime, Violence or Vandalism in Their Area (sdg_16_20) (%)				General Government Total Expenditure on Law Courts (sdg_16_30) (EUR per Inhabitant)				Perceived Independence of the Justice System (sdg_16_40) (Very Good or Fairly Good Percentage)
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2016	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	0.69	0.26	0.01	DOWN	13.6	10.42	8.94	DOWN	98.1	107.02	112.89	UP	52	63	63	UP
Belgium	1.06	0.72	0.54	DOWN	16.1	10.38	8.47	DOWN	91.1	110.17	115.14	UP	62	66	66	UP
Bulgaria	1.38	0.38	0.0	DOWN	26.3	21.14	19.26	DOWN	42.3	57.62	65.35	UP	23	41	41	UP
Czechia	0.84	0.50	0.39	DOWN	12	4.25	1.41	DOWN	51.9	63.14	69.83	UP	47	58	58	UP
Denmnark	0.6	0.07	0.0	DOWN	7.7	0.64	0.0	DOWN	79.6	73.65	69.94	DOWN	88	85	85	UP
Germany	0.53	0.45	0.43	DOWN	13.8	14.98	15.69	UP	146.8	173.25	189.91	UP	69	85	85	UP
Estonia	3.64	0.0	0.0	DOWN	11.8	0.0	0.0	DOWN	48	74.91	86.98	UP	62	53	53	UP
Ireland	0.46	0.11	0.0	DOWN	10.9	8.48	4.99	DOWN	121.7	156.01	170.70	UP	75	75	75	UP
Greece	0.85	0.33	0.08	DOWN	12.8	12.87	12.42	DOWN	50.9	51.04	47.26	DOWN	47	79	79	UP
Spain	0.58	0.37	0.30	DOWN	10	4.87	1.75	DOWN	83.5	87.26	87.97	UP	30	52	52	UP
France	0.52	0.12	0.0	DOWN	14.2	14.80	13.49	DOWN	75.2	93.74	101.84	UP	54	63	63	UP
Croatia	0.9	0.15	0.0	DOWN	2.8	1.41	0.55	DOWN	51.5	54.73	55.02	UP	28	18	18	UP
Italy	0.57	0.15	0.0	DOWN	19.4	14.02	13.47	DOWN	91.6	103.00	100.14	UP	25	45	45	UP
Cyprus	1.49	1.89	1.21	DOWN	12	14.29	14.67	UP	25.5	31.40	31.34	UP	56	55	55	UP
Latvia	5.14	1.70	0.0	DOWN	11.8	0.0	0.0	DOWN	51.4	74.95	84.50	UP	42	57	57	UP
Lithuania	4.11	0.0	0.0	DOWN	4.6	4.66	3.36	DOWN	35.8	57.05	68.12	UP	49	53	53	UP
Luxembourg	0.94	0.0	0.0	DOWN	14.9	15.53	16.99	UP	190.4	244.28	268.62	UP	73	68	68	UP
Hungary	1.28	0.04	0.0	DOWN	10.6	4.04	1.44	DOWN	43.6	60.31	66.18	UP	49	46	46	UP
Malta	0.72	0.83	0.82	DOWN	11	13.18	13.66	UP	59.3	84.56	94.60	UP	44	49	49	UP
Netherlands	0.65	0.32	0.16	DOWN	17.4	15.81	15.28	DOWN	112.8	130.11	134.21	UP	72	91	91	UP
Austria	0.57	0.27	0.18	DOWN	12.9	10.24	9.60	DOWN	117	142.49	157.41	UP	77	87	87	UP
Poland	0.78	0.23	0.0	DOWN	5.8	3.44	2.33	DOWN	57.8	67.95	73.22	UP	45	40	40	UP
Portugal	1.01	0.57	0.27	DOWN	10.5	4.29	1.84	DOWN	60.9	62.20	62.41	UP	33	79	79	UP
Romania	1.6	0.57	0.03	DOWN	13.1	10.21	8.69	DOWN	28.9	73.83	94.28	UP	51	41	41	UP
Slovenia	0.75	0.79	0.82	UP	9.2	6.77	5.82	DOWN	92.6	100.80	101.59	UP	30	40	40	UP
Slovakia	0.84	0.31	0.01	DOWN	7.3	1.92	0.0	DOWN	48.8	54.93	60.71	UP	21	41	41	UP
Finland	1.31	0.00	0.0	DOWN	7.3	1.03	0.0	DOWN	89	110.48	117.79	UP	80	85	85	UP
Sweden	0.99	0.84	0.79	DOWN	10.9	22.79	28.83	DOWN	124.6	155.52	169.39	UP	77	70	70	UP

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.

and

Table 15. SDG 16—Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels—Indicators 5–6.

Countries	Corruption Perceptions Index (sdg_16_50)				Population with Confidence in EU Institutions (sdg_16_60) (%)
					European Parliament				European Commission
	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend	2015	2025	2030	Trend
European Union	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	38	42	38	DOWN	35	65	81	UP
Belgium	77	75	75	UP	52	53	49	DOWN	49	46	41	DOWN
Bulgaria	41	43	44	UP	45	43	38	DOWN	41	39	34	DOWN
Czechia	56	71	79	UP	31	15	2	DOWN	27	9	0.0	DOWN
Denmnark	91	84	82	DOWN	58	51	46	DOWN	53	53	51	DOWN
Germany	81	84	86	UP	36	63	65	UP	34	100.00	100.00	UP
Estonia	70	81	88	UP	45	37	27	DOWN	42	34	26	DOWN
Ireland	75	77	80	UP	45	54	52	DOWN	40	65	73	UP
Greece	46	58	66	UP	26	13	0.0	DOWN	20	1	0.0	DOWN
Spain	58	51	46	DOWN	27	21	10	DOWN	26	17	7	DOWN
France	70	71	71	UP	33	25	17	DOWN	30	24	17	DOWN
Croatia	51	51	52	UP	53	59	65	UP	48	50	54	UP
Italy	44	67	77	UP	40	27	20	DOWN	33	18	10	DOWN
Cyprus	61	46	39	DOWN	29	32	22	DOWN	21	27	15	DOWN
Latvia	56	68	75	UP	41	49	51	UP	36	46	48	UP
Lithuania	59	64	68	UP	60	58	63	UP	56	56	64	UP
Luxembourg	85	83	84	UP	60	57	55	DOWN	58	59	59	UP
Hungary	51	32	23	DOWN	51	43	37	DOWN	49	40	39	DOWN
Malta	60	53	51	DOWN	55	50	48	DOWN	50	49	46	DOWN
Netherlands	84	80	79	DOWN	50	52	50	DOWN	50	50	47	DOWN
Austria	76	86	92	UP	35	46	41	DOWN	34	41	41	DOWN
Poland	63	62	63	UP	43	41	40	DOWN	42	41	37	DOWN
Portugal	64	65	65	UP	43	85	100.00	UP	42	36	30	DOWN
Romania	46	54	58	UP	59	53	48	DOWN	56	50	48	DOWN
Slovenia	60	62	64	UP	30	17	5	DOWN	30	11	5	DOWN
Slovakia	51	55	58	UP	41	19	5	DOWN	41	24	12	DOWN
Finland	90	80	76	DOWN	54	64	67	UP	50	59	61	UP
Sweden	89	81	77	DOWN	59	69	72	UP	50	65	81	UP

Source: Eurostat, own calculations.

).

The forecasts have been made by extrapolating the trend recorded by the selected indicators from 2007 to 2018, using the FORECAST.ETS function from the Excel 2016 software. The function could predict the future values based on historical time-based data using the AAA (Holt-Winters) version of the exponential smoothing (ETS) algorithm with the weights assigned to data variances over time in proportion to the terms of their geometric progression based on the following exponential scale {1, (1 − α), (1 − α)², (1 − α)³, …, ∞}. By taking a fully general approach, the FORECAST.ETS function is able to make the most of all of the members of its family and automatically choose the most effective method for a given dataset [56,57,58,59].

The predicted value is a continuation of the historical values in the specified target date, which should be a continuation of the timeline, using the basic equations for the Holt-Winters multiplicative method [60]:

$$\mathrm{level}:L_t=\alpha \frac{Y_t}{S_{t-s}}+\left(1-\alpha \right)\left(L_{t-1}+b_{t-1}\right)$$

(1)

$$\mathrm{trend}:b_x=\beta \left(L_t-L_{t-1}\right)+\left(1-\beta \right)b_{t-1}$$

(2)

$$\mathrm{seasonal}:S_x=\gamma \frac{Y_t}{L_t}+\left(1-\gamma \right)S_{t-s}$$

(3)

$$\mathrm{forecast}:F_{t+m}=\left(L_t+b_{t}m\right)+S_{t-s+m}$$

(4)

where:

• s = length of seasonality (e.g., number of months or quarters in a year);
• L_t = the level of the series;
• b_t = the trend;
• S_t = the seasonal component;
• F_t+m = the forecast for m periods ahead.

The Holt-Winters version of exponential smoothing is a robust algorithm, widely used in practice and research for more than 30 years. Time series methods like the Box-Jenkins ARIMA family of methods develop a model where the prediction is a weighted linear sum of recent past observations or lags. Exponential smoothing forecasting methods are similar in that the prediction is a weighted sum of past observations, but different in the exponentially decreasing weight for past observations [61].

This ETS model focuses on trend and seasonal components. The flexibility of the ETS model lies in its ability to yield trend and seasonal components of different traits. Through exponential smoothing the algorithm is continuously revising a prediction after taking into account the more recent observations, exponentially diminishing the older observations’ importance for forecasting by decreasing their weights. In other words, to predict a new value for the selected variable, more recent observations matter more than older ones. Exponential smoothing methods may be considered as peers and an alternative to the popular Box-Jenkins ARIMA class of methods for time series forecasting [59].

An important advantage of using an exponential smoothing (ETS) algorithm is that it gives more significance to recent observations. On the other hand, the main potential limitation of this method is specific to all trend analysis algorithms, assuming the future will continue the past trend. However, this disadvantage can be overcome by the fact that the method selected for forecasting puts more emphasis on recent data, the weights are exponentially decreasing over time, rather than having constant weights in simple moving average methods.

With regard to the possible disadvantages of the proposed forecasting method, some of the combinations of trend, seasonality and error can, occasionally, lead to numerical difficulties (specifically, any model equation that requires division by a state component could involve division by zero). This could be considered a problem for all the models with additive errors and either multiplicative trend or multiplicative seasonality, as well as for the models with multiplicative errors, multiplicative trend and additive seasonality. These models should therefore be used with caution. Of course, another general drawback of the ETS model is the decrease in accuracy with an increasing forecast horizon and it cannot be used for high-frequency data.

The methodology used in this research for processing the available data is based on specialized papers published in recent years by a number of researchers concerned with the stage reached in the implementation of the SDGs at national, regional or international level [29,62,63]. It is obvious that different methodologies can be used; however, in terms of the trend forecasting function, the variant chosen in this case proves to be the most suitable, both in terms of relevance and the ease with which it can be reproduced and extended to different levels of analysis [64,65,66,67].

4. Results and Discussions

Starting the discussion with SDG 1 “End poverty in all its forms everywhere”, the role of the European Union internally, in line with the subsidiarity principle, is mainly to support member states in the fight against poverty. From the analysis of the existing data for the first indicator—People at risk of poverty or social exclusion (sdg_01_10), it can be seen that the general trend at EU level, as well as in most member states, is a downward one. At EU level, a decrease of up to 22% is forecast by 2025, reaching the level of 21.4% in 2030.

However, in the case of this indicator, a quantitative target is foreseen, namely the reduction by 20 million of the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 2020. According to Eurostat data, in 2015 104,079 thousand people were at risk of poverty or social exclusion, representing 23.8% of the total population. According to the established target, in 2020 a total of 84,079 thousand people should be registered (representing 19.2%). According to the forecasts based on the trend calculated for the last 11 years, it seems that this target will not be reached in the analyzed interval. Even though the EU average has been rapidly declining in recent years, showing hope that the target can be reached in the coming years, the current situation generated by the Covid-19 pandemic at EU level leads us to believe that forecasts will be more pessimistic and the figures will approach those predicted following the research.

Furthermore, referring to this indicator, two groups of countries can be identified for which a degradation of the current situation is forecast, registering an upward trend. Thus, a first group consists of countries located in southern Europe (Greece, Spain, Italy and Cyprus), which were severely affected by the last financial crisis and still face a number of economic problems. A second group of countries consists of countries located in central or northern Europe (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Luxembourg, the Netherlands), for which the upward trend seems to be due to other influencing factors that have manifested themselves in the post-crisis period and which are likely to influence the long-term trend in the next period.

For the second indicator—People at risk of income poverty after social transfers (sdg_10_20)—at EU level a slow upward train is forecast, from 17.3% in 2015 to 17.7% in 2025 and 18.2% in 2030. In fact, for May more than three quarters of the member states can see the same negative trend; only for six states an improvement of the percentage of people at risk of income poverty after social transfers is forecast.

An encouraging development is forecast for the third indicator—Severely materially deprived people (sdg_01_30)—in which case the vast majority of EU countries are expected to register significant improvements in the years to come. Of the six countries for which an unfavorable evolution is anticipated, Greece and Italy stand out absolutely, for which the estimated results can be even worrying. Thus, if a number of member states are expected to register zero or almost zero percent of severely materially deprived people, in the case of the two mentioned countries an increase of this share is anticipated, the estimate for Greece being the most dramatic depreciation of this indicator (from 22.2% in 2015 to 35.5% in 2030), followed by Italy with an increase in the number of people affected from 11.5% in 2015 to 12.4% in 2030.

In the case of the fourth indicator of SDG 1—People living in households with very low work intensity (sdg_01_ 40) —at EU level a downward evolution with a very slight increase is forecast towards the end of the analyzed interval. The same mixed forecast can be observed through the individual analysis of the member states—for half of them an improvement is forecast, and for the other half—a deterioration of the factual situation. What would be important to follow is to make sustained efforts to reduce the existing gaps between EU countries, gaps that seem to be maintained in the next 10 years, with projected variations between 0% and 23.2%.

Regarding the work at-risk-of-poverty rate (sdg_01_41), a situation similar to the previous analyzed indicator is forecast, namely a slight degradation of conditions at EU level (from 9.5% in 2015 to 11.2% in 2030) and evolution mixed for the next 10 years, with more than half of the EU countries expected to experience unfavorable developments. Of these, Bulgaria stands out (with a forecast degradation from 7.7% in 2015 to 14.3% in 2030, or Hungary—from 9.3% in 2015 to 14.3% in 2030).

For the sixth indicator—Population living in a dwelling with a leaking roof, damp walls, floors or foundation or rot in window frames of floor (sdg_01_ 60)—both at the average level in the EU and for the vast majority of member states, a positive evolution is forecast. At EU level, a reduction in the percentage of the affected population is expected from 15.2% in 2015 to 10.2% in 2030. Paradoxically, depreciations of this indicator are estimated for a number of countries that have traditionally been considered to have some of the better conditions (Denmark, Luxembourg, Sweden).

A relatively close evolution is also forecast for the indicator Self-reported unmet need for medical examination and care (sdg_03_60), where, at EU level, a constant improvement of the existing conditions is expected, from 3.3% in 2015 to 1.06% in 2030. Even if for most member states an improvement in conditions is expected, there are forecasts and a few exceptions that could require increased attention, especially due to significant gaps compared to the European average (as in the case of Estonia, with a dramatic increase from 12.7% in 2015 to 30.78% in 2030).

The eighth indicator of SDG 1—Population having neither a bath, nor a shower, nor an indoor flushing toilet in their household (sdg_06_10)—does not raise particular problems, the vast majority of EU countries having a 2030 forecast of zero or very close to 0%. Only one special case can be noticed, namely the case of Slovakia, for which results indicate a slight degradation of the situation for the next 10 years, albeit remaining at very low forecast values (1.4% in 2030).

Regarding Population unable to keep home adequately warm (sdg_07_ 60), as in the case of the previous indicator, an improvement of the situation is expected both in the case of the EU average (from 9.4% in 2015 to 0.7% in 2030), as well as for the vast majority of member states. However, two isolated cases can be noted (Greece and Lithuania) for which not only a deterioration of conditions is anticipated, but also a significant difference can be observed between the forecasted levels and the EU average calculated for the same period.

Finally, the ninth indicator of SDG 1—Overcrowding rate (sdg_11_10)—shows a favorable evolution of the forecasted values, with an expected reduction of overcrowding rate at EU level from 16.7% in 2015 to 13.8% in 2025 and 12.5% in 2030, a trend that is expected to manifest itself in most EU countries. However, there are a number of countries for which the forecasts for the 2030 horizon are not so good—in the case of Latvia an increase of up to 50.2% in 2030 is expected, in Italy a depreciation up to the level of 32.9% in 2030, or the case of Belgium and Sweden which are expected to approach 20% by 2030.

Health is important for people′s individual well-being and for shaping a sustainable economy as it is key to improving labor market participation and productivity. However, although life expectancy in the EU has increased on average by 7 years since the early 1990s, there have been no gains in healthy life years in many EU countries [68]. Regarding SDG 3 “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages” the EU complements member states′ action through legislation and other initiatives on public health, health systems and environment-related health problems.

For the first indicator of SDG 3—Life expectancy at birth (sdg_03_10)—there are projected, without exception, steady increases in life expectancy by 2030. At EU level it is expected that the life expectancy of citizens will increase from 80.6 years in 2015 to 83.2 years in 2030. Also, regarding predictions for 2030 in the vast majority of EU countries, an average life expectancy of more than 80 years is forecast, with only a few exceptions, namely Bulgaria (77.1 years), Latvia (76.3 years), Hungary (79.2 years) and Romania (78.1 years).

The second indicator—Share of people with good or very good perceived health (sdg_03_ 20)—shows a positive anticipated evolution, at the level of the European Union being forecast an increase in the number of people with good and very good health from 67.1% in 2015 to 70.8% in 2030. The same positive evolution is expected to be found in more than half of the EU countries, but some exceptions are expected (such as Denmark, Estonia, Greece, France, the Netherlands and Sweden) for which, if the current trend is followed, there will be a degradation of the values of this indicator. Also noteworthy is the position of Portugal, which, although on an upward trend, is expected to record one of the lowest values in 2030, when only 48.82% of the population is forecast to report good or very good perceived health.

In the case of the third indicator—Smoking prevalence (sdg_03_ 30)—it is expected that most countries will register a positive evolution, namely a decrease in the share of smokers in the total population, with an estimated average value for the European Union of 15.8% in 2030. However, in the case of five of the EU member states (Czech Republic, France, Croatia, Portugal and Slovenia) an evolution contrary to the European average is expected, namely an increase in the share of smokers.

As in the previous case, and in the case of the fourth indicator—Standardized death rate due to chronic diseases (sdg_03_ 40)—an improvement in values is expected for 2030 compared to 2015 for almost all EU countries, except for the same five countries (Czech Republic, France, Croatia, Portugal and Slovenia) for which a deterioration of the situation is forecast.

Additionally, regarding the indicator of Standardized death rate due to tuberculosis, HIV and hepatitis (sdg_03_ 41), a constant and significant improvement of the European average is forecast, from 2.9 cases per 100,000 people in 2015 to 0.57 cases per 100,000 people in 2030. However, although an almost unanimous improvement of the forecasted values can be observed, three countries can be identified that stand out as exceptions: Cyprus and Hungary are expected to register an ascending trend, but with relatively low values at the horizon of 2030 (3.06 cases per 100,000 people and 4.43 cases per 100,000 people, respectively), but for Latvia a significant depreciation is anticipated from 11.6 cases per 100,000 people in 2015 to 13.89 cases per 100,000 people in 2030, emphasizing the existence of significant discrepancies between Member States.

For the indicator Self-reported unmet need for medical examination and care (sdg_03_ 60), an improvement of the general situation at EU level is forecast, with values that are expected to decrease from 2.6% in 2015 to 0.96% in 2030, a trend that seems to be followed by more than two thirds of the member states. However, in the case of this indicator we can identify countries that deviate considerably from the average values forecast at European level, namely Estonia (with a depreciation from 15.3% in 2015 to 32.38% in 2030) and Greece (with a depreciation from 13.1% in 2015 to 20.13% in 2030). It is important to follow carefully the development of the situation in these two countries, not so much because of the upward trend, but due to the very large differences anticipated from the EU average.

A relatively worrying situation is that of the Obesity rate by body mass index indicator (sdg_02_ 10) which anticipates an almost general depreciation at the level of EU countries. Thus, the average index at EU level is forecast to increase from 51.6 in 2015, to 53.1 in 2025, to 53.3 in 2030. There are, however, six countries (Belgium, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia) for which a reduction of this index is anticipated, but without anticipating extraordinary evolutions.

With regard to People killed in accidents at work (sdg_08_60), a general reduction in the values of this indicator at EU level is forecast, largely due to constant efforts to raise public awareness and improve occupational safety standards. A slightly unfavorable evolution can be noticed in the case of five countries (Germany, Ireland, Spain, Slovenia and Slovakia), but for two countries (Lithuania and Hungary) the 2030 horizon forecast is worrying, the calculated trend anticipating a doubling of values compared to the reference year of 2015 (7.85 deaths per 100,000 employees for Lithuania and 4.14 deaths per 100,000 employees).

Similarly, in the case of the indicator Population living in households considering that they suffer from noise (sdg_11_20), an improvement of the forecasted values can be observed for most EU countries, as well as on average, with a reduction from 18% in 2015 to 12.48% in 2030. Even if in the case of four countries a slight increase of the values forecasted for 2030 (Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and Malta) is anticipated, the situation is not worrying. What may require more attention from the competent authorities are the significant differences between EU member states, with projected 2030 variations between 0% (Estonia, Italy, Cyprus, Romania, Cyprus) and 28.50% (Malta).

For the tenth indicator of SDG 3—People killed in road accidents (sdg_11_30)—a favorable evolution is forecast almost unanimously, except for Malta for which a worsening of the values is recorded from 2.5 deaths per 100,000 people in 2015 to 5.16 deaths per 100,000 people). In addition, in the case of this indicator, a quantitative target has been set of a 50% reduction in the number of people killed in road accidents by 2020. Even if the general trend is downward, and some EU countries will certainly meet this target, it is expected that at EU level the target will not be reached in 2020 but possibly by 2030 if a series of measures and increased protection standards are adopted at the level of car manufacturers and distributors operating in the European Union.

Finally, for the last indicator of SDG 3—Exposure to air pollution by particulate matter (sdg_11_50), a favorable evolution at EU level for the 2030 horizon is anticipated, with a reduction of exposure to air pollution from a level of 14.6 µg/m3 in 2015 to 9.34 µg/m3 in 2030. It should be noted, however, that only one country that is an exception to the general trend registered in the European Union—Portugal, for which more than a doubling of the values of this indicator is forecasted —from 10.3 µg/m3 in 2015 to 23.18 µg/m3 in 2030, a situation that certainly requires increased attention to limit the adverse effects on the population and the environment.

On SDG 4—“Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”, the EU has set Europe 2020 headline targets on the number of early school leavers and on tertiary educational attainment, meeting the targets of this objective being of major importance for the future of Europe and its citizens.

The second indicator—Tertiary educational attainment (sdg_04_20)—does not raise particular problems, as the general trend estimated for the EU and the vast majority of member countries being a strong one. If at EU level, an increase in the percentage of tertiary educational attainment is anticipated from 38.7% in 2015 to 50.16% in 2030; there is also a country with a contrary trend, namely, surprisingly, Finland. For this country, even if it meets the established target, a reduction of the values of the analyzed indicator is anticipated from 45.5 in 2015 to 42.36% in 2030, which must raise a series of questions on the possible causes for such an evolution. In the case of this indicator, a quantitative target is also set, which assumes that in 2020 at least 40% of the population aged 30 to 34 will benefit from tertiary educational attainment. Obviously, at EU level the target will be met, and this will happen for most member states, with a few exceptions such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Romania.

For the first indicator—Early leavers from education and training (sdg_04_10)—there is a downward trend at EU level, registering a reduction from 11% in 2015 to 6.57% in 2025 and 4.26% in 2030, as well as a favorable evolution for a considerable number of member states. Unfortunately, there are several countries for which a degradation of the values of this indicator is anticipated, respectively an increase in the number of early leavers from education and training between 2015 and 2030: Czech Republic from 6.2% to 8.02%, Hungary from 11.6% to 13.54%, Slovakia from 6.9% to 12.26. It should also be mentioned that for this indicator there is a quantitative target of reaching a percentage of less than 10% for this indicator by 2020. It is more than certain that this target will be reached at EU level, especially as a series of countries have reached the established level since 2015. However, a special case is represented by Romania, which, despite predictions of a slight decrease for this indicator (from 19.1% in 2015 to 19.04% in 2030), worryingly and compared to the set target, has the highest levels of early leavers from education and training among all European countries, and the situation does not seem likely to improve in the future.

In the case of the third indicator—Participation in early childhood education (sdg_04_30), the forecasted evolution is a positive one at EU level (with an increase from 94.9% in 2015 to 100% in 2030), even if at the European level divergent trends are anticipated. In the case of this indicator there is a quantitative target that assumes that at least 95% of the age group between 4 years old and the starting age of compulsory education should participate in early childhood education by 2020. It is obvious that the target will be reached successfully at EU level and for most member states, but we can also note a number of exceptions, namely Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania.

The fourth indicator at SDG 4—Underachievement in reading, maths or science (sdg_04_40)—is the one that raises the biggest problems related to the nonfulfillment of the proposed levels, but also regarding the registration of a worrying upward trend at EU level, from 19.7% in 2015 to 26.5% in 2025, to 29.7% in 2030. Reaching the quantitative target set for this indicator—less than 15% of 15-year-old students underachieving in reading, math or science by 2020, is even likely. But even more worrying is the fact that, due to the upward trend, it is quite unlikely that this target will be reached by 2030 without a series of extremely firm measures applied in all EU countries, to limit the disastrous effects that they can manifest in the long and very long term.

For the fifth indicator—Employment rates of recent graduates (sdg_04_50)—a consistent and increasing trend is estimated, both at EU level and for a considerable part of the member states. The only country that makes a strong discordant note compared to the rest of European countries is Italy, which not only has a downward trend forecast, but the extremely low values (48.5% in 2015 and 35.52% in 2030) should be a serious reason for concern and to request increased attention from the competent authorities in order to be able to correct these deviations. The quantitative target set for this indicator is that by 2020 at least 82% of the population aged 20 to 34 with at least upper-secondary education should be employed. We can say with conviction that this target will be reached at the average level of the European Union, but also that a number of countries will miss this target (such as Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Croatia, Italy, Romania, Slovenia and Finland), possibly even for a long time after 2020.

The sixth indicator of SDG 4—Adult participation in learning (sdg_04_60)—registers a positive trend at EU level, increasing from 10.8% in 2015 to a forecasted value of 13.42% in 2030. The forecasted values at the level of European countries are considerably heterogeneous, with registered and forecasted considerable deviations from the average, between 1.3% in the case of Romania and 31.5% in the case of Denmark in 2015, and between 0.36% in the case of Romania and 43.98% in the case of Sweden in 2030. For this indicator a quantitative target has also been set, namely that by 2020 a minimum percentage of 15% of the population aged 25 to 64 should participate in adult learning. Given such a high variability of the values of this indicator, it is difficult to believe that this target can be achieved, and if it is achieved regardless, the result will be only a statistic, not an objective reality of European society.

A final important indicator of SDG 4—Young people neither in employment nor in education and training (sdg_08_20)—registers a constant downward trend at EU level, from 14.8% in 2015 to 9.06% in 2025 to 6.34% in 2030. The same anticipated downward trend is recorded in most European countries, with a few exceptions (such as Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia and Finland) registering an upward trend, which indicates a worsening of the current and future situation in case no corrective measures are adopted and implemented.

In relation to SDG 5—“Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”, gender equality has been enshrined in the EU’s political and legal framework since the very start of European integration and new policies are being developed to address persistent gender inequalities. For the first indicator—Physical and sexual violence to women by age group—the data provided by Eurostat are limited to 2012, and consequently cannot be properly analyzed.

For the second indicator—Gender pay gap in unadjusted form (sdg_05_20)—a positive evolution is anticipated, namely a reduction of the gap from 16.5% in 2015 to 13.51% in 2030. Unfortunately, not all EU countries show the same trend of reduction, with some countries showing a tendency to accentuate the imbalances towards the horizon of 2030, such as Bulgaria, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Portugal and Slovenia.

Furthermore, regarding the third indicator—Gender employment gap (sdg_05_30)—similarly to the previous one, the existence of a favorable, downward trend is estimated, from 11.6% in 2015 to 7.36% in 2030. In this case there are also a number of countries for which an upward trend is forecast, namely Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, Hungary and Romania (which also records the highest value estimated for 2030—23.11%).

In the case of the third indicator—Inactive population due to caring responsibilities (sdg_05_40)—we can see both a depreciation of the situation forecast at EU level, from 20.7% in 2015 to 25.02% in 2030, and a very large dispersion of values recorded both in the base year 2015 (ranging between 4.8% in Denmark and 40.5% in Ireland), and at the level of the values forecast for 2030.

The fifth indicator of SDG 5—Seats held by women in national parliaments and governments (sdg_05_50)—indicates an upward trend both at EU level (from 28% in 2015 to 39.66% in 2030) and in most EU countries. However, we should note the existence of several isolated cases of countries in which the estimated trend is downward between 2015 and 2030, namely Denmark (from 37.4% to 32.08%), Croatia (from 25.2% to 17.53%) and the Netherlands (from 36.9% at 29.76%).

Regarding the sixth indicator—Positions held by women in senior management positions (sdg_05_60)—a relatively similar situation can be observed as the one encountered in the case of the previous indicator, in that at EU level a strong upward trend is estimated—from 22.7% in 2015, 37.97% in 2025, up to 46.01% in 2030. Moreover, in most of the analyzed European countries there is a similar favorable trend, but we can also note some countries for which an opposite trend is anticipated, such as the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania and Romania).

In connection with SDG 5, three more indicators are mentioned—Early leavers from education and training (sdg_04_10), Tertiary educational attainment (sdg_04_20) and Employment rates of recent graduates (sdg_04_50)—but these belong to SDG 4 and have been previously analyzed and discussed.

Closely related to SDG 5 is SDG 10 “Reduce inequality within and among countries”, being at the heart of the EU′s social agenda and cohesion policy. The first indicator—Purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita (sdg_10_10)—reveals a general upward trend at EU level, rising from EUR 27,900 in 2015 to EUR 35,410 in 2030, thus proving the positive effects of the many cohesion policies adopted at EU level. Furthermore, in the case of all EU member states, the same upward trend is registered at the horizon of 2030, even if there are certain differences between the growth rates.

And in the case of the second indicator—Adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita (sdg_10_20)—a situation relatively similar to the first indicator analyzed is registered. Thus, at EU level, an upward trend is forecast between 2015–2030, starting from EUR 21,805 and reaching EUR 26,716. However, unlike the previous indicator, there are two countries for which the estimates indicate a reduction in gross disposable income of households per capita, namely Greece (from EUR 15,075 in 2015 to EUR 9906 in 2030) and Cyprus (from EUR 17,655 in 2015 to EUR 17,063 in 2030).

The third indicator—Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (sdg_10_30)—provides indications of the disparities that exist between the member countries of the European Union—disparities that are expected to remain on the horizon by 2030, but with a visible amplification of imbalances. Thus, at EU level, a downward trend is forecast, namely a reduction of the gap from 24.8% in 2015 to 22.7% in 2030. However, we must note that the existing divergences between member states are highlighted by analyzing the divergence of registered trends, separating them into net winners and losers. Thus, due to the effects of the cohesion policy and the massive investments made, countries such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Portugal or Slovenia are grouped as net winners of these interventions, with a consistent reduction of the existing provisions being observed. On the other hand, there are a number of countries that do not seem to be performing very well despite the positive results so far (Belgium, France, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Austria and Poland). However, in order to identify as completely and correctly as possible the factors that influence these evolutions, as well as the corrective measures that can be adopted, more thorough research is necessary; however, the fact that we could highlight the very existence of these divergences is a positive result.

The fourth indicator of SDG 10—Income distribution (sdg_10_41)—is a measure of the inequality of income distribution. The results obtained from the research indicate a slight increase in inequality of income distribution at EU level, from 5.22% in 2015 to 5.36% in 2030. Among the member states, positive or negative variations can be observed without identifying cases of extreme divergence, with the possible exception of Luxembourg, which has the strongest trend trend of increasing income inequality distribution from a 4.26 quintile share ratio in 2015 to a 11.41 quintile share ratio in 2030.

The fifth indicator—Income share of the bottom 40% of the population (sdg_10_50)—indicates the existence of a negative trend, slightly downward, from 20.9% in 2015 to 20.59% in 2030. However, the trend registered at the European level does not fully characterize the individual situation of each member state. Even if more than half of the European countries register a similar trend, there are also a number of countries that register an increasing trend.

Regarding the sixth indicator—Asylum applications by state of procedure (sdg_10_60)—at EU level there is a general downward trend, with a decline from 2467 asylum applications per million inhabitants in 2015 to 2154 asylum applications per million inhabitants in 2030. However, following the analysis, a number of European countries can be identified as facing a difficult situation in terms of the number of asylum applications per million inhabitants, with clear prospects of worsening the situation in the future, with a horizon of 2030. Thus, if the current trend continues, countries such as Germany (which expects a doubling of asylum applications per million inhabitants in the period 2015–2030), Greece (for which an increase from 1051 asylum applications per million inhabitants in 2015 to 16,157 asylum applications per million inhabitants in 2030 is estimated) or Cyprus (with an estimated increase from 2483 asylum applications per million inhabitants in 2015 to a dramatic 49,046 asylum applications per million inhabitants) will be in an extremely difficult situation, and the avoidance of such dramatic situations requires the attention of the competent institutions, as well as the urgent adoption of measures to limit the causes and effects.

The seventh indicator—People at risk of income poverty after social transfers (sdg_01_20)—has been analyzed and discussed previously, so we will not return to the details of the analysis.

Indicator number eight of SDG 10—EU financing for developing countries by financing source (sdg_17_20)—highlights the existence of an upward trend at EU level, with values increasing from EUR 178.101 million in 2015 to EUR 239.425 million in 2030. Trends recorded for member states, when there are reported data, are both positive and negative, with no extreme cases.

Regarding the ninth indicator—EU imports from developing countries by country income groups (sdg_17_30)—we can see the existence of a strong upward trend, both at EU level (from EUR 881.805 million in 2015 to EUR 1.299.560 million in 2030), as well as at the level of most member countries of the European Union. However, we can list some countries for which a downward trend is estimated (such as Italy, Luxembourg and Finland).

For SDG 16 “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels” EU policies and legislation are in place with many of the underlying principles anchored into the Treaty on the European Union and the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights and going beyond the aims set out in this SDG.

Thus, the first indicator—Standardized death rate due to homicide (sdg_16_10)—indicates the near unanimity of EU member states of a downward trend, with a reduction from 0.69 deaths per 100,000 people in 2015 to 0.01 deaths per 100,000 persons in 2030 at EU level. Only Slovenia has a trend opposite to all other member states, i.e., a slight increase from 0.75 deaths per 100,000 persons in 2015 to 0.82 deaths per 100,000 persons in 2030.

Regarding the second indicator—Population reporting occurrence of crime, violence or vandalism in their area (sdg_16_20)—we can observe an evolution relatively similar to the first indicator analyzed, a downward trend anticipated at EU level for the period 2015–2030, from 13.6% to 8.94%. The same downward trend is forecast to occur in the vast majority of EU countries, with the exception of Germany (for which an increase from 13.8% to 15.69% is forecast), Cyprus (increase from 12.0% to 14.67%), Luxembourg (increase of 14.9% to 16.99%) and Malta (increase from 11.0% to 13.66%).

Regarding the third indicator—General government total expenditure on law courts (sdg_16_30)—there is an increasing trend at EU level, with values starting from EUR 98.1 per inhabitant in 2015 to a forecast value of EUR 112.89 per inhabitant in 2030. In fact, this upward trend is projected to occur in most EU countries, with the exception of Denmark and Greece, where a reduction in these expenditures is anticipated.

An unequivocal result is obtained with regard to the fourth indicator—Perceived independence of the justice system (sdg_16_40)—given that both the EU average and each country record the same upward trend in the perception of independence justice.

On the other hand, in connection with the fifth indicator—Corruption Perceptions Index (sdg_16_50)—the results obtained from the research are no longer as categorical as in the case of the previous indicator analyzed. Thus, if at EU level the trend for the period 2015–2030 cannot be estimated, at the level of the European countries there is a differentiation both in terms of the estimated trend and the dispersion of Corruption Perceptions Index values. However, we can mention two countries (Cyprus and Hungary) for which in 2030 a halving of the value of the analyzed index corresponding to 2015 is anticipated, the disturbing factors (especially of an internal nature) manifesting their effects fully.

Regarding the last indicator of SDG 16—Population with confidence in EU institutions (sdg_16_60)—it is worth having a separate discussion on the two representative institutions of the European Union—the European Parliament and the European Commission. Regarding the European Parliament, there is a tendency, both in the EU and in the vast majority of member states, towards losing confidence in this institution, which will more than likely be accentuated due to the effects of the current pandemic. However, there are several European countries with a growing trend of confidence in the European Parliament, namely Germany, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Finland and Sweden.

In terms of public confidence in the European Commission, things are different compared to confidence in the European Parliament. It was found that the general trend at EU level is a positive one, but the analysis at EU level shows a strong divergence of confidence, depending on the involvement of the measures adopted by the European Commission in response to certain issues at a national level. Thus, in countries such as Germany, Ireland and Croatia, the forecasted values for 2030 are extremely high, while countries such as the Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Italy and Slovenia register diametrically opposed forecasted values. It seems that we are witnessing a crisis of mistrust in the key institutions of the European Union, and in the absence of firm measures to counteract this we will witness a sharp deterioration in the level of trust in the future.

5. Conclusions

As mentioned at the beginning, our research began from the fact that each EU member state acts on and establishes measures and actions which facilitate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, not excluding the fact that there are political, historical, cultural and ecological circumstances already existing in each country and individualized so as to radically influence the forecasted results. These aspects are also relevant in the results of our research, where the situation of EU member states identified at the level of the SDGs that define well-being is different, sometimes surprisingly unique for the 2030s.

Consequently, a complex and critical approach to the implementation of the SDGs that define well-being, namely SDG 1, SDG 3, SDG 4, SDG 5, SDG 10, SDG 16 at the level of EU countries in the horizon of 2025 and 2030 is important; this is also a result of the way in which the principles underlying sustainable development are respected and of the way in which economic, social and environmental objectives are balanced and integrated into policies and actions.

The data used for forecasting 52 SDG health and well-being specific indicators consist of a total of 16,848 observations for the 27 EU countries between 2007–2018, which generated a significant amount of information. Through this research we intended to offer the groundwork for future analyses and debates to all stakeholders, offering the possibility to extend specific research directions according to particular interests. It should also be mentioned that this research is the first of its kind carried out, both in its topic (SDG targets for health and well-being) and in its level of coverage (27 EU countries).

In brief, the implementation of the SDGs requires a collective approach, as it is not limited to a single sector/field of activity, but requires the involvement of all actors even if they do not traditionally share mutual objectives. Thus, from the analysis of the existing data for the indicators that define well-being at the level of EU member states, we identified a series of adjustments in a positive and negative sense, a slowing down in the trend of certain indicators and a revival of the welfare of the population, in particular of those living in developing countries.

An important general conclusion is that the implementation of the 2030 Agenda is advancing in all member states of the European Union, but unfortunately no country is about to reach all the targets and SDGs related to well-being and health. However, there is certainly room for strengthening and advancing the implementation at a much faster pace than in recent years.

The research results indicate that, on average at EU level, no more than half of the proposed SDG targets for 2030 can be achieved if the same level of involvement is maintained. Of course, analyzing the individual situation of each member state, the percentage of achievement of the assumed objectives varies, but it must be emphasized that no EU country is expected to fully reach its SDGs targets for health and well-being. This study should be a wake-up call for all stakeholders in each country, as well as for policy makers at EU level, that there is a need for greater involvement in creating and supporting policies aimed at accelerating necessary reforms in order to achieve the 2030 Agenda SDGs for health and well-being.

In order to manage these risks more effectively and to reach the SDGs, we insist on improving and making cohesive policies at the level of each EU member states. In addition, more action is needed to address inequalities between and within member states, along with more comprehensive risk mitigation approaches.

The European Green Deal could be the key moment in accelerating the implementation of the SDGs in the EU. However, it must include an EU-wide strategy that takes into account three major priorities: decarbonizing the energy system, strengthening the circular economy and significantly increasing resource efficiency while reducing waste and promoting sustainable land-use and food systems.

Thus, it is essential to ensure coherence in policies and decisions at the level of all EU member states so that all citizens can use quality health and education services without facing financial difficulties or other constraints. We believe that this can be limited especially by reducing inequalities in living conditions but also economic disparities. It should be mentioned that the reduction of inequalities in living conditions is also an important factor in improving the health of citizens, increasing the level of education and well-being for all, at all ages.

As our research shows, even if for some indicators, for some countries, the estimates are positive (for example “people at risk of poverty or social exclusion” is declining), the Covid-19 pandemic may unfortunately change the forecasts in a negative way.

In this regard, we recommend the creation of formal discussion groups for knowledge exchange, to provide support for all those involved in activities that directly and indirectly contribute to “people′s well-being” by creating and developing an infrastructure that allows a permanent reporting mechanism for negative deviations and facilitates the successful implementation of the sustainable development strategy for all EU member states.

In the context of the global Covid-19 pandemic, there is an urgent need to strengthen in particular health governance in the economic fields, with priority given to investments in quality health and education, access to quality health and education, elimination of social discrepancies and of gender inequalities, age, social category.

Developing and consolidating European public health strategies, policies and measures but also ensuring alignment with the objectives of each state in terms of national development and vice versa is a useful way to reduce the effects of the pandemic and reach the targets set for 2030.

The most important achievement of this research is that the available data on such an important area such as health and well-being are for the first time aggregated for each EU country, and based on this information future trends are forecast for 2025–2030. Based on these forecasted trends, researchers and policy makers, together with all stakeholders, can analyze the evolution of these indicators in view of reaching the SDG targets assumed, both in each country and in the European Union, and can monitor and propose corrective measures if the analyses indicate the possibility of missing the proposed objectives.

Through the results of our research we aimed to facilitate a better understanding of the benefits of early and upstream actions, by identifying for each member state areas where there is a lack of policy coherence for sustainable development and where there are discrepancies between the proposed targets and the actual achievements. Moreover, it is obvious that a sustainable culture of well-being for all can only be promoted by aligning each country to the SDG targets and accelerating recovery measures.

In this context, it is imperative for the EU to increase public investment and encourage private investment in sustainable infrastructure (including electricity and transport), education and job skills (with a focus on STEM education at all levels), and R&D activities to encourage innovation in the field of sustainable technologies.

Through our research, we also set out to provide an easy-to-use alternative method for all stakeholders to continuously monitor the direction in which the SDG indicators for health and well-being are evolving for each EU member state. Using the forecasting method proposed in this research, both academia and practitioners can be actively involved in monitoring and supporting the achievement of the 2030 Agenda targets which have become all the more important as the changes caused by the global pandemic demonstrate the importance of a sustainable approach, both in terms of economic development, but also in terms of health and well-being for European citizens and not only.

The results of this empirical study should also be analyzed taking into account the inherent limitations they imply, but which may open new research directions. A potential constraint of this research is that the results are influenced by the selected sample, as well as the availability and accuracy of the data and forecasting algorithms. The use of different algorithms can lead to slightly different results, but we are confident that the general direction identified for each indicator will be retained for the future period.

The findings of this research could generate future research directions for sustainable development models, expanding the set of variables used and trying to identify a generalized model to be able to follow the effectiveness of public policies and strategies adopted at the level of the analyzed countries. This future study could improve knowledge in terms of supporting sustainable development and achieving the SDGs as assumed by the 2030 Agenda.