The High-Level Expert Group’s report, published in May 2026, could become one of the most significant documents in the Beyond GDP movement’s history. For decades, researchers have proposed alternative ways to measure progress, and for just as long, GDP has remained predominant in guiding policymaking. Against this backdrop, the HLEG report offers a synthesis of this long research tradition into one coherent framework, with the potential to become a global standard for what counts as progress.
The report sets the stage for the UN to continue its follow-up intergovernmental process, in which Member States and stakeholders are engaged to build political consensus on how to move forward. Spain, as co-facilitator of the process, recently launched a call for contributions to an Elements Paper that will guide upcoming negotiations. With relevant experiences and expertise on this agenda, MERGE submitted its own contribution to support the process.
Key insights from MERGE submission
Emphasis on convergence
Major Beyond GDP alternatives, from the OECD and UN system to JRC’s SIW dashboard, already share a common thematic base of sustainability, inclusivity and wellbeing, despite differences in terminology. The HLEG report reflects this same convergence: three of its four dimensions track directly onto these three pillars, with a fourth, foundational principles, covering peace, human rights and respect for the planet.
There is also convergence on the level of domains, and MERGE’s research reflects this. A cluster analysis of more than 200 Beyond GDP indicators found they group into 19 recurring domains, with thematics similarly mirrored in the HLEG’s 22 domains. As convergence already emerges, the submission argues for building on the existing alignment rather than introducing further competing frameworks.
Improvements in the framework for better adoption
A framework only travels as far as policymakers can act on it, and the submission points to headline indicators as the missing piece. Without a small set of measures that policymakers can point to and track, the broader framework stays too abstract to guide decisions. The submission makes a strong case for developing such indicators, while noting there is still no consensus on what form they should take. However, candidates exist for a single headline measure, such as subjective wellbeing, composite indices summarising the HLEG dashboard, and augmented-GDP-type measures. There is no need to settle on just one, since several measures can work together and reinforce each other (see JRC’s work on using different methods to compare the US and EU on societal wellbeing metrics).
Another priority is linking the framework to existing accounting systems, the same way GDP is embedded in the System of National Accounts (SNA). Economic indicators would sit within the SNA, environmental indicators within the System of Environmental and Economic Accounts (SEEA). This matters because accounting systems let policymakers look beyond aggregate big-picture figures to track changes (e.g., CO2 emissions) and target policy in a specific industry (e.g., in manufacturing). They also make it possible to explore the relationship between the economy and the environment by linking data from the SNA and SEEA.
As the submission argues, without headline indicators the framework stays too abstract to act on, and without a link to accounting systems it risks sitting apart from how governments already track progress.
Five levers for national implementation
Measurement alone doesn’t change decisions. The submission identifies five levers needed to embed the framework into governance structure:
- Reporting and monitoring: clear guidance on data collection and harmonisation, with incentives for regular monitoring and integration into national systems.
- Setting political targets: wellbeing priorities translated into concrete policy targets.
- Enforcement mechanisms: ensuring those targets are actually followed through.
- Policy evaluation: assessing policy impacts against wellbeing targets, both before and after a policy is rolled out.
- Budgetary allocation rules: allocating public funds so that budgets support reaching the wellbeing targets.
Reporting and monitoring, on their own, risk becoming information exercises, disconnected from real decisions. Paired with the other four levers, they gain real institutional weight.
Looking forward
Advancing this agenda does not depend on waiting for a single actor to move first. Every stakeholder already holds a lever within its own mandate that can already be pulled:
- The UN‘s main contribution is a shared blueprint: statistical guidelines that standardise how indicators are measured, while leaving countries free to organise their own frameworks around their own priorities.
- Eurostat and the European Statistical System can mandate and fund the data collection needed to make that blueprint usable across EU Member States.
- Member States themselves can adapt the framework nationally, embed indicators into policy and budgeting, and resource their statistical institutes accordingly.
- National statistical institutes can take the technical lead in operationalising these measures, staying open to experimentation and collaboration.
This input is expected to give the intergovernmental process a clearer path through some of its open questions as it moves towards the Elements Paper, grounded in what is already working on the ground in the MERGE project. We will continue engaging with policymakers, statisticians, and civil society as the framework develops, sharing what we learn along the way.
Read the full submission here:
Submitted by Peter Benczur, Magali Brosio, Rachele Chevallier, Robert Constanza,
Joseph Eastoe, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Rutger Hoekstra, Ly Le, and Alisa Rannikko – on behalf of the MERGE consortium.
