31 October 2026 8:13 am
Türkiye’s COP 31 Targets a More Sustainable Built Future

Türkiye’s COP 31 Targets a More Sustainable Built Future

Oct 30, 2026

Expansive aerial view showcasing the dense urban landscape and architecture of İzmir, Türkiye. by Doğan Alpaslan Demir via Pexels

.

COP31: Türkiye Targets a More Sustainable Built Environment

.

By Sam Robinson
Sustainability MAGAZINE  –  October 30, 2026

.

Ahead of COP31, Türkiye has launched the Antalya Compact for Energy Efficient Buildings to accelerate building decarbonisation and promote more sustainable buildings. Credit: “COP31 Press Conference_12Feb26_COP31 Presidency21” by UNclimatechange, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

.

COP31 President-designate Murat Kurum says the Antalya Compact framework signals a shift from “ambition to implementation” of efficient building practices

Decarbonising the global building stock is central to reducing global emissions. From the carbon emissions associated with construction to the resilience of homes, schools and hospitals in a changing climate, the decisions made today will shape communities and the built environment for generations.

Ahead of COP31 in Antalya, Türkiye, the conference presidency is seeking to accelerate building decarbonisation progress with the launch of the Antalya Compact for Energy Efficient Buildings.

The framework aims to help governments and industry reduce emissions from the built environment while improving the quality, affordability and resilience of buildings worldwide.

Open for endorsement by all participating countries, the Compact advances two of COP31’s Global Targets for 2035: reducing the operational energy intensity of the global building stock by at least 25% against 2020 levels, and accelerating efficient electrification as part of an ambition to increase electricity’s share of global energy consumption to 35%.

Murat Kurum, COP31 President-Designate and Minister of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change for the Republic of Türkiye. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Developed under Türkiye’s COP31 Presidency, with support from the secretariat of the UN Environment Programme-hosted Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GlobalABC), the framework outlines a common approach for governments, cities, financial institutions and buildings-sector stakeholders.

“Buildings are at the heart of our cities and of the energy transition,” says COP31 President-Designate Murat Kurum, Minister of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change for the Republic of Türkiye.

“With the Antalya Compact, we are moving from ambition to implementation – accelerating practical action to make buildings more efficient, resilient and sustainable around the world.”

COP31: Key Sustainability Targets
  • 35% – Target share of global final energy consumption to be met by electricity by 2035.
  • 50% – Reduction in the projected growth of global municipal solid waste targeted by 2035.
  • 25% – Target reduction in building-sector energy intensity by 2035, compared with 2020 levels.
  • 15% – Minimum global circular material use rate targeted for 2035 to advance green industrialisation.
  • 9–20 November 2026 – Dates of COP31, taking place in Antalya, Türkiye, with a focus on accelerating climate action and implementing existing commitments.

Tackling the built environment’s carbon footprint

According to the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) ‘Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction 2025–2026’, buildings account for nearly 40% of energy-related carbon emissions and energy demand.

Meanwhile, the global building footprint continues to expand. In 2024, total building floor area increased by 1.7%, reaching 272 billion square metres.

This growth makes the sustainability of both new construction and existing buildings increasingly important. Improving the environmental performance of new developments avoids locking in emissions for decades, while renovating existing properties offers opportunities to reduce resource consumption and improve comfort.

The investment challenge also remains substantial, with UNEP estimating that an additional US$3.6tn in cumulative energy efficiency investment is needed by 2030 to align investment levels with the 2050 net-zero pathway.

Martin Krause, Director of the Climate Change Division at UNEP. Credit: UNEP

In the report’s foreword, Martin Krause, Director of UNEP’s Climate Change Division, writes: “Over the past decade, global building floor area has expanded rapidly, while energy demand and emissions have grown more slowly. Energy efficiency, cleaner power and better design have delivered tangible progress.”

Despite highlighting that building decarbonisation is failing to keep pace with construction rates, he suggests that the efficiency gains recorded “show that the sector can grow while reducing its climate impact and that policies, markets and technology can align.”

He also argues that buildings should be viewed as an opportunity to deliver wider social and environmental benefits, from meeting housing needs and reducing costs to strengthening resilience against climate extremes and supporting inclusive economic growth.

“Energy efficiency, cleaner power and better design have delivered tangible progress. ”
Martin KrauseDirector of UNEP’s Climate Change Division

Six priorities for sustainable buildings

The Antalya Compact identifies six areas for action, giving countries a framework to integrate building sustainability into their climate and development strategies.

These include strengthening the environmental performance of new and existing buildings, accelerating renovation, reducing energy demand, expanding electrification and improving building flexibility. The framework also calls for greater investment and capacity to support implementation at scale.

In practice, this could mean stronger building standards, renovation programmes and investment in social housing, schools, hospitals and other public infrastructure.

Electrifying heating, cooling and cooking also reduces reliance on fossil fuels, particularly as electricity generation becomes cleaner.

 

The Compact recognises that countries will follow different pathways according to their national circumstances, starting points and resources. Its six action areas are intended to provide a shared direction while allowing flexibility in implementation.

The framework builds on the Déclaration de Chaillot, endorsed by more than 70 countries in 2024, which called for a rapid, fair and effective transition towards near-zero-emission and resilient buildings.

The Intergovernmental Council for Buildings and Climate was subsequently established at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, to strengthen international cooperation and support implementation.

For Yves-Laurent Sapoval, co-chair of GlobalABC, the transition must deliver benefits that extend beyond emissions reductions.

“Half of the buildings that will exist in 2050 have yet to be built and most existing buildings need to be renovated,” he says. “The choices we make today will shape our cities and communities for decades to come.”

Yves-Laurent Sapoval, co-chair of the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction. Credit: LinkedIn

He adds that sustainable buildings should also provide “homes people can afford to heat and cool, schools where children can learn comfortably, and hospitals that can deliver essential services without wasting energy”.

From commitments to implementation

The Antalya Compact provides a framework for turning international climate ambitions into practical action across the construction and property sectors. I

ts success, however, will depend on countries translating commitments into effective policies, renovation programmes and investment.

The COP31 Presidency is encouraging governments and stakeholders to endorse the Compact, with the Intergovernmental Council for Buildings and Climate’s ministerial meeting on 12 November offering a further opportunity to build momentum.

COP31 – key partners

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Executive Director: Inger Andersen | HQ: Nairobi, Kenya

UNEP is the UN’s leading environmental authority and a key source of research and policy guidance on climate change. Through GlobalABC, it helps coordinate international action on building decarbonisation, energy efficiency and climate resilience. Its Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction provides essential evidence on the sector’s emissions, energy demand and investment needs, making it particularly relevant to the article.

UN-Habitat

Executive Director: Anacláudia Rossbach | HQ: Nairobi, Kenya

UN-Habitat works with governments and local authorities to promote sustainable urban development, adequate housing and resilient communities. At COP31, it is co-hosting the Resilient Cities, Buildings and Cooling Pavilion alongside GlobalABC, the Cool Coalition and Türkiye’s İLBANK. Its work connects building efficiency with urban planning, sustainable cooling and climate-resilient housing.

.

 


 

.

What is Artificial General Intelligence Explained Simply

What is Artificial General Intelligence Explained Simply

Oct 29, 2026

Close-up of AI-assisted coding with menu options for debugging and problem-solving. by Daniil Komov via Pexels

.

What is artificial general intelligence – and is it already here?

.

Waqas Ali, University of Wolverhampton

.

OpenAI’s president, Greg Brockman, recently suggested that its advanced model, known as GPT-6 Astra, could mark the arrival of something called artificial general intelligence, or AGI.

If AI itself is often defined as the ability to simulate human intelligence, OpenAI defines AGI as an AI system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work – to be better at the majority of digital and cognitive tasks a human can perform. This includes tasks such as writing computer code, organisational activities or managing projects.

For now, at least, it excludes work that involves physical labour, such as agriculture or construction. Though the integration of AI with robotics means such sectors of industry may not be the exclusive domain of humans forever.

This definition by OpenAI focuses on breadth of competency by an AI system. However, other experts maintain that AGI will be characterised by additional cognitive leaps beyond present-day AI models. For example, Demis Hassabis, founder of Google DeepMind, has said that AGI should be able to do “pretty much any cognitive task that humans can do”.

This definition makes AGI more about brilliance and a bit less about depth. Yann LeCun, former chief AI scientist at Meta, believes the term AGI itself is flawed and should be replaced by “human-level AI”.

These represent snapshots from a vigorous ongoing debate over when AGI will arrive and how to recognise it.

Venturebeat magazine reported Brockman acknowledging this at a closed press briefing about GPT-6 Astra in September when he said: “When we started OpenAI, we kind of thought that there was going to be this well-defined moment that everyone would recognise … it hasn’t played out like that.”

But he added: “For me personally, I do think we’re there.” Just a few days after Brockman made his comments, the chief executive of Anthropic, Dario Amodei, called in an essay titled: “We must pace the frontier” for the AI industry to slow down the pace of its development. Within hours of this essay being published, both Sam Altman and Elon Musk signalled their agreement.

So is Brockman right about AGI being here? The evidence still points in more than one direction and is therefore inconclusive.

The clearest shift with GPT-6 Astra is in how people use it. Earlier models needed detailed instructions at each step. Astra is built for longer jobs where the user sets a goal and some boundaries, and the model works out the sequence itself.

OpenAI’s demonstrations showed the frontier model handling several unrelated tasks at once. The company presents this as moving past the pattern in which a human supplies the next instruction every time.

That is a real change, and it is the part most users will notice first.

One of the benchmarks show that Astra scored 99.9% on ARC-AGI-3, a test that places an AI agent in unfamiliar interactive games with no instructions and measures how efficiently it works out the rules.

OpenAI estimates that the average human scored 48% when asked to work out the same unfamiliar games. The detail matters here, however. ARC Prize, which runs the benchmark, reported that Astra’s best score through the shared “harness” it gives every model was 62.7%. A harness is a kind of software operating system, or physical environment, within which the AI system works. ARC Prize provides Astra with this software harness.

The 99.9% came from a different harness, built by OpenAI for Astra, which preserves the AI model’s reasoning between requests. Essentially, Astra did better when it was able to reuse previous work and wasn’t “starting from scratch” between requests in terms of its reasoning.

Evaluators disagree

Independent evaluators disagree about how much of an advance GPT-6 Astra represents on its predecessor. The independent research institute Epoch AI places it right at the frontier, alongside other cutting-edge AI models such as Claude Fable 5.1, Kimi K3 and GPT-5.5 Pro. The independent analysis company Artificial Analysis did not rate it as being radically ahead of its predecessor – GPT-5.6 Sol.

Toby Walsh, an AI researcher at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, described the intelligence in frontier AI models such as GPT-6 Astra and others as “still today very jagged”, telling Al Jazeera that there are simple things that even the best AI models do poorly.

On September 8 2026, OpenAI published a claimed solution to the Navier-Stokes problem, one of seven Millennium Prize problems in mathematics. This has often been reported as Astra’s work. It was not. OpenAI says the proof came from an unreleased internal model, significantly more capable than Astra, running roughly 10,000 AI agents (AI models that perform tasks in response to human instructions) in parallel for about 88 hours.

Astra’s contribution was the formalisation and verification afterwards, which took a further 17 hours. The proof has not yet been checked by the mathematical community.

Amodei’s September essay calling for an AI slowdown remains the strongest recent statement about the risks of frontier models. He wrote that within six to 12 months, a swarm of agents could be capable of taking over the internet with a persistent botnet. This could lead to the catastrophic failure of key systems and would cause damage possibly running into hundreds of billions of dollars.

Claude misuse

It is worth examining Amodei’s warnings. Anthropic’s September threat report sets out examples of how AI is already being used in alarming ways.

According to the Anthropic report, a group in northern Yemen recently used Claude code to build guidance software for rockets and a missile. Russian and Chinese operators automated espionage work. A single French-speaking individual built used AI to build a software platform that made personal information about people affiliated with a targeted political movement searchable online. In each case, a human chose the targets and the model supplied the labour.

That is a narrow capability applied at speed and scale under human direction. It is serious, but it is not a description of general intelligence.

Capability and general intelligence are separate things, and they call for different responses. Amodei’s proposed response is to slow frontier development while expanding independent evaluation and coordinating safety standards across countries. A genuinely general system would raise questions that those measures are not designed to answer.

GPT-6 Astra does not settle whether AGI has arrived. Instead, it exposes why that question is becoming harder to answer. Intelligence is increasingly a property of an AI system comprising a model, memory, tools and agents, rather than of a model tested in isolation.

On the narrower question of whether these systems can now cause serious harm, the people running the companies have said plainly that they definitely can.The Conversation

Waqas Ali, Lecturer in Business Management and Research, Faculty of Arts, Business, and Social Sciences, University of Wolverhampton

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

.

.


 

.

 

Less is more: Why Restraint Matters in Eco Practices

Less is more: Why Restraint Matters in Eco Practices

Oct 28, 2026

A bustling overhead view of an urban market with various stalls selling fresh produce and goods. by Hanif Ismail via Pexels

.

Less is more. So why does more feel greener? 9 studies probe the “sustainable additive bias”

.

Consumers judge companies greener when they add eco-friendly items more so than when they remove unnecessary ones, researchers found.

.

By Sarah DeWeerdt
Anthropocene  - October 27, 2026

.

Less is more. So why does more feel greener? 9 studies probe the "sustainable additive bias”

People are drowning in eco-friendly swag—cloth tote bags, reusable water bottles, recycled notebooks, sustainable hotel toiletries, and on and on—distributed by organizations and companies eager to demonstrate their environmental bona fides.

What might be even more sustainable than manufacturing and distributing all these eco-friendly products is to just…stop. The trouble is that consumers have trouble giving brands credit for such restraint, a quirk of human psychology that researchers dub “sustainable additive bias” in a new paper.

“Companies that genuinely try to take eco-friendly actions, such as reducing packaging or promotional giveaways, are often not rewarded,” says study team member Linda Lemarié, associate professor of marketing at Audencia Business School in France. “What we don’t see is hard to take into consideration, and reduction leaves nothing visible, even though it’s often the best strategy from an environmental standpoint.”

In the paper, Lemarié and her colleagues conducted nine different studies to demonstrate how this bias works—and what companies can do about it.

The studies included a field experiment in which hotel guests rated the sustainability of the room they had stayed in, a lab experiment in which business school students chose gifts to hand out to trade show attendees, and seven online investigations in which a total of more than 2,900 participants were asked to evaluate complimentary hotel toiletries, hair care sets, music festival welcome bags, and other collections of products.

Overall, the studies show that consumers see businesses as more sustainable when they provide more eco-friendly items rather than when they remove unnecessary ones—even though subtracting can lead to lower waste and a smaller footprint.

.

“We were first surprised by the robustness and consistency of the effect across different contexts and with different metrics,” Lemarié says.

For example, study participants judged a hotel room stocked with a large selection of eco-friendly toiletries as more sustainable than a room with a more modest set of eco-friendly products. They also judged a limited-edition tea box to which eco-friendly tea filters had been added as more sustainable than one from which they had been removed.

“Then we were also surprised by the bias’s resistance to knowledge,” Lemarié says. When items weren’t labeled as being environmentally friendly, participants identified bundles with more items as being less sustainable than those with fewer. “This means that people do indeed correctly associate ‘addition with ‘less environmentally friendly.’”

But when the question of sustainability comes into play, people seem to use visible components as indicators of companies’ effort. The more items, the more effort, and the more effort, the more sustainability—at least, according to our imperfect brains.

Several of the experiments suggest sustainable additive bias can be counteracted when companies prioritize highly recognizable items as sustainability signals (that is, a refillable water bottle counts more than biodegradable glitter). One hints that explaining when items have been removed for environmental reasons might help, too.

But accomplishing this in the real world could be tricky, Lemarié says. “The question our research leaves open is how to effectively demonstrate, without appearing hypocritical or making people skeptical, that reducing elements of a product offering, and thus offering less, is a genuine effort in favor of the environment.”

Source: Lemarié L. et al. “The more, the better? The sustainable additive bias.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine. AI-generated.

.


 

.

Professor Wesam Al Asali Reinterprets Traditional Vaulting

Professor Wesam Al Asali Reinterprets Traditional Vaulting

Oct 27, 2026

A historic temple in Amman, Jordan, featuring traditional architecture and the national flag. by heba alwahsh via Pexels

.

IE University Professor Wesam Al Asali Reinterprets Traditional Vaulting at Amman Design Week 2026

.

By IE SoAD
Archinect – Oct 26, 2026

.

.

Photo©Edmund Sumner

Photo©Edmund Sumner

 

Wesam Al Asali, architect, professor and reseacher at IE School of Architecture & Design (IE University), has designed Tašbik, a site-specific architectural installation for Amman Design Week 2026, held from October 2 to 17 in Amman, Jordan. The project reintroduces the Mediterranean construction technique of bóvedas tabicadas (thin-tile vaulting) to the Arab region, reinterpreting it through the use of locally sourced Jordanian limestone.

IE University Professor Wesam Al Asali Reinterprets Traditional Vaulting at Amman Design Week 2026 | IE School of Architecture and Design | Archinect

Occupying 256 square meters in Al Mudarraj, the open-air lecture courtyard of Amman Design Week, Tašbik consists of a sequence of stone vaults that serve as seating, a stage, and spatial enclosures. The intervention transforms the courtyard into a gathering space for lectures, public activities, and informal exchanges.

The installation was developed as part of the fourth edition of Amman Design Week, organized under the theme Accumulations, which explores how time, labor, materials, and knowledge contribute to cultural and material practices.

IE University Professor Wesam Al Asali Reinterprets Traditional Vaulting at Amman Design Week 2026 | IE School of Architecture and Design | Archinect

At the center of the project is the reinterpretation of bóvedas tabicadas, a lightweight vaulting technique associated with Mediterranean architectural traditions. By reconstructing the vaults using limestone from Hallabat, Jordan, Al Asali explores how traditional construction knowledge can be transferred and adapted across different geographical and material contexts.

The project also establishes a connection between construction and language. Its name, Tašbik (تشبيك), refers to the Arabic term from which the Spanish word tabicadas is traced, suggesting a relationship between architectural traditions across the Mediterranean and the Arab world.

Conceived as an open workshop, the installation places the construction process at the center of the architectural experience. Its repeated vaulted elements explore accumulation not only as a physical process of assembling materials, but also as a means of transmitting craftsmanship and technical knowledge over time.

The project involved the participation of Anna Isabel Martinez and Yassamin Ghassimi, students at IE School of Architecture & Design, who contributed through the School’s Construction Lab. Architectural drawings and details were developed by Dalaa Al Khadra. Stone fabrication was carried out by Siwan Stone & Marble in Amman, with timber sponsorship from Home Pillar.

Beyond his teaching and researching role at IE University, Wesam Al Asali is co-founder and Director of Design and Innovation at IW-lab and founder of CERCAA (Educational Center for the Regeneration of Craft Construction) in Valencia, Spain. His work explores the relationship between design, material experimentation, and craft-based construction.

Together with architectural historian Nadi Abusaada, Al Asali is also co-editor of Arab Modern: Architecture and the Project of Independence (gta Verlag, 2025), a book that examines the relationship between architecture, nation-building, and cultural identity in the Arab world during the twentieth century. Read more about the book on IE University’s website.

 

 

.


 

.
Strategic Sustainability Regimes: Key Findings and Trends

Strategic Sustainability Regimes: Key Findings and Trends

Oct 26, 2026

A hand holding an antique key. by Mikhail Nilov via Pexels

.

Strategic Sustainability Regimes: Configurations of National Sustainability Conditions

.

WILEY Online Library / First published: 26 October 2026
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.71824Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

ABSTRACT

.

Sustainable development is increasingly recognized as a complex strategic challenge requiring the coordination of social, environmental, and institutional dimensions. This study adopts a configurational perspective to identify distinct strategic sustainability regimes across countries. A country-only balanced panel of 166 countries covering 2000–2023 (3984 country-year observations) was reconstructed from two Sustainable Development Report files. Gaussian mixture model (GMM) clustering was applied to long-run country averages for Goals 1, 3, 13, and 16 in a 150-country clustering sample. Fixed-effects panel models provided complementary longitudinal evidence, and robustness tests included alternative clustering methods, repeated 80% subsampling, and an extended sensitivity specification for Goals 8, 9, and 12. Four strategic sustainability regimes were identified: Capacity-Constrained, Emerging Transitional, Balanced Transitional, and High-Capability. Broader sustainability performance rises monotonically across these regimes, revealing a pronounced social–institutional development gradient alongside compositionally distinct profiles. Goal 13 follows an inverse cross-regime pattern and remains statistically non-significant in the fixed-effects models, indicating that climate-related SDG performance captures a structurally distinct dimension whose meaning depends in part on emissions, consumption, energy use, industrial structure, and development stage. The four-regime solution is reasonably stable but not invariant to method or construct specification. The study contributes to the strategic management and sustainability literature by extending configuration theory to the national level and identifying heterogeneous national sustainability profiles. For firms and MSMEs, these regimes are interpreted as macro-level opportunity and constraint environments; extended Goal 12 sensitivity analysis acknowledges the responsible-consumption dimension, although green consumer behavior is not directly measured.

1 Introduction

Sustainable development has become one of the most complex strategic challenges facing countries in the twenty-first century. Since the adoption of the United Nations 2030 Agenda, governments have been expected not only to improve performance on individual Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) but also to coordinate multiple social, environmental, and institutional priorities simultaneously (United Nations 2015; Breuer et al. 2019; Fu et al. 2019). The SDGs also represent a novel governance mechanism that seeks to coordinate multiple policy domains through integrated goal-setting processes (Biermann et al. 2017). Countries must align diverse development priorities amid uncertainty, resource constraints, institutional heterogeneity, and competing policy demands (Bejaković 2019). As a result, sustainability performance is increasingly related to how countries combine multiple observed development conditions, rather than to improvements in isolated indicators.

Despite the growing importance of sustainability, much of the existing literature continues to evaluate national performance through ranking systems, composite indices, dashboard approaches, or analyses of pairwise SDG interactions (Le Blanc 2015; Nilsson et al. 2016; Swain and Ranganathan 2021). Although these approaches have generated valuable insights into progress toward the SDGs and the interdependencies among development goals, they remain largely variable-centered and provide a limited understanding of recurrent combinations of multiple development dimensions. Consequently, countries are typically positioned along a single performance continuum despite substantial differences in governance quality, social development, environmental performance, and policy implementation capacity. Consistent with configuration theory, coherent combinations of interdependent factors provide a useful lens for examining such multidimensional differences (Fiss 2011; Ault and Spicer 2021). However, clustering alone does not establish equifinality, complementarity, or configurational causation.

This argument reveals an important gap in the existing literature. Although sustainability transitions research recognizes the existence of multiple transition pathways and long-term systemic change processes (Markard et al. 2012; Köhler et al. 2019), and institutional scholarship emphasizes the role of governance quality in shaping development outcomes (Gupta and Vegelin 2016; Kern and Rogge 2019), relatively few studies have integrated these perspectives within a configuration-based strategic management framework. Existing research has documented the importance of institutions, poverty reduction, health performance, and environmental conditions for sustainable development (Barbier and Burgess 2017; Sachs et al. 2023). However, the literature still offers a limited understanding of how these dimensions combine to form distinct sustainability regimes and how such configurations shape broader sustainability performance across countries.

Addressing this gap is important for both theory and practice. From a theoretical perspective, sustainability research risks remaining fragmented across isolated indicators and disconnected policy dimensions if profile heterogeneity is ignored (Heinrichs and Biermann 2016). Accordingly, this study contributes to the strategic management and sustainability literature in three ways. It introduces a configurational perspective to national sustainability research, examines recurrent combinations of observed sustainability conditions, and combines Gaussian Mixture Model clustering with longitudinal panel analysis within a unified empirical framework. At the micro level, national institutional and social conditions may shape the regulatory pressures, financing, infrastructure, skills, and market demand that firms and MSMEs encounter, while eco-literacy and sustainability education remain plausible mechanisms that warrant direct testing (Madhavaram and Nirjar 2025; Suwono et al. 2026). Development and industrialization can also improve social and institutional foundations while affecting emissions, consumption, and energy use, creating a development–climate tension that simple rankings may obscure (Sachs et al. 2024).

Based on this logic, the study addresses the following research questions:

  1. Do countries exhibit distinct strategic sustainability regimes based on their observed social, environmental, and institutional profiles?
  2. What combinations of social development, environmental performance, and institutional capacity characterize these regimes?
  3. How are the dimensions used to identify strategic sustainability regimes associated with broader sustainability performance over time?

Unlike previous SDG studies that primarily classify countries by overall sustainability performance, this study combines Gaussian Mixture Model clustering with a complementary fixed-effects panel analysis. This integrated design provides profile-based and longitudinal evidence to understand heterogeneous sustainability patterns, without treating cluster membership as evidence of equifinality or causal configurations.

Read more on the original publication  WILEY Online Library

.


 

.