In ternationa l Scholars Journa ls African Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Vol. 1 (4), pp. 097-105, November, 2013. Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. Full Length Research Paper Synergies among different parts of sustainable development Art Kovacic Institute for Economic Research, Kardeljeva pl. 17, 1109 Ljubljana – Slovenia. E-mail: kovacica@ier.si. Tel: 386 1 5303 868. Fax: 386 1 5303 874. Accepted 19 April, 2013 Sustainable development became an important paradigm in new EU countries. In new member countries can be seen the development of tools for measuring sustainable development. Sustainable development can be measured on many ways. In the paper we will show the evaluation of main determinants of sustainable development. Normally more developed countries have a higher sustainability readiness. In the paper the next hypothesis will be tested: First hypothesis: we need a wider set of sustainable development indicators, if we want to measure synergies among different parts of sustainable development. Second hypothesis: land used policies have an important influence on sustainable development. Third hypothesis: by analysing the indexes of sustainable development we can find the main development steps for improving our position. In the paper it will be shown why we must analyse different parts of sustainable development. Sustainable development is usually measured by the system of indicators. We must take into account also the paradigm of the knowledge based economy. The creation of a knowledge-based economy and society, and the preparation of respective action plans presuppose that the situation of the developed economies be analysed and give deeper insights into the current basis of economic development gained. Only this basis can serve the planning of future in a way that would guarantee rapid economic development and the harmonisation of the average wage level with that of the European Union. This entails both economic and social objectives, according to which Europe seeks to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge- based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs, and a better social cohesion. Key words: Economic development, benchmarking, development strategy, environmental economics. INTRODUCTION Sustainable development means integrating the econo- mic, social and environmental objectives of the society, in order to maximize the people’s well-being in the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The management evaluation of sus- tainability determinants will have an important new value compared to the existing studies about sustainable deve- lopment on the European level. Some companies are not taking the sustainability concept in their programmes and policies. Many businesses are realizing benefits from cor- porate social responsibility initiatives with quantified im- provements in revenue and market access, productivity, and risk-management. While emerging-market compa- nies tend to focus more on the short-term cost savings and revenue gains, intangibles, such as brand value and reputation issues, are more significant for the companies that try to increase the sustainable readiness. Companies create external effects through their operations or ac- tions. These effects can be positive for example spill over effects from research and income multiplier effects in lo- cal communities or negative, a classical example being pollution. It is expected that governments or other entities that are external to the market relevant costs if the impact of the externalities is not acceptable to important stake- holders, for example the investment and the operational costs of pollution, control equipment (Steger, 2004). On the business level, we can see the balance between in- vestors, suppliers, consumers, local community, and competitors. Being socially responsible is not only fulfil- ling legal expectations, but also going beyond compliance and investing more into human capital, the environment, and the relations with stake-holders. The experience with Kovacic 097 investment in environmentally responsible technologies and business practice suggests that going beyond legal compliance can contribute to a company's competitive- ness. Going beyond basic legal obligations in the social area, for example, training, working conditions, or man- agement-employee relations, can also have a direct im- pact on productivity. It opens a way of managing change and of reconciling social development with improved competitiveness. The effects of corporate sustainability management are of great interest to both companies and society. In particular, its micro level economic effects are often the subject of debates and studies discussing the importance and robustness of a business case for corpo- rate sustainability. In the paper the next hypothesis will be tested: First hypothesis: we need a wider set of sus- tainable development indicators and indexes, if we want to measure synergies among different parts of sustain- able development. Second hypothesis: land used policies have an important influence on sustainable development. Third hypothesis: by analysing main determinants of sus- tainable development we can find the main development steps for improving our position. The business sustainability is an important challenge of sustainability research. Through their operations and ac- tions, companies create external effects, which can be positive (e.g. spill over effects from research and income multiplier effects in local communities) or negative, a cla- ssical example of which being pollution. It is expected that governments or other entities that are external to the market relevant costs if the impact of the externalities is not acceptable to important stake-holders, for example the investment and operational costs of pollution control equipment (Steger, 2004). It can be seen that the most competitive countries in the EU also have a good position in Sustainable Development. We cannot achieve a high sustainable position without favourable conditions for the business sector. The correlation between competitive- ness and sustainable development is strong. The Scandi- navian countries rank high by the IMD and WEF's compe- titiveness index and by the ESI sustainability index. Ob- serving the OECD countries only, it is obvious that the high performance of environmental quality, GDP per capi- ta, and competitiveness, as defined by the WEF are con- nected. Porter and Esty state that, ―The countries that have had the most aggressive environmental policies also seem to be the most competitive and economically successful‖. Needless to say, the economists starting from general equilibrium models do not agree with Porter’s hypothesis. In a general equilibrium model, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and Jaffe et al. (1995) conclude, ―Just as we have found little consistent empirical evidence for the conventional hypothesis regarding environmental regula- tion and competitiveness, there is also little or no evi- dence supporting the revisionist hypothesis that environ- mental regulation stimulates innovation and improved in- ternational competitiveness.‖ We believe that a more so- phisticated use of the environmental indicators and statis- tical tools to develop systematic and objective ways to gauge results offers a constructive way out of the current stasis. This essay is built on our previous effort to statis- tically investigate the underpinnings of environmental per- formance, and on using the findings to rank countries in terms of environmental outcomes and policies. In particu- lar, we seek to explain differences in national environ- mental results—as measured by the levels of air pollution (particulates and SO2 and energy use—based on nation- nal policy choices in environmental regulation as well as in broader economic, political, and legal structures). We also empirically explore the question of whether strong environmental performance must come at the expense of competitiveness and economic development, as traditio- nal economic theory has suggested (Jaffe et al., 1995). More broadly, we aim to put the environmental decision- making on a firmer analytic grounding, and to encourage further efforts to generate better data and improve statis- tical methods. Although hampered by imperfect data, a lack of time series data that would permit more definitive tests of causality, and the need to use relatively crude methods, we find substantial evidence that environmental performance varies systematically with both the quality of a country's environmental regulatory regime and its broa- der economic and legal context. We use our model to create a framework for measuring the quality of national environmental regulation, and to rank countries on both the quality of regulation and environmental performance. We find a significant correlation between income and en- vironmental performance, suggesting that alleviating poverty should be seen as a priority for environmental po- licymakers. However, dramatic differences in environ- mental performance occur even between the countries with similar economic levels. This finding implies that en- vironmental improvement is not merely a function of eco- nomic development, but benefits from carefully construc- ted policy choices. Our analysis also suggests that a country's broader economic, legal, and other institutional underpinnings are also important determinants of envi- ronmental performance. On the trade-off between being green and being competitive, we have found no evidence that improving environmental quality compromises eco- nomic strength. In fact, higher levels of environmental performance appear to be correlated positively with com- petitiveness. Sustainable development stands for meeting the needs of present generations without jeopardizing the ability of futures generations to meet their own needs – in other words, a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come. It offers a vision of progress that integrates immediate and longer-term objectives, local and global action, and regards social, economic and envi- ronmental issues as inseparable and interdependent components of human progress. Sustainable develop- ment will not be brought about by policies only: it must be taken up by society at large as a principle guiding the many choices each citizen makes every day, as well as the big political and economic decisions that have. This requires profound changes in thinking, in economic and social structures and in consumption and production pat- terns. The European Council of June 2006 adopted an ambitious and comprehensive renewed SDS for an en- larged EU. It builds on the Gothenburg strategy of 2001 and is the result of an extensive review process that star- ted in 2004. The renewed EU SDS sets out a single, co- herent strategy on how the EU will more effectively live up to its long-standing commitment to meet the challen- ges of sustainable development. It recognises the need to gradually change our current unsustainable consum-ption and production patterns and move towards a better integrated approach to policy-making. It reaffirms the need for global solidarity and recognises the importance of strengthening our work with partners outside the EU, including those rapidly developing countries which will have a significant impact on global sustainable develop- ment. Land used policies Land used policies (housing, agriculture, forests and urbanization) are becoming more important by imple- mentation of sustainable development concept. Before implementation of sustainable development the land used policies were created on their own. Now they have to put into account the social and also the environmental deve- lopment. They are created from the long term pers- pective. European integration process has fostered the privatization process of stated owned companies. Privati- zation process of stated owned companies has changed the land responsibility in new member countries. Deve- lopment process is different in urban areas than in rural areas. Without efficient use of land we cannot reach the sustainable development. One goal of sustainable development is to balance the competing demands for the finite quantity of land available. We have to minimize the loss of rural land to development and to maintain the vitality and viability of towns’ centres with people living close to work place. The sustainable development as- sessment could be the basis for land used policies. Land used policies are taking the sustainable development concept hardly into account. As a source of sustenance, resources and wealth, land is the basis upon which all human societies are built (Caldwell and Shrader -Fre- chette, 1993). Most of the profound changes in the phy- sical and social conditions of human existence have had important land-use dimensions, including, over a long time span, the shift to sedentary agriculture, large scale urbanization (strongly associated with the rise of formal, public, land-use planning) and the globalising influence of information technology. Land has been the subject of per- sistent political struggle, and we might expect the gover- nance of land use change to present a challenging set of issues for the practice of sustainable development. Land 098 Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. used policies are becoming an important part of sustain- able development in recent years. Development must take into account the qualitative view of improvement. It is a process of human improvement. It deals with the quality of life. Quality of life is becoming the important ob-jective of each country. Assessing the development posi-tion of countries takes more in the view the quality of life, because the people needs are the motor of development process. There are many possibilities to measure quality of life, especially in the last years. So, it is not just the en- vironment-economy relationship, but also the social de- velopment. Sustainable development means integrating the economic, social and environmental objectives of society, in order to maximize human well being in the pre- sent without compromising the ability of future genera- tions to meet their needs. Our sensibility is that we need a more encompassing definition of sustainable develop- ment. It would include programs and policies that pro- mote a more equitable distribution of new jobs and in- come while boosting a national capacity to innovate. It would foster economic stability and increase the econo- mic and political empowerment of the citizenry. It includes more equal roles for women and minorities, improved health and raised levels of educational attainment, ac- cess to better housing, a more effective public transport system, safer workplaces, greater energy and minerals efficiency, and decreased toxics usage among producers (Pyle and Forrant, 2002). If we observe the national com- petitiveness from a wide perspective, the most important weights have management and government, because they have an influence on other determinants. With a higher weight of sustainable development the theory con- cept of national competitiveness is observed from the long term view. We can explain this by analysing compe- titiveness by main groups as domestic economy, interna- tionalization, government, financial markets, infrastruc- ture, management, science and technology, human capi- tal and environment conservation. All groups have the same weight. From a long term perspective, qualities of government and management have a stronger weight, because they influence on other determinants. Policies and strategies on governmental and enterprise level are becoming more important. In the independence research among determinants of sustainable development we have created and own sy- stem of indicators. In the research we found the biggest development gaps of Slovenia to EU average. In the Slovenian, system of indicators has an important share. Land presents problems for the more sanguine, ecomo- dernist interpretations of sustainability, which see salva- tion in improving eco-efficiency, or »doing more with less«. While it is demonstrably possible to reduce the energy or materials intensity of the economy, relation- ships between economic activity, land and environmental change make analogous assertions about land-use intensity much more problematic (Owens and Cowell, 1994). One aspect of the growing interest in land use pla- Kovacic 099 nning as an instrument of sustainable development has been the expanding range of social, ecological and politi- cal objectives that planning systems are deemed capable of promoting. Seen collectively, these aspirations amount to a potentially overwhelming brief for institutions with something of a mixed record in meeting public and politi- cal desires (Cullingwirth, 1997) . Land-use policies can sometimes provide a reassuring institutional alternative to measures with more immediate effect, such as green tax- es; and when they do bite, local authorities, rather than central government, face the political repercussions. In such circumstances, it is convenient that advocates of sustainable development call for greater local autonomy. Planning undoubtedly has been, and continues to be, used in such ways, as we show in relation to environ- mental assessment, transport and other issues. Measuring sustainability Benchmark selected countries by economic, social, envi- ronmental and institutional indicators show us where we have to act in the way of improving competitive position. By acting as if all regions and countries must follow basi- cally the same stages on their route towards perfection, policy makers do, for instance, sometimes try to enhance the economic development of an area by producing an imitation of the local capabilities, not of the laggards, but of what they believe to be the economically most ad- vanced regions or countries, thereby hoping to become attractive themselves to more lucrative and rewarding industries. Productivity growth will be further enhanced by the transition of new member states to a knowledge- based economy, which is at the centre of the EU Lisbon strategy. Also, the European initiative for growth under- lines the importance of investments in networks and in re- search as crucial steps to boost growth, better integrate an enlarged Europe and improve productivity and com- petitiveness. For the new member states, R and D diffu- sion and technology transfers are as important as R and D investment as a tool for accelerating the transition to- wards higher value-added activities. Sustaining a high level of foreign direct investment is essential in this en- deavour, as is an increased responsiveness of the edu- cation and training systems to the changing needs of the labour market. Reforms of the education and training sys- tems would also help to encourage the move to more innovative and knowledge intensive activities. In our pa- per we will made an impact assessment of land used po- licies (housing, agriculture, forests and urbanization) on sustainable development. The evaluation of sustainable development is the basic approach to the assessment of the development path of the particular country. The se- lected indicators serve the government/society as the framework for long term policy making. Environmental, social, institutional and economic developments are strongly linked. They are crucially important for the well being of the current as well as future generations. But environmental and social policies are sometimes formula- ted without due regard to their economic consequences. The term sustainability evokes the image of an economic system able to evolve without deterioration from its cur- rent state into the long term future, being in balance with nature. This balance may be as much psychological as material and energetic (O'Connor, 1998). Lee (1991) has remarked: Sustainable development has become the watch- word for international aid agencies, the jargon of development planners, the theme of crowded confe- rences, the topic of learned papers, and the slogan of developmental and environmental activists. It appears to have gained the broad-based support that earlier development concepts such as eco- development lacked, and is poised to become the developmental paradigm for the 90s. One of the main theories is that we must be first compe- titive if we want to reach sustainable development. Euro- pean Union has made its view on sustainability. Measur- ing sustainability reduces to the problems of measur-ing quality of life or human welfare and of measuring environ- mental impact. We can also plan the sustainable position in the future. A planning and control system is essential for the diffusion of the principles of sustainability. The majority of those systems, today, do not seem to have fully embraced the philosophy of sustainable develop- ment. For some, it is because they are limited by mea- surement systems that were developed to gauge econo- mic/financial performance, and are not equipped to mea- sure social and environmental performance like the Ba- lanced Sco Other frameworks, while accepting all three dimensions as equal, continue to favour the economic/fi- nancial performance dimension over the environmental and social dimensions. Over the last years the modelling approach is very common. But we cannot measure the sustainable development with modelling approach. We can plan some development years in the energy sector. We have to recognize that the relationships between dif- ferent parts of development process (Figure 1). If the countries can go in the step with productivity of main competitors, some results can be seen in incomes level. The modern countries are oriented on the new de- velopment paradigm. Concept of sustainable develop- ment brings the long term view on development determi- nants. Measuring CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) implementation by questionnaires is from the view of fu- ture expects very understandable. The combination of statistical and questionnaire indicators give us the best evaluation of sustainable readiness. Measuring sustaina- bility reduces to the problems of measuring quality of life or human welfare and of measuring environmental im- pact. We can also plan the sustainable position in the fu- ture. A planning and control system is essential for the diffusion of the principles of sustainability. The wellbeing of a community or nation can be measured in many Kovacic 005 100 Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. Structure of economy Internacionalization Management Science and technology Infrastructure Human capital Environmental Government protection Environmental policies SUSTAINABLE READINESS Figure 1. Model of the influence of government and management on long term sustainable development determinants. Source: Own model. ways. Traditional measurements often analyze a single issue by itself, such as the number of new jobs in a particular com-munity. But such an approach is one- dimensional, and does not reveal the quality of those jobs or their impact on the local economy. More meaningful than simply new jobs, measuring the number of children living in poverty indicates the relationship of social health to local econo-mic performance. As Staher (1995) has pointed out, when we speak of sustainable development, we have to not only consider the material and economic aspects, but the multidimensional and multifaceted conjunct that com-poses the development phenomenon: its political, social, cultural, and physical aspects. The sustainability of the whole can lean only upon the combined sustainability of its parts. These factors and their respective balances rely on qualitative factors, as the degree of social and political polarization, the values of society and the level of system entropy. Based on experimentation and lessons from the field, the SD approach has been operationalized in some interactive steps: 1) Identification of the risks, assets, entitlements, lively- hood activities, and knowledge bases of communities and individuals through the use participatory research techni- ques. 2) Analysis of macro, micro and sectorial policies which impinge on people's society. 3) Assessment and determination of key technology con- tributions to SD. 4) Identification of existing investment (e.g., micro-fi- nance) opportunities. 5) Making sure that the Lisbon strategy and the national development strategy are implemented. A framework is needed; one which brings together SD's various elements: coping and adaptive strategies, poverty reduction, sustainability and issues of process. The framework which emerges can then be treated as a heu- ristic tool or template (by the actors involved in implemen- Kovacic 101 ting the SD approach) for identifying the linkages bet- ween the different elements, developing indicators for them, and evaluating outcomes. A possible option for a conceptual framework within which to place SD concept is the building the own system of indicators. Such a framework integrates the concepts of sustainable deve- lopment and sustainable society. It is best conceptualized as a diagram merging two interactive triangles, one re- presenting the cornerstones of sustainable development (economic efficiency, environmental integrity, and human well being) and the other showing those of sustainable livelihoods (local knowledge, science and technology, and policy structures). It is opined that elements and is- sues that make for sustainable society lie at the critical in- terface of human-environment interactions. Political, cul- tural, religious, social, economic, biological and geo-phy- sical factors simultaneously interact with and in combina- tion with each other to produce a variety of functions, pro- cesses and products, which shape the way a community makes a living in a given ecozone. Analysis of these fac- tors allows policy-makers and practitioners to formulate appropriate and context-specific programmes and pro- jects that aim to promote the sustainable development. Having made the case that one way for devising an SD programme or creating indicators for sustainable lively- hoods is by outlining vulnerable livelihoods, we need some kind of theory to ground the variability and dyna- mism of livelihood systems and adaptive strategies. The identification of human well being as the goal of sustainable development requires indicators which point to how well policies in the economic, environmental, so- cial fields are performing in relation to the main goal. The first step of summarising existing information that focuses on well being is to select a core set of indicators address- ing key issues of sustainable development. This core set approach has the benefit of using indicators that are com- mon to different countries, that respond to different uses, and that be meaningfully compared across countries. Despite the fact that the choice of indicators may be somewhat subjective, this approach does allow key as- pect of sustainable development to be considered in a simple way. However, aggregating a variety of indicators from the various dimensions, it becomes difficult to cha- racterise whether overall economic developments are sustainable or not. The criteria of sustainability suggest that unique advantages of location, which have a charac- teristic of a public good for local firms but are scarce from the perspective of firms located in other systems, can provide a sustained competitive advantage for local firms. Such hard work imitate framework conditions may involve any parts of competitiveness and growth framework; pro- ductive resources (unique education system), technolo- gies (national innovative system), organizational arrange- ments (national networks or organising principles), pro- duct market structures (unique demand or supply condi- tions), international business activities (historical network of foreign contracts), institutional framework (unique re- gulatory framework and culture) and the government poli- cies (special support and policies) and the land used poli- cies (housing, agriculture, forests and urbanization) . Des- pite many of its failings, conventional poverty lines conti-nue to be the conceptual and operational foundations for current anti-poverty policies. This being said, however, there are a number of alternative measures of poverty that are gaining momentum. These methods look more at the social and human dimensions of poverty as opposed to economic imperatives. At the heart of this process is the recognition that people go in and out of poverty and it is essential to look at the causes of poverty in addition to its measurement. Human development is defined by the expansion of capabilities. Unlike income, capabilities are ends, and they are not reflected in inputs, but in human outcomes-in the quality of people's lives. Human depriva-tion should not be defined in terms of all capabilities, but only essential or "foundational" capabilities. Capability po-verty occurs when people are unable to reach a certain level of essential human achievement or functioning (that is, malnourishment, illiteracy, poor health). Examples of ba-sic capabilities are leading a life free of avoidable morbid-dity, being informed and educated, well nourished and having access to satisfactory levels of resource and asset bases. Being able to function on the basis of these es-sential capabilities is an objective, observable phenol-menon; it is not a matter of subjective perception, nor is it culture specific. Measures of capability should be used to complement an income measure of poverty, but should not be aggregated as conventional poverty lines because of the dimensions of deprivation (i.e., different levels of deprivation between different individuals). A potential so-lution is to use the percentage of the population below an expenditure-based poverty line as a point of reference, and compare this to the percentages of the population deprived in other non-income dimensions. For example, the percentage of people who are illiterate could be con-siderably higher than the percentage of those below the poverty line. Sustainablity indexes The EU countries have accepted concept of sustainable development in their documents and also in programme directions (Strategy of sustainable development). For accession some countries means the EU accession also the implementing the strategy of competitiveness and sustainable development. New members have imple- mented the all acquis communautaire. The most develop- ed part of EU finances now the development process of the other one. New member countries are forced to implement the higher cultural and ecological standards. EU is mounting pressure on new members in many ways. Building new infrastructure and improving the quality of business development are the basic elements for econo- mic growth. Market must be integrated with some ele- ments of regulation, which takes into account the human, Kovacic 007 102 Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 e c o n o m ic a c ti v it y In d e x o f IT e n tr e p re n e u rs h ip In d e x o f h e a lt h e d u c a ti o n In d e x o f la b o u r e n v ir o n m e n ta l e n v ir o n m e n ta l e n v ir o n e m n ta l -0,5 In d e x o f In d e x o f in fr a s tr u c tu re In d e x o f a n d t e c h n o lo g y In d e x o f fo rc e In d e x o f p o s it io n In d e x o f d e v e lo p m e n t In d e x o f p o lic ie s -1 -1,5 -2 Finland Irland Netherland Portugal Greece Slovenia Figure 2. Position of countries by indexes. Source: own calculation. cultural and environmental field. Eco-social model of eco- nomy is the most important element of sustainability. Slovenia has implemented not only the European legal system, but also the eco-social model of economy. En- largement of the EU has bought the current priorities and future direction of EU environmental policy sharply into focus. Achieving enlargement while ensuring high stan- dards of environmental protection and social develop- ment is the ultimate objective and failure is not an option. Significant environmental investments are necessary and the new members need to speed up their preparation to implementing the Gothenburg strategy "sustainable stra- tegy". Future index is calculated by standard method of deviation. It measures the relative difference between the economies' performances; therefore, each country's rela- tive position in the final rankings is more accurately as- sessed. First, for each criterion, the average value for each population group is being computed. Then the stan- dard deviation is calculated using the following formula: S  (x  x) 2 N The STD is calculated by subtracting the average value of each population group from the economy’s original va- lue and then dividing the result by the standard deviation. The STD value for criteria is calculated as follows: (STD value)i  x  x S Where: x = original value x = average value of population group N = number of economies S = Standard Deviation Future index is calculated as an average of ten subin- dexes: (1) index of economic activity, (2) index of infras- tructure, (3) index of information society, (4) index of en- trepreneurship and technology (5) index of health, (6) in- dex of education, (7) index of labour force, (8) index of environmental condition, (9) index of environmental deve- lopment and (10) index of environmental policies (Figure 2). Index of economic activity This is calculated by aggregation of three indicators: GDP per capita, GDP per capita and share of investment in GDP. The higher GDP per capita level shows that econo- my has better starting point for reaching the sustainabi- lity. This also brings the higher level of consumption be- haviour. Investments in buildings, machines and in equip- ment are very important for maintaining the wealth. If the managers of companies are optimistic about a future than the share of investments is higher. Index of infrastructure This is calculated by aggregation of three indicators: den- sity of railroad network (survey), maintenance and deve- lopment of infrastructure (survey) and efficiency of infras- tructure (survey). Sustainable infrastructure is the effi- cient infrastructure which takes into account the environ- mental problems. From this point of view we must put more weight on qualitative than on quantitative part of in- frastructure development process. Index of information technology This is calculated by aggregation of four indicators: num- ber of hosts per 100 inhabitants, user of internet per 100 Kovacic 103 inhabitants, users of mobile phones per 100 inhabitants and availability of IT experts (survey) . Companies that want to have high prosperity in near future needs an internet strategy. Information technology allows us to use human knowledge more usefully. By exploitation of infor- mation technology possibilities we can increase the value added in companies. Availability of IT experts in some countries shows the qualitative progress to sustainable community. Index of entrepreneurial activity and technology level This is calculated by aggregation of four indicators: num- ber of patents in force per 100.000 inhabitants, manage- ment ant the entrepreneurial orientation (survey), availa- bility of venture capital (survey) and expenditure on R and D as percentage in GDP. If we want to reach the su- stainable development then we must change the struc- ture of economy. Index of health This is calculated by aggregation of four indicators: ex- penditure for health as percentage of GDP, quality of health infrastructure (survey), number of physician per 100.000 inhabitants and life expectancy at birth. By age- ing of population we need a higher level of health system. So the health system can provide the balance between generations. Index of educational level This is calculated by aggregation of four indicators: edu- cational system and the needs of the competitive econo- my (survey), university education and the needs of eco- nomy (survey), higher education achievement and public expenditure on education as a percentage in GDP. Today is the really challenge to bring the educational system closer to economy. Index of labour force This is calculated by aggregation of four indicators: share of employment in service sector, youth and older persons unemployment. The sustainable economy needs a higher share of services. So the labour market must transform to satisfy the needs of modern economy. Index of environmental position This is calculated by aggregation of four indicators: the industrial pollution of water, emission of SO2, emission of CO2, emission of NOx and communal waste. The envi- ronmental degradation is the threat for future genera- tions. So we must preserve the environment from nega- tive damage from economic and human activity. Index of environmental development This is calculated by aggregation of three indicators: production of energy from renewed sources, ISO 14001 certifications, share of agriculture land under the organic use). By this indicator we can measure the environmental capita that is important for development process. Index of environmental policies This is calculated by aggregation of three indicators: share of protected land, collaboration with economy (sur- vey) and transparency of environmental policy (survey). Environmental policies must do more for the competitive economy. Environmental regulation can increase the competitiveness of business. Benchmarking the Slovenian sustainable level is done with five countries: Finland, Ireland, Netherland, Portugal and Greece. These countries have the size that is close to Slovenia. It can be thought that Slovenia can reach the higher sustainable level than Portugal and Greece. Fin- land and Ireland economies have reached the higher sus- tainable progress in last ten years. Netherland is close to EU average. Finland is the most sustainable country un- der calculations, with higher ranges in the index of infor- mation technology, by index of entrepreneurship and technology and by index of environmental development. Finland ranks low by index of health, by index of labour force and by index of infrastructure. Ireland ranks the highest by index of education and by index of economic activity. The Ireland ranks low by index of infrastructure, by index of health and by index of environmental policies. Slovenian readiness for the future in comparism by 19 EU states is not satisfactory. Slovenia ranks well by in-dex of entrepreneurship and technology, by index of in- frastructure and by index of environmental position. From the view of future readiness is Slovenian position low by index of economic activity (-0, 94) by index of labour force (-0, 79), by index of information technology (-0,81) by index of health (-0,79) and by index of environmental policies (-0,68) (Figure 3). The calculation of indexes has shown that Finland is the best prepared for the future (index 0, 97). After Finland are Denmark (index 0, 57) and Sweden (index 0, 54) The Finish position on the first place can be explained as a well developed system of information technology, high entrepreneurship and technological level and a high level of environmental capital. On the other side are Poland (index -0, 70), Slovenia (index -0, 50) and Czech R. (in- dex -0,46) states that are not well prepared for the future. Slovenia has some problems on the sustainable way that are connected with low level of economic activity, slow development of information society, low functioning of en- vironmental policies and low balancing of the environ- mental capital with economic and social development 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 P o la n d S lo v e n ia C z e c h R P o rt u g a l H u n g a ry G re e c e G re a t B ri ta in It a ly S p a in Ir la n d F ra n c e G e rm a n y B e lg iu m A u s tr ia N e th e rl a n d D e n m a rk F in la n d -0.2 S w e d e n -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1 Figure 3. Index of future readiness. Source: own calculation. Conclusions In the next years the system of indicators will improve. Questionnaire will be more common tool for sustainability evaluation. Questionnaire indicators give a more quali- tative view on competitiveness. The modern way of mea- suring national competitiveness by using questionnaires allows us to evaluate the dynamic evolution of one economy, the qualitative competitiveness and the expec- tations of the business managers. Managers often evalu- ate the quality of business environment in which they operate. They also try to forecast the economic situation of the country in the near future. The concept of sustain- able development is hardly integrated in national deve- lopment policy. The implementation of the Lisbon's stra- tegy will also improve some parts of sustainable develop- ment. Slovenian system of indicator has shown the most important development steps in the future. From the sy- stem of indicators can be seen that our progress is not integrated enough. Indicators serve as valuable tools for sustainability benchmark. An indicator is something that helps you understand where you are, which way you are going and how far you are from where you want to be. This is the main reason why we are going to select indi- cators for five years period. Indicators allow you to see where the problem areas are and help show the way to fix those problems. Sectors of the economy generate wealth and welfare for households. Enterprises, govern- ment and other actors, economic activity, and indeed households themselves, can however create pressure on the environment, through consumption of resources and output of pollutants. The quality of the environment in turn can impact on the welfare households and individuals and other actors. The actors respond to changes in the state of the economy and of the environment, through be- havioural and policy changes which either directly affect the environment, or alter the pressures on it from the eco- nomic sectors. Rather than developing a single index of sustainability, for which important measurement difficult- ties exist, the identification of a confined set of indicators- focusing on each of the three pillars of sustainable deve- lopment and linked through an organising framework ap- pears as a more useful approach. REFERENCES Baker S (2006). Sustainable Development, Routledge London. Bartzokas A, Demandt I, Ruijters Y (1997). Environmental Legislation on Pollution Controlin the European Union, UNU/INTECH Maastricht Blowers A (2000). Ecological and political modernisation: the challenge for planning, Town Plann. Rev. 71(4): 371-391 Caldwell L, Schrader-Frechette K (1993). Policy for Land: Law and Ethics, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman&Littlefield Clarkson MBE (1995). A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluationg corporate social performance, Acad. Manag. Rev. 20:92- 117 Cullingworth B (1997). British land use planning: a failure to cope and change? Urban Stud. 34:945-60 Daly H, Cobb J (1989). For the Common Good, Green Print: London EC (2006) European Sustainable Strategy, EC Brussels Faucheux S, Nicholai I (1998). Environmental Technological Change and governance in Sustainable Development Policy, Ecol. Econ. 3(27):243-256 Fischer K, Scot J (1993). Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2(37):165-182 Jenkins R, Barton J, Bartzokas A, Hesselberg J, Knutsen HM (2002). Environmental Regulation in the New Economy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Kova i A Slabe-Erker R (2004). The Independance among Indicators of Sustainable Development, IER Ljubljana Lee S (1991). Sustainable Development: A Critical Review, World Development, 6(19):607-621 O'Connor M (1997). "Environmental Valuation from the Point of view of Sustainability" in Dragun, A., Jacobbson, K. Sustainability and Global Environmental Policy, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, pp 149-80 OECD (2001). The DAC Guidelines, Strategies for Sustainable Development, OECD Paris OECD (2002). Overview of Sustainable Development Indicators used by 104 Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. national and International Agencies, OECD Statistics Working Paper Steger U (2004). The Business of Sustainability, Palgrave MacMillan 2002/1, Paris New York Owens S, Cowell R (2002). Land and Limits, Interpreting sustainability Xepapadeas A, Zeeuw A (1999). Environmental Policy and in the planning process, Routledge London Competitiveness: the Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Pyle L, Forrant R (2002). Globalization, Universities and issues of Capital, J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2(37):165-182 Sustainable Human Development, Edward Elgar Cheltenham Schmidheiny S (1992). Changing Course, Cambridge, MIT Press Kovacic 105