The Sports Wellbeing Values capture changes in wellbeing associated with participation in sport including:

• participation for people with a disability
• improved attitudes to physical activity
• removing barriers to participation
• receiving coaching
• attending sports events.

Together, these outcomes reflect the multiple ways sport contributes to improved wellbeing, social connection, and inclusion across communities.

The values have been derived by Simetrica-Jacobs using robust wellbeing data from New Zealand, originally commissioned by Sport New Zealand, and have been adjusted to align with ASVB’s established wellbeing valuation approach. This ensures consistency with existing ASVB values while extending the ASVB calculator to better reflect the social value created through sport.

These Sports Wellbeing Values will support organisations to:

• measure the social value created through participation in sport
• communicate wellbeing outcomes in clear and credible terms
• strengthen funding and advocacy narratives
• contribute to a more consistent and comparable evidence base for the value of sport

The addition of the Sports Wellbeing Values broadens the relevance of the ASVB calculator for the sport and physical activity sector. With nearly 100 outcomes now in the bank, it enables a wider range of programs and activities to be measured using a consistent and evidence-based approach, supporting more confident reporting, decision-making, and sector advocacy.

Watch this space. We will be sharing case studies and practical examples of how the Sports Wellbeing Values can be applied across different sporting contexts, including early insights from our partners at Gippsport who have been testing the values within their programs.

If you are not yet an ASVB subscriber but are interested in the Sports Wellbeing Values, you can register your interest below to receive updates, case studies, and upcoming opportunities to see the values in action.

The ASVB offers a grant program for not-for-profits and certified social enterprises, with an annual revenue of less than $1.5M, to access the ASVB for free.

These grants are funded through the sale of large and very large ASVB subscriptions (based on our sliding fee scale).

Our grant program is our way of helping to make sure any organisation can demonstrate the social value created by their programs and is the foundation of our social enterprise model.

VIEW SLIDING FEE SCALE

Successful grant applicants are awarded a fully supported 12 month subscription to the ASVB. This means the organisation can add unlimited users to the ASVB from across their organisation, they can run unlimited social value impact calculations and download an unlimited number of Social Impact Valuation Statements.

Grantees will receive free online training and support throughout their subscription period to ensure they are confident in applying the ASVB methodology correctly.

An ASVB Grant can help micro organisations in a number of ways:

• Build the internal social impact measurement capacity of the organisation
• Forecast the social value that could potentially be created by a program to secure funding prior to delivery
• Report the social value delivered through past programs to add evidence to funding bids or show social return on investment to existing funders
• Use social value calculations to inform internal budget allocation and program improvement
• Include in Annual Reports to demonstrate progress against Mission

1 – Are you an Australian business that is either a registered not-for-profit or a certified social enterprise? If you answered ‘Yes’ move on to step 2.

2 – Download our current ASVB Outcomes List and check that we have the main outcomes that your program delivers. (You will need to identify three from the list to include in your ASVB Grant Application).

3 – Get a copy of your previous year’s audited financial statements to prove that your annual revenue is less than $1.5M

(If you’re a start-up, or don’t have audited financial statements, please get in touch via email (info@asvb.com.au) to discuss other acceptable forms of evidence to verify your annual income)

4 – Complete the online ASVB Grant application form, then sit back and wait for us to get in touch.

APPLY FOR ASVB GRANT

Please note that if there are no ASVB Grants available when you apply, all eligible grant applications received will be added to our Grant Waiting List in order of receipt. Successful applicants will then be notified as soon as a grant becomes available.

We’re always so excited to announce that we’re adding new values to the ASVB – but these two values seem especially important given everything that is going on in the world lately. With the extreme climate events we’ve experienced in Australia, the recent floods and the not too distant Black Summer bushfires, not to mention the ongoing pandemic encompassing extended lockdowns for many – you could say Australians have been doing it tough over the past few years!

Apart from the immediate losses that come with climate disasters, like losing one’s home and community, the prolonged emotional stress caused by the pandemic, financial pressures that come with loss of employment, increased social isolation, unhealthy emotional eating and reduced physical activity has taken it’s toll on our mental health. Our ASVB wellbeing values show us how much it’s worth to improve our wellbeing across each of these different areas.

But when it comes to the social wellbeing and mental health aspects of  “disaster recovery”, whether that disaster happens to be a flood, fire or pandemic, we’re primarily focused on increasing two things: people’s resilience and help-seeking behaviours.

The word “resilience” has become a bit of a catch-all phrase, but it’s really about having the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties. The flip side of this is to be able to recognise when you’re struggling and take steps to seek help. With so much work being funded in these areas, we felt it was important to look at the value these outcomes bring to people’s wellbeing.

That’s why we were so excited to partner with Mates in Construction (MATES) to undertake this research.

Suicide rates in the construction industry are 80% higher than in the general working age population, with that resulting in the loss of a construction worker every second day to suicide. In fact, construction workers are six times more likely to die from suicide than an accident at work.

It was based on statistics like these that Mates in Construction was founded to deliver a research-based suicide prevention program specifically focusing on the construction industry. MATES has since diversified to deliver suicide prevention programs into the mining and energy sectors, and more recently into pilot programs in manufacturing and apprentices

MATES is a research-based organisation with its own Academic Research Reference Group who have developed extensive peer-reviewed evaluations of their program, demonstrating that the MATES program does save lives. MATES research indicates there’s been at least an 8-10% reduction in suicide since its inception in 2008.

For those of you who understand the wellbeing valuation methodology used by the ASVB, you’ll know that our preference is to derive values based on existing national datasets. This helps to ensure the rigour of the dataset and that there is a large enough, nationally representative sample to use.

A small silver lining for us from the pandemic, was that additional questions were added to Wave 20 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey. This was a government response to try to further understand the impacts the pandemic was having on Australians.

The additional Coronavirus module in Wave 20 included a whole range of questions about how the pandemic had affected people; had they had the virus, how great was the general impact on their lives, did it effect their employment, their home life, their diet, their physical activity, alcohol and tobacco consumption, charity work, consumption of TV and streaming content, access to digital technology, social contact, social distancing. You name it, they asked it!

Thankfully for us, they also added a panel of four questions covering resilience and self-reliance as seen in the below image.

The panel includes a 2-item version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), questions a and c above. (Vaishnavi S, Connor K, Davidson JRT. 2007. An abbreviated version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), the CD-RISC 2: psychometric properties and application in psychopharmacological trials. Psychiatry Research, 152: 293-297.)

The other two items, b and d, are drawn from the 46-item version of the Conformity of Masculinity Norms Inventory [CNMI] (Hammer JH, Heath PJ & Vogel DL. 2018. Fate of the total score: Dimensionality of the Conformity to Masculine Role Norms Inventory (CMNI-46). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19: 645-651).

When our partners Simetrica-Jacobs conducted the analysis of the data, they were able to derive a value for increased resilience based on the two items from the CD-RISC, but the analysis of how the two self-reliance items related to each other was less clear cut. They tried a couple of alternative specifications that involved question b, but found it did not really seem to have much of an influence. They made the decision to to just use the data from question d to reduce complication for our ASVB users when applying the value.

As the self-reliance questions were taken from an instrument originally relating specifically to attitudes among men, Simetrica-Jacobs looked at the impact on that specific group in the data, but didn’t find any significant differences between sexes, so again chose to not over complicate application for our ASVB users.

Both of the values derived had high statistical significance and passed Simetrica-Jacobs quality assurance processes.

As a result of only using one of the items from the self-reliance questions, we have decided to list this value as “Increased help-seeking” rather than “Increased self-reliance” as we feel this more accurately reflects someone having increased willingness to seek help when needed.

If you are delivering programs such as mental health and suicide prevention programs, disaster recovery programs, or any programs that focus on creating the outcomes of increasing people’s resilience or the willingness to seek help when needed, these values are now available to apply within the ASVB Value Calculator.

If you’re already an ASVB Subscriber, please download the current version of the ASVB User Guide, for guidance on applying the Resilience and Help-seeking values.

For those interested in learning more about the ASVB and how you might use these values to measure the social impact of your programs, please get in touch on info@asvb.com.au.

Those of you who have been following the Centre for Social Impact’s (CSI) “Amplify Social Impact” (Amplify) project since it was first announced in 2018, are no doubt very excited by the launch of the Indicator Engine!

For those of you who haven’t heard about Amplify, it is a $12M project that incorporates “a suite of online tools, a set of research reports, and series of events across Australia that will help improve social outcomes in five important social issue areas: Housing, Education, Work, Social Inclusion, and Financial Wellbeing.”

“The online platform is an integral part of the overall Amplify strategy. It incorporates the following tools:

• Australia’s Social Pulse™ which reveals how we’re tracking in key social issue areas over time, across the country, and across cohorts;
• Indicator Engine™ which helps organisations find the right indicators to measure so that they know when, where, and how they’re making a difference;
• Yardstick™, the programs, outcomes, and impact database, which reveals the programs, strategies, and initiatives across the country that are achieving outcomes and impacts, providing opportunities for replication and improvement.”

READ MORE ON AMPLIFY

In March 2022, the first tool from the Amplify Online suite was launched, and it seems to have really delivered something useful for the not-for-profit sector when it comes reducing the time and resources it takes to collect social impact data.

Once you’ve developed your Outcomes Framework, you no longer need to spend time digging around looking for appropriate indicators, you can instead use the Indicator Engine and simply select from the bank of validated indicators.

There is a Wizard/ Smart Assistant to guide you through the process of quickly and easily building your survey by prompting you to use suggested indicators. You also have the option of applying a framework from within the tool (more about this below), or you can manually build your survey from scratch by selecting from the indicator list or by adding your own custom questions. Whichever option you choose, it is so much quicker than if you were to build the equivalent survey in either Survey Monkey or Google Forms.

Once you’ve built your survey, you can then distribute it via email, set up as a kiosk (if service users were to complete the survey on an ipad in reception for example), or offline for those times when you’re working remotely without access to the internet.

Best of all they’ve launched the Indicator Engine at the perfect price point, with the majority of not-for-profits being able to access it for free or at low cost. So if your organisation is struggling with survey data collection I strongly recommend you take a look at the Indicator Engine.

Added functionality will come online with the launch of Yard Stick, which will allow you to automatically analyse the data you’ve collected through the Indicator Engine. Yard Stick will also make it possible to benchmark against other programs being run around Australia that are measuring against the same indicators. So essentially you can compare different programs, cohorts, locations etc.

Yardstick is due to launch later in 2022.

You might be wondering why we’re so keen to support the Indicator Engine? In fact many people spoke to me concerned that Amplify Online would be direct competition for the ASVB. But this isn’t the case at all, the Australian Social Value Bank (ASVB) is still the only social impact measurement platform on the market that allows you to understand the social value that your program creates.

Some of our ASVB subscribers have struggled with using the free survey tools available, which, over the past six years, has lead to many discussions about building data collection into the ASVB platform. But there’s also a segment of our users who have invested in subscribing to paid social impact data collection tools, or who are obliged by their funding bodies to use specific platforms, so we didn’t want to introduce another data collection component to further complicate their existing stack.

During this time we’ve spoken to a number of existing data collection platforms to look at working in partnership; we’ve  discussed developing APIs to seamlessly connect with these other platforms, but the outcome data required to be entered into the ASVB Value Calculator is so minimal that it just didn’t seem like money well spent. We also found that a number of these organisations we spoke with just didn’t have the same values or goals that aligned with ours. But the crux of it is that we’ve been reluctant to invest in developing data collection functionality when there are so many platforms already doing this well, so we believe that every organisation should choose the data collection platform that best suits their needs.

With the launch of the Indicator Engine, we feel that this is a really good platform that has similarly aligned values regarding helping the not-for-profit sector to measure their social impact, with a focus on making it simpler and easier for everyone, whilst maintaining a high level of rigour. This is why CSI have gone to the trouble of pre-populating validated indicators and why the ASVB has built our bank of methodologically consistent wellbeing values. Both of these aspects of social impact measurement can be time consuming and influence the level of rigour of your end results.

We have started discussions with CSI to look at embedding the ASVB surveys as a framework within the Indicator Engine. This would make it very easy for ASVB users to build their surveys, by simply selecting the ASVB framework, then toggling-on the appropriate survey questions that align to the ASVB outcomes they wish to apply in their social impact calculations.

Once the survey data has been collected, this provides the evidence required to apply the ASVB values. The aggregated survey results can then be easily transferred into the beneficiaries table within the ASVB calculator.

Now this doesn’t in any way mean that ASVB users will have to use the Indicator Engine, it just means that if you choose to do so, it will hopefully be even easier with all of our ASVB survey questions prepopulated in the ASVB framework.

So if you’re a current ASVB subscriber and you’re already using the Indicator Engine we’d love to hear your thoughts. Otherwise watch this space, and I’ll keep you posted with our progress.

The revenue generated from operating social and affordable housing in Australia is insufficient to finance new social and affordable homes. As a consequence, the provision of social and affordable housing is dependent on government subsidy, internal resources or philanthropic grant funding to become financially viable.

Social and affordable rental housing does, however, provide a series of wider social and economic benefits (WSEB) that generate cost savings across public and private sectors.

This project involves developing a tool that enables social and affordable housing project proposals to estimate these project-specific, wider social and economic benefits, and in turn strengthen the business case for new developments. It will provide comprehensive economic justifications for the use of external resources that would assist new supply, arguments that more accurately reflect the social outcomes that occur through the provision of social and affordable housing.

The Australian Social Value Bank has teamed-up with Swinburne University of Technology, Community Housing Industry Association (CHIA) and Shelter NSW to bring the Social & Green Benefits Calculator project to life.

Swinburne University will take the lead, developing the Cost Benefit Analysis spreadsheet tool, which will include existing ASVB wellbeing values. We will continue to work with our existing partners, Simetrica-Jacobs, to undertake the research to quantify the associated environmental/ green benefits that will be included in the new tool.

The project is being managed by CHIA who will be assisted by Shelter NSW.

1. An excel based module for estimating project specific direct WSEB arising from the tenure and housing affordability aspects of new social and affordable rental housing.
2. Australia specific estimates of household benefits from access to urban green space and / or property design features such as private gardens, balconies.
3. An excel based module for estimating project specific WSEB associated with wellbeing, environmental and climate impacts of new social and affordable rental housing developments.
4. A user / training module that provides guidance on how to use the two excel modules; and how to incorporate results in business case development.

FUNDRAISING

We have already received grant funding from philanthropic sources and donations from other non profit organisations totalling $80,000. We are seeking support from government agencies, the private sector, and other non profits to get us to our goal of $140,000.
There is no minimum contribution – all are welcome. Our goal is to hit our funding target by the end of June 2022.

BETA TESTING

If you are a Community Housing Provider and an existing ASVB Subscriber who would like to be involved in beta testing the new Social & Green Benefits Calculator, please get in touch with Min on mins@asvb.com.au.

For further information about the Social & Green Benefits Calculator please download the flyer below.

The Australian Social Value Bank first went live in 2016. Our original set of wellbeing values were based on two data sets: The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey and the Journeys Home survey.

The Journeys Home survey was the largest and most comprehensive longitudinal survey of homelessness in Australia. It  was funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Social Services, designed by Melbourne Institute, and the fieldwork was undertaken by Roy Morgan Research.

Journeys Home was launched in 2011 and tracked the movements of 1700 Australians who identified as homeless or housing insecure.  Six waves of data were collected; wave 1 in 2011, with the next five surveys conducted at six-monthly intervals, with the final survey, Wave 6, completed in 2014.

All six waves of data were used by Simetrica-Jacobs to derive the original wellbeing values based on Journeys Home.

The HILDA survey is a household-based panel study that commenced in 2001. It follows the lives of more than 17,000 Australians each year, and is the only study of its kind in Australia. It is also funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Social Services and is  designed and managed by The Melbourne Institute. Roy Morgan Research have been appointed to collect the data for Waves 9 to 23.

The HILDA data contains information on many aspects of Australian life, including household and family relationships, income and employment, and health and education. Participants are followed over the course of their lifetime.

The original wellbeing values in the ASVB were based on the first 15 waves of HILDA data.

In 2021 our friends at Simetrica-Jacobs  used an additional four waves of HILDA data to run their regression analysis on so that the updated wellbeing values are now based on 19 waves of HILDA data. Incorporating this additional data means that the majority of the values will have increased, some by a lot, but some of the values  have in fact decreased.

For example, the wellbeing value for “Improved English language skills for non-native speakers” dropped in value by roughly 30%. We could hypothesise why this might be; for example increased access to improved technology like “Google Translate” making language skills less of a barrier, or perhaps an increase in government information being disseminated in a wider range of languages.

In truth we don’t really know why the social value of improving English skills decreased by so much, only that the data shows that was the experience of the Australians in the HILDA survey.

The values derived from the Journeys Home data have also been updated, but as there are no new waves of this survey, they have all been increased to adjust for CPI (Consumer Price Index). This is also the case for the secondary benefits included in the Calculator.

The updated wellbeing values have already been integrated into the ASVB Value Calculator and will automatically be applied to any new calculations. Even if new calculations are performed retrospectively for programs that may have been delivered in previous years, the calculator will still use the current set of values. This is because social value should be calculated in terms of Net Present Value (NPV), or what the value of the program is now, in today’s context.

Previously finalised impact calculations in the tool should remain as they are, so be mindful that if you go in and edit an old calculation, it will automatically update using the current set of social values, which can not be reversed. Whilst this will generally result in greater total net benefits, there will be some instances where the total social value created by a program may decrease.

If you’re a current ASVB subscriber, and have any questions about how this may effect your calculations, please don’t hesitate to get in touch on info@asvb.com.au.

Just released: How’s Life? 2020

How’s Life? 2020: Measuring Wellbeing charts whether life is getting better for people in 37 OECD countries and 4 partner countries. This fifth edition presents the latest evidence from an updated set of over 80 indicators, covering current wellbeing outcomes, inequalities, and resources for future well-being. Since 2010, people’s wellbeing has improved in many respects, but progress has been slow or deteriorated in others, including how people connect with each other and their government. Large gaps by gender, age and education persist across most well-being outcomes. Generally, OECD countries that do better on average also feature greater equality between population groups and fewer people living in deprivation. Many OECD countries with poorer wellbeing in 2010 have since experienced the greatest gains. However, advances in current well-being have not always been matched by improvements in the resources that sustain wellbeing over time, with warning signs emerging across natural, human, economic and social capital.

Beyond an overall analysis of wellbeing trends since 2010, this report explores in detail the 15 dimensions of the OECD Better Life Initiative, including health, subjective wellbeing, social connections, natural capital, and more, and looks at each country’s performance in dedicated country profiles.

Executive Summary

In many ways, life is getting better…

The good news is that wellbeing has, in some respects, improved relative to 2010 – a year when the impacts of the financial crisis continued to be deeply felt in many OECD countries. We are living longer, safer lives. Across OECD countries, life expectancy has increased by more than one year, with the average baby born today living to over 80 years of age. The OECD average homicide rate has fallen by one-third since 2010, road deaths are down, and people feel safer when walking alone at night in their neighbourhoods. One in eight households live in overcrowded conditions, 3 percentage points fewer than in 2010. Income and jobs are on the rise – with both the employment rate and average household incomes increasing since 2010 by over 5 percentage points. Today, almost eight in every ten adults are in paid employment. Recent surveys suggest people are more satisfied with their lives, relative to how they felt in 2013.

…but different OECD countries face very different realities

How’s Life? shows that OECD averages hide as much as they highlight: what is true on average is not always true for every member country – and even less for different population groups within those countries. Even the most persistent “good news story” in this report – the rise in life expectancy – is faltering for some OECD countries where it is plateauing. Since 2010, housing affordability, relative income poverty, voter turnout, and social support have each worsened in roughly as many OECD countries as they have improved. The greatest gains in current well-being have often been concentrated in countries that had weaker wellbeing at the start of the decade, many of them in eastern Europe. By contrast, resources for future wellbeing – such as Economic, Natural and Social Capital – have often seen a widening of the gap across OECD countries, with top-performers pulling further away, and problems deepening among those already struggling. While some wellbeing gains since 2010 have gone hand-in-hand with recent GDP growth, this is far from guaranteed in all cases – especially for health outcomes, inequalities and the environment.

…and insecurity, disconnection and despair affect some parts of the population

Despite some gains in current wellbeing since 2010, there is still room for much more improvement. Life remains financially precarious in many homes. Almost 40% of OECD households are financially insecure, meaning they would be at risk of falling into poverty if they had to forgo three months of their income. While 12% of the population across the OECD live in relative income poverty, the share of those reporting difficulties making ends meet in European OECD countries is almost twice as high, at 21%. Median household wealth decreased by 4%, on average, since around 2010, in those countries where data exist. One in five low income households spend more than 40% of their disposable income on housing costs – leaving little for life’s other essentials.

Quality of life is also about relationships. Across OECD countries, people spend around six hours per week interacting with friends and family – a tiny fraction of the time they spend working, particularly when unpaid household work is factored in. Although few trend data exist in this area, How’s Life? 2020 shows worrying signs of decline, with people spending almost half an hour less with family and friends than they did roughly ten years ago. Moreover, 1 in 11 people say they do not have relatives or friends they can count on for help in times of need. Older people are almost three times more likely to lack social support, relative to younger people, underscoring the importance of addressing old-age loneliness.

Many also struggle with low emotional well-being and despair: A significant minority of men (12%) and women (15%) experience more negative than positive feelings in a typical day. While life satisfaction has improved on average since 2010, a sizeable share of the population (7%) in OECD countries report very low levels of life satisfaction. In European OECD countries, almost 1 in 15 adults say they experienced depressive symptoms within the last two weeks, such as having little interest in doing things, feeling tired, overeating or having no appetite. Finally, “deaths of despair” from suicide, acute alcohol abuse and drug overdose, while a very small share of overall deaths, have risen in some countries. The OECD average toll of such deaths is three times higher than for road deaths, and six times higher than deaths from homicide.

Inequalities in wellbeing persist

How’s Life? highlights enduring differences by gender, age and education, and between the top and bottom performers in wellbeing outcomes. For example, while average household incomes have risen, income inequality has barely changed since 2010: people in the top 20% of the income distribution still earn more than five times more than people in the bottom 20%. While women in OECD countries have more social connections, they earn 13% less than men, and every day they work almost half an hour longer when both paid and unpaid work (such as housework and caring responsibilities) are taken into account.

OECD countries with higher average levels of wellbeing tend to have greater equality between population groups and fewer people living in deprivation. On the whole, people in countries traditionally associated with high well-being, such as Nordic countries, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland, enjoy both higher levels of current well-being and lower inequalities compared to other countries. Yet some of the most equal countries have experienced little change, or even widening inequalities, in the last decade. Sweden and Denmark, renowned for their high quality of life, have recently experienced rising income inequality, falls in social support and an increase in those reporting very low life satisfaction.

Risks across natural, economic and social systems threaten future well-being

Looking forward, there is no room for complacency. As storm clouds gather on the horizon, mainly from environmental and social challenges, all OECD countries need to take action if they are to maintain today’s well-being for future generations. Nearly two-thirds of people in OECD countries are exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution. In 2018 the average OECD resident consumed less carbon than in 2010 but used more of the Earth’s materials. Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the OECD are far from sufficient to meet climate policy goals and, in almost half of OECD countries, more species are at risk of extinction. Household debt in almost two-thirds of the OECD exceeds annual household disposable income and has deepened in a third of member states since 2010. While trust in government has improved by 3 percentage points on average since 2010, less than half of the population across OECD countries trust their institutions, and only 1 in 3 people feel they have a say in what the government does. Women hold just one-third of all seats in OECD parliaments, and hence, inclusive decision-making remains a distant goal.

Overall, recent advances in welbeing have not been matched by improvements in the resources needed to sustain well-being over time. From financial insecurity in households, through to climate change, biodiversity loss and threats to how democratic institutions perform their functions, we need to look beyond maximising wellbeing today. Ensuring continued prosperity for people and the planet will require bold and strategic investments in the resources that underpin well-being in the longer run.

Read the complete How’s Life? 2020 : Measuring Wellbeing Report by the OECD

WEAll is the leading global collaboration of organisations, alliances, movements and individuals working together to transform the economic system into one that delivers human and ecological wellbeing.

WEGo: Wellbeing Economy Governments

The Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership (WEGo) is a collaboration of national and regional governments promoting sharing of expertise and transferrable policy practices. The aims are to deepen their understanding and advance their shared ambition of building wellbeing economies. WEGo, which currently comprises Scotland, New Zealand, Iceland, and Wales, is founded on the recognition that ‘development’ in the 21^st century entails delivering human and ecological wellbeing.

Objectives – WEGo members commit to:

• COLLABORATE in pursuit of innovative policy approaches to create wellbeing economies – sharing what works and what does not, to inform policymaking for change.
• PROGRESS toward the UN Sustainable Development Goals, in line with Goal 17, fostering partnership and cooperation to identify approaches to delivering wellbeing.
• ADDRESS the pressing economic, social, and environmental challenges of our time.