Review
Sustainable energy development analysis: Energy Trilemma
Luisa Martia
, Rosa Puertasb,
*
a
Group of International Economics and Development, Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, Valencia 46022 (Spain)
b
Group of International Economics and Development, Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Camino de Vera s/n, Valencia 46022 (Spain)
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article History:
Received 1 December 2021
Accepted 8 January 2022
A B S T R A C T
Sustainable development is perceived as a socioeconomic system focused on meeting human needs while
making long-term progress, with the end goal of ensuring well-being and improving quality of life. The
objective of this article is to analyse the sustainable development policies assessed by the World Energy Trilemma
Index (WETI) for 2020, based on its three pillars (Energy security, Energy equity and Environmental sustainability)
and the political and economic context of 128 countries. To that end, cluster analysis and
contingency tables are used. The first of these methods allows us to determine whether nations' economic
profile influences their sustainable energy development, while the latter method is used to establish the possible
connection between the political and economic context and the different aspects of sustainable development.
The results of the cluster analysis reveal the existence of three homogeneous groups of countries,
showing that the economies with the lowest GDP growth and the highest incomes hold the top positions in
the WETI ranking. However, this association is not as clear when analysing the three energy trilemma pillars
separately, pointing to the need for a more in-depth examination of each one. The contingency tables confirm
the association between the Country context and sustainable energy development, showing that countries
that are assigned a better grade for political and economic aspects adopt more appropriate energy measures.
The research reveals the need for leaders’ active engagement in the implementation of international agreements
on climate change, thus facilitating the path towards sustainable development.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Keywords:
Energy trilemma
Cluster
Contingency tables
Country context
Introduction
The concept of sustainable development (SD) originally appeared
in the Brundtland report published in 1987 by the World Commission
on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987). It was the first
time that the negative consequences of globalization had been documented,
turning the focus of attention to industrialization and
uncontrolled population growth. The term has now been extended
and linked to all areas of society. It is based on three closely related
basic pillars: environmental protection, social development and economic
growth. Attempts to tackle challenges such as climate change
or water scarcity are only viable if SD is promoted. In short, SD is
about trying to meet people's needs in the present without
compromising those of future generations. According to the Brundtland
report, governments have to adopt population control measures
in order to guarantee essential needs: education, health and housing;
food security; access to drinking water and sanitation; and the conservation
of biodiversity. At the same time, they must reduce fossil
fuel consumption and encourage the use of renewable energies. SD
can never be linked to unlimited economic growth, as it would be
unsustainable and thus oxymoronic (Bolis et al., 2014; Hummels &
Argyrou, 2021).
Many different definitions of SD have been proposed, some of
which contradict each other, making it difficult to grasp the scope of
this term (Klarin, 2018). More than two decades ago, Dobson (1996)
documented over 300 definitions of SD; however, despite some differences
between them, they all revolved around the original concept
established by the WCED. SD can be understood as a socioeconomic
system focused on meeting human needs while making long-term
progress, with the end goal of ensuring well-being and improving
quality of life, all within a framework of respect for the environment
(Zhang & Zhu, 2020).
The need to achieve SD at all levels has prompted more than
30 years of international agreements and numerous action plans.
This terminology has been included in all the United Nations (UN)
programmes, from the Rio de Janeiro summit held in 1992—which
gave rise to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development—to
the Chile climate summit held in Madrid in 2019. Despite
this, however, the joint international effort needed to guarantee success
has not yet been achieved (Hak et al., 2018). According to
* Corresponding author at: Departamento de Economía y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad
Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
E-mail addresses: mlmarti@esp.upv.es (L. Marti), rpuertas@esp.upv.es (R. Puertas).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2022.100007
2773-0328/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NCND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship 1 (2022) 100007
Sustainable Technology and
Entrepreneurship
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/sustainable-technology-and-entrepreneurship
Van Opstal and Huge (2013), it is because of leaders' lack of proactivity
that SD has not had a sufficiently far-reaching influence on the
world’s population. It is essential that decision-makers evaluate the
potential impact of all their proposals on society and the environment
(Nogueira, 2019).
The Paris Agreement on Climate Change in 2015 and the publication
of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the same year
marked a turning point in the struggle for a sustainable society. Both
entail binding agreements, requiring not only a profound economic
and social transformation, but also a commitment from all parties
involved: governments, civil society, science and business
(Huan et al., 2021). Sachs et al. (2019) propose six transformations
needed to achieve the SDGs: (1) education, gender and inequality, (2)
health, well-being and demography, (3) energy decarbonization and
sustainable industry, (4) sustainable food, land, water and oceans, (5)
sustainable cities and communities, and (6) digital revolution for SD.
This study focuses on the third transformation, aimed at ensuring
access to modern energy sources, achieving the decarbonization of
the energy system by midway through the century, and reducing pollution
of the soil, water and air (WEO, 2017; WEO, 2016;
K€ummerer et al., 2018). We use the World Energy Trilemma Index
(WETI) for 2020 to carry out a thorough examination of this transformation
through an analysis of the constituent pillars—Energy security,
Energy equity and Environmental sustainability—while also
assessing the specific political and economic context of the different
countries. The results will provide answers to the following research
questions:
Q1. Does the economic profile of a country influence its sustainable
energy development?
The answer to this question can be found through a cluster analysis
of the three pillars of the energy trilemma (Energy security, Energy
equity and Environmental sustainability) and their association with
the macroeconomic situation of the country measured in terms of
GDP growth and GDPpc.
Q2. Is there a direct connection between the political and economic
context and the different aspects of sustainable energy development?
Contingency tables can be used to measure the frequency of countries
in the sample with similar categories in the analysed dimensions
as well as the strength and sign of the association between public and
private politics (assessed by the Country context) and the dimensions
of the energy trilemma.
Building on the existing paradigm, the analysis in this research
makes the following novel contributions: (1) it identifies the possible
relationship between the economic situation and the energy sustainability
(SDG 7) of a large group of countries; (2) it examines the
extent to which the policies adopted by public and private decisionmakers
affect SD; (3) it uses a large database made up of 128 countries,
on the basis of which different performance profiles of the
countries in the sample are identified; (4) by avoiding the use of the
overall WETI score it ensures that the conclusions obtained are not
affected by potential shortcomings associated with a method of
aggregating the pillars that does not account for possible differences
between countries, (5) it uses up-to-date information referring to the
year 2020, meaning that the conclusions drawn can be immediately
implemented by leaders and can serve as a guide to future decisions
on actions to take.
The rest of the article is structured in the following sections. The
research on energy sustainability and economic growth is reviewed in
Section 2. The composition of the sample and the methodology used in
the research are presented in Section 3. The results are analysed in Section
4 and the main conclusions are discussed in Section 5.
Literature review: energy sustainability and economic growth
In the 2030 Agenda approved by the UN in 2015, the 17 SDGs proposed
are aimed at ensuring the SD of the entire planet. They address
major challenges related to social, economic and environmental
issues. When implementing actions aimed at achieving these goals,
there is a need to account for the interrelationships among them all
in order to harness synergies and thus guarantee the success of the
measures adopted (Lusseau & Mancini, 2019; Jimenez-Aceituno et al.,
2019; Lucatello & Huber-Sannwald, 2020; Fartash et al., 2020). For
example, SDG 7—affordable and clean energy—is central to efforts to
eradicate poverty (SDG 1, SDG 2) and make progress on basic issues
such as health (SDG 3), education (SDG 4) or care of the biosphere
(SDG 13, SDG 14, SDG 15).
International agreements on climate change seek a proper transition
to clean energy, reducing CO2 emissions. They do so in a context
characterized by continuous growth in energy demand driven by
population growth, urbanization and industrialization (Lee et al.,
2018). Specifically, SDG 7 sets three targets to be achieved by 2030:
ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy
services; increase the share of renewable energy in the energy mix;
and double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency.
Alongside this ambitious goal (SDG 7), the Paris Agreement prioritizes
keeping the global average temperature rise compared to preindustrial
levels well below 2°C. Against this backdrop of multiple
interrelated objectives, the complexity involved in assessing the
progress made by different countries becomes clear. Consequently,
there has been an immediate reaction from the research community,
with the publication of abundant literature on the development of
synthetic indices that enable comparative analyses, which in turn
guide the decisions to be taken by the responsible parties (DiazSarachaga
et al., 2018; Venghaus & Dieken, 2019; Horan, 2020).
For example, the International Energy Agency measures both the
production and consumption of energy as well as energy self-sufficiency
and global energy intensity (IEA, 2019). The International
Index of Energy Security Risk estimates global energy security risks
using a qualitative and quantitative reference model in order to better
understand their importance (Global Energy Institute, 2018). The
World Energy Council's WETI, used in this research, measures the
energy performance of more than a hundred countries. The WETI is
used internationally as a tool to support decision-making in energy
policy and governance. Due to the broad spectrum covered by this
index, it has given rise to an extensive literature, seeking to highlight
the lack of political and ecological aspects, and linking energy security—understood
as security of supply—to the other two dimensions
of energy equity and environmental sustainability (WEC, 2020).
The WETI establishes an energy performance ranking of countries
based on the aggregation of four weighted pillars. This aggregation
has sparked a number of controversies due to the underlying differences
between the assessed countries. As an alternative,
Song et al. (2017) suggest applying stochastic multicriteria acceptability
analysis to determine the holistic acceptability indices, facilitating
the exploration of the weighting space for each country.
Likewise, Sprajc et al. (2019) question the methodology behind the
configuration of the index, deeming it somewhat unreliable if only
the overall result is evaluated. Asbahi et al. (2019) use the WETI to
provide evidence of a negative correlation between Energy security
and Environmental sustainability. They call for all countries to commit
to achieving sustainable energy use, with the development of new
technologies that ensure efficiency in terms of affordable, clean and
reliable energy.
Another branch of the literature has focused on investigating the
possible association between the energy trilemma and economic
growth. Khan et al. (2021) propose an index merging the three pillars
of the energy trilemma, from which they obtain the independent variable
used in the second part of their study, where the impact of the
energy trilemma on economic growth is analysed. The authors show
that in the most advanced countries according to the WETI there is a
positive relationship between the two variables over the long term.
According to Esen and Bayrak (2017), this positive association
L. Marti and R. Puertas Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship 1 (2022) 100007
2
requires an efficient use of energy, with the authors reporting evidence
of a negative relationship between the level of income and the
effect of energy consumption on economic growth. Khan and
Hou (2021) expand on these conclusions by showing that higher
energy consumption is associated with intense growth and notable
CO2 emissions.
Following this line of research, Armeanu et al. (2021) investigate
the possible linkages between energy, CO2 emissions, economic
growth and urbanization at a global scale, using a sample of 106
countries spanning 25 years. Based on the results, some specific recommendations
can be made. For example, countries classified as low
income by the World Bank should use renewable energy to reduce
their energy intensity, and authorities should be encouraged to levy
additional charges on carbon emissions. Jun et al. (2021) examine the
impact of globalization, non-renewable energy consumption and
growth on CO2 emissions in South Asia. The study shows that the
consumption of non-renewable energy increases environmental pollution,
with a positive relationship found between economic growth
and environmental pollution up to a threshold, at which point the
relationship is reversed. Asiedu et al. (2021) investigate the effect of
renewable and non-renewable energy on growth in 26 European
countries, finding bidirectional causality between renewable energy
consumption and economic growth, as well as between renewable
and non-renewable energy consumption. European governments are
urged to invest in renewable energies, which will reduce CO2 emissions
over the long term.
Furthermore, the analysis of the connection between the macroeconomic
situation and the three dimensions of the energy trilemma
has also focused on specific countries such as Pakistan (Nawaz &
Alvi, 2018), Brazil (Prado et al., 2016), Germany (Coester et al., 2020),
and Japan (Gasparatos & Gadda, 2009), among others. This research
broadens the scope of action by analysing 128 countries with the latest
available information, corresponding to 2020, allowing valuable
conclusions to be drawn.
Material and methods
The World Energy Council has published the WETI annually since
2010. Its objective in doing so is to provide an assessment of the performance
of the energy systems of 128 countries, establishing a ranking
based on the dimensions of the energy trilemma and the
countries' political and economic context. Specifically, the analysed
aspects are grouped into the following pillars:
- Energy security (30%): ability to meet current and future energy
demand, taking into account management efficiency, reliability
and resilience to shocks that entail supply disruptions.
- Energy equity (30%): ability to provide the population with access
to an energy supply, with a focus on the affordability of the sup-
ply.
- Environmental sustainability (30%): ability to avoid environmental
degradation and the impacts of climate change. The focus here is
on productivity and efficiency of generation, distribution, decarbonization,
and air quality.
- Country context (10%): measures macroeconomic and governance
conditions, the stability of the economy and the government, as
well as the country's attractiveness to investors and capacity for
innovation.
The percentage indicates the weight of each pillar in the calculation
of the overall index score; as such, changes in a country's energy
performance have a greater impact than any change in its macroeconomic
or governance conditions. The WETI score ranges from 0 to
100, and is used to generate a ranking of the 128 countries based on
the aggregation of the aspects considered. The three dimensions of
the energy trilemma are quantitatively assessed and a letter (A, B, C,
or D) is assigned according to the quartile to which they belong.
Country context is not given a numerical score but is just assigned a
grade of a, b, c, or d depending on the level attributed on the basis of
certain facts about the country. By tracking the scores over several
years leaders can get a fair assessment of the progress they have
made, and benchmark against the successes or failures of their counterparts
(Table 1A, 2A, 3A and 4A in the Appendix).
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the three dimensions of
the energy trilemma. All of them have been used to calculate the clusters,
thereby responding to the first research question.
Table 1 shows a wide dispersion in Energy equity among the countries
analysed. In contrast to the highest score registered by Luxembourg
(100), there are countries like Niger, which scores just over 8.2
points. Luxembourg is a small, densely populated nation, lacking natural
energy resources, but with the highest GDPpc in Europe and a
strong connection to international energy markets. All this, together
with its low road fuel taxes, contributes to an affordable and accessible
energy supply. In the Environmental sustainability dimension,
Switzerland registers a score of 90 points, closely followed by Sweden
and Norway. These are economies that are keenly aware of the need
for transformation and the orientation of new technological advances
towards renewable energy supplies. They enjoy a very diversified
energy system, counting on government support to promote the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Lastly, in Energy security it
can be seen that all countries still have a long way to go to improve
their grade. Canada, Finland and Romania top the ranking with 77.1,
75.4 and 74.5 points, respectively. These are countries with abundant
hydrocarbon resources and markedly diversified and decarbonized
energy systems, giving them an advantage over the rest.
The empirical part of the research is based a cluster analysis of the
128 countries in the sample, as well as the construction of contingency
tables relating the pillars of the WETI. Cluster analysis is suitable
for studies aimed at the grouping of data and has been widely
used in several areas: agriculture and the food industry (Reiff et al.,
2018), sustainable development indicators (Megyesiova & Lieskovska,
2018), renewable energy and economic growth (Ntanos et al.,
2018), climate change (Puertas & Marti., 2021) and waste treatment
(Marti & Puertas, 2021). In this paper, it has been applied to identify
groups of countries similar to one another in terms of their energy
performance (Energy security, Energy equity and Environmental sustainability).
By so doing, we can determine the possible connection
with the countries' macroeconomic situation (Q1). Specifically,
Ward's method has been used to identify which clusters to merge in
successive steps, taking the squared Euclidean distance as a measure
of similarity. This method is preferable to others because it minimizes
the variance within each cluster, emphasizing internal homogeneity
(Ward, 1963; Lance & Williams, 1967). The Kruskal-Wallis test is
then used to confirm the adequacy of the defined groups, by verifying
that the mean of each one is statistically different from the rest.
Based on the pillars of the WETI categorized into four levels (A, B,
C, D), contingency tables have been created to provide an answer to
Q2. The aim is to explore the association between the political and
economic context and each one of the pillars of the energy trilemma.
Three contingency tables have been created, with the following
structure (Table 2).
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of the dimensions of the energy trilemma.
Energy security Energy equity Environmental sustainability
Mean 56.38 76.35 67.93
SD 11.27 23.79 11.44
Min 27.70 8.20 39.00
Max 77.10 100.00 90.00
L. Marti and R. Puertas Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship 1 (2022) 100007
3
Based on the data in Table 2 the expected frequencies are calculated
using the following expression:
Eij ¼
ni ¢ n¢ j
N
ð1Þ
where, N is the total number of observations in the table, ni, is the
number of observations in row i, and n,j is the number of observations
in column j.
Both the observed and expected frequencies are necessary to perform
the x2
test showing whether the variables considered in the
study are independent or not. The result of the x2
test confirms
whether the levels of a qualitative variable influence those of another
variable. The x2
test is defined by the following expression:
x2
¼
Ph
i¼1
Pk
j¼1 nij À Eij
À Á2
Eij
ð2Þ
where, nij is the observed frequency, and Eij is the expected frequency.
The null hypothesis is that of independence between factors.
The alternative hypothesis is that of dependence between factors.
In addition, the Gamma coefficient, which indicates the strength
of the link between the two analysed variables, is used as a measure
of association. Its value ranges between -1 and 1, with the sign indicating
either a direct or inverse relationship between the pillars studied.
This method has been widely used in the literature; it can be
applied to any field of research to determine the frequency of association
between two variables (Sujova & Remen, 2018; Zelterman &
Louis, 2019; Mahieu et al., 2020; Sumekar and Al-Baarri, 2020).
Results and discussion
The pillars of the WETI are aimed at assessing the complicated
goals governments face when attempting to guarantee competitive
energy supply and access to energy, while also striving to protect the
environment. Based on these pillars and countries' macroeconomic
situation, this study first seeks to establish a hierarchy of the different
countries in the sample to identify similarities in their sustainable
energy systems (Q1).
Q1. Does the economic profile of a country influence its sustainable
energy development?
The dendrogram resulting from the application of the cluster
method reveals three homogeneous groups of countries; the first is
composed of 78 countries, the second 27 and the third 23 (Table 5A
in the Appendix). The Kruskal-Wallis test confirms the adequacy of
the grouping by identifying significant differences between the
means of each group (x2
is significant at a p-value<0.05). Table 3
shows the mean values for the total sample, as well as those for the
three resulting clusters.
By comparing the mean for the sample of 128 countries included
in the WETI and the mean for each of the clusters, we can define profiles
of their Energy performance (Table 3). These values have been
compared with the mean values for economic growth, measured in
terms of GDP, and the level of wealth (GDPpc) of the countries that
make up each of the resulting clusters. This comparison provides an
answer to Q1, clarifying whether the pillars of the energy trilemma
are influenced by countries' macroeconomic situation. The clusters
can be characterized as follows:
- Cluster 1 (C1) is made up of 78 countries with a high level of
wealth (€26,108/inhab) and a mean GDP growth of close to 2.5%.
Fig. 1 shows the 10 countries that hold the top WETI positions in
this cluster according to their overall score, with all of them registering
more than 80 points: Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Austria,
Finland, France, UK, Canada, Germany and Norway. They all
have a GDPpc of over $40,000 (Luxembourg with $116,640, Switzerland
$82,797 and Norway $81,697) and show moderate
growth, ranging from 1.3% in Norway to 2.8% in Switzerland.
However, there is no uniformity in the levels reached in the three
dimensions of the index. On the one hand, all these nations show
a strong commitment to environmental sustainability by allocating
substantial resources to achieving clean, environmentallyfriendly
energy, while the situation is very different in the dimensions
Energy equity and Energy security. France, Germany and Sweden
hold a much lower position in Energy equity (32nd, 33rd and
39th, respectively) compared to other countries such as Iran or
Lebanon (9th and 17th, respectively); the latter are characterized
by their precarious economic situation (zero growth and a GDPpc
of $5628 in Iran, and 0.2% growth and a GDPpc of $ 8270 in Leba-
non).
Regarding Energy security, the performance of Norway and Luxembourg
is noteworthy: while they achieve good scores in the other
two dimensions, they register just 60 and 54.3 points, respectively, in
this dimension. They both lie behind countries such as Nigeria, Guatemala
or El Salvador, all of which are categorized as lower middle
income by the World Bank. One of the reasons for this is that Luxembourg's
score is influenced by the size of its geographical area, which
limits its diversity and capacity to generate energy resources
(Belaïd, 2017). The situation in Norway is very different: the results
analysed capture the impact of COVID-19. This is a country whose
exports far exceed its domestic consumption; however, in the last
year the authorities have decided to reduce oil production to help
stabilize the world market. Hence, the results contradict those
reported in the study by (Asbahi et al., 2019), where Norway held the
top position for this dimension in 2015 according to an index based
on WETI proposed by the authors.
Table 2
General structure of contingency tables of observed frequencies.
INDICATOR “A”
Criterion i A B C D Total
INDICATOR “B” A n1,1 n1,2 n1,3 n1,4 n1, 
B n2,1 n2,2 n2,3 n2,4 n2, 
C n3,1 n3,2 n3,3 n3,4 n3, 
D n4,1 N4,2 n4,3 n4,4 n4, 
Total n,1 n,2 n,3 n,4 n5, 
Table 3
Kruskal-Wallis test and the mean values of the indicators for the 3 clusters.
Energy security Energy equity Environmental sustainability GDP Growth (%) GDPpc (PPP US $) Number of countries
Total Mean 56.38 76.35 67.93 3.19 18,333.20 128
C1 Mean 62.70 89.52 69.47 2.49 26,108.99 78
C2 Mean 47.55 75.37 71.36 3.13 10,384.52 27
C3 Mean 45.32 32.81 58.68 5.66 1294.17 23
Test Kruskall-Wallis
x2
61.81 71.02 20.74
p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000
L. Marti and R. Puertas Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship 1 (2022) 100007
4
- Cluster 2 (C2), comprising 27 countries, with a mean GDPpc of
over $10,300 and economic growth of 3.13%, occupies an intermediate
position. This group is composed of nations that are very
proactive on environmental issues; indeed, it is the cluster that
shows the strongest commitment to decarbonization and cutting
CO2 emissions. Fig. 2 shows the top 10 countries in C2 terms of
overall WETI score, with values ranging between 66 and 72
points: Singapore, Hong Kong, Cyprus, Costa Rica, Albania, Panama,
Armenia, Montenegro, Paraguay and Georgia. This group
shows a marked disparity between dimensions of the energy trilemma.
They all hold very low positions in Energy security (with
scores for this pillar ranging between 54.5 for Georgia and 37.9
for Singapore), more middling positions in Energy equity, and they
are among the top 10 countries in the full sample in terms of Environmental
sustainability (with Albania in 4th place, Panama 6th
and Costa Rica 7th). They are characterized as having focused their
policies on mitigating and preventing environmental degradation
and the impacts of climate change. In short, these are economies
focused on efficient productivity, decarbonization and air quality.
Furthermore, it can be seen that countries such as Singapore,
Cyprus and Hong Kong, whose income ranges from $28,159 per capita
in Cyprus to $64,582 in Singapore, obtain a very low score in
Energy security (37.9, 42.7 and 37.9), while they hold the top positions
in Energy equity (with a score of 92.5, 98.1 and 98.1), and Energy sustainability.
Authors such as Veloria (2020) demonstrate that Singapore
in particular does not need to increase its endowment of energy
resources; rather it needs technological innovation policies that
make it possible to reduce the existing energy gap between supply
and demand, along with international agreements that promote and
facilitate its participation in the global energy system. For their part,
Ligus and Peternek (2021) propose a composite index incorporating
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Switzerland
Sweden
Denmark
Austria
Finland
France
UK
Canada
Germany
Norway
indexpoints
Energy security Energy equity Environmental sustainability Overall score
Fig. 1. Energy trilemma of the top 10 countries in cluster 1 according to the WETI overall score.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
CostaRica
HongKong
Singapore
Albania
Panama
Georgia
Armenia
Cyprus
Paraguay
Montenegro
Indexpoints
Energy security Energy equity Environmental sustainability Overall score
Fig. 2. Energy trilemma of the top 10 countries in cluster 2 according to the WETI overall score.
5
L. Marti and R. Puertas Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship 1 (2022) 100007
all the dimensions of the energy trilemma—the Energy Development
Aggregated Index—according to which Cyprus is in the penultimate
position of all the European countries, only ahead of Bulgaria.
- Cluster 3 (C3), composed of 23 countries, brings together African
and Asian countries with limited economic resources (Mozambique,
Niger and Myanmar with $499, $414 and $1326 per capita)
and countries with high growth rates (Armenia, Montenegro and
Georgia with growth rates of 5.2, 5.1 and 4.8%). In general, they
have very low scores in all the aspects assessed by the energy trilemma,
showing huge room for improvement in energy competitiveness
and environmental protection. Fig. 3 shows the 10
countries in C3 that register the highest WETI score (with values
between 46 and 56 points): India, Ghana, Kenya, Myanmar, C^ote
d'Ivoire, Cambodia, Cameroon, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria.
When assessing the whole sample, all these countries are in the
bottom quartile in terms of Energy equity and five of them are for
Environmental sustainability (Bangladesh, Cambodia, Pakistan,
India and Nigeria). Regarding Energy security, they are split
between the third and fourth quartile, with Pakistan and Bangladesh
standing out as the worst rated (41.6 and 39 points, respec-
tively).
According to Oliver Wyman (2015) the countries that are weakest
in terms of energy performance should focus on improving their efficiency
to reduce energy demand and increase energy security and
economic competitiveness. In this vein, Jain and Goswami (2021)
show that the endowment of energy resources, the production of
renewable energy, the price of crude oil, population density and
GDPpc are all factors that significantly influence the energy efficiency
of countries in South Asia. Alemzero et al. (2021) develop a composite
index of energy security in Africa, based on which they call for more
intense intraregional trading of energy, as well as investments in
renewable energy and energy infrastructure to guarantee supply and
ensure environmental sustainability.
Summing up, in answer to Q1 it can be said that the established
clusters show that the countries characterized as having lower
growth and higher income on average (cluster 1) are found in the top
positions of the WETI. However, when analysing the pillars of the
energy trilemma this association is less clear. For example, Luxembourg,
which has GDP growth of more than 3% and the highest GDPpc
in the analysed sample, holds the top position in Energy equity, but
just 15th place in Environmental sustainability and 78th in Energy
security. This confirms that the score obtained is not so dependent on
the country's macroeconomic situation or on the volume of resources
available. Energy security is strongly influenced by the country's ability
to decarbonize energy systems and introduce alternative energies.
Regarding Energy equity, public instruments play a key role in supporting
this dimension through the adoption of policies that foster
extraction and transport of supply. The Environmental sustainability
pillar essentially depends on countries' degree of engagement in
international agreements on climate change. Thus, in this dimension,
Albania, with a per capita GDP of only $5269, rubs shoulders with
countries classified as high income by the World Bank. This is due to
its ratification of the Paris Agreement and its effective commitment
to cut greenhouse gas emissions (0.017% of global emissions).
Q2. Is there a direct connection between the political and economic
context and the different aspects of sustainable energy development?
In response to the second research question, three contingency
tables have been created to measure the level of association between
the political and economic context and the three pillars of the energy
trilemma (Table 4). The result will indicate whether macroeconomic
stability, government effectiveness and innovation capacity influence
countries’ ability to achieve a top score for the performance of their
energy systems.
The results of Pearson's chi-squared test (p-value<0.05) confirm
the association between the Country context and the three pillars. The
value of the Gamma statistic (p-value<0.05) reveals the positive relationship
between the analysed dimensions. As reflected in the contingency
tables, the extreme categories for each of the variables (the
first quartile A and the fourth quartile D) contain the most countries
(Table 4). For example, those countries that get good grades in Environmental
sustainability also score well in Country context (17 countries).
These are countries with a highly innovative profile,
macroeconomic stability and a good perception of the quality of public
services and policies. In general, this association is repeated for
the other pillars. Based on these results, we can answer Q2: the countries'
political and economic context underpins the scores obtained in
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
India
Ghana
Kenya
Myanmar
CotedIvone
Cambodia
Cameroon
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Nigeria
Indexpoints
Energy security Energy equity Environmental sustainability Overall score
Fig. 3. Energy trilemma of the top 10 countries in cluster 3 according to the WETI overall score.
L. Marti and R. Puertas Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship 1 (2022) 100007
6
the SD dimensions. Decision-makers responsible for implementing
energy measures should foster the introduction of new technologies
and proactive policies aimed at integrating clean, accessible energy
for all citizens. These suggestions are supported by the conclusions
reached in other studies carried out by the research community
(Warren & Jack, 2018; Quitoras et al., 2020; Grigoryev & Medzhidova,
2020).
Conclusions
Achieving the SDGs requires a global commitment from all
nations to ensure the adaptation of not just their economies but also
of their way of life, moving towards a situation that is more conducive
to SD. These goals cannot be analysed in isolation. They constitute
a package that needs to be addressed from all possible
perspectives: social, economic and environmental. This research carries
out a comprehensive analysis of the pillars of the energy trilemma
(SDG 7) in order to guide decision-makers, both public and
private, in their task of implementing measures that foster the use of
clean, affordable energy.
The results show that countries' macroeconomic situation does
not determine all the aspects assessed. The active involvement of
leaders in the implementation of international agreements on climate
change is required. This will ensure that all nations orient their
policies in the right direction, fostering the implementation of sustainable
energies, avoiding international dependence and guaranteeing
that the entire population has affordable access to energy. In
addition, the study provides evidence that these measures, assessed
in Country context, are strongly associated with the level achieved in
the different dimensions of the energy trilemma.
The main limitation of this analysis is that it is a dynamic study,
requiring regular updates with new statistical information. A country's
evolution and involvement in SD issues tends to be notably
affected by the political orientation of its leaders; hence, any change
in government can alter the situation in the country and change its
course. All this underlines the need to continue adapting the conclusions
to a multifaceted situation in which the implementation of the
established agreements is assured.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Appendix
Table 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A and 5A
Table 4
Results of contingency tables.
Country context
Environmental sustainability A B C D Total
A 17 (13.3%) 8 (6.2%) 6 (4.7%) 2 (1.6%) 33 (25.8%)
B 14 (10.9%) 5 (3.9%) 14 (10.9%) 7 (5.55%) 40 (31.2%)
C 3 (2.3%) 4 (3.1%) 10 (7.8%) 11 (88.6%) 28 (21.9%)
D 2 (1.6%) 5 (3.9%) 8 (6.2%) 12 (9.4%) 27 (21.1%)
Total 36 (28.1%) 22 (17.2%) 38 (29.7%) 32 (25%) 128 (100%)
Pearson's chi-squared: 30.060 (p-value: 0.000)
Gamma: 0.496 (p-value: 0.000)
Country context
Energy equity A B C D Total
A 26 (20.3%) 6 (4.7%) 3 (2.3%) 3 (2.3%) 38 (29.7%)
B 10 (7.8%) 15 (11.7%) 15 (11.7%) 6 (4.7%) 46 (35.9%)
C - 1 (0.8%) 12 (9.4%) 5 (3.9%) 18 (14.1%)
D - - 8 (6.2%) 18 (14.1%) 26 (20.3%)
Total 36 (28.1%) 22 (17.2%) 38 (29.7%) 32 (25%) 128 (100%)
Pearson's chi-squared: 89.267 (p-value: 0.000)
Gamma: 0.788 (p-value: 0.000)
Country context
Energy security A B C D Total
A 15 (11.7%) 7 (5.5%) 6 (4.7%) 5 (3.9%) 33 (25.8%)
B 12 (9.4%) 5 (3.9%) 13 (10.2%) 7 (5.5%) 37 (28.9%)
C 4 (3.1%) 7 (5.5%) 10 (7.8%) 3 (2.3%) 24 (18.8%)
D 5 (3.9%) 3 (2.3%) 9 (7%) 17 (13.3%) 34 (26.6%)
Total 36 (28.1%) 22 (17.2%) 38 (29.7%) 32 (25%) 128 (100%)
Pearson's chi-squared: 26.002 (p-value: 0.002)
Gamma: 0.383 (p-value: 0.000)
Table 1A
Dimensions of the energy trilemma of Africa.
Energy security Energy equity Environmental sustainability
Algeria 55.2 85.6 57.9
Angola 69.4 54 79
Benin 35.6 20.9 39
Botswana 41.9 70.4 63.9
Cameroon 51.7 34.1 61.8
Congo 35.2 8.4 73.7
Cote dIvone 55.6 36.5 63
Egypt 58.1 84 44
Eswatini 41.1 66 71.5
Ethiopia 36 31.5 61.5
Gabon 58.9 79.5 62.5
Ghana 53.1 46.3 68.4
Kenya 59.9 33.8 70.9
Magascar 43.8 11.2 67.2
Malawi 43.5 8.9 63.1
Mauritania 43.4 33 59.2
Mauritius 42 81 74.6
Morocco 46.1 79.3 65.6
Mozambique 44.8 18.3 60.7
Namibia 42.6 55.3 78
Niger 30.5 8.2 43.3
Nigeria 64.1 31.4 45.7
Senegal 40.8 32.6 57
South Africa 52 77.4 58.6
Tanzania 43.4 22.1 68.1
Tunisia 56.4 83.8 61.4
Zambia 43.1 31.6 60.5
Zimbawe 42.8 38.6 57.8
L. Marti and R. Puertas Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship 1 (2022) 100007
7
Table 2A
Dimensions of the energy trilemma of Asia.
Energy
security
Energy
equity
Environmental
sustainability
Australia 63.2 95.8 66.9
Azerbaijan 68.4 85.8 69.2
Bahrain 60 99.7 42.2
Bangladesh 39 50.4 56
Brunei 54.1 94.4 60.7
Cambodia 46.1 52 55.9
China 64.5 80.8 57.7
Hong Kong 42.7 98.1 72.9
India 59.7 60 49.1
Indonesia 67.9 72 64.5
Iran 65.1 98.7 54.4
Iraq 42 85 49.7
Israel 50.6 97.3 67.5
Japan 59.4 94.3 74.5
Jordan 41.1 69.9 60.9
Korea Rep 60.5 97.1 64.3
Kuwait 59.8 99.8 47.2
Lebanon 27.7 97.3 60.7
Malaysia 64.3 86.7 69.4
Mongolia 46 77.5 44.3
Myanmar 57.7 45.9 64.1
Nepal 31 47.5 49.9
New Zealand 64.9 94.6 78.9
Oman 50.9 99.7 50.6
Pakistan 41.6 51.5 53.7
Philippines 59.6 56.4 68
Qatar 65.5 99.8 42.9
Saudi Arabia 59.9 99 44.3
Singapore 37.9 98.1 70.3
Sri Lanka 53.8 60.3 71
Tajikistan 45.4 67.5 63.2
Thailand 54 78.5 66.2
United Arab Emirates 59.3 99.8 49.2
Vietnam 61.4 76 61.1
Table 3A
Dimensions of the energy trilemma of Europe.
Energy
security
Energy
equity
Environmental
sustainability
Albania 46.5 83.8 85.8
Armenia 54.5 78.3 73.8
Austria 70.2 96.3 81.9
Belgium 60.4 95.2 77
Bosnia and Herzegovina 58.8 74.6 61.4
Bulgaria 72.2 85.9 73
Croatia 67.8 88.1 77.8
Cyprus 37.9 92.5 68
Czech Rep 72.4 93.6 72.4
Denmark 74.4 96.2 83.4
Estonia 62.5 94.8 69.5
Finland 75.4 93 78.1
France 68.3 95.1 85.5
Georgia 54.5 76.5 73.8
Germany 72 95 77.8
Greece 53.8 90.7 73.2
Hungary 72.1 94.5 75.8
Iceland 56 99.3 75
Ireland 56.2 98.1 77.9
Italy 66.6 95.8 81.5
Kazakhstan 69.2 88.2 58.6
Latvia 74.1 83.7 74.6
Lithuania 60.9 95.7 79.2
Luxembourg 54.3 100 80.3
Malta 46.1 95.8 78.8
Moldova 48.7 68.6 56.2
Montenegro 50.4 78.4 73
Netherlands 59.2 98 72.5
North Macedonia 56.7 87.7 69.6
Norway 60 95.1 87.2
Poland 62.7 84.7 65.9
Portugal 63.7 92.2 78.1
Romania 74.5 78.8 79
Russia 69.1 97 62.5
Serbia 62.1 77.7 62.2
Slovakia 70.1 84.2 80.3
Slovenia 67.9 93.4 77
Spain 65.7 92.4 79.8
Sweden 72.8 94 87.5
Switzerland 66.4 97.9 90
Turkey 56.7 83.8 66
UK 68.4 96.3 82.5
Ukraine 70.2 75.4 69.9
Table 4A
Dimensions of the energy trilemma of America.
Energy security Energy equity Environmental
sustainability
Argentina 63.1 95.9 75.5
Barbados 56.1 90.4 75.2
Bolivia 59.8 73.7 62.6
Brazil 72.6 77.8 83.4
Canada 77.1 95.6 73.4
Chile 62 82.3 71.9
Colombia 63.7 75.8 83.8
Costa Rica 53.2 84.6 84.7
Dominican Rep 47.7 83 71.2
Ecuador 65 84.5 78.6
El Salvador 61.1 75.9 78.2
Guatemala 63 65 71.2
Honduras 49.3 67.1 69.7
Jamaica 40.7 82.5 67.2
Mexico 59.9 84.6 69.6
Nicaragua 50.1 59.7 69.6
Panama 45.2 83.9 84.9
Paraguay 50.9 77.4 78.1
Peru 67.3 73.5 74.9
Trinidad and Tobago 50.3 97.9 48.6
Uruguay 60.8 91.2 84.2
USA 72.2 96.7 71.6
Venezuela 67.4 86.2 74.1
Table 5A
Countries in each cluster.
Countries
CLUSTER 1 Bahrain, Barbados, Brunei, Croatia Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta,
Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Trinidad and Tobago, United
Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada,
Chile, Czech Rep, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea Rep, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA, Bolivia,
Egypt, El Salvador, Indonesia, Mongolia, Ukraine, Vietnam, Algeria,
Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria,
China, Colombia, Ecuador, Gabon, Hungary, Iran, Iraq,
Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, North Macedonia, Peru, Romania,
Serbia, South Africa, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Venezuela
CLUSTER 2 Cyprus, Hong Kong, Singapore, Tajikistan, Armenia, Eswatini,
Georgia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mauritius, Moldova, Morocco,
Nicaragua, Paraguay, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Albania, Angola,
Botswana, Costa Rica, Dominican Rep, Jamaica, Jordan, Lebanon,
Montenegro, Namibia, Panama
CLUSTER 3 Bangladesh, Benin, Cambodia, Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Tanzania,
Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Senegal, Zambia, Mauritania
L. Marti and R. Puertas Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship 1 (2022) 100007
8
References
Alemzero, D. A., Sun, H., Mohsin, M., Iqbal, N., Nadeem, M., & Vo, X. V. (2021). Assessing
energy security in Africa based on multi-dimensional approach of principal composite
analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 2158–2171.
doi:10.1007/s11356-020-10554-0.
Armeanu, D. S., Joldes, C. C., Gherghina, S. C., & Andrei, J. V. (2021). Understanding the
multidimensional linkages among renewable energy, pollution, economic growth
and urbanization in contemporary economies: Quantitative assessments across
different income countries’ groups. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 142,
110818. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.110818.
Asbahi, A. A. M. H. A., Gang, F. Z., Iqbal, W., Abass, Q., Mohsin, M., & Iram, R. (2019).
Novel approach of Principal Component Analysis method to assess the national
energy performance via Energy Trilemma Index. Energy Reports, 5, 704–713.
doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2019.06.009.
Asiedu, B. A., Hassan, A. A., & Bein, M. A. (2021). Renewable energy, non-renewable
energy, and economic growth: evidence from 26 European countries. Environmental
Science and Pollution Research, 28, 11119–11128. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-
11186-0.
Belaïd, F. (2017). Untangling the complexity of the direct and indirect determinants of
the residential energy consumption in France: Quantitative analysis using a structural
equation modeling approach. Energy Policy, 110, 246–256. doi:10.1016/j.
enpol.2017.08.027.
Bolis, I., Morioka, S. N., & Sznelwar, L. I. (2014). When sustainable development risks
losing its meaning. Delimiting the concept with a comprehensive literature review
and a conceptual model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 83, 7–20. doi:10.1016/j.jcle-
pro.2014.06.
Coester, A., Hofkes, M. W., & Papyrakis, E. (2020). Economic analysis of batteries:
impact on security of electricity supply and renewable energy expansion in Germany.
Applied Energy, 275, 115364. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115364.
Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M., Jato-Espino, D., & Castro-Fresno, D. (2018). Is the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG) index an adequate framework to measure the progress
of the 2030 Agenda? Sustainable Development, 26, 663–671. doi:10.1002/sd.1735.
Dobson, A. (1996). Environmental Sustainabilities: an analysis and a typology. Environmental
Politics, 5, 401–428. doi:10.1080/09644019608414280.
Esen, O., & Bayrak, M. (2017). Does more energy consumption support economic
growth in net energy-importing countries? Journal of Economics, Finance and
Administrative Science, 22, 75–98. doi:10.1108/JEFAS-01-2017-0015.
Fartash, K., Khayatian, M., Ghorbani, S., & Sadabadi, A. (2020). Interpretive structural
analysis of interrelationships of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Iran.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 16, 155–163.
doi:10.18280/ijsdp.160116.
Gasparatos, A., & Gadda, T. (2009). Environmental support, energy security and economic
growth in Japan. Energy Policy, 37, 4038–4048. doi:10.1016/j.
enpol.2009.05.011.
Global Energy Institute (2018). International index of energy security risk 2018 Edition:
Assessing risk in a Global Energy Market. Washington.
Grigoryev, L. M., & Medzhidova, D. D. (2020). Global energy trilemma. Russian Journal of
Economics, 6, 437–462. doi:10.32609/j.ruje.6.58683.
Hak, T., Janouskova, S., Moldan, B., & Dahl, A. L. (2018). Closing the sustainability gap:
30 years after “Our Common Future”, society lacks meaningful stories and relevant
indicators to make the right decisions and build public support. Ecological Indicators,
87, 193–195. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.017.
Horan, D. (2020). National baselines for integrated implementation of an environmental
sustainable development goal assessed in a new integrated SDG Index. Sustainability,
12, 6955. doi:10.3390/su12176955.
Huan, Y., Liang, T., Li, H., & Zhang, C. (2021). A systematic method for assessing progress
of achieving sustainable development goals: A case study of 15 countries. Science of
The Total Environment, 752, 141875. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141875.
Hummels, H., & Argyrou, A. (2021). Planetary demands: Redefining sustainable development
and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278,
123804. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123804.
IEA. (2019). IEA Atlas of EnergyInternational Energy Agency. Retrieved from http://ener
gyatlas.iea.org/#!/tellmap/1378539487 Accessed September 3, 2021.
Jain, P., & Goswami, B. (2021). Energy efficiency in South Asia: Trends and determinants.
Energy, 221, 119762. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.119762.
Jimenez-Aceituno, A., Peterson, G. D., Norstr€om, A. V., Wong, G. Y., &
Downing, A. S. (2019). Local lens for SDG implementation: lessons from bottom-up
approaches in Africa. Sustainability Science, 15, 729–743. doi:10.1007/s11625-019-
00746-0.
Jun, W., Mughal, N., Zhao, J., Shabbir, M. S., Niedba»a, G., Jain, V., & Anwar, A. (2021).
Does globalization matter for environmental degradation? Nexus among energy
consumption, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emission. Energy Policy, 153,
112230. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112230.
Khan, I., & Hou, F. (2021). Does multilateral environmental diplomacy improve environmental
quality? The case of the United States. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, 28, 23310–23322. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-12005-2.
Khan, I., Hou, F., Irfan, M., Zakari, A., & Le, H. P. (2021). Does energy trilemma a driver of
economic growth? The roles of energy use, population growth, and financial development.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 146, 111157. doi:10.1016/j.
rser.2021.111157.
Klarin, T. (2018). The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the
contemporany issues. Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 21, 67–
94. doi:10.2478/zireb-2018-0005.
K€ummerer, K., Dionysiou, D. D., Olsson, O., & Fatta-Kassinos, D. (2018). A path to clean
water. Science, 361, 222–224. doi:10.1126/science.aau2405.
Lance, G. N., & Williams, W. T. (1967). A general theory of classificatory sorting strategies.
I. Hierarchical systems. The Computer Journal, 9, 373–380.
Lee, K-Y., Tsao, S-H., Tzeng, C-W., & Lin, H-J. (2018). Influence of the vertical wind and
wind direction on the power output of a small vertical-axis wind turbine installed
on the rooftop of a building. Applied Energy, 209, 383–391. doi:10.1016/j.ape-
nergy.2017.08.185.
Ligus, M., & Peternek, P. (2021). The Sustainable Energy Development Index—An application
for European Union member states. Energies, 14, 1117. doi:10.3390/
en14041117.
Lucatello, S., & Huber-Sannwald, E. (2020). Sustainable development goals and drylands:
Addressing the interconnection. In S. Lucatello, E. Huber-Sannwald,
I. Espejel, N. Martínez-Tag€ue~na (Eds.), Stewardship of future drylands and climate
change in the global south. Springer Climate.
Lusseau, D., & Mancini, F. (2019). Income-based variation in sustainable development
goal interaction networks. Nature Sustainability, 2, 242–247. doi:10.1038/s41893-
019-0231-4.
Mahieu, B., Visalli, M., & Schlich, P. (2020). Accounting for the dimensionality of the
dependence in analyses of contingency tables obtained with Check-All-That-Apply
and Free-Comment. Food Quality and Preference, 83, 103924. doi:10.1016/j.foodq-
ual.2020.103924.
Marti, L., & Puertas, R. (2021). Influence of environmental policies on waste treatment.
Waste Management, 126, 191–200. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2021.03.009.
Megyesiova, S., & Lieskovska, V. (2018). Analysis of the sustainable development indicators
in the OECD countries. Sustainability, 10, 4554. doi:10.3390/su10124554.
Nawaz, S. M. N., & Alvi, S. (2018). Energy security for socio-economic and environmental
sustainability in Pakistan. Heliyon, 4, e00854. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.
e00854.
Nogueira, C. (2019). Contradictions in the concept of sustainable development: An
analysis in social, economic, and political contexts. Environmental Development, 30,
129–135. doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2019.04.004.
Ntanos, S., Skordoulis, M., Kyriakopoulos, G., Arabatzis, G, Chalikias, M, Galatsidas, S,
Batzios, A., & Katsarou, A. (2018). Renewable energy and economic growth: evidence
from European countries. Sustainability, 10, 2626. doi:10.3390/su10082626.
Oliver Wyman. (2015). World Energy Trilemma: Priority actions on climate change and
how to balance the trilemma. Retrieved from https://www.worldenergy.org/publica
tions/entry/world-energy-trilemma-2015-priority-actions-on-climate-changeand-how-to-balance-the-trilemma
Accessed September 18, 2021.
Prado, F. A., Athayde, S., Mossa, J., Bohlman, S., Leite, F., & Oliver-Smith, A. (2016). How
much is enough? An integrated examination of energy security, economic growth
and climate change related to hydropower expansion in Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 53, 1132–1136. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.050.
Puertas, R., & Marti, L. (2021). International ranking of climate change action: An analysis
using the indicators from the Climate Change Performance Index. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 148, 111316. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.111316.
Quitoras, M. R., Campana, P. E., Rowley, P., & Crawford, C. (2020). Remote community
integrated energy system optimization including building enclosure improvements
and quantitative energy trilemma metrics. Applied Energy, 267, 115017.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115017.
Reiff, M., Ivanicova, Z., & Surmanova, K. (2018). Cluster analysis of selected world
development indicators in the fields of agriculture and the food industry in European
Union countries. Agricultural Economics, 64, 197–205. doi:10.17221/198/
2016-AGRICECON.
Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N., &
Rockstr€om, J. (2019). Six transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development
Goals. Nature Sustainability, 2, 805–814. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0352-9.
Song, L., Fu, Y., Zhou, P., & Lai, K. K. (2017). Measuring national energy performance via
Energy Trilemma Index: A stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. Energy
Economics, 66, 313–319. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2017.07.004.
Sprajc, P., Bjegovic, M., & Vasic, B. (2019). Energy security in decision making and governance
- Methodological analysis of energy trilemma index. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 114, 109341. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.109341.
Sujova, A., & Remen, O. (2018). Management of changes in business processes: an
empirical study in Slovak enterprises. Engineering Management in Production and
Services, 10, 37–50. doi:10.2478/emj-2018-0015.
Sumekar, W., & Al-Baarri, A. N (2020). Study in agroindustry of salted egg: Length of
salting process and marketing reach aspects. Journal of Applied Food Technology, 7,
25–28. doi:10.17728/jaft.7427.
Van Opstal, M., & Huge, J. (2013). Knowledge for sustainable development: A worldviews
perspective. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15, 687–709.
doi:10.1007/s10668-012-9401-5.
Veloria, M. D. (2020). Energy security in Singapore. Naval Postgraduate School Master’s
Thesis.
Venghaus, S., & Dieken, S. (2019). From a few security indices to the FEW Security
Index: Consistency in global food, energy and water security assessment. Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 20, 342–355. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2019.08.002.
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of
the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244. doi:10.1080/
01621459.1963.10500845.
Warren, L., & Jack, L. (2018). The capital budgeting process and the energy trilemma - A
strategic conduct analysis. The British Accounting Review, 50, 481–496.
doi:10.1016/j.bar.2018.04.005.
WCED. (1987). Our common future. World commission on environment and development.
Oxford University Press.
L. Marti and R. Puertas Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship 1 (2022) 100007
9
WEC. (2020). World energy trilemma index 2020. World Energy Council.
WEO. (2016). Energy and air Pollution. World energy outlook special report. International
Energy Agency.
WEO. (2017). Energy access outlook. World energy outlook special report. International
Energy Agency.
Zelterman, D., & Louis, T. A. (2019). Contingency tables in medical studies. In J. Bailar, &
F. Mosteller (Eds.), Medical uses of statistics. (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Zhang, S., & Zhu, D. (2020). Have countries moved towards sustainable development or
not? Definition, criteria, indicators and empirical analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production,
267, 121929. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121929.
L. Marti and R. Puertas Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship 1 (2022) 100007
10