1.1 Since the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report on measurement of economic performance and social progress (2009), there has been a growing interest in statistics on well-being to shed light on people’s life situation and the state of society ‘beyond GDP’. Indicators of well-being have attracted much attention from media and decision-makers, and feed into national discussions and policy making and are also used to compare countries.

1.2 Many statistical offices produce well-being indicators to meet user needs. Despite a broad consensus on its conceptual understanding, in practice, well-being measurement approaches differ across countries. For instance, national frameworks are often broken down into dimensions (e.g. income, employment, health, education, safety, social inclusion, etc.) that may differ; different individual indicators may be selected to represent the dimensions, and a variety of data sources and methods are used for the compilation of the indicators. In addition, several indicators of well-being, quality of life, life satisfaction or happiness are published by organisations other than national statistical offices and are often referred to in the media.

1.3 On this background, the Bureau of the Conference of European Statisticians (CES) in February 2023 conducted an in-depth review of national and international activities on the measurement of well-being. The in-depth review was based on a report prepared by the Central Bureau of Statistics of Israel with contributions by the Netherlands and the OECD. To ensure focus and in-depth discussions, the scope of the review was limited to the measurement of current well-being in a national context, often referred to as well-being ‘here and now’. Broader measures, including sustainability (well-being ‘later’) and well-being ‘elsewhere’ were not considered in the review. As part of the review, a survey on country practices was carried out for CES member countries.

1.4 The in-depth review identified several challenges in the measurement of well-being regarding concepts and terminology, the dimensions of well-being, the selection of indicators, international comparability, compilation methods, data sources, timeliness and communication. There is significant interest in the measurement of well-being as well as differences in national practices. Most frameworks for measuring well-being are produced for national purposes and tailored to national needs and use. For instance, frameworks in New Zealand, Canada, Iceland and Ireland were based on the OECD Well-being framework but adapted to reflect national contexts, specificities and ways of packaging the dimensions and indicators.

1.5 Dimensions such as income, employment, housing, health, education, safety, social connections and environment are included in most countries’ measures of well-being. However, the set of dimensions varies from country to country. Subjective well-being is included in different ways. It can be covered in one dimension, or different aspects of subjective well-being can be included in different dimensions, e.g. employment, health or social life. Countries also mentioned the challenges in compiling internationally comparable measures for subjective well-being due to cultural differences and language issues.

1.6 A range of methodological challenges are linked to the compilation of well-being indicators. These include the selection and compilation of indicators and different approaches to measuring inequalities. Compilation of subjective indicators and their inclusion in the framework, as well as weighting and aggregation of individual indicators into composite measures, were also identified as important topics by many countries.

1.7 Most well-being indicators rely on annual data and are released with a considerable time lag compared to the reference period. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the need for more timely indicators for households’ well-being and the need to examine and exploit new data sources and compilation methods with a view to improving timeliness.

1.8 Well-being statistics can be disseminated in many ways: as individual indicators, in a dashboard, by use of composite measures or a combination of these. To provide meaningful information for decision-making, dashboards covering the dimensions and indicators of the framework are often produced. National Statistical Offices (NSOs) may also decide to compile composite indicators of well-being. Composite indicators may help to reach user groups but may also be questioned and raise criticism for being ‘political’ or value-laden. Because of the complexity and multidimensional nature of well-being, the communication should be carefully planned and involve consultation with stakeholders and user groups.

1.9 Based on the in-depth review, the CES Bureau identified a need for Guidelines on the measurement of well-being ‘here and now’ and proposed establishing a task force to develop Guidelines in this area. The Bureau noted that several international frameworks for measuring well-being exist, including the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report (2009), the Conference of European Statisticians Recommendations on Measuring Sustainable Development, OECD’s Framework for Measuring Well-being and Progress and Eurostat’s Quality of Life Indicators. The Guidelines should take these frameworks as a starting point and focus on synthesizing these into operational guidance to assist countries in producing well-being indicators.

1.10 The CES plenary session in June 2023 endorsed the outcome of the in-depth review on measuring well-being and supported the proposal to set up a task force to develop Guidelines to assist countries in producing well-being indicators.

1.11 The terms of reference of the task force were adopted by the CES Bureau in October 2023. The task force mainly worked through online meetings and the exchange of emails. The task force organised a Seminar in Geneva on 8-9 July 2024 for experts from CES member countries and organisations to share experiences and good practices in measuring well-being. The Seminar was attended by 40 experts from countries and international organisations. The Seminar discussed key issues in the production of well-being indicators, including dimensions and indicators of well-being; the process for developing a national well-being measurement framework; data sources and timeliness; use of composite measures; communication of well-being indicators; and policy use oriented well-being statistics. Draft chapters of the Guidelines were presented at the Seminar for discussion and feedback from participants. The proceedings of the Seminar are available on the Seminar website.

1.12 The task force submitted a draft proposal of the Guidelines to the CES Bureau in February 2025 for approval to have it circulated to CES member countries and organisations for written consultation with a view to presenting the final version to the CES plenary session in June 2025 for endorsement.

1.13 Following the terms of reference of the task force, the Guidelines should provide guidance on the measurement of well-being ‘here and now’ for countries that produce or consider producing well-being indicators. The Guidelines should:

a) Take existing frameworks as a starting point and focus on synthesizing these into operational guidance to assist countries in producing well-being indicators.

b) Focus on core indicators across the dimensions of well-being where harmonisation and improved international comparability is feasible.

c) Clarify typology and provide definitions.

d) Provide guidance on calculation methods, measurement challenges and data sources, including utilisation of (new) data sources and ways to improve timeliness.

e) Provide guidance and examples of good practices in the dissemination and communication of current well-being measures.

f) Give leeway for national frameworks to adapt to country needs and the inclusion of country-specific indicators.

1.14 The Guidelines should consider existing frameworks and materials relevant for measuring well-being, including the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report, the Conference of European Statisticians Recommendations on Measuring Sustainable Development, the OECD Framework for Measuring Well-being and Progress and Eurostat’s quality of life indicators.

1.15 The Guidelines should consider existing initiatives, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), work on ‘beyond GDP’, the update of the System of National Accounts SNA, and work through the UN Statistics Commission’s Friends of the Chair Group on Social and Demographic Statistics.

1.16 This section provides a summary of the chapters and the Annex of the Guidelines.

Chapter 2 Key common principles of well-being measurement frameworks

1.17 The chapter outlines the background and key principles of the recommendations of the Guidelines. It highlights the growing international consensus around measuring well-being as an outcome-focused assessment of whether life is getting better for people. The chapter summarises the recommendations of several influential international reports and initiatives that have provided the conceptual basis for metrics of societal progress beyond GDP. The three principles these initiatives have in common, and which have informed the recommendations of these Guidelines, are 1) a distinction between current well-being and future well-being; 2) the understanding that well-being is multidimensional, covering different aspects of people’s lives; and 3) inclusion of both objective and subjective outcomes. The chapter also provides insights into the relationship between well-being measurement initiatives and related frameworks, such as the SDGs.

Chapter 3 Dimensions and indicators

1.18 The chapter provides a set of common dimensions to represent well-being and recommends core indicators for each dimension that can be used to monitor developments over time and to compare nations, regions, and population groups. The recommended dimensions and indicators of well-being build on existing international frameworks: the report of Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi (2009), the CES Recommendations on Measuring Sustainable Development (2014), the OECD Well-being Framework (2011), and Eurostat’s Quality of Life framework (2016). The chapter also provides definitions of key concepts, criteria for selecting indicators, and guidance on how to measure the distribution of well-being among population groups.

Chapter 4 Composite indicators

1.19 The chapter provides guidance on the construction of composite indicators of well-being. It discusses the methodological steps in building composite indicators of well-being and key issues and challenges that must be considered before a composite indicator can be constructed. The recommendations build on existing guidelines of the OECD and UNECE and aim to ensure a degree of international comparability and methodological consistency. The chapter discusses the weighting of individual indicators into composite measures and includes country examples of composite indicators.

Chapter 5 Communication

1.20 This chapter includes an overview of communication approaches for well-being frameworks, recommendations for analysis, development of visualisation and dashboards and examples of national communications practices. The chapter gives guidance on four stages of communication – stakeholder and user consultation, design and production, dissemination, and continuous evaluation – and on user segmentation and choice of communication channels. The chapter includes country examples.

Chapter 6 Developing a national well-being measurement framework

1.21 This chapter gives practical guidance on the development of a national framework for measuring well-being and outlines key considerations to consider in the development of the framework. The Chapter presents a step-by-step approach for developing a national framework to ensure a thorough process, engagement of users and stakeholders and a successful outcome and delivery. It provides guidance on engaging users and stakeholders to ensure buy-in, support and sustainability of the national framework.

Annex: Indicator documentation

1.22 For each indicator, the Annex includes information about the use of the indicator, type (objective/subjective), unit of measurement, data sources, frameworks and references to additional material.

1.23 During its work, the task force noted several topics where further work and research would be useful. These are listed and briefly described below. The listing also draws on the statistical agenda ahead formulated in past editions of the OECD’s How’s Life? 2020 Measuring Well-being series of reports.

Sharing of experiences and good practices among countries

1.24 Well-being indicators are new to many NSOs, and countries are at different stages with regard to the production of these types of indicators. It is, therefore, important to continue sharing experiences and good practices among countries and organisations on conceptual, methodological and measurement issues and challenges related to the communication of well-being indicators. International seminars or workshops, such as those already happening under the umbrella of the OECD Knowledge Exchange Platform on Well-being Metrics and Policy Practice, may be helpful to exchange national experiences and good practices on compiling and communicating well-being indicators.

Methodological issues

1.25 Methodological issues that would benefit from more work include the performance of well-being measures over time, regional/geographical breakdowns and the international comparability of well-being indicators. The measurement of distributions/inequalities also attracts large interest, including whether indicators that directly address inequalities or exclusion, such as the gender pay gap, should be included. It would also be helpful to share experiences on the compilation of composite measures and methods, and practices for weighting and aggregation of indicators into composite measures.

Timeliness

1.26 The timeliness of well-being statistics remains a challenge, as many indicators are produced with a considerable time lag, and other indicators may be compiled with low frequency. Improving timeliness would increase the indicators’ usefulness, including for real-time policy decisions. Sharing of experiences in exploiting data sources to improve timeliness would be helpful. This may include the use of monthly or other short-term statistics, improving the timeliness of existing data sources, and the use of administrative and new or alternative data sources (social media) and ‘live’ updates as new data becomes available​.

Communication of well-being indicators

1.27 The communication of well-being indicators is crucial to meet user needs and to establish well-being indicators as recognized statistics. Because of the multidimensional nature of well-being, communication must be carefully prepared, and sufficient documentation and explanations must be provided to ensure correct interpretation and use of the statistics. Further discussions and exchange of experiences on how to communicate and promote the use of well-being indicators will be helpful.

Developing measurement frameworks for sub-groups

1.28 The dimensions and indicators recommended in these Guidelines focus on the well-being of the whole population of a country and are most relevant to the adult working age population. There is a need to develop more tailored measurement frameworks for specific age groups, including children and the elderly, and for groups with different characteristics and needs, e.g., indigenous people, people with disabilities, and religious groups.

Linking current well-being to the measurement of sustainability and resilience

1.29 While these Guidelines focus on current well-being, the broader concept of well-being and initiatives related to progress beyond GDP include additional aspects such as future well-being (sustainability) and resilience. Hence, there is a need to consider how aspects related to sustainability and resilience can be linked to measures of current well-being and which additional dimensions and indicators could serve this purpose.

Development of indicators

1.30 Discussions and developments of indicators to better capture the dimensions of well-being will be useful. This includes indicators in the following dimensions:

Subjective well-being

1.31 The development and use of subjective indicators, including expanded aspects of affect, eudaimonia (including agency) and globally inclusive measures of subjective well-being, parts of which will be addressed in the updated OECD 2025 Guidelines for Measuring Subjective Well-being. For international comparisons of subjective measures, cultural impacts should be taken into consideration.

Material living conditions

1.32 More information on the joint distribution of household income, consumption and wealth and measures of income and wealth data that facilitate assessment of intra-household differences in economic resources (e.g. those associated with different gender roles). In the broader context of material living conditions, indicators of food security could also be considered.

Work and leisure

1.33 Consider the inclusion of indicators for child labour and forced labour. Job quality measures for self-employed and platform workers may also be considered, including increased use of time use data, which will also be needed for the measurement of unpaid work in the 2025 SNA.

Housing

1.34 Access to transport (public/private) and amenities/utility services (e.g., gas, electricity, heating/cooling, refuse and sewage collection) has a significant impact on living conditions in most countries. While not outcome indicators, there is a need to consider if and how these services could be included; to what extent their effect on well-being may be covered by other indicators, or if separate indicators could be recommended. Issues with data sources, accessibility, affordability and quality would also have to be considered.

Health

1.35 Consider further development and inclusion of indicators on healthy life expectancy, people’s functioning (i.e. whether they can perform daily activities, including self-care), risk factors that may contribute to worsening overall health and mental health outcomes, such as childhood obesity and adverse childhood experiences. An indicator of perceived mental health should also be considered.

Knowledge and skills

1.36 Consider the development of indicators on the share of people who feel they have the knowledge and skills they need, satisfaction with educational opportunities, and socio-economic skills.

Physical safety

1.37 Consider the development of indicators on justice equity (e.g. % imprisoned by ethnicity) and exposure to cybersecurity risks.

Social connections

1.38 It would be helpful to identify opportunities to collaborate with the OECD and the Friends of the Chair Group on Social and Demographic Statistics to develop a validated short set of metrics on the structure, function and quality of social connections (see upcoming OECD work on measuring social connectedness). This may also include developing indicators on the sense of belonging and feeling able to express one's own cultural identity.

Environmental conditions

1.39 Consider indicators of biodiversity and indicators that reflect people’s feelings and evaluations of their environmental conditions and amenities, and improved measures of damage from, e.g. climate change and environmental disasters.

Digital well-being

1.40 Information technology and digital services impact many aspects of people’s lives, through work, social life and communication. Research in and development of indicators to capture the impact of information technology, artificial intelligence and digital services on different dimensions of well-being will be essential, considering the growing importance of these technologies and services.