The Geography Game in Sustainability: Oslo – Rome: 1 – 0

Some cities routinely top sustainability indexes. Their impressive rankings are often seen as beacons for the rest of the world. But do these top scores always signal groundbreaking new efforts—or are they also the result of advantages that some cities simply can't replicate?

The white paper, The Score is Not the Story reminds us: geography and context matter more than we think.

"Countries built on strong welfare systems and national sustainability policies—often in Northern Europe—tend to score higher, because many criteria are already addressed at national or city level. The tourism sector benefits from an existing foundation of infrastructure, public services, and data access, rather than shouldering the responsibility alone."

Put simply, success in sustainability rankings isn't random or the result of "cheating"—it's often the culmination of decades of collective investment. Recognising this context doesn't diminish cities' efforts. Instead, it helps us understand why some start the "game" on higher ground and why destinations like Rome, despite genuine, behind-the-scenes progress, find themselves playing catch-up.

And to be fair: we also know for 100% that sustainability managers in cities that rank on top of the list the ranking didn't get the points for free either. There's lot's of efforts, work and thinking gone into the achievement.

Beware the "One-size-fits-all" Metric

Standardized sustainability metrics fail to account for different starting lines. Mature transport systems and public utilities, embedded over generations, are rewarded by indexes—but not every city had the same opportunity to build those foundations. Most indexes apply the same criteria everywhere, whether a city is rural, coastal, mountainous, or has a very different economic history. The result? Skewed comparisons and plenty of "incomparable data in the global context," as Green Destinations CEO Albert Salman puts it.

Apples or Oranges

Treating radically different places the same way flattens complexity. The solution? Compare like with like. Cities should benchmark themselves against others with similar geographies, economies, or sustainability maturity—Nordics with Nordics, Mediterranean destinations with each other, or similar-sized cities facing comparable challenges. As the whitepaper suggests, "compare yourself with other places like you"—not against places that had a head start thanks to their context.

Smarter Benchmarking and looking at Progress

The real purpose of benchmarking isn't to create league tables. Done well, it's about using data to understand your unique journey, spot opportunities for improvement, and celebrate authentic, context-sensitive progress.

Thomas Laurell from Stockholm Business Region nails it:

"We use the GDS-Index to track our development—not for rankings. The reports help guide what to improve for the following year."

Bottom line: Universal metrics will never capture the full, living story of a place. Progress should be about meaningful improvement, not just about moving up the table. As the VivaCity white paper concludes: "What indexes offer is a beginning, not a blueprint. Real sustainability begins where their reach ends: in the daily work of rethinking systems, redistributing power, and reconnecting people to their place."

Place Generation captured their reflections in a whitepaper: The Score is Not the Story, produced by CityDNA in partnership with Simpleview/Granicus to share with other cities.