Measured, Not Done? Inclusive Localisation as a Benchmark for SDG Indicators, Applied to SDG 6 in India and Tamil Nadu

The implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals rests on indicators, and their localisation to national and sub‐national frameworks is widely regarded as essential. Yet the polysemy of SDG localisation leaves us without criteria for determining when it succeeds. This article proposes such criteria. Combining social science indicator research with constructivist norm research, we conceptualise inclusive localisation with the help of three criteria of robust (continuous and disaggregated in their data), valid (measurement content corresponding to the normative content of the related target) and suitable (reflecting the challenges that matter locally). We apply these criteria to the SDG 6 indicators of the Global Indicator Framework, India's National Indicator Framework and Tamil Nadu's State Indicator Framework, a most likely case for successful localisation given India's frontrunner status and statistical capacity. However, none of the three frameworks meets our benchmark: data are not socially disaggregated, indicators substitute administrative status for the practice the target addresses, and locally decisive challenges such as caste‐based exclusion and climate‐induced hazards are not measured at all. We argue that these findings show the current discrepancy of SDG indicators in general and we develop three theses for debate. First, indicator localisation follows political priorities. Second, insufficiently localised indicators conceal unsustainable practices and thereby reinforce existing power structures. Third, inclusive localisation is both a prerequisite for the transformative potential of the SDGs and a safeguard against their misuse. Since the criteria require only published metadata and a sound understanding of the subject, they can be applied to any indicator framework.