The doughnut economics' safe and just space (SJS) framework constitutes an innovative approach for measuring sustainable human well-being. However, since it was first published, little attention has been paid to the process of selecting the dimensions, indicators, and thresholds that shape the socially just space (social foundation). This thesis evaluates how adequate the social foundation is for measuring progress toward human prosperity. It seeks to identify potential shortcomings that need to be corrected so that the socially just space can serve as an accurate global-scale compass for human well-being. Likewise, it attempts to serve as input for future discussions on the suitability of the SJS framework for developing countries. The analysis comprises a critical review of the origins of the social foundation and an evaluation of its sufficiency in assessing human deprivations. The results reveal that Raworth's social foundation cannot grasp complex social challenges adequately; its scope is constrained but can be substantially enhanced without changing the criteria used for its establishment. The recommendations for improvement contemplate four new dimensions, five complementary and three substitute indicators, which result in a "reinforced socially just space" that depicts a considerably different snapshot in the current state of human deprivations than the one presented by Raworth.The doughnut economics' safe and just space (SJS) framework constitutes an innovative approach for measuring sustainable human well-being. However, since it was first published, little attention has been paid to the process of selecting the dimensions, indicators, and thresholds that shape the socially just space (social foundation). This thesis evaluates how adequate the social foundation is for measuring progress toward human prosperity. It seeks to identify potential shortcomings that need to be corrected so that the socially just space can serve as an accurate global-scale compass for human well-being. Likewise, it attempts to serve as input for future discussions on the suitability of the SJS framework for developing countries. The analysis comprises a critical review of the origins of the social foundation and an evaluation of its sufficiency in assessing human deprivations. The results reveal that Raworth's social foundation cannot grasp complex social challenges adequately; its scope is constrained but can be substantially enhanced without changing the criteria used for its establishment. The recommendations for improvement contemplate four new dimensions, five complementary and three substitute indicators, which result in a "reinforced socially just space" that depicts a considerably different snapshot in the current state of human deprivations than the one presented by Raworth.