“…The composite indicators are very convenient tools as they: (i) summarise multidimensional realities, (ii) are easier to interpret than a set of many separate indicators, (iii) reduce the visible size of a set of indicators without dropping the underlying information base, (iv) enable users to compare complex dimensions effectively (OECD JRC, 2008;Santos, Santos, 2014). Thus a growing interest in composite indicators should not be surprising as they may be applied in many different fields: innovation (Żelazny, Pietrucha, 2017;Balcerzak, Pietrzak, 2017a), health care system performance (Łyszczarz, 2016), real estate markets analysis (Małkowska, Głuszak, 2016) countries' competitiveness (Kruk, Waśniewska, 2017), socioeconomic development (Bartkowiak-Bakun, 2017), quality of institutions (Balcerzak, Pietrzak, 2017b), sustainable development , standard of living (Kuc, 2017) and many others. However, one has to be aware of the fact that they are not free of defects: (i) may be disused to support a desired policy, (ii) may disguise serious falling in some dimensions if a construction process is not transparent, (iii) are sensitive to normalization, aggregation and weighting methods, (iv) a selection of indicators and their weights may be subjective (OECD JRC, 2008;Ravallion, 2010, Paroulo, Saisana, Saltelli, 2013Santos, Santos, 2014).…”