What’s Your Rank in the World’s Greenest Countries?
(Credit: University of West Indies)
A most interesting report was released this month (October 2014) by Dual Citizen, a private US-based consultancy. It ranks the world’s greenest countries – but here’s the really interesting part. They’re ranked by their green performance – but also by our perceptions of how green they are.
That leads to some really interesting findings – for example, Sweden is the world’s greenest country, but Germany is perceived to be the most green, even though it isn’t quite up there.
You can download the full report here , or read my country-by-country summary of the report here.
Find your country below, see how it compares globally, and read what the report says about the country’s performance.
Summary and Highlights
Sweden is the world’s greenest country – but it’s perceived as being the 3rd greenest, after Germany and Denmark. The Nordic countries and Germany have consistently performed well in terms of their environmental leadership, and they communicate well so they are held in high regard for their green actions.
Norway ranks as #2 greenest country, but is perceived as #4. Germany and Brazil are perceived as making the most constructive efforts towards improving their climate change performance. Yet according to the recently released PwC Low Carbon Economy Index, Germany and Brazil both registered an increase in the carbon intensity of their economies in 2013, and in the case of Brazil, an average increase over the past five years as well.
Spain, Austria, Iceland, Brazil and Ireland all perform well, but do not register the same on the perception side. Thus, better strategic communications and information exchange should be a priority.
Australia performs near the top for Environment & Natural Capital, but its performance is poor on Climate Change.
Country Listings – Alphabetical Order
Argentina – Performance Rank # 48 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 47
Argentina’s mid-range performance ranking slightly exceeds its perception score, meaning that there is significant room for improvement in both Argentina’s green performance and in the communication of its green endeavours. Compared to other countries in South America, Argentina scores poorly on Leadership & Climate Change and on sustainable building.
Australia – Performance Rank # 37 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 11
Australia’s debate over a carbon tax has thrust the country into the international spotlight this year. Australia’s perception score significantly exceeds its actual performance, mainly due to its very poor ranking in Leadership & Climate Change (last). This poor result is due to negative media coverage, unconstructive behaviour in international forums and poor climate change performance, even though it has reduced the the carbon intensity of its economy over the last year.
Austria – Performance Rank # 7 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 17
Austria significantly outperforms its green perception rankings mainly due to its energy sector and commitment to sustainable tourism – Austrian leadership could build international recognition of their positive performance in these areas, as well as the vitality of Austria’s domestic market for green investment and business development.
Belgium – Performance Rank # 47 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 30
Covered for the first time this year, Belgium exhibits mediocre results for both perceptions and performance. Belgium performs near the bottom of EU states, but Belgium’s head of state, favourable media coverage and constructive contributions to international forums on climate change contribute to the more positive perception result. Belgium has work to do to improve its performance relative to other EU nations.
Brazil – Performance Rank # 18 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 15
Brazil’s overall perception and performance scores are close, but it held a Top 10 position in the 2012 report. Brazil has a vital market for cleantech commercialization, and an attractive domestic climate for investment in renewables. It is perceived as making constructive efforts towards improving its climate change performance, but with significant natural resources and rising economic power, Brazil can do more to improve its future performance on forests and water.
Burkina Faso – Performance Rank # 41 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 55
Burkina Faso’s performs better than its green reputation, which shows that the country needs to better communicate its green merits. It scores highly in agriculture and fisheries, as well as in green leadership through international forums and media recognition of its commitment to pursuing a green development model.
Cambodia – Performance Rank # 42 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 53
Covered for the first time this year, Cambodia’s results shows some areas of good green economic performance, but very limited recognition for them – there is work to be done to better position its efforts to global audiences. Cambodia performs quite well on Leadership & Climate Change as well as Efficiency Sectors, but not on Markets & Investment, nor on Environment & Natural Capital, where focused efforts are needed.
Canada – Performance Rank # 29 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 12
Canada’s has mixed results, as it did in previous editions of this report. Canada’s green economy is quite strong, but its performance score is relatively poor, dragged down by its Leadership & Climate Change actions. The country’s head of state, media coverage, behaviour in international forums and climate change performance are all extremely low, yet it is not perceived as such.
Chile – Performance Rank # 19 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 35
Chile way outperforms its overall perception – there are huge opportunities for better green branding and communications. Chile ranked in the Top 10 for Environment and Natural Capital measures, surpassing other South American nations, due mainly to its prevention of deforestation. Chile’s excellent performance on buildings and tourism also went mostly unnoticed by the experts – there is a strong need for better communicating Chile’s commitment to sustainability.
China – Performance Rank # 55 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 13
China is perceived as a leading target for investment and green product development, along with the United States and Germany. But its actual performance is sadly lacking, particularly in the area of Environment & Natural Capital where it ranks last among the 60 nations in 2014.
Columbia – Performance Rank # 14 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 41
Colombia greatly outperforms perception rankings – better communication is needed about the country’s green merits and opportunities. Colombia has a strong result on its utilization of renewable energy and commitment to advancing sustainable tourism. Colombia is also a high performer in terms of international leadership on green economy, and global media appear to cover these efforts favourably. As well as better communication, Columbia should focus on its weakest ranking, the Markets & Investment dimension.
Costa Rica – Performance Rank # 3 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 14
Covered for the first time in this report, this small, upper-income nation performs well in the green economy and has built a vibrant green country brand around it. Costa Rica’s overall Top 3 result is due to good performance on both Efficiency and Environment & Natural Capital, making it one of only a few countries to achieve such strong results in both areas. Unlike similar nations that excel on the performance rank, Costa Rica is also recognized for it, a lesson in how smart communications and green country branding can pay off, regardless of country profile. Future efforts in Costa Rica should focus on Markets & Investment, where there is room for improvement.
Czech Republic – Performance Rank # 38 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 52
The Czech Republic sends out mixed signals. It exhibits very strong environmental performance, but (along with Poland) it is near the bottom of EU countries on Efficiency (due mainly to its relatively carbon inefficient economy). To improve this performance for the future, and hopefully perceptions as well, Czech leadership should focus on how to transform its economy to be less carbon intensive, an effort that should be aided by the strong business climate there for the innovation of cleantech products and services.
Denmark – Performance Rank # 5 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 2
Denmark continues to lead this report both in terms of perception and performance. A true green country brand, Denmark relentlessly communicates its commitment to green growth. Denmark generally ranks higher in perception compared to other Nordic nations, particularly as a vital market for cleantech investment and innovation. Greater environmental focus on fisheries and forests coupled with translating Denmark’s strong green policies into greater efficiency improvements in sectors like buildings and transport can improve Denmark’s score further in the future.
Ethiopia – Performance Rank # 26 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 37
Ethiopia’s overall performance exceeds how it is perceived, so better communication is required. Ethiopia tops the performance rankings on Leadership & Climate Change, due to the relatively low carbon intensity of its economy and national efforts to promote green measures through its Climate-Resilient Green Economy Strategy. Given its high GDP growth rate, Ethiopia should work on its performance in Markets & Investment and better articulate to investors the green investment opportunities there. It will also be critical to ensure that its carbon intensity remains low as development proceeds in efficiency sectors like buildings.
Finland – Performance Rank # 8 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 9
Finland continues to improve, ranking in the top 10 for both perception and performance. It ranks high on its efficiency, its vital market for green investments and its successful stewardship of the environment and natural capital. The challenge continues to be breaking through in comparison to its Nordic neighbours, who also focus strategically in these areas and generally outshine Finland on the perception survey. Efforts underway like Solved – an online cleantech advisory service – are smart examples of how to approach closing this gap in practice. Continued focus on strategic communications and networking should help to improve perceptions for the future.
France – Performance Rank # 13 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 20
Perceptions of France’s green performance lag slightly behind its actual performance, particularly in its Leadership & Climate Change, and Efficiency. However, it’s performance on Environment & Natural Capital is worse than it is perceived to be. One area of opportunity for France is Markets & Investment, where it is behind most of the other large EU economies in both perception and performance. France is attractive for renewable energy investment and the innovation of cleantech products and services..
Germany – Performance Rank # 4 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 1
Highly regarded, Germany is a case study in how a sensible, no-nonsense policy approach to green economy can translate into a glowing global green reputation. In the top 10 of most perception and performance scores, Germany is particularly dominant in Markets & Investment. Similar to other developed economies, Germany’s performance score is negatively impacted by the carbon intensity of its economy. Ensuring that Germany continues to reduce the carbon intensity of its economy as it phases out nuclear power will be critical for Germany to maintain its strong standing.
Ghana – Performance Rank # 54 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 46
Ghana’s performance exceeds perceptions, indicating the need for greater recognition of the country’s green leadership and low carbon-intensive economy. Although Ghana has one of the fastest growing economies in the world in terms of GDP, it ranks last on Markets & Investments, a clear indication that Ghana should focus on policies that enable a more vital climate for green investment, innovation and knowledge transfer. Ghana also exhibits worrisome environmental performance, and greater focus on its forests and air quality score are keys to improving this result.
Iceland – Performance Rank # 9 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 19
Iceland needs better communication about its green economy and associated market opportunities – it is doing better than it is seen to be. Iceland performs well due to its energy efficient economy with a high reliance on renewables for electricity generation and a strong commitment to the environment.
India – Performance Rank # 49 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 16
India scores a good perception result on Markets & Investment – investors continue to see the Indian market as appealing for renewable energy investment and the innovation and commercialization of cleantech products and services. While India’s actual performance on Markets & Investment lags behind perceptions of it, India’s greatest challenge relates to its low performance result in other areas – it ranks near the bottom on Leadership & Climate Change and Environment & Natural Capital performance. Serious efforts are required to address the country’s carbon inefficient economy and agriculture, air quality and water.
Indonesia – Performance Rank # 54 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 31
Indonesia ranks near the bottom of most dimensions except for Leadership & Climate Change. Buildings and transport are poor performers from a green perspective in Indonesia, while its energy and tourism sectors are only slightly better. Indonesia is perceived to be better than it is, showing that others have taken notice of the country’s efforts to begin to pursue more green growth pathways. If Indonesian leadership remains committed to these improvements, the country should start to see these efforts reflected in a higher ranking.
Ireland – Performance Rank # 11 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 33
Ireland clearly needs better communication about its green economy and associated market opportunities. While there is room for improvement, Ireland performs respectably in all the main performance areas. The challenge for Irish leadership is to communicate this performance and the associated opportunities to global audiences more effectively. One vivid example: Ireland ranks near the top in terms of being a vital market for cleantech innovation but the survey places Ireland near the bottom of EU nations on this topic in terms of how the country is perceived.
Israel – Performance Rank # 33 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 24
Israel performs quite well (top 20) on perception for a country of its size, due mainly to its perceived attractiveness as a target for green investments and the innovation and commercialization of cleantech products and services. While continuing to cement its reputation as a leader in these new markets and the innovations driving them, Israel’s future performance rank could be improved significantly with greater focus on greening efficiency sectors, most notably buildings, energy and transport.
Italy – Performance Rank # 25 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 29
Italy’s results are best described as average – but below the majority of EU states. However, it does show better climate change and environmental performance than many comparable EU countries. However, Italy does not seem to be regarded as a vital target for renewable energy investment – despite fairly good results on its performance. As Italy continues to struggle with broader fiscal challenges, leaders there should work towards a better climate for green investment, innovation and commercialization as a strategy for green growth and better rankings.
Japan – Performance Rank # 44 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 7
Japan experienced significant improvement in its perception survey results in 2014 as compared to 2012. It is perceived as particularly strong on Efficiency and Markets & Investment anchored by a perceived commitment to clean transport and cleantech innovation. Yet these perceptions aren’t confirmed by Japan’s performance results. In that regard, Japan ranks overall towards the bottom of OECD nations. A relatively carbon intensive economy negatively impacts Japan’s performance, despite better performance results for Markets & Investment and Environment & Natural Capital. Japan should continue to promote renewable energy development to offset its phasing out of nuclear power as a strategy for improving its future performance score.
Kenya – Performance Rank # 17 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 26
Contrary to perceptions, Kenya excels in performance rankings on Leadership & Climate Change due to the low-carbon intensity of its economy and relatively strong green leadership. Much like neighbouring Ethiopia, however, Kenya performs poorly on the Markets & Investment dimension, driven by a lack of perceived opportunities for renewable energy investment and growth. For the future, Kenya should focus on facilitating investment opportunities to maintain low-carbon intensity development in its efficiency and environmental sectors.
Malaysia – Performance Rank # 35 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 27
It’s Malaysia’s first time on this report, and the country displays average results both in terms of green performance and expert perceptions of it.. On the performance side, Malaysia ranks in the top 10 Markets & Investments, revealing an opportunity to focus more resources on educating global investors about these opportunities. But the country’s performance result on Efficiency and Environment & Natural Capital are less encouraging, and Malaysian leadership should focus policies around improving these results for the future.
Mauritius – Performance Rank # 23 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 34
Mauritius performs well in its first listing on this report, with its performance surpassing expert perceptions due mostly to impressive results on Environment & Natural Capital. Mauritius is near the top in performance here, driven by its results in the air quality and agriculture sub-categories. (I live here, and we apparently have the 2nd best air quality in the world – it certainly feels that way!). But Mauritius performs quite poorly on Efficiency – despite stronger perception results – due to insufficient communication around sustainable tourism and limited renewable energy integration with its overall economy. Given its reputation as a tourist destination and the existence of some efforts to more formally integrate sustainable tourism, Mauritius should advertise better how to visit the island in a sustainable way. (Agreed – sustainability really isn’t big here, sadly).
Mexico – Performance Rank # 31 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 28
Mexico’s overall perception and performance rank are basically equal, and provide opportunities for improvement. While Mexico ranked in the top 10 last time on perceptions of its Leadership performance, its position has fallen significantly in this year’s edition. On the other aspects, it exhibits mediocre performance and perception results on Efficiency, Markets & Investment and Environmental & Natural Capital. One bright spot is sustainable tourism, where Mexico is ranked third in performance. Given that Mexico is a tourist destination, better green country branding through sustainable tourism may be a smart communications strategy for Mexican leadership to pursue.
Mongolia – Performance Rank # 60 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 57
Covered for the first time, Mongolia ranks towards the bottom of both the perception and performance rankings of the GGEI. Unlike some cases where a poor overall ranking is associated with stronger results in one of the four GGEI dimensions, it is hard to identify this with regards to Mongolia. It is critical for Mongolian leadership to continue to vocalize their commitments to green economic growth and to build partnerships with initiatives like the United Nations Environment Program’s Partnership for Action on the Green Economy (PAGE), in order to slowly build the capacity to pursue green economic growth. Once this direction is established, Mongolia should have new opportunities to communicate and brand the country around green economy to global audiences.
Morocco – Performance Rank # 52 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 39
Covered for the first time on this year’s GGEI, Morocco exhibit s mediocre results for both perceptions and performance. Morocco receives an extremely low score on the Efficiency Sectors dimension, both in terms of perception and performance, due to a lack of sustainable building and relatively high emissions from the transport sector. Morocco has articulated its commitment to the green economy model through recent initiatives, including renewable energy and sustainable tourism, and continued policy commitment and communications in these areas will be critical to improved GGEI results in the future.
Mozambique – Performance Rank # 53 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 50
Mozambique ranks poorly overall, both in terms of its perception and performance, indicating that the country needs to make significant progress in nearly all areas measured by the GGEI. Mozambique does perform relatively well on the Leadership & Climate Change dimension due to the relatively low carbon intensity of its economy, but it ranks near the bottom in terms of expert perceptions, suggesting a need for better communications on these topics by Mozambique’s leadership. Continued focus on Mozambique’s Green Economy Roadmap and its recently approved Plan of Action will bolster this effort. Mozambique should also pay close attention to its low performance score on the Environment & Natural Capital dimension, particularly the forestry and water sub-categories.
Netherlands – Performance Rank # 21 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 5
The Netherlands reveals a huge disparity between how ‘green’ people think it is, and how it is performing in reality. The Dutch green brand appears to be firmly entrenched, scoring in the top 10 of every category of this report – but it shows considerably weaker performance in all areas. Focus is required on performance with regards to the environment, climate change and to a lesser extent, efficiency sectors. The Netherlands has one of the lowest scores in the EU for climate change, and the relative carbon inefficiency of the Dutch economy drags down its performance on Efficiency as well.
New Zealand – Performance Rank # 12 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 18
New Zealand has long dominated the sustainable tourism category of the report, and continues to rank in the top 20 for both perception and performance this year. New Zealand gets consistently good marks, with the exception of Markets & Investment, where it received the lowest score of any OECD country. This extremely low score on the perception survey should be a call to action for leadership there. While the country appears to be firmly recognized as a green country brand in a broad sense, outreach in the future should focus more on business opportunities related to the green economy in order to better educate global markets.
Norway – Performance Rank # 2 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 4
Norway receives high marks in terms of perception and performance, ranking in the top 5 for both. Despite being a significant exporter of oil and gas, Norway takes care of its green economy at home, and our survey respondents clearly applaud these efforts. Norway exhibits unusually high results throughout the report – other nations endowed with significant fossil fuel reserves should take note of Norway’s approach and successes in this realm. One area for improvement might be Markets & Investment, where our survey respondents place Norway below the other Nordics as an attractive target for green investments, a perception matched by Norway’s performance score. Norwegian leadership can better convey these market opportunities in the future.
Panama – Performance Rank # 51 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 59
Panama places nearly last in its overall perception ranking, and though it slightly exceeds this in its performance scores, it is clear that Panama must make a concerted effort to improve in most areas of the report. Panama performs relatively well on Environment & Natural Capital due to good scores in agriculture and biodiversity. But it ranks quite poorly in Markets & Investments, indicating that promoting renewable energy and other green investment opportunities must become a priority for Panamanian leadership. Attracting outside investment will help bolster performance scores in low-performing Efficiency areas such as transport, and improve international recognition of Panama as it moves towards developing its green economy.
Peru – Performance Rank # 16 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 32
Covered for the first time, the report reveals a variety of areas for Peru to build upon as it positions its green economy globally. Overall, Peru’s performance exceeds perceptions of it, suggesting that communications should be one priority focus area. Peru performs quite well in all areas, but still has a ways to go to seriously compete with larger South American economies like Brazil or powerful green brands like Costa Rica. Peru should continue its high-level advocacy for green economic growth by heads of state and through partnerships with capacity-building international efforts. Once a clear green economy roadmap is defined, Peruvian leadership can employ strategic communications to begin building the country’s global green brand.
Philippines – Performance Rank # 32 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 38
Perceptions and performance of the Philippine’s green economy are generally aligned. The country’s strongest perception is on Leadership & Climate Change. On the performance side of the ledger, the Philippines scores particularly poorly on Environment & Natural Capital and, to a lesser extent, Efficiency. A genuine focus on improvement in these two realms should help enhance the country’s green reputation overall for the future.
Poland – Performance Rank # 56 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 42
Poland ranks near the bottom of EU countries overall on perception. The performance results are also weak for Poland across the board, most notably its low score related to engaging on green economy issues through international forums. The COP19 in Warsaw (2013) seems to have highlighted Poland’s green economy in a negative light, and it is unlikely future results will be any different in lieu of a sharpened policy focus in this area by Polish leadership.
Portugal – Performance Rank # 15 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 40
Portugal needs better communications to advance global understanding of its green economy and associated market opportunities. The country does not excel in any one area, making it difficult to identify priority areas to focus on from a communications point of view. One place to start could be its Markets & Investment opportunities, as Portugal performs ahead of many EU states as a target for renewable energy investment.
Qatar- Performance Rank # 58 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 43
Qatar’s first year in this report reveals that leaders there have a lot of opportunities to improve both the country’s green economic performance and perceptions of it. Qatar received low recognition for its efforts around green economy, suggesting that better communications are needed. The carbon intensity of Qatar’s economy is a significant factor in its low performance score, as this impacts their rank on Leadership & Climate Change, and Efficiency. One positive area might be the Environment & Natural Capital dimension, where Qatar actually performs slightly better than it is perceived.
Rwanda – Performance Rank # 27 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 48
Rwanda is a clear case where better communications are required to advance global understanding of its green economy and associated market opportunities. Overall, Rwanda’s performance score greatly exceeds its perception one, and with continued focus on green economic growth Rwanda could quickly become the top performing African nation in this report. Already, Rwanda ranks as the top African performing nation on Markets & Investment, but its corresponding perception rank here is extremely low. A similar narrative is observed with in Leadership & Climate Change, and Efficiency. As a small country, Rwanda has an opportunity to pursue a focused approach to communicating its green economic merits globally, and these actions should help improve its score for the future.
Senegal – Performance Rank # 57 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 60
Senegal’s first year of reporting reveals that leaders there have a lot of opportunities to improve both the country’s green economic performance and perceptions of it. Senegal received low recognition in all areas. A good place to start might be for leaders there to continue their constructive engagement through international forums and the media related to green economy. Greater engagement here, coupled with better articulation of its approach to the other dimensions of the report should help to improve Senegal’s results in the future.
Slovakia – Performance Rank # 50 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 56
Slovakia’s performance reveals a mixed picture. On the one hand, the country exhibits strong environmental performance, ranking near the top 10. But much like the Czech Republic, Slovakia is near the bottom of performance on both Efficiency and Markets & Investment. To improve this performance for the future, and hopefully perceptions as well, Slovakian leadership should focus on building carbon efficiencies in sectors, something already observed somewhat in the buildings sector. Another approach here could be to improve the emphasis on green investment facilitation through its government bodies, an area where Slovakia currently performs quite poorly.
South Africa – Performance Rank # 34 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 22
South Africa has some encouraging results on perceptions in all four of the report dimensions. South Africa’s challenge is more on performance, particularly with regards to Efficiency and Markets & Investment. South Africa’s buildings and transport sectors demand efficiency improvements, something that would be aided by greater renewable energy capacity in the overall economy. South Africa performs quite well in terms of attractiveness for renewable energy investment. Building on this foundation for its broader green economy should help to improve South Africa’s performance results for the future.
South Korea – Performance Rank # 39 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 23
South Korean leadership has taken concrete steps towards pursuing green growth and promoting it globally, notably through the founding of the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI). However, the report suggests that these efforts are not translating into a stronger green reputation for South Korea. South Korea’s performance result is even lower, driven by the relative carbon inefficiency of its economy and surprisingly poor environmental performance. Addressing these shortcomings and capitalizing on South Korea’s stronger performance on the Markets & Investment dimension should help to improve its future results.
Spain – Performance Rank # 10 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 21
Spain is another case where better information exchange is required to advance global understanding of its green economy and associated market opportunities. This is because Spain generally performs a lot better than it is perceived. While the Spanish green brand has suffered in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, its performance remains strong on Markets & Investment. And while Spain’s result on Environment & Natural Capital is nearly the top of EU countries, our perception survey does not register a similarly positive result. Targeted efforts to bridge these gaps between perception and performance should serve Spain well in the future.
Sweden – Performance Rank # 1 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 3
It is difficult to find a weak spot in the Swedish results. What is perhaps most impressive is that the country does so well on both Efficiency and Environment & Natural Capital. Much like Germany, Sweden is a best practice case for how to translate a genuine commitment domestically to green economy into a strong global green reputation. Unlike Germany, though, Sweden still has some work to do on Markets & Investment where despite being in the top 10, there seems to be room for improvement. The various efforts already underway to better position Sweden as a target for green investments should improve this aspect in the future.
Switzerland – Performance Rank # 6 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 10
Overall, perceptions and performance are in the top 10 for both, but a closer look at the four dimensions of the report reveal growth opportunities. Switzerland doesn’t quite get the recognition it deserves. On both Efficiency and Markets & Investment, Switzerland’s performance exceeds perceptions of it. Further efforts by Swiss leadership to embed green market opportunities in their sophisticated global communications platforms should improve this perception ranking for the future.
Taiwan – Performance Rank # 30 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 46
Taiwan’s performance exceeds perceptions, suggesting a need to embed Taiwan’s green economic opportunities more clearly in the country’s extensive international communications campaigns. Overall, Taiwan’s performance is about average in all categories of the report, with the exception of Markets & Investment, where Taiwan slightly outperforms the average. This finding coupled with Taiwan’s surprisingly poor result in the perception survey suggests a need for strategic focus about how Taiwanese leadership intends to realize future green economic growth. Once this strategy is in place, the country’s existing communications platforms should be effective channels to convey to the market what these opportunities and achievements are.
Tanzania – Performance Rank # 36 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 36
Tanzania’s overall perception and performance scores are equal, and about average compared to other African states. Tanzania performs well in Leadership & Climate Change, but is weak in Environment & Natural Capital. In addition to evening out these results, Tanzanian leadership should think about what themes or sectors they intend to build their global green reputation around, and then develop the communications campaigns to educate the international community about them.
Thailand – Performance Rank # 45 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 51
Thailand scores quite poorly on both perception and performance in its first year covered on the report. The country’s relatively carbon inefficient economy coupled with a low contribution of renewable energy to its overall economy underlie this poor result and tends to drag down Thailand’s score. But there are some bright spots: Thailand performs fairly well around sustainable tourism and in some areas of Markets & Investment, most notably as a target for renewable energy investment and for national efforts to facilitate green investments. Continued focus on these relatively strong results coupled with fixing some of Thailand’s weaker ones will improve the country’s results for the future.
Turkey – Performance Rank # 43 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 44
Perceptions and performance of Turkey’s green economy are generally aligned. The country’s most concerning survey result is in Leadership & Climate Change, where Turkey ranks last of the 60 nations polled. Given its recent economic growth, one area Turkey should focus on developing is Markets & Investment. Already, Turkey has a respectable performance score in terms of its attractiveness for renewable energy investment. It also performs well in terms of national efforts to facilitate this investment. By building on these areas, Turkey can start to translate its overall economic growth into a stronger result.
United Arab Emirates – Performance Rank # 40 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 25
The UAE’s efforts around green branding – linked to Masdar, conference hosting, and funding for initiatives related to sustainable development – appear to be bearing fruit. The UAE’s overall result on the perception survey shows significant improvement from two years ago, where the country was barely recognized. This improvement in perception is particularly notable in Markets & Investment, where the UAE joins the top 20 for the first time. On the performance side, the UAE should focus on improving its efficiency sectors, as the nation’s carbon intensive economy drags down its score in the energy, tourism and transport categories significantly.
United Kingdom – Performance Rank # 20 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 8
As has been the case in previous editions, the UK’s performance in the green economy remains difficult to pinpoint. Generally, the country ranks quite well in the perception survey, exceeding the corresponding performance values in most cases except for Markets & Investment, where they are basically equal. The UK seems to suffer from inconsistent and sometimes negative political rhetoric related to green economy, which in turn may send mixed signals to the marketplace about the country’s policy commitment to more sustainable growth pathways. By tightening up its communications approach to the green economy, the UK could turn a good result into a great one.
United States – Performance Rank # 28 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 6
The United States is a difficult country to measure through a global index like this report due to its size and the power of individual states to dictate green policy. That said, the U.S. ranks surprisingly well in the perception survey, driven by high scores as a target for investment and green innovation, and the perception that the U.S. is successfully greening key sectors like buildings and transport. Despite also performing well in Markets & Investment, the U.S. has a long way to go in other areas, ranking poorly on climate change performance and on many environmental categories, most notably fisheries and forests.
Uruguay – Performance Rank # 22 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 58
Uruguay ranks near the bottom on perception survey, despite being 22 in the performance results. The country simply does not register globally, suggesting Uruguay should focus more on communicating its green economic values to global audiences. This task should be made easier by Uruguay’s strong green performance, driven by the relatively low carbon intensity of its economy and the high contribution of renewable sources to domestic electricity production. Linking these underlying strengths to Uruguay’s global positioning in the green economy should improve its results in the future.
Vietnam – Performance Rank # 59 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 45
Vietnam scores poorly on both the perception and performance measures of the report. Unfortunately, there is little silver lining to Vietnam’s performance score. The country exhibits poor sector performance, highlighted by a highly inefficient transport sector that is trending in the wrong direction. This translates directly into poor environmental performance, with low scores on air quality and most other categories. With its positive GDP growth rate of late, Vietnam should focus significant resources on improving its green economic performance in order to score better in future.
Zambia – Performance Rank # 24 out of 60 Greenest Countries. Perceived as # 49
Like Rwanda, Zambia is a clear case of an African nation with an opportunity to employ communications to advance its standing in the green economy. This is because Zambia’s overall performance score dramatically exceeds its perception one, with the country almost cracking the top 20 for performance yet ranking near the bottom of the perception survey. Zambia’s most compelling communications story at the moment appears to be related to Efficiency, where it ranks in the top 10 overall, driven by the extent to which renewable energy is part of its economy and a strong result related to the transport sector.
If you want to know how the report was compiled by Dual Citizen, see here for its methodology.
Interesting? Useful? Great! Spread the word – please Share (buttons below and right) and leave a Comment below – thank you!
Clare, that is a bundle of information with some very interesting results about perception and reality. Clearly some countries are managing to “pull the wool over the sheeps eyes” ie -good marketing to hide poor results and some are definitely “missing the boat” when it comes to perceptions among there own populace.