Not surprisingly, countries and governments differ in how much they have recognised environmental problems. Although all countries have likely introduced environmental policies and institutions, some have taken further steps than others in their efforts to address environmental issues and have often been recognised as environmental leaders. Yet, such assessments are debatable as they are based on relatively narrow interpretations of “environmental performance”. As discussed on the environmental integration page, effectively addressing the environmental challenge requires recognising the multifaceted and interconnected nature of the environment and the human impacts thereon, as well as a comprehensive and integrated approach to managing these issues. Arguably, some countries have been leaders in tackling these issues more comprehensively, but they have still only done so in limited ways. In fact, no country can be said to have a comprehensive and sustained record of environmental integration across all six areas (sub-challenges) of the Environmental Integration Matrix. Governments that have recognised the need for a more comprehensive approach have commonly emphasised some of the sub-challenges and developed what can be characterised as a skewed pattern of environmental integration.
Here, I discuss some issues linked to environmental performance assessment and the limitations of some of the most common approaches. This will highlight the variability between assessments to the point that performance rankings appear almost arbitrary. I also present a list of criteria for what I consider to be a more meaningful assessment of a country’s environmental performance, based on the environmental integration matrix. This framework is used on other pages to assess the environmental performance of the United States, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Sweden.
Environmental performance and leaders: A few words of caution
Much, if not most, of the literature in comparative environmental politics and policy has been written to assess and explain the relative performance of countries or governments regarding environmental issues. Here, I dip only into some of that literature to raise a few points of caution about the limitations of the notion of environmental leadership, notably in assessing environmental integration efforts. The main argument is that there appears to be little consistency in how environmental performance has been defined in the literature, making the concept of environmental leadership problematic. Moreover, most definitions are based on a narrow interpretation of the environment, and hence of environmental performance, making them unsuitable for assessing the environmental integration efforts of countries and governments.
While the field of comparative environmental policy and politics, which emerged in the 1970s, has been and remains primarily focused on identifying and explaining differences in approaches to environmental issues between countries,[1] it has also led to some countries gaining a reputation as environmental pioneers or leaders. Although initially, such characterisations tended to be based on mostly qualitative research comparing only a handful of countries, over time, a growing number of researchers have attempted to provide a more quantitative (scientific or “objective”) basis for assessing the environmental performance of a greater number of countries. For instance, several authors have used data on pollution collected by the OECD as a basis for assessing and analysing variations in the environmental record of countries.[2] In these efforts, the trend has been towards broadening the environmental data basis (a wider range of measures and longer time series) and increasing the number and range of countries included, as reflected in studies that rely on the ENVIPOLCON data set.[3] Arguably, the most comprehensive assessment, in terms of criteria and the number of countries included, is the Environmental Policy Index (EPI) produced biannually by the Centre for Environmental Law and Policy of Yale University.[4]
Based on these studies, several countries have been identified as good environmental performers or leaders. Jahn found that the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Japan, Finland and Belgium had “a more positive environmental performance”. At the same time, Scruggs concluded that Germany had the best performance, followed by Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and Austria.[5] Liefferink identified Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria as the top three performers, followed by Sweden, Italy, and Finland.[6] Sweden, the United States, and Japan are typically regarded as having led the way in the early 1970s, but the latter two are considered to have lost momentum in the subsequent decades. Belgium, France, and Italy are often grouped together as middle performers in environmental terms.[7]
However, it is worth noting that there is no complete consensus on who the environmental leaders are. For instance, in Knill’s study, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark are not in the top group of “all-time” best performers (between 1970 and 2000), with Denmark even depicted as a laggard.[8] Germany, Austria, and Switzerland are ranked as the top three, while Italy, Hungary, Belgium, France, and the Netherlands make up the rest of the leaders’ group. The picture becomes even more confusing when we look at the rankings of countries in Yale’s Environmental Policy Index. Because the indicators on which the EPI is based have changed frequently over the years, the scores and rankings of countries over time are not comparable, which limits their usefulness in identifying consistent environmental leaders. Yet, the EPI’s rankings have produced surprising results over the years, as shown in the Table below.
Even considering that the indicators on which the EPI rankings are based have been amended over time, making them not comparable, it is striking that Germany made it into the top ten performers only once, in 2014, only to drop back to 30th place in 2016. This put it well behind Finland, which in 2016 took first place, and Greece (in 21st place), a country found to be a ‘laggard’ in Knill’s research.[9] In 2016, the Netherlands was ranked 36th, several steps below Russia (32nd place).[10] Among the countries that have often been identified as environmental leaders in other studies, Sweden has consistently ranked among the top ten in the EPI tables, despite amendments to the indicators. However, given the rather erratic changes in the EPI’s rankings of most countries, one cannot help but doubt the merits of this approach to assessing the environmental performance of countries, for any year.
Environmental Performance Index – Rankings of Selected Countries
| Year Country | 2006 | 2008 | 2010 | 2012 | 2014 | 2016 |
| Denmark | 7 | 25 | 32 | 21 | 13 | 4 |
| Finland | 3 | 4 | 12 | 19 | 18 | 1 |
| Germany | 22 | 13 | 17 | 11 | 6 | 30 |
| Japan | 14 | 21 | 20 | 23 | 26 | 39 |
| Netherlands | 27 | 55 | 47 | 16 | 11 | 36 |
| New Zealand | 1 | 7 | 15 | 14 | 16 | 11 |
| Norway | 18 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 17 |
| Sweden | 2 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 3 |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 14 | 14 | 9 | 12 | 12 |
| United States | 28 | 39 | 61 | 49 | 33 | 26 |
Even this cursory overview of the research on the environmental leadership of countries gives reason for caution about using such characterisations and rankings of countries. This extends beyond the observation that the performance of countries in such assessments commonly changes over time. Countries that at some stages were considered to be good performers or even leaders can indeed become poorer performers or even laggards at some later point in time, and vice versa. This is perhaps hardly surprising and illustrates that environmental commitment and performance often vary from government to government, arguably to the point that it is questionable whether it is appropriate to speak of the environmental performance of countries rather than governments. While there is still much merit in analysing environmental (policy) developments on a country basis, given the variety of factors that affect these developments (discussed on the country performance pages), we should be very cautious to ascribe environmental leadership status to countries based on assessments like those referred to above, for several reasons apart from the variability in rankings.
First, such assessments are based on widely different conceptualisations and methodologies. Some conceive of performance in terms of policy outputs (such as legislation, and pollution standards), and do not consider matters related to implementation and enforcement. Others are based on changes in environmental indicators over time, for instance, for pollution, and assume that such changes can be attributed to government policies, not considering the possible role of factors like economic growth or decline, changes in other environmental conditions, such as weather, droughts and cross-border movements, for instance, of air pollution, waste, or dirty industries. Some, like the EPI, are based on a mix of both types of variables but do not systematically link changes in environmental conditions to policy outputs and their implementation, providing little to no analysis or explanation.
Also, assessments are often based on questionable assumptions, criteria, and databases. For instance, many comparisons equate environmental performance foremost with pollution control, reflecting a narrow interpretation of the environmental challenge. Related to that, the criteria used are often skewed towards a particular range of environmental problems, even though these may not be equally relevant to all the countries involved, for instance, when some forms of pollution are more prevalent in some countries than others. Some assessments are based on the most stringent policies or standards adopted by a particular country (often referred to as the leader) or on internationally agreed-upon targets, regardless of how inadequate or debatable these may be. This can lead to high scores being assigned, suggesting that many countries are doing very well in addressing the environmental challenge. For example, in the EPI’s 2016 report, more than forty countries scored 80% or higher, and the top three scored even more than 90%, which is not too far from a perfect score.[11] Additionally, the data and information on which assessments rely often have significant gaps, which can raise reliability issues. Given such differences and problems, it is understandable that evaluations and rankings of environmental performance differ, sometimes surprisingly so, and are always subject to debate.[12]
More fundamentally, most environmental performance assessments give a misleading impression of the extent to which countries and governments are effectively addressing the environmental challenge. Based on a narrow and fragmented interpretation of this challenge, most evaluations assume that this challenge is merely a collection of separate issues that can be addressed or even resolved individually, notably by adopting more stringent policies for each of these issues. This interpretation of, and approach to, environmental problems overlooks the interconnected nature of the environment, as well as the multifaceted impacts of environmental policies and the role and importance of non-environmental cognitive frameworks and institutions. In particular, many of these assessments do not consider the extent to which the causes of environmental problems, most of which lie outside the realm of environmental policy, notably in the economic, transport, energy, and agricultural sectors, are or have been addressed. Although some assessments include indicators for energy production or consumption, they have little, if anything, to say about whether governments have seriously committed themselves to, and are in the process of, integrating environmental considerations across all sectors that harbour most of the drivers behind environmental problems.
Given the shortcomings and limitations of the assessments of environmental policy performance discussed above, and their misleading nature as scorecards for the efforts and achievements of governments in addressing the multifaceted and interconnected nature of the environmental challenge, they provide poor guidance for identifying which countries or governments have undertaken more serious efforts towards environmental integration, and to what effect. This is not to dismiss the value or merits of quantitative assessments of environmental performance studies – they can indicate which countries have tended to take environmental issues more or less seriously, and a range of important factors. However, we must examine more qualitative comparative research to identify countries or governments that have adopted and developed a more comprehensive approach to addressing the environmental challenge, even if not consistently.
Assessing environmental integration performance
As discussed on the Environmental Integration page, environmental integration can be conceived of as encompassing six sub-challenges that are all interrelated and must be addressed in a concerted manner if environmental problems are to be tackled more effectively. These sub-challenges, summarised in the Environmental Integration Matrix, are:
- The development of an overarching cognitive framework, comprising both knowledge about the environment and how it “works” and a collective vision of what constitutes a desirable environment (cognitive-internal EI).
- The incorporation of the core components of that framework into non-environmental cognitive frameworks, notably those that guide decisions, policies and institutions related to science, technology, and the economy (cognitive-external EI).
- The development of comprehensive and coherent environmental policy, linked to the overarching cognitive framework (policy-internal EI).
- The integration of the core components of that policy into non-environmental policy areas (policy-external EI).
- The creation of strong overarching and enduring environmental institutions that guide and support environmental integration across the board (Institutional-internal EI).
- The greening of non-environmental institutions (institutional-external EI).
Based on this framework, the environmental integration performance of four countries (the United States, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Sweden) that, in some respects and/or at some stage, are considered to have been pioneers or leaders, is discussed on separate pages.
References
[1] Lundqvist, Lennart J. (1974), “Do Political Structures Matter in Environmental Politics? The Case of Air Pollution Control in Canada, Sweden, and the United States”, Canadian Public Administration, Vol.17, No.1, 119-141; Enloe, Cynthia (1975), The Politics of Pollution in Comparative Perspective. New York: David McKay; Wall, G. (1976), “National Coping Styles: Policies to Combat Environmental Problems”, International Journal of Environmental Studies, Vol.9, 239-245; Lundqvist, Lennart J. (1980), The Hare and the Tortoise: Clean Air Policies in the U.S. And Sweden. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; Vogel, David (1986), National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; Vogel, David and Veronica Kun (1987), “The Comparative Study of Environmental Policy: A Review of the Literature”, in M. Dierkes, et al. (eds.), Comparative Policy Research. Learning from Experiences. Berlin: WZB Publications, 99-171.
[2] Crepaz, Markus M.L. (1995), “Explaining National Variations of Air Pollution Levels: Political Institutions and Their Impact on Environmental Policy-Making”, Environmental Politics, Vol.4, No.3, 391-414; Jahn, Detlef (1998), “Environmental Performance and Policy Regimes: Explaining Variations in 18 OECD-Countries”, Policy Sciences, Vol.31, No.2, 107-131; Scruggs, Lyle (2003), Sustaining Abundance: Environmental Performance in Western Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3] Liefferink, Duncan, et al. (2009), “Leaders and Laggards in Environmental Policy: A Quantitative Analysis of Domestic Policy Outputs”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.16, No.5, 677-700; Knill, Christoph, et al. (2012), “Really a Front-Runner, Really a Straggler? Of Environmental Leaders and Laggards in the European Union and Beyond — a Quantitative Policy Perspective”, Energy Policy, Vol.48, 36-45; Sommerer, Thomas and Sijeong Lim (2016), “The Environmental State as a Model for the World? An Analysis of Policy Repertoires in 37 Countries”, Environmental Politics, Vol.25, No.1, 92-115.
[4] Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy (2016), Environmental Performance Index. Global Metrics for the Environment, Yale University, http://epi.yale.edu/ (Accessed: 29 July 2016).
[5] Jahn, Detlef (1998), “Environmental Performance and Policy Regimes: Explaining Variations in 18 OECD-Countries”; Scruggs, Lyle (2003), Sustaining Abundance: Environmental Performance in Western Democracies.
[6] Liefferink, Duncan, et al. (2009), “Leaders and Laggards in Environmental Policy: A Quantitative Analysis of Domestic Policy Outputs”.
[7] Knill, Christoph, et al. (2012), “Really a Front-Runner, Really a Straggler? Of Environmental Leaders and Laggards in the European Union and Beyond — a Quantitative Policy Perspective”, 37-38; Liefferink, Duncan, et al. (2009), “Leaders and Laggards in Environmental Policy: A Quantitative Analysis of Domestic Policy Outputs”.
[8] Knill, Christoph, et al. (2012), “Really a Front-Runner, Really a Straggler? Of Environmental Leaders and Laggards in the European Union and Beyond — a Quantitative Policy Perspective”, 41-42.
[9] Ibid., 41.
[10] Hsu, A. et al. (2016), 2016 Environmental Performance Index. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 18.
[11] Ibid.
[12] For instance, many environmental advocates in New Zealand challenged the EPI architects on the high scores obtained by their country – it was even ranked first in 2006 – because much of the data/information on which the scores were based did not match the reality on the ground. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Environmental Performance Index. Global Metrics for the Environment.node/12129