Global Eco-Friendliness: The Best and Worst Performers in Environmental Sustainability

In 2018, Harvard scientists predicted that we had only five years to reverse the effects of climate change before its effects made modern life untenable. Six years later, we are still struggling to create lasting positive change, and governments, activists, and advocates are continuing to look for ways to improve the situation. 

Our topic, food, is a big part of the conversation, but it doesn’t paint the whole picture by itself. So, we at DeliveryRank wanted to examine which countries performed best and worst in several key environmental categories. Our goal was to create an overview of the situation to help promote environmental stewardship. 

By identifying global regions that are the most and least advanced in environmental preservation, we hope to help policymakers, officials, activists, and the general public learn what measures are effective, where certain areas are lacking, and how to adapt practices that produce long-term positive change.

We researched patterns concerning environmental laws and regulations in different countries using these key categories:

• Agricultural Land and Pesticide Use
• Animal Welfare
• Water Sanitation and Treatment
• Transportation Sustainability
• Air Pollution
• Energy Usage
• Waste Management
• Plastic Use and Regulation

In our research, we also looked at the possible influence of economic stability and other external circumstances on eco-friendliness.

Best and Worst Countries by Category

Our team studied a number of subcategories for each factor, posing questions about countries’ performance using different metrics. We then created scoring criteria that total 100 points for each major category. We used this rubric to rank countries according to general environmental stewardship efforts and implementation.

Agricultural Land & Pesticide Use

Our team used three standards to determine a country’s eco-friendliness in terms of food production. Specifically, we looked at the following data:

• Percentage of organic farming versus the total agricultural land available in the country
• Percentage of agricultural land versus the total land area in the country
• Nitrogen management and the sustainable use of pesticides

In 2024, nearly half of the world’s habitable land is being used for agricultural purposes. Of this area, 80% is used for livestock feed and grazing, and only 16% is used for crops raised for human consumption. The consensus is that having less land dedicated to farming, relative to the total land area in a country, helps maintain wild habitats and increases biodiversity. 

However, in areas like Africa, where desertification is a growing problem, creating arable land is one of the most effective ways to ensure a consistent food supply. This factor is important to note as we examine the results of our research for this category.

We used this rubric for ranking countries on sustainable food production:

Notably, none of the 140 countries studied in this category got full points. The issue likely arises from the relative lack of organic farming practices, as most countries generally scored better in the other two criteria. Only Austria and Estonia scored full marks for this subcategory, and 57 nations received no points, which means there are little to no organic farming systems in the country.

Similarly, only 22% of countries received 33.33 points for the percentage of agricultural land vs. total land area, and only 17% received 33.33 points for nitrogen management and sustainable pesticide use.

The highest scorers in this category received 89 points, and all are part of Europe. Also, no non-European country received a score higher than 67 points. In contrast, the six lowest-scoring countries come exclusively from Africa and Asia.

Of the 65 countries that made the top 50% of the list, 26 are from Europe, and 16 are from Asia. Africa has the lowest representation, with only six nations scoring 56 points and above. All North American countries made the list.

We found an intriguing trend in the regional view of the rankings. The southernmost countries in North America and northernmost countries in South America scored lower, while Canada, the United States, and the rest of South America all scored 66.66 points. 

The main difference was in nitrogen management and sustainable pesticide use. While many poor-performing North and South American countries scored 11.11 points, the rest of the regions mostly received 33.33 points and nothing lower than 22.22 points.

None of the best- and worst-performing countries were recorded to have high GDP contributions. Three of the four top-scoring countries are moderate contributors, while one (Estonia) is a low contributor. On the other hand, most of the least-ranked nations are low GDP contributors except Nigeria (moderate: 0.34%).

Animal Welfare

We posed the following questions for this category:

• Does the country have laws against fur production and use?
• Does the country have animal protection laws?
• Is animal testing for cosmetics manufacturing banned by the country’s government?

Based on these guidelines, we created the following scoring criteria:

Out of the 194 countries we studied for this category, we counted 25 that scored 100 points (12.9%), 62 with no points (32%), and 107 that scored between 33.33 and 66.67 points (55.2%).

We found that 21 of the 25 top-performing countries are part of Europe, while no African countries made it to the list. On the other hand, only three European countries were rated as one of the worst-performing nations. Instead, Africa dominates this list with 34 countries.

Our research showed great regional disparity regarding animal protection laws in Asia. While two Asian countries got the highest score, 19 were revealed to be some of the worst-performing in terms of animal welfare.

A closer look at the countries’ GDPs showed that most top-performing nations have a high or moderate contribution to the global GDP. A handful of countries have low GDP contributions but still received top scores. Meanwhile, none of the worst-performing countries have a high global GDP contribution.

The existence of relevant laws for this category doesn’t ensure effective implementation. For example, animal protection laws can be difficult to enforce. Violators are not always penalized because the process often requires a plaintiff with enough resources to prosecute. Public awareness also plays a role, as citizens may not be familiar with how to report cases of animal cruelty.

Moreover, countries that ban animal testing for cosmetic manufacturing don’t necessarily forbid the import and distribution of products tested on animals. The same applies to laws that ban fur production.

Water Sanitation & Treatment

We wanted to look at different countries’ water safety and management by analyzing the percentage of their wastewater that is safely treated and recycled, as well as their most recently available sanitation and drinking water scores based on the Environmental Performance Index.

Below is our scoring rubric for this category:

We found complete data for 126 countries. The distribution of best- and worst-performing countries is relatively balanced for this category. Nineteen countries (15%) got top marks, while 21 countries (16.7%) received the lowest possible score. Moreover, 54.8% of countries scored above 60 points.

Of the top-scoring countries, 13 are from Europe, four are from Asia, and two are from North America and Oceania, respectively. Conversely, Asia and Oceania have one representative each in the list of worst-performing nations, while Africa leads with 19 countries. Additionally, only three African countries scored more than 50 points.

We found the greatest regional imbalance in Oceania, where no two countries shared the same score. Three of the seven Oceanian countries included in our research for this category scored 60 points and above.

No country with moderate to high GDP contributions made it to the list of worst-performing countries. Meanwhile, most countries with high GDP contributions scored full points, with a few moderate- and low-contribution countries making the list. This suggests that nations with strong and stable economies are likely more capable of implementing and maintaining robust water sanitation and treatment systems.

Transportation Sustainability

To rate the sustainability of a country’s transportation sector, we studied the existence of public or private bike-sharing systems and eco-friendly public transportation options. We also looked at each country’s transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2020.

Our team used the following rating criteria:

Of the 187 countries included in our study for this category, 36 scored 100 points (19.3%). Only the African nation São Tomé and Príncipe received the lowest possible score of 6.67 points, while three other countries got 13.33 points each. The overall ranking was fairly balanced, with 54% of countries scoring above the halfway mark of 53 points.

While 15 European nations dominate the list of top scorers, all regions are represented. Meanwhile, the lower-scoring countries (20 points and below) come mostly from Africa and Asia.

The research revealed an interesting pattern. Of the countries studied in this category, the availability of eco-friendly public transportation options seems to correlate with the existence of bike-sharing systems. That is, all nations with bike-sharing systems also have sustainable transport options. Likewise, countries that lack eco-friendly transportation don’t have bike-sharing systems.

We found no connection between the presence of eco-friendly transportation options and carbon dioxide emissions from transport. For instance, 20 countries with sustainable transportation scored 13.33 points and below in emissions, while 61 nations without eco-friendly transportation still received full marks for having lower emission levels.

The countries’ GDP contributions don’t seem to directly influence transportation sustainability. Among the 36 best-performing territories, only four have GDP contributions above 1%; the rest are low to moderate contributors. Similarly, the nations with lower scores are represented by a mix of countries with low to moderate GDP contributions.

Air Pollution

To gauge countries’ level of environmental friendliness in terms of air pollution, our team looked at each nation’s 2023 average air quality index (AQI) and 2022 greenhouse emissions. The AQI was devised to show the level of air pollution in different countries — higher AQI scores correspond to higher levels of pollution.

We split the data gathered into five ranges with corresponding scores for each standard. For the second subcategory, we divided our data range based on the number of countries that fell into different emission ranges. Our rubric for this category is as follows:

We were able to list 124 countries with public data available for both standards. Of these, none received the lowest score of 20 points. Two countries scored 30 points, while six received 40 points. Our team also found that only 21% of the countries scored below the halfway mark of 60 points. Meanwhile, three countries received full points. 

Our research found Africa to have the greatest regional disparity in air pollution scores. One African country scored full points, and three received 90 points. On the other hand, Chad and Egypt received 30 and 40 points, respectively.

Asia presented a similar disparity. The low scorers (30 to 40 points) were led by Asia with six countries, while two Asian countries scored 90 points.

European countries were among the best performing. Two of the top scorers come from the region, while another eight scored 90 points. Meanwhile, the lowest score for a European country is 60 points.

The correlation between the countries’ GDP contribution and air pollution scores shows a unique trend. The top-performing countries have low GDP contributions, while the weakest scorers have high to moderate contributions. This may be attributed to each country’s economic performance, where nations with higher industrial activity often contribute more to pollution from manufacturing and transportation.

Energy Usage

Our team used two metrics to determine how nations perform in terms of energy usage: the percentage of the nation’s energy produced from solar power between 2020 and 2023 and the percentage of power generated from low-carbon sources in the same period.

While we considered including other renewable energy sources in our criteria, technological and resource limitations would likely prevent smaller countries from efficiently harnessing those options. Wind power relatively lacks technological advancements that would make it a financially viable option for many nations. Meanwhile, hydropower isn't ideal for landlocked regions, and bioenergy faces challenges in terms of biomass resource availability.

We found solar power to be the most feasible renewable energy source, as rapid technological advancements in the field support decreasing costs and increased usage versatility (utility-scale, commercial, and residential).

Based on these guidelines, we created the following scoring criteria:

None of the 190 countries with publicly available data received the highest possible score. The eight best-performing nations only secured 80 points. Meanwhile, 11 territories received no points.

Most nations didn’t perform very well in terms of the percentage of solar energy produced. Yemen is the sole country that got 50 points for this subcategory, but its score was offset by having only 20 points for the second subcategory. Moreover, only eight countries received the second-highest score of 40 points for the first subcategory.

The second subcategory saw more balanced results: 14.7% of countries scored 50 points, 12.1% scored 40 points, and 13.7% scored 30 points.

Regional contrasts were highlighted in the comparison of the best- and worst-performing countries. Three of the highest scorers are from Europe, while Africa and South America were represented by two nations each. In contrast, from among the eleven lowest-scoring nations, four were in Africa, three were in Oceania, and two each were in Asia and North America.

Looking at the worst-performing countries, all 11 in the list are regarded as low GDP contributors. This trend is unsurprising, as less economic stability likely correlates to a country’s inability to promote and support renewable energy production and consumption.

On the other hand, the highest-scoring countries are dominated by nations with high to moderate GDP contributions.

Waste Management

For this category, we asked the following questions:

• Is waste segregation mandatory in the country?
  
• What is the annual waste per capita in the country?

Our team formulated this rubric:

Among the countries we studied for this category, 138 (84.7%) received 50 points or higher, while only 25 (15.3%) scored below this halfway mark. None of these 25 nations have mandatory waste segregation policies, and they have at least 250 kg of annual waste per capita.

Six of the countries that scored below 50 points are part of the Caribbean in North America. Since Caribbean nations are often tourist hotspots, our team believes it might be instructive to conduct further studies on the correlation between countries’ tourism activity and their overall eco-friendliness.

Of the six countries that performed the worst in the second subcategory (10–20 points), five are in Europe, and one is in Asia. The six lowest-scoring nations received 30 points overall. Conversely, 27 nations secured full points. Africa leads this group with 13 countries.

Notably, 16 of the highest-scoring countries have low GDP contributions. This trend could suggest that a more active and stable economy poses potentially greater challenges in terms of waste management. Populations in wealthier economies may be more capable of excess consumption. 

Scales of governance could also be a factor. National governments of large or populous nations may play a more limited role in waste management and rely on local governments instead. In the case of the United States and Russia, our team was unable to find complete data and therefore excluded them from the final results. 

Moreover, nuances in policy-making in large federal nations like the United States would make it impractical to evaluate their performance in this category. For instance, different states may have either stricter or more relaxed waste management laws, which makes it challenging to gauge the entire country’s ranking relative to other nations.

We must also note that mandatory waste segregation laws are not always implemented effectively. Waste sorting is often expected to occur at the household level, particularly for municipal solid waste (MSW). However, this is usually not performed regularly. In such cases, local governments may be unable to sort and process the vast amounts of waste gathered by municipal collectors, especially in developing countries.

Plastic Use & Regulation

We sought to compare different nations’ attitudes toward the use, manufacture, and distribution of plastic products. To do so, we looked at the following types of bans that countries may have:

• On the use of plastic bags
• On the manufacture of plastic bags
• On the use of single-use plastic products
• On the manufacture of single-use plastic products
• On the free distribution of single-use plastic products
• On the import of single-use plastic products

Below is our scoring rubric for this category:

Our findings revealed a curious trend. After we tallied the results, we found that the 100-point group was the largest (71 countries). The second-largest, however, was the 33-point group (49 countries), and the 0-point group came in third (31 countries). Meanwhile, there were only 23 nations that received 83, 67, or 50 points, and 20 countries received 17 points.

Despite the considerable number of top scorers, a slight majority of the countries in our sample scored below the halfway mark of 50 points; 100 countries were in the bottom half, while only 94 scored 50 points and above.

The distribution of best- and worst-performing countries was skewed to the extremes, and all global regions are represented in both groups. Europe took the lead in high scorers (17 countries), although Asia (15 countries) closely followed it. That said, Asia dominated the list of worst-performing nations with 12 countries.

Despite Europe’s great performance in this category, we found that many countries in the region don’t have outright bans on the use of plastic products but actively promote recycling. In contrast, some Asian and African countries have radical bans on plastics, but the laws are not strictly enforced.

Having a big group of highest and lowest scorers made it implausible to find a connection between the countries’ GDP contributions and performance in this category. Both sets have a mix of high to low GDP contributors.

The United States scored only 16.66 points in this category because it has limited federal laws regarding the use and production of plastic. However, 23 states have introduced a total of 117 bills to regulate plastic, and California — the country’s most populous state — has enacted laws to ensure the recycling of single-use plastics.

On the other hand, India — the most populous country — scored full points, alongside Germany (the fifth most populated federal republic). In fact, of the major federal countries in the world, five received over 80 points, while four got 50 and below (Mexico, the United States, Brazil, and Russia). 

We can infer that more politically polarized countries may generally struggle to enact laws at the national level because of different constituent states’ varying views. In any case, our team believes that further research is warranted to fully understand the factors contributing to these nations’ differences regarding plastic regulation.

Overall Analysis & Summary

Our study found that economic stability seems to have a significant influence on the eco-friendliness of countries and regions. Both the overall best- and worst-performing countries — Austria and Iraq, respectively — have moderate GDP contributions. However, Austria has a more sustainable economy.

Austria’s key exports include manufacturing products and food, among a variety of other goods. Meanwhile, Iraq has long suffered from an overreliance on oil production to boost its economy, which in itself poses environmental hazards. Moreover, the unemployment rate in Austria is at least 10 points lower than Iraq's.

The economic uncertainty in Iraq may make it more challenging for its government to dedicate resources to creating and enforcing environmental protection laws. Also, governments focused on addressing issues like unemployment, food security, and poverty may not be in any position to invest in infrastructure and technology that improve the country’s eco-friendliness, such as renewable energy sources and waste management systems.

Moreover, economic instability often correlates with political turmoil, affecting the public’s awareness and attention to environmental issues, which they may consider secondary to their financial struggles.

This trend is similarly reflected in a broader regional analysis of our findings, with Europe as the best-performing region and Africa as the worst performer. Oceania was found to have the highest overall regional score. However, only two Oceanian countries had complete data, so we disregarded it from consideration as the best performer.

Conclusion

Overall, this study revealed the correlation between countries’ eco-friendliness and their economic and political situations. Our research showed that GDP contributions are not the sole metric for this. Instead, each territory’s unique conditions need to be examined. While we believe that all countries are capable of taking concrete steps to better their eco-friendliness scores, these measures will differ for each nation.

For countries with relative economic prosperity, investing in better infrastructure and systems could be the key. This could involve supporting the increase of recycling facilities, offering more carbon-neutral transportation options, funding R&D for clean energy initiatives, or providing financial incentives for businesses or households that adopt environmentally responsible practices.

Similarly, policymakers could look into how to better enforce existing laws for environmental protection. Radical bans and punitive policies may not always be effective. Instead, investing in public awareness campaigns might be the first step.

For countries experiencing economic instability, measures requiring significant financial investment may seem like a pipe dream. This is where international cooperation could play a crucial role. Taking a globally collaborative approach to conservation will help developing countries establish practical and effective systems for environmental stewardship.