Mapping equity, diversity and inclusion

Map purpose

This interactive map explores laws and attitudes relating to specific Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Themes across all 55 countries and territories where Greenpeace operates.

Countries and territories covered

The mapping tool harnesses data covering the following 55 countries and territories.

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand (Aotearoa), Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, The Philippines, Tunisia, Turkey, UAE, United Kingdom, USA

This map shows a summary of the scores countries receive for each Rights Area across all Themes on the map apart from Level of Democracy. Rights afforded to the specific groups affected by each Theme are discussed in detail in the following Theme maps.

Level of Democracy is not included here as it operates on a different scale to the other themes.

On this map darker colours indicate a better rights situation across the Themes. Lighter colours indicate limited rights for the different groups represented in the Themes. The lightest colours see the most restricted rights situations and the darkest colours the most inclusive.

For the purpose of this map we have borrowed the definition provided by the  UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006:4 : “Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others”.  

Learning difficulties and disabilities here are largely grouped under ‘neurodiversity,’ which can be defined as follows.

“Neurodiversity refers to variation in neurocognitive functioning. It is an umbrella term that encompasses neurocognitive differences such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, Tourette’s syndrome, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, intellectual disability, and schizophrenia as well as ‘normal’ neurocognitive functioning, or neurotypicality. Neurodivergent individuals are those whose brain functions differ from those who are neurologically typical, or neurotypical”  (Autistic Advocacy) .

Following the social model of disability we add that “...people are disabled by barriers in society, not by their impairment or difference. Barriers can be physical, like buildings not having accessible toilets. Or they can be caused by people's attitudes to difference, like assuming disabled people can't do certain things”  (Scope, 2019) . By this model the accessibility of society for persons with disabilities is of significant importance.

Summary of Rights Areas

Country Coverage

Data Availability: NA

Major data sources: NA

Notable limits to Disability rights or data to assess them: It is very difficult to find comparable data on accessibility of public spaces across all map countries. Accessibility can be related to many things from wheelchair accessibility to signs written in braille to the level of noise in a public place. A lack of accessibility considerations in the design and management of public spaces restricts persons with disabilities and neurodiverse persons from being able to make equitable use of these areas.

Local Insights

The articles provided by local offices show a mix of situations depending on local or national law. Most countries see limits on the movement of persons with disabilities and neurodiverse persons in public spaces.

Many countries have laws in place that dictate a right of accessibility for those with reduced mobility, however this law is not always enforced, for example in Argentinian public space, or there has been a delay in making the changes needed - for example in Brazil it has been illegal to build buses without accessibility since 2008 but as recently as 2018 there were still delays in replacing old busses.

Inaccessibility in transport is a particularly common obstacle faced by disabled groups across the map. In Malaysia a lack of accessibility in public spaces is common and attributed to ‘poor design, poor planning, poor maintenance and lack of enforcement on guidelines provided’. As will be discussed in other Rights Areas, lack of accessibility and transport seriously impacts other Rights Areas and how they are afforded to persons with disabilities.

In other countries the government has made pledges to create more accessible spaces - for example Greece has pledged to increase the number of accessible sidewalks which, despite 2009 legislation, still only make up 1% of all sidewalks. However it may take some years for these measures to have an impact.

Local Insights also reveal how countries acknowledge ‘accessibility’ to cover more than mobility. In Taiwan most traffic lights have audible signs and in Norway both public and private sector organizations are required to incorporate universal design into websites, mobile apps, and machines. These examples all serve as a reminder not only of how broad ‘the Public Sphere’ can be but, more importantly, how many groups with varying forms of disability are discussed in this Theme.

Country Coverage

Data Availability: NA

Major data sources: NA

Notable limits to Disability rights or data to assess them: There is very limited data on the extent to which persons with disabilities and neurodiverse voices are included in public discourse across the map. Inclusion would see these groups heard through journalism, either pieces written or presented by persons with disabilities and neurodiverse journalists or featuring persons with disabilities and neurodiverse individuals, or persons with disabilities and neurodiverse individuals holding prominent positions in government. Local insights provide some information on the extent to which societies across the map include persons with disabilities and neurodiverse voices in public discussions.

Local insights

There is data for 21 countries provided by local teams. In 2 of these countries persons with disabilities and neurodiverse voices are not heard in public discourse or are ignored, these countries score 0. There is one country in which persons with disabilities and neurodiverse voices are heard and considered in all public discourse and this country, Switzerland, scores 100. The remaining 18 countries all score 50 - in these countries persons with disabilities and neurodiverse voices may be heard but they would usually only come from one group of people, or will not be seriously considered. These insights suggest that while persons with disabilities and neurodiverse voices are not ignored across the map, most societies can do more to include these groups in public discourse.

Some countries do work to ensure that persons with disabilities and neurodiverse individuals are included in discussions about their rights or in data collection for reports. In Finland the constitution follows the UN guidelines requiring that Disabled and Neurodiverse individuals are able to participate in society. It is not known the extent to which this is made practical.

Country Coverage

Data Availability: NA

Major data sources: NA

Notable limits to Disability rights or data to assess them: Without looking into public discourse and the extent to which persons with disabilities and neurodiverse voices are heard (discussed in freedom of thought and expression) it is very difficult to assess general attitudes to persons with disabilities and neurodiverse individuals across the map. Sources provided by local insights include reports and articles which may add some context to local or regional discussions however it is not possible to provide a comparative scoring system with this data.

Did the country sign a treaty confirming rights of persons with disabilities? (ER)

Of the 53 countries for which we have data, 50 have signed a treaty confirming the rights of persons with disabilities in that country and score 100. 3 countries did not sign the Treaty and score 0. Discussions of other areas on this map will show that this is not a perfect way to assess the extent to which persons with disabilities and neurodiverse individuals are afforded basic rights across the map. However, it is interesting to note the 3 countries (Cameroon, Lebanon, USA) that have not made any form of commitment to upholding these rights on an international stage.

Are persons with disabilities people able to access welfare entitlements or equivalent? (IR)

Access to work available to persons with disabilities and neurodiverse individuals is discussed in detail in the rights area ‘Right to Work’. However, for some people with severe disabilities work is not possible and in these cases it is worth examining whether or not the state provides welfare entitlements or equivalent. The data used to assess this question looks at the percentage of persons with severe disabilities that are collecting welfare entitlements in countries across the map. Data is available for 43 countries.

10 countries score 0 (Argentina, Austria, Cameroon, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Philippines, Tunisia, Turkey) and 3 score 25, suggesting that these countries comparatively few people with severe disabilities are able to access welfare entitlements that will support them when they are unable to work. 1 country scores 50, 4 score 75, and the remaining 25 countries score 100. The proportion of relatively high scores suggests that most countries across the map do provide the majority of severely disabled individuals with welfare entitlements. The highest and lowest original scores were 0 and 100 (variance of 100%).

Local Insights

“Right to Marriage’ is a Rights Area not specifically discussed in this Theme but Local Insights have highlighted cases where Disabled and Neurodiverse people have historically been denied this right. It is being included here as a component of a Right to Liberty, including Liberty to marry. Until 2016 people with Intellectual Disabilities in Brazil could only get married after a lengthy process that involved getting consent from their parents or legal guardians, writing up a lawsuit and finding a judge to sign the release - this last step could be a particular barrier as some conservative judges would veto a marriage regardless of the case. A judge still needs to sign off on a marriage if one of the couple is considered unable to express their will.

A similar law exists in Czechia where a person considered to be ‘suffering from a mental disorder which would result in a restriction or deprivation of legal capacity’ restricts their right to marriage. However, ‘the court may allow a person suffering from a mental disorder which would result in a restriction of legal capacity to enter into marriage if the person's state of health is compatible with the purpose of the marriage.’

Country Coverage

Data Availability: NA

Major data sources: NA

Notable limits to Disability rights or data to assess them: It is difficult to find comparative data that fully assesses persons with disabilities and neurodiverse individuals’ recognition before the law, as laws and the extent to which they are enforced vary from country to country. Local insights provide some information on the level to which individuals are protected from harassment of any kind and whether they are enforced so this data has been used as the primary source for this rights area. Readers of the map are encouraged to research local information and data by country or region, some examples of which can be found in the data sources table, when looking to fully assess persons with disabilities and neurodiverse individuals rights across the map.

Local insights

Of the 23 countries that provided local insights there is data for 22. 2 of these countries score 0 (Lebanon, Mexico) and provide no legal protection to persons with disabilities or neurodiverse persons, there are 3 countries which score 100 where persons with disabilities and neurodiverse people have full legal protection. The remaining 17 countries score 50, these countries have laws in place to protect persons with disabilities and neurodiverse individuals but they are not always upheld.

Local insights show the number of ways in which 'equality before the law’ can be understood. From laws that acknowledge a right to access public spaces as discussed in Freedom of Movement, laws guaranteeing fair access to work as discussed in Right to Work, to laws that acknowledge a person’s autonomy or right to act in society. In Indonesia laws exists that limit a person with disability’s ability to marry, open a bank account, vote, control their medical treatment, or to even participate in legal procedures through the provision of, eg. sign language.

Country Coverage

Data Availability: NA

Major data sources: NA

Notable limits to Disability rights or data to assess them: Access to education can be affected by many Themes discussed throughout these maps and it is therefore difficult to find comparative data that assesses the impact disability and neurodiversity alone has on access to education. Local insights provide some data on access to education in each country as do the resources provided by local offices.

Local insights

Data and local insights are provided for 20 countries. 5 countries score zero (Brazil, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines), in these countries persons with disabilities and neurodiverse people have limited or no access to education. 9 countries score 50, in these countries persons with disabilities and neurodiverse individuals have access to education but may not be provided with the necessary resources to help them excel. 6 countries score 100 and provide persons with disabilities and neurodiverse individuals with both access to education and the resources and support required to help them excel in their studies.

Further context provided by local insights show that even where disablend and neurodiverse children have access to education it may be for less time than non-persons with disabilities or neuro-typical children. For example, in Indonesia children with mild disabilities receive on average 2-years of education fewer than those without and children with severe disabilities will receive 4 fewer years of education. A similar situation was found in the Philippines where Gender has been seen to play a role too as women with disabilities have lower levels of education than men, especially in rural areas.

In India this divide between rural and urban education levels was seen again - children with disabilities in the city are more likely to attend school than children with disabilities in the countryside. Some of these factors may be Socioeconomic and this Theme should be assessed alongside others that will contribute to rights afforded to persons with disabilities and neurodiverse individuals - including Gender as seen above. However access to education may also be affected by reduced freedom of movement due to a lack of infrastructure or schools not being equipped with the resources which help persons with disabilities and neurodiverse children to excel in their studies. In Greece children with disabilities can attend Kindergarten for free and can access Higher Education without Panhellenic exams, but as 80% of schools don’t have ramps to allow access this can still create a barrier to education.

Country Coverage

Data Availability: NA

Major data sources: NA

Notable limits to Disability rights or data to assess them: There is very little data that can be used to assess Right to Health on this map nor are there adequate sources of data to provide scores from Local Insights. However Local Insights do give some examples of obstacles faced by Disabled and Neurodiverse people or trends seen in access to Healthcare.

Local Insights

Local Insights tell us that some groups are more likely to access health services than others, for example in Taiwan people with Intellectual Disabilities are more likely to make outpatient visits. This may be due to other underlying medical conditions - 41% of people with Intellectual Disabilities were found to have some other form of illness, epilepsy was the most common. This highlights the varying levels of support needed for Disabled and Neurodiverse individuals.

Just as gender plays a role in access to education it is also seen to affect access to health. In a report looking into the specific needs of persons with disabilities in response to the Covid 19 pandemic it was found that in the Philippines women were particularly vulnerable with limited access to healthcare services. Some of these limitations are socioeconomic as the women can’t afford healthcare or the cost of travel to providers. However women with disabilities have also been reported to face particular discrimination from healthcare professionals.

Local insights for many countries highlight additional costs that can occur to cover specialised living needs or services - costs that in Greece only 19% of families are able to afford. Disability groups in the Philippines blame existing stigma for the lack of financial support provided to families. An example of a country that has written family considerations into its legislation is Italy where family members who severely disabled individuals are dependent on can be exempted from working night shifts.

Country Coverage

Data Availability: NA

Major data sources: NA

Notable limits to Disability rights or data to assess them: There is limited quantifiable data on laws that can be used to score countries on this Rights Area. Instead this map looks at representation in the workforce and local insights to assess countries.

Are persons with disabilities and neurodiverse people protected from unfair dismissal?

It is difficult to find comparable data on the laws protecting persons with disabilities and neurodiverse persons from unfair dismissal across the map. Levels of unemployment amongst persons with disabilities and neurodiverse persons and access to the workforce available these groups are both discussed below. When assessing both sets of data it is advisable to also do some research into local laws that protect persons with disabilities and neurodiverse persons from dismissal where a lack of reasonable adjustments prevents them from being able to carry out their work.

Countries that score 100 on access to the workforce may be more likely to have clear laws in place as in these countries persons with disabilities and neurodiverse persons are allowed the adjustments or support they need to do their job so it is likely that laws will protect them from unfair dismissal if they are not provided. However this cannot be assumed and must be researched before any conclusions are made.

Are persons with disabilities individuals disproportionately represented amongst the unemployed (IR)

The data used to answer this question looks at the difference between the % of persons with disabilities people who are unemployed and the % of non-disabled people who are unemployed, countries with higher differences score lower. There is data for 27 countries.

2 countries score zero (Denmark, Czechia) and 7 score 25 suggesting that in these countries there is a higher level of inequality between persons with disabilities and non-disabled people in accessing work. 8 countries score 50, 5 countries score 75, and 5 score 100. The highest and lowest differences in the original data are 28 and 0.8.

Local insights

Local EDI officers have provided further insights into whether persons with disabilities and neurodiverse persons have access to the workforce and whether they are provided with support and resources to carry out the jobs they have. Both sets of data are limited in country scope but are considered separately as they come from different sources, cover different portions of society (data on unemployment covers disability but not neurodiversity), and different countries on the map. Data was provided for 20 countries by local teams.

7 countries score 0 (Brazil, Greece, Indonesia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines) as persons with disabilities and neurodiverse persons have limited or no access to the workforce. 8 countries score 50 as persons with disabilities and neurodiverse persons have access to the workforce but are not always provided with the necessary adjustments. There are 5 countries that score 100 where persons with disabilities and neurodiverse persons have access to the workforce and should be given full support and any adjustments they require to do their job.

It is worth noting that the situation painted by the data on unemployment will not always match the situation painted by the insights provided by local teams. This does not mean that the data or the teams are incorrect but may point to situations where the law or recommended practice does not necessarily reflect lived experience.

Local insights tell us a bit more about country specific data on unemployment, the types of jobs persons with disabilities and neurodiverse individuals tend to work in, and possible reasons why these groups may struggle to access the workforce. As with other Rights Areas, socioeconomic status, gender, and a country’s infrastructure can have a big impact.

In Thailand 65% of persons with disabilities are unemployed. Those who are employed tend to work in agriculture or fishing (though this may be because the majority of people with disabilities live in rural areas). Men are more likely to have jobs than women, a trend seen in other countries as well. This may be linked to patriarchal attitudes, lower levels of education for women discussed in Right to Education, or cultural attitudes towards gender roles. For example in the Philippines, the majority of employed women with disabilities are found to be single, widowed, or separated while the majority of employed men with disabilities are married.

Local insights also provide examples of countries where laws and policies have been introduced to encourage more persons with disabilities to enter the workforce. Private companies in Taiwan must hire at least one employee with a disability once they have a workforce of more than 67. At larger companies at least 1% of employees must be persons with disabilities and employers can face repercussions for not hiring someone with a disability or for making them redundant. Argentinian law specifically stipulates that persons with disabilities have an equal right to work and benefits as non-disabled employees and in Greece both employees and employers can access programmes that provide vocational training or support in recruiting persons with disabilities into the private sector - albeit with a lot of bureaucracy in the process.

This map looks at two related areas, ethnic minorities and racialised groups.

Firstly, ethnic minority, defined by the UN as: “A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a non-dominant position, whose members - being nationals of the State - possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language” ( UN, 1977) .

Secondly, racialised groups refers to those groups that are affected by a socially constructed notion of ‘race.’ Systems of racialisation impose racism and hierarchy.

Indigenous groups are commonly racialised or minoritised around the world and this map looks at laws pertaining to their rights separately to other groups. For the purpose of this map the definition for indigenous peoples has been provided by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. It provides a definition that is inclusive of diverse indigenous communities.

“Indigenous peoples each have unique and distinctive cultures, languages, legal systems and histories. Most Indigenous peoples have a strong connection to the environment and their traditional lands and territories. They also often share legacies of removal from traditional lands and territories, subjugation, destruction of their cultures, discrimination and widespread violations of their human rights. Through centuries, they have suffered from the non-recognition of their own political and cultural institutions and the integrity of their cultures has been undermined. Indigenous peoples are also harmfully impacted by development processes, which pose a grave threat to their continued existence”  (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2013). 

Summary of Rights Areas

Rights area ranking: No data available to score

Data Availability: NA

Major data sources: NA

Notable limits to Ethnicity/Race rights or data to assess them: Many of these groups face marginalisation which means reliable data on them can be difficult to source. One of the hardest questions to access data for is whether or not minorities feel they can speak up or speak out. Data may not be collected, it may be made unavailable, or it may be that it is unsafe for those who face discrimination to speak about the injustices they face.

Equally difficult to assess is the extent to which countries have diverse media representation including television, film, journalism and advertising. This is also a fast-moving area that sees new players emerge regularly, for example the rise of social media influencers.

Reasons for a lack of representation can also be highly variable, including discrimination including racism, as well as cultural and linguistic differences that see media fragmented.

Local Insights

Local Insights provide some information on the questions above, for example in Thailand one vlogger of mixed African-Asian heritage spoke out about colourism and racism in Thai society in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests in America, blaming cultural traditions and beauty ideals which portray lighter skin as prettier and more desirable, especially in women.

The question of whether minorities can speak up or speak out is complicated as reputation at the international scale may be in conflict with lived experience on the ground. For example, Sweden has held a national self-image of being a progressive society since the 1960, however, researchers and anti-racism activists have challenged this view in recent years pointing out that colonial attitudes exist in Sweden just as much as other European countries.

Rights area ranking: Lowest scoring rights area for Ethnicity/Racism12.27% average across all countries.

Country coverage: Limited data for 30 countries

Main data sources: IWGIA Report on Land Rights, UNHCR Data on no. refugees resettled.

Data Availability: 2 out of 4 - reasonable availability.

Notable limits to Ethnicity/Race rights or data to assess them: Not all the countries on the map are home to communities that identify themselves as Indigenous, impacting the scores received in each area. Similarly the other question used to assess this area looks at how many refugees are resettled in each country. Some countries on the map score lower in this area as they are either the countries refugees come from, or not a destination refugees head towards. For example, in 2015 Luxembourg struggled to fill its quota of refugees resettled as many did not want to move there.

Are Indigenous groups allowed to live in their ancestral lands, or to choose to live elsewhere? (IR) 

Countries are scored based on the rights afforded to Indigenous communities’ mobility, or these groups’ access to their land. Countries such as New Zealand, where the Indigenous peoples remain engaged in continued struggle for justice, but are given constitutional rights to their ancestral land, score full marks. Only 3 other countries score 100 of the 28 that have Indigenous communities.

11 countries score 50 - in these countries there are often laws recognising and protecting Indigenous communities' rights to land but they are either unenforced or are enforced but government building or infrastructure activities in or near this land are another affront to Indigenous rights. In 1 country there are laws protecting Indigenous communities but they vary by domestic state.

The remaining 13 countries all score 0 as Indigenous communities are either unrecognised by the state, recognised but restricted to certain areas, or recognised but denied access to their ancestral lands.

Is the country welcoming to refugees? (IR)

Countries are scored on how many refugees have been officially resettled there as a proportion of the total national population.

The top scoring countries are Sweden and Norway, however, this is not because they have resettled the highest number of refugees. Most countries (47) scored 0 despite having resettled some refugees. For example, the USA has resettled 82,175 compared to Sweden’s 20,760 refugees, however, Sweden ranks higher as this number makes up a higher proportion of the national population.

Local insights

As with religious rights, it is difficult to assess levels of racist hate crime due to differences in how countries define or record ‘hate crime’. For example, in Indonesia rather than regulating ‘hate crime’ there is a long standing regulated code of ‘political correctness’. It should also be considered that ‘hate crime’ can mean a number of things and in recent years new forms of hate crime have emerged online - in Italy a spike in online hatred exacerbated by the Covid pandemic has led to the creation of the country’s first national network for the fight against hate speech.

What can be measured is the extent to which Hate Crimes are prosecuted across the map as this may act as a deterrant to discrimination if citizens know they are likely to face retribution for their actions. Local insights were provided for 23 countries, of which 11 reported that Hate Crimes are not regularly persecuted so scored 0. 7 reported that Hate Crimes are regularly persecuted and scored 100. Information was unavailable for the remaining 5 countries.

It is equally difficult to find an objective and regularly updated comparison of immigration or travel laws in each country and whether they are influenced by race or ethnicity. Local insights provided for 23 countries informed us that 3 of the countries have laws in place that restrict immigration for certain groups based on their nationality/ religion/ ethnicity. These countries have been given a score of 0 on the map. 8 countries have been scored 50 meaning that while officially there are no immigration restrictions based on racism or ethnic discrimination some groups will find it harder to relocate there than others. 6 countries have no restrictions in place so were scored 100 and information was unavailable for the remaining 6 countries.

Ethnic discrimination and racism in some contexts is entwined with religious discrimination. For example, in Malaysia there is perceived to be a strong link between race and religion and this plays out in immigration laws - it is easier for Muslim immigrants to get citizenship than non-Muslims and spouses of non-Muslim Malaysians can face particular difficulties in gaining citizenship. In the Philippines Muslim ethnic groups face greater inequalities, particularly in education.

Socioeconomic background also influences immigration rules. For example, in Brazil there are two profiles of immigrants - poorer groups looking for a stronger economy to find work in and highly-qualified entrepreneurs and academics who come to work for international organisations or to study. While both groups may of course come from the same country there is a perceived link between some countries of origin and reason for immigrating.

As these two examples show, racism has many intersections which can limit rights.

Sometimes a country may face a large influx of refugees or immigrants who do not plan to settle long term but are en route to another country. In 2018 demonstrations took place in Tijuana against Central American immigrants who were travelling through Mexico before attempting to cross the border to the USA. The Mexican government’s anti-discrimination agency sought to highlight that the migrants were not a threat and were fleeing dangerous situations but, as in Greece (see Life, Liberty, and Security) an influx of migrants has been seen to put pressure on local services leading to opposition.

A final point that local insights can inform on is a government’s political motivation to accept or reject refugees. For example, in Czechia the proportion of the population who do not want their country to accept refugees from war zones grew from 50%-69% in the three years before their 2018 Presidential election. The winning candidate led a campaign including xenophobic and anti-immigration language that stood in stark contrast to speeches he had made 20 years before promising to transform Czech society into a multicultural one. It cannot be certain if the president was driven by popular opinion or if popular opinion was driven by rhetoric similar to that found in the winning campaign but both should be considered when looking into any country’s policies around refugees or any other immigrants.

Rights area ranking: Low scoring rights area for Ethnicity/Racism. 36.14% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Data available for all countries

Data Availability: 1 out of 1 - available

Major data sources: Freedom House Map, Global Freedom

Notable limits to Ethnicity/Race rights or data to assess them: Data on race and ethnicity with regards to elected representatives and members of government is rarely made available. Some countries on the map have introduced quotas to ensure representation, but not enough countries have done this to allow for a comparative score.

Are there limits to who can participate in government and elections? (ER)

This data looks at political rights afforded to groups based on race and ethnicity, bringing in an intersectional perspective on rights afforded to women and LGBTQIA+ groups, as well as religious groups. Where a country is scored down this is due to discrimination or additional barriers to voting or taking part in government faced by certain ethnic groups. In some cases ethnic groups or immigrants/refugees are not granted citizenship rights, whilst in others policies and rights are granted to all citizens, but certain groups are still noticeably underrepresented.

Of the 55 countries on the map, 18 score 100 for political rights meaning that all groups have equal rights to vote or stand for election. A score of 100 does not mean that there is full representation in parliament, or that all voices are heard equally, but that there is more representation and consideration of all groups than in other countries on the map

Local Insights

It is recommended that anyone reading the map looks at local news for specific insights into the question of representation in Government. Representation may cover immigrants, minoritised groups, and indigenous communities. Local Insights tell us that in some countries on the map progress is being made in representation - For example Malaysians elected their first indigenous Orang Asli member of Parliament in 2019.

Rights Area Ranking: High scoring rights area for Ethnicity/Racism. 56.36% across all countries

Country Coverage: Data available for all countries

Data Availability: 1 out of 2 - limited availability

Major data sources: Freedom House Map, Global Freedom

Notable limits to Ethnicity/Race rights or data to assess them: It is difficult to access data around the world on whether specific ethnic or racialised groups disproportionately face arrest or accusation of crime. 

Are all segments of the population treated equally in court? (ER)

This score also includes data on the rights of other groups including women and LGBTQIA+ individuals. Where countries are scored down there are often examples of mistreatment by the law, likely due to racism or ethnic discrimination as well as examples of homophobia or sexism.

Of the 55 countries assessed 4 countries score 0 (Cameroon, China, DRC, Russia)- in these countries immigrants may face discrimination from society or government, be protected by laws officially but in practice receive widespread and state sanctioned discrimination and barriers to work and education, or more senior positions in business and government.

10 countries score 25. In these countries bureaucratic procedures might affect certain groups more than others, laws might be in place to protect groups but discrimination gets overlooked, or laws are in place to protect all citizens but some ethnicities are granted a ‘special status’ compared to others. 4 of the countries score 100 with the remaining 37 countries receiving mid tier scores of 50/75.

Rights Area Ranking: Highest scoring rights area for Ethnicity/Racism. 59.09% across all countries

Country Coverage: Limited data for 8 countries

Data Availability: 3 out of 5 - reasonable availability

Major data sources: World's most and least racially tolerant countries, Washington Post; UN Human Development Index Table 15, Rights Treaties Ratified

Notable limits to Ethnicity/Race rights or data to assess them: Nationality has been addressed in some of the scores given in right to movement or right to take part in government where certain immigrant or refugee groups are explicitly denied nationality or a right to vote. Other factors may contribute to access to nationality including religion (as with Former US President Trump’s ban on citizens of seven majority Muslim countries in January 2017) or socioeconomic status.

Is xenophic sentiment prevalent in the country?

Xenophobia refers to prejudices towards persons seen to be from a different country - this can be difficult to quantify and measure. Xenophobia may manifest through exclusive notions of nationalism, or anti-immigration government policy. Therefore one way to look at xenophobic sentiment in a country may be to consider whether the nation has voted for a government or policy in recent years that has provoked xenophobic sentiment. Some resources for this question are provided in the Data Resources Table.

Did this country sign a treaty to end Racism? (ER)

Did this country sign a treaty to protect migrant workers? (ER)

There is data for 53 countries for these questions and all but 1 (Malaysia) signed an international treaty to end racism. In contrast only 10 have signed a treaty to protect migrant workers. It may be this high score on the treaty to end racism that makes this rights area the highest scoring on this map.

Are different racialised groups tolerated? (IR)

The data used to score this question comes from a series of surveys where people were asked if they would want to live with neighbours of a different racialised group.

Of the 47 countries where people were surveyed, 3 score 0 (Bulgaria, Czechia, Turkey) and 2 score 25 (Lebanon, Thailand) meaning a noticeably lower percentage of people said they’d be happy to live with neighbours of a differently racialised group than the other countries. 7 countries score 50, 14 score 75, and 21 score 100. The variance in initial data (% of people who said they would be happy to live with neighbours of a different race) between the 35 countries that scored 75 or 100 is 19.2% so a lot of them did score similarly in this area.

Local Insights

Local insights highlight that what constitutes a ‘minoritised group’ varies greatly from country to country. In northern Europe, as well as immigrants and refugees, ‘minorities’ might refer to the indigenous Sami, national minorities defined by language such as Swedish-speaking Finns, or groups introduced to the country by colonisation, such as Greenlanders in Denmark - a group who are not technically considered an immigrant minority but who do face similar challenges to migrants from other groups.

Just as understanding of which groups make up a minority varies, so does understanding of racism itself. In Germany the concept is very strongly linked with National Socialism and other right-wing extremist groups. There are ongoing debates on what racism means today and research has been carried out on social trust across different ethnic groups. One study found a higher link between poverty and lack of social trust than to immigration status or ethnicity. This points to a link between this Theme and the Socioeconomic Theme and again raises the importance of looking at Rights Areas across Themes rather than looking at each Theme completely separately.

Local insights also tell us to consider the full picture when assessing a rise in xenophobia in any country - whether that be in government or through society. The two are often interlinked, for example in Greece the rise of Golden Dawn and the perceived increase in racism and xenophobia-driven events cannot be separated nor is it clear if one led to the other. Some sentiment relates to the idea that Greece failed to create an adequate migration policy in the face of the recent refugee crisis, which led to overcrowding on a number of islands placing burdens on refugees, aid workers, and local communities, whilst also fuelling hate crime. The conviction of a number of Golden Dawn members and the party’s exclusion from Hellenic parliament points to a promising message of tolerance being sent across Greece but at the time of writing the crisis is still ongoing.

Another potential reason for xenophobic or anti-immigrant sentiment can be found in Argentina where, despite the majority of citizens polled saying they did not think foreigners exerted too much pressure on services (unlike Greece) 81% of Argentines still said that they thought immigration was bad for the economy. Here, the perceived threat from migrants is seen to be a risk of insecurity, whether through a perceived rise of competition from immigration making it harder to get a job or a fear of a rise in crime.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexial, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual and others, definitions of these terms can be found  here in the Stonewall glossary .

“While these [the terms LGBTQIA+] have increasing resonance, different cultures use different terms to describe people who have same-sex relationships or who exhibit non-binary gender identities (such as hijra, meti, lala, skesana, motsoalle, mithli, kuchu, kawein, travesty, muxé, fa’afafine, fakaleiti, hamjensgara and two-spirit)”  (UN Free and Equal, 2019) .

Summary of Rights Areas

Rights Area Ranking: No data available to score

Data Availability: Sexual Rights Database SRI map (context not data)

Major data sources: Sexual Rights Database SRI map; Transrespect vs Transphobia map.

Notable limits to LGBTQIA+ rights or data to assess them: It is very difficult to find data in this area as laws can be vague or left to the discretion of individuals.

There are countries on the map where doctors may withhold treatment on ‘moral grounds’. This comes up most often in reference to abortions but there are countries where the law is vague enough to imply that so long as it is not an emergency, a doctor can deny treatment based on either personal or professional reasons, which may include discrimination based on sexuality.

The availability of Gender Reassignment Surgery or Treatment varies greatly throughout the countries featured on this map. ‘Life, Liberty, and Security of Person, assesses whether gender reassignment surgery is available and if there are any restrictions on accessing this treatment. However it is worth considering that in almost all the countries on this map where surgery or treatment is available, identifying as a trans individual must first be recorded as a medical illness or disorder, a process which trans rights groups have highlighted as harmful.

Rights Area Ranking: No data available to score

Data Availability: Unavailable

Major data sources: Sexual Rights Database SRI map (context not data)

Notable limits to LGBTQIA+ rights or data to assess them: Although most countries on the map declare that all children have a right to education, the amount of education about sexuality varies greatly. Some countries limit education on same sex relationships or leave it to the discretion of the school and local community to decide what to teach in sexuality education. In Russia it is expressly prohibited to ‘spread propaganda’ on ‘non-traditional sexual relationships’ which is understood to refer to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Queer relationships.

Rights Area Ranking: Lowest scoring rights area for LGBTQIA+25.15% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Limited data for 1 country.

Data Availability: 3 out of 4 - relative availability

Major data sources: ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report 2019 Data Set; Outright Action International 2019 Conversion Therapy Report

Notable limits to LGBTQIA+ rights or data to assess them:

The discriminatory practice of so-called ‘Conversion Therapy’ - which seeks to alter same sex attraction through often vioilent and harmful means - and its legality has not been included in the data contributing to each country’s final score. 2 countries in the map have explicitly banned the practice (Brazil, Germany) whilst the majority of the others have legal frameworks in place, or are in the process of formalising national bans that make it difficult or impossible for health professionals to engage in this practice. The extent to which these laws are upheld is not well-documented, making it difficult to score accurately. However, there are countries within the map where ‘conversion therapy’ is more prevalent than others and this is worth addressing when looking into the rights afforded to LGBTQIA+ groups.

Even if a country legalises same sex relationships (see Life, Liberty, and Security of Person) there may be instances where other LGBTQIA+ groups are not given the same rights or legal protection as others.The laws and limitations vary across countries so it can be hard to score on the map but, as with all cases for this Theme, the different experiences of different LGBTQIA+ groups are considered as much as possible. 

Are there laws in place to protect LGBTQIA+ individulals from discrimination? (ER)

This data assesses whether countries provide either broad or constitutional protection to LGBTQIA+ individuals against discrimination of any kind.

19 countries score 0 and offer no protection from discrimination. 8 countries score 25 and offer limited broad protections. 25 countries score 50 - offering broad protection from discrimination but not constitutional. Only 3 countries (Mexico, South Africa, Sweden) offer LGBTQIA+ groups constitutional protection from discrimination.

Is Hate Crime explicitly criminalised? (ER)

This data assesses whether the country has specifically criminalised Hate Crimes or incitement towards Hate Crime.

Almost half the countries on the map (25) score 0. 1 country scores 25 and 8 score 50 meaning either Hate Crimes or Incitement to Hate are criminalised but not both. 5 countries score 75 - either Hate Crimes or Incitement to Hate is clearly criminalised while the law is unclear on the other. 16 countries score 100.

Local Insights

In Greece the rise of the Golden Dawn far-right party led to an increase in discrimination against LGBTQIA+, alongside racist, xenophobia and ethnic discrimination.

Rights Area Ranking: Low-scoring rights area for LGBTQIA+, 42.50% across all countries

Country Coverage: Limited data for 2 countries.

Data Availability: 2 out of 2 - available.

Major data sources: ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report 2019 Data Set.

Notable limits to LGBTQIA+ rights or data to assess them: This rights area assessed whether countries allowed same sex couples to have their relationship officially recognised by the state either through marriage or a civil partnership, and if they are then able to adopt children either as a couple or for one parent to adopt them as a second parent.

Rights Area Ranking: Mid-scoring rights area for LGBTQIA+, 50% across all countries

Country Coverage: Limited data for 7 countries.

Data Availability: 2 out of 2 - available

Major data sources: ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report 2019 Data Set; National Geographic map on the legality of Gender Change

Notable limits to LGBTQIA+ rights or data to assess them: Whilst we are generally able to assess whether same sex relationships are legal or trans identifying persons can legally change gender, it is more difficult to assess the extent to which society generally accepts LGBTQIA+ persons.

Are same sex relationships legal? (ER)

Of the 55 countrieson the map, 8 do not legally permit same sex relationships and score 0 (Cameroon, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Senegal, Tunisia, UAE). One country does not explicitly ban same-sex acts but has a number of other laws targeting LGBT individuals so scores 50. The remaining 46 countries score 100. It can be surmised that attitudes will be less accepting of LGBTQIA+ individuals in countries that score 0.

There are some cases where same sex relationships are only illegal if they are between 2 men.

Are trans individuals recognised? (ER)

There is data for 48 countries on this question. 6 score 0 (Cameroon, Egypt, Hungary, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand) and don’t allow people to change their gender, 12 score 50 and make it difficult for them to do so. The remaining 30 countries allow individuals to change gender and score 100.

As acknowledged in this map’s introduction the term LGBTQIA+ covers a broad range of groups in society and the countries where same sex relationships are legal but trans people face barriers to change their gender may be an example of how two groups in this community having diffrent experiences.

Rights Area Ranking: High-scoring rights area for LGBTQIA+, 68.18% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Data unavailable for 1 country

Data Availability: 1 out of 1 - available

Major data sources: ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report 2019 Data Set

Notable limits to LGBTQIA+ rights or data to assess them: It should be noted that only one data question was used to assess this rights area and this may contribute to this rights area’s high score.

Are LGBTQIA+ individuals protected from discrimination in employment? (ER)

Here ‘discrimination’ is taken to cover access to employment and experience at work so it is felt that this question answers most potential barriers to LGBTQIA+ individuals’ right to work.

15 of the countries assessed score 0 and do not have any law in place protecting LGBTQIA+ groups from discrimination in employment. 5 countries score 50 and have limited laws. The remaining 35 countries score 100 and have made discrimination illegal.

This does not mean that LGBTQIA+ individuals in these 35 countries don’t face discrimination - as discussed in ‘Life, Liberty, and Security of Person’ it is much harder to asses the reality of a group’s experiences than the legal situation in the country where they live.

Rights Area Ranking: Highest scoring rights area for LGBTQIA+, 73.18% across all countries

Country Coverage: Limited or unavailable data for 3 countries.

Data Availability: 2 out of 3 - reasonable availability

Major data sources: ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia Report 2019 Data Set; Outright International Report on the Global State of LGBTIQ Organising.

Notable limits to LGBTQIA+ rights or data to assess them: There isn’t enough quantitative data to give a definitive score to countries where LGBTQIA+ individuals do or do not need to self censor for their own protection. However, other data collected in the map on, for example, legality of same sex relationships or criminalisation of discrimination can be used to surmise attitudes and whether LGBTQIA+ individuals may be more likely to self censor in some environments than others.

Are organisations representing LGBTQIA+ groups allowed to register themselves? (ER)

Of the 53 countries we have data for the majority (44) score 100 and allow organisations representing LGBTQIA+ individuals to register. 9 score 0 and do not permit this.

Are there any legal barriers to SOGIESC (ER)

There is data for 51 countries for this question. 12 score 0 and have legal restrictions to sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and/or sex characteristics (SOGIESC). 5 score 50 as although there are technically no legal restrictions to SOGIESC recent examples of censorship have been recorded. This could be a situation example where groups that represent some of the LGBTQIA+ community may register but not others. The remaining 34 countries score 100.

This section includes data on religious, belief and faith-based groups. These can be defined as “theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief” ( UN, 1981) . “Spiritual values drive individual behaviours for more than 80 per cent of people. In many countries, spiritual beliefs and religions define cultural values, social inclusion, political engagement and economic prosperity”  (UN Environment, 2008) .

Summary of Rights Areas

Rights Area Ranking: No data available to score

Data Availability: NA

Major data sources: NA

Notable limits to Religious rights or data to assess them: ‘National identity’ is used here to refer to a group identity related to the nation, and is not to be confused with access to legal nationality. It is difficult to find data to assess the extent to which national identity in any given country is defined by religion. This is in part due to the different extents to which a country’s official religion(s) can be seen to impact daily life. There are many countries where religious belief systems are not seen to impact legal or political systems - although this does not mean that they are not informed by a belief system such as atheism or scientific rationalism.

Another difficulty in gathering data on this relates to some religions having many branches, and how these can relate with national identities.

Local Insights

Greece is an example of a country where, constitutionally, national identity and the Orthodox Christianity would appear to be very closely linked as the Eastern Orthodox Church is explicitly named as the prevailing religion. The constitution also states that every known religion is free to worship indicating that although national identity is closely linked to the church, other religions may identify as Greek.

Rights Area Ranking: No data available to score

Data Availability: NA

Major data sources: NA

Notable limits to Religious rights or data to assess them: As it is difficult to gain data on the impact a nation’s official religion can have on its citizens, it’s also difficult to assess the extent to which governments represent the country’s religious communities adequately.

It would be relevant to know if any particular religious group dominates or is excluded, and if this relates with a country’s official or national religion, Local Insights provide some information on this topic.

Local Insights

Local Insights on whether one religious group is disproportionately represented in government are provided for 18 countries. 11 of these countries score 0 meaning there is one group holding a disproportionate share of the places in government. 7 countries score 100 and do not have one group disproportionately represented than others. In many of the countries that score 0 the religion that is overrepresented is the official religion of the country, however it may not be the belief system held by the majority of citizens.

Every country has different religions and faith groups, and religious groups may be discriminated against based on an array of assigned characteristics. In Brazil religions that are closely aligned with Afro-Brazilian groups such as Camdomblé, Umbanda, and Spiritism are underrepresented in government.

In Indonesia, a majority Muslim nation, the 2014 election of Jakarta’s first Christian governor in 50 years was met with protests from civilans who opposed the election of a non-Muslim leader. ‘Representation’ may also be interpreted differently depending on if a country has a national religion or not.

Rights Area Ranking: No data available to score

Data Availability: NA

Major data sources: NA

Notable limits to Religious rights or data to assess them: We experienced difficulty in finding a reliable source comparing religious influence on marriage practices or laws around the world.

It is worth considering whether a country’s laws are defined by a national or local religion and whether this impacts a person’s right to marriage, children, or family planning when assessing religious freedom across the world. In particular there are some countries and communities where interfaith marriages are prohibited either by law or society. In other parts of the world a person’s ability to access family planning services or abortions are impacted by religious practices.

Local Insights

In Russia Muslims are discouraged by religious leaders from marrying non-Muslims. Although it is religious leaders not the authorities who make this statement, the pressures placed by the government on Muslims and other non-Orthodox Christians come together to create a hostile environment for interreligious marriage.

Rights Area Ranking: Lowest scoring rights area for Religion, 65.91% across all countries

Country Coverage: Data available for all countries

Data Availability: 1 out of 2 - limited availability

Major data sources: Pew Research Center Report on Religious Restrictions

Notable limits to Religious rights or data to assess them: Due to differences in how countries define or record ‘hate crime’ it is difficult to assess its prevalence in the countries included in this map. Where local data is available it may be able to use this data to assess the security and freedom of movement afforded to certain religious groups as they move through their home countries or when they go abroad.

Are there government imposed restrictions on practicing certain or any religions? (IR)

5 countries score 0 and impose much stronger restrictions than others in the map. 14 countries score 100 implying that they either do not have any legal restrictions on religious practice or far fewer restrictions than the other countries. In the remaining 36 countries governments may restrict religious practice to different extents.

The variance between the highest and lowest scoring country in the original data is 86% showing there is a real disparity in the level of restriction of religious practice across the map. Forms of restriction or control may include limiting practice of religious worship, government restrictions on a person’s right to convert from one religion to another, limiting wearing of religious symbols, displays of hostility from government or overlooking displays of hostility from non government officials towards a certain group, and tracking religious groups amongst other policies or practices.

Local Insights

Although many countries do not impose explicit restrictions on practising certain religions, local insights tell us that in practice there are a number of countries where certain religions are persecuted or deliberately separated from other religious groups.

In Italy, a country with a majority Catholic parliament, 17 of the 20 main religious minority groups have reported serious discrimination and intolerance - a situation that is not said to be helped by the political climate.

In Malaysia discrimination and segregation based on ethncity and religion are often experienced together. Groups may be separated at school age into different institutions - a process that is considered to further entrench existing divisions and prejudice.

Local insights show that educational inequality can be found on religious grounds - in the Philippines Muslims have noticeably fewer average years of education than non-Muslims. This may in part be due to the fact that many Muslim adults would have been educated in traditional Madaris (Muslim educational institutions) which until recently had not incorporated into the country’s formal education system.

Rights Area Ranking: Mid scoring rights area for Religion, 66.36% across all countries

Country Coverage: Data available for all countries

Data Availability: 1 out of 2 - limited availability

Major data sources: Pew Research Center Report on Religious Restrictions

Notable limits to Religious rights or data to assess them: Due to the variance in how countries permit reports on government restrictions to movement to be spread it is difficult to score any country on the extent to which religious groups experience freedom of movement on the map. Local Insights provide some information on freedom of movement but when researching this rights area it is advisable to look for reports and articles on the specific country or region in question in addition to the data on the map.

Can all religious groups feel safe in public spaces? (ER)

This data assesses the level of social harassment reported by religious groups. This is not necessarily the same as hate crime which can be difficult to get data on. Social Harassment can include prevalence of disputes or violence between different religious groups, harassment over following or violating religious dress codes, or acts of violence or terrorism towards groups due to their religion.

2 countries (India, Israel) score 0 suggesting that certain religious groups may feel especially unsafe in public spaces. 5 countries score 25, 16 score 50, and 19 score 75. 13 countries score 100 suggesting all religious groups can feel relatively safe according to the data.

Local Insights

Local Insights were provided for 23 countries. None of these countries score 0 meaning there are no government restrictions to where religious groups can move. However 6 countries score 50, meaning that while there are no legal restrictions some groups are limited in their movement across the country by public attitudes. The remaining 17 countries score 100 meaning people of all belief systems can move through the country with ease.

Local insights also provide some information about how religious groups can move through society and if they face discrimination from the government or from other citizens. In Russia there are reports of Muslims being followed by the authorities and converts to Islam being turned away from their families. In Indonesia religious groups which are not Sunni Muslim, including indigenous groups, face discrimination from society. An event in 2011 captured on video showed that the authorities permit these acts of discrimination as police turned away when an attack took place on an Ahmadiyah community.

Rights Area Ranking: Highest scoring rights area for Religion,78.64% across all countries

Country Coverage: Data missing for one country.

Data Availability: 1 out of 1 - reasonable availability

Major data sources: Freedom House Map on Global Freedom

Notable limits to Religious rights or data to assess them: This section only has one data point which has potential to skew the results but the source in question assesses any restrictions that individuals face when looking to practice their religion (or other belief system) whether they are in public or in private. This is likely to cover most aspects that might infringe on a person’s freedom of thought or expression regarding their religion.

Are there restrictions to expressing religious belief in public or private? (ER)

1 country (China) scores 0, as certain groups face severe restrictions to their right to practice their religion, to train new religious leaders, and in some cases have their teachings adapted to sit more in line with government priorities.

5 countries score 25. The governments of these countries exert huge control over their citizens and their right to practice certain religions.

5 countries score 50, 18 score 75. 26 countries score 100 meaning that their citizens have full religious freedoms.

Socioeconomic position is based on access to the resources required for life, in most societies this relates with access to money, be that via work or welfare entitlements.

Summary of Rights Areas

Rights Area Ranking: Unscored rights area

Country Coverage: NA

Data Availability: NA

Major data sources: NA

Notable limits to Socioeconomic rights or data to assess them: Lack of money can be a real barrier to equitable treatment before the law in many countries. Due to a number of social and systemic factors individuals from poorer backgrounds are overrepresented in prisons around the world. Each country captures data on prisons and their justice systems differently so it is difficult to assess how this comes about but two aspects to consider are paid bail systems and access to free legal aid.

Most countries offer a system for bail, however a limited number provide bail for a fee. This immediately puts those from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds at a disadvantage as they most likely will not be able to afford bail so end up being incarcerated before a trial.

Even in countries where paid bail is not common there can be inequalities in the justice system if the state does not provide legal aid to those who cannot afford it. Without adequate legal aid those accused of crimes may need to represent themselves, putting them at a huge disadvantage in any court hearing and increasing their risk of imprisonment. Local Insights provide some data on the accessibility of legal aid across the map.

Increased inequality inside prisons exacerbates inequality outside prisons too as those with criminal records often have their rights limited in other areas including access to work and voting.

Local Insights

Local Insights are available for 20 countries. 2 of these countries score 0 and do not provide any guarantee of legal aid in court regardless of resources available. 11 countries score 50, free legal aid is technically available in these countries but is either hard to access or only available to certain sections of society. The remaining 7 countries score 100 as everyone has a right to legal representation in court.

Rights Area Ranking: Lowest scoring rights area for Socioeconomic Background. 63.18% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Limited data for 8 countries

Data Availability: 3 out of 3 - available

Major data sources: ILO Statistics on Social Protection Benefits and Trade Union Membership; ITUC 2020 Global Rights Index - the World’s Worst Countries for Workers

Notable limits to Socioeconomic rights or data to assess them: Each source used for this rights area covers a different number of countries making it difficult to directly compare all scores across the map.

Is there unemployment welfare entitlement or equivalent? (IR)

This data covers the % of the population covered by at least one welfare entitlement. There is data answering this question for 49 countries.

8 countries score 0 meaning relatively few of their populations are covered by welfare entitlements such as unemployment. 4 countries score 25, 5 score 50, and 8 score 75. 26 countries score 100 showing that in just over half of the countries a fair amount of the population is covered by at least one welfare entitlement. The variance between scores in the original data is 100% showing a wide disparity in access to welfare entitlements across the map.

Are Trade Unions Prevalent? (IR)

This data covers the average annual Trade Union density rate from 2010-2016. There is data for 50 countries.

18 countries score 0 suggesting a relatively low prevalence of Trade Unions. 20 countries score 25, 6 countries score 50, and 3 score 75. Only 3 countries score 100. Across the map there is a relatively low density of Trade Unions in the majority of countries. The variance between original scores is 65.6% so there may not be a huge disparity between countries that score 100 and some countries that score 50.

Are there good working conditions? (ER)

The source used for this question assesses workers rights to strike, collective bargaining, form trade unions, access justice, and freedom of speech and assembly as well as rates of incarceration, violence, and even murder. There is data to answer this question for 53 countries.

13 countries score 0 and offer labourers no guarantee of rights or security. 11 countries score 25 and allow systematic violations of workers rights. 9 countries score 50 as there have been regular violations of workers rights. 11 countries score 75 - there have been repeated violations of rights but not regular. 9 countries score 100 - there are still violations of workers rights in these countries but they are sporadic.

Across the map over half the countries’ workers can expect constitutional or systematic violations of their rights and limited security at work. It is striking that even in countries that score 100 there are still violations of worker rights that take place.

Rights Area Ranking: Low scoring rights area for Socioeconomic Background. 64.09% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Limited data for 8 countries

Data Availability: 2 out of 3 - reasonable availability

Major data sources: UN Human Rights Index Table 3: Inequality in Education, Table 9: % GDP expenditure on education

Notable limits to Socioeconomic rights or data to assess them: There is very limited data on child labour across the countries featured in the map - statistics are only available for 9 countries. It is unlikely that these are the only 9 countries where child labour is used but due to a lack of a complete data set countries cannot be scored on this question. That is not to say that use of child labour should not be considered when assessing rights afforded to groups around the world, especially those from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds.

Does everyone have equal access to an Education? (IR)

Of the 53 countries we have data for, 3 score 0 and have the highest levels of inequality in education on the map. Another 3 score 25 and 3 more score 50. The remaining 44 countries score 75 (13 countries) or 100 (31 countries) suggesting that there is a comparatively fair level of education equality across the countries on the map. The country with the lowest level of education inequality had an original IHDI score of 98.6 while the country with the highest level of inequality originally scored 54 (variance 44).

Does the Government contribute money to the education system? (IR)

There is data for 47 countries on this question. 2 countries score 0 (DRC, Lebanon) and contribute much less of their GDP to education than others on the map 8 countries score 25, 15 score 50, and 16 score 75. 6 countries score 100 so contribute significantly more to education than the majority of countries on the map. The highest and lowest scores according to the original data were 1.47 and 7.635 so the variance across the board is very limited.

It could be safe to have assumed that the more public money a country spends on education the more accessible it will be to the population, however the data suggested otherwise. 1 of the 6 countries to score 100 scores 25 on access to education which might suggest that although a lot of public money is spent on education only a small percentage of the population is able to benefit from this spending. 1 of the countries that score 0 on this question scores 100 on education equality which might suggest that although the government does not spend as much on education as other countries on the map access to the education provided by this funding is distributed more equally amongst the population. It is also worth noting that all these scores may be skewed by the original data.

Rights Area Ranking: Mid-scoring rights area for Socioeconomic Background. 62.27% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Data available for all countries

Data Availability: 1 out of 1 - available

Major data sources: Dowry/Bride Price by Country Map

Notable limits to Socioeconomic rights or data to assess them: To assess this rights area data was used to see if there is a culture of taking dowries or bride prices at marriage. A dowry is a payment made by the bride’s family to the groom and his family. A bride price, on the other hand, is paid by the groom to the bride’s family. In some cases this is ceremonial only, and exchange of significant funds or goods is not expected. However, in other cases high dowries or bride prices are expected, placing a significant barrier to people as they look to start a family with gendered dimensions.

Is there a dowry/ bride price culture? (ER)

37 countries score 100 and do not have any culture or tradition of taking a dowry or bride price. 18 countries score 0 and do have this tradition. It must be noted that this will not always create an economic barrier to the right to marriage and a family, depending on how the tradition is upheld.

Rights Area Ranking: High scoring rights area for Socioeconomic Background. 83.64% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Data available for all countries

Data Availability: 2 out of 2 - available

Major data sources: CBI Index; La Vida Golden Visas

Notable limits to Socioeconomic rights or data to assess them: There are some countries on this map where it is possible to buy citizenship or residency for a sum of money - often much higher than would be feasible for anyone but the super wealthy to pay. These countries are not necessarily setting up barriers to less wealthy individuals to apply for citizenship - there may be other routes that don’t rely on investment, however they have created a clearer path to citizenship for the super wealthy thus increasing socioeconomic inequality amongst those who might live in the country. The data in this map looks at countries that offer residency and countries that offer citizenship separately as citizenship will come with more rights than residency, which will often have a time limit placed on it. (Though individuals may be able to apply for citizenship after residing in a country for a certain number of years).

Can the super-wealthy buy Citizenship? (ER)

Only 4 countries offer full citizenship by investment and score 0. The remaining 51 countries score 100.

Can the super-wealthy buy Residency/Visas? (ER)

14 countries score 0 as they offer residency by investment. The remaining 41 countries score 100 as they do not.

2 of the countries that offer citizenship don’t actually offer residency by investment while the other 2 offer either citizenship or residency by investment. The majority of countries (39) don’t offer either citizenship or residency by investment.

Rights Area Ranking: Highest scoring rights area for Socioeconomic Background. 89.9% average across all countries.

Country Coverage: Data available for all countries

Data Availability: 1 out of 1 - available

Major data sources: World population review - countries with free or cheap healthcare.

Notable limits to Socioeconomic rights or data to assess them: This was the highest scoring rights area for Socioeconomic background which may in part be due to the fact that only one source was used to assess it. This source assesses access to free or cheap healthcare, the main barrier faced by those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds in accessing their right to health. In countries where healthcare is inaccessible to those in disadvantaged socioeconomic positions their right to health is seriously compromised.

Is there free/ cheap healthcare? (ER)

49 countries score 100 and provide free or cheap healthcare to their citizens. 6 countries score 0 as they do not provide state supported healthcare.

The questions address women and their rights in relation to other genders, primarily men. Non-binary and queer gender identities are explored in the LGBTQIA+ Theme.

Gender is a complex concept that has varying understandings in different cultures and contexts.  

“Often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, gender is largely culturally determined and is assumed from the sex assigned at birth.” Gender expression refers to “how a person chooses to outwardly express their gender, within the context of societal expectations of gender.” Meanwhile, “gender identity refers to “a person’s innate sense of their own gender, whether male, female or something else and...may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth.”  (Stonewall, 2021) 

Therefore, whilst gender includes identities such as man and woman, it also includes non-binary, genderfluid, two-spirit, hijra and many, many more identities along its spectrum.

Unless specified otherwise most questions raised in this section refer to both those who identify themselves as women and those who are identified as women by others in society.

Summary of Rights Areas

Rights Area Ranking: Lowest scoring rights area for Women, 23.41% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Limited data for 1 country.

Data availability: 2 out of 5 - somewhat limited

Major data sources: Guardian reports on women’s rights to pass on citizenship to their children.

Notable limits to women’s rights or data to assess them: There is limited data on inequality based on women’s gender enshrined in law. This includes information on whether women have specific rights which protect them, women’s rights regarding their bodies, and whether trans women are recognised equitably by law. Local insights provide some information into these questions but map readers should check any changes to local legislation when assessing these rights areas.

Do women have an equitable right to pass on citizenship? (ER)

There is data to answer this question for 54 countries. 2 countries score 0 (Lebanon, Malaysia) and do not let mothers pass citizenship to their children whether married or unmarried. It is assumed in this case that children can only gain citizenship through their fathers. 1 country (UAE) scored 50 - in this case a woman’s right to pass on citizenship depends on their marriage status, married women cannot pass citizenship to their children. The remaining 51 countries score 100 and allow women to pass citizenship to their child regardless of marital status.

Local Insights

Rights afforded women with regard to their bodies varies between the countries assessed however legislation on sexual assault can provide an indication of general attitudes to these rights. Of the 22 countries there are local insights for 13 score 50 meaning that the country has sexual assault legislation but it is generally that each case is up for interpretation, or relies on victims to carry the burden of proof. 9 countries score 100 meaning that there is very clear legislation around sexual assault - if the victim’s consent is not given or withdrawn at any stage there is a clear case for a trial.

Trans women’s ability to change gender is discussed in Life, Liberty, and Security of Person to assess if trans women are recognised by society however it does not look at how they are treated by the law. Local insights show that in 6 of the 23 countries for which we have data trans women are not recognised so these countries score 0. 11 countries score 50 meaning that whilst trans women are recognised they do not have the same legal rights as those assigned female at birth. 6 countries (Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Norway) score 100, these countries recognise trans women equitably by national law or their constitution.

The LGBTQIA+ map looks at trans rights in more detail but here it is worth noting where countries recognise trans women, and in particular where they are afforded the same rights as those assigned as women at birth.

Rights Area Ranking: Lower-scoring rights area for Women, 38.64% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Data unavailable for 2 countries

Data Availability: 1 out of 3 - limited availability

Major data sources: World Economic Forum 2020 Gender Gap report

Notable limits to women’s rights or data to assess them

All countries where citizens are able to access voting give women this right just like men. However some countries still present significant social barriers to women accessing ballots either due to societal expectations or laws that might affect voting affecting women (for more info see local insights).

Are women allowed to participate in politics? (IR)

This data assesses countries based on % Women in parliament, % Women in ministerial positions, how many years the country had a female head of state out of the last 50, and the share of tenure years held by females. There is data for 53 countries.

11 countries score 0 and offer less access to government than other countries on the map. 18 score 25, 10 score 50, and 9 score 75. Only 5 countries score 100 suggesting that the countries on the map are comparatively skewed against women in politics.

Local Insights

In places where voting is accessible there may be limitations to women’s ability to organise for their own rights. It may be that women are not safe to enter the public sphere and raise their voices as public figures (discussed in the next section) or public attitude to the issues raised by women for women.

Rights Area Ranking: Mid-scoring rights area for Women: 56.36% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Data unavailable for 1 country

Data Availability: 1 out of 3 - limited availability

Major data source: UN Human Development Index Table 14 - Perceptions of Wellbeing, perceived safety of men and women.

Notable limits to women’s rights or data to assess them: In many countries women are limited in their ability to move through public spaces or to express themselves due to safety concerns or societal attitudes. They also may feel less able to take part in public discussions or activism, either due to safety concerns or reception of their views.

Do women feel safe in public? (IR)

There is data to answer this question for 53 countries. 6 countries score 0 and 10 score 25 suggesting that women feel comparatively much less safe in these countries than in others on the map. 12 score 50 and 26 countries score either 75 (14) or 100 (12) on Perceived Safety. This suggests that on balance women feel comparatively safe going out in public across the map.

This does not mean that women’s safety is not a concern for the countries on the map and there were higher degrees of perceived safety for men in almost all countries.

Local Insights

Many of the countries on the map see women feeling unsafe when speaking out in the public sphere - for example, as journalists, social commentators or public figures. Women’s ability to express themselves can also be limited by their access to the public sphere and if they can work in these jobs that would give them a platform to join discussions. In the 23 countries there are local insights for 1 scores 0 meaning that women cannot easily enter the public sphere without fear of harassment. 6 score 50 meaning that although women may enter the public sphere they are prohibited from working in public roles or suffer persecution and harassment when they do. 16 countries score 100, in these countries women are able to move and work freely in all areas of public discussion.

Even when women are able to live as high profile public figures, attitudes to women’s activism may impact how these discussions take place. The scores are distributed across the 23 countries there is local data in the same way that they are for women’s ability to join public discussion - 1 country scores 0, 6 score 50, 16 score 100. However the scores do not all align across countries. The country that scores 0 on public discussions scores 50 on women’s activism - meaning that women’s activism does take place but is taken less seriously than men’s activism by society and government. The country that scores 0 on women’s activism meaning that women’s safety is compromised by taking part in activism scores 50 on women’s ability to join public discussions as journalists etc. 1 country that scores 50 on taking part in public discussion scores 100 on activism meaning that women can take part in activism just as men can.

Rights Area Ranking: Mid-scoring rights area for Women,58.41% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Limited data for 2 countries.

Data Availability: 3 out of 3 - available

Major data source: UN Human Development Index Table 14 - Perceptions of Wellbeing, perceived freedom of choice for men and women; National Geographic map on the legality of Gender Change; UN Human Development Index Dashboard 3 - Women’s Empowerment, violence against women by partners and non-partners.

Notable limits to women’s rights or data to assess them: This rights area looks at data available regarding women’s perceived freedom, attitudes to trans women, and women’s security.

To what extent do women feel free in this society? (IR)

This data source does not define “freedom” but is assumed to cover freedom to access many of the rights areas covered by this map. There is data available for 54 countries.

4 countries score 0 and 7 score 25, suggesting women feel they lack freedom compared to how women in other parts of the map feel. 10 countries score 50 while 21 score 75 and 12 score 100. This suggests that across the map women feel comparatively free in society.

Do trans women have equitable rights? (ER)

This data looks at whether trans women are able to change gender. This data is explored in detail in the LGBTQIA+ map but is used here to gauge whether trans women are recognised. There is a level of assumption here that if trans women can change gender they will be treated the same way as other women by the law. The LGBTQIA+ map shows that this may not always be the case. It is not possible in either case to score countries based on how trans women are treated by the public as they move through society.

What are the levels of gender based violence against women? (IR)

This data assesses violence carried out towards women by partners and non partners. While this is an imperfect way to measure women’s security - the available data, and the gaps within it, may show societal attitudes towards gender based violence against women, who women might expect to experience violence at the hands of, or how much they speak out when it happens.

For example 12 countries provide data on violence women experience from partners but not non-partners - either suggesting that partners are considered a main threat or that gender based violence from non-partners is not recorded as such.

18 countries have no data at all - this may imply a taboo to speaking out about gender based violence, either because it is not considered a topic for public discussion or because there is a level of shame around admitting to either committing or experiencing gender based violence.

Of the 37 countries that do have data, 2 countries score 0 and 1 scores 25. 9 countries score 50, 12 score 75, and 13 score 100. This suggests that, on balance, there are relatively lower levels of violence against women across the map, though no country received an original score of under 5 for average cases of violence from partners and non partners. The lowest original averal score was 7.4 and the highest was 31.7.

Rights Area Ranking: Mid-scoring rights area for Women, 68.86% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Limited data for 2 countries.

Data Availability: 2 out of 2 - available

Major data source: UN Human Development Index Dashboard 2 - Life course gender gap, male-female school enrollment ratio; World Economic Forum 2020 Gender Gap report

Notable limits to women’s rights or data to assess them: Before assessing the data in this section of the map it must be noted that it only looks at the education disparity between genders and does not take into account any other factors that might limit a child’s access to education such as socioeconomic status, political events, disability, etc.

Do women and girls have equitable access to education? (IR)

This data looks at the Female-Male ratio in education across pre-primary, primary, and secondary education. 3 countries score 0 and 14 score 25. 29 countries score 50, 7 score 75, and 1 scores 100.

The mid-level scores received by the majority of countries imply that compared to other countries on the map girls are neither hugely underrepresented nor overrepresented in most schools. Therefore when assessing limits to women’s rights it’s more useful to focus on outlier countries, here looking at 2 of the 3 countries which scored 0.

One of the countries (Morocco) which scored 0 was amongst the lowest scoring countries for disparity between male-female school enrollment from pre-primary to tertiary. Where most scores lie within the boundaries of -0.99-0.99 this country’s scores were -16.6, -4, and -10 showing a consistent lack of access to education and ultimately placing it as the lowest scoring country for educational enrollment of girls.

The data tells a different story for the second lowest ranking country. While in the first country schoolgirls are underrepresented compared to their male counterparts throughout their education, this country (DCR) is one of the highest scoring countries for female representation at pre-primary level with a score of 7.17 over representation. At primary level the country receives a mid tier score of -0.7 but by the time children reach secondary school female enrollment drops to the extent that, at -36.04, the country had the lowest original score for female representation at secondary school. This data shows us that although girls are given the same opportunities to begin with these opportunities appear to be taken away as they grow older - possibly once they hit puberty.

Are attitudes supportive of the education of women and girls?

This data assesses the Educational Attainment gap assessed according to literacy rate and enrollment in education. This source is used to assess attitudes as by combining data on literacy rate as well as enrollment it may take into account girls whose families cannot afford to send them to school but still educate them at home more than school enrollment alone.

1 country scores 0 and 2 score 75. The remaining 52 countries score 100. It is assumed that countries with higher scores are more supportive of women and girls’ education.

Overlaps with other maps: The Disability and Socioeconomic maps look at other factors that play a part in children’s access to education. All three maps should be considered to gain a more rounded view of education across the countries assessed.

Rights Area Ranking: High-scoring rights area for Women,70% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Limited data for 2 countries.

Data Availability: 3 out of 4 - reasonable availability

Major data source: World Economic Forum 2020 Gender Gap report; UN Human Development Index Table 4 - Gender Development, estimated income; Guardian Infographic Data on women’s right and maternity/paternity leave.

Notable limits to women’s rights or data to assess them: There are industries that are, sometimes disproportionately, portrayed as employing more women than men and it’s worth considering the legislation that affects these industries. For example, relatively few countries have gender neutral laws around sex work, instead only affecting women who work in this industry.

Do women have equitable access to work? (IR)

This data assesses women’s economic participation and opportunity according to labour force participation, wage equality, and representation amongst legislators, managers, and technical/professional workers. This is measured separately from equal pay as some of the score takes women’s representation in (often better paid) management positions and technical or professional roles. The prevalence of women in these work positions is a good gauge of which opportunities to work and grow careers women are provided in each country. There is data for 54 countries.

4 countries score 0 and 2 score 25 suggesting that these countries allow women significantly less access to the workforce than men, especially compared to the rest of the map. 8 countries score 50, 18 score 75, and 20 score 100. These high scores suggest that on average women have comparatively high access to the workforce across the map. The disparity of scores in the original data is 44.4%.

Are women paid equitably for their labour? (IR)

This data looks at the Estimated Gross National Income for females and males in each country and calculates the female income as a % of the male income. The higher the % the more equal the pay. There is data for 54 countries.

6 countries (Egypt, India, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE) score 0 and 3 score 25 - these countries have the highest rate of wage inequality on the map. 11 countries score 50, 23 score 75, and 11 score 100. The bias towards higher scores suggests that most countries on the map are moving towards paying women equally. The lowest score a country received in the original data was 24.51, the highest was 81.25 (56.74% variance). None of the women working in countries on the map can expect the same average income as men working in the same country.

Are there adequate laws for parental leave? Paternity leave? (ER)

This data assesses whether women have a right to maternity leave or if their male partners have a right to paternity leave. There is data for all countries.

2 countries (Australia, USA) score 0 and do not offer maternity or paternity leave of any sort. 20 countries score 50 and offer maternity leave but not paternity leave. 33 countries score 100 and offer maternity and paternity leave.

Access to parental leave or lack of it can create a huge barrier women face in entering or progressing through the workforce. It should be noted that when countries legally require employers to offer maternity leave this is not necessarily paid leave. Countries that offer maternity but not paternity leave automatically place women as primary caregivers. This puts men at a disadvantage when raising their children but at a huge advantage when pursuing their careers.

Rights Area Ranking: High-scoring rights area for Women, 70.45% average across all countries

Country Coverage: No data for 1 country, limited data for 12 countries.

Data Availability: 2 out of 4 - limited availability

Major data source: UN Human Development Index (UNHDI) Dashboard 3 - Women’s Empowerment, proportion of births attended by skilled professionals; UN Human Development Index Dashboard 2 - Life Course Gender Gap, sex ratio at birth.

Notable limits to women’s rights or data to assess them: Assumptions about the state of women’s health sometimes need to be surmised from other data charts, or their gaps. Data on areas classified as ‘women’s health’ may also refer to people from other genders. It is difficult to assess where this is the case as some organisations adopt a binary approach to gender.

It is very difficult to find data regarding access to menstrual products - in part due to there being such a wide range in cultural attitudes to discussions around menstrual products, which products can or can’t be used, and how to access the people who these issues affect. However, there are a number of countries where girls are taken out of education during their period so by looking at the stats on the number of girls in (mostly secondary) education it is possible to draw conclusions not only about access to menstrual products but also attitudes to menstruation in general.

Is there adequate access to maternal healthcare? (IR)

This data assesses the proportion of births attended by a trained professional. It should be noted that there may be a number of factors contributing to access to such professionals including socioeconomic status or a country’s geography. There is data for 42 countries.

3 countries score 0, 3 score 50, 2 score 75. The remaining 34 countries all score 100 suggesting that on balance women across the map do have adequate access to maternal healthcare. The lowest score provided by the original data was 61.8 and the highest was 100 (variance 38.2%).

Ratio male-female births? (IR)

There is data on 54 countries for this question and it can also be used to assess the status of women in society overall.

1 country scores 0, 1 scores 25, and 2 score 50. 43 countries score 75 and 7 score 100. All countries have more male babies born than female, but in countries with noticeably higher male-female birth ratios this may point to a general perception of female children being less valued than male.

Overlap with other maps: Access to maternal healthcare has been assessed using data on the number of births attended by a trained professional. It should be noted that access to professionals may be limited by other factors, including socioeconomic status, apart from the importance society might place on women’s health.

Trans women may receive different levels of healthcare to those assigned as female at birth. This will also be considered in the LGBTQIA+ map.

Rights Area Ranking: Highest scoring rights area for Women, 72.06% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Limited data for 15 countries.

Data Availability: 3 out of 5 - reasonable availability

Major data source: Guardian Infographic Data on Women’s Rights - Abortion Laws, Other Equality; UN Human Development Index Dashboard 3 - Women’s Empowerment, Contraceptive Prevalence.

Notable limits to women’s rights or data to assess them: Data on pregnancy predominantly refers to women and girls but may also refer to people from other genders. It is difficult to assess where this is the case as some organisations adopt a binary approach to gender.

4 of the countries assessed have laws in place requiring married women to obey their husbands. 4 countries scored 0 or 25 on access to contraception. These are Comparative scores and women in these countries have significantly less access to contraception than women in other countries on the map. Abortion scores are objecting and only 1 country scored 0 so does not allow abortion under any circumstances. 8 countries assessed only allow abortion to save a person’s life. 27 countries allow abortions in any situation.

Some topics are difficult to access data on due to a potential lack of safety in declaring it. For example, there is no clear data on the rate of forced marriage across a wide enough range of countries to include in the wider map however this must be considered when discussing women’s rights regarding marriage and family life. In countries and communities where forced marriage is more common it is worth considering how this might impact the bride’s access to other rights.

There are some countries where women have different rights as parents to men. It is difficult to access data on this subject but rights and attitudes to women’s roles as parents may be surmised from data such as the right to pass on Nationality as discussed in ‘Recognition of equal rights to women before the law’.

Democratic political systems can take many forms, and this map does not concern itself with how politics are arranged within institutions. Rather it looks at how democratic values of participation and representation, safety in social action, and legitimate and accountable government.

This Theme was assessed according to Research Questions grouped into four Rights Areas.

When assessing this map there is an option to view another map below with a slider summarising all Themes with Democracy (on the left side) or without Level of Democracy (on the right side) as this Theme is slightly different to the others. Unlike other Themes, Level of Democracy can affect everyone in society, and indicates stability and security more broadly.

Summary of Rights Areas

62.27% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Data unavailable for 1 country

Major data source: CIVICUS Civic Space Monitor Map

Notable limits to democratic rights or data to assess them: This area overlaps with any rights of assembly, association, and expression afforded to any of the groups in the other Themed maps. By comparing the overall score each country receives in this map it should be possible to see where freedom of assembly is specifically denied to a certain group or to society as a whole.

How open is the country's civic space? (ER)

Of the 55 countries assessed, 3 scored 0 (China, Egypt, UAE) implying that in these countries the state and government maintain a high level of control over civic space. In these countries media and the internet may be highly censored and criticism of authorities comes with a serious risk of punishment. 9 countries scored 25 implying a high level of state surveillance and monitoring of the internet and media. There may be rights groups that disagree with these nations' governments but they are heavily targeted and their work impeded.

14 countries scored 100 implying a free media, online space, and citizens can expect to not only have their right to protest against or disagree with government protection but to be met with open dialogue on the issues at hand. 12 countries scored 50 implying that their citizens may organise peaceful protests but might face excessive force from law enforcement and 16 scored 75 implying that while in theory there is a right to protest or object to the government in the media in practice these rights can be undermined or ignored on occasion.

75.45% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Data available for all countries

Major data source: Freedom House Global Freedom Map

Notable limits to democratic rights or data to assess them: This area assesses whether governments have oppositions with a realistic opportunity to get into power and if everyone in the country has equal political rights. As with right of assembly the second research question can be used to assess where right to take part in government is specifically denied to one part of the population or if it’s denied to many groups.

Is there effective opposition with a realistic opportunity to get into government? (ER)

A government that has been technically voted into power can only be considered to have been democratically elected if they were up against an opposition with a realistic hope of also achieving power. This hope would not come from their policies that the people vote on but from the system in place and whether it allows opposition parties to form and grow without leaders or voters risking harassment or repression from the acting government. Of the 55 countries assessed 6 scored 0 and 3 scored 25 implying that there is very little opportunity for a new government to gain power. 5 countries scored 50 and 4 scored 75 leaving the vast majority of countries on the map (37) with a score of 100 and, theoretically, a system that allows opposition parties to run against the sitting government without expecting systematic legal or state sanctioned barriers to success. It should however be noted that even in countries with a score of 100 other systems including the media may still act against the opposition parties and affect their ability to win votes. However, it is to be assumed that these instances are not caused by government interference.

Does all of the population have equal political rights? (ER)

Only one country scored 0 on whether everyone has equal political rights and another 7 scored 25. Most of these countries also scored 0 or 25 on the question regarding opposition above. 2 countries received one of the lower scores on effective opposition but a mid-tier score on equal political rights. In these cases it can be surmised that while there are still considerable barriers faced by many sections of society to taking part in their country’s political or democratic process, their governments allow more political rights than others who control their opposition. However the question remains over how effective political rights are when there is only one party to engage with politically.

75.91% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Limited Data for 3 countries

Major data source: UN Human Development Index Table 14 - perceptions of Freedom; Freedom House Global Freedom Map; World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators

Notable limits to democratic rights or data to assess them: the research questions asked in this area covered trust the population has in their national government, whether the government was elected in a free and fair election, if there are high levels of corruption or safeguards against corruption, and if governments are held accountable for their actions.

Does the population trust their national Government? (IR)

12 of the 52 countries there is data for scored 0 and 14 scored 25 implying that half the countries have a much lower level of trust in their national government than others on the map. The source this data comes from, (UNHDR) does not specify why populations may not trust their governments and reasons may range from systematic faults to personal dislike of key figures in the government. It should also be noted that all but 2 of the countries who received a lower score on trust in government scored 50 or higher for civic space. Countries with lower scores for civic space/ right of assembly may have scores which are skewed due to fear of retribution so these scores should always be considered together. Of the 6 countries who scored 100 on trust in government 2 scored 25 on openness of civic space, 2 scored 50 on civic space and 2 scored 100.

Was the current government elected in a fair election? (ER)

Just as the score on trust in government should be looked at alongside the score on civic space, the score on whether the government was elected in a free and fair election should be assessed in tandem with their score on effective opposition discussed above. 8 of the 55 countries scored 0 on this question, 3 scored 25. All but 2 of these countries also scored 0 or 25 on effective opposition, the remaining 2 scored 50. 2 countries scored 50 on this question and 6 scored 75 leaving the majority of the countries assessed (36) with a score of 100 suggesting that in most countries featured in the map governments have gained power through free and fair elections.

Is there a high level of corruption? (IR)

Are safeguards against official corruption strong and effective? (ER)

It would be expected that countries who score low on levels of control of corruption would also score low on levels of safeguards against corruption. Both sets of data have been included as one is Internally Ranked (Control) and shows which of the countries have higher levels of control of corruption than others on the map while the other is Externally Ranked (Safeguards) and shows where the countries stand on a global scale. By comparing the two scores we can see if those who score lower comparatively are also scoring lower on a global scale or if we have a particularly high (or low) scoring set of countries and if so which countries are doing that much better or worse than others on reducing levels of corruption.

In general countries receive the same level of score whether it is Internally or Externally Ranked, though there is one anomaly which scored 100 for control of corruption and 50 on levels of safeguards against corruption. Otherwise the 10 countries scored 0 or 25 on Control got the same scores on Safeguards. Of the 14 countries who scored 50 on Control 9 also scored 50 on Safeguards (4 scored 25, 1 scored 75). Of the 9 countries that scored 75 on Control 6 scored the same on Safeguards (3 scored 50). 22 countries scored 100 on Control, 12 of which also scored 100 on Safeguards (9 scored 75 the scored 50). These scores suggest that although some of the countries that scored higher comparatively would not have scored quite as high objectively overall the majority of countries on the map do relatively well at reducing corruption.

Is the government held accountable to its actions? (IR)

Does the government operate with openness and transparency? (ER)

The final research questions in this area cover if governments are held accountable and if they operate with a level of transparency. As with levels of corruption one of these scores is Internally Ranked (Accountability) and the other is Externally Ranked (Transparency) so the two questions will be discussed together. In general the countries who score low on operating with transparency are also countries which are held less accountable to their actions compared with others on the map. 6 countries scored 0 on Accountability, 1 also scored 0 on Transparency while the other 4 scored 25, and 5 countries scored 25 on Accountability, 3 of which scored 25 on Transparency (1 scored 0 and 1 scored 50). 11 countries scored 50 on Accountability of which 8 also scored 50 on Transparency (3 scored 75) and of the 14 countries scoring 75 on Accountability 10 got the same score on Transparency (3 scored 50, 1 scored

100). 19 countries scored 100 on Accountability, only 3 of which did not get the same score on Transparency (they scored 75). These scores suggest that the majority of countries on the map operate in an open and transparent way and are held accountable to their actions, regardless of if you score them comparatively or objectively.

63.64% average across all countries

Country Coverage: Limited Data for 3 countries

Major data source: UN Human Development Index Table 14 - perceptions of Freedom; Freedom House Global Freedom Map

Notable limits to democratic rights or data to assess them: Questions on Efficacy of Democracy above cannot be discussed without also looking at the judiciary system as without an effective legal system governments cannot be held accountable.

Does the population have confidence in the judicial system? (IR)

Of the 52 countries we have data for on confidence in the judicial system 9 scored 0 and 11 scored 25, 12 countries scored 50, 14 scored 75 and just 6 scored 100. This suggests that in general the countries on the map are split in how much trust their citizens have in their legal system compared to other countries on the map.

Were the current national legislative representatives elected in a fair election? (ER)

Despite a comparative lack of confidence in legal systems, only 8 countries scored either 0 or 25 on whether their legal representatives are elected fairly (2 of these countries do not have data on public faith in the legal system). 4 countries scored 50, 7 scored 75, and 36 scored 100. This suggests that the majority of countries do elect legislative representatives fairly. A fair election does not necessarily guarantee that the rest of the legal system will be just so it should not be assumed that countries with comparatively low scores on trust in the system would score higher on a global scale however all scores should be considered together.

This interactive map explores laws and attitudes relating to specific Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Themes across all 55 countries and territories where Greenpeace operates.

Countries and territories covered

The mapping tool harnesses data covering the following 55 countries and territories.

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand (Aotearoa), Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, The Philippines, Tunisia, Turkey, UAE, United Kingdom, USA

The map brings together validated and reliable datasets on law, attitudes, and practices relating to the following Themes. Individual maps describe rights and laws across the globe pertaining to each Theme, whilst the summary map looks at the general situation in each country by taking an average of the scores (discussed below) across all Themes.

The map Themes, presented in alphabetical order are:

1. Disability
2. Ethnicity/Racism
3. LGTBQIA+
4. Religion
5. Socioeconomic
6. Women
7. Level of democracy

Themes 1-6 describe individual & community level situations.

Theme 7 describes macro level/societal situations.

As Level of Democracy operates at a different scale there is an alternative summary map that does not include this Theme, but has the rest of the themes 1-6 in it.

The map assesses rights afforded to groups across the world, drawing on the human rights declaration. A human rights framework has been chosen because:

• It is very comprehensive and can cover diverse contexts
• It holds high levels of legitimacy globally
• It informs the majority of international organisations and NGOs who were sources for the data
• It is complementary to the Themes and groups we have chosen to include in the map
• It provides a standard framework that is congruent with other EDI work inside and outside GPI

The original 30 rights from the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights  have been condensed into 11 ‘Rights Areas’ that combine similar/overlapping areas of life:

• Freedom of Movement
• Freedom of Thought and Expression
• Life, Liberty, and Security of Person
• Recognition Before the Law
• Right to Education
• Right to Take Part in Government
• Right to Health
• Right to Marriage and Family Life
• Right to Nationality
• Right to Peaceful Assembly and Association
• Right to Work

Different Rights Areas have been assessed for each of the 1-7 Themes. The text accompanying each map discusses Rights Areas organised by Research Question.

So to give an example from the Disability Theme, the Rights Area Life, Liberty and Security of Person includes the Research Question “Did the country sign a treaty confirming rights of persons with disabilities?”

Data from diverse sources has been standardised into a  scoring table  to inform the map visualisations. The availability of rights in each country is assessed and assigned a numerical score which ranges from:

0 - generally negative

50 - situation dependent

100 - generally positive for those involved

Depending on the data used to assess a Research Question data has either been Externally Ranked or Internally Ranked:

Externally Ranked (ER)

The information found in external reports or data sources was in such a format that it did not require adaptation to fit in our scoring system.

Internally Ranked (IR)

The scores provided by the original source were adapted to our scoring system. More granular numbers are translated into scores of 0, 25, 50, 75, or 100. Standardising detailed datasets in this way ensures more equal weighting between questions.

Scores are standardised by finding the range between the highest and lowest scores, then divided into five bands and scores allocated accordingly. An explanation of how scores are standardised can be found in the  EDI Map Data sheet .

The text accompanying each map indicates where Research Questions scores have been Externally Ranked or Internally Ranked.

Data used on this map falls into two categories: Map Data and Local Insights.

Map Data

Sources included in the map were chosen according to whether they matched an internal set of criteria for the data. These were:

Date of data collection - with the exception of one source for Women’s rights, resources for the map are dated between 1/1/2015 and 31/12/2020. Resources from outside of this time period deemed useful have been included in the  Data Sources table  to provide further information on each Theme.

Country coverage - sources were sought that cover a majority, if not all, the countries assessed by the map.

Legitimacy and reputability of sources - While a source will carry bias from the organisation that creates it (discussed further below) sources have been selected to have come from organisations with high levels of legitimacy.

Using this criteria final sources fall into the following categories:

• International organisations (eg. United Nations agencies)
• International NGOs representing groups represented by each Theme (eg. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association)
• Independent research centres (eg. universities)
• Reputable news outlets

Local Insights

While the data used to populate the map provides a broad overview of the laws and practices in place in all 55 countries, there are certain aspects of citizens’ lived experience that cannot be captured by this data, for example laws are not always upheld, or if they are they may not capture attitudes prevalent in society and public discussion.

The situations around some Rights Area issues change faster than the large organisations we used to populate the map can capture, or situations vary depending on cultural contexts that are not easy to standardise. Other issues are not included in international datasets, or if they are they do not cover all countries.

To provide further information to complement the map where data was not found Local Insights and resources were provided by NROs EDI Officers for each Theme. When assessing any Theme it is strongly recommended that readers of the map also examine these resources to provide a fuller picture of any group or country’s situation.

Bias of Sources

Wherever possible this map has avoided using sources with a clear agenda. However this has meant that a lot of the Map Data relies on international organisations designed and dominated by predominantly Global North governments. This impacts issue framing, agenda setting, and the data that is captured, and should be considered carefully when using the map.

Local Insights work to counter this by adding more diverse narratives, whilst map text provides nuance and context. As such it is important to use the maps alongside the text and further resources.

EDI  Map Data 

EDI  Map Data Sources  by Theme

This map and the accompanying text were last updated in April 2021.

Please record your lived experiences being a member of an EDI group and/or local/national data sources we could add in the map, better terminology to use, feedback and suggestions. This form is anonymous. If you wish to be contacted, please add your email in the end of the form. Thank you!

Greenpeace is politically independent and does not take sides in territorial disputes. Boundaries on maps reflect legal requirements and/or the data source used. Source: Carto