The Paris Performance Ranking provides a useful lens on sovereign Paris alignment

The Paris Performance Ranking was created to answer a simple but increasingly important question - which countries are genuinely aligned with the Paris Agreement?

In climate analysis, commitments alone are no longer sufficient. What matters is real progress, because climate is not only an environmental issue; it is also a financial and economic one. A country’s policy framework, energy system and regulatory trajectory can materially shape long-term investment outcomes. For institutional investors, understanding where climate-related risks and opportunities are emerging is therefore essential.

This is the rationale behind our ranking. It is an effort to look beyond declarations and provide a more practical perspective on sovereign climate alignment. In doing so, it reflects a conviction that is central to our approach: it is worth launching a useful and decision-relevant tool, even if it remains open to refinement. Once again, we chose to initiate something innovative rather than wait for a perfect framework that may arrive too late to be useful.

Why Paris alignment needs a broader lens

Most existing country rankings focus primarily on current emissions. Our approach is different. The Paris Performance Ranking returns to the original architecture of the Paris Agreement by assessing countries across its three pillars: mitigation, adaptation and international support.

It also incorporates fairness and historical responsibility, which are conceptually central to the Agreement but too often treated as secondary. The result is a broader, more forward-looking perspective on sovereign climate alignment.

What the framework means for emerging markets

This broader framework is especially important when extending the ranking to emerging markets. The global transition will not depend on developed economies alone. Emerging economies play an increasingly important role in emissions, energy demand and economic growth, while also facing distinct constraints, particularly with respect to resilience and access to finance. For that reason, our emerging market framework reflects these realities. In this universe, the international support pillar is not included, as this requirement applies primarily to Annex I countries under the Paris framework. In the OECD model, by contrast, that dimension remains relevant because it helps distinguish countries that are serious not only domestically, but also globally.

A practical tool for sovereign engagement and investment analysis

For investors, the ranking is intended as a practical tool. It helps assess sovereign climate risk, identify different transition profiles and support engagement with governments. In short, it allows investors to look beyond carbon alone and better understand countries’ transition pathways, resilience architecture and governance readiness.

The ranking is not designed to measure today’s emissions, climate vulnerability or green technology deployment in isolation. Instead, it evaluates countries through three Paris-related questions:

1. Are projected emissions aligned with a 2°C pathway?

2. Are they aligned with an equity-adjusted fair share?

3. Has the country established the minimum procedural adaptation architecture expected under the Paris framework?

This methodology can produce results that differ from more conventional sovereign climate risk rankings. The top three countries, for instance, may surprise some observers. That is because the model is not simply capturing emissions intensity or near-term vulnerability; it is assessing the architecture of Paris alignment in a more holistic way. Adaptation and fairness are not add-ons to the framework, but central to its conceptual foundations. As a result, the highest-ranked countries tend to be those that combine credible mitigation outcomes with full compliance on adaptation processes. Conversely, the lowest-ranked countries are penalised by weak fair-share alignment and, in some cases, by a limited degree of alignment with a domestic 2°C pathway.

We fully acknowledge that adaptation remains difficult to assess worldwide. Our current measurement relies on binary indicators, which may appear crude. The indicators capture the existence and publication of plans and reports, not their quality or implementation. This is clearly a limitation. However, compliance with procedural adaptation requirements can reasonably be viewed as the most basic and rapidly achievable signal of serious intent under the Paris framework. In that sense, these proxies are imperfect but still informative. Importantly, adaptation is not the main differentiator across countries in the ranking; mitigation remains the dominant driver.

Within mitigation itself, the fair-share lens is particularly revealing. The least-cost domestic pathway metric is, in some cases, less discriminating across the emerging market universe than one might expect. In contrast, the equity-adjusted perspective more clearly separates different types of low performers: on one side, countries with weak domestic pathway alignment; on the other, countries whose weak performance is primarily driven by fair-share considerations. This distinction is highly relevant for investors seeking a more nuanced understanding of sovereign transition risk.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Paris Performance Ranking is designed to be transparent, parsimonious and useful. By integrating mitigation, adaptation and fairness principles, and by placing historical responsibility at the centre, it offers a robust Paris-alignment framework with a strong justice lens. The use of geometric aggregation also discourages excessive compensation across dimensions, reinforcing the integrity of the final result. It is not a substitute for broader climate-policy, vulnerability or transition-readiness assessments. But precisely because it is focused, explicable and holistic, it can be particularly valuable for sovereign engagement and investment analysis.

In that sense, the ranking is not only an analytical tool; it is also a statement of intent. It reflects a willingness to move first, to innovate, and to provide investors with a framework that is already useful today, even as it continues to improve over time.

Please see our interactive Paris Performance Ranking and the disclosure requirements for more information.