Making Green Financial Policies Comparable

Building the GFP Database

Coverage & data sources

The database provides a global record of implemented green financial policy measures across 186 countries from 2006 to 2024. It documents when policies entered into force, how they are designed, who implements them, and the scope of institutions or markets they cover. By 2024, 151 countries had implemented at least one green financial policy instrument, while 35 had none, resulting in roughly 1,350 coded policy-level observations. Countries for which reliable information could not be assembled, such as Cuba and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, are excluded. The database is dynamic: it tracks policy expansions, revisions, and withdrawals over time, and is intended to be updated regularly as green financial policy frameworks continue to evolve.

The database is compiled from official sources — government and ministry websites, central bank and monetary authority publications, stock exchange commissions, and supranational institutions (including EU institutions and monetary-union authorities such as the BCEAO) — complemented and cross-checked against established platforms and databases, including:

• Fitch’s ESG Regulation and Reporting Standards
• Green Finance Platform
• Carrots & Sticks Database
• Sustainable Stock Exchange Initiative (SSEI)
• ICMA Sustainable Bond Database (with the LGX DataHub) and the Climate Bonds Initiative
• NGFS, SBFN, and PRI membership records
• Green Central Banking Scorecard (Barmes & Livingstone) and the D’Orazio & Thole (2022) climate-related financial policy dataset
• Peking University INSE Public Development Banks and DFIs Database; NRDC Green Bank Network
• International organization documents (World Bank, IMF, IDB, ADB)

The coding follows a structured four-step procedure: (1) systematic searches of official sources to identify implemented instruments, recording key attributes such as entry into force, stringency, scope, and implementing authority; (2) cross-checking instruments listed in established external trackers and databases against any available official sources or documentation; (3) broader verification searches for countries with no identified policies; and (4) continuous tracking of policy changes over time, including amendments, updates, and withdrawals. The full database records the source for each coded policy, with hyperlinks to reference documents.

Three policy domains

Green financial policies are classified into three policy domains, each corresponding to distinct frictions in financial markets and public policy.

The GFP Index

The Green Financial Policy Index measures policy adoption and formal design stringency — a country’s green financial-policy architecture — not de facto enforcement or policy effectiveness.

Governments, central banks, and financial regulators have introduced a rapidly growing range of measures intended to align financial systems with environmental objectives. Until now, empirical research has lacked a harmonized framework for quantifying the scope and stringency of these policies across countries and over time.

The GFP Index fills that gap. It scores each country from 0 to 100 based on the breadth and formal stringency of its implemented green financial policies, combining three equally weighted policy domains, each also available as a stand-alone sub-index:

• Green Transparency Policy (GTP) — disclosure requirements and green criteria that reduce information asymmetries and limit greenwashing.
• Green Financial Market Policy (GFM) — green bond frameworks and standards, green securitization policies, and public green investment initiatives.
• Green Central Bank Policy (GCB) — green monetary policy instruments and non-monetary measures such as climate stress tests and participation in international green networks.

Scoring and aggregation. Each of the three policy-domain sub-indices (GTP, GFM, GCB) ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating a broader and formally more stringent set of implemented policies. Scoring is additive — additional instruments expand a country’s policy architecture — and hierarchical, with more stringent policies superseding weaker ones. The composite GFP Index assigns equal weight to the three sub-indices, a deliberately transparent choice that avoids strong prior judgments about the relative importance of each policy domain. Rankings are robust to alternative aggregation methods.

What the Index does — and does not — measure. The indices capture policy adoption and formal design stringency, not de facto enforcement intensity, realized compliance, or policy effectiveness. A country may adopt formally stringent policies but enforce them weakly, or enforce modest policies very effectively. This distinction matters especially in cross-country settings.

Validation. The Index has been validated empirically: it predicts green bond issuance, both at the extensive margin and in issuance volumes, while showing no comparable association with adjacent labelled bond categories or with public energy investment — evidence that it captures a specific financial-policy dimension rather than general environmental ambition. Full details are in the accompanying paper.

Key facts

A composite 0–100 benchmark of how broad and formally stringent a country’s green financial policies are, hand-built for 186 countries across 2006–2024. From near-zero in 2005 to 151 of 186 countries by 2024, with adoption accelerating after the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Averaged with equal weight into the composite GFP Index — no domain presumed more important than another.

Leading countries — France ranks first overall

Malaysia leads on market policy (GFM); China leads on central-bank tools (GCB).

By region

Europe & Central Asia rank highest on average stringency; Sub-Saharan Africa lags most, with East Asia & Pacific, North America, Middle East & North Africa, South Asia, and Latin America & the Caribbean in between.

Validation

Where it takes root