Sustainability Education Policies by Country

Sustainability education policies measure how well countries integrate sustainability, environmental issues, human rights, and global citizenship into their official education frameworks. This indicator reflects whether governments have established formal commitments to teach students about climate change, sustainable development, social justice, cultural diversity, and global challenges.

Understanding Policy Integration

This indicator measures the extent to which global citizenship education (GCED) and education for sustainable development (ESD) are mainstreamed in national education policies. Global citizenship education focuses on developing students' understanding of global issues, human rights, cultural diversity, peace, and social justice. Education for sustainable development addresses environmental, economic, and social sustainability. The score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating stronger policy frameworks mandating these topics in education systems.

Policy integration is the foundation for systematic implementation. Countries with strong policy frameworks establish clear mandates, allocate resources, and create accountability for teaching global citizenship and sustainability. Without explicit policies, these topics remain optional or dependent on individual teacher initiative. This indicator captures whether countries have made formal commitments to prepare students for global citizenship and sustainable futures.

The global landscape shows 63 countries with measurable policy integration. Twenty-one countries achieve perfect scores (100%), including major nations like Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Germany, France, Georgia, Hungary, India, South Korea, Lithuania, Latvia, Myanmar, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey, and Ukraine. These countries have established comprehensive policy frameworks. At the lower end, New Zealand (35.0%) and United Kingdom (41.2%) show surprisingly weak policy integration despite strong education systems overall.

Sustainability Education Policies by Country

Export

Excel (.xlsx) CSV Document PDF Document PNG Image

#	Country	2020 Score (%)
1	Andorra AD	100%
2	Bahrain BH	100%
3	Brazil BR	100%
4	Cambodia KH	100%
5	Colombia CO	100%
6	Cuba CU	100%
7	Cyprus CY	100%
8	France FR	100%
9	Georgia GE	100%
10	Germany DE	100%
11	Hungary HU	100%
12	India IN	100%
13	Lithuania LT	100%
14	Latvia LV	100%
15	Myanmar MM	100%
16	Malawi MW	100%
17	Peru PE	100%
18	Poland PL	100%
19	Romania RO	100%
20	Russia RU	100%
21	San Marino SM	100%
22	Slovenia SI	100%
23	Sweden SE	100%
24	Türkiye TR	100%
25	Ukraine UA	100%
26	Dominican Republic DO	96.9%
27	Belgium BE	95%
28	Armenia AM	87.5%
29	Burkina Faso BF	87.5%
30	Canada CA	87.5%
31	DR Congo CD	87.5%
32	Estonia EE	87.5%
33	Finland FI	87.5%
34	Ireland IE	87.5%
35	Italy IT	87.5%
36	Jordan JO	87.5%
37	Malaysia MY	87.5%
38	Monaco MC	87.5%
39	Mongolia MN	87.5%
40	Nicaragua NI	87.5%
41	Palestine PS	87.5%
42	Turkmenistan TM	87.5%
43	Moldova MD	85.9%
44	Czech Republic CZ	84.4%
45	Thailand TH	84.4%
46	Malta MT	83.7%
47	Austria AT	83.1%
48	Bangladesh BD	81.3%
49	Oman OM	81.3%
50	Mexico MX	75%
51	Saudi Arabia SA	75%
52	Albania AL	71.9%
53	Algeria DZ	62.5%
54	Kuwait KW	62.5%
55	Kyrgyzstan KG	62.5%
56	Burundi BI	61.9%
57	Bosnia and Herzegovina BA	58.3%
58	Saint Kitts and Nevis KN	57.5%
59	Bulgaria BG	56.3%
60	Slovakia SK	51.2%
61	United Kingdom GB	41.2%
62	New Zealand NZ	35%

Regional Patterns

European countries show highly varied policy integration. Many achieve perfect scores: Germany, France, Sweden, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Ukraine all score 100%. However, significant variation exists: United Kingdom (41.2%), Slovakia (51.2%), and Bulgaria (56.3%) show weaker policy frameworks. This variation suggests that strong education systems do not automatically translate to strong GCED/ESD policies without explicit political commitment.

Latin American countries demonstrate strong policy commitment. Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, and Peru all achieve 100%, while Dominican Republic (96.9%) and Mexico (75.0%) show solid integration. This regional strength reflects growing recognition that global citizenship and sustainability education are essential for addressing regional challenges including inequality, environmental degradation, and social cohesion.

Asian countries display wide variation. India, South Korea, Myanmar, and Cambodia achieve 100%, while Thailand (84.4%), Malaysia (87.5%), and Bangladesh (81.3%) show strong integration. However, Kuwait (62.5%) and Kyrgyzstan (62.5%) lag behind. This variation reflects different national priorities and political contexts across the diverse region.

Middle Eastern countries show moderate to strong integration. Bahrain (100%), Jordan (87.5%), Oman (81.3%), and Palestine (87.5%) demonstrate solid policy frameworks. Saudi Arabia (75.0%) and Kuwait (62.5%) show moderate integration. These scores suggest growing regional recognition of global citizenship education's importance despite varying political contexts.

Implications and Challenges

Strong policy frameworks create foundations for systematic implementation. Countries scoring 100% have established clear mandates requiring global citizenship and sustainability education throughout their systems. These policies provide direction for curriculum developers, teacher trainers, and school administrators, ensuring systematic rather than ad hoc implementation.

However, policy integration alone does not guarantee effective implementation. Countries must translate policy commitments into curricula, teacher training, and classroom practice. The gap between policy and practice remains a challenge in many contexts, requiring sustained investment and monitoring to ensure policies translate into actual student learning.

Political commitment drives policy integration. Countries achieving high scores typically have political leadership recognizing global citizenship and sustainability education as national priorities. This commitment often reflects responses to specific challenges—inequality, environmental degradation, social cohesion needs—that drive educational policy prioritization.