Search for a command to run...
Effective climate policy is central to sustainability transitions and to monitoring progress toward sustainable development, yet national climate policy ratings often differ in scope, indicator design, time coverage, and scoring logic, producing inconsistent country assessments. This creates a need for transparent tools that can compare, interpret, and contextualize existing indices rather than rely on any single metric. This paper develops an exploratory protocol for sustainability-oriented cross-index assessment of national climate policy effectiveness. We combine a structured comparative analysis and a SWOT-informed diagnostic synthesis of four representative approaches—the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), Climate Action Tracker (CAT), the Climate Laws, Institutions, and Measures Index (CLIMI), and the Climate Policy Measure Index (CPMI)—with a pilot inter-index concordance test using rank-based correlation analysis for a small country sample and a common reference year (2012). The pilot is intended as an illustrative methodological example rather than a generalizable statistical test. The results indicate strong alignment among broad, composite approaches (CCPI, CAT, CLIMI), while an instrument-focused metric (CPMI, centered on carbon pricing and fiscal signals) shows weaker consistency with outcome- and governance-oriented ratings. Building on these insights, we compile an integrated indicator set that links outcomes (GHG levels and trends), structural drivers (energy mix, efficiency), policy instruments (pricing, regulation, subsidies), governance capacity (legal and institutional strength), and enabling conditions (finance, public engagement, international cooperation). We also specify the operational steps of the proposed workflow, including index selection, temporal harmonization, ordinal encoding, concordance analysis, discrepancy diagnosis, indicator mapping, and provisional normalization, weighting, aggregation, and validation rules for future composite implementation. The protocol should therefore be understood as a sustainability-oriented decision support workflow for interpreting agreements and disagreements across existing indices and for supporting more balanced evaluation of low-carbon transitions; a fully aggregated composite index with large-sample validation remains a task for future research.