Japan vs Papua New Guinea: SDG indicator 8.8.2: Level of national compliance with labour rights
SDG indicator 8.8.2: Level of national compliance with labour rights over time
- Japan
- Papua New Guinea
How they compare
Japan currently reports 1.11 against 1.1 in Papua New Guinea, a difference of 0.01.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2015 it was Papua New Guinea ahead.
Japan ranks 120th and Papua New Guinea ranks 121st of 186 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Japan averaged higher in 1 and Papua New Guinea in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Japan | Papua New Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 1.17 | 1.2 | 0.028 | Papua New Guinea |
| 2020s | 1.11 | 1.1 | 0.01 | Japan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher sdg indicator 8.8.2: level of national compliance with labour rights, Japan or Papua New Guinea?
- Japan, at 1.11 against 1.1 in Papua New Guinea as of 2024.
- What is the difference in sdg indicator 8.8.2: level of national compliance with labour rights between Japan and Papua New Guinea?
- 0.01, with Japan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Japan and Papua New Guinea?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2024.
- How do Japan and Papua New Guinea rank globally for sdg indicator 8.8.2: level of national compliance with labour rights?
- Japan ranks 120th and Papua New Guinea ranks 121st of 186 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- International Labour Organization, published as SDG indicator 8.8.2: Level of national compliance with labour rights, freedom of association and collective bargaining. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The indicator measures the level of national compliance with fundamental rights at work (freedom of association and collective bargaining, FACB) for all ILO member states based on six international ILO supervisory body textual sources and also on national legislation. It is based on the coding of textual sources against a list of evaluation criteria and then converting the coding into indicators. The indicator has a range from 0 to 10, with 0 being the best possible score (indicating higher levels of compliance with FACB rights) and 10 the worst (indicating lower levels of compliance with FACB rights). This indicator is not intended as a tool to compare compliance among ILO member States. It should specifically be noted that reporting obligations of an ILO member State to the ILO's supervisory system and thus ILO textual sources are different for ratifying and non‐ratifying ILO member States.