New Zealand vs Yemen: 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
- New Zealand
- Yemen
How they compare
New Zealand currently reports 1.1 against 1.08 in Yemen, a difference of 0.02.
Across all 10 years both countries report, New Zealand has been ahead every year.
New Zealand ranks 121st and Yemen ranks 123rd of 186 countries.
New Zealand has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | New Zealand | Yemen | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010s | 1.55 | 1.08 | 0.47 | New Zealand |
| 2020s | 1.17 | 1.08 | 0.086 | New Zealand |
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, New Zealand or Yemen?
- New Zealand, at 1.1 against 1.08 in Yemen as of 2024.
- What is the difference in sdg indicator 8.8.2: level of national compliance with labour rights between New Zealand and Yemen?
- 0.02, with New Zealand ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for New Zealand and Yemen?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2015 to 2024.
- How do New Zealand and Yemen rank globally for sdg indicator 8.8.2: level of national compliance with labour rights?
- New Zealand ranks 121st and Yemen ranks 123rd 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.