Climate shaming: explaining environmental NGOs targeting practices

Figures & data

Figure 1. World map: NGO climate shaming, 1990–2015.

Table 1. The top 10 most and least shamed.

Top 10 most shamed	Top 10 least shamed
USA	Tonga
Australia	Mauritania
Poland	Panama
Brazil	Suriname
Argentina	Uzbekistan
Germany	Gabon
India	Nicaragua
Canada	Tunisia
Japan	Mauritius
Mexico	Yemen

Figure 2. Number of countries shamed over time.

Table 2. Negative binomial regression analysis.

Variables	Model 1	M2	M3	M4
ICAs	−0.713***	−0.561***	−0.681***	−0.453***
	(0.145)	(0.168)	(0.064)	(0.171)
Climate institutions	0.177***	0.075***	0.176***	0.071***
	(0.026)	(0.020)	(0.024)	(0.017)
Climate laws	0.043	−0.066***	0.037	−0.071***
	(0.027)	(0.025)	(0.028)	(0.023)
CO2 per capita	0.064***	0.091***	0.052***	0.064***
	(0.016)	(0.019)	(0.019)	(0.015)
Liberal democracy index	1.243***	2.303***	1.691***	2.518***
	(0.378)	(0.354)	(0.384)	(0.379)
GDP Capita	−0.001	0.096	0.014	0.264*
	(0.127)	(0.121)	(0.181)	(0.150)
Trade	0.012***	−0.001	0.012***	−0.002
	(0.003)	(0.002)	(0.003)	(0.001)
Population	1.249***	1.791***	1.179***	1.692***
	(0.151)	(0.150)	(0.163)	(0.161)
Constant	−12.096	−3.943***	−1.759	−4.565***
	(80.128)	(1.110)	(1.768)	(1.446)
LDV	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Year-fixed	No	Yes	No	Yes
Region-fixed	No	No	Yes	Yes
Observations	2,190	2,190	2,190	2,190

Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

Figure 3. Marginal Effects on Predicted Number of NGO Climate Shaming Events.

Figure 4. A–C. Marginal Effects of ICAs (A), Climate laws (B), Climate membership (C) as countries become more democratic.