EPLex Composite Protection
ILO composite score for employment protection legislation covering termination rules, notice periods, severance, and redress.
According to the International Labour Organization, the World Bank, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, this ranking draws on official employment-protection indicators published through 2025; see our methodology for source vintages and how each score is computed.
Tajikistan ranks #1 for EPLex Composite Protection at 0.661, according to ILO EPLex.
EPLex Composite Protection ranks 95 countries. ILO composite score for employment protection legislation covering termination rules, notice periods, severance, and redress, measured on a 0-1 ILO EPLex scale. Tajikistan leads the table at 0.661, against a 95-country median of 0.431. Costa Rica sits at the opposite end with 0.179. Every score reflects the 2025 release cycle and links through to the full statutory or survey detail behind each country's number.
The ranking in one line
Tajikistan leads the 95-country eplex composite protection ranking at 0.661, against a global median of 0.431.
- 0.661
- #1 - Tajikistan
- 0.431
- global median
- 0.427
- mean across all
- 95
- countries ranked
Source: ILO EPLex. Scale 0-1.
Reading the EPLex Composite Protection Ranking
This ranking sorts 95 countries by eplex composite protection, drawn directly from ILO EPLex with a native scale of 0-1. ILO composite score for employment protection legislation covering termination rules, notice periods, severance, and redress. Data on this page reflects the 2025 release cycle, taken from the ILO EPLex statutory indicators database. All rankings use unique ranks, alphabetical tie-breaking means every country has a distinct position, even when raw values match to two decimals.
The average across all 95 ranked countries is 0.427, with a median of 0.431. The median is the middle-ranked country's own value, so a handful of unusually high or low countries can't pull it the way they pull an average; here the two sit close together, meaning the tracked countries cluster fairly evenly around the middle. At the top of the table sit Tajikistan (0.661), Czech Republic (0.643), and Indonesia (0.638). At the bottom, Costa Rica reports 0.179, below United States (0.222) and Brazil (0.225). The spread between highest and lowest is 0.482, indicating how much statutory or practical variation exists within the tracked countries.
Ranking order does not imply a value judgment, higher scores on EPLex Composite Protection mean stricter statutory protection, which different stakeholders read differently. For workers, higher values typically signal stronger formal safeguards against dismissal; for employers, they signal higher adjustment costs and longer dismissal processes. Click any country row to open its full profile, where the same indicator is displayed alongside related metrics, notice periods, severance schedules, B-READY pillar breakdowns, or OECD historical trends, so that the rank you see here can be traced back to concrete statutory rules and World Bank survey measurements. All underlying values are stored on PlainEmploy exactly as published by ILO EPLex, with no transformation beyond the rank calculation.
A ranking like this one is most useful for spotting groups of countries that behave similarly, not for reading too much into a single position. The countries near the top share strong statutory protections against dismissal, the middle band tends to balance worker security against employer flexibility, and the lower positions usually reflect labor markets that lean toward easier hiring and firing. Small gaps between adjacent ranks rarely matter, because the underlying indicators are built from survey responses and legal coding that carry their own margin of error. Pay more attention to which tier a country falls into than to whether it sits one or two places higher than a neighbor. Coverage also shapes the order, since a country only appears here if it reports the relevant measure, so the list reflects the countries that publish data rather than every labor market in the world. Where you want the full statutory and practical context behind a position, open the individual country page, which lays out each source, the year it was published, and the caveats that apply to that figure.
| # | Country | Score (0-1) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tajikistan ๐น๐ฏ | 0.661 |
| 2 | Czech Republic ๐จ๐ฟ | 0.643 |
| 3 | Indonesia ๐ฎ๐ฉ | 0.638 |
| 4 | Turkmenistan ๐น๐ฒ | 0.619 |
| 5 | Montenegro ๐ฒ๐ช | 0.608 |
| 6 | Philippines ๐ต๐ญ | 0.606 |
| 7 | Uzbekistan ๐บ๐ฟ | 0.599 |
| 8 | Portugal ๐ต๐น | 0.591 |
| 9 | Netherlands ๐ณ๐ฑ | 0.573 |
| 10 | Slovakia ๐ธ๐ฐ | 0.567 |
| 11 | Kazakhstan ๐ฐ๐ฟ | 0.551 |
| 12 | Bolivia ๐ง๐ด | 0.548 |
| 13 | North Macedonia ๐ฒ๐ฐ | 0.542 |
| 14 | Slovenia ๐ธ๐ฎ | 0.535 |
| 15 | Angola ๐ฆ๐ด | 0.535 |
| 16 | Viet Nam ๐ป๐ณ | 0.535 |
| 17 | Lesotho ๐ฑ๐ธ | 0.531 |
| 18 | Turkey ๐น๐ท | 0.528 |
| 19 | Egypt ๐ช๐ฌ | 0.527 |
| 20 | Ukraine ๐บ๐ฆ | 0.506 |
| 21 | Germany ๐ฉ๐ช | 0.504 |
| 22 | Congo, Dem. Rep. ๐จ๐ฉ | 0.496 |
| 23 | Austria ๐ฆ๐น | 0.494 |
| 24 | Ethiopia ๐ช๐น | 0.489 |
| 25 | Sweden ๐ธ๐ช | 0.484 |
| 26 | Greece ๐ฌ๐ท | 0.476 |
| 27 | Comoros ๐ฐ๐ฒ | 0.473 |
| 28 | Morocco ๐ฒ๐ฆ | 0.472 |
| 29 | Mexico ๐ฒ๐ฝ | 0.471 |
| 30 | Central African Republic ๐จ๐ซ | 0.469 |
| 31 | Estonia ๐ช๐ช | 0.465 |
| 32 | China ๐จ๐ณ | 0.463 |
| 33 | Luxembourg ๐ฑ๐บ | 0.461 |
| 34 | Denmark ๐ฉ๐ฐ | 0.457 |
| 35 | Zambia ๐ฟ๐ฒ | 0.455 |
| 36 | Cambodia ๐ฐ๐ญ | 0.455 |
| 37 | Afghanistan ๐ฆ๐ซ | 0.454 |
| 38 | South Korea ๐ฐ๐ท | 0.454 |
| 39 | Venezuela ๐ป๐ช | 0.452 |
| 40 | Norway ๐ณ๐ด | 0.449 |
| 41 | Burkina Faso ๐ง๐ซ | 0.448 |
| 42 | Hungary ๐ญ๐บ | 0.447 |
| 43 | Romania ๐ท๐ด | 0.446 |
| 44 | Panama ๐ต๐ฆ | 0.445 |
| 45 | Serbia ๐ท๐ธ | 0.443 |
| 46 | Georgia ๐ฌ๐ช | 0.442 |
| 47 | France ๐ซ๐ท | 0.434 |
| 48 | New Zealand ๐ณ๐ฟ | 0.431 |
| 49 | India ๐ฎ๐ณ | 0.430 |
| 50 | Armenia ๐ฆ๐ฒ | 0.428 |
| 51 | Azerbaijan ๐ฆ๐ฟ | 0.423 |
| 52 | Algeria ๐ฉ๐ฟ | 0.421 |
| 53 | Spain ๐ช๐ธ | 0.421 |
| 54 | Syria ๐ธ๐พ | 0.419 |
| 55 | Jordan ๐ฏ๐ด | 0.415 |
| 56 | Belgium ๐ง๐ช | 0.412 |
| 57 | Honduras ๐ญ๐ณ | 0.410 |
| 58 | Italy ๐ฎ๐น | 0.405 |
| 59 | Australia ๐ฆ๐บ | 0.404 |
| 60 | Botswana ๐ง๐ผ | 0.404 |
| 61 | Senegal ๐ธ๐ณ | 0.400 |
| 62 | Tanzania ๐น๐ฟ | 0.398 |
| 63 | Cote d'Ivoire ๐จ๐ฎ | 0.396 |
| 64 | Uganda ๐บ๐ฌ | 0.389 |
| 65 | Peru ๐ต๐ช | 0.374 |
| 66 | Saudi Arabia ๐ธ๐ฆ | 0.373 |
| 67 | Bulgaria ๐ง๐ฌ | 0.372 |
| 68 | United Kingdom ๐ฌ๐ง | 0.365 |
| 69 | Antigua and Barbuda ๐ฆ๐ฌ | 0.358 |
| 70 | Chile ๐จ๐ฑ | 0.357 |
| 71 | Japan ๐ฏ๐ต | 0.356 |
| 72 | Bangladesh ๐ง๐ฉ | 0.354 |
| 73 | Cyprus ๐จ๐พ | 0.352 |
| 74 | Yemen ๐พ๐ช | 0.346 |
| 75 | Switzerland ๐จ๐ญ | 0.344 |
| 76 | Sri Lanka ๐ฑ๐ฐ | 0.337 |
| 77 | South Africa ๐ฟ๐ฆ | 0.333 |
| 78 | Rwanda ๐ท๐ผ | 0.330 |
| 79 | El Salvador ๐ธ๐ป | 0.329 |
| 80 | Madagascar ๐ฒ๐ฌ | 0.324 |
| 81 | Ghana ๐ฌ๐ญ | 0.321 |
| 82 | Argentina ๐ฆ๐ท | 0.318 |
| 83 | Finland ๐ซ๐ฎ | 0.309 |
| 84 | Namibia ๐ณ๐ฆ | 0.308 |
| 85 | Thailand ๐น๐ญ | 0.302 |
| 86 | Guatemala ๐ฌ๐น | 0.300 |
| 87 | Canada ๐จ๐ฆ | 0.294 |
| 88 | Cameroon ๐จ๐ฒ | 0.278 |
| 89 | Malaysia ๐ฒ๐พ | 0.264 |
| 90 | Tunisia ๐น๐ณ | 0.245 |
| 91 | United Arab Emirates ๐ฆ๐ช | 0.239 |
| 92 | Singapore ๐ธ๐ฌ | 0.234 |
| 93 | Brazil ๐ง๐ท | 0.225 |
| 94 | United States ๐บ๐ธ | 0.222 |
| 95 | Costa Rica ๐จ๐ท | 0.179 |
Source: ILO EPLex. Scale: 0-1. Rankings use unique ranks (no ties, alphabetical tie-breaking).
Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, computed, and verified.
Primary sources: ILO EPLex, World Bank B-READY, OECD EPL.
Related
What to do with this
Use the eplex composite protection ranking as a comparison benchmark, not legal advice.
- Tajikistan tops this ranking at 0.661, see its full statutory context, sources, and caveats on its own country page. Tajikistan profile
- EPLex Composite Protection is one of 11 tracked metrics across three official sources, cross-check this ranking against the others before drawing a conclusion. See all rankings
- Rankings compress a lot of legal nuance into one number, compare two specific countries side by side to see where the underlying rules actually differ. Compare two countries
This ranking reflects the law as written, not how it is enforced or the facts of any individual case. For a real decision, confirm the current statute and consult a qualified employment lawyer, see our disclaimer.
PlainEmploy is rendered directly from the OECD Employment Protection Legislation indicators, the ILO EPLex database, and the World Bank B-READY labor pillar, no number is typed in by an editor. This ranking is computed directly from the underlying OECD/EPLex/B-READY tables, no figure is typed in by an editor. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of 2026-07-06.