Challenging epistemic injustices in the 2020 Environmental Performance Index: an engagement

Abstract

This article presents an engagement study rooted in ethnographic fieldwork at the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy (YCELP) during the development of the 2020 Environmental Performance Index (EPI), a widely cited global metric for assessing environmental policy performance. As both researcher and participant, I reflect on the tensions and power dynamics that emerged when questioning the epistemic assumptions embedded in the quantification of environmental governance. Drawing from Science and Technology Studies (STS) and theories of epistemic injustice, I analyze how quantitative devices (QDs) like the EPI reinforce global hierarchies by excluding or subsuming territories with limited data infrastructure or contested sovereignty. The study explores how decisions about what counts as a “country,” what data are “valid,” and who gets to decide these criteria are shaped by sociotechnical, political, and institutional constraints. I document my efforts to co-create more inclusive knowledge practices through the development of threshold questions for evaluating sovereignty, which sought to challenge the index's default reliance on ISO codes and centralized governance assumptions. Despite the partial success in including some underrepresented territories, many others remained excluded, revealing how data availability and political recognition jointly structure epistemic visibility. This paper argues that efforts to reform global environmental metrics must move beyond technical fixes to confront the historical and structural injustices that shape knowledge production. By illuminating the micro-politics of quantification, the study contributes to broader debates on environmental justice, data ethics, and the responsibilities of researchers in co-producing more equitable representations of the world.