Frequently Asked Questions

During each cycle, governments are invited to complete the B-READY topic questionnaires for their economies. Government questionnaires are optional and are used as a reference in the data validation process (not as direct inputs for scoring calculation). In case of divergence between the private and public sector responses, the team will follow up with private sector experts to invite them to review their answers. The private sector may decide to revise their answers or keep them unchanged. The final private sector responses will be used as the direct input for scoring calculation.

Three to five private sector expert contributors are consulted for each topic questionnaire. For economies with less than one million inhabitants, the number of expert contributors consulted per topic questionnaire is between two and five, and for the Credit Registry/Bureau topic questionnaire, only one questionnaire is necessary to finalize the data.

B-READY expert contributors can select whether they prefer to provide their services on a pro-bono basis or on a fee-for-service basis. Public sector expert contributors (e.g., public utilities) do not receive any payment.

The World Bank Enterprise Survey (WBES) is a firm-level survey of a representative sample of an economy’s private sector. The surveys collect data for indicators within the Operational Efficiency pillar. Private contractors conduct the WBES on behalf of the World Bank. The mode of data collection is face-to-face interviews (in-person or virtual). The WBES is answered by business owners and top managers. The survey respondents might sometimes involve accountants and human resource managers to answer some questions.

The combination of B-READY data with the rich data on firms enables more granular analysis (at both the firm and economy levels) of the causes and consequences of the regulatory and public service topics captured by B- READY. A limitation to note is that the WBES covers registered firms only.

Firm surveys are collected in a three-year cycle. That is, WBES data are collected every year for a third of up to 180 economies.

The private sector experts consulted may include both returning experts from the previous year and new experts. These experts are selected based on their relevant expertise and experience as mentioned above.

Depending on the nature of each indicator, B-READY collects data from experts or from firms. For data collected from experts, the team consults three to five experts for each questionnaire in each economy, with a minimum of two experts for economies with a population of less than one million, and a minimum of three experts in larger economies.

For indicators collected through the World Bank Enterprise Surveys, the total survey sample size target per economy is determined by the size of the economy. It can vary from 150 to over 1,000 firms. Please refer to the Enterprise Surveys Sampling Note for more information.

For more information about expert engagement and coordination between B-READY and the World Bank Enterprise Surveys, please refer to Chapter 3 of the Manual and Guide: B-READY Manual and Guide.

The B-READY team’s data collection method consists of two phases.

In the first phase, questionnaires are distributed to experts in the relevant fields. These experts are given a specific timeframe to complete the questionnaire, ensuring they provide detailed answers supported by sufficient information and evidence. Experts are encouraged to verify details in areas of uncertainty to ensure the accuracy of their responses.

The second phase involves data validation, where all expert responses to the same question are reviewed. The median response is used for scoring purposes (please see the B-READY Methodology Handbook for more details). In cases when the median cannot be clearly identified due to high divergence, experts are contacted again, allowing them to reassess and adjust their answers if necessary. These steps are designed to maintain the highest quality and precision of the data for the project.

Additionally, if the questionnaire has received responses from government sources, the data validation process will include cross-checking between private sector experts and public sector responses.

For more information about the data validation process, please refer to Chapter 5 of the Manual and Guide.

When a question is visible to all experts, and, for example, one out of five experts did not answer a specific question, the aggregation (usually the median) will be based on the four responses received.

For the second rollout, the B-READY team has introduced a new feature to ensure more complete questionnaires. Experts are warned when critical questions are not answered, and, unless they provide a justification, the system does not allow them to submit the questionnaire. Furthermore, if a questionnaire is less than 95% complete, it will not be used for scoring. Therefore, incomplete responses are expected to be minimal.

An indicator is scored under social benefits if its effects go beyond the firm and extend to socially desirable outcomes, such as environmental protection, workers’ welfare, market competition, consumer protection, fiscal sustainability, equal access to business opportunities, and informational externalities. Points are only assigned to indicators that represent a clear effect on socially desirable outcomes, based on internationally recognized and well-established good practices. Measures that have an ambiguous impact on social benefits (for example, firing restrictions that may benefit incumbent formal workers but harm the prospects of the unemployed and informal workers) will not be assigned social benefits points. The assignment of social benefits points to the selected indicators has determined in consultation with an advisory group composed of relevant World Bank Group and IMF experts.

B-READY considers good practices those that have been supported by extensive economic research to contribute towards private sector development and endorsed by major international organizations in the relevant field of expertise. The B-READY team consults with relevant academia and international organizations on the adequacy and relevance of good practices. For example, the regulatory quality indicators in Business Insolvency capture good practices set out in the World Bank Group’s Principles for Effective Insolvency and the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law. As another example, the Labor topic builds many of its indicators on International Labor Standards by the ILO.

Business registration is a one-time event for companies, and the experience of existing firms, possibly dating back to many years ago, may not be representative of the reality that a new firm would face today. Therefore, the Business Entry topic collects data through expert consultations only. Selected experts are local specialists on Business Entry (such as incorporation lawyers, notaries, tax and registration advisors, etc.) and have supported many business incorporation processes, being particularly familiar with the regulatory framework, provision of public services, and operational efficiency of Business Entry in the respective economy. 

In line with the scope of B-READY, the Business Entry topic does not assess informality. However, the topic focuses on evaluating the ease and potential hurdles entrepreneurs face when establishing a business within the formal sector, such as the quality of the regulatory framework, existing restrictions, the effective provision of public services, and the time, cost, and legal requirements needed to register and formally operate a company. While the topic does not explicitly cover informality, understanding the barriers faced by firms in the formal sector can shed light on why some businesses may choose to remain informal.

Good practices for business startups have been selected by focusing on those that are conducive to creating an efficient and secure environment for business startups. They are based on established international frameworks such as UNCITRAL guidelines and principles for business registries, the annual reports of the Corporate Registers Forum (CRF), and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards, and findings from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) research on foreign direct investment (FDI) and market entry restrictions, as well as the Investing Across Borders report. Additionally, insights were drawn from previous research on good practices conducted by the World Bank’s Development Economics Global Indicators Group (DECIG). By integrating these sources, the selection aimed to ensure that the practices promote a robust and supportive environment for new businesses.

A beneficial owner is defined as the natural person who ultimately owns or controls a company, regardless of whether they directly hold shares or have their name on the title. This control can be exercised through a chain of ownership or other means. Beneficial ownership information typically includes the beneficial owner's name, identification number, and address.

Operational risk is defined as the risk associated with a company's operations due to its sector or high-risk activities. For example, a company manufacturing medical equipment would be considered to have a higher operational risk than a company providing office supplies.

The Business Entry topic focuses on the most common type of limited liability company in each economy, determined through consultations with local subject experts. This approach ensures that the analysis is relevant to the majority of businesses and provides a standardized basis for comparing data across different economies.

Pillar III assesses the time and cost of registering a business, using a methodology designed to ensure comparability across economies. It evaluates firm flexibility through four indicators, each scored from 0 to 100 based on service delivery outcomes. To standardize the assessment, the Business Entry topic applies specific parameters—including the legal form of the company, its start-up capital, firm size, and its location in the largest business city—so that differences in incorporation procedures across company types, sizes, and locations are appropriately accounted for.

As part of these refinements, the B-READY methodology has evolved for 2026 with more precise definitions of firm size. While both the 2025 and 2026 assessments measure the time and cost to establish the most common Limited Liability Company (LLC), the key change lies in:

- In B-READY 2025, domestic and foreign firms were defined using capital thresholds tied to GNI per capita (5× GNI per capita for domestic firms and 10× for foreign firms).

- In B-READY 2026, firm profiles are standardized to better reflect medium-sized enterprises. Domestic firms retain a capital of 5× GNI per capita (or a fixed USD 13,936 in high-income economies) and now explicitly have 5 shareholders and 5 employees. Foreign firms shift to a fixed capital of USD 500,000, with 5 shareholders and 12 employees.

Experts report the actual time required to complete all steps of business registration for both domestic and foreign firms, covering pre-incorporation, incorporation, and post-incorporation procedures. Individual expert estimates of time and cost are aggregated using the median and then converted into the final indicator score through a linear transformation. For further details on the scoring approach, please refer to Annex B of the Methodology Handbook.

Foreign firms are private businesses that are fully or partially owned by foreign investors and may be subject to additional regulatory requirements beyond those imposed on domestic firms. These requirements can include general restrictions—such as limits on foreign ownership, profit repatriation, or employment of foreign nationals—as well as sector-specific regulations that restrict or prohibit foreign participation in certain industries. These regulatory barriers can impact a foreign firm's ability to establish, operate, and expand within a given economy.

The Business Location assessment of regulatory practices and public services for transferring property and obtaining building and environmental permits is designed to be neutral to the zoning specifications of land and buildings. Some questions measure good zoning-related practices such as the existence of zoning maps and accessibility of zoning requirements. However, as the topic strives to encompass diverse types and locations of businesses, there is no specific focus on industrial zones. Under Pillar III (Operational Efficiency pillar) the Business Location questionnaires measure time and cost to transfer a property, and to obtain building permits for a commercial building and environmental permits for commercial building scenarios, both assumed to be outside an industrial zone. 

To avoid incentivizing the deregulation of the environmental permitting process potentially leading to overlooked environmental risks, the Business Location indicators are balanced by two equally weighted factors: the quality of regulations and public services. An economy will receive higher scores if it has a robust regulatory framework – assessed in the first pillar – that includes comprehensive measures for assessing environmental risks, conducting necessary studies, issuing permits, and ensuring transparency, enforcement, and monitoring. The second pillar – the Quality of Public Services – evaluates whether the processes involving the public sector offer effective services, such as the availability of online platforms to streamline interactions with the stakeholders during the permitting process. In the third pillar, the efficiency of the public sector in issuing relevant environmental permits is assessed by comparing cost and time under a similar scenario. By considering both the quality of the regulatory framework and the quality of public services, a balanced assessment is offered using the indicators measured through the Construction Permitting questionnaire.

Firms can either lease, purchase or build the property where they will conduct their business. The Property Transfer questionnaire accounts for the differences that may emerge in common law and civil law jurisdictions when transferring ownership of the property. Depending on the jurisdiction, registration of deeds and/or registration of titles may be in place to record changes in property ownership. The questionnaire is designed to accommodate both systems, and there is no preference for either system. Under Pillar III, the Property Transfer questionnaire measures the efficiency of transferring ownership of a property. In economies with a state-owned land system, the transfer of land use rights is being assessed. 

In the Business Location topic, Property Transfer considers the transaction cost from the perspective of the buyer. The total cost includes all administrative costs incurred by the buyer to complete the property transfer, such as due diligence fees, lawyer and notary fees, transfer taxes, stamp duties, registration fees, and any other required administrative payments to property registries, notaries, public agencies, or lawyers. Real estate agent fees or broker commissions are not included in this calculation because they do not constitute administrative costs required for the legal transfer of property. Instead, these fees are separate service fees negotiated between the parties and their agents.

In the Business Location topic, the occupancy permit is a permit required by many local governments to certify that a building is safe and suitable for occupancy or use in accordance with local building codes, zoning regulations, and other relevant laws. The cost metric in Pillar III measures all official fees that must be paid to obtain this permit, which confirms that the building meets local building codes, safety standards, zoning regulations, health and sanitation requirements, fire safety standards, accessibility requirements, and other relevant local laws and regulations. This permit represents the final approval required before a building can be legally occupied and used for its intended purpose.

A property title certificate is an official document issued by a government authority (typically the land registry) that serves as legal proof of property ownership and contains key details about the property. In contrast, a title search certificate is a document that summarizes the findings from examining public records to verify legal ownership history and identify any existing encumbrances, liens, mortgages, or other claims on the property. While the property title certificate establishes current ownership rights, the title search certificate provides historical information about past ownership and potential issues that need to be resolved before a property transfer can occur. In jurisdictions where these specific certificates are not used, equivalent documents or procedures may be used to verify property ownership and conduct due diligence on the history of property ownership.

In the Business Location topic, environmental risks for construction projects are assessed across three main categories under the Environmental Risks as Defined by Legal Framework indicator: (1) biodiversity and natural resources; 2) greenhouse gas emissions or climate change impacts; and (3) risks affecting water resources, including water quality, quantity and access. This classification helps determine the type of environmental assessment and permits are needed for a construction project.

The methodology measures operational efficiency through two key indicators, i.e. the time and cost to obtain environmental permits. The time indicator measures the total calendar days from submission of required documentation until final clearance, including steps like initial screening, completeness checks, public consultations, and final approval. The cost indicator captures all official fees involved in obtaining the permits. Importantly, the methodology excludes indirect costs like consultant fees for preparing environmental reports, focusing only on official fees paid to authorities.

The Business Location methodology assesses building regulations under Pillar I through several key aspects: building standards (including structural resilience, fire safety, and health requirements), building energy efficiency standards (minimum energy efficiency performance standards and verification procedures), and zoning/land use regulations. The assessment considers both mandatory requirements and enforcement mechanisms, including inspections, liability provisions, and the authority of building control agencies. The scoring evaluates both firm flexibility (impact on businesses) and social benefits (public safety and environmental protection).

The methodology measures the official costs that a firm must pay to government authorities to obtain building permits, including fees for land use approvals, preconstruction design clearances, and the building permit itself. The focus is specifically on fees paid for public services - for example, payments made to the building control agency, municipal authorities, or other government bodies involved in the permitting process.

Importantly, the methodology excludes any private sector costs from this calculation. This means fees paid to consultants, architects, or engineers for preparing technical documents, designs, or drawings are not counted, even if these documents are required for the permit application. The measurement is intended to capture only the direct official costs for obtaining the necessary government approvals to obtain a building permit.

The methodology examines three key aspects of digital services and transparency in building permitting.

First, it assesses whether cities provide comprehensive digital public services through an online platform that enables permit applications, fee payments, document submission, status tracking, and permit issuance. The platform's integration with other agencies such as utilities and land registries is also evaluated. 

Second, it measures system interoperability, specifically whether spatial plans and zoning requirements are accessible through Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and whether these systems are integrated across different government agencies involved in the permitting process.

Finally, it evaluates information transparency by checking if critical information is publicly available online, including building regulations, permit requirements, fee schedules, and approval processes. The accessibility of the city's master plan and zoning regulations are also assessed, including whether these are up to date.

The Business Location topic explicitly measures restrictions that may apply differently to foreign and domestic firms. Under Pillar I, Category 1.3 (Absence of Restrictions on Owning and Leasing Property) contains 16 indicators divided into four subcategories that assess restrictions on both property ownership and leasehold arrangements for domestic and foreign firms separately.

For domestic firms, the methodology assesses restrictions based on land size, property type, lease duration, and agricultural land. For foreign firms, the methodology includes these same dimensions plus an additional indicator on location-based restrictions, recognizing that foreign firms may face geographic limitations on where they can own or lease property.

The indicators are framed as "absence of restrictions", meaning economies receive higher scores when fewer restrictions exist. This approach captures the regulatory environment's openness to both domestic entrepreneurship and foreign investment, while acknowledging that many economies maintain different rules for foreign ownership, particularly for agricultural land or properties in certain locations.

The focus on high-speed fixed broadband internet connections is due to the significant role this type of service plays in supporting intense data usage by firms. In the current digitalized world, reliable and high-speed internet is crucial for improving productivity and facilitating economic growth. Thus, measuring the provision and quality of high-speed fixed broadband connections provides a more relevant and impactful assessment of internet service quality for businesses. 

Infrastructure sharing mechanisms significantly enhance the efficiency and reliability of utility services.  By promoting policies that encourage the sharing of utility infrastructure (e.g., poles, ducts, pipes), regulators can reduce redundancy, lower costs, and speed up the deployment of utility services. For example, "dig once" policies, which coordinate infrastructure excavation among different utilities, can reduce the disruption and expense associated with laying down new cables or pipes. 

Quality assurance mechanisms such as setting performance standards, monitoring compliance, and imposing penalties for non-compliance ensure that utility providers deliver high-quality services. For instance, utilities might be required to meet certain benchmarks for service reliability and face penalties if they fail to do so, incentivizing them to maintain high standards and quickly address any service issues. 

Establishing standardized scenarios is crucial to ensure the comparability of indicators across different countries. Uniform parameters and assumptions allow for consistent assessments and ensure that the data collected are comparable. It is also essential for accurate benchmarking. By using standardized scenarios, the methodology provides a clear benchmark for evaluating the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of utility service provision in different locations. Standardized assessments can help identify best practices in utility service provision and highlight areas where improvements are needed. This can guide policymakers and utility providers in making informed decisions to enhance service delivery. 

Environmental sustainability is a key factor to the assessment of utility services, as it aligns with global sustainability goals and addresses the environmental impact of utility operations. It is assessed across the three questionnaires as follows:

·       Electricity: Indicators assess efforts to reduce emissions from power generation, promote energy efficiency, and implement sustainable practices, such as smart grid technologies and energy-efficient appliances.

·       Water: The focus is on improving water quality, enhancing water-use efficiency, and promoting safe water reuse. Regulations may encourage the use of smart meters to detect and repair leaks, mandate the adoption of water-efficient appliances. Proper wastewater treatment and management are also critical to prevent environmental contamination.

·       Internet: Although the environmental impact of internet services is not extensively regulated, there is a growing need to adopt energy efficiency standards in the ICT sector, which is a significant consumer of energy. The Utility Services topic evaluates environmental reporting or disclosure standards related to digital connectivity infrastructure, including metrics on energy consumption, the use of renewable energy, energy intensity, and e-waste management. 

For a full score on the transparency of utility services tariffs and tariff setting, three conditions must be met simultaneously:

·       Tariffs must be available online.

·       Changes to tariffs must be communicated to the public at least one billing cycle in advance (e.g. published in the press, regulations, or on official websites, or communicated via letters, bills, or emails).

·       The formula for determining end-user internet tariffs must be publicly available. A transparent breakdown of the tariff formula allows customers to understand how their final charges are calculated and the individual components that contribute to their total bill).

These three conditions are essential for providing customers with predictability in budgeting their utility expenditures. Therefore, under the Utility Services methodology, a score is awarded only when all three best practices are in place.

The Utility Services topic assesses the existence of energy efficiency or water-management requirements for businesses in the regulatory framework. These requirements, as defined in the relevant regulations, may apply to all businesses or may be selectively enforced based on factors such as electricity or water consumption, business size or type of activity. The indicators are not restricted to businesses of a specific size.

The Utility Services indicators measure the availability of a mechanism for coordinating excavation permit applications. Specifically, the coordination can be facilitated through an online platform, or through a public entity—at either the municipal or central government level—that streamlines collaboration among the relevant agencies involved in excavation permits. This entity can be a part of municipal authorities, central public administration, or multi-stakeholder working groups, and it can oversee the entire process or focus on specific stages of collaboration.

In some cities, there may be multiple utility providers. The Utility Services topic aims to capture the most common practice; hence, the largest utility provider operating in the largest city is considered (in terms of customers served or market share). For internet connections, the largest internet service provider (in terms of customers served or market share) that offers high-speed fixed broadband packages with a minimum download speed of 10 Mbps is selected, as their pricing and service levels set the industry’s benchmark.

Internet service providers typically offer a range of packages with varying download speeds and costs, which can have a significant impact on the operation of a business. The choice of the utility provider can directly influence the availability, affordability, and quality of internet services accessible to businesses. The parameter of using the largest internet service provider captures the most representative experience and ensures data comparability.

The regulator’s final decision-making authority in tariff approval refers to the power of the regulatory body to independently determine and set tariffs without requiring external authorization. This independence is essential for effective regulation and aligns with international best practices, which advocate for regulatory agencies to operate autonomously within their jurisdiction.

To this end, the Utility Services indicators evaluate whether the regulatory body functions as an independent decision-maker on tariffs rather than merely serving as an advisory entity. A score is awarded to jurisdictions in which regulatory bodies have the explicit authority to make binding decisions on tariff-setting.

Professional certifications reduce uncertainty and ensure that professionals meet minimum qualification standards. A well-established system of regulatory requirements and licensing is crucial to ensure compliance with applicable standards and legislation, particularly for professionals involved in construction activities. In the electricity and water sectors, certified engineers play a critical role in safeguarding public health, welfare, and safety. The best regulatory practices require that professionals performing electricity and water installation work meet at least two of the following key requirements:

·       Minimum number of years of experience in the relevant field.

·       Educational qualifications, such as a university degree in the appropriate discipline.

·       Successful completion of a qualification exam.

These requirements ensure that professionals are adequately trained and knowledgeable, helping maintain high standards of service and safety.

B-READY measures the positive role of governments in fostering business environments that benefit both firms and workers. It includes indicators assessing the quality of regulations and the provision of related public services, such as unemployment insurance, health care, and retirement pensions, while also considering the sources of funding for these benefits. In addition, the framework incorporates indicators on the availability of employment service centers, labor dispute resolution mechanisms, labor inspectorates, and labor statistics.

The Labor topic covers key indicators on social protection, including: (i) the availability of public health care; (ii) public unemployment insurance; and (iii) public pension schemes for all categories of private-sector workers, including non-traditional workers such as self-employed, across all industries. The provision of these services by the government (organized and administered through public agencies or bodies) is particularly important for workers who may not receive adequate protection from their employers.

In addition, the Labor topic includes measures that both protect workers and support businesses, such as employment services, labor dispute resolution mechanisms, labor inspectorates, and labor statistics. These services play a critical role in promoting fair, productive, and harmonious relationships between workers and firms.

Given the wide variety of contractual arrangements between firms and workers, the sectoral scope of labor laws, and the need to preserve comparability across economies, B-READY applies a set of standard assumptions. Specifically, it considers regulations and public services applicable to a permanent employee (over 25 years of age) engaged in a formal employment relationship in a private-sector firm. The worker is assumed to be a national of the economy and employed in the services sector, unless otherwise specified in the questionnaire for particular indicators, such as the minimum wage. The worker may be male, female, or non-binary. These assumptions reflect the standard application of labor legislation and are intended to ensure consistency and comparability across economies.

The Labor Topic examines labor regulation and public service practices by assessing the extent to which best practices established by the International Labour Organization (ILO) are implemented. This assessment covers provisions derived from statutory law, collective agreements, and case law, provided that they apply broadly to all workers. The Labor Topic explicitly recognizes the role of case law in shaping labor practices, particularly in jurisdictions where judicial decisions interpret, clarify, or extend statutory provisions. Accordingly, case law is treated as equally relevant as statutory law and collective agreements in the evaluation process. This approach ensures that ILO best practices are considered applicable to all workers, regardless of the specific legal framework through which they are implemented.

The B-READY Labor topic balances workers’ protection with business interests by ensuring an even distribution of points across key categories, such as Workers’ Conditions (reflecting workers’ interests) and Employment Restrictions and Costs (reflecting firms’ interests). It adopts a nuanced approach that captures both perspectives while supporting a regulatory framework that protects workers without imposing undue burdens on firms. The methodology is grounded in internationally recognized standards and best practices, including those established by the International Labour Organization (ILO), while allowing sufficient flexibility to foster economic growth and job creation. In addition, the scoring system accounts for the diversity of labor regimes across economies by drawing on data from private expert consultations and Enterprise Surveys, ensuring that industry expertise and real-world business conditions are reflected in the analysis.

B-READY adopts a comprehensive approach that goes beyond assessing the existence and level of the minimum wage relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. It also evaluates the robustness of the minimum wage framework by examining key elements such as the criteria used to set the minimum wage (for example, economic growth and cost of living), the mechanisms for updating its level, and the extent to which social consultation is incorporated throughout the process. These indicators are aligned with International Labour Organization (ILO) standards, including the Minimum Wage Fixing Convention (No. 131) and the Minimum Wage Fixing Recommendation (No. 135).

As the B-READY project is currently in its rollout phase, the team continues to refine the questionnaire. Several updates have been introduced since the initial rollout, including the addition of new questions addressing cross-cutting themes such as gender and digital adoption (including platform work and remote work). In addition, some existing questions have been refined and clarifications added to improve clarity for respondents. Further details on these changes are provided in the third edition of the Methodology Handbook.

The type of transaction influences the regulations that govern the financial services available to firms and businesses. To limit the scope and ensure the relevant regulatory framework is assessed, the methodology focuses solely on domestic commercial transactions done electronically. This includes domestic e-payment transactions, both for making and receiving payments, while cross-border transactions are covered by the International Trade topic.

Many economies have secured transactions legal frameworks that allow grantors to use movable assets as collateral to obtain credit. However, these systems often apply different rules depending on the type of assets, transactions, and parties involved. To address this complexity, best practices recommend an integrated and functional approach to secured transactions, suggesting that all transactions involving rights in movable assets to secure obligations should be treated consistently and regulated under a unified or integrated legal framework or, at minimum, a single set of principles governing publicity and priority of security interests should exist. This integrated approach is preferred for its ease of implementation and enhanced transparency, as it consolidates all relevant rules into one statute, thereby increasing certainty and predictability for both borrowers and lenders.

A collateral registry is a publicly accessible database that records security interests in movable assets, helping to establish the priority of claims and protect the rights of creditors. To function effectively, a centralized and unified collateral registry should be fully operational, allowing for the registration of security interests in a single, linked database that is accessible nationwide. This ensures that all security interests, regardless of the geographic region, are consolidated and searchable by debtor name, unique identifier, or collateral serial number. The registry should also be notice-based, which means it records only essential information without verifying the legality or correctness of transactions, thus lowering administrative costs, and simplifying the registration process. A modern collateral registry should also be fully digital, enabling secured creditors and their representatives to perform registrations, amendments, cancellations, and searches online without requiring registry personnel intervention. Additionally, the registry should cover all types of transactions and movable assets, and information should be updated promptly, typically within 24 hours, to ensure accuracy and accessibility for all users, including prospective creditors. 

In many economies, courts are often overloaded with dispute cases, mainly business disputes, without a division by specialty of judges, and one judge can end up adjudicating insolvency cases, enforcement of contracts, labor disputes, etc.  One way of avoiding delays concerning court judgements is to seek out-of-court solutions. Business Ready incorporates international good practices proposed by the UNCITRAL Guide to Secured Transactions which include private and public auctions, as well as pactum commissorium (which is a clause of automatic appropriation of encumbered assets in case of default by debtor).  This practice has been gaining more interest and economies have gradually introduced these tools as a way to enforce security interests without going to courts.  In addition, public and private auctions have always been a way to enforce security interests. However, in recent years, many more economies introduced digital auctions which expedite the enforcement process.   

The main features of such an infrastructure include: (i) Data collection and sharing. Credit bureaus and registries collect data on the credit history of individuals and firms. This data is shared through credit reports and additional services, helping lenders understand the lending risks associated with each potential borrower; (ii) Data scope. The infrastructure should provide comprehensive data coverage, including both positive and negative credit information, at least two years of historical data, and data from various sources such as financial institutions, retailers, and utility companies. Cross-border information sharing, and crisis reporting are also crucial components. The extent to which commercial banks and other financial institutions use credit reports to inform their lending decisions is a key indicator of the effectiveness of the credit information infrastructure and; (iii) Additional services, accessibility, and borrower rights. Borrowers should have the right to access their financial records, consult their credit reports for free and online, receive notifications of negative information, and rectify discrepancies in their data. This ensures transparency and accuracy in credit reporting. The availability of additional services such as credit scores facilitates the evaluation of the creditworthiness of potential borrowers. These services help lenders make informed lending decisions.

Cross-Border Data Sharing is defined as a movement or transfer of information between a credit reporting agency and financial institutions across country borders. It is a vital interconnectivity component, enabling borrowers and lenders to operate seamlessly across borders. Sharing the data internationally improves credit risk assessment, prevents fraud, and facilitates global trade, access to financing, and growth of investment. This, in turn, drives economic growth, enhances financial inclusion, and fosters international cooperation. In addition, Cross-Border Data Sharing enables businesses to make informed decisions, provides a competitive advantage and better experience for consumers (borrowers/lenders).

The Commercial Lending category focuses on regulations pertaining to customer due diligence undertaken for the assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing risk when applying for a commercial loan. Regulations on assessment of credit risk of customers are outside the scope of the topic.

As part of the process of understanding and evaluating the risks posed by a corporate customer, commercial lenders should identify the direct and beneficial ownership and the control structure of the company by ensuring that the information provided is correct and thus verifying the accuracy of such information. The “understanding” of the ownership and control structure is therefore served by the identification and verification of ownership and control structure which allows assessing the level of risk posed by a specific corporate customer.   

The questions assess the mechanisms that are in place to protect the customer funds held with non-bank payment service providers (PSPs). One of those refers to prudential supervision of the non-bank PSPs, without reference to a specific kind of supervision. 

Time limit refers to a specific duration of time after which the payments can no longer be disputed.  

The questions assess whether undisputed charges can still be collected, while there is a dispute with the payment service provider pending resolution on a different charge. Further, the topic, as a whole, looks at national level laws/regulations that have broad applicability. This approach applies to the current questions as well, and hence pre-compensation policies of PSPs are not taken into consideration.

Yes. Best practices recommend an integrated and functional approach to secured transactions, suggesting that all transactions involving rights in movable assets, including functional equivalents, to secure obligations should be treated consistently and regulated under a unified or integrated legal framework or, at minimum, a single set of principles governing publicity and priority of security interests should exist. The methodology identifies four functional equivalents, including fiduciary transfer of title, financial leases, account receivables and sales with retention to title. To receive the maximum score, at least three out of four of such functional equivalents should be available in the legal framework.

Yes, the term “secured transaction” refers to loans secured by security interests in movable assets, or in simpler terms, a loan secured by movable collateral. 

The main features of such an infrastructure include: (i) Data collection and sharing – Credit bureaus and registries collect the credit history of individuals and firms, sharing it through credit reports and additional services, helping lenders assess risks; (ii) Data scope – The infrastructure should provide comprehensive data coverage, including positive and negative credit information, at least two years of historical data, and data from various sources such as financial institutions, retailers, and utility companies. Cross-border information sharing, and crisis reporting are also crucial components. The extent to which commercial banks and other financial institutions use credit reports to inform their lending decisions is a key indicator of the effectiveness of the credit information infrastructure and; (iii) Additional services, accessibility, and borrower rights – Borrowers should have the right to access their financial records, consult their credit reports for free and online, receive notifications of negative information, and rectify discrepancies in their data. This ensures transparency and accuracy in credit reporting. The availability of additional services such as credit scores facilitates the evaluation of the creditworthiness of potential borrowers. These services help lenders make informed lending decisions. 

Non-bank payment service providers (PSPs) play an increasingly critical role in national payment ecosystems, facilitating large transaction volumes and expanding financial access. Our questionnaire includes a component on cybersecurity and operational resilience, recognizing that trust in electronic payments ultimately depends on the integrity, reliability, and continuity of these systems. Assessing whether PSPs are subject to governance standards, technical safeguards, and incident response obligations is essential to determine the soundness and maturity of the regulatory framework. Strong cybersecurity requirements ensure that innovation in payment services advances in parallel with resilience, accountability, and systemic stability.

Interoperability among domestic electronic payments stimulates efficiency, competition, and inclusion in this field. It enables users to transact seamlessly across different infrastructures without being confined to a network of single provider. The questionnaire examines interoperability to assess whether domestic electronic payments are progressing toward open and interconnected infrastructures, a defining aspect of modern, competitive, and inclusive payment ecosystems.

The availability of regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs to pilot innovations in electronic payments reflects how regulators are adapting to technological change in the financial sector. This component in the questionnaire seeks to cast light on whether authorities provide structured pathways for testing, scaling, and supervising innovative products while ensuring continued compliance with consumer protection, cybersecurity, and other regulatory safeguards. These mechanisms are recognized as international good practice because they balance innovation with prudential oversight, allowing financial markets to modernize responsibly while fostering competition and technological advancement.

Simplified CDD measures are aligned with the risk-based approach endorsed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). They apply to clients assessed as posing a low risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. The topic examines whether regulatory frameworks allow financial institutions to apply proportionate CDD measures, such as reduced verification requirements, less frequent updates, or lower monitoring intensity, when justified by the customer’s risk profile. In this context, the Financial Services questionnaire evaluates how economies balance proportionality in regulatory compliance with accuracy and efficiency within their AML/CFT regimes.

E-KYC systems are increasingly central to efficient, inclusive, and secure CDD processes. The Financial Services questionnaire examines whether existing regulations promote these systems in a comprehensive manner and assesses the availability of digital and remote identity verification, mechanisms, as well as their accessibility. It further assesses whether appropriate safeguards are in place, particularly with respect to data protection and customer consent. Adopting a holistic perspective, the assessment also considers whether e-KYC systems support core AML/CFT requirements, such as the verification of beneficial ownership, sanctions and watchlist screening, and robust recordkeeping. Collectively, this information provides insight into how digital transformation initiatives are being leveraged to strengthen AML/CFT effectiveness while promoting efficiency and financial inclusion.

The International Trade topic encompasses three key aspects, referred to as pillars. The first pillar evaluates regulatory quality for establishing a non-discriminatory, transparent, predictable, and safe trading environment. This consists of examining practices that support international trade, as well as regulatory restrictions on international trade, and includes a broad range of indicators across trade in goods, trade in services, digital trade, sustainable trade, and international trade cooperation.

The second pillar assesses the quality of public services for the facilitation of international trade, which entails examining the digital and physical infrastructure and border management practices of economies. Indicators under this pillar cover electronic systems and the interoperability of services, transparency and availability of information, trade infrastructure, risk management, coordinated border management, and trusted trader programs.

The third pillar consists of indicators on the time, cost, and ease of complying with export and import requirements, as well as on participation in cross-border digital trade. Additionally, it includes indicators measuring the extent to which firms identify customs and trade regulations, as well as transportation, as major constraints to their operations.

The data for Pillar I and Pillar II are collected through consultations with private sector experts with experience in international trade operations, border procedures, and regulatory compliance. Private sector experts include trade economists, trade lawyers, freight forwarders, customs brokers, clearing agents, shipping line representatives, and other trade professionals.

The data for Pillar III are collected through Enterprise Surveys. These are firm-level surveys that provide representative data on the time and cost to import and export goods, the level of participation in cross-border digital trade, and the extent to which firms identify customs and trade regulations, as well as transportation, as major operational obstacles. A representative sample of companies captures variation in user experience within each economy. Businesses with different characteristics, such as size, region, and sector, participate in the surveys.

To ensure comparability of data across economies, the International Trade topic applies a dual approach. On the one hand, for data collected through expert consultations informing Pillar I – Regulatory Framework and Pillar II – Public Services, the topic uses a set of parameters  that reflect key economy-level characteristics.  These parameters include the economy’s geographical location (coastal, island, or landlocked), the types of borders relevant for trade, the relevant service sectors, as well as key trading partners. This framework allows adjustments that account for structural differences between economies.

On the other hand, with regards to data collected through firm-level surveys informing Pillar III – Operational Efficiency, findings are drawn from a representative sample of firms in each economy. This allows the data to reflect the experiences of a wide range of firms across different types of economies. The standardized Enterprise Surveys methodology ensures the comparability of results across different economies.

B-READY 2025 assesses economies on two borders corresponding to the two most relevant transportation freight subsectors based on whether they were classified as coastal, landlocked, or island. For coastal economies, this includes the main seaport and main land border post, unless that economy conducts no trade through any land border, in which case the main airport replaces the land border post. For landlocked economies, the assessment covers the main airport and the main land border post, while for island economies, it focuses on the main airport and the main seaport. This approach ensures comparability and avoids rewarding or penalizing economies for geographic features beyond their control.

In the planned B-READY 2026 methodology (not yet final), the topic has revised this approach: each economy will be assessed on all of its main border nodes, rather than on geographic classification, as applicable. The three nodes considered are the main seaport, the main land border customs post, and the main airport. As a result, economies previously classified as coastal, which were assessed on two nodes for B-READY 2025, will now be assessed on three, as applicable. There will be no changes for the economies previously classified as landlocked or islands.

This change prevents the loss of relevant information and simplifies the parameters used. Excluding one type of border node for coastal economies meant omitting potentially important bottlenecks or facilitators. Assessing all applicable borders improves the granularity and diagnostic value of the results. In addition, the simplification of the parameter used improves the data quality and facilitates the analysis while ensuring data comparability.

While the International Trade topic assesses the costs of NTMs to businesses, it also assesses their social benefits. NTMs such as sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) or technical standards often serve public policy objectives like health, safety, and environmental protection. B-READY recognizes the ambiguous impact of these types of NTMs on firms and that their mere existence is insufficient to evaluate their costs and benefits. It also acknowledges that NTMs can enhance human health and consumer safety, as reflected in the scoring approach of the topic.

For the B-READY 2026 methodology (not yet final), the topic will shift its focus to regulatory governance indicators. The updated indicators will assess science-based risk assessments for SPS measures, ex ante regulatory impact assessments for tariffs and technical regulations, and public consultations held prior to imposing technical regulations. These good practices ensure that the implementation of NTMs follows evidence-based and participatory processes.

Contingent trade protective measures, such as the imposition of antidumping duties, can comply with international obligations, including WTO rules, but their desirability from a business perspective is questionable. While these measures can be justified under certain circumstances, they often distort markets, create trade barriers, hinder competition, and harm downstream industries to the detriment of efforts to integrate into global markets. Although they may be preferable to more restrictive barriers, their adoption is viewed negatively from an economic perspective due to these adverse effects. for this reason, the topic scores them negatively.

The International Trade topic measures technological advancement in trade through a wide range of indicators, including the following:

1. Use of digital tools for trade facilitation: this evaluates the implementation of technology to improve transparency and reduce the burden of compliance requirements. These good practices include adoption of maritime single windows, electronic systems for trade compliance, technology-supported risk management tools, and trade information portals.

2. Regulations supporting and restricting digital trade: B-READY also assesses the quality of regulations that support safety and trust in the digital trade system, as well as regulatory restrictions on digital trade.

3. Enterprise Survey data on the share of firms exporting digitally ordered goods, which provides insights on the de facto performance of economies in digital trade.

In regard to the effectiveness of border management and customs operations, the topic assesses good practices related to risk management, coordinated border management, and trusted trader programs. The indicators in these thematic areas are based on practices codified in international agreements and frameworks, such as the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement and the WCO’s Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade. These practices are designed to help customs agencies allocate resources efficiently, enhance security, and support smooth trade operations. They balance trade facilitation with regulatory oversight by promoting cooperation and coordination within and across border agencies and governments.

The Enterprise Surveys methodology takes a bulk approach based on practical constraints. Many firms lack itemized cost data, often paying a lump sum to logistics providers to handle the relevant processes on their behalf. This is especially true of smaller firms from developing countries. Because the Enterprise Surveys covers all types of firms across different economies, it must manage the trade-off between depth and feasibility. Collecting itemized costs for every component would require extensive data collection efforts for firms that may not have those records readily available. This could also increase respondent fatigue, compromising the data quality and completeness. 

The International Trade topic’s indicators are designed so that both bloc and non-bloc economies can achieve perfect scores. Comparing economies outside trading blocs with those integrated into blocs is valid and insightful. Blocs offer benefits like harmonized regulations and tariff-free access, while individual economies maintain control over many aspects of their trade-related regulatory frameworks, public services, and operational efficiency. Factors such as customs efficiency, non-tariff barriers, and the quality of trade infrastructure vary significantly, even within the same bloc. B-READY data support this observation. The benchmarking exercise undertaken by the International Trade topic assists economies in identifying areas for improvement. Comparing economies within the same bloc provides actionable insights, particularly by highlighting differences between economies within that bloc. Comparisons between bloc and non-bloc economies illustrate the relevance and desirability of economic integration.

Within Pillar III, the Taxation topic assesses the Effective Tax Rate (ETR) that firms pay for corporate income taxes and employment-based taxes and social contributions. While the topic assigns lower scores to higher effective tax rates due to the burden they can place on individual firms, B-READY assigns higher scores to economies that have clear and transparent tax regulations, established environmental fiscal instruments, implemented electronic filing and payment systems, accountable and transparent tax authorities, and the existence of impartial, accessible, and efficient tax dispute resolution mechanisms.

The Taxation topic in B-READY 2025 evaluates the existence of environmental fiscal instruments that put a price on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, including carbon taxes and the Emissions Trading System (ETS). If an economy implements any of the environmental fiscal instruments covered by the topic, it earns points under the 'Existence of Carbon Pricing Instruments' indicator due to their positive impact on society, like promoting sustainability and reducing environmental harm. These instruments are effective policy tools that incorporate climate change costs into economic decision-making, supported by strong multilateral efforts. They are assessed from a general standpoint and treated equally. However, they are not scored under firm flexibility because their impact on individual businesses can be ambiguous as they can lead to additional costs on the firms, and the impact on business operations can vary based on their industry, size and resources.

The Taxation topic strikes a balance between business interests and public interests by thoroughly assessing issues important to individual firms while ensuring the broader welfare of society is protected. For example, it measures the clarity and transparency of tax regulations, which helps businesses better understand their obligations and promotes higher compliance, ultimately reducing tax evasion and benefiting society as a whole. Similarly, the topic also examines the digitization of tax administration, which streamlines tax filing and payment processes for businesses, reducing their administrative burden. This efficiency simplifies compliance and enables tax authorities to collect revenue more quickly and accurately, strengthening their ability to fund essential public services.

The Taxation topic collects data through consultations with private sector experts and by surveying a representative sample of firms. Expert questionnaires use broad parameters to measure the business environment that most companies face, while retaining comparability across economies. Firm-level surveys use representative samples of registered firms, allowing for the comparison of the average or typical experience of actual firms. The Taxation topic therefore covers information relevant to firms of different sizes and locations that operate in various economic sectors.  

The Taxation topic in B-READY and the Tax Administration Assessment Diagnostic Tool (TADAT) serve different purposes and use distinct methodologies. The B-READY Taxation topic focuses on providing a quantitative assessment of tax regulation, tax administration services, and operational efficiency from the perspective of the private sector. In contrast, TADAT is designed to offer a standardized evaluation of the performance of the tax administration systems; it does not take into account the perspective of the private sector. While B-READY is published annually with global coverage to facilitate benchmarking across economies, TADAT is country-specific, conducted on request, and not necessarily updated annually. 

The clarity of tax regulations is evaluated under Pillar I – Quality of Tax Regulations. Specifically, the Taxation topic examines whether an economy has general and internal tax guidance, private and public binding rulings, and the codification of dispute resolution and tax audit procedures in a single legislative act.

When it comes to the taxpayer’s size, the B-READY Taxation data relies on the legal definition in each assessed economy. If the domestic laws do not specify a definition for a small taxpayer, the assessment applies to all taxpayers, without differentiation based on size.

The Taxation topic does not support or promote a “race to the bottom”. While the topic assigns lower scores to higher effective tax rates (ETR) due to the burden they can place on individual firms, the low effective tax rates do not unconditionally result in higher scores. When scoring the data, B-READY sets bottom and top thresholds at the 5th and 95th percentiles of the ETR distribution, which corresponds to 9% and 27%, respectively. All economies with ETR below the bottom threshold receive 100 points, and all above the top threshold – 0 points. For further details, see "Annex C—Documentation for WBES Indicators in B-READY" in the Methodology Handbook. 

The Taxation data captures consumption-based taxes (e.g., value-added taxes or sales taxes). In general, the Taxation assessment focuses on the broad concept of consumption taxes, regardless of their local name. The questionnaire provides a definition of such taxes to ensure a standardized approach. In economies without VAT or other consumption-based taxes, in pillars I and II, the points originally allocated to relevant indicators are evenly redistributed within the nearest level of data. For example, points assigned to consumption-based subcategories “Consumption-Based Tax Registration” and “VAT Refund”, are reallocated to other subcategories within the same category “Administrative Procedures” —specifically, to “Simplified Record Keeping and Reporting” and “General Tax Registration” —ensuring a neutral treatment, with the maximum category score remaining unchanged. In Pillar III, however, when consumption-based taxes (e.g., value-added taxes or sales taxes) do not exist in the economy, the subcategory “Obtaining a VAT Refund in Practice” is assigned a maximum score of 100 points. This approach reflects that the third pillar is only assessed from the firm flexibility standpoint, and not from the social benefits one. 

Unlike with VAT and other consumption-based taxes, where global good practices only cover how such taxes should be implemented but do not suggest whether they should or should not be imposed, there is consensus that imposing environmental taxes is a good practice. The scoring approach for environmental fiscal instruments is reflective of the global good practices. As such, no points are assigned or reallocated in cases when the measured environmental fiscal instruments are not implemented.

When assessing efficiency of court litigation, B-READY Dispute Resolution records information on time and cost for resolving a case at the first instance level, conducting an appeal review, and enforcing a final judgment. Including data on appeal review and compulsory enforcement is important for a more objective assessment of court performance across different jurisdictions.

For the following four indicators, B-READY Dispute Resolution collects the data directly from firms through Enterprise Surveys: In resolving commercial disputes, courts are independent and impartial; Courts are not an obstacle to business operations; Arbitration is a reliable mechanism to resolve commercial disputes; Mediation is a reliable mechanism to resolve commercial disputes. In contrast to the information obtained by way of expert consultations, which is collected on an annual basis, the Enterprise Surveys data is updated every three years.

In recognizing the growing importance of environmental sustainability for private sector development, the Dispute Resolution topic also incorporates a few questions on environmental disputes. Given the nature of the topic, disputes that involve at least one business entity are considered. Furthermore, all questions on environmental disputes form one indicator only, which helps avoid overemphasizing the subject. 

As provided in the Dispute Resolution Glossary, the term “legal framework” encompasses all legal instruments of general application that have a binding force in a measured business location, irrespective of whether they have a national, regional, or municipal character. This includes laws and statutes enacted by the legislature as well as regulations and decrees issued by the executive. Case law is equally considered part of the legal framework, along with comprehensive sets of rules adopted by the highest judicial bodies (for example, the Supreme Court Mediation Rules or the Supreme Court General Guidance on Extensions and Adjournments). Furthermore, the legal framework also includes international treaties to which a country is a party.

With regard to unwritten practices, they are not considered part of the legal framework as stakeholders, including businesses, may encounter issues in accessing and verifying them. Similarly, customary law is also omitted from the scope of the definition, given the topic’s focus on the resolution of commercial disputes in the largest business locations through formal means. 

The topic’s methodology comprises universally recognized good practices designed to promote efficiency and quality in commercial dispute resolution. During the project’s conceptual development, only those good practices that have been proven to be useful in both civil law and common law systems were selected. In addition, in assessing dispute resolution systems worldwide, the topic examines both codified legislation and case law, as applicable.

The Dispute Resolution topic acknowledges that the role of an expert in commercial dispute resolution varies across different legal systems. To treat all economies equally, the methodology asks a general question that is aimed at mitigating inefficiencies in the expert’s performance despite local variations: “Does the legal framework provide for a time frame within which an expert must deliver his or her expert opinion in a commercial case?”

The wording of the question does not restrict its scope solely to the evidentiary period as, again, different jurisdictions have varying rules on when an expert opinion may be requested. The key element is whether the legal framework imposes a deadline for delivering such an opinion.

According to the Dispute Resolution Glossary, an enforcement agent is any person, whether a public official or not, authorized by the government to enforce court orders and judgments. The enforcement agent may have a public status (for example, a judicial officer in the court system or a civil servant in the executive branch) or a private status (for example, a self-employed enforcement agent). The topic’s questionnaire further explains that whenever enforcement matters in a particular jurisdiction are handled directly by courts, the responses should be provided based on courts’ performance, which is a common practice in many economies. 

The Dispute Resolution topic covers arbitration and mediation only, which have been universally recognized over an extended period as particularly effective ADR methods for resolving commercial disputes. It excludes other types of ADR available in some economies, such as ombudsman proceedings and expert panels.

The Dispute Resolution methodology considers voluntary mediation to be a good practice. That is, parties should not be required to attempt mediation in typical (non-small claims) commercial cases – whether before filing a lawsuit with the court or after the case has been accepted – to proceed with court litigation. Note that an information session on mediation held solely with the purpose of explaining how mediation works is not regarded as mandatory mediation if a party may withdraw from the session at any time without providing any reason and no sanctions would be imposed.

The judicial power is vested in the judiciary, specifically in the judges themselves. Given the critical role that judges play—primarily interpreting and applying laws and rendering binding decisions in disputes—it is imperative for businesses and society to have confidence that the most qualified candidates are appointed to these positions. This is the key to ensuring trust in the dispute resolution system and for combating corruption. Transparent judicial selection is an internationally recognized best practice, as reflected in several authoritative guides.

The data is primarily collected through questionnaires distributed to private sector experts. For the competition area, the experts include corporate lawyers and consultants with expertise in competition law. For the innovation area, intellectual property lawyers, patent and trademark attorneys are selected to provide contributions. For the procurement area, the experts include lawyers with expertise in public procurement, consultants who assist in the preparation of tenders, and in-house procurement officers. 

Market competition indicators in B-READY are designed to provide a comprehensive assessment by focusing on key areas that directly influence the competitive dynamics of the private sector. These indicators are structured to compare different economies and represent good practices for all levels of development and contexts. These areas include antitrust, merger control, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) framework, enforcement regulations and the institutional framework of the competition authority, and its role in competition advocacy, and transparency. While regulated sectors, state aid, and subsidies are also important aspects of market competition, they often involve specific regulatory frameworks and policies that can vary significantly within and across different economies. This variability makes the implementation and scoring of such regulations challenging. However, these areas may be considered for future expansions of our indicators as we continue to refine and enhance the B-READY methodology.

Innovation assesses regulations and public services related to intellectual property protection, but also includes measures on technology transfer, research commercialization, open access, and innovation systems. As such, the Regulatory Framework pillar has 4 subcategories for Innovation: (1) strength of intellectual property rights protection; (2) licensing and technology transfer; (3) fair access to innovation, and (4) university-industry collaboration. The Public Services pillar has 3 subcategories for Innovation: (1) institutional framework to support innovation; (2) digitalization of intellectual property services; and (3) innovation systems. The Operational Efficiency pillar includes 4 subcategories for Innovation: (1) product innovation; (2) process innovation; (3) research and development proportion of highly innovative firms and; (4) use of international quality certifications.

The size and composition of government markets can vary significantly within an economy. To ensure that the B-READY indicators are both representative and comparable, the topic follows a structured approach by using a parameter that allows comparability in responses: the procuring entity. Experts are asked to identify the three largest procurement entities of the central/federal government based on the number of tenders. This selection is made using their experience or publicly available information. This method ensures that the responses are likely to pertain to the same regulatory framework and similar practices, providing a consistent basis for comparison. By focusing on the largest procurement entities, B-READY avoids anchoring its indicators to a single case study that might not be representative of the broader economic context. This approach enhances the comparability of our indicators across different economies, as it standardizes the basis for data collection. For indicators related to operational efficiency, B-READY collects data through representative firm-level surveys. This ensures that the practice indicators reflect the experiences of firms from various sectors and geographical locations.

B-READY questionnaires are tailored to specific areas of expertise. The Market Competition topic has three questionnaires: one on competition law regulations and services, another on intellectual property rights and innovation provisions, and a third on public procurement regulations and services.

The team targets specialized lawyers and practitioners in these areas, selecting respondents based on their expertise and experience. This ensures that the terminology is familiar to the experts answering the questionnaires.

To ensure a clear understanding of all terms, each questionnaire includes a glossary with definitions for specific terms. Additionally, instructions are provided to help respondents understand the questions and clarify technical terms. Examples are also included to address any potential variations in term interpretation

The team recognizes the diversity of regulations and institutions in the Market Competition topic. For instance, in public procurement, some economies have a public procurement oversight authority or agency that disseminates good practices across entities. Sometimes, entities have their own regulations and practices, which could lead to different responses from experts. To address this, the team asks experts to identify three large procuring entities at the central/federal level. These entities typically handle significant goods, services, and works contracts and apply cohesive regulations. The team does not ask for responses from both federal and local authorities simultaneously, ensuring more cohesive responses. Specific government spending, such as defense, is excluded from the scope of the questionnaire and topic, as it tends to have specific regulations.

The focus of the Market Competition questionnaires is to capture domestic provisions. In the Innovation questionnaire, the team focuses exclusively on local and domestic systems and provisions. For example, in intellectual property, national routes of IP registration are considered, not international mechanisms.

In the Competition Law questionnaire, there can be more intersections between regional regulations and authorities and local ones. If regional regulations have primary effects and are directly applicable to domestic legislation, experts' responses should take into account the regional provisions. However, if these provisions require a domestic legal instrument to be applied directly into domestic legislation (e.g., domestic transposition), then only the domestic legislation should be considered.

For Pillar II, which covers public services and operational efficiency, the team explicitly asks about domestic implementation. Therefore, services provided by regional authorities should not be considered by experts. Economies with regional regulatory frameworks but minimal local implementation will tend to score lower in these pillars.

The methodology defines a large entity by the number of tenders, not their value. This ensures a focus on good practices applicable to most procurement activities. For example, an entity created for a large project like building an airport might cover significant procurement value, but the team targets practice relevant to frequent tenders. This way, experts are more familiar with these entities.

Vertical integration is not directly measured in the Competition Law questionnaire. However, the team measures aspects of vertical agreements and the activity of competition authorities issuing guidance. For example, indicators measure whether the competition authority has issued guidance on vertical agreements, market definitions, and digital platforms. The guidance informs the private sector about competition law applications. In operational efficiency, one indicator of market dynamism and competitive behavior is firms' ability to switch internet providers. Some aspects of vertical restraints or integrations might be indirectly addressed in this question.

The methodology focuses on open procurement methods that are advertised and follow public procurement regulations. This includes open procurement, selective procurement if published, framework agreements, and auctions. Minor contracts or those below the threshold that do not apply public procurement rules are not included, as experts may not be aware of them. This is an area for potential improvement in future questionnaire rollouts. 

For the purposes of the Business Insolvency topic, “no practice” is defined as a situation where an economy has no completed liquidation proceedings and/or completed reorganization proceedings in the past three years, involving corporate debtors. A liquidation judicial proceeding is considered as complete when a final judicial decision is issued to close the proceedings.  A judicial reorganization proceeding is considered complete when the reorganization plan has been approved by the creditors and confirmed by the court.

The Business Insolvency topic assesses hybrid workouts which are defined as a restructuring involving private negotiations of restructuring terms pursuant to a procedure that provides for a court role, where this role falls short of supervision of the full procedure.

For the purposes of the Business Insolvency topic, the term “post-commencement credit” refers to new credit or new loans for a debtor company obtained once the insolvency proceedings are initiated. This does not include new loans offered as part of a reorganization plan, but includes loans issued before approval of a reorganization plan. The Business Insolvency topic assesses whether the legal framework explicitly provides for the possibility for debtors to obtain credit after the commencement of insolvency proceedings to finance its on-going needs during the proceedings. Good international practices suggest that the law should also assign priority to post-commencement credit over ordinary unsecured creditors.

The data collection process for the Business Insolvency topic does not include firm-level surveys. Instead, data for all three pillars is collected through consultations with private sector experts. The assessments focus on judicial proceedings, specifically liquidation and reorganization. Collecting data on liquidation proceedings from firms is impractical. In reorganization cases, the complexity of many insolvency proceedings typically leads firms to outsource legal work to law firms specializing in corporate insolvency. Consequently, firm-level surveys are excluded from the data collection process. More information on the selection criteria for topic experts can be found in the Methodology Handbook.

A score on these indicators is assigned if the statutory framework explicitly provides for the automatic stay of proceedings, including its exceptions and relief, if applicable. These components must be clearly established in the law and cannot be implied.

While the same court might have jurisdiction over both commercial and bankruptcy cases, the availability and operational status of online services can differ between these areas. For instance, e-filing might be possible for commercial litigation without requiring hard copies, whereas this requirement might still exist for bankruptcy cases. In some instances, e-filing might be available only for commercial litigation or only for bankruptcy. The same applies to the payment of court fees. Therefore, both the Dispute Resolution and Business Insolvency topics assess digital services such as e-filing and e-payment.

In the context of Pillar II, which evaluates the Quality of Institutional and Operational Infrastructure for Judicial Insolvency Proceedings, the focus is on the existence of a court, division or bench with specialized insolvency expertise and dedicated to adjudicating bankruptcy proceedings. 

For Pillar III, which assesses the Operational Efficiency of Resolving Judicial Insolvency Proceedings, the competent court is defined as the court of primary or first instance, located in the largest business city of the economy. This court is the most comparable among jurisdictions worldwide. The jurisdiction of the second-instance court generally depends on the legal framework and specific jurisdiction, which does not allow for a comprehensive and coherent data analysis. Additionally, there may be various subnational levels of jurisdiction over insolvency procedures within each economy. Therefore, the competent court assumed here is based in the largest business city as the main criterion for territorial jurisdiction. This assumption also applies to estimating the efficiency of in-court liquidation and reorganization proceedings as measured in Pillar III, allowing for standardization at the procedural level to calculate the time and cost of such proceedings.