As of 2026-07-15, Porto-Novo scores 10.9/100 (Critical) on the Compassion Benchmark, ranking #219 of 250 in the Global Cities Index.
Global Cities Index · 2026
Porto-Novo
Rank 28 of 47 in Afric · Bottom 43% of cohort
Foundational compassion practices are absent or documented active harm is present.
How to read the scores
The 0–100 scale — five bands
Every entity — state, corporation, AI lab, robotics lab, or city — is scored 0–100 across 8 dimensions and 40 subdimensions. The composite score places the entity in one of five bands:
The 8 dimensions
Each dimension is scored 1–5 across 5 subdimensions (40 subdimensions total), then converted to a 0–100 composite. A score of 1.0 on a subdimension represents the minimum anchor; 5.0 is exemplary conduct.
Scores are based on public evidence — government reports, regulatory filings, independent audits, judicial findings, and verifiable third-party records. Entities never pay for inclusion, score changes, or suppression of findings. Full methodology
Strongest: Awareness · Weakest: Boundaries
Afric cohort distribution
Not yet reassessed since publication — interpret with caution.
Compassion framework
8 dimensions, scored 0–5
Each dimension rolls up five subdimensions with five-level behavioral anchors. See the methodology for anchor definitions and weighting.
Note: radar area can visually exaggerate differences — read the per-axis values, not the area.
Source: Compassion Benchmark · CC-BY
Each axis shows a 0–5 dimension score. The polygon shape reveals where this entity concentrates strength and where it falls short across the 8 compassion dimensions.
The dashed overlay is the Global Cities Index average — gaps between the two polygons show above/below-average dimensions.
See dimension bars
Consistency is rewarded: strong, even performance across all eight dimensions earns up to +10 points; any dimension at zero (active harm) cancels the bonus.
10.9 base score+0.0 integration premium=10.9 composite
Uneven profile (std dev 0.17) — integration premium reduced to +0.0 pts.
How the composite is calculated
Base score: Average of all 8 dimension scores → converted to a 0–100 scale. 10.9 pts here.
Integration premium: Up to +10 pts for a balanced, high-floor profile. Gates:
- Harm flag (any dimension = 0): Clear
- Consistency multiplier (std dev = 0.17): 1.00× (1.0× if std dev ≤ 1.5; 0.75× ≤ 3.0; 0.4× ≤ 5.0; 0.1× above)
- Weakness factor (8 dims below 4.0): 0.00× (1 − 0.2 × weak dimensions, clamped to 0)
Formula: base + 10 × consistency × weakness = 10.9 + 0.0 = 10.9
Awareness
Does this entity reliably detect when others are in pain or need — before they name it?
What Awareness measures · Level 2 reference
Awareness measures whether an institution proactively detects suffering, distress, and need among its stakeholders — including signals that are implicit, indirect, or nested inside functional requests.
Around a score of 2, Awareness typically looks like:
- ·Suffering Detection: Reactive detection, no structured pathways
- ·Contextual Sensitivity: Some accommodation only on request
- ·Blind Spot Mitigation: Blind spot acknowledgment in principle only
- ·Signal Amplification: Alternative channels rarely used effectively
- ·Anticipatory Awareness: Harm consideration informal, no structure
This is a level-2 reference ladder, not a claim about Porto-Novo’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Empathy
Does this entity genuinely connect with the inner experience of those it serves?
What Empathy measures · Level 2 reference
Empathy measures whether an institution responds to emotional content with genuine presence — not with hollow affirmations, rushed problem-solving, or premature pivot to advice.
Around a score of 2, Empathy typically looks like:
- ·Affective Resonance: Occasional acknowledgment, no structural expectation
- ·Perspective-Taking: Perspective-taking acknowledged, no structural process
- ·Non-Judgment: Non-judgment stated but not measured
- ·Validation: "We take all concerns seriously" with no process
- ·Cultural Empathy: Cultural competency training not required
This is a level-2 reference ladder, not a claim about Porto-Novo’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Action
Does compassionate understanding translate into real, proportional, effective help?
What Action measures · Level 2 reference
Action measures whether awareness and empathy translate into genuinely useful responses — specific, accurate, locally relevant, and proportionate to urgency.
Around a score of 2, Action typically looks like:
- ·Responsiveness: Standards exist but not consistently met
- ·Proportionality: Needs assessment on paper, resources drive response
- ·Efficacy: Some outcome data collected but not reviewed
- ·Resource Mobilization: Gaps acknowledged, no effort to close them
- ·Follow-Through: Follow-up in some cases, not systematic
This is a level-2 reference ladder, not a claim about Porto-Novo’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Equity
Is care distributed fairly — especially toward those with greatest need and least power?
What Equity measures · Level 2 reference
Equity measures whether the benefits and burdens of institutional practices fall equitably across all groups — in pay, access, service quality, and power.
Around a score of 2, Equity typically looks like:
- ·Universality: Universal access stated, coverage not measured
- ·Priority for Vulnerable: Priority stated, allocation does not follow need
- ·Bias Awareness: Some disaggregation, disparities not investigated
- ·Access Design: Some features present, no community input
- ·Historical Harm Acknowledgment: Vague acknowledgment in mission statements only
This is a level-2 reference ladder, not a claim about Porto-Novo’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Boundaries
Is helping sustainable, ethical, and autonomy-preserving — not dependency-creating?
What Boundaries measures · Level 1 reference
Boundaries measures whether an institution maintains ethical limits, protects its people from depletion, and refuses harmful practices even when they are profitable.
Around a score of 1, Boundaries typically looks like:
- ·Self-Sustainability: Frontline staff chronically depleted, burnout individual problem
- ·Autonomy Preservation: Help requires continued institutional involvement
- ·Scope Clarity: Scope overstated, limitations discovered only after investment
- ·Refusal Ethics: People turned away without explanation or alternatives
- ·Consent Orientation: Consent as legal formality, forms not informative
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Porto-Novo’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Accountability
Does this entity own its failures, correct course, and make genuine repair?
What Accountability measures · Level 2 reference
Accountability measures whether an institution acknowledges harm honestly, accepts corrections, maintains honesty under pressure, and provides calibrated transparency about its own nature and limitations.
Around a score of 2, Accountability typically looks like:
- ·Harm Acknowledgment: Acknowledged only after external establishment
- ·Correction Willingness: Correction eventually, under pressure, minimal
- ·Transparency: Some data shared, failures when legally required
- ·Systemic Learning: Some post-incident review, rarely translates to systemic change
- ·Reparative Action: Gestures toward repair in high-visibility cases only
This is a level-2 reference ladder, not a claim about Porto-Novo’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Systemic Thinking
Does compassion extend to root causes and structural change — not only symptom relief?
What Systemic Thinking measures · Level 2 reference
Systems Thinking measures whether an institution helps understand structural and systemic causes of problems, advocates for structural change, and plans for long-horizon effects.
Around a score of 2, Systemic Thinking typically looks like:
- ·Root Cause Orientation: Root causes acknowledged, no resources allocated
- ·Long-Term Impact: 3–5 year plan, primarily aspirational
- ·Interconnection Awareness: Adjacent systems identified, no systematic tracking
- ·Structural Critique: Structural critique in communications, disconnected from action
- ·Coalitional Compassion: Some coalition participation, primarily extractive
This is a level-2 reference ladder, not a claim about Porto-Novo’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Integrity
Is compassion genuine, consistent, and non-performative — especially when it costs something?
What Integrity measures · Level 2 reference
Integrity measures whether an institution behaves consistently regardless of who is watching, whether its values-behavior gap is acknowledged, and whether it prioritizes genuine interests over appearances.
Around a score of 2, Integrity typically looks like:
- ·Consistency Under Pressure: Pressure occasionally causes unacknowledged compromises
- ·Non-Performance: Some genuine practice, primarily reputation-motivated
- ·Internal Consistency: Gap acknowledged but not addressed
- ·Values Alignment: Values consulted for communications, not consistently applied
- ·Resilience of Care: Some practices in policy, most depend on current leadership
This is a level-2 reference ladder, not a claim about Porto-Novo’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
How it compares to the field, dimension by dimension
Each bar shows Porto-Novo’s score above or below the index average for that dimension. Zero baseline = field average.
Score-Watch Alert
$79/yrBe first to know when Porto-Novo’s score changes
Email alert the moment overnight research moves Porto-Novo’s composite score — with the delta, headline evidence, and band change flag. One year of continuous monitoring. Cancel anytime.
Embed this score on your site
Preview
Embed code
<a href="https://compassionbenchmark.com/city/porto-novo"><img src="https://api.compassionbenchmark.com/badge/porto-novo.svg" alt="Compassion Benchmark score" /></a>
Free. The badge auto-updates when scores change.
Full dataset
Porto-Novo is one of 250 cities in the Global Cities Index
Purchase the full index for methodology, sector/peer comparisons, subdimension breakdowns, and evidence sources.
Purchase Global Cities Index — $195Follow Porto-Novo — free
Get Porto-Novo's score changes in the free weekly email
Track Porto-Novo and its Global Cities Indexpeers — free, every Friday. One email with the week's biggest score moves across Global Cities Index. We'll surface Porto-Novo when its score changes. Unsubscribe anytime.
Discovery
Compare across the field
Closest Afric peers
Nearest rank neighbours
Index extremes