The Oxford CMM - Global Leaders in Cybersecurity Capacity: 2025–2026 Rankings

By

 

The Oxford CMM - Global Leaders in Cybersecurity Capacity: 2025–2026 Rankings

The Oxford CMM: A Roadmap for National Digital Resilience

The Oxford Global Cyber Security Capacity Maturity Model (CMM) is a pioneering framework developed by the Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre (GCSCC) at the University of Oxford. It is designed to help nations assess their cybersecurity maturity across a broad spectrum of social, technical, and legal factors.

What is the Oxford CMM Index?

The Oxford CMM is a comprehensive framework used by nations to measure their cybersecurity maturity across five dimensions: Policy & Strategy, Culture & Society, Knowledge & Skills, Legal & Regulatory, and Standards & Tech. Unlike simple technical rankings, it provides a qualitative roadmap for countries to progress from "Start-up" to "Dynamic" levels of cyber resilience.

1. The Five Dimensions of the CMM

The model evaluates a country’s maturity through five "Dimensions," which together represent the holistic ecosystem of national cybersecurity:

DimensionFocus Area
D1: Policy & StrategyNational strategy, incident response (CSIRTs), and critical infrastructure protection.
D2: Culture & SocietyPublic awareness, trust in the internet, and the role of media in cybersecurity.
D3: Knowledge & SkillsEducation, professional training, and the availability of a skilled workforce.
D4: Legal & RegulatoryCybercrime legislation, data protection, and international legal cooperation.
D5: Standards & TechUse of international standards (ISO/IEC), software quality, and technical controls.

2. The Five Stages of Maturity

For each factor within these dimensions, a country is graded on a scale of 1 to 5:

  1. Start-up: No formal processes; capacity is ad-hoc or disorganized.

  2. Formative: Elements of capacity are emerging but lack consistency.

  3. Established: Processes and policies are in place and functioning.

  4. Strategic: Capacity is integrated into national planning and prioritized.

  5. Dynamic: The country can rapidly adapt to changing threats and lead globally.

3. Global Impact and Evolution (2025–2026)

As of early 2026, the CMM has been deployed in over 120 reviews across 85+ countries. The model has evolved significantly to meet modern challenges:

  • AI Cybersecurity Readiness: Recent 2025 updates have integrated AI-specific risks into the framework, helping nations prepare for the dual-edged sword of artificial intelligence.

  • The Global Constellation: Oxford now operates via a "Global Constellation" of research centers, including the Oceania Cyber Security Centre (OCSC) and the Cybersecurity Capacity Centre for Southern Africa (C3SA).

  • Continuous Maturity: In 2026, the trend has shifted from "point-in-time" reviews to continuous monitoring, using automated data collection to update a nation's maturity status.


Global Leaders in Cybersecurity Capacity: 2025–2026 Rankings

While the Oxford CMM is primarily a diagnostic tool rather than a competitive leaderboard, recent data from 2025 and 2026 highlight specific nations that have achieved "Strategic" and "Dynamic" stages across various dimensions. These countries often serve as regional blueprints for cyber resilience.

1. Top Performing Nations by Region

The Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre (GCSCC) has noted that certain countries consistently outperform their peers by integrating cybersecurity into the very fabric of their national governance and economy.

RegionLeading Countries (2025–2026)Key Strengths
EuropeCzechia, Finland, United KingdomHigh institutional coordination and mature legal frameworks (GDPR compliance).
AmericasDominican Republic, JamaicaPioneers in the LAC region for National CSIRTs and updated cybercrime laws.
Asia-PacificSingapore, Australia, South KoreaGlobal leaders in technical standards and public-private sector data sharing.
AfricaMauritius, Ghana, RwandaRapid advancement in D1 (Policy) and D3 (Education/Skills).

2. Why These Countries Excel

Leading nations in the Oxford CMM index share three common characteristics that elevate them toward the Dynamic stage:

  • Integrated Strategies: Countries like Finland and Czechia do not treat cybersecurity as an "IT issue." Instead, they have cross-ministerial strategies that link cyber-defense with national security and economic growth.

  • Active Regional Collaboration: High-performing nations often host or lead regional "Constellations." For example, Australia's OCSC and South Africa's C3SA allow these nations to export their knowledge while staying ahead of regional threat trends.

  • Investment in "Human Capital": The most mature nations prioritize Dimension 3 (Knowledge & Skills). By 2026, leaders like the UK have established nationwide cybersecurity curricula and professional certification standards that ensure a steady pipeline of talent.

3. The "AI Readiness" Shift (2026)

In 2026, the definition of a "leading country" has shifted. Maturity is no longer just about defending against malware; it is about AI Resilience.

2026 Trend: Nations such as Singapore and Germany are currently the only ones approaching "Dynamic" status in the new AI Readiness Metric. They have implemented specific legal frameworks to govern AI-driven threats and automated incident response systems that can counter AI-generated phishing at scale.


Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Metrics: How Success is Measured

The Oxford CMM does not rely on a single numerical score. Instead, it measures progress through a hierarchy of Factors, Aspects, and Indicators. For a nation to move from one maturity stage to the next (e.g., from Established to Strategic), it must provide verifiable evidence that it has met specific Indicators—the model’s version of KPIs.

1. Strategic KPIs by Dimension

In the 2021–2026 framework, specific performance indicators serve as the "litmus test" for national capability:

DimensionKey Performance Indicator (Indicator)Evidence of "Strategic" Maturity
D1: PolicyIncident Response CoverageA functional National CSIRT with 24/7 monitoring and cross-border data sharing.
D2: CulturePublic Trust LevelsMeasurable increase in the use of e-government services and multi-factor authentication (MFA) adoption.
D3: KnowledgeWorkforce PipelineDedicated cybersecurity degree programs in 50%+ of national universities.
D4: LegalAdherence to International LawRatification and active enforcement of the Budapest Convention or equivalent regional treaties.
D5: StandardsSupply Chain IntegrityMandatory cybersecurity requirements in public procurement and software development life cycles.

2. The Measurement Hierarchy

To ensure objectivity, the Oxford GCSCC uses a granular assessment structure:

  • Factors: The high-level goals (e.g., Factor 1.1: National Cybersecurity Strategy).

  • Aspects: Sub-themes that break down a factor (e.g., Strategy Content, Development Process, and Implementation).

  • Indicators (The Metrics): These are largely binary. A country either possesses the evidence (e.g., "There is a formal budget allocated for the strategy") or it does not.

  • Evidence Gathering: Unlike self-reported surveys, CMM indicators are validated through stakeholder consultations (often 10+ sessions over 3 days) and desk research performed by Oxford-trained researchers.

3. Emerging 2026 "Dynamic" Indicators

As cyber threats become more sophisticated, the "Dynamic" (Stage 5) indicators have shifted to focus on predictive rather than reactive capabilities:

  • KPI: Automated Threat Hunting: Does the nation use AI-driven systems to proactively identify vulnerabilities in Critical National Infrastructure (CNI)?

  • KPI: Cyber Diplomacy: Does the country lead international norm-setting for responsible state behavior in cyberspace?

  • KPI: Sovereign Redundancy: Can the nation maintain essential services (power, water, finance) during a total internet blackout?

Note on Benchmarking: While the ITU’s Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) provides a numerical ranking, the Oxford CMM KPIs are designed to create a Cyber Resilience Roadmap. If a country fails a KPI in Dimension 3 (Knowledge), the CMM report provides the specific "Steps to Advance" to reach the next stage.


The Ecosystem of Collaboration: Key Organizations and Partners

The success of the Oxford CMM is built on a "Global Constellation" of academic, governmental, and international organizations. This network ensures that the model is not just a theoretical framework from the UK but a globally applicable tool with local cultural and technical relevance.

1. The Core: Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre (GCSCC)

Based at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, the GCSCC is the central architect of the model. It directs the research, updates the dimensions (such as the 2021 and 2025 AI updates), and maintains the technical standards for all assessments worldwide.

2. The Global Constellation (Regional Hubs)

To decentralize the model and provide regional expertise, Oxford has established a "constellation" of regional centers:

  • Oceania Cyber Security Centre (OCSC): Based in Melbourne, Australia, it leads CMM reviews across the Pacific (e.g., Fiji, Samoa, and Kiribati).

  • Cybersecurity Capacity Centre for Southern Africa (C3SA): Located at the University of Cape Town, this hub focuses on digital inclusion and rights-based cybersecurity maturity across Africa.

  • Monash University (Indonesia/Australia): As of 2025–2026, Monash has deepened its partnership with GCSCC to specifically address AI-driven cybersecurity readiness in the Asia-Pacific region.

3. Strategic and Implementation Partners

Oxford collaborates with heavyweight international organizations to fund and deploy the CMM. These partners often use the CMM results to determine where to provide financial aid or technical assistance:

Organization TypeKey Partners
International BodiesWorld Bank, ITU (International Telecommunication Union), OAS (Organization of American States)
Government AgenciesUK FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office), Norway's MFA, Japan’s JICA
ImplementationGlobal Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE), NRD Cyber Security, GIZ (Germany)

4. Knowledge Sharing: The Cybil Portal

One of the most important organizational outputs is Cybil, the Cyber Capacity Knowledge Portal. Developed by the GCSCC and its partners (including the ASPI and DiploFoundation), it serves as a public repository for CMM reports and case studies. This ensures that a country in Europe can learn from the "Strategic" successes of a country in Africa or Asia.

5. Funding and Oversight

The GCSCC is primarily funded by the UK Government (FCDO) and the Government of the Netherlands, with additional project-specific funding from regional partners like the State Government of Victoria (for the OCSC). A Technical Board of senior academics and policy experts oversees the program to maintain its strict objectivity.

Did you know? In 2025, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) collaborated with Oxford and the Mongolian government to perform one of the most comprehensive CMM reviews to date, involving over 150 stakeholders.


Data Collection Methodology: An Evidence-Based Approach

The Oxford CMM stands apart from other indices because it does not rely on subjective surveys or self-reporting. Instead, it utilizes a rigorous, multi-modal data collection process designed to extract verifiable evidence of a nation’s capacity. In 2026, this process has become even more sophisticated, blending traditional field research with modern digital analysis.

1. Primary Source: Multi-Stakeholder Consultations

The "gold standard" of the CMM is the In-Country Review. This involves intensive focus groups led by Oxford-trained researchers. These sessions are organized into "Stakeholder Clusters" to ensure a 360-degree view of the national landscape:

  • Public Sector: Ministries of Defense, ICT, Justice, and Foreign Affairs.

  • Critical Infrastructure: Operators from energy, finance, health, and transport sectors.

  • Academia & Civil Society: University researchers, NGOs, and digital rights advocates.

  • Criminal Justice: Law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and the judiciary.

  • Private Sector: ISPs, cybersecurity firms, and trade associations.

2. The "Consensus-Building" Technique

During these consultations, researchers facilitate a discussion rather than just asking questions. The goal is to reach consensus among participants. If a government official claims a policy exists but civil society and the private sector have never seen it implemented, the "Evidence" for that KPI is deemed insufficient, and the country will not advance to the next maturity stage.

3. Secondary Sources and Desk Research

Consultations are preceded and followed by extensive Desk Research to verify claims. Key data sources include:

  • National Gazettes & Legislation: Verifying the legal status of cybercrime laws.

  • Budgetary Documents: Confirming that cybersecurity strategies are actually funded.

  • Technical Audits: Reviewing public reports from National CSIRTs and CERTs.

  • Global Databases: Cross-referencing data with the ITU’s Global Cybersecurity Index, the World Bank, and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR).

4. Modern Data Evolution (2025–2026)

By 2026, the GCSCC has integrated more dynamic data-gathering tools to supplement the traditional five-dimension model:

  • Automated Policy Scanning: Using Natural Language Processing (NLP) to analyze national strategy documents for alignment with international best practices.

  • Digital Footprint Analysis: Incorporating technical data on national IP space security and SSL certificate adoption as secondary indicators for Dimension 5 (Standards & Tech).

  • The "Cybil" Portal: This global database acts as a live repository where countries can upload updated evidence between formal 3-year review cycles, allowing for a "living" maturity score.

The Quality Control Filter: Before a report is finalized, the collected data must pass through a Technical Board Review at the University of Oxford. This ensures that the findings are not only accurate but also free from political bias or local influence.

Strategic Index

2026 Guide to Value-Added Standardization: Integrating ISO 9001, 14001, and 14067 for Global Trade

By
Image
  The New Era of Value-Added Commodities: 2026 Standardization Guide In 2026, the definition of a "commodity" has undergone a radical transformation. It is no longer enough to simply move raw materials across borders; the global market now demands that value-added processes—from refining and processing to ethical certification—meet a rigorous, standardized regulatory framework. The following article outlines the core pillars of standardized regulation for value-added commodities as they stand today. 1. The 2026 Customs Revolution: HS Code Evolution To regulate value-added goods, you must first define them. The World Customs Organization (WCO) and regional bodies like the European Commission have updated their classification systems for 2026 to distinguish high-tech processed goods from raw materials. The EU Combined Nomenclature (CN) 2026: Effective January 1, 2026, new 8-digit codes have been introduced for "green" value-added commodities, such as specific lith...
Read more

Tariff Escalation Monitoring on Value-Added Commodity: Industrialization and Organization Involved

By
Image
  The Role of Global Organizations in Tariff Escalation Monitoring The monitoring of tariff escalation on value-added commodities is primarily spearheaded by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) . These organizations analyze trade data to ensure that "tariff peaks" and escalation do not unfairly suppress the industrial growth of developing nations. By providing transparent data and a platform for dispute resolution, they aim to create a level playing field where countries can move beyond exporting raw materials and successfully transition into manufacturing. Tariff Escalation: A Barrier to Value-Added Industrialization Tariff escalation is a trade policy strategy where import duties increase as a product undergoes higher levels of processing. This structure creates a significant hurdle for developing economies seeking to capture more of the global value chain. 1. The Mechanics of the "Tariff Wedge" I...
Read more

The WCO’s Integrated Role in Value-Added Commodity Regulation

By
Image
  The Role of the World Customs Organization (WCO) in Regulating Value-Added Commodities In the modern global economy, goods are rarely produced in a single location. Instead, they move through complex Global Value Chains (GVCs) , where "value-added" processes—such as assembly, refinement, or branding—occur across multiple borders. The World Customs Organization (WCO) serves as the primary international body ensuring these commodities are classified, valued, and regulated consistently. While other international bodies set broad legal frameworks, the WCO provides the technical "machinery" that makes the regulation of value-added trade possible. 1. Defining "Value-Added" via Rules of Origin The WCO plays a critical role in determining the economic nationality of a product through Rules of Origin (RoO) . For value-added commodities, the WCO oversees the "Substantial Transformation" principle: Value Ad-Valorem Percentage: This rule calculates whet...
Read more

The UNSD Global Potato Value Added Diversification: 2026 Market Analysis & Top Exporters.

By
Image
  UNSD Analysis: Global Potato Production and Economic Value Added According to the frameworks established by the  United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) , measuring the potato industry goes beyond simple tonnage. The UNSD's System of National Accounts (SNA) focuses on  Value Added , which represents the net contribution of the potato sector to a nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) after deducting the costs of production inputs. UNSD-SNA Estimates: Production Volume vs. Economic Value Added The following table synthesizes production data with estimated economic value added, reflecting the net wealth generated by the sector in key producing nations. Country Production (Million Metric Tons) Estimated Value Added (USD Billions) Primary Economic Focus China 95.5 $18.2 Staple food security & industrial starch India 60.1 $11.4 Domestic fresh market & small-scale trade USA 19.9 $4.8 High-value frozen processing & global exports Germany 11.6 $3.2 Industrial proce...
Read more

UNSD - Value-Added Vegetables Indicator Framework

By
Image
  Economic Comparison: Raw vs. Value-Added Vegetables (2026 Forecast) In 2026, the global vegetable market is increasingly defined by the "Value Multiplier"—the ratio of revenue generated when a raw crop is processed into an industrial or retail-ready product. While raw vegetables (UNSD 012) face high perishability and price volatility, value-added diversification offers price stability and significantly higher margins. UNSD 012 Group Raw Commodity (Avg. $/Ton) High-Value Diversified Format Value-Added (Avg. $/Ton) Value Multiplier 0121: Leafy/Stem $500 – $800 Freeze-Dried "Superfood" Powders $13,500 – $19,000 24x – 27x 0122: Melons $350 – $550 HPP Cold-Pressed Juices $2,800 – $4,200 7x – 8x 0123: Fruit-bearing $650 – $950 Pharmaceutical-Grade Lycopene $45,000 – $60,000 60x – 70x 0124: Green Legumes $900 – $1,300 Pea Protein Isolates (85%+) $5,200 – $7,500 5x – 6x 0125: Root & Bulb $400 – $650 Spray-Dried Garlic/Onion Flakes $3,800 – $5,200 8x – 9x 0127: Mushroo...
Read more

Industrial Sovereignty: Leveraging Special & Differential Treatment for Value Addition

By
Image
  Special & Differential Treatment as a Catalyst for Value-Added Manufacturing In the landscape of international trade, Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) serves as a critical bridge for developing nations aiming to transition from raw material exporters to industrial powerhouses through Value-Added Manufacturing (VAM) . This article explores how SDT provisions provide the "policy space" necessary for countries to process their own resources, climb global value chains (GVCs), and foster sustainable economic growth. 1. Defining the Core Concepts To understand the synergy between these two concepts, we must first define their individual roles in global trade: Value-Added Manufacturing (VAM): The process of increasing the economic value of a product at each stage of production. For example, instead of exporting raw cocoa beans, a country processes them into cocoa butter or finished chocolate. This generates higher revenue, creates skilled jobs, and improves the trade...
Read more

Green Value-Added Strategy: Leveraging EU Combined Nomenclature Codes - CBAM Compliance

By
Image
  Green Value-Added Commodities and the EU Combined Nomenclature The transition to a climate-neutral economy has transformed the Combined Nomenclature (CN) from a dry list of customs codes into a strategic map for sustainable business. By categorizing "Green Value-Added" commodities, the EU can provide a framework that rewards environmental innovation and tracks the progress of the circular economy. Defining Green Value-Added A "Green Value-Added" commodity is any product that has been modified, refined, or manufactured to provide a significantly lower environmental impact than its traditional counterpart. This value is added through: Material Recovery: Transforming waste streams back into high-quality raw materials. Energy Efficiency: Engineering components that reduce power consumption in industrial or domestic settings. Carbon Reduction: Utilizing manufacturing processes that prioritize renewable energy or carbon capture. The CN Code as a Regulatory Filter Th...
Read more

Navigating the SCM Agreement: A Legal Framework for Value-Added Manufacturing

By
Image
  Understanding Value-Added Manufacturing under the WTO SCM Agreement In the world of international trade, Value-Added Manufacturing (VAM) is the engine of economic growth. It represents the transition from exporting raw materials to processing those materials into finished, high-value goods. However, when governments provide financial support to boost these industries, they often run into the complex legal framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO), specifically the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) . What is the SCM Agreement? The SCM Agreement regulates two distinct but related areas: the use of subsidies by governments and the actions countries can take to counter the effects of those subsidies. For a government measure to be considered a "subsidy" under this agreement, it must meet three specific criteria: Financial Contribution: A government must provide a grant, loan, equity infusion, or forgo revenue (like tax credits). Conferre...
Read more

CBAM Compliance 2026: A Guide to Value-Added Commodities and Organizations Involved

By
Image
  Value-Added Commodity: The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) In the push for a net-zero future, the European Union has introduced a game-changer that redefines the very nature of global trade: the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) . While it may sound like a dense bureaucratic layer, it is essentially a tool designed to ensure that climate ambition doesn't lead to "carbon leakage"—where production shifts to countries with weaker environmental laws. By attaching a price to the carbon content of imports, CBAM transforms "carbon efficiency" into a value-added characteristic of every commodity entering the EU. Redefining "Value" in the Modern Market For decades, the "value" of a commodity was determined by purity, weight, and logistical efficiency. CBAM adds a decisive fourth pillar: Carbon Intensity. Traditional Value Drivers The "CBAM" Value-Added Drivers Low production cost Low embedded carbon ( $CO_2$ per ton) S...
Read more

EU Trade 2026: CBAM Compliance and ESPR Digital Product Passports, on the Value-Added Commodities Perspective

By
Image
  The Green Value Standard: CBAM, ESPR, and the Rise of "VuecAdded" Commodities The global trade landscape is undergoing a fundamental transformation. In 2026, the European Union has moved beyond simple trade barriers, establishing a sophisticated "Green Value" framework. This system merges the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) with the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) , effectively redefining what it means for a commodity to have "value" in the modern market. 🏗️ Defining the Green Value Framework The Green Value standard represents the shift from "price-first" to "sustainability-first" procurement. It is anchored by two distinct but complementary regulatory pillars: CBAM (The Carbon Filter): Focuses on the embedded emissions of raw materials. It ensures that imported goods pay a carbon price equivalent to those produced within the EU, eliminating the competitive advantage of high-pollution manufacturing...
Read more