In the News

BIC and the endorsing organizations commend the decision of the Board of Governors to follow the unanimous recommendation of the Board of Directors and swiftly remove Mr. Claver-Carone.

In times of extreme political polarization and governmental dysfunction, “leverage-first” organizations create impact by working within existing systems, however imperfect they may be.

As Europe’s economy continues to buckle under a worsening energy crisis, proposals to expand investment in green energy projects should be welcome news. However, local communities that stand to be impacted by these projects have ample cause for alarm, given these institutions’ worrying track records of causing direct harm through their investments.

In 2020, USAID was directed to create an accountability structure, in order to address this, via an explanatory statement accompanying appropriations legislation. Almost two years later, USAID is still working on this mechanism and is yet to reveal what it might look like.

One activist group, the non-profit Accountability Counsel, points to a 231% rise in complaints between 2009 and 2019 as evidence development banks are backing projects without regard for communities.

At present, companies complicit in abuse of local populations can not only keep high ESG ratings, but sometimes see them increase. This is the message to the SEC from three non-profit organisations concerned with human rights and the environment: Inclusive Development International (IDI), Accountability Counsel (AC) and Friends of the Earth US (FoE US).

Inclusive Development International joined Accountability Counsel and Friends of the Earth-US this week to submit comments responding to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) proposed rules for “ESG” oriented investment funds, or funds that consider environmental, social and governance factors in their investment decisions. They urged the SEC to go beyond disclosure requirements and actually define ESG in order to crack down on the false and misleading marketing of many ESG funds more directly and to regulate the flawed data collection and ESG ratings systems that inform their portfolios.

A new Chinese translation of our recent article in the South China Morning Post.

We refer to this joint effort – through a relationship that extends beyond our substantive work together – as “solidarity fundraising.” Solidarity fundraising is the act of leveraging funding relationships for the benefit of peer and partner organizations. By making high-value introductions to aligned funders, we can apply an equity-driven framework to philanthropy–starting at the grassroots level.

The International Finance Corporation has a critical opportunity to create a framework for remediating harm to communities, including those currently suffering as a result of IFC’s financing.

Guidelines now require Chinese banks and insurers to set up grievance mechanisms, which will allow affected communities to speak up – and investors to better address their risks.

The industrial park opened with big promises and big-name backers like Hillary Clinton and Sean Penn. But for the families evicted from their farmland, the development brought financial ruin.

Margaux Day, policy director at Accountability Counsel, says there has been a “culture of impunity” when it comes to mislabeling ESG investments. “Investors who are claiming to do ESG investments need to have accountability frameworks in place,” she says.

A coalition of African civil society organisations have bemoaned the lack of engagement between the African Development Bank and Civil Society. According to them, even though the bank had many policies tailored to assisting CSO’s, their implementation has been poor over the years.

Greenwashing – money that purports to address climate change but doesn’t, or even does the opposite – is nefarious because it is easily hidden, and therefore hard for investors and the average climate conscious consumer to address. But community-driven accountability tools exist that can prevent greenwashing, and it’s urgent that investors demand that they become common practice in a hundred trillion dollar industry that is scaling up with private sector support to address our climate crisis.

The still developing scandal at the United Nations Office for Project Services highlights what many of us in the development finance and impact-investing sectors already know: A lack of accountability and good governance inevitably leads to systemic abuse.

Investors and project planners must take cautionary measures when executing climate mitigation and clean energy projects to prevent adverse effects on Indigenous and other local communities, Accountability Counsel says. Yet during many of these projects’ planning phases, there is frequently a lack of local community engagement, a dearth of educational awareness and a failure to provide sufficient security.

The World Bank is reviewing a complaint by two Cambodian human rights groups alleging that microlenders backed by the development bank’s financing arm have engaged in predatory debt-collection practices, including pressuring borrowers to sell their land.

Megan Pearson ’21 reflects on her time so far as a Bernstein International Human Rights Fellow at Accountability Counsel’s Policy Team.

In spite of clear evidence, DFIs largely refuse to provide remedy for harm caused by their own projects. A recent report from the United Nations confirms that the state of remedy in development finance is lacking and that DFIs are not being held to account. It also sets out a road map for what DFIs need to do.