In May 2025, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) released its first-ever Impact Report. With EUR 16.6 billion invested in 584 projects in 2024, the report highlights ambitious claims: reductions in emissions, boosts to human capital, and support for inclusive economies. But as we dig deeper, a familiar issue re-emerges: the gap between institutional ambition and on-the-ground reality.
Nina Lesikhina, Policy officer | 10 July 2025
The report replaces the EBRD’s Sustainability Report, which focused on what the EBRD did, rather than what it changed. Yet even the new format struggles to demonstrate how public investments are transforming lives, improving governance, or driving green and democratic transitions. The methodology still relies heavily on client-reported data and internal validation, with little evidence from the final beneficiaries and those most affected: workers, entrepreneurs and communities.
The lack of tools to measure impact on democratic institutions is striking, especially given the EBRD’s Article 1 mandate. United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16, which focuses on fostering peace, justice and strong Institutions, receives the least attention. To address this shortcoming, we recommend that the EBRD include indicators on civic and citizen engagement as well as policy dialogue.
Some transparency wins are worth noting: the EBRD reports on its underperformance, referencing 24 projects that delivered less than 20 per cent of its objectives in 2024. It attributes this underperformance to causes like macroeconomic shocks, weak governance, early loan repayments, and compliance issues. Yet deeper insights into patterns categorised by country, sector, and risk are notably absent.
On the green transition, headline figures on projected carbon dioxide reductions from increased renewable energy capacity are encouraging, but there’s more than meets the eye. The EBRD’s investments in gas infrastructure, waste incineration, and forest biomass have not been considered. Some projects lauded for environmental gains, such as the electric trolleybuses scheme in Kyrgyzstan, haven’t even become operational.
The report is more concrete when reporting on human capital investments in skills development, gender-focused finance, and improved workplace standards. But transparency around financial intermediaries, used largely for women-in-business support, remains a challenge. Has funding truly advanced women’s economic empowerment, or just ticked boxes? The EBRD should track long-term indicators like gender wage gaps, cases of gender-based violence and harassment, and the representation of women in leadership roles at both corporate and community levels across all its investments.
Alarmingly, some projects praised for promoting inclusion, such as cotton farming in Uzbekistan, have instead led to the economic displacement of thousands of farmers. This underscores the urgent need for robust ex post impact assessments to capture the real outcomes of investments.
The report also notes that countries with the lowest ‘transition scores’, such as those in Central Asia and the southern and eastern Mediterranean region, are also the countries where the EBRD invests most heavily and expects the highest transition impact. Yet there is little clarity on how and whether the EBRD’s current approach to investment, policy dialogue, and technical assistance actually supports systemic change.
This first Impact Report is an important step. But it’s only the beginning. For future editions, the EBRD must sharpen its focus on outcomes that matter: inclusion, democracy, environmental integrity, and accountability. Because the true measure of impact isn’t what’s projected on paper – it’s what communities experience on the ground.
Read more in our new briefing: The EBRD starts its impact reporting journey: How can it deliver meaningful results?
Never miss an update
We expose the risks of international public finance and bring critical updates from the ground – straight to your inbox.
