The EBRD’s new gender strategy risks falling short at a critical moment

Today, only 4% of women live in countries close to achieving full legal equality. No economy provides equal economic opportunities, and nearly a quarter of countries have experienced a backlash against gender equality. These are not just trends, but early warning signs. They lead to shrinking civic space, weakened democratic institutions, poor economic governance, and an increasing risk to those the EBRD aims to support. Unless the EBRD explicitly recognises and addresses these dynamics, it risks investing in environments where its own objectives are undermined. 

The draft Strategy rightly acknowledges that women and other underserved groups continue to face structural barriers when it comes to accessing jobs, finance, infrastructure and public services. More and more countries are introducing laws targeting the reproductive rights of women or the rights of LGBTIQ+ people. However, recognition alone is no longer enough. If the EBRD is serious about an inclusive economic transition, its new Strategy must move beyond business as usual and confront the political and economic realities shaping its operations through stronger, more ambitious and more targeted actions. 

A test of the EBRD’s mandate 

The EBRD is not just a development bank. It has a mandate to support democracy and pluralism. Gender equality and inclusion are not optional extras, but core to its mission. Yet the draft strategy still primarily frames gender equality as an economic issue rather than a matter of rights, governance and democratic resilience.  

While the EBRD may see this as a more convincing approach to stakeholders, the current backlash against gender equality and inclusion in many countries, including those in Europe and Central Asia, calls this approach into question. If applied in isolation, this approach limits the EBRD’s ability to respond to realities on the ground, where economic exclusion is often reinforced by legal discrimination and political repression. 

The Strategy highlights the importance of policy dialogue in shaping lasting reform. However, such engagement is often confined to politically convenient areas that neatly align with national priorities. That is not enough. In many EBRD countries of operation, national laws and policies are increasingly being used to restrict gender equality and the inclusion of LGBTIQ+ people. In other regions, harmful practices such as child marriage and female genital mutilation persist, and consensual same-sex relations are criminalised in multiple countries. 

If policy dialogue avoids these realities, it risks becoming merely performative. To be effective, policy dialogue must engage precisely where the barriers are greatest, even when doing so is politically sensitive. After all, policy dialogue should be driven not by what is easiest, but by what is most necessary. 

A worrying decline in ambition 

Equally concerning is the proposed reduction in ambition. The Strategy sets a target of 40% of projects promoting gender equality, which is lower than the EBRD’s recent performance. Meanwhile, the proposed impact indicators for human capital suggest no significant increase in skills development or workplace reforms.  More significantly, the Strategy lacks the tools required to respond when commitments are weakened during implementation, whether due to political pressure, client resistance or shrinking civic space.  

At a time when opposition to gender equality and inclusion is intensifying, standing still effectively means falling behind. Instead, the EBRD should raise its ambitions, targeting at least half of its portfolio to meaningfully advance gender equality, while ensuring that commitments deepen alongside growing investment volumes. 

Inclusion must be explicit 

The Strategy frequently refers to ‘underserved groups’ without clearly defining them. This ambiguity matters. Without explicit recognition, groups facing the most severe discrimination – particularly LGBTIQ+ people, ethnic minorities, women living in rural areas, and groups experiencing intersecting inequalities – risk being overlooked in practice. Clear definitions are essential to ensure that interventions reach those most affected by exclusion. 

Experience shows that what is not named is often not measured, and what is not measured is rarely prioritised. If the EBRD is committed to inclusion, it must clearly identify its target groups and track outcomes through precise, disaggregated indicators.  

Without robust monitoring that captures systemic changes such as gender pay gaps, leadership representation, the inclusion of LGBTIQ+ people, and rates of gender-based violence and harassment – rather than just project outputs – it will be difficult to assess whether investments are transforming inequalities or merely operating within them. 

A critical turning point 

The EBRD’s new Strategy comes at a pivotal moment. Around the world, the fight for equality is facing growing opposition from increasingly organised forces. The EBRD has an opportunity to take the lead, but only if it strengthens its approach. 

• First, the EBRD must recognise the backlash against gender equality and LGBTIQ+ inclusion as a material risk, integrating it into its country strategies and project design. 

• Second, the EBRD should raise – not lower – its ambitions by ensuring that at least 50% of its investments actively promote gender equality. 

• Third, the EBRD must clearly define which vulnerable groups it seeks to support, ensuring that dedicated programmes, effective tools, including policy dialogue, and robust impact monitoring are in place to reach those most at risk. 

• Finally, the EBRD must treat gender equality and inclusion as central to its democracy mandate, not just as drivers of economic growth.  

The question is not whether the EBRD recognises the challenges; it clearly does. The question is whether it is willing to match this recognition with the ambition, clarity and political courage required to address these challenges. If it does, the Strategy could become a meaningful tool for advancing inclusive development. If not, it risks becoming just another well-intentioned document that fails to deliver when it matters most.