Welcome to the year-end round-up of accountability knowledge products for 2025. First up is an assessment of the extent to which independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs) deliver remedy to communities, and why they may be struggling to close the remedy gap. A trio of publications then addresses a topic that is likely to dominate the agenda of IAMs in the years to come–that of the just transition–in relation to climate finance, forced displacement as a consequence of renewable energy projects, and transition mineral mining. We also include a report on the “double-edged sword” of digitalization projects supported by multilateral development banks (MDBs). Finally, we look at a briefing paper that calls for inclusion in the widely accepted environmental and social (E&S) safeguards of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) of provisions to address the growing volume of trade finance.

Accountability in action or inaction? An empirical study of remedy delivery in independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs)

A comprehensive, field-wide assessment by Accountability Counsel of over 2,000 complaints received by 16 IAMs looks at whether and how IAMs deliver remedy for communities impacted by development bank-financed projects. It finds that while IAMs are capable of facilitating transformative remedy, this is the exception rather than the norm, and that there is a “persistent gap between the promise of remedy and its realization.” The report also concludes that implementation of commitments remains a critical bottleneck, communities face significant structural barriers, and that IAM reporting focuses on processes rather than outcomes, obscuring the remedy gap. Recommendations include the development of a remedy framework across institutions, the empowering of IAMs with mandates and resources, the centering of communities in implementation and monitoring, the enforcement of consequences for banks and clients for non-implementation of remedies, and an improvement in transparency and data reporting.

The MDBs’ growing role in climate finance: all that glitters is not gold

A briefing from Recourse provides an accessible overview of the role of MDBs in climate finance, which continues to grow despite civil society criticism of their negative track record in terms of support for fossil fuels, lack of commitment to human rights, undemocratic governance structures, and increasing financial subsidies to the private sector. The briefing argues that MDBs are not fit for purpose to deliver climate finance, and that “major reforms are needed to make them ‘better’ in a meaningful, justice and rights-based way before making them ‘bigger’.” Key general recommendations include clarification on what counts as climate finance, improved quality of finance for the countries that need it most, the exclusion by MDBs of fossil fuels, and public over private interest. Accountability-specific recommendations include the MDB policy-led protection of human rights, gender equality, Indigenous peoples, and communities, and the empowering of IAMs through strengthened mandates and resources to both self-initiate complaints and demand that their parent institutions remedy harms.

A just alternative to development-forced displacement

Just ahead of this year’s IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings, civil society warned of the potentially disastrous consequences for the environment and local communities of renewable energy projects that are being fast-tracked as part of the response to climate change. A policy proposal authored by Inclusive Development International speaks for over 60 human rights, environmental justice, and Indigenous Peoples’ organizations in endorsing a new, rights-based approach to community participation in decision-making about investment projects that impact their land and lives, including through forced displacement. Calling for a “just transition,” the proposal urges industry and the development finance sector to move away from the destructive policies of the extractive sector. Core recommendations to level the playing field between communities and companies, the proposal suggests, should be part of the IFC’s Sustainability Framework, which is currently being udpated.

Mining and money: financial faultlines in the energy transition

A report from the Forests & Finance coalition warns that combating the climate crisis and transitioning to a low-carbon economy must not come at the cost of people and the planet. It concludes that the race to extract so-called “transition minerals,” ostensibly to shift away from fossil fuels, is replicating violent, exploitative, and unsustainable practices. The report assesses 30 major banks and investors, finding that collectively, they have  dangerously weak environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies for the mineral mining sectors. Calling for a shift from extractivism to equity, and from exploitation to accountability, the report demands a truly just energy transition that reduces harm, upholds human rights, protects nature, strengthens accountability including through grievance mechanisms, and supports equitable clean energy access.

Development finance institutions and digital risks

Digitalization can be a “double-edged sword,” argues a new report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Mapping 3,450 projects supported by nine major MDBs, the report warns that despite the opportunities of digital transformation through financing, technical assistance, knowledge products, and advisory services provided by the private and public sector, there are significant risks for people and the environment. These include violations of the right to privacy, the right to freedom of expression and association, the right of access to information, the right to equality and non-discrimination, and the right to effective remedy and the right to participation. E&S safeguards, which IAMs rely on to address received complaints, are not keeping pace with the rapid adoption of digitalization financed by banks. The report recommends that MDBs adopt transparent, systematic, and enforceable standards to govern the identification and management of digital risks and impacts in the projects they fund, supported by expertise, awareness-raising, and capacity-building among staff, clients, and partners.

Don’t lose sight of trade: IFCs’s chance to improve environmental and social safeguards in trade finance

Financial intermediaries (FIs) are something of a bugbear for accountability practitioners, as their activities tend to fly under the radar, at least compared to development finance. Although the IFC developed guidelines for FIs in 2023, trade finance–a subset of financial products provided by FIs to facilitate international trade–only requires case-by-case assessment. A briefing paper from Urgewald suggests that this is inappropriate for short-term products like trade financing, and recommends that robust E&S requirements be imposed on the pre-approved banks that receive IFC trade financing support. Trade financing, the paper argues, should be included in the IFC Performance Standards (which the Equator Principles, adopted by more than 150 financial institutions, draw on), as an asset class rather than on a case-by-case basis. According to Urgewald, fossil fuel financing, in particular, should be excluded from trade financing.

We keep our eyes and ears open for news in the field of accountability, but we need your help to make sure we don’t miss anything important. Please write to us about any forthcoming publications at accountability@worldbank.org.