PSEAH in IFIs: Progress, Gaps and the Road Ahead

Background on SEAH

Addressing sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (SEAH) is challenging and complex. The emergence of the first prominent allegations of SEAH in the multilateral system, related to UN Peacekeeping during the early 1990s, has sparked more than three decades of efforts to protect from sexual misconduct, with children disproportionately affected. Sex-for-aid scandals in West Africa brought this reality to global attention in 2002. International financial institutions (IFIs) also came under greater scrutiny as their large-scale projects, especially in post-conflict and humanitarian settings, carried risks of unintended harm.

Starting in the 1980s, organisations began, first, to address the potential environmental impacts of projects, shortly thereafter began to include social safeguards among other things. By the 2000s, the lens broadened as IFIs began to integrate gender-sensitive practices into their safeguard frameworks to promote equity and inclusion, while also helping to prevent and respond to gender-based violence (GBV). IFC’s 2012 standards, for example, addressed workplace sexual harassment and GBV risks in development projects², while ADB³ (2009 revised Safeguard Policy), EBRD and IDB⁴ updated policies to incorporate GBV and SEA (see Table 1.1) and grievance mechanisms (GMs). The urgency of these reforms became clearer in the 2010s when high-profile IFI cases (e.g. IFC in Kenya, World Bank in Uganda)⁵ showed that SEAH risks extended well beyond humanitarian settings

For IFIs, 2018 was an important year for addressing SEAH. They issued their first joint statement on the continuous advancement of standards to prevent sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment at the Safeguarding Summit in London. The World Bank published its Good Practice Note on Addressing Gender-Based Violence in Investment Project Financing involving Major Civil Works (revised 2023), the first guidance in the development finance space dedicated specifically to SEA caused by development finances. Through these efforts, the SEAH agenda became closely linked to the wider drive to promote gender equality, including the prevention of GBV.

A year later, in 2019, donors issued the OECD-DAC Recommendation on Ending SEAH in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance. Bilateral donors committed to ending SEAH in their development and humanitarian cooperation, including in their multilateral funding and support to IFIs. They also agreed to build on their commitments at the 2018 London Summit, including to working with MOPAN to help improve multilaterals’ approach to PSEAH⁶. Most recently, in 2023, several institutions represented the IFIs on a cross-sector international steering committee to develop a Common Approach to Protection from Sexual Exploitation, Sexual Abuse, and Sexual Harassment (CAPSEAH). Launched in June 2024, CAPSEAH is designed to guide people and organisations working in Humanitarian, Development, Peace (HDP) and other sectors to align their efforts to protect from SEAH.

Background to this study

To better understand and monitor the progress of the multilateral system on this issue, the Multilateral Performance Network (MOPAN) integrated PSEAH into its assessment framework in 2020. MOPAN’s PSEAH benchmarks drew on international norms and good practices, including the Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s (IASC) Six Core Principles and Minimum Operating Standards and the OECD Development Assistance Committee’s (DAC) Recommendation on Ending Sexual Exploitation, Abuse, and Harassment in Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Assistance. In addition, four case studies, one of which included the World Bank, further refined the benchmarks.

MOPAN’s PSEAH benchmarks focus on policy and practice. Specifically, MOPAN’s performance area related to organisational systems enabling transparency and accountability contains its good practice benchmarks for PSEAH. Specific micro-indicators – 4.7 and 5.4 (in part) measure performance on SEA – sexual misconduct by agency personnel directed towards community members – and SH (micro-indicator 4.8) – sexual misconduct directed towards personnel within the organisation itself. Currently, these indicators align with terminology in the UN system. MOPAN will seek to refine them for the IFI context through this study (Table 1.1).

Published as part of the MOPAN Insights series, Progress on PSEAH? From Words to Deeds (MOPAN, 20233[2]) was the first thematic study on this issue. It shed light on efforts made across the multilateral system to protect from sexual misconduct in the practice of UN operations. This study focuses on the practice of IFIs. MOPAN intends it as a contribution to system-wide accountability and learning about PSEAH and, by highlighting good practice and gaps to help organisations improve their performance in this area.

This study draws on the first seven IFI assessments to which MOPAN’s PSEAH benchmarks have been applied. It was initially planned for 2023-24, after the first three IFI assessments, and was to cover a vertical fund (the Global Fund). During the early phases of that study, however, it became clear that the sample was too small and heterogenous. In early 2024, a decision was made to await a larger sample of IFI assessments and to focus the study exclusively on IFIs. In Spring 2025, work started again with the current sample of seven IFIs: ADB, AfDB, IFAD, IDB, EBRD, IFC, and the World Bank. While the sample includes IFIs only, the differences between those focusing on sovereign operations and those engaged in the private sector are significant. The underlying PSEAH principles are consistent, but the corresponding policies and practices necessarily differ across these target groups. This study does not go into detail about the differences; this would require separate research. 

This study takes stock of how IFIs have operationalised PSEAH as assessed by MOPAN between 2022–25, by doing the following:

• Identifying good practice and collaboration to strengthen system-wide accountability and transparency in addressing SEAH.
• Highlighting common challenges and areas of opportunity.
• Offering considerations to strengthen IFIs’ PSEAH practice going forward.

By deepening the understanding of IFIs’ PSEAH systems and operating environments, this study will support the context-informed application of MOPAN’s PSEAH indicators and will also help strengthen their application under the revised MOPAN 4 methodology. This study provides valuable lessons for all leaders, managers, and technical personnel seeking to make PSEAH efforts more effective. Intended primarily for MOPAN members, member states’ executive directors on the boards of IFIs, IFI management, and other multilateral organisations, it aims ultimately to flag areas for potential action and investment by IFI decision-makers as they consider next steps on PSEAH.  The findings may also inform accountability practices discussed in fora convened by multilateral organisations. 

Methodology

The study represents a stocktake of evidence from MOPAN assessments (2022-25), complemented by updated research and interviews (see Annex A for a detailed description). It builds on MOPAN assessments of seven IFIs – ADB, AfDB, EBRD, IDB, IFAD, IFC, and World Bank – conducted in line with the MOPAN 3.1 methodology. It applied a mixed-methods approach to identify achievements and challenges based on analysis against SEAH micro-indicators in these assessments (MI 4.7, 4.8, and 5.4.5). The assessments entailed a document review, external partner surveys, and interviews with IFI managers and technical experts, and was quality assured by an external expert together with the MOPAN Secretariat PSEAH focal point. The quality assurance process helped identify cross-cutting patterns, clarified indicator interpretation, and generated lessons incorporated into this synthesis. It built on an initial analysis of assessment ratings and qualitative evidence from the seven IFIs. Structured interviews with 37 IFI representatives (May–September 2025) and consultations with ten external experts from the UN and independent experts helped situate IFI practice within the wider institutional landscape.

To address limitations in the timeliness and depth of the PSEAH data drawn from MOPAN’s IFI assessments, additional interviews and a review of supplementary, more recent documents were conducted in 2025. Another limitation is that the scope of the report does not address the special situation of children, LGBTQ2S+ groups, or persons with disabilities; nor were interviews with project-based personnel conducted. (For further detail, see Annex A).

The study process included four phases:

1. Inception (March–May 2025): Concept note development and consultation with a multi-stakeholder advisory group (member state delegates, IFIs, and PSEAH experts).

2. Evidence collection (June–October 2025): Synthesis of MOPAN assessments, short questionnaires, and validation interviews with IFIs and assessment teams

3. Analysis (August–October 2025): Evidence was triangulated across sources to synthesise findings from assessments, interviews, and QA insights. The analysis identified cross-institutional patterns, consolidated quantitative and qualitative evidence, and validated emerging themes through review by the advisory group and peer reviewers.

4. Reporting (Q4 2025–Q1 2026): Peer review, fact-checking and integration of feedback from the advisory group and individual IFIs.

Terminology

For general terminology, we align ourselves with CAPSEAH. Annex A of this report contains a more comprehensive terminology section.

Borrower/client, used interchangeably in this report, refers to borrowers, recipients, guarantors, sponsors or other beneficiaries of IFI funding/financing, as well as executing agencies. These are recipients of IFI-financed and administered loans, grants, and other funds in sovereign operations and loans, equity investments, guarantees, grants, and other funds, in the context of the private sector.

Environmental and social framework: This report uses E&S framework as a generic term referring to the institution-wide vision, policy, requirements, and procedures governing how E&S risks and impacts are identified, assessed, mitigated, and monitored regardless of the name in E&S frameworks in specific institutions. (See Annex E for more detail)

GBV is used as an umbrella term referring to gender-based violence in society that is not necessarily an IFI responsibility. SEAH is a subset of GBV, for which IFIs and operational clients share the responsibility. IFI frameworks and policies generally situate SEAH within the broader framing of GBV because it is a key enabler of SEAH. While SEAH has distinct characteristics, it is most often addressed under IFI E&S frameworks, gender strategies, and action plans that are formally framed around preventing and responding to GBV. For sovereign-focused IFIs, GBV provides the overarching entry point; SEAH is approached as part of that wider agenda. Private sector IFIs operate under different parameters where the focus is often on SEAH, as private firms hold a narrower mandate on broader societal interventions. Where reference is made to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the term gender-based violence and harassment (GBVH) is used, reflecting those institutions’ terminology. Where reference is made to the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), the term sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) is used, consistent with that institution’s usage. Annex D offers an overview of institutional definitions. The 2015 Inter-Agency Standing Committee Gender-based Violence Guidelines, page 5, provides an overall definition.

SEAH in this report is considered either internal or external. Internal SEAH, or internal sexual misconduct, involves staff or IFI contractors as perpetrators or victims. The IFI has direct responsibility for preventing and responding to it. External SEAH involves clients, borrowers, contractors and sub-contractors, or implementing agencies. Direct responsibility to prevent and respond to SEAH lies with those actors. The term SEAH is used inclusively throughout the report. It is not broken down into exploitation, abuse, or harassment unless the source material or interview data reflect this. For IFAD, the study uses the term SEA/SH in line with its institutional policy.

Victim/survivor: This report uses the terms victim-survivor, victim and survivor interchangeably, but they should always be interpreted to be recognising the strength and resilience implied by the term “survivor”.