BII (United Kingdom)
- Score:
- 45.7
- Position:
- 5 / 22 (Non-sovereign)
Overview
British International Investment (BII) is the development finance institution of the United Kingdom. It was established in 1948 as the Colonial Development Corporation (CDC) and renamed the Commonwealth Development Corporation in 1963. In 2021, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), renamed it British International Investment, with the FCDO as its lone shareholder. BII joined the Association of bilateral European Development Finance Institutions (EDFI) in 1992.
Analysis
Overall, BII ranked 5th of the 22 non-sovereign institutions assessed with a score of 45.7 out of 100. This is a significant improvement from its position at 12th in 2023 when it scored 26.5. All components showed improvements, though the Impact Management component saw only a small gain. BII made a bulk download file of investment data available and publishes investments to the IATI Standard.
In the Core Information component, BII ranked 3rd with a score of 15.46 out of 20, improving from its position as 11th in 2023. It scored for sixteen out of the seventeen indicators, only failing to score for funding source. BII scored well for format of publication on many indicators because a bulk download was available containing much information and it published investments to the IATI Standard. Improvements included uploading the annual report and country locations to IATI, as well as new disclosures on unique identifiers, sub-sectors, client contacts, environmental and social (E&S) risk categories, and progress dates. It lost points for not disclosing the funding source for the sample. BII continued to fall short on disclosing total investment cost, disbursement, approval date, and sub-national location.
BII came joint 5th in the Impact Management component with a score of 11.75 out of 25, maintaining the same position as in 2023. It continued to perform well on organisation-level indicators, except there was no longer an explanation on its approach to measuring impact attribution. It improved by publishing sector strategies to IATI. Its project-level performance remained unchanged between 2023 and 2025. While it scored for providing additionality statements, it continued to fall short on disclosing activity indicators, metrics, and results.
In the ESG and Accountability to Communities component, BII ranked joint 14th with a score of 8.5 out of 30. This marks a slight improvement from 2023 when BII ranked joint second-last for this component. Organisational-level improvements included a new explanation of E&S risk categorisation. However, BII continued to not score for any project-level indicators in this component, failing to provide adequate summaries of E&S risks and failing to disclose any E&S documentation for investments.
BII came 4th in the Financial Information component, with 6.2 points out of 10. This marks a significant improvement from 2023 when it came joint-last. In 2023, it only scored for the financial reports and statements indicator. In 2025, however, BII also scored for repeat investment, currency of investment and, importantly, for nearly all of the new climate finance indicators, missing points only for the climate finance rationale.
In the Financial Intermediary Sub-Investments component, BII ranked joint 2nd with a score of 3.75 out of 10, maintaining the same position as in 2023. Its performance across all indicators in this component stayed the same as in 2023; it was one of five non-sovereign institutions to disclose private equity fund sub-investments and one of eight to have a policy for disclosing qualifying sub-investments.
Recommendations
- BII should review its disclosure policy according to current best practice.
- BII should improve its IATI publication by publishing objectives and rationales, investment instrument, name of client and client contact to IATI.
- It should disclose further Core Information data including sub-national location, disbursement, total investment cost, approval date, and funding source.
- BII should explain its approach to measuring impact attribution.
- It should start disclosing further project-level impact indicators, including activity metrics/indicators and results data.
- BII should develop an early disclosure policy covering, at a minimum, high-risk projects and disclose investments in line with the policy.
- It should create an IAM, following best practice examples and incorporate disclosure requirements for an IAM into existing policies.
- It should disclose project-level ESG and Accountability to Communities indicators, including summary of E&S risks, E&S documentation, assurance of community disclosure, and beneficial ownership.
- For Financial Information, BII should start disclosing repeat investment, co-financing data, concessionality, mobilisation, and instrument-specific disclosure. It should also include a rationale for why climate finance was counted.
- BII should define use of funds (banks) at the organisational level and begin disclosing bank sub-investments.