Analysis

Overall, BIO ranked 18^th out of the 22 non-sovereign institutions assessed, with a score of 32.4 out of 100. Although its score increased from 25.1 in 2023, it dropped in ranking from 13^th. It performed best in the Impact Management and Financial Intermediaries components, where it ranked joint 9^th and joint 8^th, respectively. However, BIO’s overall performance was negatively affected since it did not disclose a bulk download export of investment data and did not publish to the IATI Standard.

In the Core Information component, BIO ranked 17^th out of the 22 institutions with a score of 8.71 out of 20. This is a drop from 2023 where it ranked 13^th. It scored for fifteen out of the seventeen indicators. The only improvement was newly consistent disclosure on E&S risk category. BII continued to fail for status and funding source. BIO lost points for format of publication as it did not make data available in a bulk download format and was not an IATI publisher. It was one of two bilateral DFIs to score points for publishing the sub-sector of its investments.

BIO ranked joint 9^th in the Impact Management component with a score of 9 out of 25. This is an improvement from 2023 where it came 15^th. The main improvements were new points scored for disclosing an impact measurement approach and sector strategies. BII continued to fail on impact attribution approach as well as all project-level indicators including activity indicators/metrics and results data.

In the ESG and Accountability to Communities component, BIO came 12^th with a score of 10.42 out of 30, maintaining the same position as in 2023. Its organisational-level performance stayed the same across all indicators. BIO scored full points for its E&S community disclosure policy, as it applies the IFC Performance Standards. It has an independent accountability mechanism (IAM) but does not publish results, responses, or findings in a registry. At the project level, the main improvement was a new disclosure of the summary of E&S risks. It also disclosed the availability of its IAM on project pages, but did not score for other project-level indicators including E&S documentation and assurance of community disclosure.

BIO came 12^th in the Financial Information component, scoring 3 out of 15. Despite its score slightly improving, this is a drop from 2023 where it came 7^th. It only disclosed concessionality on a consistent basis (which was found using the ‘subsidy’ filter on its database). It was the only DFI not to score for financial reports/statements as there was no indication that published reports were audited. BIO gained some points on the new climate finance methodology indicator but did not disclose any climate finance data at the project-level.

BIO scored 1.25 out of 10 in the Financial Intermediary (FI) Sub-Investments component, keeping its 2023 ranking of joint 8^th. Its performance across all indicators in this component stayed the same. Although it scored points for its policy to disclose private equity fund sub-investments, it did not score points for disclosure as this was not done consistently enough.