EIB – non-sovereign
- Score:
- 43.6
- Position:
- 7 / 22 (Non-sovereign)
Overview
The European Investment Bank (EIB) is the European Union’s (EU) bank and is owned by its member states. EIB’s non-sovereign portfolio works with other EU institutions and the private sector to support EU policy and provides lending, blended finance, and technical advice for investment within and outside the EU. EIB was established in 1958. EIB Global, a branch of EIB focused on development finance and operations outside the EU, was established in early 2022.
Analysis
EIB’s non-sovereign portfolio ranked 7th out of 22 non-sovereign DFIs assessed, maintaining its position from 2023. However, its score improved from 35 to 43.6 out of 100. EIB scored higher by newly disclosing for some indicators, such as project approval dates and being more consistent in its disclosure of additionality statements. One main drawback is that EIB still does not disclose whether a project is a sovereign or non-sovereign activity and the E&S risk category, therefore making it difficult to assess the characteristics of investments and what level of E&S disclosure should be required.
EIB ranked 9th in the Core Information component with a score of 12.33 out of 20, down from 6th in 2023 when it scored 12.38. As in 2023, it scored 100 per cent on six indicators: accessibility, project identification, status, project description, sector, and investment instrument. This reflects its publication to IATI and provision of a bulk download file. One improvement since 2023 was the new disclosure of project approval dates. However, EIB lost points due to inconsistent disclosure of total investment cost and did not score for the indicators on whether it is a sovereign or non-sovereign activity, the domicile, funding source, and E&S risk category.
In the Impact Management component, EIB came joint 7th with a score of 11 out of 25, progressing from its position as joint 12th in 2023 and a score of 6.75. Progress in this component was because of more consistently disclosed additionality statements on project webpages and the publication of country and sector strategies. Other than additionality, EIB did not score for any other project-level indicators including impact metrics and results.
EIB ranked joint 5th in the ESG and Accountability to Communities component with a score of 16 out of 30. In 2023 it came joint 8th with a score of 12.33. EIB scored 100 per cent on all organisational-level indicators in this component. It showed progress by clearly stating which E&S documents will be disclosed for medium- and high-risk projects, explaining its E&S risk categorisation, and including a statement that it will inform project-affected people about the availability of the IAM. For the project level, apart from the disclosure of its IAM on project pages, EIB failed all indicators including summary of E&S risks, E&S documentation and assurance of community disclosure. As it was not possible to determine the E&S category of EIB investments, all investments were treated as potentially high risk and E&S document disclosure was assessed in line with corresponding requirements.
EIB ranked joint third lowest in the Financial Information component with a score of 1.75 out of 15, a slight improvement from joint second-lowest in 2023. Aside from publishing financial statements and a climate finance methodology via the joint MDB approach, EIB did not score on any other indicators in this component, including for climate finance data.
EIB ranked joint 3rd with a score of 2.5 out of 10 in the Financial Intermediary Sub-Investments component, which was the same score as 2023, but it was joint 2nd that time. Although it scored for its policy to disclose private equity fund sub-investments, it did not score for project-level disclosure. It scored for FI (bank) use of funds but not for FI (bank) sub-investment disclosure.
Recommendations
- EIB should clearly label whether individual investments are sovereign or non-sovereign.
- It should ensure its latest policy documents are uploaded to the IATI Registry, including annual report, sector or country strategies and financial statements.
- EIB should add more data points to its bulk download file that is already disclosed on its webpage, including: unique identifier, status, objectives, sub-sector, investment instrument, name of client, approval date and disclosure date.
- EIB should review its disclosure policy in line with industry best practices and the DFI Transparency Tool.
- It should disclose further Core Information data including sub-national location, domicile, disbursement, funding source, client contact, E&S risk category and last update date. It should consistently disclose total investment cost and client description.
- It should publish its approach to determining impact attribution.
- It should disclose project-level Impact Management indicators, including activity indicators/metrics and results.
- EIB should consistently disclose project-level ESG and Accountability to Communities indicators, including summary of E&S risks and E&S documentation.
- It should provide assurance of community disclosure for investments when disclosure is required. It should also disclose beneficial ownership statements and consistently identify the main shareholders of the client company.
- For Financial Information indicators it should disclose for repeat investment, currency of investment, co-financing, concessionality, mobilisation, and instrument-specific details (share of equity and loan tenor).
- EIB should disclose whether investments include climate finance, amounts split by mitigation and adaptation, as well as a rationale for why climate finance has been counted.
- EIB should align its sub-investment disclosure policy with the DFI Transparency Tool and define use of funds for FIs (banks) at the organisational level.