Explore our research, reports, and guides

Accountability Counsel’s new report, Accountability in Action or Inaction? An Empirical Study of Remedy Delivery in IAMs, offers the first comprehensive evaluation of the ways that Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) deliver justice to communities harmed by development bank–financed projects.

Drawing on analysis of all 2,270 complaints filed to 16 IAMs through 2022 and 45 interviews across 25 cases worldwide, the study reveals that while IAMs can achieve transformative remedies—such as improved labor practices, community health programs, and restored dialogue between companies and affected people—these outcomes remain rare. Only 15% of complaints resulted in any identifiable commitment, and just 10% saw at least one commitment fully completed.

The research highlights systemic challenges including poor implementation, power imbalances, and widespread retaliation against complainants, but also points to pathways for reform. Strengthening IAM mandates, improving monitoring and transparency, and ensuring timely, participatory remedy are essential to realizing the full promise of development accountability and making justice a consistent and predictable reality rather than an exception.

AI’s rapid advancement is driving an unprecedented investment in data centers, with companies spending over $364 billion last year to meet the growing computational demands needed for agentic AI. These centers rely heavily on water-intensive cooling systems, often using municipal potable water to prevent microbial build-up, raising environmental and societal concerns, particularly in regions already experiencing water scarcity. Data centers can exacerbate utility costs, limit water accessibility, and contribute to long-term health risks in affected communities, disproportionately impacting low-income populations and people of color. International financial institutions are heavily funding these developments globally, underscoring the need for transparency, responsible resource management, and community engagement to balance technological progress with social and environmental responsibility.

Cultural heritage harm is increasingly acknowledged in accountability processes—but rarely repaired. This article draws on three emblematic cases from Jharkhand (India), Samoa, and Côte d'Ivoire, along with data from the Accountability Console, to show that even though Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) routinely document loss, development finance institutions (DFIs) rarely deliver redress. Most cases end with procedural outputs that sidestep the substance of what was taken from the affected community: spiritual spaces, ancestral lands, and community identity. The article concludes with six concrete recommendations for how DFIs and IAMs can reorient their frameworks toward culturally meaningful remedy.