Hard to bank on AIIB

Opaqueness should be alien to a multilateral institution, yet it has characterized the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which was established in 2016 as a China-led multilateral development bank.

Its role is to finance infrastructure linked to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Also known as One Belt One Road (OBOR), BRI is a massive global infrastructure and economic development strategy launched by China in 2013 under President Xi Jinping.

With an initial capitalization of $100 billion and 57 founding members, including major European nations such as the UK, Germany, and France, the AIIB was styled as a modern alternative to established institutions such as the World Bank.

Its foundational documents, such as the Articles of Agreement, were deliberately modeled after those of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), promising robust governance, environmental safeguards, and stakeholder engagement.

Widespread participation in the AIIB has strengthened China’s bid to integrate into the global financial system while addressing Asia’s staggering infrastructure gap, estimated at trillions of dollars.

AIIB’s governance has drawn persistent criticism for prioritizing speed and political discretion over transparency and accountability.

The bank’s structure vests ultimate authority in the Board of Governors, comprising representatives from all 111-member countries, with a non-resident Board of Directors handling day-to-day operations, policy approvals, and oversight.

The President, traditionally Chinese, leads a senior management team, supported by an International Advisory Panel of experts.

China’s dominant voting share in AIIB, of around 26 percent, grants it effective veto power over major decisions, fostering perceptions of Beijing-centric control.

Critics argue this undermines the bank’s multilateral ethos, allowing sovereignty-respecting approaches that sideline rigorous safeguards.

Transparency remains a glaring weak point. The AIIB’s Policy on Public Information, adopted in 2018, commits to disclosing project details to enhance accountability.

Yet, in practice, access to meaningful data is limited. An independent 2021 report highlighted failures in public information disclosure, noting that even board members struggle to obtain timely project documents.

Environmental and social impact assessments are often released late or are redacted, echoing China’s domestic emphasis on secrecy.

A study by the Heinrich Böll Foundation described this as a “transparency deficit,” particularly for high-risk projects.

In BRI-linked ventures, communities report minimal consultation, with indigenous groups sometimes not recognized at all, denying them input on land disruptions.

This opacity extends to co-financed projects with institutions like the World Bank, where harmonized standards are promised but not always enforced.

Accountability mechanisms have also fallen short.

The bank’s independent accountability tool, Project-Affected People’s Mechanism (PPM), has been criticized for its inaccessibility.

A 2023 report by Inclusive Development International highlighted barriers — such as language challenges and limited awareness — that prevent affected parties from filing complaints.

German transparency watchdog Urgewald’s 2025 report on the AIIB’s first decade documented cases in which fossil fuel projects bypassed stringent reviews, harming environments despite their alignment with the Paris Agreement.

In response to mounting criticisms, the AIIB has made efforts to improve. In 2023, following the resignation of a Canadian official over alleged Communist Party influence, the bank conducted internal reviews to affirm its governance while pledging cultural enhancements.

By 2026, the Board approved PPM revisions to bolster community access and transparency.

Officials emphasize the bank’s AAA credit rating and growth as evidence of sound practices.

After 10 years, the AIIB’s governance reflects a tension between China’s efficiency-focused model and global norms.

While it has financed over 200 projects worth $40 billion to improve connectivity in Asia, persistent shortfalls in safeguards leave vulnerable communities with scant recourse.

The bank’s trajectory indicates that genuine accountability requires more than just rhetoric.

It requires enforceable transparency to protect those it claims to serve.