Participants discussed the growth of gender and thematic bonds and the importance of clearer standards to avoid label-only approaches. Several noted that the challenge is not only labelling, but ensuring that instrument design and governance support outcomes, including how proceeds are used, how impacts are measured, and how accountability is enforced.
Blended finance was discussed as an area of opportunity where concessional finance can be used strategically to de-risk and crowd in private capital, particularly in contexts or sectors that are perceived as high risk. Participants also raised concerns that blended finance can unintentionally subsidise bias or weak risk perception if transparency and accountability are insufficient.
Debt-related tools, including debt swaps, were discussed as a potential avenue for creating headroom and aligning domestic investment with equality priorities in certain contexts. Participants noted that such approaches are not suitable everywhere and that past experiences highlight risks around transparency and cost efficiency.
Insurance and risk pooling were discussed as underexplored areas that could support resilience, particularly in contexts where climate shocks and economic volatility interact with heightened risk of violence and exclusion.
Participants noted the key challenge of instrument led approaches that add complexity without shifting incentives, and the key opportunity of using the right tools for the right objective, including strengthening enabling conditions such as standards, transparency and performance management.
Financing the reduction of gender-based violence
GBV discussions revealed persistent underinvestment in both prevention and response. Participants argued that safeguarding frameworks often treat GBV as a compliance issue rather than a material risk affecting productivity, stability and investment viability.
There was strong support for reframing GBV as a material social and economic risk while retaining a rights-based core. Participants emphasised that economic framing should be used as a tool to engage audiences who make decisions through risk and return logics, not as a replacement for rights-based principles.
Two complementary entry points that were discussed were to embed GBV considerations into existing financing streams and sectors, rather than creating siloed funding streams and to finance what works e.g. companies that are intentionally addressing GBV. Participants highlighted potential opportunities to integrate GBV into climate finance, infrastructure financing, supply chain governance, workplace standards, and digital finance and safety. Participants highlighted the opportunity to build on current standards in gender-lens investing based on “representation” to focus financing on initiatives that work to reduce GBV.
A related discussion focused on the role of norms and political tolerance. Participants observed that investors are often most responsive when risks shift from chronic to acute, including when norms change and previously tolerated behaviour becomes reputational, regulatory, or operationally costly. GBV is a predictor of political instability, and therefore investment risk. This raised interest in better ways to understand, track and communicate norm change, and to connect this to political instability and investment risk frameworks.
Participants stressed that data is necessary but insufficient: political leadership, credible narratives and institutional incentives are required for GBV to influence financial decision making. Some noted tensions between trauma informed practice and measurement cultures and discussed the need for ethical approaches that improve visibility without causing harm.
The challenge identified was moving beyond safeguarding compliance to prevention at scale, while the opportunity identified was embedding GBV in risk and decision frameworks across mainstream sectors where capital already flows.
Violence against children and investment cases
Investment cases for ending violence against children were discussed as a practical bridge between rights-based advocacy and fiscal decision making. These approaches help make the costs of inaction visible to ministries of finance and planning and create a pathway for costed plans to inform budgets and implementation.
Participants noted the importance of incorporating narratives relevant not only to public investment but also expand to private investment interests with a wider definition and understanding of the returns on investments and economic costs. It was emphasised that economic language can resonate differently across audiences, and that advocacy should avoid creating a contest over which issue costs the most. Participants also stressed the need to retain specificity, including the gendered nature of violence and the distinct dynamics of violence against children and gender-based violence.
The investment case process itself was valued as much as the numbers it produces, particularly its role in building cross-sector consensus and linking analysis to budgeting and implementation. Participants noted that process is often a key determinant of success, including sustained engagement across sectors and realistic alignment with national financing architecture.
Case study: building investment cases to end violence against children
A case study described how investment cases can help governments quantify the costs of violence, cost interventions, and integrate prevention and response into national plans and budgets. Discussion highlighted that process is as important as the outcome: sustained cross sector engagement, particularly with finance and planning ministries, is necessary for evidence to translate into financing. Participants also emphasised the need to retain specificity, including the gendered nature of violence, while building common ground across sectors and stakeholders.