Executive summary

Reimagining gender lens investing futures is both a reflection on the field today and a hopeful vision for where it could go, grounded in the real work of field builders across geographies and sectors. These practitioners continue to defend gender’s continued relevance to finance in the face of resistance. They are also expanding its role, reimagining its potential as a tool for change, and building the infrastructure needed to sustain that change over the next decade.

Criterion Institute has long defined field-building as the weaving together of ideas, people, and activities in ways that enable systems change. In this moment, the field of gender lens investing must act to both celebrate and support risk-takers. It must also bring to light overlooked wisdom and hold the space for multiple definitions of what ‘good’ looks like.  

This report comes ten years after the first Criterion State of the field of gender lens investing report. In 2015, the field’s broad aim was to prove that gender mattered in investing. Today, field builders are asking bolder questions: How do we shift power? What does it look like to invest in healing, not just scaling the field? Which systems should be redesigned?

Below, we capture the field through that new lens. It is a snapshot of ambition rather than a map of all activity. It makes visible ideas, organizations and activities that don’t always attract headlines or capital.
It invites funders to expand what they see as “fundable.” And it offers a broader story of what gender lens investing could be when defined by those closest to the work.

Our process: submissions, surveys, and synthesis

Convergence XXI was the starting point for this reimagination of the field. Over four weeks, 152 gender lens investing practitioners from 29 countries came together to explore new possibilities and ask open questions about risk, legitimacy, and direction. They identified what is working in current field building practice (and what isn’t). And they expanded their thinking around what must be protected to support different visions of the future. Convergence reinforced what we’ve long known: the strength of the field lies not in uniformity, but in multiplicity.

To consolidate and build on these insights, Criterion then conducted 30+ hours of post-event conversation analysis, invited 20 written submissions from across audience types and geographies, and received 54 survey responses from field builders worldwide.

We deliberately structured our outreach around three types of diversity: audience, geography, and focus area. While the structured format resulted in long-form responses skewing toward Global North institutions, the survey helped capture a broader spectrum of voices and strategies.

Criterion is not an observer; we are a participant. In curating and writing this report, we have exercised power and made choices. We name that power as a commitment to accountability in the work of field building.

Report structure and findings

This report traces the contours of a field in motion, in which multiple perspectives and visions co-exist.

The analysis below surfaces five broad futures:

1) gender integrated into all sustainable finance
2) deep, niche practices driving specialized impact
3) adoption of universal gender metrics and standards
4) regionally-driven strategies
5) an expanded, intersectional, justice-centered investing paradigm.

These futures are already being built through six core field building strategies: framing and storytelling, organizing and mobilizing, product design and development, research and data, standards and metrics, and training and expertise.

Finally, alongside these futures and strategies, the report names the tensions that push and challenge the field:

• Standardization vs. contextual nuance
• Quantitative proof vs. narrative power
• Collaboration vs. competition
• Intent vs. accountability
• Inclusion vs. influence
• Institution-led vs. grassroots-led approaches
• Gender-first vs. intersectional frameworks
• Desire for change vs. responsibility to act

Funding emerges as both an enabler and a barrier to progress. While capital has brought legitimacy and scale, it has also reinforced power asymmetries, prioritized short-term, project-based outputs over systems change, and often concentrated decision-making in institutions least affected by gender inequality. Field builders are calling for new funding models that resource experimentation, reward ecosystem contributions, and shift power toward those closest to the work and most impacted
by its outcomes.

Perhaps the biggest message in the findings was the reminder that gender lens investing is not a monolithic, one-size-fits-all practice. Its dynamism is defined by bold imagination, deep relationships across a supportive community of practice, and ongoing experimentation around what else might be possible.

An invitation

We offer this report as a living document and an invitation to reflect on your own role within the field, and step into it with renewed clarity and accountability.

‍