<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><texts method="xml-texts">
<page method="xml-texts" num="1"/>
<page method="xml-texts" num="2"><![CDATA[Table of contents Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1 Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1 Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2 Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="3"><![CDATA[Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses From access to resilience Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 3 Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses From access to resilience Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 3 Analysis & implications 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4 Analysis & implications 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="4"><![CDATA[Welcome to the Financia l Incl usion Compass 2026 e-MFP’s annual survey of financial inclusion trends, challenges and priorities Introduction, context & respondents Part 1 About this survey Discover more Discover more 1. Introduction, context and respondents About this survey The e-MFP Financial Inclusion Compass began in 2018, this is the 8th edition It’s the only sector-wide mixed-methodology survey of its kind, comparing year-to-year and between groups on perceptions of trends, challenges, risks, and future priorities Each year has had some common themes and questions, and new additions The 2026 edition received a record number of responses, and from a more heterogenous group than ever before Go back Go back]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="5"><![CDATA[Scroll The Financial Inclusion Compass is e-MFP’s annual survey of the global financial inclusion community. Bringing together the perspectives of practitioners, investors, policymakers, researchers and support organisations from across the sector, it captures how those working in inclusive finance understand the opportunities, challenges and priorities shaping the years ahead. The output of this survey — what you’re reading here — combines quantitative survey findings with qualitative insights to explore broader themes emerging across the responses, and identify the patterns, tensions and shifts that help explain how the sector is evolving. The findings in this report represent a snapshot of opinion at a particular moment in time. They offer an evidence-based interpretation of where the financial inclusion sector sees itself today, the questions it is grappling with, and the issues most likely to shape its future. Whether you are a financial service provider, investor, policymaker, researcher or development practitioner, we hope the Financial Inclusion Compass provides a useful reference point for reflection, discussion and decision-making in a rapidly changing landscape. Let’s dive in. 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="6"><![CDATA[A listening exercise, not a census What is the Compass and what does it measure? The Compass combines forced-choice rankings (this year on five questions — trends, challenges, the role of AI, the changed funding landscape, and future priorities) with open commentary. The 2026 survey received 182 submissions from respondents in 55 countries. Of these, 157 provided substantive trend rankings, 156 ranked current challenges, and 153 completed the funding and future-priority sections. Respondents included financial service providers, capital providers, technical-assistance and capacity-building organisations, ecosystem bodies, and researchers and knowledge institutions. The survey was available in English, French and Spanish. Respondents could choose whether their comments could be attributed. Quantitative results were analysed using weighted rankings or shares of valid responses, depending on the question; qualitative responses were reviewed thematically and used to test, explain and complicate the numerical patterns. 1. Introduction, context and respondents]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="7"><![CDATA[182 3 55 5 Submissions Languages Respondent countries Survey sections 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="8"><![CDATA[A diverse field of voices Among substantive respondents, financial service providers are the largest single group, followed by technical-assistance and capacity-building organisations. Half of respondents are based in high-income countries, although many work extensively in lower-income markets. Sub-Saharan Africa is by far the most frequently selected region of work. Organisation type 34.4% 23.6% 14.0% 13.4% 8.3% 6.4% Financial service providers Technical- assistance providers and capacity builders Ecosystem enablers and infrastructure bodies Capital providers Researchers and knowledge institutions Other 60.5% 26.1% 26.1% 25.5% 20.4% 16.6% 12.7% 5.7% 3.8% 1. Introduction, context and respondents]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="9"><![CDATA[Sub-Saharan Africa Latin America and the Caribbean South Asia Global East Asia and Pacific Middle East and North Africa Eastern Europe and Central Asia Western Europe North America 50.3% 32.5% 17.2% High-income countries Middle-income countries Low-income countries 60.5% 26.1% 26.1% 25.5% 20.4% 16.6% 12.7% 5.7% 3.8% 1.2. A diverse field of voices Respondent-country income group * Respondent-country income group * *Every year, the World Bank Group classifies the world’s economies into income groups. These classifications are based on the previous year’s Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, expressed in U.S. dollars using the Atlas method. Respondents’ focus of work by region * *Regional % do not sum to 100 as respondents could choose >1 option Respondents’ focus of work by region * Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="10"><![CDATA[Results Part 2 A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us No single issue dominates the 2026 Compass . Instead, respondents describe several pressures converging : climate exposure, technological change, funding contraction and the continued difficulty of reaching people whom existing models still leave behind. 2. Results]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="11"><![CDATA[Section 1 Trends Section 3 The most significant role for AI Section 5 Priorities for the next five to ten years Section 2 Challenges Section 4 The changing funding landscape What do respondents as a whole think about sector trends, challenges, AI use, funding and priorities? 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]>
<container id="_idContainer805" parent_id="_idContainer1672"><![CDATA[Trends Increased focus on climate adaptation & climate-smart finance 34.6%* * Respondents were asked to choose and rank 5 top current trends from a list of 18. These were weighted and converted to a normalised index from 0-100. So a score of 26% means 26% of the potential maximum score had every single respondent chosen this trend in 1st place. Increased focus on climate adaptation & climate-smart finance 34.6%* Emerging technologies — especially artificial intelligence, machine learning & automation 31.8% Women’s economic empowerment and/or gender lens investing 28.2% Changing capital flows, particularly shrinking public/donor funding 27.9% Resilience of low-income clients, households and businesses 26.5% New digital products or services for low-income or excluded segments 20.9% Digital transformation of traditional financial service providers 20.5% Serving the ultra-poor or other hardest-to-reach groups 16.8% Increased focus/requirements on impact measurement and/or outcomes 11.8% New entrants disrupting traditional providers and platforms 11.5% Changes in regulatory frameworks, reporting requirements or new supervisory bodies 11.1% Growing priority and resources devoted to client protection among all stakeholder groups 10.8% Products and services targeted at SMEs 10.5% New or evolving financial products and models (such as thematic bonds, blended finance, etc.) 10.0% Serving young people 8.3% A changing external reputation of the microfinance/financial inclusion sector 7.8% Increased migration or forced displacement 7.8% Go back Go back]]></container>
<container id="_idContainer946" parent_id="_idContainer1672"><![CDATA[Trends Increased focus on climate adaptation & climate-smart finance 34.6%* * Respondents were asked to choose and rank 5 top current trends from a list of 18. These were weighted and converted to a normalised index from 0-100. So a score of 26% means 26% of the potential maximum score had every single respondent chosen this trend in 1st place. Increased focus on climate adaptation & climate-smart finance 34.6%* Emerging technologies - especially artificial intelligence, machine learning & automation 31.8% Women’s economic empowerment and/or gender lens investing 28.2% Changing capital flows, particularly shrinking public/donor funding 27.9% Resilience of low-income clients, households and businesses 26.5% New digital products or services for low-income or excluded segments 20.9% Digital transformation of traditional financial service providers 20.5% Serving the ultra-poor or other hardest-to-reach groups 16.8% Increased focus/requirements on impact measurement and/or outcomes 11.8% New entrants disrupting traditional providers and platforms 11.5% Changes in regulatory frameworks, reporting requirements or new supervisory bodies 11.1% Growing priority and resources devoted to client protection among all stakeholder groups 10.8% Products and services targeted at SMEs 10.5% New or evolving financial products and models (such as thematic bonds, blended finance, etc.) 10.0% Serving young people 8.3% A changing external reputation of the microfinance/financial inclusion sector 7.8% Increased migration or forced displacement 7.8% Go back Go back Challenges Go back Go back Responding to shrinking/more volatile donor and public funding 25.3% Addressing climate-related threats to client or household resilience 25.3% Coping with geopolitical uncertainty, including as relates to trade, energy, currency or FDI 24.6% Trying to sustainably reach last-mile populations 23.1% Addressing the persistent exclusion of women and other groups 17.4% Dealing with commercial pressure on socially-focused providers to ensure or increase profitability 15.9% Mitigating or preventing client overindebtedness 15.5% Protecting vulnerable clients from aggressive or exploitative providers 14.0% Measuring meaningful, actual impact and outcomes 11.5% Responding to AI, data misuse and new types of fraud, all of which are outpacing providers and regulators 26.1%* Responding to AI, data misuse and new types of fraud, all of which are outpacing providers and regulators 26.1%* Respondents were asked to choose 3 top challenges from a list of 10. As above this was weighted and converted to an index score, again expressed as a percentage.]]></container>
<container id="_idContainer1129" parent_id="_idContainer1672"><![CDATA[Trends Increased focus on climate adaptation & climate-smart finance 34.6%* * Respondents were asked to choose and rank 5 top current trends from a list of 18. These were weighted and converted to a normalised index from 0-100. So a score of 26% means 26% of the potential maximum score had every single respondent chosen this trend in 1st place. Increased focus on climate adaptation & climate-smart finance 34.6%* Emerging technologies - especially artificial intelligence, machine learning & automation 31.8% Women’s economic empowerment and/or gender lens investing 28.2% Changing capital flows, particularly shrinking public/donor funding 27.9% Resilience of low-income clients, households and businesses 26.5% New digital products or services for low-income or excluded segments 20.9% Digital transformation of traditional financial service providers 20.5% Serving the ultra-poor or other hardest-to-reach groups 16.8% Increased focus/requirements on impact measurement and/or outcomes 11.8% New entrants disrupting traditional providers and platforms 11.5% Changes in regulatory frameworks, reporting requirements or new supervisory bodies 11.1% Growing priority and resources devoted to client protection among all stakeholder groups 10.8% Products and services targeted at SMEs 10.5% New or evolving financial products and models (such as thematic bonds, blended finance, etc.) 10.0% Serving young people 8.3% A changing external reputation of the microfinance/financial inclusion sector 7.8% Increased migration or forced displacement 7.8% Go back Go back Challenges Go back Go back Responding to shrinking/more volatile donor and public funding 25.3% Addressing climate-related threats to client or household resilience 25.3% Coping with geopolitical uncertainty, including as relates to trade, energy, currency or FDI 24.6% Trying to sustainably reach last-mile populations 23.1% Addressing the persistent exclusion of women and other groups 17.4% Dealing with commercial pressure on socially-focused providers to ensure or increase profitability 15.9% Mitigating or preventing client overindebtedness 15.5% Protecting vulnerable clients from aggressive or exploitative providers 14.0% Measuring meaningful, actual impact and outcomes 11.5% Responding to AI, data misuse and new types of fraud, all of which are outpacing providers and regulators 26.1%* Responding to AI, data misuse and new types of fraud, all of which are outpacing providers and regulators 26.1%* * Respondents were asked to choose and rank 5 top current trends from a list of 18. These were weighted and converted to a normalised index from 0-100. So a score of 26% means 26% of the potential maximum score had every single respondent chosen this trend in 1st place. Go back Go back Interacting with clients, including via voice or text-based chatbots 15.4% Increased back office efficiency 25.0% AI-led credit appraisal or approval processes 33.3% Fraud-detection and/or anti money laundering/know your client (AML/KYC) 13.5% Delivery of financial education 5.8% Other (please specify) 5.1% Training of staff 1.9% The most significant role for AI* The most significant role for AI* * Respondents were invited to choose the single most important use-case for AI in inclusive finance. These figures show the percentage of respondents who selected that option.]]></container>
<container id="_idContainer1350" parent_id="_idContainer1672"><![CDATA[Trends Increased focus on climate adaptation & climate-smart finance 34.6%* * Respondents were asked to choose and rank 5 top current trends from a list of 18. These were weighted and converted to a normalised index from 0-100. So a score of 26% means 26% of the potential maximum score had every single respondent chosen this trend in 1st place. Increased focus on climate adaptation & climate-smart finance 34.6%* Emerging technologies - especially artificial intelligence, machine learning & automation 31.8% Women’s economic empowerment and/or gender lens investing 28.2% Changing capital flows, particularly shrinking public/donor funding 27.9% Resilience of low-income clients, households and businesses 26.5% New digital products or services for low-income or excluded segments 20.9% Digital transformation of traditional financial service providers 20.5% Serving the ultra-poor or other hardest-to-reach groups 16.8% Increased focus/requirements on impact measurement and/or outcomes 11.8% New entrants disrupting traditional providers and platforms 11.5% Changes in regulatory frameworks, reporting requirements or new supervisory bodies 11.1% Growing priority and resources devoted to client protection among all stakeholder groups 10.8% Products and services targeted at SMEs 10.5% New or evolving financial products and models (such as thematic bonds, blended finance, etc.) 10.0% Serving young people 8.3% A changing external reputation of the microfinance/financial inclusion sector 7.8% Increased migration or forced displacement 7.8% Go back Go back Challenges Go back Go back Responding to shrinking/more volatile donor and public funding 25.3% Addressing climate-related threats to client or household resilience 25.3% Coping with geopolitical uncertainty, including as relates to trade, energy, currency or FDI 24.6% Trying to sustainably reach last-mile populations 23.1% Addressing the persistent exclusion of women and other groups 17.4% Dealing with commercial pressure on socially-focused providers to ensure or increase profitability 15.9% Mitigating or preventing client overindebtedness 15.5% Protecting vulnerable clients from aggressive or exploitative providers 14.0% Measuring meaningful, actual impact and outcomes 11.5% Responding to AI, data misuse and new types of fraud, all of which are outpacing providers and regulators 26.1%* Responding to AI, data misuse and new types of fraud, all of which are outpacing providers and regulators 26.1%* * Respondents were asked to choose and rank 5 top current trends from a list of 18. These were weighted and converted to a normalised index from 0-100. So a score of 26% means 26% of the potential maximum score had every single respondent chosen this trend in 1st place. Go back Go back Interacting with clients, including via voice or text-based chatbots 15.4% Increased back office efficiency 25.0% AI-led credit appraisal or approval processes 33.3% Fraud-detection and/or anti money laundering/know your client (AML/KYC) 13.5% Delivery of financial education 5.8% Other (please specify) 5.1% Training of staff 1.9% The most significant role for AI* The most significant role for AI* * Respondents were invited to choose the single most important use-case for AI in inclusive finance. These figures show the percentage of respondents who selected that option. 17.0% Social or impact investors 15.7% Philanthropy, foundations and high-net-worth individuals 15.7% No one: the gap will remain 11.1% DFIs 8.5% Commercial investors 22.2% Local or regional finance The changing funding landscape* The changing funding landscape* * Respondents were asked which actor may fill the funding gap faced by financial inclusion organisations. Go back Go back]]></container>
<container id="_idContainer1671" parent_id="_idContainer1672"><![CDATA[Trends Increased focus on climate adaptation & climate-smart finance 34.6%* * Respondents were asked to choose and rank 5 top current trends from a list of 18. These were weighted and converted to a normalised index from 0-100. So a score of 26% means 26% of the potential maximum score had every single respondent chosen this trend in 1st place. Increased focus on climate adaptation & climate-smart finance 34.6%* Emerging technologies - especially artificial intelligence, machine learning & automation 31.8% Women’s economic empowerment and/or gender lens investing 28.2% Changing capital flows, particularly shrinking public/donor funding 27.9% Resilience of low-income clients, households and businesses 26.5% New digital products or services for low-income or excluded segments 20.9% Digital transformation of traditional financial service providers 20.5% Serving the ultra-poor or other hardest-to-reach groups 16.8% Increased focus/requirements on impact measurement and/or outcomes 11.8% New entrants disrupting traditional providers and platforms 11.5% Changes in regulatory frameworks, reporting requirements or new supervisory bodies 11.1% Growing priority and resources devoted to client protection among all stakeholder groups 10.8% Products and services targeted at SMEs 10.5% New or evolving financial products and models (such as thematic bonds, blended finance, etc.) 10.0% Serving young people 8.3% A changing external reputation of the microfinance/financial inclusion sector 7.8% Increased migration or forced displacement 7.8% Go back Go back Challenges Go back Go back Responding to shrinking/more volatile donor and public funding 25.3% Addressing climate-related threats to client or household resilience 25.3% Coping with geopolitical uncertainty, including as relates to trade, energy, currency or FDI 24.6% Trying to sustainably reach last-mile populations 23.1% Addressing the persistent exclusion of women and other groups 17.4% Dealing with commercial pressure on socially-focused providers to ensure or increase profitability 15.9% Mitigating or preventing client overindebtedness 15.5% Protecting vulnerable clients from aggressive or exploitative providers 14.0% Measuring meaningful, actual impact and outcomes 11.5% Responding to AI, data misuse and new types of fraud, all of which are outpacing providers and regulators 26.1%* Responding to AI, data misuse and new types of fraud, all of which are outpacing providers and regulators 26.1%* * Respondents were asked to choose and rank 5 top current trends from a list of 18. These were weighted and converted to a normalised index from 0-100. So a score of 26% means 26% of the potential maximum score had every single respondent chosen this trend in 1st place. Go back Go back Interacting with clients, including via voice or text-based chatbots 15.4% Increased back office efficiency 25.0% AI-led credit appraisal or approval processes 33.3% Fraud-detection and/or anti money laundering/know your client (AML/KYC) 13.5% Delivery of financial education 5.8% Other (please specify) 5.1% Training of staff 1.9% The most significant role for AI* The most significant role for AI* * Respondents were invited to choose the single most important use-case for AI in inclusive finance. These figures show the percentage of respondents who selected that option. 17.0% Social or impact investors 15.7% Philanthropy, foundations and high-net-worth individuals 15.7% No one: the gap will remain 11.1% DFIs 8.5% Commercial investors 22.2% Local or regional finance The changing funding landscape* The changing funding landscape* * Respondents were asked which actor may fill the funding gap faced by financial inclusion organisations. Go back Go back Go back Go back Priorities for the next five to ten years* Priorities for the next five to ten years* * Respondents were asked their what they thought the sector should be focusing most on in the next 5-10 years. Climate-smart finance/climate change adaptation 22.0% SME & enterprise finance 14.0% Women’s economic empowerment 13.0% Integrating and capitalising on AI opportunities 10.0% Ultra-poor inclusion / graduation 5.0% Other (please specify) 5.0% Serving young people 4.0% Serving forcibly displaced populations 3.0% Strengthening household resilience to shocks 24.0% Go back Go back Climate-smart finance/climate change adaptation 22.0% SME & enterprise finance 14.0% Women’s economic empowerment 13.0% Integrating and capitalising on AI opportunities 10.0% Ultra-poor inclusion / graduation 5.0% Other (please specify) 5.0% Serving young people 4.0% Serving forcibly displaced populations 3.0% Strengthening household resilience to shocks 24.0% Priorities for the next five to ten years* Priorities for the next five to ten years* * Respondents were asked their what they thought the sector should be focusing most on in the next 5-10 years.]]></container>
</page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="12"><![CDATA[Climate adaptation is the highest-ranked trend. Artificial intelligence and automation follow closely — up from dead last in 2024. But respondents also identify AI-related misuse, data risks and new forms of fraud as the leading current challenge. Funding volatility, climate threats to household resilience and geopolitical uncertainty are virtually tied as other major challenges. Overall, respondents see local or regional financial institutions as playing the greatest potential role in filling the funding gap, but a significant percentage think the gap will remain (although opinions here vary considerably by respondent type). Looking further ahead, respondents prioritise climate-smart finance, household and business resilience, and SME finance. What can we see from the overall rankings of trends, challenges etc.? 2. Results Two epochal influences face us all and have profound implications for all inclusive financial service providers: climate change and AI. Climate change is already affecting low- and moderate-income populations across the globe — eroding not just income but also their asset bases. Graham A. N. Wright , Co-Chair, MSC]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="13"><![CDATA[Climate has moved to the centre of the inclusive finance conversation (top trend and second future priority). AI is both a useful tool and a major threat. Capital and concessional funding is more scarce and less predictable. Inclusion is getting harder, in a fragmented and more-and-more complex sector. It is resilience (not access or inclusion) is increasingly the byword for success and the primary goal of the sector. Respondents foresee innovation, but are sceptical that institutions, regulation and capital are keeping pace. Respondents want financial inclusion to become more adaptive and outcome- oriented — while remaining uncertain about who will finance that transition and whether the hardest-to-reach will benefit from it. What does this mean? Some initial takeaways… 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once In a sentence... The financial inclusion sector is moving from an era defined by access, growth and donor-supported expansion into an era defined by resilience, adaptation, commercial pressure and harder choices about who gets served and how. Changing capital flows pose a growing challenge but is not limited to public funds. Private capital interest is shifting towards other sectors, while sustainability frameworks are being increasingly diluted. Fund manager Lots of interconnectedness here. We’re seeing capital flows changing — mostly shrinking — which is putting FSPs under pressure to prioritise financial performance, and ultimately it’s the hardest-to-reach that get left behind. Europe-based Investor Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="14"><![CDATA[Shared concerns, different exposure The same pressure looks different from different parts of the system Respondents broadly recognise the same set of pressures, but institutional position changes what those pressures mean: Capital providers Geopolitics and climate-related threats stand out distinctly as their top trends and challenges; more than half select AI-led credit appraisal as AI’s most significant role. Capital providers Ecosystem enablers/ infrastructure organisations Changing capital flows is their leading trend; last-mile reach remains a central challenge. They are the group most likely to see local or regional actors filling the funding gap. They see resilience to shocks as by far the top priority going forward. Ecosystem enablers/ infrastructure organisations TA providers Emerging technology is their highest-ranked trend; AI, data misuse and fraud are their leading challenges. They see climate-smart finance/adaptation as the leading priority. TA providers Researchers and knowledge institutions This is the group that considers AI and emerging technologies to be the main trends and challenges; they’re also the most likely to expect that the funding gap will remain. They are the group that places the highest priority on SME/enterprise finance. Researchers and knowledge institutions Financial service providers Last-mile reach is the highest-ranked challenge; women’s economic empowerment and resilience lead their trend rankings. They are particularly focused on sustainably reaching last-mile populations. Financial service providers 2. Results]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="15"><![CDATA[How does who you are and what you do affect how you see challenges, trends and priorities? Front-line delivery Last-mile reach is their leading challenge. Women’s economic empowerment and client resilience are especially prominent. The dominant question is operational: can services remain affordable, responsible and useful under worsening client and institutional pressure? Financial service providers see through lens of client delivery Macro & portfolio risk Geopolitics and climate risk are unusually prominent, and they are bullish on AI-led credit appraisal. Their vantage point focuses on investability, risk absorption, portfolio resilience and the instruments needed to mobilise capital. Capital providers think primarily about investability Governance & capacity Technology and AI are especially pertinent, but often through the lens of data quality, internal processes, skills, governance and regulation. The issue is not only what technology can do, but whether institutions can use it safely and well. TA and knowledge actors focus on capability Market infrastructure Changing capital flows and the infrastructure needed to reach excluded groups receive particular emphasis. Their perspective connects institution-level constraints to regulation, payments, information systems, and sector coordination. Ecosystem actors see through lens of sector architecture What does it all mean? What does it all mean? 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure The sector often faces a dichotomy between its narrative driven by funders and its operational trends driven by markets and MFIs. Pierre Champsavoir , Head of Strategy at TA provider in MENA Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass What does it all mean? FSPs see the agenda more through clients, delivery, exclusion, and resilience . TA providers and researchers see it through technology, capability gaps, and sector change . Ecosystem actors see it through sector architecture, funding systems, last-mile reach, displacement, and public-good infrastructure . Capital providers see it through macro risk, investability, climate exposure, and capital instruments . Go back Go back In a sentence... Institutional position is one source of divergence; economic context is another. Respondents based in different income environments often place weight on different parts of the same agenda.]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="16"><![CDATA[Where you sit shapes what you see How respondents see things differently based on where they are Respondents based in high-income and lower-income countries share some perspectives. Both recognise climate pressure, funding uncertainty, technological change and the difficulty of reaching excluded groups. The difference is one of emphasis . Low-income-country respondent Climate adaptation and client resilience lead the trend ranking. Funding volatility is the leading challenge, followed by last-mile reach. Meaningful impact and outcomes receive greater relative emphasis. Climate adaptation is the clearest future priority; AI ranks much lower as a current trend than among high-income respondents. High-income-country respondents AI and automation are the highest-ranked trends. AI/data/fraud and geopolitics are joint leading challenges. Changing capital flows receive substantially greater trend salience. Nearly a quarter select “no one — the gap will remain” in the funding question. There is a shared centre Climate change is altering both client vulnerability and institutional risk. Funding is becoming less predictable while the inclusion mandate remains difficult and costly. Technology will matter, but its value depends on data, infrastructure, governance and trust. The hardest-to-reach groups remain central to the sector’s stated purpose. 2. Results]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="17"><![CDATA[High-income-country respondents give greater weight to AI, changing capital flows and geopolitical risk. They are typically closer to global policy, capital and technology debates that focus on architecture and macro and systemic risk. Respondents based in low-income countries place more emphasis on climate adaptation, household resilience, funding volatility, last-mile delivery and meaningful outcomes. They are more likely to be client- or provider-facing: they encounter the immediate consequences: fragile livelihoods, weak infrastructure, high delivery costs and institutions with limited capacity to absorb another shock. High-income respondents are also more likely to conclude that no actor will replace the retreating public and donor finance. Low-income country respondents are more likely to be optimistic about local or regional actors filling the gap. 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see What does this all mean? High-income country respondents more often read the sector from the level of global narrative , funding architecture, and technological disruption. Low-income respondents appear to be reading it from the level of lived exposure : climate shocks, household fragility, gendered exclusion, youth, and product relevance. Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="18"><![CDATA[Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Scroll The Compass survey asked respondents about five distinct topics: emerging trends, sector challenges, the role of AI, the changing funding landscape, and future priorities. Each provides valuable insights in its own right, and there are meaningful and revealing differences in how respondent groups see these topics. But viewed together, a different picture emerges. Rather than treating these questions and summarising respondents’ views in these silos (as in previous Compass editions) we’re going to be a bit more ambitious, and explore five cross-cutting themes that run across multiple parts of the survey. Each theme combines the quantitative rankings with the qualitative comments to explore not just what respondents think, but how different issues connect — and what they reveal about the direction of the financial inclusion sector. The following sections examine each of these five themes in turn, bringing together evidence from across the survey to provide a more integrated picture of the opportunities, tensions and choices facing the sector. Part 3 3. Five themes]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="19"><![CDATA[From access to resilience What should count as success when access alone does not protect people from shocks? 1 From access to resilience What should count as success when access alone does not protect people from shocks? 1 Adapting to a new normal: climate as a systemic condition What changes when climate risk becomes part of ordinary financial inclusion rather than a specialist agenda? 2 Adapting to a new normal: climate as a systemic condition What changes when climate risk becomes part of ordinary financial inclusion rather than a specialist agenda? 2 Promise... but without guardrails How can AI and digitalisation create value without outrunning institutions, regulation and trust? 3 Promise... but without guardrails How can AI and digitalisation create value without outrunning institutions, regulation and trust? 3 Who pays for inclusion? The search for sustainable capital Who will finance inclusion as public and donor funding contracts — and what will that capital require in return? 4 Who pays for inclusion? The search for sustainable capital Who will finance inclusion as public and donor funding contracts — and what will that capital require in return? 4 Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Is inclusive finance still solving the right problems, or does the sector need to fundamentally rethink what success looks like? 5 Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Is inclusive finance still solving the right problems, or does the sector need to fundamentally rethink what success looks like? 5 Introducing five broad themes from the responses Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="20"><![CDATA[From access to resilience 1 Respondents see the success of inclusive finance increasingly framed around the ability to withstand shocks, not only to open accounts or receive loans. This has been a long-term trend, but has strengthened or accelerated. They see client, household and business resilience * as one of the primary tests or criteria for success. This is part of a broader trend and narrative — beyond credit as the default product; beyond access or even inclusion towards financial health; beyond outreach and towards outcomes. Respondents see the success of inclusive finance increasingly framed around the ability to withstand shocks, not only to open accounts or receive loans. This has been a long-term trend, but has strengthened or accelerated. They see client, household and business resilience * as one of the primary tests or criteria for success. This is part of a broader trend and narrative - beyond credit as the default product; beyond access or even inclusion towards financial health; beyond outreach and towards outcomes. *Resilience includes income volatility, climate shocks, health shocks, displacement and household-level risk management. 3. Five themes Low-income households are becoming more vulnerable, more exposed to shocks and less able to cope. Financial inclusion must shift towards resilience, not just access. Svetlana Roganovic, Global Credit Risk Director, VisionFund International]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="21"><![CDATA[How do we know? Household resilience is ranked as #1 future priority. Climate adaptation is ranked highly across multiple sections. Resilience appears repeatedly in trends and priorities. Introducing five broad themes from the responses In a sentence... The next era of financial inclusion may be judged less by who has access, than by who can withstand the next shock . A financial system focused on strengthening household resilience would encourage financial institutions and other stakeholders to articulate the diversity of financial instruments customers need throughout life events — payments, credit, savings and insurance. Marjolaine Chaintreau, Strategy and Impact Lead, AXA EssentiALL Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="22"><![CDATA[Adapting to the new normal 2 More than ever before, climate in the Compass is everywhere, not as an environmental issue but as a systemic driver. Climate-smart finance/adaptation is no longer perceived as a green product category/vertical. It is a contextual reality that cuts across portfolio risk, livelihoods, adaptation, insurance, migration and product design. Climate is completely transversal. Respondents see it more clearly than ever: climate appears as a top trend, a top challenge and a top future priority. 3. Five themes Climate change is increasingly becoming the biggest driver of financial vulnerability among low- income populations, especially in rural and conflict-affected communities. At the same time, shrinking donor funding is placing pressure on socially-focused organisations to become more sustainable while still reaching underserved populations. Ngo Abdulai Banfogha, CEO of FSP in West Africa]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="23"><![CDATA[The strategic question is whether climate- smart finance continues to become part of the mainstream infrastructure and strategy – underpinning product design, investment strategy, regulation, responsible finance, and research. Introducing five broad themes from the responses In a sentence... Adapting to climate change is no longer simply another priority for inclusive finance actors; it is increasingly the context in which every priority must be pursued. Respondents repeatedly connect climate to... livelihoods insurance SMEs funding household resilience migration gender Climate change is as much a social challenge as it is an environmental one, and its impacts are not gender-neutral. Failing to integrate a gender lens in climate-smart finance risks deepening inequality and financial exclusion. Women are also key drivers of resilience and adaptation. Noémie Renier, Partner, Head of Debt, Incofin Investment Management Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="24"><![CDATA[Promise... but without guardrails 3 AI was nowhere in the 2024 Compass . In 2026 it is everywhere. It is the #2 overall trend (up from dead last in 2024) and AI-related risk is the #1 challenge. Respondents of course see its practical value — notably in underwriting, back-office efficiency, client interaction and detecting fraud/AML-KYC. There is a strong consensus that its strongest use-case, for now at least, is in credit appraisal or approval. However, the same technology also raises very significant concerns around fraud, bias, transparency, data privacy or misuse, and the increased exclusion of digitally invisible clients . There is a profound sense (a message clearly conveyed at the IF25 conference and in the proposals for IF26) that the proliferation and growing severity of threats by AI is far outpacing regulators’ or other ecosystem players’ ability to understand and respond . So the real test here of whether the promise of AI can be grasped and its role contained is a question of institutional readiness and governance. 3. Five themes I think there will ultimately be a positive impact from AI, but there will be a long ‘winter’ in which AI causes far more problems than it solves for this sector. Timothy Ogden, Managing Director, Financial Access Initiative]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="25"><![CDATA[The dominant mood is pragmatism and caution, not of excitement . And respondents believe its effects are inevitable: AI will reshape the sector regardless of whether we want it to. Very few respondents sound like AI evangelists. Overall, they consistently say that AI is... Useful Inevitable Dangerous Dependent for its success on data quality A tool that should complement humans rather than replace them Introducing five broad themes from the responses In a sentence... The future of AI in financial inclusion will depend less on what the technology can do, than if and how responsible institutions choose to use it . AI-led credit appraisal could expand outreach to thin-file customers and informal businesses. But bias, transparency, explainability, data privacy and the exclusion of digitally invisible populations must be addressed if AI is to strengthen rather than undermine inclusive finance. Asongo Abraham, Founder and CEO, Jaress Agfinance Ltd AI is a black box, which makes using it at scale for automated underwriting risky. However, it can still create real value by accelerating manual, error-prone and tedious tasks, such as collecting KYC information and loan- application details. US-based researcher Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="26"><![CDATA[Who pays for inclusion? 4 Financial inclusion has always depended on a delicate balance between commercial capital and public support. This year, respondents suggest that balance is shifting. The survey reveals growing concern over the withdrawal of donor funding, the reduction of development assistance, and increasing uncertainty around the future role of governments and DFIs. Indeed, the funding landscape is the number one long-term concern of respondents overall. Moreover, private capital is unlikely to fill these gaps on its own, particularly in underserved markets and for higher-risk client segments. Many respondents describe a sector facing difficult choices. They see pressure for financial sustainability and commercial returns as both necessary and potentially damaging. 3. Five themes This will vary by geography. In South Asia, local and commercial capital will be key, whereas in Africa this is much less likely. Philanthropic capital will need to de-risk other lenders — including DFIs, commercial investors and ultimately local capital — to crowd them in. Director, TA provider in South Asia]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="27"><![CDATA[There is concern that institutions may increasingly concentrate on clients, products and markets that are easier to serve, while more vulnerable populations receive less attention. Very few respondents argue for a return to traditional donor dependency. Instead, they consistently suggest that future funding models must be: The dominant mood is realism rather than pessimism . Respondents accept that the funding landscape is changing, perhaps permanently. The question is therefore no longer how to mobilise more capital, but how to no longer ensure that the capital available continues to support inclusion rather than just profitability? Introducing five broad themes from the responses In a sentence... The future of financial inclusion will depend not only on how much capital is available, but on what that capital expects in return . More diversified More catalytic Better aligned between public and private actors Focused on financing inclusion where markets alone cannot As public and donor funding becomes more volatile, social and impact investors are becoming the primary backbone for early-stage social enterprises. But genuinely bridging the gap requires blended-finance models in which philanthropic capital de-risks investment and attracts commercial players into last-mile agriculture. Jaewon Lee, CEO of FSP in South East Asia Blended finance structures have never been more relevant. In a context of heightened uncertainty and rising risk perception, they play a critical catalytic role, crowding in private capital by absorbing risk and enabling investments that would otherwise not materialise. Yet, paradoxically, the pool of providers of catalytic, patient capital is shrinking. Impact investor based in Europe Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="28"><![CDATA[Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 5 3. Five themes]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="29"><![CDATA[Introducing five broad themes from the responses In a sentence... Progress depends less on solving climate, technology, funding or inclusion separately than on recognising how each increasingly shapes the others. Although there are trade-offs inherent whenever resources are finite, success will increasingly depend not on solving individual challenges, but on navigating how they interact . Financial inclusion has always involved multiple actors, multiple objectives and multiple constraints. But respondents increasingly suggest that these challenges can no longer be understood in isolation . Across the Compass , climate, resilience, technology, funding and inclusion rarely appear as separate conversations. Instead, they recur throughout the survey in different combinations, with respondents repeatedly describing how one challenge shapes another. Climate adaptation changes the products that institutions need to offer. Building resilience depends not on a single intervention, but on how these different forces work together. These challenges and risks are increasingly interrelated and recurring . So, rather than searching for universal solutions, respondents consistently point towards financial inclusion that has to be: Adaptive; Context-specific; Collaborative; Institutionally flexible; and Capable of responding to multiple pressures simultaneously. Artificial intelligence creates opportunities while increasing governance demands. Funding decisions determine which innovations can be implemented and which clients remain commercially viable. Scroll The financial inclusion sector is undergoing a major transition driven by climate risk, technological disruption and changing funding structures. Across all these trends, strengthening the resilience of low-income clients remains central to the future relevance of the sector. CEO of FSP in East Africa Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="30"><![CDATA[Analysis & implications Part 4 4. Analysis & implications The five themes in this report are not separate trends to be addressed independently. Together, they point towards a series of difficult choices that are likely to shape the next phase of financial inclusion. The choices shown on the right emerged repeatedly across the survey. They are not presented as binary decisions, but as tensions that respondents will increasingly need to navigate. Difficult choices ahead]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="31"><![CDATA[4.1. Difficult choices ahead Commercial sustainability or last-mile inclusion? Standard solutions or local adaptation? Measuring activity or measuring outcomes? Innovation or trust? Immediate needs or long-term resilience? In a sentence? Financial inclusion is entering a period in which success may depend less on solving individual problems than on navigating multiple, interconnected priorities simultaneously. The challenge is no longer simply deciding what to do next, but understanding how each decision shapes the other . Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]>
<container id="_idContainer3169" parent_id="_idContainer3332"><![CDATA[Standard solutions or local adaptation? Climate change, conflict, migration, fragile livelihoods and demographic change affect communities in very different ways. Respondents consistently emphasise the importance of context-specific responses, partnerships and locally appropriate solutions rather than universal models. As financial inclusion becomes more complex, adaptation may become as important as replication. Go back Go back In many African contexts, last-mile communities continue to face barriers including poor infrastructure, weak financial systems, limited digital access, and low trust in formal financial products. There is a growing need for locally driven, climate-resilient financial models. CEO of African MFI]]></container>
<container id="_idContainer3200" parent_id="_idContainer3332"><![CDATA[Standard solutions or local adaptation? Climate change, conflict, migration, fragile livelihoods and demographic change affect communities in very different ways. Respondents consistently emphasise the importance of context-specific responses, partnerships and locally appropriate solutions rather than universal models. As financial inclusion becomes more complex, adaptation may become as important as replication. Go back Go back Innovation or trust? AI and digital technologies offer significant opportunities to improve efficiency, expand outreach and strengthen decision-making. At the same time, respondents repeatedly identify governance, consumer protection, transparency and institutional readiness as essential preconditions for responsible innovation. Technological progress alone is unlikely to deliver better outcomes if public trust fails to keep pace. Go back Go back We have not yet resolved the ethical dilemmas of using AI. Darwin Chamorro, President, Cooperativa de Producción Agropecuaria Salinerito, Ecuador]]></container>
<container id="_idContainer3242" parent_id="_idContainer3332"><![CDATA[Standard solutions or local adaptation? Climate change, conflict, migration, fragile livelihoods and demographic change affect communities in very different ways. Respondents consistently emphasise the importance of context-specific responses, partnerships and locally appropriate solutions rather than universal models. As financial inclusion becomes more complex, adaptation may become as important as replication. Go back Go back Innovation or trust? AI and digital technologies offer significant opportunities to improve efficiency, expand outreach and strengthen decision-making. At the same time, respondents repeatedly identify governance, consumer protection, transparency and institutional readiness as essential preconditions for responsible innovation. Technological progress alone is unlikely to deliver better outcomes if public trust fails to keep pace. Go back Go back Commercial sustainability or last-mile inclusion? As funding becomes more constrained and expectations of financial sustainability increase, institutions face growing pressure to demonstrate commercial viability. Yet many of the populations most in need of inclusive financial services remain the most expensive and difficult to reach. The challenge is not simply finding new capital, but ensuring that changing financial incentives do not narrow the sector’s ambition. Go back Go back Without donor funding, serving the ultra-poor or other hardest-to-reach groups isn’t going to happen. Commercial pressures move the market away from serving vulnerable people responsibly — if at all. Head of Infrastructure organisation based in US]]></container>
<container id="_idContainer3289" parent_id="_idContainer3332"><![CDATA[Standard solutions or local adaptation? Climate change, conflict, migration, fragile livelihoods and demographic change affect communities in very different ways. Respondents consistently emphasise the importance of context-specific responses, partnerships and locally appropriate solutions rather than universal models. As financial inclusion becomes more complex, adaptation may become as important as replication. Go back Go back Innovation or trust? AI and digital technologies offer significant opportunities to improve efficiency, expand outreach and strengthen decision-making. At the same time, respondents repeatedly identify governance, consumer protection, transparency and institutional readiness as essential preconditions for responsible innovation. Technological progress alone is unlikely to deliver better outcomes if public trust fails to keep pace. Go back Go back de Producción Agropecuaria Salinerito, Ecuador Immediate needs or long-term resilience? Many households continue to require support in managing short-term financial shocks and liquidity constraints. At the same time, respondents increasingly argue that financial inclusion should strengthen people’s capacity to withstand future shocks rather than simply respond to current ones. The survey suggests these objectives are complementary, but balancing short-term needs with long-term resilience will remain an ongoing challenge. Go back Go back Health shocks remain a major driver of financial vulnerability, yet microinsurance, health savings and embedded-finance solutions remain underdeveloped. Annie Wang, Head of Global Health, Opportunity International]]></container>
<container id="_idContainer3331" parent_id="_idContainer3332"><![CDATA[Standard solutions or local adaptation? Climate change, conflict, migration, fragile livelihoods and demographic change affect communities in very different ways. Respondents consistently emphasise the importance of context-specific responses, partnerships and locally appropriate solutions rather than universal models. As financial inclusion becomes more complex, adaptation may become as important as replication. Go back Go back Innovation or trust? AI and digital technologies offer significant opportunities to improve efficiency, expand outreach and strengthen decision-making. At the same time, respondents repeatedly identify governance, consumer protection, transparency and institutional readiness as essential preconditions for responsible innovation. Technological progress alone is unlikely to deliver better outcomes if public trust fails to keep pace. Go back Go back Measuring activity or measuring outcomes? As expectations evolve, respondents increasingly question whether traditional measures of outreach and access remain sufficient indicators of success. If resilience, adaptation and financial health become more important objectives, institutions may also need to reconsider how impact is defined and measured. What counts as success may be changing alongside the sector itself. Go back Go back The priority needs to shift from access to outcomes — particularly resilience and sustainable pathways out of poverty. Without that shift, gains in access risk being superficial and not translating into lasting impact. Funder working in Sub-Saharan Africa]]></container>
</page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="32"><![CDATA[What does it all mean? The Compass does not prescribe a single strategy for the future of financial inclusion. But it does suggest that organisations across the ecosystem may need to rethink some longstanding assumptions. 4. Analysis & implications For Financial Service Providers The definition of success is broadening. Respondents suggest that access alone is becoming an insufficient measure of performance. FSPs are increasingly expected to build resilience, respond to climate risk, use technology responsibly and continue serving clients whose needs are becoming more complex. Competitive advantage may increasingly come not from offering more products, but from becoming more adaptive institutions. Implications for different ecosystem actors]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="33"><![CDATA[4.2. What does it all mean? For Funders and Investors Capital is becoming more consequential. As concessional resources become scarcer and commercial pressures increase, funding decisions will increasingly shape the direction of financial inclusion itself. Choices about what is financed will also become choices about which business models, innovations and client groups are able to survive and scale. The challenge is becoming less about mobilising more capital than deploying it where markets alone are unlikely to do so. For Policymakers and Regulators Governance is becoming a strategic capability. Artificial intelligence, digital finance, climate adaptation and consumer protection are no longer separate policy domains. Respondents consistently point towards regulation that can enable innovation while maintaining trust, transparency and inclusion. The institutions that succeed may be those able to govern rapid change rather than simply respond to it. For Sector Support Organisations Connecting may become as important as convening. The survey suggests growing demand for organisations that can generate evidence, translate knowledge across disciplines, build partnerships and help institutions navigate increasing complexity. As financial inclusion becomes more interconnected, the value of organisations that work across thematic and institutional boundaries is likely to increase. Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="34"><![CDATA[Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion The Compass captures the views of the sector at a particular moment in time. The trends identified in this report are still unfolding. The five questions suggested here are not predictions, but discussion points for the years ahead. 4. Analysis & implications]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="35"><![CDATA[4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion Will resilience replace access as the defining measure of success? 1 Access remains fundamental. But respondents increasingly judge success by whether households and enterprises can withstand and recover from shocks. Will resilience replace access as the defining measure of success? Can governance keep pace with AI? 3 Can governance keep pace with AI? AI is evolving rapidly — even exponentially. Whether regulation, institutional capacity and consumer protection can keep pace may prove just as important as the technology itself. Can financial inclusion remain truly inclusive? 5 Can financial inclusion remain truly inclusive? As institutions adapt to climate change, technological disruption and evolving funding models, can they continue to reach those who need financial services most or will the focus be on the ‘lower hanging fruit’ of less vulnerable, less risky, and more profitable segments? Will climate risk become part of mainstream financial inclusion? 2 Will climate risk become part of mainstream financial inclusion? Climate is no longer confined to agricultural finance or insurance. The question now is whether adaptation becomes embedded across products, institutions and investment decisions. Who will pay for inclusion? 4 Who will pay for inclusion? As donor priorities shift and commercial pressures grow, the future of inclusive finance will depend on how new forms of capital are mobilised — and where donors and other investors choose to invest. Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="36"><![CDATA[Sam Mendelson is Knowledge & Research Specialist at e-MFP and the lead author of the Financial Inclusion Compass . A researcher and writer specialising in inclusive finance, he has authored numerous publications and overseen research initiatives on financial inclusion, responsible finance, gender lens investing, off-grid energy, inclusive insurance and consumer protection, and previously spent more than a decade as a financial journalist and researcher. He has undergraduate degrees in Psychology and Laws – both from University of Western Australia – and postgraduate degrees in both Public International Law and International Public Policy – both from University College London. 4. Analysis & implications About the author About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="37"><![CDATA[About e-MFP Acknowledgements About previous editions e-MFP is the leading network of organisations and individuals working in financial inclusion. Through knowledge exchange, research, advocacy and collaboration, e-MFP brings together practitioners, investors, policymakers, researchers and support organisations from across the financial inclusion ecosystem. Learn more at e-mfp.eu e-MFP would like to thank everyone who contributed to this year’s Financial Inclusion Compass by completing the survey and sharing their perspectives. We are also grateful to the members of the e-MFP community whose engagement and expertise continue to strengthen this annual publication. The Financial Inclusion Compass is published annually. To explore previous Compass editions and see French and Spanish Executive Summaries of this report, visit: e-mfp.eu/financial-inclusion-compass 4.4. About the Compass Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
<page method="xml-texts" num="38"/>
<page method="xml-texts" num="39"><![CDATA[Watercolour by Camille Dassy (a real human). This web publication is entirely different to what we’ve done in the past. We’d like to say a big thank you to cropmark for their vision and professionalism, helping us develop and implement this new idea so well. With the support of Cover Art Layout and concept Credits e-MFP 39 rue Glesener L-1631 Luxembourg contact@e-mfp.eu www.e-mfp.eu Copyright © 2026 Cover art: Camille Dassy Design: cropmark Short excerpts from this publication may be reproduced without authorisation, on condition that the source is acknowledged. Menu Menu Close Close 1. Introduction, context & respondents 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 1.1. Welcome to the Financial Inclusion Compass 2026 2. Results 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us 2.1. A sector adapting on several fronts at once: what respondents told us Five themes Introducing five broad themes from the responses Introducing five broad themes from the responses Analysis & implication 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 4.1. Difficult choices ahead 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.2. A listening exercise, not a census 1.3. A diverse field of voices 1.3. A diverse field of voices 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.2. Shared concerns, different exposure 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see 2.3. Where you sit shapes what you see From access to resilience From Access to Resilience Adapting to the new normal Adapting to the new normal Promise without guardrails Promise without guardrails Who pays for inclusion? Who pays for inclusion? Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape Navigating a fragmented and complex landscape 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.2. What does it all mean? 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.3. Five questions that will shape the next phase of financial inclusion 4.4. About the Compass 4.4. About the Compass]]></page>
</texts>
