Measuring impact beyond institutional reporting
Inclusive finance has matured considerably over the past decade. Capital flows are larger, institutions more sophisticated, and reporting more standardised than ever before. Yet much of the sector's credibility still rests on a familiar set of indicators: portfolio quality, growth, outreach, and institutional self-reporting.
These metrics remain necessary. They may not be sufficient on their own.
Across the industry, a deeper layer of evidence is gaining traction: structured research that goes directly to borrowers. Rather than focusing solely on what institutions deliver, this approach captures what borrowers themselves report experiencing.
The 2025 Microfinance Index published by 60 Decibels is one of the most comprehensive datasets of this kind currently available, drawing on 24,450 client interviews across 85 financial service providers in 39 countries. The scale and consistency of this dataset show how borrower-level evidence can sit alongside traditional reporting as a meaningful complement.
For inclusive finance portfolios, this raises a practical question: could client voice data strengthen due diligence and monitoring frameworks?
What the data reveals
When borrowers are asked directly about outcomes, meaningful differences emerge.
The Index finds that clients who planned their loans and used them for income-generating activities report significantly stronger quality of life improvements than those who borrowed in response to an emergency or financial crisis: an 87% vs 67% improvement rate. This gap is not visible in aggregate portfolio metrics. It only becomes apparent through direct borrower research.
The Index also identifies that roughly one in four surveyed borrowers falls into a vulnerable category, defined as having limited capacity to absorb an unexpected financial shock. This group reports weaker outcomes when served with credit alone. Where additional financial or non-financial support is available, their reported outcomes are much closer to those of non-vulnerable borrowers.
These are associations within the dataset, not causal claims. They do, however, demonstrate that borrower context and circumstances are meaningfully linked to reported outcomes, an analytical dimension that goes beyond repayment performance and outreach figures.
Why this matters for capital allocation
Two institutions can show similar financial indicators while generating very different borrower experiences. Without client-level evidence, these differences remain invisible.
Traditional reporting focuses on inputs and outputs. Client voice research focuses on outcomes as borrowers perceive and report them. In the Index, measures such as changes in quality of life, savings behaviour, and financial resilience are quantified and benchmarked across providers.
For portfolios with explicit impact mandates, this has several practical implications. Borrower-level evidence can sharpen understanding of impact quality at the portfolio company level. Standardised survey methodologies allow comparison across geographies and institutions. And independently collected client data can strengthen the credibility of impact discussions with allocators who increasingly ask for outcome-level evidence.
As scrutiny of social claims continues to rise, particularly in European markets, the ability to reference externally gathered borrower data is becoming increasingly relevant.
Implications for due diligence and monitoring
Client voice data does not replace financial analysis. When available, it can complement it.
Independent client surveys can serve as an additional input in due diligence where such data is available. Where standardised methodologies are used, they enable benchmarking across portfolio companies and markets.
In ongoing monitoring, a small set of borrower-level indicators (reported quality of life, savings accumulation, financial resilience) can be reviewed alongside traditional financial metrics. Stability or deterioration in these indicators may prompt further inquiry, even when repayment metrics remain stable.
Where financial service providers participate in large-scale benchmarking initiatives like the 60 Decibels Microfinance Index, this can provide access to peer comparison and external reference points for those evaluating counterparties.
Incorporating client voice data does not mean that every variation in borrower experience translates directly into financial risk. What it does mean is recognising that borrower-level outcomes are central to evaluating whether capital allocation actually aligns with stated impact objectives.
Conclusion
Impact in inclusive finance is ultimately experienced by borrowers. Institutional metrics capture activity. Client-level data captures what happens to people.
The 2025 Microfinance Index demonstrates that borrower experiences vary meaningfully according to context, product design, and borrower circumstances. Planned borrowing and borrower vulnerability are both associated with distinct quality-of-life outcomes within the surveyed population.
Listening to borrowers systematically and at scale is not a substitute for financial discipline. It is an additional source of evidence that can inform more rigorous investment analysis.
Source: 60 Decibels Microfinance Index 2025. https://60decibels.com/insights/mfi-index-2025/