Looking at how the IRM ensures accountability within the GCF, the paper discusses how the plaintiffs can voice their concerns with the IRM and the possible solutions the IRM takes to address them. The authors point out that the IRM can only make non-binding recommendations to the GCF Board, and it is up to the Board to act on those recommendations. Despite this, the IRM is unique in that it can self-initiate proceedings without a complaint based on its observations and media scanning – a prerogative that helped take action against a project in Peru that was deemed harmful to the indigenous communities in the region. Despite the limited number of cases to evaluate the effectiveness of the IRM, the authors applaud the transparency and thoroughness of the decision-making process taken by the IRM in investigating complaints and highlight how the IRM enforces compliance through pressure and persuasion tactics. KEY TAKEAWAY: While the legal power of the IRM is limited, it allows complaints to be addressed directly to the source of the funding. This facilitates direct accountability. However, only time will tell if the measures taken by the IRM are effective at solving real-world cases.