Similar to other multilateral development banks, the EBRD has members from all over the world (North America, Africa, Asia and Australia, see below), with the biggest single shareholder being the United States, but only lends regionally in its countries of operations.

Headquartered in London, the EBRD is owned by 73 countries and two European Union institutions, the newest shareholder being Algeria since October 2021.

[4] It was created as a result of the end of the Cold War because of particular issues regarding the international system in place, the historical and political context at the time.

[5] Furthermore, its recipient countries had to ensure that they would work towards "multi-party democracy and political pluralism"[6] in which was considered as one of the main particularity of the EBRD distinguishing the latter from other financial institutions.

The reception of this proposition was mitigated depending on the country, for instance it received hostility from the British whereas the French were important proponents of the project and influenced the process.

Its function is to direct the general operations of the bank, notably:[4] The EBRD is composed of many members with voting powers, from European and non-European states to the membership of other institutions such as the European Investment Bank, however depending on the geographical location of each member, voting rights differ.

Major criticism about the EBRD in this situation is related to the fact that non-EU countries are also important shareholders whereas the EIB is completely owned by the EU.

[16] More recently, since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, public banks have had their influence and role increased as they have become important actors of the economic recovery response.

[24][25][26] The following table shows the development of investment volume into the Green Economy Transition (GET) approach, in support of the Paris climate goals.

[31] With Russia actually being the biggest donor to an NDEP Support Fund for the environments inside the bank, with total contributions amounting to €60 million.

[32] Not only involving the European institutions, the EBRD financed projects also implicate private actors such as firms as well as foreign investors in the process.

Moreover, a regional forum on commercial mediation was established by the bank as part of its work, which has managed to involve various representatives from countries in Europe and Asia, such as judges and experts for instance.

[35] Focusing on the integration and modernisation process, as part of its projects, the EBRD has notably invested in important sectors such as telecommunications in the Central and Eastern European countries.

[39] Gradually, climate change and sustainable development became the focus point of the European Union, then consequently found its importance as one of the main challenges that the EBRD has to tackle.

In 2021, Anastassia Obydenkova research has indicated that positive evolutions have been made, for instance that carbon emission from some of the states benefiting from EBRD loans have decreased.

[6] From the beginning of the negotiations that led to the creation of the EBRD, the question of democracy and human rights were included in the matter discussed.

[37] NGOs have criticised the EBRD on the lack of progress the EBRD makes in its main mission, the “transition towards open and democratic market economies.” Inequality of the lending : most projects were related to the Visegrad countries that were the ones with the most developed private sectors meaning that the ERBD was underinvesting in the countries that were the most supposed to receive its participation.

[41] The EBRD's activities in the Balkans have attracted particular controversy and criticism,[45] especially when they have centered on national parks or free-flowing rivers.

Indeed, a 2017 report alleged deficiencies in monitoring and mitigation measures that had been designed to lessen the environmental impact of dam projects financed by the EBRD, while, in March 2018, outdoor clothing label Patagonia helped launch The Dam Truth campaign, which directly requests international banks including the EBRD to "stop investing in the destruction of Europe's last wild rivers".

Scientists from North Macedonia and across the world signed a declaration in opposition to this and other projects proposed for the Ohrid-Prespa region,[53] a message that was reinforced by a Joint Reactive Monitoring Mission from the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and the IUCN, which requested total cancellation of proposed A3 road sections.

[55] Eventually, in February 2018, the Republic of North Macedonia abandoned plans for the road, redirecting the EBRD's funds to other infrastructure projects.

[56] Even though, its major objectives is to push for democracy and respect of human rights, the EBRD has been accused of not working towards those goals by not applying enough pressure and even "holding its annual meetings in dictator-run countries".

[4] Furthermore, reports have highlighted the fact that an important part of the loans provided by the EBRD go to countries with authoritarian leaders as of the beginning of 2022, including states such as Belarus or Egypt among others, and this despite its major objective of promoting democracy.

Russia employed the funds to finance a variety of projects like pipeline valves, property acquisitions, and a loan to a hypermarket chain.

[62][63] The Aliyev regime is considered by many NGOs and watchdogs organizations as repressive and activists and journalists are regularly arrested on false charges and imprisoned.

[64][65] The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) wrote in 2015, that "for more than a decade Azerbaijan has made shameless use of caviar diplomacy to charm European governments, its most important oil and gas clients".

[66] The EEC BankWatch warns that "Developing Shah Deniz stage 2 and the Southern Gas Corridor is likely to cement further the oppressive structures of the Aliyev government".