Gender equality commitments usually do not come to an end by being directly rejected; rather, they tend to fade away slowly within organizations. Even though the policy language, the rhetoric, and the compliance mechanisms may still be in place, their capacity to influence major decisions diminishes over time.
Evidence-based commitments, identified focal points, and regular training can create the impression of institutional alignment. Standard administrative methods may still show the mandate as in force.
Yet the fact that a policy is formally adopted does not ensure that it will be effective. Once it has been adopted, the commitments tend to lose their power to affect decisions regarding the allocation of resources, procurement, hiring, or the enforcement of accountability. The policy may still be visible, but its practical authority diminishes.
To regard this only as a gap in implementation or as a lack of political will is not enough. Since institutions function as complex systems, it is the formal authority, the informal hierarchies, and the existing incentives that decide which commitments will have a lasting effect.
To blame failure on political will oversimplifies the matter by concentrating on leadership motivation and ignoring the structural power relationships, including control over budgets, the power to enforce compliance, and the way institutional asymmetries shield discretion from accountability.
Consequently, an organization might promote gender equality in words while still having in place other existing policies or commitments in other sectors that weaken it. The important issue then becomes whether a policy has sufficient institutional authority to restrict the organization's discretion in the face of existing routines and incentives that oppose change.
Defining institutional force
Institutional force refers to a formal commitment's ability to influence key decisions, allocate responsibility, direct resources, alter established practices, and ensure accountability, while remaining resilient to changes in leadership, funding, or politics. This concept focuses on how a commitment gains practical authority through institutional relationships, rather than merely by existing.
A gender equality commitment demonstrates institutional commitment by calling for changes to existing practices and by becoming an integral part of the institution's main activities. Gender equality commitment has an impact on funding, appointments, procurement, the basis of decision-making, program design and review, evaluations of leadership, and the measures taken when the desired outcomes are not achieved.
The concept of institutional force refers to the connection between formal mandates and real outcomes. It prompts us to ask whether an institution has committed itself to gender equality and, more importantly, whether that commitment is strong enough to restrict discretion, redistribute responsibility, and lead to action.
The proposition draws on a large body of feminist institutional scholarship. As feminist institutionalists have always pointed out, formal rules alone are not sufficient to explain how institutions actually work since institutional outcomes result from the interaction between formal arrangements and informal norms, practices, incentives, and the gendered distribution of power. For instance, Waylen's research into informal institutions and institutional change helps to show why formally progressive reforms can lead to results which are very different from their original intentions, whereas the work of Mackay, Kenny and Chappell proves the importance of viewing institutions as gendered settings in which power is constantly organized, reproduced and contested.
From the very outset, whether during agenda-setting, program design, or organizational policy formulation, policymakers and program teams must explicitly determine the operational authority these frameworks will carry.
When policy exists without governing the institution
Consider an organization that adopts a gender equality policy and designates a gender focal point to manage its execution. Typically, this focal point is tasked with organizing workshops, reviewing project documentation, requesting gender-disaggregated data, offering technical guidance, and compiling periodic reports. These actions generate a substantial volume of visible activity demonstrating commitment to the policy.
Meanwhile, senior managers often retain exclusive authority over strategic priorities, budgets, recruitment, and procurement. Consequently, program teams can ignore gender recommendations without consequence, while managers face financial targets but no accountability for gender equality. As a result, when funding shrinks, gender-specific initiatives become the primary target for budget cuts.
It is not necessary for any single individual to openly oppose the policy if the policy is to lose its influence, and no one decision has to amount to a clear breach. On the contrary, the combined effect of a number of routine decisions can enable well-established institutional practices to make a comeback so that the policy continues to have an administrative presence but exerts ever-limited control over the way the organization actually behaves.
Standard evaluations of implementation often provide a misleading or incomplete picture of institutional progress. Assessing progress solely by verifying the existence of a policy, the appointment of responsible personnel, the delivery of staff training, or the collection of gender-disaggregated data can make an institution appear to be advancing effectively. A far more intricate institutional reality emerges, however, when evaluations examine underlying dynamics, specifically identifying who holds decision-making authority, who controls resource allocation, which recommendations can be disregarded without consequence, which daily routines have genuinely shifted, and who is held accountable for inadequate outcomes.
Hence, the gap separating formal commitments from actual institutional behavior represents far more than a simple operational failure. Rather, it exposes the underlying structure of organizational power that turns select undertakings into enforceable mandates while relegating others to symbolic documentation devoid of substantive political or material impact.
Strengthening the institutional force of gender equality commitments requires organizations to establish how these commitments govern decisions, direct resources, distribute responsibility, and remain accountable over time.
Define the policy’s authority over institutional decisions.
From the outset, gender equality policies should specify requirements for budgeting, recruitment, procurement, program design, and strategic planning. These requirements should establish who verifies compliance, how competing priorities are resolved, and which authority reviews proposed exceptions, giving the commitment a clear place within institutional decision-making.Make sure that those who have the power to make decisions are held accountable.
Senior executives and departmental managers should have clear responsibility for promoting gender equality within the areas of their functions, budgets, and personnel. The gender focal points should be given the technical resources, access to leadership, and escalation procedures needed to enable this work, while the responsibility for institutional performance must remain part of management assignments and performance appraisals.Make sure that commitments are linked to resource allocation and institutional incentives.
Policies should be turned into specific responsibilities that include cost estimates, allocated staff time, and clearly defined budget amounts whose implementation can be monitored. Performance frameworks must evaluate the way in which managers promote gender equality together with their financial and operational goals, and budget reviews should look at the distributional effects of any proposed cuts and reallocations.Set the broader institutional framework in line with the policy's objectives.
The finance procedures, procurement criteria, the methods of recruitment, and the processes for approving programmes should be checked to see whether they are in line with the organisation's commitments to gender equality. In cases where the current rules result in conflicting obligations or incentives, the organisation should deal with those tensions by means of amended procedures, clear criteria for decision-making, and an agreed order of responsibility.Tackle informal power and boost people's involvement in making decisions.
Institutional evaluations should look at the way informal networks, professional hierarchies, and unspoken expectations influence which expertise is regarded as important and which concerns get to decision-makers. Opportunities to affect policy design, resource priorities, and institutional review should be supported for women and for people who are affected by overlapping inequalities, together with clear explanations of how their contributions had an impact on the final decisions.Assess the impact of the commitment on institutional practice.
Monitoring should check if gender analysis has an effect on funding decisions, recruitment criteria, procurement requirements, the choice of programs, and the distribution of authority. Periodic reviews should follow selected decisions from the stage of recommendation through to their outcome, identify reasons for any deviations from policy, and assign corrective actions to specific decision-makers within the agreed timeframes.Achieve continuity through governance and institutional memory.
Incorporate gender equality responsibilities into the governing body's oversight, during management handovers, when onboarding new staff, and as part of regular institutional reviews. Any proposed changes to policy scope, staffing, or funding should be subject to documented scrutiny to ensure that decisions made during leadership transitions and under financial pressure are accountable and maintain the institution's substantive commitments.