This literature review examines how evaluation frameworks can be applied to assess women’s empowerment through entrepreneurship and other economic activities in the WASH sector. Specifically, it reviews evaluative approaches to measuring empowerment, the outcomes of mainstreaming Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) or Gender Youth and Social Inclusion (GYSI) in WASH, socio-cultural constraints in economic empowerment and the role of public stakeholders in fostering PPPs for women-inclusive WASH projects with climate-positive and resilient outcomes.

Women’s empowerment has been defined and utilised in multiple ways across different contexts of development. Kabeer (1999) and Sen (1999) believe that empowerment is ongoing, with the ability to exercise choice and decision over one’s life regarding different dimensions. While Kabeer (1999) conceptualises empowerment in terms of resources (pre-condition), agency (process) and achievements (outcome), Sen (1999) focuses on capabilities, functionings and the freedoms that enable a person to pursue and attain valued goals. Khader (2018:141) highlights the risk of ‘passive empowerment’, where interventions increase women’s burdens rather than agency, through coercive choices. These are examples of disempowerment and counterproductively could leave more burden on women. Such critiques are relevant to evaluators, as they underscore the need for evaluation frameworks that capture how empowerment is experienced, not just whether women participate (Kabeer 2018).

Avoiding disempowerment and passive empowerment while ensuring meaningful participation require development interventions to adopt transformative participation approaches, viewing participants as agents with the capacity to assert their rights and promote accountability (Cornwall 2003). Gender-sensitive planning and gender mainstreaming, operationalised through frameworks such as GESI or GYSI, provide practical mechanisms for supporting this shift (Assefa et al. 2021; Grant et al. 2023; Kodama et al. 2017; Macura et al. 2023; Van Eerdewijk, Bråten & Danielsen 2021).

In the WASH sector, evaluative tools measuring both women’s empowerment and climate resilience remain limited. In the past, most interventions have based their measurement and indicators of empowerment solely on public health outcomes (Bisung & Dicken 2019; Carrard et al. 2013; Fisher et al. 2017; Macura et al. 2023). Evaluators face challenges when attempting to capture strategic gender interests (e.g. leadership and decision-making power) alongside practical gender needs like access to water. Climate-induced water stress compounds these dynamics, increasing women’s time burden and vulnerability. There is a critical need for WASH projects to bridge these practical gender needs (e.g. water supply availability and proximity) with strategic gender interests (e.g. decision-making roles and active participation) for successful ‘transformative’ gender and climate resilience outcomes (MacArthur, Carrard & Willetts 2020). Evaluators must assess not only whether women are involved but also how interventions alter resource distribution, decision-making processes and social norms (Assefa et al. 2021; Macura et al. 2023).

Two frameworks have been developed to explicitly measure gender equality in WASH: the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Gender Equality Measure (WASH-GEM) (Carrard et al. 2022) and the Gender Equality in WASH Conceptual Framework (GECF) (Caruso et al. 2021). Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Gender Equality Measure is a quantitative measure across five domains: resources, agency, critical consciousness, well-being and structures (Carrard et al. 2022). The GECF, developed for the WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme, focuses on meeting WASH needs, exercising agency, accessing resources and enabling environments at multiple levels (Caruso et al. 2021). In this framework, WASH needs refer to consistent access to safe WASH services, while the enabling environment spans household, community and institutional systems that shape people’s ability to benefit from and sustain these services. While both frameworks overlap, WASH-GEM’s emphasis on critical consciousness and well-being makes it particularly useful for evaluating women-led enterprise models like those in this study (Carrard et al. 2022; Caruso et al. 2021). In this study, the framework is applied during analysis, using interpretive lens, rather than being used deductively to structure data collection with components such as agency, critical consciousness and well-being informing the interpretation of women’s reported decision-making process, constraints and perceived outcomes.

It is well established that entrepreneurship contributes to women’s empowerment because of the accessibility to exercise decision-making through ownership and the practice of agency to varying degrees (Al-Dajani & Marlow 2013; Shingla & Singh 2015) both of which are critical for this sector to be climate resilient. In Africa and Asia, multiple countries have implemented women-owned and led micro, small and medium necessity-driven enterprises in the provision of WASH services (Bisung & Dicken 2019; Gero & Willets 2014; Grant et al. 2018; Indarti et al. 2019; Leahy et al. 2017; Sam & Todd 2020; Taylor 2013) to meaningfully include women, shift power dynamics and adapt to climate change. For evaluators, these enterprise models present opportunities to assess empowerment through ownership, leadership and integration into service delivery systems. Achieving active involvement of women in this sector is possible but complex.

Women’s involvement in WASH can lead to empowerment, as seen in evaluations that took place in Ghana and Ethiopia (Hailu 2023; Hailu & Haile 2023; Sam & Tod 2020), especially when supported by training, capital and government (Grant et al. 2018). However, tokenism and socio-cultural, financial and institutional barriers remain challenges (Leahy et al. 2017; Moser 2014).

Public stakeholders are critical in supporting the success of women-led WASH enterprises (Harvey, Mukanga & Waibi 2015; Indarti et al. 2019; Leahy 2017; World Bank 2022; Ministry of Water and Energy 2022). From an evaluation standpoint, the effectiveness of PPPs can be assessed through both service delivery metrics and empowerment indicators. Public–private partnerships can enable governments to mobilise investment, technology and efficiency, improving WASH sector performance (World Bank 2022). For necessity-driven enterprises providing climate-adaptive public services, partnerships with government can create enabling environments for sustainability, an important dimension for evaluators tracking long-term outcomes.

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Edinburgh School of GeoSciences Research Ethics & Integrity Committee (No. 2023-726). Informed consent was obtained from all participants, either in written or verbal form depending on technology access. Information sheets detailed study objectives, procedures, risks, and rights, with confidentiality and secure data storage assured.

Review of TAP project documentation highlighted both systemic challenges and adaptive strategies shaping the establishment of WASH MSEs. The Diagnostic Assessment Reports confirmed that although 532 enterprises were created across 230 districts within 5 years (TAP 2022a, 2023c), significant operational barriers persisted. Woreda-level offices showed limited awareness of the MSE model, restricting their ability to provide adequate support, while entrepreneurs faced continued difficulties accessing finance for business start-up and growth.

Capacity-building interventions were a notable success. The Apprenticeship Report (TAP 2023b) and accompanying field evidence (Figure 4 and Figure 5) demonstrated the effectiveness of practical, woreda-facilitated training, with MSE members rehabilitating non-functional water schemes and restoring access for communities. These activities not only delivered immediate service improvements but also built participant confidence in technical roles.

Sustainability concerns were flagged in the Induction Training Report (TAP 2023a), which identified market linkage creation as critical but underdeveloped. This finding aligned with interview evidence highlighting the responsibility of local authorities in fostering enabling environments for enterprise operations. Importantly, reports also acknowledged persistent cultural resistance to women in technical roles, particularly in lowland areas where social norms discouraged female participation.

In response, TAP adopted two strategic adaptations: (1) reserving managerial roles for women to strengthen leadership representation, while allowing flexibility in technical assignments and (2) tailoring recruitment to reflect regional variations in education levels and social norms. Early outcomes suggest this dual strategy increased resilience, with women-led MSEs showing stronger continuity when male members disengaged.

This section will discuss the results according to the four main themes, four of which were discussed in the methodology, which were women’s empowerment, PPPs, engagement and establishment methodology. Figure 6 shows Nvivo-generated tree-map according to code reference, the number of times it was referenced in the total of the interviews.

As can be seen from the tree-map (see Figure 6), women’s empowerment and stakeholder engagement were two prominent themes during the interviews, and PPPs are the least referenced.

Government and TAP staff initially questioned whether enough women could be recruited and whether they could manage technical WASH responsibilities. However, these concerns eased after the apprenticeship, where women demonstrated competence in welding, pump repair and multi-village scheme maintenance on their own initiative. Stakeholders observed that women became more confident and skilled, and the women themselves reported feeling more motivated and proud of their contributions to their communities. As Task 2 Lead explained, ‘we provided concrete evidence that women can deliver this’. Women in leadership roles also described increased confidence as they began taking responsibility for technical and organisational decisions during the establishment phase. Most women reported minimal gender-based barriers, though one member from the Amhara region mention safety risks in rural areas.

Stakeholder engagement was described as strong across both regions. TAP reported active involvement from MoWE and woreda offices in recruitment, training and early support to the MSEs. Government officials highlighted shared responsibilities across WASH, job creation and women’s affairs offices and confirmed plans for continues monitoring, technical training and workspace support. Amhara officials emphasised efforts to ensure demand for services and provide facilities for nursing mothers, while Amhara MSE members identified needs for workspace, finance, market links and additional training. A Benishangul WSA official also stated, ‘we will not back away; we will ork on follow-ups regularly’. Officials and MSE members also identified gaps in business literacy, financing and consistent institutional follow-up as areas requiring on going support.

Stakeholders noted that the establishment methodology supported women’s leadership through strict selection criteria (minimum 60% women membership and female leadership) and by reserving management roles for women. The flexible recruitment process allowed adaptation to regional differences in education and experience while maintaining minimum standards. In highland regions, degree holders could be recruited, whereas in lowland areas, selection relied on women with secondary education. Training and apprenticeships were valued but widely viewed as insufficient because of the short duration and delays in procurement that created long gas between training and practice. Members and officials agreed on the need for ongoing technical, managerial and financial capacity building. This was captured by an Amhara MSE member’s reflection: ‘learning is a continuous process; the 13 days were not enough’.

Perceptions of PPPs were broadly positive. Technical Assistance Project and government representatives noted that MSEs can provide faster service delivery than overstretched public utilities and help improve the functionality of rural water schemes. Officials viewed these improvements in functionality and reduced downtime as contributing to more reliable rural WASH service delivery. Some officials also reported the absence of clear inter-regional mechanisms for sharing PPP experiences or outsourcing guidance, which they viewed as a barrier to scaling. Amhara officials reported efforts to locate workspaces near woreda offices to strengthen coordination. Benishangul officials expressed willingness to support MSEs as needed, while MSE members acknowledged existing support and expressed interest in stronger collaboration. As an Amhara WSA official observed, ‘water supplies were closed for months, and now the MSEs can reopen them’.

Findings indicate that the SCRS-WASH TAP contributed to women’s empowerment not only by creating economic opportunities but also by shifting institutional and community perceptions of women’s technical competence. Initial scepticism from woreda officials and community leaders was gradually overturned through apprenticeship training and practical demonstrations. The women successfully rehabilitating non-functional multi-village water schemes provided tangible proof of capability.

These outcomes reflect what Kabeer (1999) defines as the resources-agency-achievements pathway of empowerment: training (resources) enabled women to demonstrate agency in technical domains, resulting in recognition and confidence gains (achievements). However, the evaluative finding is that short-term training interventions alone were insufficient for sustained empowerment. Both TAP implementers and government officials noted gaps in management and entrepreneurial skills, highlighting the importance of integrating multiple empowerment domains into evaluation frameworks (see WASH-GEM; Carrard et al. 2022).

Interestingly, while women reported increased agency and role-model visibility, they tended to downplay gender-based risks, such as exposure to harassment or violence when working in rural areas. This suggests a potential normalisation bias – an evaluative challenge when empowerment indicators rely heavily on self-reporting. It underscores the need for evaluators to triangulate perceptions with contextual gender analyses to avoid overstating empowerment gains.

Stakeholder engagement findings reveal that government ownership was stronger than anticipated. Although some Woreda officials demonstrated commitment through resource allocation, TAP staff voiced concerns that this enthusiasm may not be sustained – echoing common evaluation challenges around attribution vs. contribution in partnership-driven interventions.

A key evaluative insight was the divergence between TAP’s perception of ‘reluctant’ government support and woreda officials’ framing of themselves as active enablers. This mismatch points to the importance of incorporating stakeholder perspective analysis within adaptive MEL systems. Evaluations that only track implementer-reported barriers risk overlooking local expressions of ownership and agency.

Moreover, examples such as the provision of nursing facilities and prioritisation of women-led enterprises in government planning suggest that engagement extended beyond tokenism, aligning with transformative participation principles (Cornwall 2003). From an evaluation standpoint, this highlights how process indicators (e.g. inter-office collaboration, creation of enabling environments) can be as important as output indicators when assessing sustainability.

The recruitment criteria ensured gender inclusivity, but the adaptive flexibility across regions illustrates an important evaluative finding: uniform frameworks must be contextually tailored to avoid exclusion.

This adaptive methodology demonstrates the tension between standardisation and contextualisation in evaluation design. It reinforces calls in the evaluation literature for ‘principled flexibility’ (Bamberger, Rugh & Mabry 2016), where criteria maintain equity goals while being adapted to diverse socio-cultural contexts.

Capacity building was another critical area. The need for continuous technical and managerial training, rather than one-off inputs aligns with arguments in evaluation research – that empowerment and institutionalisation are processes, not outcomes, and must therefore be measured iteratively across the project lifecycle.

Findings on PPPs highlight the evaluative challenge of assessing ‘emerging’ partnerships in sectors where private provision is limited. TAP positioned MSEs not as competitors but as collaborators to government utilities. Officials echoed this perspective, describing MSEs as complementary service providers capable of reducing downtime in rural water schemes.

From an evaluation standpoint, two insights emerge. Firstly, policy and institutional gaps remain, such as the absence of legal frameworks for knowledge sharing across regions, limiting the scalability of PPPs. Secondly, demonstration effects are significant: early successes of women-led MSEs provided governments with evidence of the viability of outsourcing, potentially informing future policy shifts.

These findings contribute to evaluation debates on how to assess system-level change. Rather than measuring immediate outputs (e.g. number of pumps fixed), evaluators must consider how projects contribute to institutional learning and policy experimentation. In this case, TAP acted as a catalyst for shifting perceptions about the role of women in private sector WASH provision.