During the week of 22 September 2025, States once again met in Vienna under Working Group III (WGIII)...
The global transition to renewable energy systems will be mineral intensive and, under the current linear economy conditions,...
This blog has been co-authored with Rhian-Mari Thomas. She is the CEO of the Green Finance Institute (GFI) an independent organization at the forefront of shaping how finance can be used to facilitate a real economy transition. The GFI creates and scales innovative solutions that deliver practical outcomes for communities and economies.
In today’s financial architecture, a dedicated, pooled guarantee and risk-sharing facility for industrial decarbonization does not exist. There are guarantee instruments, operated by multilateral institutions and export credit agencies, that are valuable and that we draw on extensively. However, none of them is organized around the specific risk profile of first-of-a-kind industrial decarbonization solutions, none pools exposures across projects and sectors in ways that enable portfolio-level risk management, and none concentrates the technical expertise in hard-to-abate industries that good instrument design requires. This blog makes the case that building such a facility would be genuinely additive and outlines what would make it different from what already exists.
The financing failures that currently block industrial decarbonization are identifiable. First-of-a-kind industrial decarbonization projects face technology and execution risks that lenders cannot price. Projects with large, continuous power inputs are exposed to electricity price volatility over asset lives of twenty to thirty years; volatility that persists even after long-term renewable power purchase agreements are in place. Buyer commitments from downstream purchasers are often conditional, non-binding, or too short-tenored to support project finance, and even when they are in fact binding, non-conditional, and long-term offtakes, they remain isolated commitments in nature, which do not add to a systemic solution. Policy risk accumulates over the lifetimes of assets in ways that investors cannot hedge against. Each of these is a specific constraint, and each calls for a different instrument. These constraints are not theoretical. Industrial decarbonization projects supported through national platforms and government-led industrial strategies continue to face persistent barriers related to technology uncertainty, short-tenor or non-binding offtake, and limited availability of long-term risk-bearing capital, despite strong macro-level policy ambition and underlying demand fundamentals.
Concessional lending reduces the interest rate on a transaction, but it does not remove technology risk, convert open-ended energy price exposure into a bounded envelope, or turn a conditional buyer pledge into bankable offtake. Targeted guarantees that absorb or bound a specific risk can change the conditions under which private capital flows. Rate reductions alone cannot.
The leverage figures cited in support of guarantees need to be read carefully because they measure different things. IEEFA’s November 2025 analysis of green steel financing in India found that in some cases, credit guarantees mobilize roughly 2.4 times as much private capital as public support, whereas several projects based exclusively on grants showed lower leverage, often around 0.5 to 1.5 times.1 The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) has reported that each dollar of its operating capital supports roughly $16 of gross guarantee exposure, a figure that reflects how it structures and holds risk on its balance sheet and reinsurance capacity, rather than a simple guarantee-to-project-investment ratio.2 These numbers are not directly comparable, and leverage ratios across blended finance instruments vary depending on how programs are structured and the risks they actually absorb. Some analyses find leverage effects close to or below one, particularly when guarantee instruments are poorly targeted. The strategic case for well-structured guarantees over direct lending is strong. But any claim about specific leverage ratios depends heavily on how the instrument is designed.
A dedicated, pooled, risk-sharing guarantee facility for industrial decarbonization would be genuinely additive to the existing architecture, not a reorganization of what already exists. The sections below explain what would make it different and why building it is harder than the concept suggests.
Several guarantee instruments already operate through multilateral and bilateral channels. MIGA provides political risk insurance and credit enhancement for private investments in developing countries. The World Bank deploys partial risk and partial credit guarantees on specific transactions. Regional development banks run guarantee programs organized around their geographic mandates. Export credit agencies provide guarantee and insurance products tied to their home countries’ export interests. These instruments work and serve real functions.
None of them is organized around industrial decarbonization. Existing programs assess industrial decarbonization projects using risk frameworks designed for infrastructure broadly or for sovereign credit, not for the specific contexts and economics of first-of-a-kind green industrial assets. They lack the technical capacity to evaluate what an acceptable technology risk envelope looks like for a hydrogen-based direct reduction iron plant operating at commercial scale for the first time, or to structure a power price instrument against actual dispatch and curtailment dynamics in a specific grid context, or to judge what offtake structure a lender actually requires to underwrite a twenty-five-year industrial asset when buyer commitments in that market are conditional and short, or just isolated. Projects either fail to fit standard eligibility criteria or receive generic credit enhancement that leaves the underlying constraint unaddressed.
Existing programs are often standalone instruments. Each guarantee is assessed, priced, and managed as a separate exposure. No vehicle aggregates industrial decarbonization guarantee exposures across projects and sectors, manages risk at the portfolio level, or creates the diversification that would enable more differentiated risk-taking on individual transactions. Every project is assessed as if it were the only one, a common issue for first-of-a-kind projects.
A general-purpose guarantee program that handles one or two industrial decarbonization transactions per year does not build any genuine sector knowledge. Each project is treated as new. A dedicated facility that does ten or twenty transactions across green steel, low-carbon cement, or green hydrogen accumulates something that compounds: replicable risk frameworks, standard instrument designs, and institutional memory about what actually goes wrong and why. As a result, transaction costs inevitably fall. The rate at which similar transactions can be structured improves. And the facility’s track record gives other institutions concrete evidence on which to build their own confidence. That is not a marginal improvement; it changes how the market functions over time.
The facility would deploy distinct instruments against distinct risk categories rather than providing generic credit enhancement. For instance:
For technology and execution risk on first-of-a-kind projects: completion guarantees and performance wraps can cover the risk that an asset fails to reach the expected production capacity or emissions performance within defined tolerances. Applying these to industrial decarbonization requires knowing what realistic contractual milestones look like for a specific technology configuration and how to structure them against actual lender requirements rather than engineering specifications. This is particularly relevant in emerging industrial markets, including Brazil, where public development banks are supporting innovation and early deployment, but private lenders remain hesitant to assume first-of-a-kind performance risk without targeted completion or performance risk mitigation. In some cases, the binding constraint is not large-scale construction risk but the final demonstration of commercial-scale viability—where relatively small amounts of grant-like or first-loss capital can unlock substantially larger follow-on investments from strategic or institutional sponsors. Guarantee facilities can play a catalytic role when aligned with such sequencing.
For energy price risk: including contracts for difference (CfDs) and related price-stabilisation mechanisms (such as capped or asymmetric CfDs), designed to convert long-tenor electricity price volatility into a bounded, financeable risk envelope. The objective is not to subsidize energy costs but to limit exposure beyond a defined threshold, converting an open-ended risk into a contingent liability that the facility holds and provisions for. The design of these instruments is context-specific: it depends on dispatch rules, curtailment rates, the effects of grid interconnection on price formation in a given region, and the residual exposure that remains after a long-term power purchase agreement is in place. In regions like Inner Mongolia or Yunnan, for example, where renewable energy generation costs are already competitive but grid pricing is administratively determined and volatile, the problem is not average cost. It is access and firmness. An instrument that bounds that volatility can unlock financing that no amount of cost reduction would. Similarly, in countries such as Brazil, where a relatively clean power matrix coexists with market, grid, and price-formation complexities, the challenge for energy-intensive industrial projects is not average power cost but long-term exposure to residual volatility —precisely the type of risk that CfD-style instruments are designed to address.
For offtake and utilization risk during early operating years: demand anchor guarantees backstopping minimum revenue below a threshold calibrated to what debt service actually requires. These do not substitute for long-term binding buyer commitments, but they address the gap between project commissioning and the point at which buyer demand reaches sufficient scale to independently support the debt. Buyer commitments are most useful as utilization stabilizers once supply-side economics are largely resolved, not as market-formation tools. The guarantee fills the gap period before that sequencing is achieved. This structure reflects the reality observed in early industrial decarbonisation markets, including in emerging clean-industry hubs, where non-binding or short-tenor offtake dominates early project stages despite strong long-term demand fundamentals.
For policy and regulatory risk: instruments calibrated to the specific exposures of industrial assets over twenty-to-thirty-year lifetimes in jurisdictions with evolving climate and green industrial policy frameworks.
Industrial decarbonization projects should not be considered in isolation or independent of one another. When multiple industrial users co-locate around shared energy infrastructure, shared logistics, and shared supply chains, the risk profile of each project changes. A hydrogen production facility that can sell to a steel plant, a chemical producer, and a power generator in the same corridor has a fundamentally different offtake risk than one relying on a single customer. A port that serves shipping, manufacturing, and energy in an integrated logistics system is a different investment than a standalone bunkering facility. Shared infrastructure lowers unit costs for all participants.
These clustering effects are not automatic. They require coordinated planning across energy systems and industrial value chains, the kind of integrated planning that rarely happens because the institutions responsible for energy policy, industrial policy, and investment promotion typically do not work together at the project development stage. ASEAN industrial corridors, for example, offer real opportunities to link renewable energy resources with industrial demand across borders, but realizing those opportunities requires coordination across renewable energy generators, national grid operators, industrial developers, logistics providers, and financial institutions, which currently have no single institutional home.
GFI’s experience in resource-advantaged industrial regions suggests that where clean power, feedstock availability, logistics, and domestic demand coincide, the break in the value chain is not the absence of projects but the absence of coordinated risk-sharing mechanisms that allow early movers to proceed in parallel rather than sequentially.
A dedicated facility with deep sector expertise is positioned to support this kind of corridor-level and cluster-level planning as part of its investment preparation work, not as a separate technical assistance program, but as a direct extension of what it needs to know to structure guarantee instruments well. Understanding whether a project is embedded in a functioning industrial cluster or isolated from one is central to assessing utilization risk, offtake risk, and long-term viability. A facility that does this analysis as part of its investment process develops knowledge about which cluster configurations are genuinely viable and which are aspirational on paper. That knowledge has value far beyond the individual transactions.
The connection to regional planning also matters for how public institutions align their support. When a development bank, a regional MDB, and a specialized guarantee facility are all working in the same industrial corridor, each conducting its own siloed analysis, the result is duplication of effort, inconsistent assumptions and results, and fragmented infrastructure. When they share a planning framework and coordinate their instruments against a common understanding of what the cluster needs to be viable, the combined effect is qualitatively different. For instance, the GFI is partnering with Indonesian development bank PTSMI on instrument design in critical sectors, pooling concessional funds, so they can align with policy and planning and be more catalytic for private capital. An early transaction is in de-dieselization, but the approach can equally be applied to industrial decarbonization. The proposed facility cannot make the needed coordination happen on its own, but it is the kind of institution that could anchor it.
Operating at the portfolio level rather than on a transaction-by-transaction basis changes the facility’s risk profile. Industrial decarbonization risks are correlated within sectors but differ substantially across them. Technology risk in green iron is largely independent of technology risk in low-carbon cement. Energy price risk in Southeast Asian power markets is not highly correlated with that in North African or Latin American markets. Policy risk varies by jurisdiction as well. A portfolio spanning multiple sectors, technologies, and geographies carries a better aggregate risk profile than the sum of its parts, making more differentiated risk-taking on individual transactions defensible in ways that standalone instruments do not allow.
A tranched portfolio structure could attract different categories of capital. A senior tranche with low expected loss and diversified exposure could attract institutional investors whose mandates require near-rated instruments. A junior or first-loss tranche, capitalized by public or philanthropic sources, absorbs the risks that commercial capital cannot. Whether this works in practice and at what scale requires actual financial modeling; the specific leverage ratios depend on the risk profile of the assets and the tranching structure. What portfolio management does is make that modeling possible at a level of precision that project-by-project instruments cannot support.The specialization effect compounds differently. The first transaction in a new sector requires building knowledge from scratch: the risk framework, instrument design, legal structure, and contractual benchmarks. By the fifth or tenth transaction in the same sector, those costs have been largely incurred, standard templates exist, assessment timelines shorten, and replicable structures reduce transaction costs for developers and lenders alike. General-purpose institutions that encounter industrial decarbonization transactions occasionally cannot build this. The value of a dedicated facility is partly what it does in any individual transaction and substantially what it becomes over a portfolio. Over time, this allows the facility to shift from supporting isolated transactions to enabling sectoral replication—moving markets incrementally from first-of-a-kind risk toward standardised, financeable asset classes.3
The most practical near-term path probably starts sector-specific and context-specific rather than multi-country and multi-sector from the outset. IEEFA’s November 2025 analysis modeled specifically a national credit guarantee facility for green steel in India, illustrating in practical terms that a guarantee works best when designed around a specific sector, a specific set of risks, and a specific financing geography. Green iron production in regions with structurally advantaged renewable resources, where the power market dynamics and technology risk profiles are well understood from recent project development work, is another context in which a targeted instrument could be designed with enough precision to be tested. Experience from transaction-led approaches to industrial decarbonization suggests that this focus is most effective when grounded in live deal pipelines, where policymakers, financiers, and developers can work from a shared understanding of where financing fails, why it fails, and which risk-sharing instruments are most catalytic.
What is needed is an effective transaction-led, sector- and geography-specific approach that focuses on financing breakpoints, capital sequencing, and replication, consistent with deal-doing discipline. Starting in a well-defined context serves a purpose beyond pragmatism. A facility that begins with one sector in one jurisdiction or corridor region can work through the design questions in a context where the risk profile is clear: what the instrument needs to cover, what the realistic loss scenarios are, what capitalization is adequate, and what governance structure gives it the operational independence to function. Those questions are answerable, but they require actual financial modeling and legal structuring rather than a conceptual proposal.
Pooling across sectors and geographies adds real value once there are demonstrated instruments to build from. Both the financial and institutional arguments for pooling are considerably more tractable with a track record than without one.
The institutional design question is not trivial. A multi-country, multi-sector facility needs an institutional home with credibility to attract capital, operational independence to make sound risk decisions, and a mandate breadth to work across sectors without separate authorization for each transaction. Several configurations are plausible: a facility hosted within an existing international organization or climate finance platform, such as UNIDO or Climate Investment Funds; a facility hosted within a regional MDB or regional economic commission; a coalition of institutions each contributing capital and maintaining joint governance; or, over a longer horizon, an independent dedicated institution. Each has different trade-offs among speed of establishment, clarity of mandate, and risk-framework constraints. These are design choices, not barriers, and they are worked through in the process of building the facility rather than resolved in advance.
The design work needed to move from concept to a fundable proposal is specific: financing break-point analysis for each target sector and geography that identifies precisely where and why financing currently fails; financial modeling of portfolio-level risk, capitalization requirements, and leverage ratios under different instrument configurations; and governance design that specifies the institutional combination and the protections needed for operational independence. CCSI, GFI, and their partners are positioned to lead that analysis, in collaboration with the project financiers, development finance institutions, and sector specialists who bring direct transaction experience. That is where the effort belongs now.
Footnotes:
