For most policymakers, export credit agencies (ECAs) are financial tools that boost national companies’ business endeavours abroad. But a recent research project conducted by Philipp Censkowsky, Paul Waidelich, Igor Shishlov, and Bjarne Steffen reveals the profound impact they have on the energy transition. Our study analysed 921 energy-finance deals backed by ECAs from 31 countries between 2013 and 2023.
We used commercial transaction data to track how much ECAs invested in fossil fuels versus renewable energy. We also examined key policy shifts to understand how international agreements influence the decisions ECAs make.
Are ECAs slowing down or speeding up the low carbon transition? For years, export credit agencies have been key players in global trade finance, providing state-backed loans, insurance and guarantees to support national exporters. But their role in the energy transition is now under scrutiny.
While some ECAs have made strides in shifting finance away from fossil fuels, many remain deeply entangled in financing oil, gas and even coal — the dirtiest fuel of them all.
Our research underscores this reality. ECAs are major enablers of energy infrastructure worldwide, and their continued support for fossil fuels is at odds with international climate commitments.
What’s holding ECAs back from making a full transition?
These agencies have historically played a crucial role in financing fossil fuel projects by de-risking investments for private lenders. This influence is massive — comparable to multilateral development banks — yet their role in shaping the energy transition has been largely underexplored in academic research.
In our study, we found a clear trend:
ECAs are slowly pivoting towards renewable energy, but fossil fuel projects still receive a large share of support, even as international pledges like the Glasgow Statement call for the phasing out of international fossil fuel financing.
A fragmented shift
Our paper shows that, in 2013, only 9% of ECA energy commitments went to renewable energy technologies (RETs). By 2023, that share had jumped to over 40%.
While this suggests a significant shift, the total dollar amount of fossil fuel financing remains high.
Certain ECAs, particularly those in Europe, have made stronger commitments to “greening” their portfolios, while others — like those in Japan, South Korea and China — continue to support fossil fuel infrastructure.
Breaking down financing patterns reveals important nuances:
Coal financing has has sharply declined among OECD ECAs, following the adoption of international restrictions. However, some non-OECD countries continue to finance coal projects, particularly in emerging economies.
Oil and gas projects still dominate ECA commitments, especially in the early stages of production and transportation. Even as financing for coal declines, oil and gas deals receive billions in state-backed support.
Wind energy leads the charge in renewables financing, with large offshore projects securing significant ECA backing. Solar and hydrogen projects, while growing, still lag behind.
One of the most striking findings of our research is that ECA-backed renewable energy investments are overwhelmingly concentrated in high-income countries.
Developing nations — where clean energy investment is most needed — receive little support, a trend driven by the high perceived financial risks, and a lack of strong policy incentives.
Policies’ limitations
Why do some ECAs lead in the energy transition while others lag behind?
A key factor is their mandate and political will of their respective governments. Many ECAs are designed primarily to promote national exports and domestic job creation, with little regard for climate or sustainability objectives. This narrow focus has made it difficult for ECAs to pivot away from fossil fuels, even when their governments have pledged to do so.
Some countries, however, are starting to rethink this approach. In the UK and the Netherlands, studies have shown that shifting export finance from fossil fuels to renewables can actually create more domestic jobs. ECAs in countries that have integrated climate goals into their mandates — like those in the Export Finance For Future (E3F) coalition — tend to be leading the way in shifting finance towards renewables.
But without clear and binding international rules, many ECAs cite their mandates as an excuse to continue financing fossil fuels. For example, the Export–Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) has justified continued oil and gas support under its “non-discrimination” clause, even though the US government under the Biden Administration has pledged to end international public finance for fossil fuels.
Global cooridnation
A fragmented policy landscape creates loopholes. When one country’s ECA pulls out of fossil fuel financing, others may step in to fill the gap.
This “free-rider” dynamic may weaken the impact of national-level climate commitments, and underscores the need for stronger international cooperation.
The most important global policy framework for ECAs is the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits, which already includes restrictions on coal financing. But negotiations to expand these rules to oil and gas have stalled, despite pressure from climate advocates and progressive governments.
Former US President Joe Biden’s administration attempted to push for stricter rules in late 2023 but failed to secure agreement from key countries like South Korea and Turkey, which is set to host COP31 - the next UN Climate Change Conference.
In our paper, we argue that reviving global dialogue on ECA climate policy beyond the OECD is crucial. Without a coordinated approach, fossil fuel-dependent economies will continue to resist change, and financing for clean energy will remain unevenly distributed.
Policy recommendations going forward
So, what can policymakers do to accelerate the transition? Here are three key recommendations:
Redefine ECA mandates: National governments should integrate climate and sustainability objectives into their ECA policies, ensuring that export finance aligns with broader climate commitments.
Expand international agreements: Strengthening the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits to include oil and gas restrictions would create a level playing field and prevent countries from undermining each other’s progress.
Improve financing mechanisms for developing countries: High capital costs and political risks make it difficult for emerging economies to attract clean energy investment. ECAs could help by offering financial support and lower-cost loans for renewable energy projects in developing countries.
Ultimately, ECAs are a powerful but underutilised tool in the fight against climate change.
If policymakers take bold action to reform export finance, these institutions could become catalysts for a just and rapid energy transition. But without stronger mandates and international cooperation, they risk being a barrier rather than a solution.
Applications
The impact of ECAs depends on whether governments align their mandates with climate goals.
Redirecting finance from fossil fuels to renewables, expanding support in developing economies, and strengthening international agreements, could make ECAs a driving force in decarbonisation.
This article is based on the original study “Quantifying the shift of public export finance from fossil fuels to renewable energy” published in Nature Communications in January 2025, co-authored by Philipp Censkowsky of HEC Lausanne, Paul Waidelich of ETH Zurich, Igor Shishlov of Perspectives Climate Group and HEC Paris, and Bjarne Steffen of ETH Zurich.
Igor Shishlov works for Perspectives Climate Group, where he previously conducted research on export credit agencies funded by Both ENDS, the European Climate Foundation, Oxfam America, and the Nordic Council of Ministers.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
