Corporate report

Categorisation for cases issued 2024 to 2025

Published 17 July 2025

Environmental, Social and Human Rights (ESHR) risk and impact categorisation of civil (non-aerospace) cases for which support was issued during 2024-25 that fell within the scope of the OECD Common Approaches and/or the Equator Principles.

1. Cameroon

1.1 Case: Support of an agricultural development project in the Adamawa region

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches and Equator Principles

Category

B

Product

Direct Lending

ESHR risks profile

Medium potential ESHR risks, including:

• Worker Welfare;

• Occupational Health and Safety;

• Human Rights risks in Supply Chain;

• Management of third-party Contractors;

• Waste and Hazardous Waste Management;

• Water Resources;

• Physical Climate Risks;

• Hazardous Materials Management;

• Community Health and Safety / Security;

• Biodiversity;

• Management of Living Natural Resources; and

• Cultural Heritage.

International standards applied

• IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 (2012)

• World Bank Group and IFC EHS Guidelines:

• General EHS Guidelines (2007)

• EHS Guidelines for Mammalian Livestock Production (2007)

• EHS Guidelines for Poultry Production (2007); and

• IFC Good Practice Note: Improving Animal Welfare in Livestock Operations (2014).

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

The operational Project is not expected to produce GHGs in excess of 25,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent per year (Scope 1 and Scope 2).

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the Project.

While the Project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

2. Iraq

2.1 Case: Design, supply and implementation of civil, electrical and mechanical works for 5 substations

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches and Equator Principles

Category

B

Product

Buyer Credit Guarantee

ESHR risks profile

Medium potential ESHR risks, including:

• occupational health and safety;

• infrastructure and equipment design and safety;

• wastewater treatment;

• waste and hazardous material management;

• emergency planning and response;

• grievance mechanisms;

• worker conditions; and

• community engagement.

International standards applied

• IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 (2012)

• WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines

• General EHS Guidelines (2007); and

• EHS Guidelines for Electric Power Transmission and Distribution (2007).

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

The operational project is not expected to produce GHGs in excess of 25,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent per year (Scope 1 and Scope 2).

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

3. Portugal

3.1 Case: Support provided to MCA Infrastructures SA in respect of purchase of mobile construction equipment from Dints International Ltd

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches

Category

B

Product

Standard Buyer Loan Guarantee

ESHR risks profile

Medium potential ESHR risks, including:

• Health and safety;

• Emissions to land, air and water;

• Wastewater treatment;

• Waste management;

• Emergency planning and response;

• Workers accommodation;

• Grievance mechanisms;

• Worker conditions of contract; and

• Community engagement.

International standards applied

• IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 (2012)

• WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines

• General Guidelines (2007);

• EHS Guidelines for Electric Power Transmission and Distribution (2007).

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

The operational project is expected to produce GHGs in excess of 25,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent per year (Scope 1 and Scope 2).

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

4. Saudi Arabia

4.1  Case: Supply of goods and services for the construction of the Six Flags Qiddiya City theme park

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches and Equator Principles

Category

A

Product

Buyer Credit Guarantee

ESHR risks profile

High potential ESHR risks, including:

• Health and safety;

• Emissions to the atmosphere (including land, air and water);

• Wastewater treatment;

• Waste and hazardous material management;

• Emergency planning and response;

• Construction camp conditions;

• Grievance mechanisms;

• Worker conditions of contract; and

• Community engagement.

International standards applied

• IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 (2012)

• WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines

• General Guidelines (2007)

• EHS Guidelines for Tourism and Hospitality Development (2007).

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

The operational project is not expected to produce GHGs in excess of 25,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent per year (Scope 1 and Scope 2).

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

5. Taiwan

5.1  Case: Design, construction, and operation of Changhua 4 offshore windfarm

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches and Equator Principles

Category

A

Product

Buyer Credit Guarantee

ESHR risks profile

High potential ESHR risks, including:

• health and safety;

• emissions to the atmosphere (including land, air and water);

• social and community impacts;

• marine habitats;

• biodiversity, particularly migratory birds;

• emergency planning and response;

• grievance mechanisms;

• worker conditions of contract; and

• community engagement.

International standards applied

• IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 (2012)

• WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines:

• General Guidelines (2007);

• EHS Guidelines for Wind Energy (2015); and

• EHS Guidelines for Electric power transmission and distribution (2007);

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

The operational project is not expected to produce GHGs in excess of 25,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent per year (Scope 1 and Scope 2).

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

5.2 Case: Design, construction, and operation of Fengmiao 1 offshore windfarm

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches and Equator Principles

Category

A

Product

Buyer Credit Guarantee

ESHR risks profile

High potential ESHR risks, including:

• air pollution;

• health and safety;

• social and community impacts;

• marine habitats;

• biodiversity, particularly migratory birds;

• emergency planning and response;

• grievance mechanisms;

• worker conditions of contract and

• community engagement.

International standards applied

• IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 (2012)

• WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines:

• General Guidelines (2007);

• EHS Guidelines for Wind Energy (2015);

• EHS Guidelines for Electric power transmission and distribution (2007); and

• EHS Guidelines for Ports, Harbours and Terminals (2007)

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

The operational project is not expected to produce GHGs in excess of 25,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent per year (Scope 1 and Scope 2).

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

6. Türkiye

6.1  Case: Construction and operation of seven solar photovoltaic (PV) Projects

Applicable ESHR risk framework

OECD Common Approaches and Equator Principles

Category

A

Product

Buyer Credit Guarantee

ESHR risks profile

High potential ESHR risks, including:

• health and safety;

• human rights;

• biodiversity;

• livelihood impacts related to grazing;

• climate change;

• emissions;

• waste and hazardous material management;

• emergency planning and response;

• construction camp conditions;

• grievance mechanisms;

• worker conditions of contract; and

• community engagement.

International standards applied

• IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 (2012)

• WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines:

• General EHS Guidelines (2007)

• The IFC/European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Note on Workers’ Accommodation: Processes and Standards (2009).

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

The operational project is not expected to produce GHGs in excess of 25,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent per year (Scope 1 and Scope 2).

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

7. United Kingdom

7.1  Case: Construction and Operation of AESC Gigafactory

Applicable ESHR risk framework

Equator Principles

Category

B

Product

Export Development Guarantee

ESHR risks profile

Medium potential ESHR risks, including:

• health and safety;

• resource efficiency (energy and water);

• emissions to the atmosphere (air);

• noise generation;

• stormwater management;

• waste and hazardous material management;

• emergency planning and response;

• grievance mechanisms;

• biodiversity impacts;

• community engagement

International standards applied

• Relevant UK EHS legislation

• IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 (2012)

• WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines:

• General Guidelines (2007)

• Semiconductors & Other Electronics Manufacturing(2007)

• OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas (2016)

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

The GHG emissions for the Project during operations are expected to exceed the 25,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent per annum threshold set out in IFC PS3 for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Annual operational Scope 1 and 2 emissions were estimated respectively at 56,380 tCO2e/year and 9,455 tCO2e/year. Emissions are not expected to reach the threshold of 100,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent per year which would trigger the requirement for a Transition Climate Change Risk Assessment as per Equator Principles.

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.

7.2  Case: Conversion and expansion of Shotton Paper Mill (an existing non-operational paper mill) into a containerboard and tissue manufacturing facility

Applicable ESHR risk framework

Equator Principles

Category

A

Product

Export Development Guarantee

ESHR risks profile

High potential ESHR risks, including:

• Air and noise impacts;

• Climate change;

• Soil quality;

• Waste, including hazardous waste and wastewater;

• Biodiversity;

• Management of third-party contractors and suppliers;

• Grievance mechanisms;

• Occupational and community health and safety;

• Emergency planning and response;

• Worker welfare;

• Cultural heritage; and

• Community engagement.

International standards applied

• IFC Performance Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 (2012)

• WBG and IFC EHS Guidelines:

• General EHS Guidelines (2007)

• World Bank Group EHS Guidelines for Pulp and Paper Mills (2007); and

• World Bank Group EHS Guidelines for Thermal Power Plants (2007).

Estimated greenhouse gases (GHGs)

UKEF considered the Project’s potential direct (Scope 1 and 2) and indirect (Scope 3) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and effects of climate change factors on the Project. The operation of the Project is considered to be carbon intensive undertaking. Scope 1 emissions are expected to be 249,859 tCO2e/year during operations. Most emissions (236,453 tC02e/year) come from natural gas combustion at the combined heat and power (CHP) plant. Lower carbon alternatives to natural gas were considered but are not currently technically feasible or sufficiently reliable to meet the steam and power demands of the Project. No Scope 2 emissions are envisioned. Scope 3 emissions are expected to be 436,479 tCO2e/year. The Project has committed to publicly reporting on its GHG emission levels from combined Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions, on an annual basis in line with EP4 requirements.

The ESHR review revealed that the Project design has considered potential physical impacts of climate change.

Additional information

UKEF undertook an ESHR due diligence review of the project.

While the project has potential to cause some adverse ESHR impacts, these can be adequately managed using E&S management systems and controls. UKEF is satisfied that the project will be in alignment with the relevant international ESHR standards.