Sustainable Finance and Defence: Findings on Shared Resilience

The roundtable discussion explored opportunities for greater collaboration between the defence, energy and sustainable finance sectors to mobilise investment.

The event brought together representatives from EU institutions, banks and the energy industry, as well as experts from universities and think tanks. The discussions were off-the-record and unattributed.

Participants agreed that the European Union (EU) increasingly recognises critical energy infrastructure as essential for both civilian society and defence readiness. However, existing financing and regulatory frameworks remain poorly adapted to support resilience investments.

Responsibility for resilience is spread across multiple policy areas, while no single institution exercises clear ownership of the issue. Participants noted that this challenge is further compounded by the EU's governance structure, where responsibilities are shared between EU institutions and member states, often resulting in fragmented approaches and difficult coordination.

A recurring theme was the need for stronger coordination between public and private actors. Critical energy infrastructure is often privately owned or operated, while the risks it faces are increasingly linked to national security. Participants stressed that private companies cannot be expected to assume responsibilities that are traditionally the responsibility of the state, such as military-grade surveillance or physical protection. While operators may be willing to host resilience-related assets, uncertainty remains over who should operate them, who should finance them and who would be responsible during a crisis. Several participants highlighted the need for national ‘one-stop shops’ capable of coordinating across ministries and providing a clear interface for industry and investors.

Cross-border coordination was identified as another major challenge. Much of the EU’s critical energy infrastructure spans multiple jurisdictions. However, there is no consistent framework for determining responsibility for incident response, protection costs or cross-border intervention when another state is better positioned to act.

While several regional and sectoral cooperation mechanisms exist, participants noted that existing arrangements remain insufficient without clear operational procedures and agreed responsibilities for cross-border intervention. This challenge is likely to become more acute as offshore energy infrastructure and cross-border electricity networks continue to expand.

Participants also discussed the relationship between resilience and defence financing. While many institutional investors remain reluctant to invest directly in defence-related activities, several participants argued that keeping resilience and defence conceptually distinct could help mobilise a broader pool of capital. Investments in energy infrastructure, critical supply chains and physical protection measures may attract greater political and financial support when framed as contributing to societal preparedness, energy security and continuity of essential services rather than military capability alone. 

Another issue that was mentioned as a significant barrier to policymaking and investment is the lack of a common definition of resilience. While concepts such as defence, security, resilience and strategic autonomy are increasingly used across EU policy discussions, there remains little consensus on how they should be defined or differentiated. Several participants noted that this creates uncertainty for investors, regulators and infrastructure operators, particularly when determining which projects should qualify for public support or sustainable finance. Participants also noted that existing sustainable finance frameworks provide limited guidance on resilience-related investments, highlighting the need for greater clarity, common standards and transparency.

The discussion highlighted the importance of public funding and risk-sharing mechanisms. Participants noted that many resilience investments provide broader societal benefits that are difficult to monetise, limiting their attractiveness to private investors. Governments were therefore seen as playing an important role in supporting these investments through guarantees, blended finance, and dedicated funding programmes.

Finally, participants highlighted the need to strengthen the connection between resilience, strategic autonomy, and supply chain security. Dependencies on critical technologies, materials, and infrastructure components were identified as a growing concern. Participants noted that vulnerabilities can emerge not only from dependence on raw materials but also from reliance on foreign technologies, equipment and maintenance capabilities.

As a result, resilience discussions should extend beyond physical infrastructure protection to include the supply chains and industrial capabilities required to build, maintain and repair critical infrastructure. Without addressing these dependencies, efforts to strengthen European resilience are likely to remain incomplete.