Eligibility and quality criteria used to evaluate project pipeline by contractors under the framework of a market study for the blue economy. The wiality criteria were used to aassess companies or pfrojects passing all the eligibility cruiteria
Eligibility Criteria
Criteria |
Explanation |
Decomposition |
Notes |
Measure to be Applied |
Assessment |
|
1 |
Fit with Blue Growth targets |
The potential of achieving Blue Growth targets with a focus on sustainability; |
Blue Growth targets: 1) Reduction of carbon emissions, 2) increase of [sustainable / ecological] marine food production and other marine bioeconomy products, 3) efficient use of resources and waste reduction, 4) circular economy models, 5) use of renewable [energy] resources or 6) the sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage |
Sub 1) active reduction, not just passive 'avoid' ('vegetarians have lower carbon footprint''); sub 2) 'sustainable' added - wasn't in the TechProposal; sub 3) same as 1); sub 4) shipbuilding and maintenance; offshore industry; sub 5) use = assembly and mainenance of renewable power equipment; electricity generation and transport; sub 6) ecotourism only' |
Contributes to at least 1 Blue Growth target (Y/N) |
(Y/N) |
2 |
Fit with Blue Growth targets |
The potential of achieving Blue Growth targets with a focus on sustainability; |
Sustainability objectives of the company / project. |
Contribute to an improved aquatic environment, as relevant for the specific sector. Positive social Impact as defined by the IFC. (Y/N)? |
Does the project / company have a positive environmental / social impact? (Y/N) |
(Y/N) |
3 |
Sector fit |
Projects resp. project proposers with a focus on investment in Blue Growth sectors and industries; |
Is there a sector fit? |
See sector-list |
Is the project / company active in one of the sectors listed in Classification? (Y/N) |
(Y/N) |
4 |
Job creation and sustainability |
Projects resp. project proposers with the potential to create jobs and create sustainable business opportunities; |
Jobs created and potential for job creation |
- |
Will jobs be created? (Y/N) |
(Y/N) |
5 |
Job creation and sustainability |
Projects resp. project proposers with the potential to create jobs and create sustainable business opportunities; |
Non-financial impact of the project or business |
- |
Does the project / company have the potential to be financially sustainable? (Y/N) |
(Y/N) |
6 |
Financial viability |
Projects resp. project proposers with the potential of interest to various financial investors; |
Financial robustness of project or company |
Financial investors would require growth resulting in (more) profitability |
Does the project / company have the potential to grow profitably? (Y/N) |
(Y/N) |
7 |
Stage of Company or Project |
Revenue generating company. |
Company should be revenue generating |
Existing companies with innovations (products, services) that are not a non-recourse project. |
Is the company that implements the innvoation generating revenues, or expected to cross that point soon? (Y/N) |
(Y/N) |
Revenue generating project; |
Project should be revenue generating |
Existing innovative projects that are structured as a non-recourse project. |
Does the project have a revenue generating structure (i.e. financial model) subject to construction finance? No refinancing of operational projects. (Y/N) |
(Y/N) |
||
8 |
Geographical fit |
Is this a European project / company |
Company needs to be based in EU, then implentation can be anywhere |
European Based, or predominantly operating in Europe, or serving the European Market |
Is the company in question domiciled in and EU / EFTA country? (Y/N) |
(Y/N) |
ALL YES => ELIGIBLE |
quality criteria
Criteria |
Break-down / elements |
weighting |
comment |
|
1 |
Commercial Viability |
1) Expected profitability and impact (How likely is a profit and delivery of impact goals? 2) identification and calculation of the project risks. 3) Planned sales; 4) Competitive position, USP |
4 |
Inclusion only makes sense if commercially viable. |
2 |
Technical Viability |
1) Quality of product / service (How well defined? Design? Overall robustness, IP?) |
4 |
Inclusion only makes sense if technically viable. |
3 |
Management Assessment |
1) Strength of management team; 2) Quality of future plans (How convincing is the business plan generally?) |
2 |
Crucial, but may change / can be fixed |
4 |
Financial Viability |
1) Financial forecast, incl. profit and cash flow; 2) Amount of investment made to date (How much money has already been raised?) 3) Project proximity to commercialisation, 4) realisation risks and financial consequences; |
2 |
Maybe too early and can be engineered / improved / discussed |
5 |
Project Maturity |
1) Achievements to date 2) Customers signed up (How many? How big/reliable?), 4) Results of feasibility study, 5) project financing availability 6) Technological readiness level (between TRL5 and 9 only; higher is better? |
1 |
Only TRL 5-9 qualify. Any 5-9 will do, as just points to specific finance product for its maturity: seed - VC - working capital, growth capital, …..) |
6 |
Strategic Fit with BLUE |
1) Project relevance to the Blue Growth strategy with a focus on sustainable development; 2) Innovativeness with information about planned innovations and readiness of their implementation; 3) include ESG/Impact objectives of the project or company; 4) is the size / growth rate of addressable market relevant in the BLUE-context? |
3 |
If no Strategic Fit after all, low justification of including in our '35' |
7 |
Added Value to BLUE |
Will the company / project benefit from a new BLUE-investment platform? |
3 |
If not related to an investment platform, hard to justify our time. |
8 |
Is this a company we would want to explore further as part of our pipeline? |
Y/N |