Executive summary
The agency's role is to apply a consistent evaluation standard across applicants, require independent verification of claimed public benefits such as employment or local content, structure support so risk is proportionate and not entirely transferred to the public side, and maintain reporting mechanisms that allow performance against commitments to be checked after funds are disbursed. The risk that lands on the agency is public accountability for outcomes that fall short of what was represented at approval, and the credibility cost of inconsistent treatment between applicants.
What this role is accountable for
- An applicant's claimed benefits have not been independently verified
- Evaluation criteria differ materially between similar applications
- Support structure transfers most of the downside risk to the public side
- No post-disbursement reporting or verification mechanism exists
- Political timeline pressure is affecting the pace of due diligence
- Cross-border or multi-agency coordination is required but undefined
Where the leverage sits
Apply a consistent evaluation standard
Use the same criteria and evidence threshold across comparable applications.
Verify claimed public benefits independently
Do not rely solely on applicant projections for employment, local content or export impact.
Structure proportionate risk-sharing
Avoid support structures that leave the public side bearing most of the downside.
Build in post-disbursement reporting
Require verifiable reporting against commitments after funds are released, not only at application.
Separate technical evaluation from political timeline
Protect due diligence quality from approval-cycle time pressure.
Comparison table
| Element | Standard to apply |
|---|---|
| Evaluation criteria | Consistent across comparable applicants |
| Benefit claims | Independently verified, not applicant-reported only |
| Risk structure | Proportionate sharing, not full public backstop |
| Post-disbursement reporting | Verifiable, tied to commitments made at approval |
| Timeline discipline | Due diligence protected from political cycle pressure |
Public support due diligence checklist
Risks and governance considerations
- Inconsistent evaluation between applicants is a common source of later political and legal challenge
- Claimed employment and economic benefits are frequently optimistic relative to realised outcomes and should be independently tested
- Support structures should share risk proportionately rather than acting as a backstop for the entire downside
- Post-disbursement verification is often the weakest link in public industrial support programmes
- This material is general and educational; specific programme design should follow the agency's own legal and policy framework
What to prepare
- A consistent evaluation framework applied across applicants
- An independent verification method for claimed public benefits
- A risk-sharing structure appropriate to the programme's objectives
- A post-disbursement reporting and verification mechanism
- Legal and policy review specific to the agency's mandate
What to measure
Frequently asked questions
Should claimed job creation figures be taken at face value?
Independent verification or conservative discounting of applicant projections is common practice, since claimed figures are frequently optimistic.
How can risk be shared rather than fully transferred to the public side?
Mechanisms such as milestone-based disbursement, clawback provisions or co-investment requirements are commonly used, subject to the agency's own policy framework.
What happens if a supported project underperforms after disbursement?
This depends on the programme's terms; post-disbursement reporting and clawback or remediation clauses, where included, determine what recourse exists.
Related investment and financing knowledge
Executive Briefing
What Investment Authorities Own in CAPEX Facilitation
Executive Briefing
What Development Organizations Own in Industrial CAPEX
Project Financing Knowledge
Accessing Public Funding for Industrial Investment
Project Financing Knowledge
Public-Private Partnerships for Industrial Infrastructure
Continue on the platform
Educational, supplier-neutral and financing-neutral
Global B2B Group does not sell equipment and does not represent lenders, export credit agencies or development banks. This material is published to help industrial organisations plan, structure and prepare capital projects. It is general information for decision-making, not financial, legal or tax advice.