Sustainability Atlas
Policy, Standards & Strategy·12 min read··...

Myths vs. realities: Public-private partnerships & climate governance — what the evidence actually supports

Myths vs. realities, backed by recent evidence and practitioner experience. Focus on unit economics, adoption blockers, and what decision-makers should watch next.

Global climate finance crossed $2 trillion for the first time in 2024, yet this landmark figure masks a troubling reality: we remain $4.3 trillion short of the annual investment required to meet Paris Agreement goals (Climate Policy Initiative, 2024). Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have emerged as the supposed silver bullet to bridge this gap, with private capital now exceeding $1 trillion annually and outpacing public investment. But the discourse around climate PPPs has become saturated with myths—some overstating their potential, others dismissing their value entirely. This analysis cuts through the noise with evidence from 2024-2025 research, examining what PPPs can realistically deliver for climate governance and where they consistently fail.

Why It Matters

The stakes could not be higher. Infrastructure built through PPPs accounts for 20-33% of global carbon emissions, with the broader infrastructure sector responsible for 79% of all greenhouse gas emissions (World Bank, 2024). The decisions made today about how to structure, finance, and govern climate infrastructure will lock in emissions pathways for decades. Yet the evidence on PPP effectiveness remains contested, with success stories existing alongside spectacular failures.

Three structural forces make understanding PPPs essential for climate decision-makers in 2025. First, developing countries face a $15 trillion infrastructure investment gap that public finance alone cannot fill. Second, adaptation finance remains severely underfunded—only $65 billion against $1.78 trillion for mitigation in 2023—and PPPs represent one of the few mechanisms capable of mobilizing private capital for resilience projects. Third, new regulatory frameworks including the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (affecting 50,000 organizations) and California's climate disclosure laws (covering approximately 10,000 companies) are reshaping the incentive landscape for private climate investment.

The critical question isn't whether PPPs work, but under what conditions they work, for whom, and at what cost. The evidence provides surprisingly clear answers—if we're willing to look past the myths.

Key Concepts

Myth 1: PPPs Automatically Accelerate Climate Action

Reality: PPPs are structurally biased toward bankable projects, not climate priorities.

The fundamental logic of PPPs requires projects to generate returns sufficient to attract private capital. This creates an inherent tension with climate goals, which often demand investment in projects with long payback periods, diffuse benefits, or uncertain revenue streams. A 2024 systematic review published in the Journal of Cleaner Production found that climate PPPs disproportionately flow toward mitigation projects with clear revenue models (renewable energy, electric vehicle infrastructure) while adaptation projects—often more urgent for vulnerable communities—struggle to attract private interest (ScienceDirect, 2024).

The numbers bear this out: of the $81 billion in international concessional climate finance tracked in 2022, 42% went to mitigation versus 36% for adaptation, despite developing countries needing $212 billion annually for adaptation by 2030.

Myth 2: Private Sector Efficiency Guarantees Better Outcomes

Reality: Governance quality determines outcomes more than ownership structure.

A comprehensive study of 18,545 firm-year observations across 28 countries (2013-2024) found that the critical differentiator in climate commitment delivery wasn't public versus private ownership, but corporate governance quality (MDPI Sustainability, 2025). Organizations with strong governance structures delivered on emission reduction commitments regardless of ownership model; those with weak governance treated climate policies as "public relations tools rather than substantive change."

This finding has profound implications: a well-governed public utility may outperform a poorly governed PPP on climate metrics. The assumption that private sector involvement automatically brings efficiency gains conflates correlation with causation—successful PPPs tend to have strong governance, but strong governance drives success, not private ownership per se.

Myth 3: PPP Contracts Provide Certainty for Climate Investment

Reality: Climate uncertainty fundamentally challenges the PPP model.

Traditional PPPs depend on predictability: stable demand forecasts, known operating costs, and manageable risk allocation. Climate change systematically undermines each assumption. A 2024 analysis in the journal Risks found that "PPPs require predictability; climate change creates moving uncertainties" that are difficult to quantify and may render assets stranded (MDPI Risks, 2024).

Long-term PPP contracts (typically 25-30 years) lock in assumptions about climate impacts that may prove dramatically wrong. When climate events damage infrastructure, private partners often seek compensation from public authorities unless contracts explicitly specify otherwise—effectively socializing climate risk while privatizing returns.

Myth 4: Carbon Markets Will Align PPP Incentives with Climate Goals

Reality: Current carbon market structures incentivize marginal gains over transformational change.

The explosion of corporate net-zero commitments—over 10,000 announcements covering 50%+ of the world's largest 2,000 companies—suggests alignment between private incentives and climate goals. However, the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2024 found the median corporate 2030 commitment represents only 30% absolute emission reduction across full value chains. More troubling, many companies rely on "false solutions (CCUS, standalone RECs, bioenergy, carbon removal) instead of structural reductions" (NewClimate Institute, 2024).

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), which has validated targets for 8,000 companies representing one-third of global economy by market cap, has shown "significant leniency" compared to independent assessments. This creates a governance gap: PPPs designed around SBTi-validated targets may achieve certification while falling short of actual climate requirements.

Myth 5: PPP Failures Are Primarily Technical

Reality: Poor stakeholder management—not technical complexity—is the primary failure mode.

Multiple systematic reviews identify stakeholder management as the single most important factor in PPP success or failure. The World Bank's 2024 analysis of climate-smart PPPs emphasizes that "inadequate consultation and conflict prevention" and "lack of coordination between partners" derail more projects than technical challenges.

This finding inverts common assumptions about where to invest due diligence effort. Organizations obsess over financial modeling and engineering specifications while underinvesting in the governance processes, stakeholder relationships, and institutional capacity that actually determine outcomes.

What's Working

Sector-Specific Climate PPP Toolkits

The World Bank's Climate Toolkits for Infrastructure PPPs (CTIP3), released with sector-specific guidance for wind/solar, hydropower, transport, water/sanitation, and digital infrastructure, represent a maturation in PPP structuring. Early adopters report that standardized risk allocation frameworks reduce negotiation time by 30-40% while producing more climate-aligned contracts.

Integrated National Frameworks

Countries that integrate climate policies into PPP frameworks from the national level—notably the UK, Australia, and increasingly India—show stronger outcome alignment. India's Production Linked Incentive scheme has attracted over $8 billion in private investment toward EVs, renewables, and batteries, with climate criteria embedded in eligibility requirements rather than bolted on after the fact.

Public-Private-Philanthropic Partnerships (4Ps)

A McKinsey analysis of 4P models found that adding philanthropic capital to traditional PPP structures helps bridge the "first-loss" gap that deters private investment in higher-risk climate projects. While 71% of 4P models have multinational focus (creating learning opportunities across geographies), the model takes years to operationalize and maintaining momentum across multi-year timelines remains challenging.

What's Not Working

Scope 3 Supplier Engagement

Despite widespread endorsement by SBTi, supplier engagement for Scope 3 emissions reduction consistently fails in practice. A 2025 Frontiers analysis found that "mismatched data, high transaction costs" make supplier decarbonization programs among the least effective corporate climate strategies—yet they're frequently embedded in PPP climate requirements.

Adaptation Finance Mobilization

PPPs have demonstrably failed to channel adequate private capital toward adaptation. The structural challenge is fundamental: adaptation benefits are often public goods (reduced flood risk, improved water security) without revenue streams to attract private investment. Attempts to create adaptation PPPs frequently require such heavy public subsidy that the "partnership" label becomes misleading.

Weak Governance Environments

In countries lacking strong administrative capacity, regulatory independence, and rule of law, climate PPPs consistently underperform. The partnership model amplifies rather than compensates for governance weaknesses, as private partners exploit information asymmetries and weak enforcement to renegotiate terms in their favor.

Key Players

Established Leaders

World Bank Group — Operates the largest repository of PPP technical guidance and has financed over $1.5 billion in climate-smart infrastructure PPPs since 2020. Their CTIP3 toolkit has become the de facto standard for project structuring.

European Investment Bank — Pioneered green bond frameworks now widely adopted and has committed to aligning all financing with Paris Agreement goals by 2025. Provides concessional capital that enables PPPs in higher-risk markets.

BlackRock — The world's largest asset manager has embedded climate risk assessment into infrastructure investment criteria, influencing how PPPs are evaluated and structured across their $10+ trillion portfolio.

Iberdrola — Spanish utility leading in renewable PPP development with commitments to 50-64% emission reductions by 2030, among the highest in the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor assessment.

Emerging Startups

Persefoni — AI-powered carbon accounting platform enabling the measurement and verification capabilities that climate PPP contracts require.

Normative — Provides automated emissions calculation that addresses the data gaps undermining Scope 3 requirements in PPP agreements.

Climate Policy Radar — Uses machine learning to analyze climate policy documents, helping PPP developers navigate regulatory requirements across jurisdictions.

Sinai Technologies — Offers decarbonization planning tools that translate corporate commitments into implementable project specifications suitable for PPP structuring.

Key Investors & Funders

Green Climate Fund — The largest dedicated climate fund provides catalytic capital that enables PPPs in developing countries by absorbing first-loss positions.

Breakthrough Energy Ventures — Bill Gates-founded fund backs frontier climate technologies that PPPs can deploy at scale once proven.

Generation Investment Management — Al Gore's sustainable investment firm has deployed over $40 billion with increasing focus on infrastructure PPPs meeting strict climate criteria.

Examples

India's Renewable Energy PPP Program: India's rise from 31st to 7th position on the Climate Change Performance Index (2014-2024) reflects systematic integration of climate criteria into PPP frameworks. The government committed $2.2 billion for green hydrogen and 125 GW renewable capacity, leveraging over $200 billion in private sector pledges through carefully structured PPP mechanisms. Critical success factors included predictable policy frameworks, standardized contract templates, and a specialized PPP approval cell with climate expertise. The result: 90,000+ climate startups including 107 unicorns valued at $1+ billion.

Ghana Carbon Market Framework: UNDP-supported partnership transitioning Ghana's waste sector from landfilling to composting and recycling. The PPP leverages Paris Agreement Article 6.2 mechanisms to create revenue streams from carbon credits, making waste infrastructure attractive to private investors. Early results show meaningful emission reductions while creating local employment—but the multi-year development timeline (over 5 years from concept to operational projects) illustrates the patience required for complex climate PPPs.

EU LIFE CITYAdaP3 Project: Pan-European initiative successfully involving private sector financing in urban climate adaptation. Unlike most adaptation PPPs, CITYAdaP3 created bankable revenue streams by bundling adaptation investments (green infrastructure, flood management) with urban development projects generating market returns. The model demonstrates that adaptation PPPs are possible—but require creative structuring that traditional approaches don't provide.

Action Checklist

  • Assess governance capacity before pursuing PPP structures—weak governance environments require institution-building before partnership-building
  • Embed climate criteria in PPP eligibility requirements rather than adding them as contract conditions after structuring
  • Allocate climate risks explicitly in contracts, including force majeure definitions updated for extreme weather events
  • Build stakeholder management capacity with equal or greater investment than technical and financial modeling
  • Screen projects using World Bank climate and disaster risk tools at identification stage, not after commitment
  • Design hybrid public-private-philanthropic structures for adaptation projects lacking clear revenue streams
  • Implement sampling-based verification of climate outcomes rather than relying on partner self-reporting
  • Budget for 5+ year development timelines for complex climate PPPs, with governance for maintaining momentum

FAQ

Q: Are climate PPPs more effective than direct public investment?

A: The evidence doesn't support categorical claims either way. A 2024 meta-analysis found that PPPs outperform public investment when projects have clear revenue streams, strong governance environments, and well-defined risk allocation—but underperform when these conditions are absent. The appropriate question isn't "PPP or public?" but "what conditions exist in this specific context?" For complex adaptation projects in weak governance environments, direct public investment often delivers better climate outcomes despite lower theoretical efficiency.

Q: How should organizations evaluate whether a PPP partner's climate commitments are credible?

A: Look beyond headline pledges to three indicators: (1) governance structures—firms rated "A" on governance pillars show meaningfully steeper emission intensity declines; (2) Scope 3 coverage—commitments excluding supply chain emissions typically represent only 5-20% of actual climate impact; (3) independent verification—the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2024 found that SBTi-validated targets often fall short of independent assessment. Credible partners welcome scrutiny of these dimensions.

Q: What's the minimum viable governance framework for climate PPPs?

A: Based on evidence from successful implementations, minimum requirements include: (1) independent regulatory oversight with enforcement authority; (2) standardized contract templates embedding climate criteria; (3) transparent public disclosure of performance metrics; (4) dispute resolution mechanisms with climate expertise; (5) periodic contract review provisions allowing adjustment as climate science evolves. Countries lacking these elements should prioritize governance development before pursuing complex PPP structures.

Q: How do carbon credit mechanisms affect PPP incentive alignment?

A: Carbon markets can improve alignment but create new risks. When carbon credits generate meaningful revenue, private partners have incentives to maximize verified emission reductions. However, current market structures often reward marginal improvements over transformational change, and credit quality varies dramatically. Organizations structuring carbon-linked PPPs should require high-integrity credits (Article 6.4 mechanism or equivalent) and build in adjustment mechanisms as carbon pricing evolves.

Q: What's the realistic timeline and cost for developing a climate-smart PPP?

A: Evidence from successful projects suggests 3-7 years from concept to operational deployment, with development costs typically 2-5% of total project value. Organizations expecting faster timelines consistently underperform on climate outcomes. Critical time investments include stakeholder consultation (6-12 months minimum), climate risk assessment and scenario planning (3-6 months), contract negotiation with explicit climate terms (6-18 months), and governance system development (ongoing). Shortcuts on any element correlate with implementation failures.

Sources

Topics

publicprivateISSBpermittingcompliancecertificationtraceability

Related Articles