Search results

This chapter insists that local cocreation projects need not only good intentions and the hard work of volunteers but also require funding and financing of the design and implementation of new solutions. It draws a conceptual distinction between funding and financing and explains who may help to provide funding and financing and why they may do so. As a part of this discussion, attention is drawn to the importance of writing good and persuasive funding applications and drawing up a strong and convincing business case to secure financing of new solutions. The new and emerging strategy for mobilizing private capital to help finance SDG projects is explained and illustrated, before closing the chapter with a discussion of the need to develop a proper system for fiscal accounting and auditing, which can prevent mismanagement and misconduct that eventually undermine popular support for local SDG projects.

The Equator Principles are a transnational corporate social responsibility initiative in the project finance sector. In 2013, the Equator Principles Association celebrated the tenth anniversary of its principles and at the same time the formal launch of the latest generation of the Equator Principles (EP III). The paper describes the historic development of the Equator Principles – from the initial drafting process in the early 2000s up to the latest review process which led to the third generation of the Equator Principles. The paper also analyzes the current state of affairs of the Equator Principles (Association) and gives a brief outlook on potential lines of (future) development. In particular, the paper deals with the following questions: What are the main characteristics of the Equator Principles framework? What are the relevant actors involved in the drafting and reviewing process? Why are the EPs and other organizational and associational codes of conduct in the finance sector so important? What has been achieved so far by the Equator Principles (Association) and the participating (financial) institutions and what remains to be done?

The purpose of this paper is to compare the stringency of different types of public financing institutions' safeguard mechanisms in the financing of large dams in developing countries. It seeks to do so by examining: the institutional strategies and policies currently in place in a set of key public financing institutions; and project‐level case studies of dams financed by these institutions and the stringency with which existing policies are applied by the key financing institutions. It aims then to cite the key factors determining why the “safeguard‐performance” between these types of financing institutions differs and what the implications are for leaders working to effect improvements in these areas.

The study compares the safeguard mechanisms of two types of financing institutions by applying a set of benchmark criteria to both existing strategy and policy documents and to the actual application of those policies at the project level, through correspondence, interviews, and site visits.

The study argues that leaders may make a difference on improving the sustainability performance gap in the financing of large dams – with more difficulty in those cases where the current gap is mainly to be explained by “systemic” factors; and arguably with more ease in cases where the current gap is caused mostly by other factors.

The study leads to the above findings for the case of public financing institutions and large infrastructure projects (with a focus on dams). To make for greater generalisability of the findings, future research should complement this work by focusing on private financing institutions and on the financing of other types of projects.

Large infrastructure projects have massive social and environmental impacts, and public financial institutions have a large stake in determining the sustainability (or otherwise) of these projects. The paper seeks to help make large infrastructure investments more sustainable by providing guidance to leaders as to where and how sustainability aspects could best be integrated in financing decisions for these projects.

The value added lies in helping leaders define where sustainability efforts in large infrastructure finance are warranted – and where, conversely, they represent largely wasted efforts.

An appropriate space allocation among different residence types gives higher profitability and liquidity for cash flow management in real estate projects for developers. Thereby, a balance between debt and equity should be kept for capital formation in developers where high level of cost, profit and risk exists. The purpose of this paper is to provide cash flow optimization under debt and equity financing while providing an appropriate space allocation of residence types via synchronous consideration of profitability and liquidity.

A novel optimization methodology that includes project financing, optimization and experimental design modules is proposed. The first module, project financing, considers the flexibility of utilizing one or both of debt financing and equity financing when making capital. The optimization module addresses space allocation among different residence types for a construction while maximizing profitability and liquidity using two mixed-integer linear programming models in a pre-emptive manner. The experimental design module assesses the effects of decisive parameters within the methodology via multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).

The proposed methodology is applied to a real-life residential project in Istanbul. The optimization module yielded 42.5% profitability via the first linear programming model and 2.2% trade-off between liquidity and profitability while minimizing the payback period by the second linear programming model. Meanwhile, MANOVA results showed that profit per square meter and sale rate trends are the most prominent factors considering their significant effects on net present value and payback period.

To the best knowledge of the author, related papers focused only on profitability under equity financing. Liquidity (as an objective) and equity financing (as a financing method) have not been handled. Hence, this paper not only performs profitability and liquidity-oriented cash flow optimization under debt and equity financing but also optimizes space allocation of residences for the first time.

Privately financed infrastructure projects commonly use a project finance structure. Project finance is expected to facilitate investment flow in risky environments. The objective of this paper examines the link between the use of project finance and investments in risky environments.

Project Finance International database has been used as the data source for this study. 3,372 transactions from power, oil and gas, transportation, telecommunication, and water supply sectors have been considered means analysis and multi-variate regression models have been used in the analysis.

The average project cost in a developing country was higher than that of developed countries. Gearing ratio, however, was higher in the developed countries. This indicated that the projects had a lower level of inherent risk, which enabled them to get funded at high gearing levels. The proportion of foreign banks in the syndicate was higher in the developing countries, which indicated that the use of project finance has helped to attract investment from foreign investors.

Practitioners and project development companies in the developing countries should actively consider using project financing technique for achieving financial closure of large infrastructure projects. Simultaneously, policy makers should create appropriate supporting institutional framework (regulatory, legal, contractual arrangements) that supports the use of project finance.

As far as the authors know, this study uses a dataset that has not been used in the previous studies. The results of this paper strengthen the understanding of project financing.