Background

Alexandra Hedesiu is a seasoned professional specialising in sustainable finance and energy transition, with a strong background in structuring innovative financing mechanisms. She has worked extensively on EU-funded projects aimed at scaling energy efficiency and renewable energy investments, with the ultimate objective of bridging the gap between public and private investor-facing solutions. Alexandra brings deep expertise in combining public and private capital, developing warehousing and securitisation structures, and advising on ESG-aligned strategies, particularly within the context of municipal and residential decarbonisation. Her work bridges the gap between technical innovation and financial viability, supporting a just and inclusive transition to a climate-neutral economy. 

LinkedIn profile

BUILD UP (BUP): Drawing from your work with EnerSave Capital and Sustainable Energy Finance Association (SEFA), how are financial and real estate actors approaching the integration of the EU Taxonomy in residential development?  

Alexandra Hedesiu (AH): In the residential sector, financial and real estate actors are approaching the integration of the EU Taxonomy with varying levels of readiness, which can broadly be divided into two categories: early adopters and slower movers.

Early adopters are typically large financial institutions and major real estate developers. They often have the human and financial resources needed to align with EU Taxonomy requirements. For financiers, this is driven largely by regulatory obligations such as the need to calculate and disclose the Green Asset Ratio (GAR). For real estate developers, compliance is linked to broader sustainability disclosure frameworks such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and access to green finance. Whilst these actors are usually proactive—investing in internal expertise, digital tools, and advisory services to ensure their portfolios and new developments are taxonomy-aligned—we also have seen some, despite acting in good faith and having green projects, give up on certain regulatory frameworks simply to reduce the cost and/or burden of reporting.

The second tier of stakeholders—smaller banks, mid-sized developers, and local real estate actors—tend to be more reluctant or slower to integrate EU Taxonomy requirements. This is often due to resource constraints (both human and financial), a lack of technical understanding, and limited access to specialised advisory services. For many of these players, the complexity of reporting requirements and the perception that alignment may add costs without immediate returns serve as barriers to action. In my view, this is a particularly significant obstacle.

Despite these differences, both groups acknowledge the importance of the EU Taxonomy as a driver of market credibility, investor confidence, and long-term competitiveness. However, adoption is uneven because financiers and developers are not sustainability specialists by vocation, as they are profit-driven, and they often also lack expertise in environmental performance monitoring, data collection, and reporting, which is perceived as an additional cost layer. This gap creates friction in translating taxonomy principles into day-to-day decision-making.

Looking ahead, opportunities exist to accelerate adoption through clearer guidance and standardised tools that reduce complexity. Public funding streams, associations, advisory platforms (such as One-Stop Shops, OSSs), and collaboration with energy service providers can further support smaller actors in overcoming barriers. Over time, as market pressure from investors and regulators increases, taxonomy alignment is expected to evolve from being a competitive advantage for early movers to a baseline requirement across the entire residential market.

BUP: How is the upcoming implementation of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) expected to impact the construction value chain, especially regarding sustainability disclosures and financing ​​conditions?

AH: The upcoming implementation of the CSRD will have a significant impact across the construction value chain, particularly in terms of sustainability disclosures and financing conditions. From a financing perspective, the CSRD will directly influence access to capital. Banks and EU-based investors are increasingly required to integrate sustainability risks and disclosures into their decision-making processes. As a result, companies that cannot provide transparent, taxonomy-aligned, and CSRD-compliant reporting may face higher financing costs, stricter lending conditions, limited access to finance, or reduced access to green financial products. Conversely, those able to comply will strengthen their market credibility, unlock preferential financing terms, and gain a competitive edge in attracting private equity capital (which is essential in this space).

In short, the CSRD is expected to create a two-speed market in the construction sector. Large and well-prepared actors will integrate disclosures more smoothly, whilst smaller and less-prepared ones will face steep capacity challenges, and ultimately bottlenecks in accessing capital unless supported through simplified tools or sector-wide capacity-building initiatives.  

‘Companies that cannot provide transparent, taxonomy-aligned, and CSRD-compliant 
reporting may face higher financing costs, stricter lending conditions, limited access to finance, or reduced access to green financial products’

 BUP: The updated Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD IV) calls on Member States to ensure the establishment and operation of technical assistance facilities, including inclusive OSSs for building energy performance. From your perspective, what are the main challenges, particularly financial ones, currently facing the rollout of OSSs across Europe?  

AH: While OSSs are essential enablers for scaling energy efficiency projects and improving building performance, their long-term financial sustainability remains the main challenge across Europe. Many OSSs are launched with initial support from EU programmes, national governments, or municipalities, but once this public funding ends, their ability to remain operational is uncertain. The difficulty lies in striking a balance between keeping OSS services affordable and accessible for households and SMEs—especially those affected by energy poverty—while developing self-sustaining business models. Revenue streams from advisory fees, commissions, or bundled services are often insufficient to cover operating costs, particularly in regions with limited renovation demand or fragmented markets. This creates a risk of stop-and-go cycles, where OSSs operate only as long as subsidies are available. To overcome this, Member States need to combine start-up support with long-term financial mechanisms, such as stable funding through energy efficiency obligations, integration into public procurement frameworks, or partnerships with private financiers who benefit from the project pipelines that OSSs can generate and who can act as aggregators of these projects.  

In short, the key financial challenge is not only in establishing OSSs, but also in ensuring they evolve beyond the grant horizon into viable, enduring market actors that can continue to provide trusted, inclusive services throughout the energy transition.

BUP: The EPBD IV emphasises that financial incentives should primarily target vulnerable households, those affected by energy poverty, and residents of social housing. From your perspective, what are the key challenges and opportunities in effectively reaching these groups through financing mechanisms?  

AH: Financial incentives should indeed prioritise vulnerable households, those facing energy poverty, and residents of social housing. The main financial challenge lies in the creditworthiness of these groups, as they often lack savings, equity, or stable income streams, which limits their access to loan products and traditional financing solutions. This barrier is further aggravated by a lack of financial literacy and awareness of available mechanisms, including ESCo models or subsidised loans. Furthermore, many of these groups also face digital exclusion—limited internet access or digital skills—which hinders their ability to navigate online loan applications or financing platforms that are the norm today. This vulnerability leaves them at greater risk of falling victim to unscrupulous business practices.

Furthermore, a long-standing challenge is the split incentive problem, where the costs of renovation are borne by property owners while the benefits, such as lower energy bills, accrue to tenants. This discourages landlords from investing in upgrades, leaving vulnerable tenants locked into inefficient housing. Whilst there are solutions to this key bottleneck, the underlying issue, if not addressed through regulatory measures, is hard to overcome. From my experience, it is possible, under honest business cases, to bridge the gap to the satisfaction of both tenants and landlords, but the key is ‘honest business models’.

On the opportunity side, OSSs can play a pivotal role by bridging knowledge gaps, guiding households through complex procedures, and connecting them with tailored financial and technical support. Furthermore, they can introduce bulk purchasing, which can significantly change the financial equation.  

For the financial sector, this segment also represents an untapped opportunity. By designing dedicated green loan products or renovation-linked financing schemes that leverage future energy savings or EPC improvements, institutions can both meet the needs of vulnerable groups and enhance their Green Asset Ratio (GAR). It is a win-win, but few actors are incentivised to look beyond their immediate remit. This is particularly relevant given the scarcity of eligible green assets in the current market.

BUP: Has EnerSave Capital proposed any specific approaches to effectively address the previously identified barriers faced by vulnerable households and to support inclusive renovation services as OSSs?

AH: By all means. This is a core tenet of our business model:

1. Consumer motivation: No one wakes up in the morning excited to replace a boiler—put simply, this is not a natural driver. For most families, when the choice is between spending on a holiday or investing in a new energy-efficient boiler, the decision is usually straightforward—and not in favour of the boiler.
2. Consumer-facing business model: From our perspective—and backed by our portfolio company, regulated by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)—this transition must be designed as a consumer-facing zero-sum game. Ideally, as our Chairman often emphasises, it should even be cash-generative. If the benefits are as tangible as ‘two meals or two pairs of shoes for children’, then it becomes a win-win and an honest business model. In practice, this works, and our company has not recorded a single default.
3. Scaling the energy transition: The core of enabling the energy transition lies in scale, with three interlinked components:
   a.  Bulk purchasing: achieving better terms reduces costs, increases household affordability, and these savings must be passed through to consumers.
   b. Attracting investment: higher volumes create larger, more attractive investment opportunities. We consistently see that investors’ willingness to engage in due diligence rises when they can deploy capital at scale.
   c. Risk-free adoption: if the solution pays for itself and carries no risk for the implementer, uptake becomes straightforward. People are eager to contribute to environmental goals, provided it requires little effort.

BUP: Drawing upon your experience with EU-funded initiatives focused on broadening access to sustainable housing and financing—such as SMARTER4EU, CROSSFIT or LEG-UP—in which Member States have the OSS model proven most effective or demonstrated the greatest potential, and what factors have contributed to its success in those contexts?

AH: In our experience, Belgium is currently leading in the development of successful and effective OSSs, with two notable examples: VEB, which targets the public sector, and Onesto, a 130-year-old social credit provider acting as an OSS for first-time home buyers. Both cases demonstrate how an ‘all-inclusive’ approach, paired with an honest business model, can drive the uptake of energy efficiency renovations and green energy solutions.

In the case of VEB, the regional Flemish government has created a supportive regulatory framework that empowers the entity to assist public authorities on their path to net zero. Based on publicly tendered framework agreements, VEB provides municipalities and other public entities with simple access to the best terms for renovation projects via its platform. VEB furthermore oversees all critical aspects, from verifying compliance with contractual terms and delivery conditions to checking developers’ track records and ensuring compliance with material standards. This guarantees smoother project delivery and reduces complexity for public clients, without municipalities needing to allocate human resources, which in most cases they do not possess.

Onesto, by contrast, focuses on private households, particularly first-time buyers, offering mandatory renovation loans on top of mortgages to increase the property’s value whilst improving the affordability of the loan and living conditions. With a 130-year history as a social lender, Onesto has successfully adapted its business model to fill an ever-growing market gap. Unlike traditional loans—which are driven by strict income floors and maximum home price limits—Onesto applies no income floor. Instead, the key requirement is that the loan fits within the applicant’s budget. This human dimension not only makes their loan book perform better, but it also helps transform the worst energy-performing building stock towards net-zero. The bottom 20% of the building stock is the worst performing worldwide.

Beyond financing, Onesto offers comprehensive guidance throughout the housing project, including: 

• Mapping the household’s financial situation
• Conducting property assessments
• Estimating renovation costs
• Explaining available premiums and subsidies

The competitive advantage of Onesto lies in offering clients the best possible conditions without negotiation, coupled with lower upfront costs, flexible instalment options, and renovation support.

‘Both cases demonstrate how an ‘all-inclusive’ approach, paired with an honest business model, can drive the uptake of energy efficiency renovations and green energy solutions’ 

 Taken together, these two examples illustrate that the success of OSSs in Belgium rests on their ability to deliver ‘all-inclusive’ services, streamlining the customer journey and making complex renovation processes much easier for both public authorities and private households. As our Chairman often emphasises, the dynamics have shifted. It is not a question of maximising income and profit, but of maximising livability on Earth for our grandchildren. Future generations will judge us on whether we create non-intrusive business models, whereby households pay for energy-saving measures from their savings, whilst we reduce harmful emissions.  

It’s not about who makes more money, but about creating an environment in which all of us can live in a climate-sustainable way without straining household budgets, since the energy transition, whilst mandatory, is not something to boast about.