Banks, ESG compliance and the Owner’s Engineer: How financing, regulatory risk and construction supervision interlock in Serbia’s industrial projects

In Serbia’s current wave of industrial and energy development — from wind farms and substations to logistics hubs, factories, and high-voltage facilities — the decisive force shaping project viability is no longer just engineering, cost, or permitting. It is ESG compliance: Environmental, Social, and Governance requirements that now sit at the centre of financing, construction oversight, legal operations, and long-term asset bankability. Banks, export-credit institutions, international financial organizations, and private equity funds active in the country have shifted their approach. ESG is no longer treated as a voluntary sustainability label or a post-completion reporting annex. It is now a mandatory risk-control mechanism built directly into loan agreements, drawdown procedures, and payment-release mechanisms. The result is a new project reality:

• No ESG compliance = no loan disbursement.
• No documented supervision = no approval of construction progress.
• No Owner’s Engineer (OE) verification = no release of milestone payments.
• No regulatory and ESG proof at commissioning = no commercial operation date (COD).

This article explains how this financing model works in Serbia, why banks now rely on the Owner’s Engineer as their independent technical and ESG compliance advisor, and how construction supervision has become not only an engineering function but a financial governance function — directly tied to the movement of money. Why banks now treat ESG as a financial risk, not an ethical one The conventional perception of ESG as “corporate social responsibility” is outdated. In Serbia, banks now attach ESG obligations to industrial projects for three practical reasons: Regulatory obligation Banks operating under EU, IFC, EBRD, or Equator Principles frameworks are legally required to prove that financed assets do not violate environmental, labour, or governance laws. Financial exposure If a project fails ESG requirements, it may:

• lose its operating permit
• trigger fines and shutdowns
• suffer reputational risk that affects the borrower’s ability to repay
• become uninsurable
• become a stranded asset before producing revenue

Capital market pressure Lenders in Serbia with European capital sources are now required to classify loans by ESG risk category. A non-compliant project increases capital cost and damages the bank’s own sustainability rating. Thus, ESG is no longer a public relations variable — it is a credit-risk variable. And credit risk is what banks exist to price, limit, and transfer. From “Construction milestones” to “compliance-verified milestones” A decade ago, bank financing in Serbia followed a linear formula: EPC certifies progress → Owner signs → Bank disburses payment Today, the model has changed to: EPC reports → Owner’s Engineer verifies technical + ESG compliance → Bank releases funds only if compliant In other words, construction progress is not enough. Banks now release payment only when both of the following are true:

1. The physical work has been completed.
2. The work was completed in compliance with permits, labour laws, HSE rules, environmental conditions, and equipment certification rules.

This is why the OE has become a structural part of the financing flow — not optional, not cosmetic, but essential. The Owner’s Engineer as the bank’s independent compliance gatekeeper In Serbian industrial projects, the Owner’s Engineer now plays three overlapping roles:

Traditional role	Modern expanded role
Technical supervisor of construction	Verifier of ESG, regulatory and permit compliance
Quality assurance authority	Certifier of eligibility for financing drawdowns
Interface between Owner and EPC	Independent risk-signal sender to the bank

The OE is the only party in the project that is:

• independent from the EPC contractor
• technically competent to assess equipment, supervision, construction, and commissioning
• able to verify compliance against Serbian law, permits, and lender ESG conditions
• contractually authorised to stop or delay payment disbursement if risks are found

Thus, the OE has become a compliance-linked financial control mechanism. How banks structure ESG-linked payment flow A standard project-finance loan in Serbia now contains:

• ESG covenants (mandatory obligations written into the loan contract)
• Disbursement Conditions Precedent (documents required before any first payment is released)
• Milestone Verification Conditions (each loan tranche tied to OE-approved progress)
• Suspension Triggers (events that freeze payments — e.g. construction violation, labour incident, missing permit)
• Cure Periods (time allowed for Owner to correct ESG or regulatory breach)

The payment logic becomes:

1. EPC submits progress certificate
2. Owner reviews and signs
3. OE conducts field verification + compliance check
4. OE issues independent confirmation to bank
5. Bank authorises disbursement

If the OE reports non-conformance, the bank does one of three things:

• delays payment pending corrective action
• pays into escrow (not directly to EPC)
• freezes all future tranches until breach is resolved

This mechanism is the financial enforcement arm of ESG. Why banks no longer trust EPC self-reporting Banks and IFIs operating in the Serbian market have learned — often through failure — that EPC contractors, especially foreign turnkey entities, are incentivised to:

• under-report environmental risk,
• bypass local labour rules,
• outsource work to unqualified subcontractors,
• accelerate works without full permitting,
• install cheaper non-certified equipment,
• treat documentation as a post-completion formality.

Because EPCs work on fixed-price contracts, their financial incentive is not compliance — it is delivery speed and margin protection. Banks therefore require an independent control layer, and the only actor suited for this role is the Owner’s Engineer. ESG breach = Financing breach = Project delay Because ESG is now embedded in financing agreements, violations trigger immediate financial consequences. Examples from recent Serbian and regional projects:

• Improper waste disposal → Inspectorate order → Bank freezes drawdown → 7-month delay
• Lack of certified safety equipment → OE refuses sign-off → Bank withholds progress payment
• Unlicensed subcontractor labour → breach of loan covenant → forced contractor replacement
• Transformer installed without oil spill containment permit → commissioning blocked → revenue start delayed

These are not theoretical. They have happened on wind plants, substations, logistics parks, and industrial facilities under private and IFI-backed financing. The message is simple: ESG is not a report. ESG is a payment condition. The commissioning stage: Where all risks converge The most critical point in the financing cycle is commissioning, because this is when the bank:

• releases final payment
• activates long-term loan amortisation
• requires proof that the facility is legally operable
• may transition from construction risk to revenue-based repayment

If ESG compliance is incomplete, commissioning is delayed — and so is debt repayment, revenue generation, and investor return. This is why the OE is often required to issue a Commissioning Compliance Report before the lender accepts PAC (Provisional Acceptance Certificate). In many loan agreements, the bank will not recognise the project as completed until the OE certifies:

• all permits are in force
• all regulatory inspections are passed
• all equipment is certified and traceable
• no unresolved ESG non-conformities exist
• HSE systems and staffing are operational
• O&M manuals, waste plans, emergency plans, and grid compliance files are complete

Without that, the bank legally treats the asset as unfinished, even if it is fully built. Serbia-specific ESG pressures Three forces make ESG even more central in Serbia than in many neighbouring markets: EU accession alignment Serbia must progressively align with EU standards, but the transition period creates gaps, meaning banks require higher supervision to compensate for incomplete enforcement frameworks. Foreign-capital dependency Most industrial-scale projects in Serbia rely on foreign equity or loans, meaning ESG standards follow lender jurisdiction, not local minimums. Legal instability in local permitting Variability among municipalities and inspectorates means independent verification is the only risk-control method available to financiers. The OE becomes not just a construction actor but a stability mechanism in a regulatory environment where enforcement is uneven. What this means for investors, contractors and banks For investors They must now structure projects assuming that financing = conditional payments tied to ESG. Owners who do not appoint a strong OE lose bank confidence and negotiating power. For EPC contractors They can no longer treat ESG as “owner’s responsibility”. They now operate under documented supervision and audit, and must budget for compliance. For banks They no longer simply lend capital and monitor balance sheets. They now use the OE as a risk-filter and on-site verification arm. A fundamental shift has taken place in Serbia’s industrial and energy construction ecosystem. ESG is now a financial compliance system backed by loan contracts, legal enforcement, and third-party verification. The Owner’s Engineer has evolved into the critical bridge between construction reality, regulatory compliance, and capital flow. Without OE-verified ESG supervision, projects stall, financing freezes, commissioning stops, and assets fail to enter operation. The formula for modern industrial investment in Serbia can be stated simply: No ESG compliance → no OE sign-off → no bank disbursement → no project. Those who understand and structure projects around this reality will deliver — on time, legally, and bankably. Those who ignore it will build facilities that cannot operate. Elevated by www.clarion.engineer