How a project is really doing, for the people financing it.
bankable shows whether a Sri Lankan project is ready for capital, and how it performs once the money is in — read against the IFC Performance Standards, from the project's own evidence.
Two sides, one evidence record.
The rating and the action-plan status are two views of the same record, which is what makes them checkable.
- 01Evidence in
The project team puts its documents, permits and data in once. They are mapped to IFC PS1–PS8.
- 02Readiness tier
One of four tiers, dated, with an evidence level on every finding: declared, documented, reviewed or verified.
- 03Draft ESAP
Every gap becomes an action with an owner, a deadline and a cost — a draft a lender can adopt.
- 04Tracking
After the money goes in, the same record tracks the action plan. An extended deadline still shows as late.
Agents draft the mapping. A named reviewer signs every rating before an investor sees it. A country and contract check — tariff, off-taker, curtailment, land, currency — sits beside the standards.
Investors see a project once, then mostly on paper.
Detail at appraisal, then the project's own annual report. The best recent evidence shows that view is thin, late and easy to let slip.
No shared definition of "bankable". Preparing a project takes 24–30 months and 5–10% of its cost in developing countries.
IFC's own risk assessment was inadequate in 13 of 15 cases its ombudsman investigated.
Gaps found in due diligence become an action plan (ESAP) written into the investment agreement.
The client's own annual report. Site visits yearly for high-risk projects, normally every three years for others.
Non-compliance ran over several supervision cycles in 7 of 9 cases. An extended deadline never shows as overdue.
The ombudsman chose these cases on purpose, so they show how monitoring fails, not how often. Meanwhile the median blended-finance deal reached US$194m in 2025 — smaller projects lose out unless the cost and doubt of assessing them come down.
Investable again, but new money is scarce.
Development lenders are back at scale. New private investors are not yet arriving, and project risks are hard to see from outside.
Built for both sides of the table.
A readiness view they can trust
Nordic development financiers already lending in Sri Lanka, mostly through non-bank lenders that fund small businesses. They need a live ESAP status, and data in the indicator sets they already report (HIPSO, Worldfavor surveys).
A plain list of what is missing
Renewables, storage, ports and logistics developers — and lenders with E&S commitments across many small loans. One submission that serves several investors.
No tool joins the project's evidence to the investor's view.
Free toolkits screen generically; data platforms collect indicators. None combines what bankable does.
- An IFC PS rating built from the project's own evidence
- Sri Lankan depth: tariffs, off-taker, curtailment, land
- One view for project team and investor
- Tracking after the money goes in
Compared against FMO ESG Toolkit, SOURCE, IFC MALENA, Silta Finance, Worldfavor, Novata, Sopact, Convergence, IRENA ETAF and BOI Ready to Invest. bankable feeds the formats DFIs already use rather than asking them to adopt a new system.
Sponsors already pay for this work.
Pre-close E&S work on mid-risk projects now runs to hundreds of thousands of euros. A faster, evidence-backed first pass lands well below that.
Readiness assessment
Per project, paid by the sponsor and recovered in the project budget. The core product.
Execution tracking
Per project per year, paid by the sponsor or lender, once an investor uses the rating.
Funded pilots
Co-funded from development financiers' investee-support budgets. The first route to revenue.
No success fees and no fundraising advice. Matching investors to projects needs a licence in Sri Lanka and Sweden, and the Equator Principles bar tying a reviewer's fee to compliance. bankable stays independent.
Starting with one loan book.
A co-funded pilot on one loan book of a Sri Lankan lender, built on the E&S commitment attached to recent financing from two Nordic development financiers.
- One evidence record per loan
Before and after the money goes in.
- What the lender's financiers see
Readiness tier, evidence level, draft ESAP and deadlines, for each loan.
- Co-funded
Shared between the financiers' investee-support budgets and the lender.
Help us take bankable from MVP to first investor.
Funding goes into the MVP: guided intake per Performance Standard, agent mapping, the four-tier rating with draft ESAP, reviewer sign-off and the read-only investor view.