The new collateral standard

This article is part of In conversation about sustainable finance & emission reduction systems, a new series by Diego Balverde. You’re reading volume 24 of the Collateral Crisis series. Here is volume 23

Prologue

Financial systems spent much of the last century refining the methods used to establish how much an asset was worth when credit was originated. Ratings, probabilities of default, loan-to-value ratios, haircuts, guarantees, covenants, stress tests, valuation frameworks and secondary markets were all constructed around one essential question: if the borrower fails, how much value remains behind the debt? That question remains indispensable, but it is no longer sufficient for the economy now emerging.

Industrial, energy and infrastructure assets can change economically long before they change legally; they can remain under identical ownership while energy consumption rises, productivity deteriorates, technology becomes obsolete, critical inputs become restricted, maritime routes are disrupted or maintenance backlogs weaken future capacity. At the same time, sensors, industrial platforms, tokenisation, distributed ledger technology, artificial intelligence and new settlement systems allow assets to be observed, represented and mobilised with a depth and speed the previous financial architecture never possessed.

The new collateral standard must connect those worlds. Finance will no longer be able to know only what an asset is and what it was worth when the loan was originated. It will increasingly need to know how the asset performs, what can destroy its yield, how quickly it can adapt and which evidence proves that the cash flow supporting the debt continues to exist.

Europe is already constructing elements of that architecture. Since 15 June 2026 the Eurosystem has applied climate factors to selected corporate bonds used as collateral, and in July the ECB decided to extend the methodology to certain credit claims against non-financial corporations, with an additional reduction in recognised collateral value capped at 5% and implementation expected no earlier than the end of 2027. In June, the ECB also decided to permanently integrate portfolios of non-financial corporate loans into the general collateral framework as temporary crisis measures are phased out.

Since 30 March 2026, qualifying marketable assets issued through DLT-based services within eligible central securities depositories can enter the Eurosystem collateral framework when they satisfy the remaining requirements, while Pontes is being developed to connect tokenised markets with TARGET Services and enable wholesale settlement in central bank money. These decisions belong to different policy areas and do not yet constitute a single regulatory “new collateral standard”. Viewed together, however, they reveal an unmistakable direction: monetary infrastructure is broadening the assets it can accommodate while becoming more capable of differentiating risk and adapting to digital issuance and settlement.

Collateral will stop being a snapshot and become an economic history

Traditional assets arrived at lenders accompanied by documents establishing ownership, valuation, contracts and financial performance. Future assets will increasingly arrive with an operating history as well. Batteries can demonstrate available capacity, degradation, cycles, availability, warranty conditions and revenue; factories can show energy per unit, downtime, maintenance, scrap, utilisation and working capital; ports can demonstrate throughput, dwell time, utilised capacity, energy consumption and equipment performance; buildings can show occupancy, consumption, maintenance and NOI; data centres can demonstrate contracted MW, utilisation, cooling efficiency, availability and contracts; water infrastructure can measure physical losses, billable volumes and recovery.

The purpose of these data is not to overwhelm credit committees with millions of sensor readings. It is to select the variables that explain whether the asset is creating, losing or protecting the cash flow supporting the debt.

This is the transition from static collateral toward dynamic collateral intelligence. Banks should not have to wait for the next annual report to discover that a plant lost competitiveness for nine months. Private credit funds should not discover asset degradation only when restructuring begins. Insurers should not encounter a persistent deterioration pattern only after a loss event.

The purpose is not to turn each sensor into a covenant or delegate credit judgement to algorithms, but to reduce the delay between physical deterioration and financial recognition. The shorter that delay becomes, the more time exists to intervene, finance a correction, redesign a capital structure or protect value before collateral enforcement becomes the only remaining option.

The same logic works in reverse. When companies reduce energy intensity, increase availability, diversify critical supply chains or recover throughput, improvements should not remain invisible until the next refinancing. Demonstrated improvement can become new economic information for banks, insurers, private credit, infrastructure funds and potential buyers. The new collateral standard will therefore not be built solely to detect deterioration. It will also be capable of recognising recovered quality.

Eligibility will not be the same thing as quality

The permanent incorporation of selected portfolios of corporate credit claims into the Eurosystem general collateral framework offers a particularly important lesson. An asset can satisfy an eligibility framework while remaining economically very different from another asset in the same category. Regulation determines whether collateral can be mobilised and what prudential controls apply; it does not imply that two eligible corporate loans possess identical economic resilience.

The ECB has established common eligibility criteria, concentration limits and risk-control mechanisms precisely because broader collateral availability requires stronger risk management rather than weaker discipline. The return toward a single collateral list across the euro area shows that flexibility and discipline can coexist.

The distinction between collateral eligibility and collateral quality will become central during the coming decade. A loan to an efficient factory and one to a structurally inefficient factory may satisfy similar legal requirements while reacting radically differently to an energy-price shock. Two logistics assets can possess identical book values and radically different exposure to maritime chokepoints. Two BESS installations can carry the same nominal capacity while one degrades much faster. Two buildings can report comparable occupancy and face completely different future CAPEX.

Finance will continue relying on ratings, PD, LGD, market valuation and haircuts, but it will increasingly possess tools capable of enriching those measures with evidence about what is actually happening inside the asset.

The ECB climate factor provides one signal of this evolution because it incorporates forward-looking information about vulnerability, sector exposure and maturity into the valuation of selected collateral. The ECB explicitly recognises that technological, regulatory, behavioural and macroeconomic transition shocks can reduce collateral value precisely when the Eurosystem may need to liquidate the asset. The haircut therefore moves beyond historical volatility alone and begins incorporating uncertainty regarding the debtor’s economic future.

The next market development will extend much further than climate risk. Energy exposure, cyber risk, technology dependence, supply chains, maintenance, critical resources, liquidity and geopolitics can all influence an asset’s ability to preserve future value. Not all these variables should enter a central bank formula or receive individual regulatory haircuts. They nevertheless belong in the economic analysis of any lender that needs to understand how much of its protection will remain monetisable under stress.

The new standard must become digital without confusing digitalisation with quality

The Eurosystem’s acceptance since March 2026 of selected securities issued through qualifying DLT-based infrastructure marks another turning point. The Eurosystem is not claiming that an asset becomes better because it is tokenised. It still requires the security to satisfy broader eligibility, settlement and collateral-management standards. That is exactly the correct lesson.

Technology can transform issuance, transfer, custody and settlement, but it does not automatically improve the economics of the underlying exposure. A weak bond remains weak after tokenisation. Unproductive infrastructure does not become profitable because its financial rights exist on a ledger. Digitalisation improves mobility; verification improves quality. Confusing the two could become one of the costliest mistakes of the next financial cycle.

Pontes reinforces the same principle because it connects emerging DLT platforms with TARGET Services while preserving central bank money as the settlement anchor. The ECB plans its initial launch during the third quarter of 2026 and describes it as a bridge enabling new markets to use digital infrastructure without losing the public monetary asset supporting system-wide trust. Appia simultaneously develops a longer-term architecture intended to prevent European tokenisation from becoming fragmented across incompatible networks and standards. Useful financial innovation is therefore not the creation of thousands of tokens. It is the ability of assets, money, identity and settlement to interact securely.

For DOIX, this defines our role clearly. We do not need every industrial reading converted into a token or permanently recorded on a public ledger. We need an interoperable evidence layer robust enough to remain connected with the asset as its financial structure evolves. A loan may be refinanced, securitised, incorporated into an SRT, purchased by private credit or eventually represented through digital-market infrastructure; the operating history should remain associated with the underlying asset. When that becomes possible, digitalisation stops being only market innovation and begins functioning as continuity infrastructure for financial risk.

The standard must also measure speed because future liquidity will move faster

The second cycle of The Collateral Crisis has demonstrated that improved financial infrastructure can remove major frictions while simultaneously accelerating shock transmission. Tokenisation and atomic settlement can allow collateral to be identified, substituted and mobilised much faster; SRT can transfer risk away from bank balance sheets; securitisation can release capital; private credit can absorb exposures that banks no longer wish to retain. The result can be a more diversified and efficient financial system. Yet assets that move more quickly can also be sold, margined and transferred more quickly during stress. Speed therefore becomes more than a technological characteristic. It becomes a prudential variable.

The new collateral standard must incorporate liquidity resilience. Finance needs to know not only what an asset is worth but how quickly it can become cash, what haircut may emerge under stress, who else may need to sell the same asset simultaneously, which obligations may activate and what alternatives remain if normal market liquidity disappears. This is particularly relevant for funds, insurers, project-finance structures and private credit vehicles because long-duration assets can remain economically solvent while short-duration obligations create immediate cash requirements. The risk is not only losing value. It is being forced to sell before that value can recover.

A verified asset therefore requires a liquidity map as well. Available cash, committed facilities, refinancing dates, collateral pools, contractual triggers, working-capital requirements and operating cash flow should be connected with physical performance. A factory that reduces energy use and working capital simultaneously does not merely improve EBITDA; it gains additional days of financial survival. BESS with diversified revenues can absorb market shocks more effectively. Ports diversified across commodities, customers and routes have different liquidity profiles from facilities dependent on one concentrated flow. Future collateral quality will combine value with time.

Infrastructure becomes productive collateral when its yield can be proven

Electricity networks, BESS, ports, water systems, logistics, data centres and industrial infrastructure show how this doctrine can move from abstract financial risk into the physical economy. These assets require extraordinary amounts of capital while offering something institutional investors seek: duration and cash flow. The historical challenge has been demonstrating how much yield genuinely originates in infrastructure, how much depends on assumptions and how much can survive adverse conditions. Verified infrastructure reduces this uncertainty by combining baseline measurement, ongoing monitoring and evidence of performance.

A grid that reduces losses and connects new customers generates observable economics; a port recovering throughput produces additional tariffs or avoids expansion CAPEX; BESS improving revenue per unit of degradation creates identifiable returns; factories reducing energy consumption per unit protect EBITDA; water systems recovering physical losses convert wasted resources into revenue. Capital can be structured around these improvements using senior debt, private credit, project finance, guarantees, securitisation or equity while DOIX preserves the evidence of performance.

Investors do not need to purchase identical layers of risk. They need a common architecture capable of explaining where cash flow comes from.

This also changes the meaning of green finance and infrastructure finance. The decisive category should no longer be the colour of the project but the economic quality of what is built or modernised. An asset reducing emissions while destroying capital is not a strong financial asset. An asset reducing consumption, increasing productivity, improving resilience and generating measurable returns can be environmentally superior and financially stronger simultaneously. The transition capable of lasting will be the one that finances itself because it creates money rather than one requiring permanent subsidies to justify its existence.

The standard must incorporate geopolitics before geopolitics reaches the balance sheet

The previous volume demonstrated that modern assets possess an economic geography much larger than their physical boundaries. A factory located in Europe may depend on minerals refined elsewhere, US software, a vulnerable maritime route, an international bank and customers operating under different tariff regimes. The new collateral standard must measure those dependencies because financial value can deteriorate even when no machine has failed. Risk sits inside the architecture enabling the machine to continue operating.

This dimension can be reduced to four questions: what depends on a single supplier or jurisdiction, how much value disappears if that dependency fails, how long substitution requires and how much redundancy costs. Markets do not need to eliminate all concentration because doing so would destroy efficiency. They need to distinguish economically rational concentration from single points of failure capable of destroying disproportionate amounts of cash flow. That distinction will create a geopolitical haircut for excessively dependent assets and a resilience premium for assets capable of preserving production under a broader range of conditions.

DOIX can incorporate routes, energy, critical inputs, suppliers, technologies, jurisdictions and inventories into the asset map; BalGreen can identify vulnerabilities that are economically reducible; BalGreen Capital can finance dual sourcing, storage, BESS, recycling, logistics, local infrastructure and redesign when the cost of protection is lower than the value potentially preserved. The purpose is not to finance geopolitical paranoia. It is to place a price on losses that currently become visible only after the shock.

The BalGreen collateral standard

The entire second cycle converges here. We can define our own methodology without presenting it as an official regulatory category. The BalGreen collateral standard would be an economic and financial framework for transforming physical assets into more verifiable, resilient and financeable assets. It begins before the banking transaction and continues after financing.

DOIX establishes the baseline and determines what the asset produces, consumes, loses, how it degrades, which dependencies it contains and how it would behave under stress; BalGreen identifies recoverable losses and designs the operating package; implementation transforms the underlying asset; DOIX verifies the improvement and preserves the operating history; BalGreen Capital structures debt, refinancing, private credit, securitisation, guarantees or investment instruments appropriate to the new cash flow; banks and investors retain responsibility for deciding how the exposure should be valued, financed and priced.

The methodology can be expressed without reducing it to a slogan: DOIX measures the weakness, BalGreen redesigns the operating system, implementation reduces the loss, DOIX verifies the gain, finance reprices the risk and investors buy the verified yield. Volumes 16 through 23 allow additional layers to be incorporated into that architecture. Banks may recycle capital through correctly structured risk-transfer mechanisms without necessarily abandoning borrower relationships; digital infrastructure can improve collateral mobility; liquidity intelligence can prevent speed from becoming fragility; geopolitical mapping can protect supply chains; and verified operating history can remain attached to assets throughout refinancing, sale, securitisation or tokenisation.

The objective is not to create a BalGreen label that can simply be attached to assets. That would reproduce precisely the problem this series is intended to solve. The standard possesses value only when measurable differences result: lower consumption, less downtime, higher throughput, lower volatility, better utilisation, higher availability, reduced concentration, stronger cash flow or greater survival capacity. Where the result cannot be demonstrated, no verified improvement exists and therefore no verified yield exists.

Analysis

The most dangerous error during the coming decade would be assuming that finance simply needs more data. It already has too much. What it needs are better connections between data and economic value. The revolution will not be the sensor, blockchain, artificial intelligence, digital twin, climate model or rating considered individually. It will be the ability to combine physical, financial and contractual information into one understanding of the asset.

Lenders need to know which variables can reduce repayment capacity; investors need to understand where yield comes from; insurers need to know which deterioration increases risk; operators need to understand which intervention generates the greatest return; central banks need to protect their balance sheets when collateral is pledged. Different actors require different information layers, but all share the same requirement: confidence that financial value is not a number disconnected from physical reality.

The second transformation is that quality will no longer be assessed only at origination. Assets can improve. Companies can reduce energy intensity, diversify suppliers, automate maintenance, add storage or recover working capital. If finance continues treating that asset exactly as before after the improvement has been demonstrated, it is failing to use available information. Markets capable of dynamically recognising improvement and deterioration will allocate capital more effectively than markets updating their understanding only during refinancing or default.

The third transformation is competitive. Companies capable of demonstrating superior assets will obtain something more valuable than a favourable ESG narrative. They will compete for capital. If two businesses manufacture the same product and one requires less energy, less working capital, less downtime and less geopolitical dependency, it possesses an economic advantage that should eventually appear in valuation, M&A, insurance, credit and cost of capital. It may not happen immediately and never perfectly, but the direction is difficult to reverse because the data required to demonstrate these differences are increasingly available.

Conclusion

The Collateral Crisis began with a simple proposition: when an asset loses credibility, deterioration does not remain inside the asset. It moves into collateral, from collateral into banks and from banks into credit availability. The first cycle described that chain. The second has constructed the response. The future of collateral risk is not simply applying a larger haircut when an asset deteriorates. It is changing the asset before deterioration becomes irreversible, proving that improvement, distributing risk more intelligently and allowing capital to circulate again.

Europe is already constructing pieces of this architecture. The Eurosystem is incorporating forward-looking factors into the valuation of selected collateral, integrating qualifying corporate loans into its permanent framework, accepting assets issued through new digital infrastructures when relevant requirements are satisfied and building Pontes to connect DLT markets with settlement in central bank money. None of these reforms individually defines the new collateral standard. Together they demonstrate that collateral is evolving from a static category into infrastructure that is broader, more selective and technologically adaptable.

Our doctrine takes that evolution one step closer to the real economy. Future assets should be able to demonstrate what they produce, how much they consume, what they lose, how they are maintained, how they degrade, what they depend on, how much cash they generate, how they survive shocks and what happened after every investment made to improve them. DOIX turns that reality into evidence; BalGreen transforms weakness into operating improvement; BalGreen Capital connects recovered cash flow with banks, private credit, infrastructure funds, insurers and capital markets; each investor remains responsible for deciding which risk to purchase and at what price.

The previous standard asked: how much is this asset worth if I have to sell it tomorrow? The new standard must ask something much more powerful: what is this asset doing today, what will it continue doing when the world changes, how much of that performance can be proven and how much capital am I willing to lend because I know the answer? That is the destination of the new collateral economy.

The winning asset will not simply be liquid. It will not simply be green. It will not simply be digital. It will not simply be profitable. It will be productive, measurable, verifiable, adaptable, financially structurable and resilient enough to continue generating money when the assumptions under which it was originally financed no longer exist. That will become the new standard. The verified asset becomes the new collateral.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the opinions of leading Sustainability Thought Leaders, their views do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

The world needs sustainability knowledge. At illuminem, no interest group or shareholder can influence our work. Thank you for supporting our mission to make high-quality and independent sustainability information free for all. Every contribution helps. Thank you for donating today.