Potential for strategic investments into the eSAF supply chain by airports
Foreword
The
purpose of this document is to act as a preliminary guide to airports that have an interest in investing capital in the eSAF supply chain, considering the investment market and airports’ positioning as investors.
The transition to sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), and particularly to eSAF, represents both a significant opportunity and a complex challenge for airports seeking to accelerate the decarbonisation of aviation.
While policy support and regulatory mandates are driving momentum, the eSAF market remains immature, with high investment risks and significant barriers to entry. Further to this, airports’ positioning within the fuel ecosystem, combined with a typically lower tolerance for investment risk than most SAF investors, means that clear motivation is required for airports to pursue direct investment rather than lowerrisk enabling actions ‑ such as facilitation, incentives or stakeholder coordination.
For airports where direct investment in the eSAF supply chain is identified as aligning with strategic objectives, risk appetite and either current or emerging resources and skillsets, partnership models and blended finance approaches are likely to offer the most viable path forward, enabling them to leverage their reputational capital and available capital without overextending
into unfamiliar operational, technological or development territory.
Potential pathways for airport investment vary by numerous airport-specific considerations, including size, business model, stakeholder relationships, regulatory environments and infrastructure arrangements. For larger airports the nature of the jet fuel supply chain limits opportunities for atairport interventions. Any investment interest may be more relevant earlier in the supply chain, such as through upstream partnerships or enabling infrastructure.
Smaller or more specialised airports may, under certain conditions, have greater scope and/or motivation for involvement closer to the point of use, as seen in the example of Farnborough Airports acting as SAF offtaker. Unique roles to be played by smaller, specialised airports may offer valuable learnings to larger airports and the investment market more broadly.
Regardless of the approach, under the right investment conditions, airports could add value by signalling long-term demand, supporting project bankability, and fostering collaboration across the (e)SAF ecosystem, as seen in a handful of examples in the market today.
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to airports that have an interest in investing capital in the eSAF supply chain. It is not comprehensive and does not replace the need for project-specific analysis. Airports considering investment in the eSAF supply chain should ensure strategic alignment, assess the risks and opportunities at an airport-specific level to safeguard operational and financial interests, seek out or strengthen potential partnership opportunities and perform robust due diligence into investment opportunities.
Consideration of indirect support actions, including enabling and facilitation measures and incentives, are excluded and are covered separately in Stargate’s Catalogue of Airport SAF Actions, available publicly.
Actions for airports for accelerating SAF uptake
This report explores considerations for airports interested in direct market intervention to accelerate eSAF uptake, as opposed to incentives and enablement (routes more commonly taken by airports).
Airport engagement in accelerating SAF uptake can be broadly categorised into three strategic approaches (presented also opposite):
1. Direct Investment: Airports invest capital directly into SAF production, infrastructure, or technology development.
2. Indirect market intervention: Airports support SAF uptake through infrastructure provision, stakeholder convening, and operational integration.
3. Enabling environment: Airports contribute through policy advocacy, stakeholder engagement, and ecosystem development.
This publication focuses on the first category, direct investment, and specifically for eSAF, with the aim of providing key considerations for airports considering engagement in this category. Arup notes that this is the least common form of airport engagement currently observed in the market. Given their lowmargin business models and ‑ capitalintensive balance sheets, airports have traditionally exhibited ‑ limited appetite for direct investment in fuel supply, which lies outside their core activities. Further, the SAF market for emerging pathways is still immature, and direct investment thus carries risk. A handful of examples in the European market in this engagement category are described in Section 2.
In contrast, there are many more examples of airports enacting within the second and third categories of engagement, where they can support SAF deployment through incentives, enablement and policy engagement. These approaches often align better with airports’ existing role in the supply chain and offer lower-risk pathways to impact. Stargate’s Catalogue Of Airport SAF Actions, available publicly, focuses on the second and third categories.
Direct investment in infrastructure and operational support for SAF production and use, for example in:
• SAF production facilities
• Blending infrastructure
• SAF storage and distribution
• Direct offtake
• R&D support (including pilot projects)
• Financial incentives for SAF use
• Book and claim systems
• Strategic partnerships
• Data-driven initiatives
• Policy advocacy and consultation involvement
• Lighthouse airports
• PAX engagement
• Certification support
• Knowledge sharing / stakeholder collaboration
Example: Groupe ADP (Paris airport operator) invest in SAF technology and production company, LanzaJet
Example: Heathrow Airport incentive programme to cover 50% of additional SAF costs to airlines
Actively shape demand and supply through financial and operational levers
Example: Copenhagen Airport as a ‘lighthouse airport’ under the ALIGHT initiative, guiding infrastructure, frameworks and policy development.
Encourage greater SAF uptake through enabling mechanisms and financial instruments Create conditions for market growth through policy, awareness, and ecosystem support
Techno-commercial bankability drivers for eSAF projects
Bankable eSAF projects must demonstrate strong technical foundations, commercial credibility, and strategic alignment. For airports exploring investment, early identification of these traits is essential.
Airports considering direct investment in eSAF production must assess technical, commercial, and strategic factors that ensure credibility and minimise risk. The considerations below focus on eSAF (FT-SPK (PtL) pathway), however many lessons are applicable also to other SAF pathways.
Technical Viability
Bankable projects are built on robust technical foundation, supported by rigorous technical design in FEED/front-end loading studies. They should demonstrate:
• Realism | Initial capacity should match the developer’s experience and capabilities and align with reasonable offtake volumes. Potential for upscaling is a plus.
• Deliverability and Strategic Site Selection | Bankable projects have realistic development timelines, contractors with strong reputations and appropriate experience, secured sites in strategic locations, and minimal reliance on third parties. Proximity to renewable energy (or grid connection availability), CO sources, ₂ water and infrastructure is a strong advantage.
• Integration into existing supply chain | Physical and system boundaries should be well understood and accounted for in both technical and commercial design, including integration requirements for storage, transport and existing operations.
• Requirements for Certification and Compliance | If the business model depends on selling certified eSAF, the inputs and processes should be aligned with EU regulations and applicable fuel and sustainability standards (e.g. RED III, ReFuelEU, Hydrogen & Gas Decarbonisation Package, ASTM certification).
Commercial Strength
Bankable projects go beyond technical feasibility. They should also demonstrate:
• Secured Offtake | The backbone to a bankable eSAF project is having binding offtake agreements in place with credible buyers, typically fuel distributors or airlines; agreements may be assisted by the EU’s doublesided auction mechanism. Without offtake, investor confidence is hard to secure.
• Reliable and Affordable Feedstock Access | Projects should have secured access to renewable electricity, green hydrogen (unless included in project boundary), and captured CO at competitive prices, noting competition ₂ with demand from other use cases. Long-term supply agreements or vertical integration reduce exposure to volatility.
• Robust Risk Management | Risks should be clearly identified and backed by credible mitigation strategies. Transparency and preparedness are signs of a mature development approach.
• Experienced Management and Sound Contractual Strategy | The developer should have a proven track record and a contractual setup that limits risk exposure. Appropriate contractual protections, clearly defined scopes, and strong interface management are all positive indicators.
• Credible and Disciplined Business Plan | Financial models should be evidence-based, with realistic assumptions around feedstock availability, ramp-up timelines, and SAF pricing. Sensitivity analysis should be included, and projections should avoid overly optimistic growth curves.
Strategic Alignment
Bankable eSAF projects are aligned with policy and market trends. They should demonstrate:
• Fit with National and Regional Priorities | In addition to the demand-securing mandates from ReFuelEU, alignment with national ambitions helps with receiving grants, subsidies or other mechanisms to bridge the price gap with fossil jet fuel.
• E-Fuel Pathways and Strategic Resilience | The FTSPK (PtL) route, as the only ASTM-approved eSAF pathway currently, can easily dominate investment attention. However, alternative e-fuel pathways such as eMtJ (still awaiting ASTM certification) may offer cost advantages and cross-sector flexibility. Production pathways with the possibility to target different markets with their end products provide greater strategic resilience to the project.
• Market Competition | With new players entering the market internationally, competitive advantage (e.g. via past experience in technology and/or project development, strategic relationships) is crucial to gain investor confidence.
The appeal of blended finance models
Due to the high capital and risk associated with investments in the eSAF supply chain, blended finance models are a potential route for airports to limit the required scale of investment and risk exposure.
• As investment in the SAF supply chain typically requires large amounts of capital and carries risk, airports considering investment would likely engage in blended finance, combining different sources of capital to accelerate SAF deployment while managing risk across the supply chain.
• For the purposes of explaining the motivations for blended finance models, we can broadly consider investors among the following three categories, as depicted opposite:
• Public & Philanthropic Funding: These actors provide early-stage grants or concessional capital to de-risk projects, making them viable for later investment. They are typically motivated by goals other than financial return, such as regulatory environment, and thus have a higher risk appetite.
• Strategic Investors: Industry participants that invest primarily to support strategic objectives – such as securing supply chains, enabling market development, or advancing decarbonisation – rather than to maximise short or mediumterm financial returns. Airports fall within this category.
• Private Equity Investors: Private equity investors typically have higher risk appetite than institutional investors in anticipation of longerterm value creation ‑ and thus often bridge the gap for early-stage developments and/or first-of-a-kind and nth-of-a-kind (FOAK/NOAK) projects.
• Institutional Investors: Invest primarily for riskadjusted financial returns and ‑ provide the largest pools of capital, typically favouring mature and derisked ‑ projects. While eSAF’s risk profile limits participation for many, certain institutions – for example EUmandated investment bodies such as the European ‑ Investment Bank (EIB) or SFDR-obliged funds – may prioritise eSAF investments despite elevated risk profiles where projects are aligned with EU climate objectives and supporting regulatory frameworks or Article 9 criteria.
Early-stage grants, derisking instruments
Airports, airlines, OEMS – provide stakeholder endorsement and enable ecosystem development
Bridging finance for FOAK/NOAK projects
Later-stage capital, scale-up funding
Illustration of potential blended finance structure, with descriptions per investor category
Source: Arup, World Economic Forum
Risk
Public & Philanthropic Investors Industry (Strategic) Investors
eSAF supply chain investment considerations for airports
Across the supply chain, appealing and challenging aspects exist for airports seeking investment opportunities.
Feedstock providers
Very limited availability of valid carbon sources beyond 2041
Far removed from airports in the supply chain and requires significant land
Numerous options for offtake of RE (assuming grid connection possible)
Fuel Suppliers & Logistics
Reasonable industry ROIC estimates of 8-12%[1,2,3]
More difficult market to enter; key market participants have strong hold on the market and may not be motivated to collaborate with airports
If investing in SAF storage and transportation, its more logical to do this on- or near-site (at the airport)
End User (Offtake)
• Via co-investment or advanced offtake structures, airports could see similar IRR to that of fuel production
Unlikely to be appealing to larger airports
May be an option for remote airports, depending on business model
Storage and Blending Infrastructure
Attractive aspects
Unattractive aspects
Other points for consideration
Internal Rate of Return
of Investment
Fuel Production
High scale of investment (estimated c. $6.3 billion per 500kt facility[1])
Low IRR without policy support or concessional finance
• Payback horizon: 8-10 years before positive cashflow
• Plant location and proximity to airport and/or key infrastructure will influence attractiveness
Pilot projects may be an option to signal demand with lower Capex/risk
High relevance for airport investment, given airports typically have direct relationships with stakeholders that own or operate this infrastructure (if its not the airports themselves)
More opportunities for smaller airports or those with partnership opportunities
• SOI: On-site SAF storage and blending infrastructure can range from approximately €10-50 million
Operational complexity that is typically outside of airport’s skillset – if owner/operator role is considered
Perhaps limited need by existing actors for airport investment, given they’re typically well established in the market
eSAF Investors: Required Characteristics
While airports differ from traditional eSAF investors, airports can lend credibility to eSAF projects as coinvestors with their reputational capital as trusted infrastructure operators within the aviation sector.
Airports would benefit from partnerships and collaborative models rather than acting as standalone project leaders or primary investors, since airports do not generally possess the technical or operational capabilities required to lead or significantly de-risk eSAF projects. While airports do have experience in delivering large-scale infrastructure projects, required specialised industrial capabilities related to the various parts of the eSAF supply chain typically lie outside of their domain of expertise. Further, they lack the vertical integration or feedstock control that numerous key players in the SAF supply chain do have.
Key characteristics that could improve the suitability of airports as eSAF investors include:
• Reputational capital: Particularly for larger airports, airports can lend credibility to eSAF projects as visible, trusted infrastructure operators within the aviation sector. This is particularly valuable in early-stage development and could enhance project bankability or accelerate permitting processes by signalling stakeholder endorsement.
• Strategic motivation: Given investment risk and airport’s typical domain of investments, and that ReFuelEU mandates apply primarily to airlines and fuel suppliers rather than airports, strategic motivation would be required for airports to invest directly as opposed to pursuing other enablement actions. Regulatory pressure on a national level and reputation are possible motivations; these must be balanced against internal investment criteria such as return and risk levels.
• Airport-specific opportunities: Should an airport have a uniquely strong alignment with the beneficial characteristics set out adjacent in one or more categories, for example significant available land or strong ties to one or more key players in the supply chain, this may present compelling opportunities for exploring investment.
Corporate
• Financial strength & available capital
• Investment experience in high-risk, high-capital development projects
• Influence & reputation
• Appropriate risk mitigation through contractual and/or blended finance structure
• Specialised industrial capabilities, e.g. in chemical conversion and processing
Assets
Location
Existing involvemen t/ relationship s in supply chain
• Access to land and/or existing assets relevant to eSAF production
• Strategic location and/or access to feedstocks and distribution networks
• Feedstock: Reliable and affordable access to renewable energy and (eligible) CO2
• Fuel Production & Midstream: Experience in large capital project delivery, process operations and eSAF technology
• Downstream: Having existing infrastructure/operations compatible with SAF
Motivation
• Size and business model of airport will be very relevant; large airports often have different constraints and motivations to smaller airports
Larger airports: Reputational capital
Smaller airports: Sometimes have greater involvement in downstream supply chain
Typically target low-risk investments within their core activities
Often constrained or regulated access to land. Typically limited/no assets relevant to eSAF production
Proximity to aviation fuel demand centres and distribution infrastructure
Typically limited influence over/involvement in feedstock supply chains; limited/no experience in large-scale chemical, fuel production projects or eSAF technologies and limited operational interface with downstream actors
Potential for downstream opportunities at smaller airports with greater ownership/operative involvement in fuel distribution
• Commercial (with high-risk tolerance) or strategic
Capability map for investors in the eSAF supply chain
Source: Arup analysis
• Mandated: i.e. requirement to offtake eSAF or decarbonise aviation
No mandate for airports to offtake eSAF; may be motivation for airports to act as SAF broker where their clients are willing to pay a premium (e.g. private jets) Some airports are impacted by national aviation emission reduction mandates, further to EU policy implications.
Category Beneficial characteristics of an investor Evaluation for airports (typically)
Approaching investment opportunities in the eSAF supply chain
If direct investment in the eSAF supply chain aligns with an airport’s strategic objectives more than other enablement actions, opportunities and risks should be assessed on a project- and airport-specific basis.
• Any decision by airports to commit significant resources to exploring investments into the eSAF supply chain should be grounded in a clear alignment with the airport’s strategic objectives and investment criteria. Given the complexity and evolving nature of the eSAF market, airports need to carefully evaluate whether direct involvement or alternative approaches, such as enablement and facilitation actions, offer the most effective path to achieving long-term goals while satisfying investment goals and risk appetite.
• The framework presented overleaf is intended to guide the airport in their initial discussions on investing in the eSAF supply chain. Arup recommends considering steps 1-3 presented opposite before considering the investment decision framework and applying a weighting to the rows of the matrix, reflecting priorities of the airport, to reach meaningful initial views.
• Arup notes the following limitations of the investment decision framework presented overleaf:
• The framework presents a selection of potential investment opportunities across the supply chain. This is not an exhaustive list and is provided for sake of example.
• The eSAF market is immature and is evolving at this time. All figures are indicative based on industry
benchmarks and are highly dependent on SAF pathway, scale, location and policy support and incentives. As the SAF market is yet to reach maturity, past ROIC figures may not be indicative of future trends.
• The framework does not highlight specific risk and opportunities for individual airports and individual investment opportunities, nor does it take into account risks and opportunities in relation to available strategic partnerships an airport may have or competition from other investors in the market.
• Based on the above limitations, Arup concludes that the framework is intended to help inform and guide initial discussions only, for airports interested in investing in the eSAF supply chain. For airports investing in pursuing opportunities further, Arup would recommend reaching out to potential targets and/or partnership parties to understand if there is appetite for involving/partnering with an airport as an investor. Following this, adequate due diligence into the investment opportunity would be required.
1 Decide whether direct investment in the SAF supply chain is of strategic interest compared to other support actions by airports, such as enabling actions and incentives
2 Reflect on airport-specific strengths, opportunities and weaknesses, as discussed on the previous page
3 Decide investment priorities and limitations, i.e.
• Acceptable level of risk
• Available capital for investment
• Required return on investment
• Minimum payback period
4 Review supply chain opportunities, with the help of the investment framework overleaf
5 Draw up a list of potential targets and reach out to understand if there’s appetite for involving an airport as an investor
6 Evaluate next steps and in-house skillset for next steps. Consider need for seeking external advice/resources or hiring to expand in-house skillset where gaps are identified.
Steps to approaching investment in the SAF supply chain
Source: Arup
eSAF Strategic Investment Framework for Airports
Appendices
Key Definitions
eSAF Renewable SAF (as defined by ‘synthetic SAF’ under ReFuelEU). The only eSAF pathway currently approved by ASTM is Fischer-Tropsch Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (FT-SPK), often nicknamed Power to Liquid (PtL). Methanol to Jet via the renewable pathway (eMtJ) is another pathway that is expected to enter the market, pending ASTM approval.
SAF Sustainable Aviation Fuel (as defined by ReFuelEU). SAF can refer to both the sustainable component or the end-product blended with conventional fossil jet fuel; we are referring to the former in this report, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Further, this report uses SAF as the umbrella term, for both eSAF and bio-based (biofuel) SAF.
Glossary of Terms
Abbreviation Term
Fischer-Tropsch Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene
Fuel of Non-Biological Origin
Return on Invested Capital
Source of Information
[1] World Economic Forum – Financing Sustainable Aviation Fuels (2025) [2] IATA – Aviation Value Chain (2022)
[3] McKinsey & Company – How the Aviation Industry Could Help Scale SAF Production (2024)
