As we predicted in the 2025 Offshore Wind Industry Update, governments are currently ramping up efforts to compete for developer interests; not all have however succeeded in moving from stated commitment to implementing the needed changes. The result is a strong divergence of market responses. Some have acted, restoring revenue support, raising price ceilings and adjusting risk allocation, while others, on the other hand, have quietly let ambitions slide, or deprioritized offshore wind altogether.
Belief in the sector is now generally improving on the back of the implemented government changes, as can be observed through some investor interest coming back to the offshore wind industry.
Developers are generally still engaging more conservatively; knowing they can afford to wait, they are limiting capital commitments while waiting for positive signals to convert into more favorable project economics. Still, the recent Danish auction shows that some developers make bold moves in the market in order to fill up their pipelines.
A Market Splitting Into Three Tiers
The conditions for attracting developer interest have not changed: markets must provide a credible pipeline and the pre-conditions for an attractive business case.
An updated mapping of the markets along the two head-line dimensions reveals widening gaps and a market splitting into three tiers (Exhibit 1).
- Legacy leaders proved their commitment. Over the past year, these markets have reinforced their leading position: after a wave of failed auctions in 2023–2025, each of these markets has moved to repair its framework. The UK, after the failed 2023 round, lifted its price ceiling, extended contracts to twenty years and doubled its support budget, resulting in a record award of 8.4 GW of offshore wind this year. Denmark, whose subsidy-free tender had drawn no bids for the first 3 GW of a planned 6 GW program, came back with a 2.8 GW round on a novel type of capability-based two-sided contract-for-difference (CfD) and saw bidders return with a total of 7 bids submitted for the first two sites. The Netherlands moved on two fronts: a permanent CfD regime with first auctions in 2027, plus an interim subsidy scheme bringing 2 GW to tender in H2 2026, at ceilings recently raised to €116-117 per MWh. Germany has moved slower, with its 2026 tenders postponed. However, Germany has since announced a CfD reform for January 2027 as well as made joint financial commitments of up to €18bn with Denmark for the Energy Island Bornholm project, signaling a continued commitment to remain a leading offshore wind market. These markets also benefit from a mature North Sea supply chain: the ports, installation vessels and manufacturing that have delivered most of Europe's offshore capacity to date and their governments now see offshore wind as an important source for not only decarbonization and energy independence, but also for local investments and job-creation. With that base already established, repairing the regulatory framework is often sufficient and can lead to even more local benefits, an advantage that newer markets cannot readily replicate.
- Swing markets are in motion. These markets have publicly committed to offshore wind, citing it as core to their energy security and decarbonization strategy, but they have not yet reached the scale, support levels or proven frameworks of the legacy leaders. Which of these markets mature is dependent on which governments are willing to make the required trade-offs: lifting price ceilings, taking on more risk themselves, easing local-content rules, or overriding local objections to solve bottlenecks. Where governments make them, markets edge towards the leaders; where they hesitate, markets drift back. We looked at each of these markets in more detail and set out our view on where each is heading and what it would take to break through (Exhibit 2). Looking ahead, we expect Poland, France and Taiwan to break through to the leaders, with Belgium and South Korea, both recently turned upward, close behind. Ireland and Japan risk sliding back toward the question marks unless they change course. Even Norway, despite its strong wind resources, rising power demand and a strong maritime supplier base, cannot align internally on how to provide sufficiently attractive and reliable developer conditions, making it a risk that the country never succeeds in scaling offshore wind. The outlook in these markets, however, can change with the next government decision, so this is a tier that rewards close attention .
- Early question marks are falling away. These are the markets where offshore wind was prioritized when costs were low and momentum was high, but where interest receded as the economics tightened. Despite high ambition their pipelines remain thin, and plans move slowly or stall. Offshore wind is typically not a strategic priority in these markets, whether because energy security is already assured, the grid is already largely decarbonized, cheaper alternatives exist, or there is little decarbonization push to begin with. Local context may compound the challenges: in Spain and Italy, deep water forces reliance on floating technology that remains costly and immature; Sweden has rejected a total of 23 projects in the past two years after its military has warned that they would compromise national defense. In India, where its first offshore tenders drew no bids and were canceled in 2025, offshore wind competes with very cheap solar and onshore wind, and its port and supply-chain infrastructure remain underdeveloped. These challenges often result from either a lack of government prioritization or a limited sense of urgency; after all, where offshore wind is neither critical to the energy system nor straightforward to build, there is rightfully a smaller drive for governments to develop the frameworks that projects require.
Developers Must Choose and Commit
- Select your winners. Offshore wind is still growing, but growth is concentrating in fewer markets. The strategic response is to focus: commit to a few markets and build real presence there. Where to commit should follow a careful read of each market’s attractiveness on both axes, with supplier commitments a valuable signal to consider. Legacy leaders offer the lower-risk path, with mature pipelines, infrastructure and support mechanisms, but they are also the hardest to enter, because incumbents already hold the synergies, supply-chain access and deep familiarity with the regulatory environment that come from years of operating there. For a new entrant, a partnership with an established player is often the most practical way to gain a foothold. The swing markets are less certain but more open, and they offer the greatest upside to developers who read the political trajectory early and build a position before competition intensifies.
- Invest in regulatory intelligence and influence. Market attractiveness is largely determined by regulatory design: the support mechanism, the allocation of grid-connection and transmission costs, the non-price tender criteria. As these are set by government, the ability to read where the regulations are heading has become a core capability for choosing the right markets. And regulations can also be shaped: where offshore wind is core to national energy security and decarbonization goals, governments have a direct interest in seeing projects reach financial close and will adjust support frameworks to get there. A developer with established presence can engage while terms are still being set and steer them to its advantage.
- Judge whether commitment is durable. A new government can reopen a framework that appeared settled, a strained budget can reduce the planned pipeline, and a geopolitical shock can push offshore wind down the order of national priorities. What determines whether commitment survives is offshore wind dependency. In markets where there is no cheaper way to secure sufficient supply and meet binding emissions targets, commitments are considerably more likely to hold. Where onshore wind, solar, or existing nuclear and hydro remain full-scale alternatives, commitment becomes less certain. When weighing where to commit long-term capital, a reliable signal thus becomes whether the country has a credible alternative to offshore wind.
- Anticipate competition. As the most established developers increasingly concentrate their efforts to expand capacity within fewer markets this will lead to stronger competitiveness, e.g., on market knowledge, local supply chain familiarity, offtake advantages as well as portfolio synergies for construction and O&M. As a result, developers should anticipate more intense competition and a likelihood of surprisingly low, yet often financially sound, bids from market incumbents. A recent example of this was observed in the Danish Hesselø tender, where the winning bid came in far below peers.
Across all three tiers, the same factors determine the outcome: the choices a government makes and whether it holds to them. The advantage now belongs to developers who can read where a market is heading, help shape it, predict whether the commitment will last, and prepare for intense competition.
