# Toward Climate-Neutral Heavy Industry: An Analysis of Industry Transition Roadmaps
## 3 Results
### Analysis of Roadmap Requirements  
Figure 4 summarizes our analysis of the requirements that roadmaps cited as essential to achieving their low-carbon visions and targets. These requirements (columns) are grouped by category (policy, finance, and technology), with an indication of the extent to which they are referenced by the roadmaps (rows). Figure 4 shows that the sampled roadmaps generally contain references to requirements that span policy, finance, and technology. Even roadmaps that explicitly focus on one category make links to others. For example, Australia's AUS02 focuses on technology but acknowledges the need for regulatory policy levers and financial incentives. The category of requirements most frequently cited by roadmaps is policy levers, which is followed by technology demands and finally, finance needs. Figure 4 shows that the proportion 'limited' to 'detailed' references to requirements is low and relatively similar for policy levers and technology demands, suggesting that when such requirements are present in roadmaps, they are cited in greater detail. Meanwhile, the proportion of 'limited' references is higher for finance needs, meaning that when roadmaps articulate such needs, they do so in less detail. Lastly, although some roadmaps reference requirements in one or more categories in greater detail (e.g., IRE01), no single roadmap covers all three categories completely in detail.  
Figure 3: Actors commissioning and developing roadmaps (source: author’s own).  
At the roadmap level, Figure 4 shows that some roadmaps capture requirements across the board more comprehensively than others. Notably, IRE01, GER03, NLD01, and UKM01 contain the most detail, while FRA03, FRA02, and AUS01 contain the least. There are also differences in the comprehensiveness of roadmaps between categories. For example, IRE01 covers almost every finance need in our coding in great detail, while AUS02 and IRE01 provide the most detail for technology demands, and GER03 provides the most detail for policy levers. In addition to the coverage of the roadmaps, our analysis highlights the variation in focus across roadmaps. For instance, FRA01, FRA02, FRA03, and AUS01 contain no references to policy levers, yet the Swedish roadmaps focus almost entirely on policy, with fewer details on finance and technology requirements.  
Table 3 presents the most prominent requirements across all roadmaps in order of overall citation frequency and frequency ranking within each category. Across the three categories, policy levers are the most frequently cited. This includes non-financial 'Incentives' (ranked 1 st), 'Other measures or reforms' (2 nd), 'Regulation and permits' (4 th), and 'Legislation and legal instruments' (joint 7 th along with Electrification technology). In addition to those requirements already mentioned, financial incentives and R&D investments are also prominent across roadmaps. As for the least cited requirements, international finance, redirecting investments, and carbon budget/carbon tax occupy the bottom places. With regard to frequency ranking within each category, 'Incentives (e.g., schemes, etc.)', 'CCS', and 'Costs of implementing roadmap' are the most cited requirements for policy  
Figure 4: Comparison of roadmaps requirements across all roadmaps (source: author’s own).  
levers, technology demands, and finance needs, respectively. As with categories, no single requirement is identified by all roadmaps, though some are cited more than others.