Kenya’s clean‑cooking transition is entering a decisive phase under the Kenya National Cooking Transition Strategy (KNCTS 2024–2028) and the Kenya National eCooking Strategy (KNeCS 2024), which together commit the country to achieving universal access to clean cooking by 2028. These strategies promote a multi‑fuel pathway that includes LPG, bioethanol, biogas, sustainable biomass, and electric cooking. Delivering this ambition requires a strong domestic manufacturing ecosystem capable of producing affordable, durable, and standards‑compliant appliances at scale. As the report notes, “the success of these ambitions hinges on a skilled local manufacturing and assembly ecosystem,” highlighting the centrality of local production capacity, quality assurance, and inclusive workforce development.
This baseline provides the first comprehensive mapping of Kenya’s clean‑cooking manufacturing landscape across Nairobi, Nakuru, Kisumu, Kajiado, and Kilifi Counties. It draws on 116 enterprise surveys, key informant interviews, and stakeholder consultations to document firm capabilities, production systems, quality management, supply chains, business maturity, and dynamics of inclusion. The findings establish a robust evidence base for county‑specific and national interventions aligned with KNCTS and KNeCS. The study employed a mixed‑methods approach, combining structured surveys with qualitative interviews and validation workshops. A total of 116 manufacturers were surveyed across five counties, representing a 73 percent response rate from a verified sampling frame of 158 enterprises. Quantitative data on production scale, technology intensity, quality assurance, finance readiness, and GEDSI outcomes were triangulated with qualitative insights from county officials, sector experts, and national institutions. The study focuses on the preceding 12–24 months to reflect current market conditions and inform near‑term implementation planning. Nationally, the results reveal a sector defined by resilience, entrepreneurial energy, and strong local value chains, but constrained by informality, limited mechanization, uneven quality assurance, and restricted access to finance.
The manufacturing ecosystem is dominated by micro and small enterprises, with 58.8 percent producing fewer than 100 units per month and only 7.9 percent exceeding 1,000 units. Despite their small scale, firms demonstrate durability: 53.9 percent have operated for more than six years. Women own 29.5 percent of enterprises nationally, though their participation in technical roles remains low except in a few large firms like Burn, where women play significant technical. Formalization remains uneven. Nearly half of all firms (45.5 percent) operate informally, and only 55.8 percent maintain audited accounts. This limits access to finance, procurement, and certification, reinforcing a cycle in which firms cannot formalize without finance and cannot access finance without formalization. Production remains predominantly manual, with 57.8 percent of firms relying on manual processes, 36.2 percent using semi‑automation, and only 6 percent operating automated lines. Manual production is highest in Kisumu (86.7 percent) and Kilifi (83.3 percent), while Kajiado shows the strongest semi‑automation (58.8 percent). Nairobi hosts the only fully automated lines and the most diversified production systems. Quality assurance is inconsistent. While 65.2 percent of firms report some form of QC, 29.6 percent have none, and only 38.9 percent hold any certification. High testing costs, limited awareness, and uneven enforcement of standards and labelling regulations constrain uptake. Variability in biomass feedstocks and metal components further undermines product performance and limits access to carbon markets, institutional procurement, and export opportunities. Local sourcing is a structural strength; 88.6 percent of firms source inputs domestically, but inconsistent feedstock quality and weak supplier coordination affect product reliability and emissions performance. After‑sales systems are strongest in Nairobi and weakest in Kilifi and Kajiado, limiting consumer trust and the ability to meet MRV requirements for carbon‑linked financing. Workforce and inclusion dynamics reveal both opportunities and persistent gaps.
Most firms employ fewer than ten workers, and technical teams are small. Women’s ownership is significant in some counties, but their absence from technical roles is striking. Youth participation is high, and persons with disabilities are present in very small numbers. Strengthening inclusive skills pipelines is essential for building a resilient and equitable manufacturing workforce. County‑level diversity is more pronounced, reflecting distinct manufacturing histories, market structures, and institutional environments. Nairobi is the national anchor, hosting 48.3 percent of surveyed firms and the only automated production lines. It exhibits the strongest certification uptake, the most diversified supply chains, and the highest concentration of high‑volume producers. Nakuru is an emerging institutional hub with strong QC adoption, over 80 percent of firms report structured quality practices, and growing demand from schools and health facilities. Kisumu’s manufacturing base is predominantly artisanal and biomass‑focused, with 86.7 percent manual production and the highest female ownership at 46.7 percent. Kajiado combines artisanal metalwork with notable semi‑automation, where 58.8 percent of firms use semi‑automated processes, and more than three‑quarters report some form of QC. Kilifi is the most foundational cluster, with 75 percent of firms producing fewer than 100 units per month, 83.3 percent relying on manual production, and the lowest QC adoption at approximately 36 percent. These findings point to several strategic implications. Kenya has a resilient microenterprise base with significant latent capacity, but scale is constrained by informality, limited mechanization, and uneven quality assurance.
Quality is the gateway to institutional procurement, carbon finance, and export markets, yet nearly one‑third of firms lack QC entirely. Informality remains the most binding constraint, limiting access to finance, certification, and procurement. Inclusion gaps persist, with women’s leadership not translating into technical participation. Local supply chains are a competitive advantage, but variability in feedstock and components undermines product performance and emissions consistency. Overall, the baseline shows a sector with strong foundations but constrained by structural bottlenecks. Unlocking Kenya’s manufacturing potential will require sequenced upgrading pathways that move firms from basic registration and QC adoption to certification, financing, and ultimately export and carbon‑market readiness. Strengthening quality assurance systems, expanding access to finance, improving supply‑chain consistency, and building inclusive skills pipelines will be critical to achieving national clean‑cooking goals. Strategic recommendations, therefore, emphasize the need to formalize and strengthen county manufacturing clusters as operational units for shared tooling, feedstock hubs, and mobile QC services. Firms require a sequenced investment‑readiness pathway that begins with business hygiene, registration, bookkeeping, and basic compliance, progresses through operational stabilization with improved tooling and engineering support, and advances toward market readiness through testing vouchers, QC adoption, and certification. Finance graduation should be tied to verified orders and supported through innovative mechanisms such as cluster‑based guarantees, contract‑linked advances, and working‑capital facilities tailored to micro‑manufacturers. Large‑firm expansion should be de‑risked through blended finance and supplier‑development commitments that strengthen county‑level ecosystems. Quality must be made practical through pooled testing logistics, cohort certification, and subsidized testing for SMEs. Inclusive skills pipelines should be built through modular training hubs and women‑centered technical tracks within TVETs, supported by preferential procurement for firms meeting GEDSI targets.
Finally, Nairobi and Nakuru should be prepared for carbon and export markets through support for MRV‑ready production systems and compliance with ISO and Kenyan standards. With targeted, capability‑driven interventions, Kenya can position domestic manufacturing as a driver of universal access to clean cooking, green job creation, and measurable climate impact. Access to clean cooking is a development priority for Kenya, with direct implications for public health, gender equality, environmental stewardship, and climate mitigation. Globally, an estimated 2.3 billion people still rely on polluting fuels and inefficient cooking technologies, contributing to roughly 3.2 million premature deaths each year and imposing disproportionate burdens on women and children (IEA, 2023; WHO, 2023). In Kenya, about 68.5% of households, approximately 9.1 million, continue to rely primarily on traditional fuels, underscoring the centrality of clean cooking to achieving SDG 7 and meeting Kenya’s Nationally Determined Contribution targets (Ministry of Energy and Petroleum [MoEP], 2024; World Bank, 2023). The Government of Kenya has responded with a coordinated, multi‑fuel policy agenda. The Kenya National Cooking Transition Strategy (KNCTS 2024–2028) and the Kenya National eCooking Strategy (KNeCS, 2024) set out pathways that include liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), bioethanol, biogas, sustainable biomass, and electric cooking. These strategies establish adoption targets and propose financing mechanisms, most notably a proposed Clean Cooking Fund, to accelerate uptake and align public, private, donor, and carbon finance behind the transition (MoEP, 2024; MECS, 2024). Policy ambition alone, however, will not deliver the transition: strengthening the supply side, particularly the capacity of local manufacturers to produce affordable, durable, and standards‑compliant appliances, is essential.
Local manufacturers are a critical supply‑side enabler for several interlinked reasons. Domestic production reduces unit costs and lead times, improving affordability and responsiveness to local market needs. Local manufacturing also strengthens supply‑chain resilience and enables more effective after‑sales service and warranty provision, factors that directly influence consumer confidence and sustained adoption. Manufacturers are central to establishing traceability and measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems required for institutional procurement and for participation in carbon‑linked financing mechanisms. Finally, scaling local manufacturing retains economic value within counties and across the national economy, creating green jobs and supporting local enterprise development (Clean Cooking Alliance, 2024). Kenya already has institutional assets that can support a stronger manufacturing base. Accredited testing capacity, most notably KIRDI’s ISO/IEC 17025‑accredited cookstove laboratory, which applies ISO 19867‑1 protocols and Kenyan standards (KS 1614:2019; KS 1064:2000), provides a technical foundation for performance, emissions, and safety verification. National standards, testing protocols, and Voluntary Performance Targets (VPTs) increasingly inform procurement rules and carbon‑credit eligibility, raising the bar for product quality and integrity (ISO, 2018; Clean Cooking Alliance, 2024). Private innovation and investment are also accelerating recent sector reporting points to record investment flows and rising enterprise revenues, while business models that embed finance and usage data (for example, pay‑as‑you‑go and pay‑as‑you‑cook approaches) are beginning to lower upfront costs for end users and to create new data streams for MRV (BURN Manufacturing, 2025; MIGA, 2024). Despite these strengths, the manufacturing ecosystem is heterogeneous and faces structural constraints that limit its ability to meet growing demand and quality expectations. The sector is dominated by micro and small manufacturers operating largely manual or semi‑automated production lines; mechanisation and production engineering capacity are uneven. Quality assurance practices and certification uptake are inconsistent: many small manufacturers under-utilized accredited testing services because of cost, distance, and administrative barriers, and enforcement of standards, labelling, and market surveillance remains uneven, allowing substandard or counterfeit products to persist in some channels (GIZ, 2023; KIRDI, 2023). Business systems, formal registration, bookkeeping, and audited accounts are weak in many firms, constraining access to formal credit, finance equipment, and institutional procurement. Supply‑chain issues, including variable component quality and inconsistent feedstock characteristics, further affect product performance and safety. Market dynamics create both opportunity and urgency. LPG consumption and distribution have expanded rapidly, while bioethanol utilities and eCooking pilots demonstrate how scale and embedded finance can transform affordability and reach (EPRA, 2025; MIGA, 2024).
Carbon finance is emerging as a material revenue stream for some actors, but participation in high‑integrity carbon methodologies requires robust quality assurance, MRV, and contractual capacity that many local manufacturers do not yet possess (Clean Cooking Alliance, 2024; IFC, 2024). Gender, disability, and social inclusion gaps persist across the manufacturing workforce: women and persons with disabilities are underrepresented in technical and quality‑assurance roles even where they hold ownership or managerial positions, indicating the need for targeted skills development and inclusive procurement practices (ICRW, 2020; MECS, 2024). Evidence from Kenyan programmes suggests that professionalisation and appropriate mechanisation can create safer, higher‑productivity roles for women and persons with disabilities while improving output and quality (ReliefWeb/Green Climate Fund, 2024; GIZ, 2023). This baseline study, therefore, concentrates on local manufacturers: who they are, what they produce, how they produce it, and the institutional and market conditions that shape their ability to scale and comply with standards. The study documents manufacturing profiles (technology lines, monthly output, process automation), quality and testing readiness (ISO/KS uptake, access to accredited labs, standards and labelling experience), business systems and finance readiness (working capital cycles, equipment finance, participation in carbon and results‑based mechanisms), supply‑chain dynamics (component sourcing, inventory practices, after‑sales systems), and GEDSI patterns within manufacturing workforces and leadership. The evidence generated will inform county‑appropriate, sequenced support measures designed to strengthen the supply side while remaining responsive to national policy choices and market realities. Kenya’s national strategies set a clear and urgent direction for a multi‑fuel clean‑cooking transition, but the manufacturing supply side has not yet been documented or assessed to the same degree as demand‑side measures. The local manufacturing landscape for clean‑cooking appliances is diverse and largely composed of micro and small enterprises operating manual or semi‑automated workshops. This heterogeneity means that manufacturers differ widely in production methods, tooling, quality management, and business systems, and that the sector’s readiness to meet procurement, standards, and finance requirements is uneven (Clean Cooking Alliance, 2024). Four interrelated challenges recur in the literature and frame the need for a focused baseline: Quality assurance and standards uptake: Accredited testing capacity and internationally referenced protocols (for example, ISO 19867‑1) exist in Kenya, but uptake by smaller manufacturers is limited by cost, distance, and administrative complexity. Weak market surveillance and inconsistent enforcement of standards increase the risk of substandard products circulating in some channels (ISO, 2018; KIRDI, 2023; GIZ, 2023). Business systems and finance: Informality, limited bookkeeping, and the absence of audited accounts constrain access to formal credit, equipment finance, and institutional procurement. Working capital shortages reduce the ability of manufacturers to invest in tooling, inventory, and process improvements that support consistent quality and scale (IFC, 2024). Supply‑chain variability: Component and material quality vary across suppliers; where inputs are inconsistent, product performance, emissions, and durability are harder to guarantee. This variability complicates efforts to meet voluntary performance targets and to participate in high‑integrity carbon methodologies (Clean Cooking Alliance, 2024). Workforce and inclusion: Technical, production‑engineering, and quality‑assurance skills are in short supply, and women and persons with disabilities are underrepresented in technical roles. These gaps affect the sector’s capacity to professionalize and to adopt more advanced manufacturing practices (ICRW, 2020; MECS, 2024). The baseline study is intended to document these constraints empirically and to identify the specific, verifiable evidence needed to design sequenced, context‑sensitive support for local manufacturers. The five counties were selected to represent existing, observable manufacturing activity and to capture a cross‑section of production contexts relevant to the project. Selection criteria were applied to ensure that each county included in the sample already hosts a local fabrication or metalwork activity that contributes to clean‑cooking appliance production. Criteria included the documented presence of manufacturers or workshops producing stoves, burners, or related components; diversity in firm size and formality; variation in market channels (urban institutional procurement, retail distribution, local household markets); and geographic spread to reflect coastal, highland, and lake‑region economies. The selection, therefore, reflects where manufacturing activity is already present and where a baseline can reliably document current capacity and constraints. Nairobi Nairobi hosts the largest and most diverse concentration of local manufacturers in the study. The county includes small workshops and larger firms that undertake fabrication, assembly, and limited mechanized production. Nairobi’s manufacturing presence is complemented by proximity to accredited testing facilities, component suppliers, and a broader services ecosystem that includes engineering, logistics, and finance. The baseline will document the distribution of firm sizes and production capacities, mechanization levels, input sourcing patterns, and engagement with testing and standards institutions. Nakuru Nakuru contains an observable cluster of small and medium manufacturers and workshops that supply stoves and metal components to local and regional markets. The county also shows growing institutional procurement activity from schools, health facilities, and county programmes. The baseline will map firm profiles by technology and scale and will characterise supplier networks and logistical factors that influence production choices. Kisumu Kisumu’s manufacturing base is predominantly small‑scale and artisanal, with a range of workshops producing improved biomass stoves and metal assemblies adapted to local cooking practices. Female entrepreneurship is evident in ownership and management roles among local manufacturers. The baseline will capture product portfolios, the role of women in ownership and technical positions, local supply‑chain characteristics, and the prevalence of basic quality‑control and after‑sales practices. Kajiado Kajiado is characterised by artisanal metalwork and small‑scale stove fabrication, with many enterprises operating informally and serving local markets. Fabrication activity in the county is observable in workshops and small enterprises that undertake metal cutting, welding, and basic assembly. The baseline will document enterprise scale and formality, common production techniques and material sources, and prevailing business administration practices. Kilifi Kilifi exhibits foundational manufacturing activity, with informal workshops and small enterprises producing stoves and metal components for local demand. The county’s fabrication activity is concentrated in coastal towns and market centres where metalwork and small‑scale assembly are practiced. The baseline will establish the prevalence and types of manufacturing activity, local sourcing practices, and material quality issues, and the extent of basic safety and durability practices in production.
Recent global tracking of Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7) and health data underline the scale and urgency of the clean cooking challenge. More than two billion people still lack access to modern cooking methods, and without accelerated action, a similar number will continue to rely on polluting fuels through 2030, with major consequences for public health and climate outcomes (IEA, 2024; IRENA/IEA/WHO/World Bank, 2023). Household air pollution remains a leading environmental health risk, and traditional cooking practices also drive deforestation and emissions of short lived climate pollutants such as black carbon (WHO, 2025; IEA, 2024). These global facts frame the need to examine not only demand side interventions but the supply side systems, particularly manufacturing capacity, standards and compliance, finance readiness, and inclusion, that determine whether clean cooking technologies can be produced, distributed, and sustained at scale. High volume, standardized production of cookstoves and electric cooking appliances is concentrated in South and East Asia, where established Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), integrated supply chains, and advanced automation deliver scale and consistent quality. Recent technological and business model developments, particularly induction and IoT enabled appliances, and financing models such as Pay As You Go (PAYG) and Pay As You Cook (PAYC), are reshaping distribution, usage monitoring, and the economics of appliance ownership. Quality assurance frameworks, notably ISO 19867 1 and Voluntary Performance Targets (VPTs), are increasingly referenced in procurement and carbon credit eligibility to ensure measurable health and climate benefits (ISO, 2018; MECS, 2024). Private investment, blended finance, and carbon markets are expanding, creating new incentives for manufacturers to meet higher performance and MRV (monitoring, reporting, and verification) standards (CCA, 2024; SEforALL, 2024). Two features of the global picture are particularly relevant for supply-side programming. First, Asia’s dominance in standardized, high volume production establishes a competitive benchmark that many African manufacturers cannot yet meet because of lower mechanization, limited R&D, and constrained access to affordable capital (Practical Action, 2023; CCA, 2024). Second, the emergence of digital business models and usage based finance creates opportunities for manufacturers that can integrate IoT and MRV into product design and after sales services; realizing these opportunities requires upfront investment, technical capacity, and institutional support. Across Africa, manufacturing capacity for clean cooking appliances is uneven and generally smaller in scale than in Asia. Where capacity exists, it is often concentrated in a few firms or clusters, with many micro and small enterprises (MSEs) operating with limited mechanization and inconsistent QA systems (Practical Action, 2023; CCA, 2024). Carbon finance and blended instruments have become important enablers in several African markets, but transaction costs, registry complexity, and local currency constraints limit SME participation (IFC, 2024; Razzouk, 2025). These dynamics mean that continent level progress depends on two linked priorities: targeted technology transfer and capacity building to raise local manufacturing quality and scale, and finance and MRV systems that enable manufacturers to participate in carbon and results based markets without excessive administrative burden. East Africa presents a heterogeneous landscape. Urban centers show growing LPG and bioethanol uptake, while biomass remains dominant in rural and peri urban areas. eCooking adoption is increasing where grid and mini grid infrastructure is reliable, supported by pilots and PAYC models, but overall penetration remains low (MECS, 2024; MECS, 2025). Manufacturing capacity in East Africa is nascent but evolving Kenya hosts larger, more integrated producers; Uganda and Tanzania have smaller, largely artisanal manufacturers; and regional clusters are emerging for briquettes, pellets, and improved biomass stoves (Clean Cooking Alliance, 2025; UpEnergy Group, 2025). Financing patterns reflect global trends, blended finance, results based financing (RBF), and carbon revenues are important, but local constraints, such as foreign exchange volatility and limited access to local currency lending, shape investment decisions and the pace at which manufacturers can mechanize and professionalize (Dalberg Advisors, 2025; EnDev, 2024). Kenya occupies a distinctive position in East Africa. National strategies, the Kenya National Clean Cooking Transition Strategy (KNCTS, 2024–2028) and the Kenya National eCooking Strategy (KNeCS, 2024), set explicit multi fuel targets and propose a Clean Cooking Fund to catalyze investment (MoEP, 2024). These policy frameworks create demand signals and a planning context for supply-side interventions, but the literature indicates that the manufacturing ecosystem itself will determine how effectively those signals translate into durable market supply.
The Kenyan manufacturing landscape is best understood as dual structured. A small number of industrial firms operate mechanized, vertically integrated facilities and are experimenting with digital business models and carbon linked revenue streams; a much larger set of micro and small enterprises (MSEs) operate artisanal production lines with limited process control and inconsistent QA. Industrial actors have demonstrated the feasibility of mechanized production, IoT integration, and PAYC business models in Kenya, while many SMEs continue to serve local institutional markets (schools, small hotels) with variable product performance (Burn Manufacturing, 2025; Clean Cooking Alliance, 2025). Key features and constraints identified across the literature include: Mechanization and scale: Industrial firms demonstrate that mechanized production and integrated R&D are feasible in Kenya; however, most SMEs remain manual in production, limiting throughput, consistency, and the ability to meet tiered performance targets (Practical Action, 2023; Clean Cooking Alliance, 2025). Standards and testing capacity: Kenya has an accredited testing infrastructure capable of ISO 19867 1 aligned assessments for thermal efficiency, emissions, safety, and durability. Round robin testing exercises (for example, on the Kenya Ceramic Jiko) illustrate how testing can inform iterative design and tier benchmarking, but enforcement and market surveillance are uneven, and certification costs deter many small producers (KIRDI, 2023; ISO, 2018). Finance and carbon readiness: Blended finance and carbon markets are important revenue sources for some Kenyan firms, but many manufacturers, especially SMEs, lack MRV systems, administrative capacity, and working capital to participate effectively in carbon finance or to invest in mechanization (IFC, 2024; CCA, 2024). Supply chains and aftersales: Specialized components (electronics, precision parts) are often imported, while local suppliers provide metalwork and feedstock. Weak spare parts networks and limited after sales services outside major cities reduce consumer confidence and constrain long term adoption (MIGA, 2024; MECS, 2024). GEDSI (gender, equality, disability, and social inclusion): Women and persons with disabilities are underrepresented in technical and leadership roles. Evidence suggests that targeted training, inclusive procurement, and workplace policies can improve participation and retention (ICRW, 2020; ReliefWeb/GCF, 2024). These findings indicate that Kenya’s comparative advantages, industrial anchors, accredited testing facilities, and active blended finance pilots coexist with systemic constraints that limit the ability of the broader manufacturing base to scale and meet quality standards. Kenya’s market is multi fuel and geographically differentiated. Urban areas show strong LPG and bioethanol uptake; eCooking adoption remains low despite high electrification; biomass solutions continue to serve rural and institutional segments; and biogas has institutional potential but requires O&M capacity and digestate markets.
The table below synthesizes the status and principal opportunities identified across the reviewed literature. Geographic heterogeneity in adoption and manufacturing capacity is a recurring theme. Nairobi and Nakuru concentrate industrial activity and early eCooking pilots; Kisumu shows potential for biomass and biogas solutions; Kajiado and Kilifi remain heavily biomass dependent with limited mechanized production. The literature indicates that supply side constraints and opportunities vary by county and that any study seeking to inform interventions should capture county level manufacturing realities. Regional green industrialization initiatives, most notably the Africa Green Industrialization Initiative (AGII) and complementary AfDB and AU manufacturing programmes, seek to accelerate low carbon industrial development through technology transfer, finance mobilization, standards harmonization, and regional value chain development. The literature indicates that aligning clean cooking manufacturing with these broader initiatives can amplify impact by aggregating demand, lowering certification costs through mutual recognition, and unlocking larger blended finance windows that are otherwise inaccessible to individual SMEs (AfDB, AGII materials; World Bank & KPSA, 2024). Linking a manufacturer focused study to regional programmes is therefore strategic for three reasons. First, regional aggregation can create the scale necessary to justify mechanization investments and attract larger financiers. Second, harmonized standards and mutual recognition reduce duplication of testing and lower certification costs, improving export readiness. Third, regional programmes often include supplier development and technology transfer components that directly address mechanization, R&D, and supply chain gaps identified in national literature. The reviewed sources, therefore, recommend that any primary study capture firms’ export ambitions, standards alignment, and eligibility for regional finance instruments to identify immediate candidates for regional support and to design preparatory interventions for others (Practical Action, 2023; World Bank & KPSA, 2024). The secondary literature consistently identifies evidence gaps that constrain supply-side analysis and planning. These gaps justify a primary, manufacturer focused study to generate the granular, county stratified evidence required for supply-side decision-making: Firm level capacity and productivity: No consolidated, disaggregated dataset exists on production capacity, utilization rates, mechanization levels, and productivity drivers across counties and technology types (Practical Action, 2023). Standards compliance costs and processes: Empirical documentation is lacking on the time, fees, and institutional steps manufacturers, particularly SMEs, face to achieve certification and meet voluntary performance targets (KIRDI, 2023; GIZ, 2023). Finance readiness and carbon participation: Limited evidence exists on SME creditworthiness, working capital cycles, and administrative readiness to develop carbon projects; transaction costs and registry complexity are barriers (IFC, 2024; CCA, 2024). Supply chain mapping and after sales capacity: Insufficient mapping exists of component sourcing, local supplier capacity, spare parts lead times, and repair services outside major cities (MIGA, 2024; MECS, 2024). GEDSI disaggregation: Workforce and ownership data disaggregated by sex, disability, and other inclusion markers are incomplete, constraining targeted inclusion programming (ICRW, 2020; ReliefWeb/GCF, 2024). Industrial information systems and policy alignment: Manufacturer data are scattered and not well aligned with national and regional monitoring frameworks, complicating efforts to link firm level performance to KNCTS/KNeCS targets and to regional industrialization objectives. These gaps demonstrate the limits of secondary evidence for supply side decision making. A primary, manufacturer focused study that collects firm level quantitative and qualitative data across the five priority counties is necessary to produce the detailed evidence required to translate national and regional strategies into implementable, context sensitive supply side programmes. Secondary sources position Kenya as a regional leader with demonstrable industrial capacity and institutional assets, accredited testing, active blended finance pilots, and early adopters of IoT enabled business models, yet they also document pervasive supply side constraints among most manufacturers. Comparative evidence from global, African, and East African literature indicates that where industrial anchors and testing infrastructure exist, targeted investments in mechanization, QA, and finance can accelerate scale; conversely, without deliberate support for SMEs and county level manufacturing ecosystems, national clean cooking targets will be difficult to meet at scale. The literature, therefore, supports a focused primary data collection effort to map manufacturing capacity, standards compliance pathways, finance readiness, supply chain depth, and GEDSI outcomes at firm and county levels, while explicitly capturing firms’ readiness and pathways to engage with regional green industrialization initiatives.
This baseline employed a mixed‑methods design to capture both the breadth and depth of Kenya’s clean‑cooking manufacturing landscape. A targeted literature and desk review established the policy, market, and technical context and directly informed the design of primary instruments. Primary data collection combined semi‑structured key informant interviews with senior county and national officials and a stratified, county‑level survey of manufacturers and assemblers, enabling the study to document systemic institutional dynamics alongside firm‑level realities. Stakeholder engagement was integrated throughout the process: a co‑creation workshop refined preliminary findings and ensured local relevance, and a validation workshop confirmed results and strengthened ownership among government, industry, and development partners. Findings from the desk review, KIIs, the manufacturer survey, and workshop inputs were systematically triangulated to reinforce validity and surface context‑specific nuances. The resulting evidence base provides a concise, actionable picture of supply‑side constraints and opportunities to inform subsequent analysis and programming. The study focused on five counties (Nairobi, Kisumu, Nakuru, Kilifi, and Kajiado) that have established or are emerging as centers of clean-cooking manufacturing and assembly activity. These counties were selected because they host a diverse mix of enterprise types, reflect varying levels of market maturity, and exhibit varying degrees of institutional support for clean-cooking manufacturing. The study's scope included enterprises involved in the manufacture or assembly of clean cooking technologies, such as improved biomass stoves, LPG appliances, electric cooking devices, ethanol and biogas systems, and their associated components. The assessment also considered the broader enabling environment, including the roles of standards bodies, national and county governments, financing institutions, technical support organizations, development partners, and sector experts. Nairobi represents the single largest concentration of manufacturers surveyed, accounting for nearly half (48.28%) of all respondents. Kajiado, Nakuru, and Kisumu show fairly balanced representation, ranging between 12% and 15% each. Kilifi has the lowest representation among the surveyed regions at 10.34%. Dominance of Custom/Informal fabrication ("Other"). The largest single group of manufacturers (37 firms) fall under general custom metal fabrication or unclassified production. Strong Biomass & Biogas Base. Standalone Biogas systems (21 firms) and Briquette stoves (16 firms) form the core of specialized local technology manufacturing across most counties.
Nairobi as an eCooking Hub. Specialized electric cooking technologies particularly Electric Pressure Cookers (EPCs) (12 of 13 firms) and Bioethanol stoves (all 5 firms) are heavily concentrated in Nairobi To ensure consistency and clarity, the study applied standardized definitions. A clean cooking manufacturer or assembler is defined as any enterprise that fabricates, assembles, or significantly transforms clean cooking devices or components in Kenya. Key informants were individuals in roles that influence or regulate clean cooking manufacturing at the county or national level. Stakeholders included institutions and organizations involved in policy development, standardization, financing, capacity building, market development, or technical oversight related to clean cooking. A comprehensive literature and desk review established the policy, market, and technical context and identified evidence gaps to be addressed by primary data. Sources reviewed included national strategies and county plans, standards and testing protocols, market intelligence, and prior sector mappings. Findings from the desk review directly informed the survey and KII guides: modules on production and mechanization, QA and certification, finance and MRV readiness, supply‑chain mapping, workforce and GEDSI, and after sales/service networks were included to ensure the study captured the supply‑side constraints most relevant to manufacturers. Draft instruments were reviewed by sector experts and pilot‑tested with a small sample of enterprises and officials. Pilot feedback was used to refine question wording, sequencing, skip logic, and digital form design. Selecting senior officers in these three portfolios ensured that the KIIs addressed the core institutional levers that shape manufacturing: policy and planning (energy), industrial development and business support (trade/industry), and inclusion (gender/social services). Interviewees were purposively sampled for their seniority, direct remit over relevant functions, and familiarity with county manufacturing or SME programmes. Semi structured guides ensured comparability across counties while allowing interviewees to elaborate on county specific conditions, regulatory bottlenecks, and coordination mechanisms with national agenci A consolidated sampling frame was compiled by merging county business and trade directories, industry association lists, KEBS/KIRDI records, previous sector mappings, and referrals from county officials and sector partners. Each listed enterprise was contacted to verify active engagement in manufacturing or assembly. After de duplication and verification, the final frame comprised 158 active enterprises across the five counties. With a finite population N=158, the required sample size was calculated using Yamane’s formula for a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error: n=N/(1+Ne^2 )⇒n≈158/(1+158(〖0.05〗^2))≈113 To allow for non response and incomplete interviews, the study targeted all the 158 listed enterprises.
Due to the time constraints and non-response by some targeted respondents, a total of 116 interviews were completed and included in the final analysis. The achieved sample meets the statistical requirement and represents approximately 73% of the verified population (116/158). The county was the primary stratification variable to ensure geographic representativeness. Where available, enterprises were annotated by size (micro, small, medium, industrial) and dominant technology (biomass, LPG, eCooking, ethanol/biogas, components). Within each county stratum, enterprises were selected by simple random sampling. Very small strata were fully enumerated to avoid sampling bias. The survey combined structured quantitative modules and open ended questions. Core modules covered firm characteristics, product lines and production volumes, input sourcing and tooling, QA and certification status, financing and MRV readiness, workforce composition and GEDSI, market channels and after sales services, and perceived constraints. Enumerators were trained on the instrument and ethical procedures; data were collected digitally with validation checks and daily supervisory review. Stakeholder engagement was central to enriching and validating the study's findings. A co-creation workshop held in December 2025 in Nairobi brought together representatives from all five counties, sector experts, development partners, national institutions, and manufacturers. The workshop provided an opportunity to reflect on preliminary findings, clarify contextual differences, and co-develop practical interventions to strengthen the clean cooking manufacturing sector. A subsequent validation workshop allowed stakeholders to review the synthesized results, confirm their accuracy, and prioritize recommendations. These engagements reinforced the study’s credibility and ensured that the conclusions reflected both empirical evidence and practitioner insight. All tools were pilot tested and refined. Field teams followed standardised protocols for introductions, informed consent, and interview administration. Quality control measures included automated validation checks in digital forms, daily supervisory reviews, verification of enterprise identities, and systematic handling of missing or inconsistent responses. Data were anonymised for analysis and stored securely. Ethical safeguards included informed consent, the right to withdraw, and protection of sensitive commercial information; the study adhered to a “do no harm” principle. Quantitative data analysis focused on generating descriptive statistics, including frequencies, proportions, and cross-tabulations. These summaries allowed the study to identify patterns across counties, firm sizes, and technology categories without requiring weighting or complex statistical adjustments. Summaries were presented in tables and charts to facilitate interpretation. Qualitative data analysis involved thematic coding of interview notes and workshop outputs. Themes were derived from both the study objectives and issues that emerged during discussions. This approach enabled the study to capture the nuances of institutional, regulatory, and operational dynamics affecting manufacturers. Triangulation was a critical step that integrated evidence from the literature review, KIIs, the manufacturer survey, and stakeholder workshops. Consistent findings across sources were consolidated, and differences were carefully examined to understand context-specific conditions or methodological constraints. This iterative process strengthened the robustness of the conclusions. Although the study followed a rigorous methodological process, several practical limitations were encountered.
The completeness of the sampling frame remained a challenge, as informal or newly established micro producers may not have been captured despite consolidating multiple verified sources. To minimise this risk, county officials and sector partners provided referrals, and enumerators used snowball techniques during fieldwork to identify additional active enterprises. Self reported information, particularly production volumes, financial details, and workforce data, may also be subject to over- or under-reporting inaccuracies. This was mitigated by probing for ranges, crosschecking with observable production processes where feasible, and triangulating responses with insights from key informants and desk research. Manufacturing activity can vary seasonally or in response to procurement cycles, meaning the study reflects conditions at a specific point in time. Triangulation with KIIs and secondary data helped situate findings within broader sector trends. Overall, these limitations were anticipated and managed through deliberate mitigation measures, ensuring that the resulting dataset remained robust, credible, and fit for analysis. Quality assurance was embedded throughout the study to uphold methodological rigour, data integrity, and ethical standards. All tools underwent expert review and pilot testing to ensure clarity, logical flow, and relevance. Enumerators received structured training on study objectives, tool administration, probing techniques, digital data capture, and ethical procedures. Field supervisors conducted daily reviews of submitted data to ensure completeness and accuracy, while digital forms incorporated validation checks to minimise entry errors. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, personal identifiers were removed from analysis datasets, and sensitive commercial information was securely stored with restricted access. Reliability was further strengthened through systematic triangulation of evidence from the desk review, KIIs, manufacturer survey, and stakeholder workshops. Convergent findings reinforced confidence in the results, while differences were examined to understand contextual factors. The co creation and validation workshops provided an additional quality assurance layer, ensuring that interpretations were accurate, contextually grounded, and endorsed by practitioners and policymakers. Together, these measures ensured that the study produced credible, actionable findings suitable for informing policy, investment, and programme design in Kenya’s clean cooking manufacturing ecosystem. This section presents the findings of the baseline assessment of Kenya’s clean‑cooking manufacturing ecosystem, drawing on a mixed‑methods evidence base that includes 116 structured surveys across five counties, 15 key informant interviews, and two stakeholder workshops. The analysis triangulates quantitative patterns with qualitative insights to explain variations in firm size, production scale, technology intensity, quality management, supply chains, workforce, and GEDSI outcomes, and business systems. The chapter begins with a national thematic outlook that distils the sector’s overarching dynamics and constraints, before moving into county‑level profiles that translate these national trends into locally specific insights. Together, the national and county analyses provide a coherent, data‑driven foundation for identifying strategic priorities and designing context‑appropriate interventions to strengthen Kenya’s clean‑cooking manufacturing sector. The assessment covered 116 active manufacturing and assembly enterprises across five counties: Nairobi (48.3%), Kajiado (14.7%), Nakuru (13.8%), Kisumu (12.9%), and Kilifi (10.3%). This distribution reflects Nairobi’s role as Kenya’s primary manufacturing and commercial hub, hosting nearly half of all surveyed enterprises. The remaining counties represent a mix of secondary urban centers and rural or peri-urban contexts characterized by smaller-scale, often artisanal, production. This distribution demonstrates the geographic diversity of the manufacturing ecosystem. Across the full sample, 61.2% of respondents were male, and 38.8% were female. Respondents were predominantly aged 25–44, followed by those aged 55 and older, indicating a sector led by economically active adults with substantial practical experience rather than by new entrants. No respondents self-identified as person with disabilities at the interview level; at the enterprise ownership level, only 0.9% reported disability, and 0.9% were unsure, pointing to minimal participation of persons with disabilities in leadership roles. Respondents were overwhelmingly in managerial or ownership roles. Among women respondents, 64% identified as managers or owners, showcasing their significant leadership presence. However, no female respondents reported holding technical roles, which may reflect ongoing barriers and the need for further support to empower women across all levels. Enterprise ownership in Kenya’s clean-cooking manufacturing sector remains predominantly male-led, with 70.5% of surveyed firms owned by men and 29.5% by women. Figure 6 below illustrates substantial county-level variation from this national average. Female ownership is highest in Kisumu (46.7%), where the sector approaches gender parity, a pattern linked to the prominence of small-scale and community-based enterprises and stronger engagement of women entrepreneurs. Kajiado follows with 40.0% of firms owned by women, reflecting the importance of micro- and artisanal production models in lowering entry barriers for women. Despite Nairobi hosting the most significant number of women-owned enterprises, it mirrors the national trend, with 30.4% female ownership, suggesting that higher market concentration and capital intensity may limit women’s participation at scale. The lowest levels of female ownership are observed in Nakuru (14.3%) and Kilifi (8.3%), highlighting persistent structural barriers to access to finance, formal business networks, and technical manufacturing pathways in these counties. Taken together, the distribution underscores that while women’s leadership is well established in parts of the clean-cooking manufacturing sector, particularly in more localized and artisanal contexts, ownership gaps widen as production becomes more capital-intensive, pointing to the need for targeted, location-specific interventions to support women’s participation at scale. Formalization across Kenya’s clean-cooking manufacturing sector remains incomplete: only 54.5% of surveyed firms report registration or licensing, while 45.5% continue to operate informally, as shown in Figure 7. This high level of informality is linked to firm size and legal form rather than being uniformly distributed across the sector. Informality is most prevalent in Kilifi and Kajiado, where enterprises operate at a tiny scale, rely on manual production processes, and serve predominantly local markets. Manufacturers in these counties most frequently cited small-scale operations, high registration costs, newly established or transitioning businesses, and limited awareness of regulatory requirements as reasons for non-registration. These findings were corroborated through key informant interviews and stakeholder consultations, which highlighted that perceived regulatory complexity and transaction costs often outweigh the perceived benefits of formalization for micro-enterprises.
The distribution of ownership structures reinforces this pattern. Nearly half of firms (48.3%) operate as sole proprietorships, while 38.8% are registered as limited liability companies. Fewer than 7% of firms operate as partnerships or cooperatives, legal forms that typically facilitate risk sharing, pooled investment, and structured growth. This dominance of individual ownership models reflects the microenterprise character of much of the sector and helps explain persistent constraints on capital mobilization, access to finance, and economies of scale. Taken together, the evidence suggests that informality in the clean-cooking manufacturing sector is not solely a compliance issue but also a reflection of enterprise maturity and market dynamics. Addressing formalization offers opportunities for growth, access to finance, and market expansion, motivating stakeholders to support enabling, phased approaches that link registration to tangible benefits. Despite financial constraints, informality, and compliance with standards, the clean-cooking manufacturing sector demonstrates notable business durability. More than half of the firms surveyed (53.9%) have been in operation for more than 6 years, while 38.2% have been in operation for 1 to 6 years. Only 7.8% of firms are less than 1 year old, indicating limited recent entry and suggesting that the sector is characterized more by enterprise survival and gradual growth than by rapid firm establishment. As illustrated in Figure 7, there are apparent county-level differences in firm longevity. Nairobi hosts the highest concentration of long-established enterprises, reflecting advantages from proximity to input suppliers, skilled labor, regulatory institutions, and larger markets. In contrast, Kilifi and Kajiado have a higher proportion of younger firms, consistent with demand-driven entry into underserved local markets rather than deliberate industrial expansion. These patterns underscore the importance of strengthening existing enterprises - particularly outside Nairobi - as a foundation for scaling clean cooking manufacturing nationwide. Surveyed manufacturers produce a diverse range of clean-cooking technologies, reflecting Kenya’s multi-fuel transition pathway and the varied energy needs of households, institutions, and commercial users. As illustrated in Figure 8, production spans both cooking fuel-based and appliance-based solutions, with distinct regional patterns linked to infrastructure access, market demand, and enterprise maturity. Across the study sample in all five counties, biogas systems account for approximately 18% of reported clean cooking manufacturing products and are predominantly targeted at institutions and farms, where feedstock availability and economies of scale are more favorable. Briquette stoves and fuels account for about 14% of products, with production concentrated in Kisumu, Nakuru, and the coastal counties, reflecting the availability of agricultural residues and strong institutional demand. Electric pressure cookers comprise roughly 11% of reported products and are produced primarily in Nairobi, where higher electrification rates, consumer purchasing power, and access to component supply chains support appliance manufacturing. Bioethanol stoves account for about 14% of reported products and are manufactured by a small number of urban-based firms. Induction cookers, pellet stoves, and hybrid technologies make up the remaining share, indicating early-stage diversification into newer clean-cooking solutions. Despite this technological diversity, production volumes remain overwhelmingly micro- and small-scale. As shown in Figure 9, nearly 58.8% of firms produce fewer than 100 units per month, while 25.4% produce 100–500 units. Only 7.9% of firms produce 501–1,000 units, and a further 7.9% exceed 1,000 units per month, underscoring the limited number of high-volume manufacturers in the sector There are pronounced county-level differences in production scale. Nairobi is the only county represented across all production bands and accounts for the majority of higher-volume producers, reflecting its stronger manufacturing infrastructure and market access. Kisumu records the highest relative share of firms producing more than 1,000 units of cooking devices per month (14.3%), primarily driven by established briquette operations serving institutional markets. In contrast, 75% of firms in Kilifi operate in the lowest production category, producing fewer than 100 units per month, consistent with artisanal production and localized demand. When firms consider their output under full operating conditions, the share capable of producing more than 1,000 units per month rises from 7.9% to 17.7%, more than doubling. Key informant interviews consistently attribute this gap between actual and potential production to capital constraints, limited access to working capital, and intermittent demand, rather than deficiencies in technical skills or production knowledge. These findings indicate significant latent capacity within existing firms, suggesting that targeted investments in production upgrading and finance could yield rapid gains in output and reliability. 4.1.5 Production Processes and Technology Intensity Manufacturing across the clean cooking sector remains predominantly labor-intensive, reflecting the micro- and small-scale nature of most enterprises and varying levels of capital investment. Overall, 57.8% of surveyed firms rely on fully manual production processes, while 36.2% use semi-automated systems such as basic presses, rolling machines, or mechanized cutting tools. Only 6.0% of firms report operating fully automated production lines, indicating that advanced manufacturing technologies remain limited within the sector. As shown in Figure 10, the intensity of production technology varies markedly across counties. Manual production is most prevalent in Kisumu (86.7%) and Kilifi (83.3%), where enterprises are largely artisanal and focus on biomass-based stoves, fuels, and small-batch fabrication.
These counties are characterized by low levels of mechanization and a firm reliance on skilled manual labor, consistent with localized supply chains and limited access to capital equipment. In contrast, Kajiado shows a higher degree of semi-automation (58.8%), reflecting the adoption of metalworking tools and machinery from adjacent sectors such as construction and fabrication. Nairobi exhibits the greatest technological diversity, combining manual, semi-automated, and a small but notable share of fully automated production lines. This diversity reflects Nairobi’s stronger access to capital, supplier networks, skilled labor, and proximity to standards and testing institutions. Taken together, the findings suggest that while manual production remains the norm, there is clear scope for incremental upgrading rather than wholesale automation. Targeted investments in semi-automation and production engineering, particularly in counties with high manual reliance, could improve productivity, consistency, and product quality without the high capital outlays required for full automation. Quality management practices are present across much of the clean-cooking manufacturing sector, though their depth, consistency, and formality vary widely by firm size and location. Overall, 65.2% of surveyed firms report having some form of quality control (QC) measures in place, while 5.2% operate partial or ad hoc QC systems. However, 29.6% of enterprises report no formal quality control practices. Figure 11 shows that the adoption of quality control (QC) varies significantly across counties. Nakuru has the highest uptake, with over 80% of firms reporting QC measures, followed closely by Kajiado (over 75%). These higher adoption rates likely reflect the prevalence of metal fabrication enterprises, exposure to institutional clients, and greater experience with structured production processes. Nairobi and Kisumu show moderate adoption, reflecting a mix of informal enterprises and more established manufacturers. In contrast, Kilifi records the lowest level of QC adoption (approximately 36%), consistent with the dominance of small, artisanal producers and limited access to testing infrastructure and certification services. The scope of QC practices also varies widely. For many micro- and small enterprises, quality assurance typically consists of informal visual inspections, functional testing, and basic safety checks, often relying on the experience of master artisans rather than on documented procedures. More established firms report structured testing protocols, batch verification, and periodic use of accredited laboratories, including facilities operated by the Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) and the Kenya Industrial Research and Development Institute (KIRDI). However, routine in-house testing and continuous quality monitoring remain limited across the sector. Stakeholders consistently identified uneven quality management capacity as a constraint to accessing higher-value markets. In particular, limited QC and formal standardization were cited as barriers to institutional procurement, compliance with national and international standards, and participation in results-based financing and carbon-linked mechanisms, which increasingly require verifiable performance, durability, and traceability. At the same time, the relatively high proportion of firms with at least basic QC practices suggests a foundation for building more systematic and scalable quality management systems. Overall, the findings suggest an opportunity to gradually strengthen quality management rather than immediately adopting complex certification regimes. Targeted technical assistance, shared testing facilities, and simplified standard-compliance pathways, particularly for firms in counties with low QC adoption, could help bridge the gap between informal practices and formal standards while remaining aligned with the operational realities of micro- and small-scale manufacturers. 4.1.7 Supply Chains and Input Sourcing Input sourcing in the clean-cooking manufacturing sector is predominantly domestic, with 88.6% of firms surveyed relying primarily on local suppliers. Only 5.3% of firms report using imported inputs, while a further 6.1% combine local and imported components. This heavy reliance on domestic sourcing reflects both cost considerations and the localized nature of production systems across the sector.
Local supply chains are anchored in established industrial and informal hubs, most notably Kamukunji and the Industrial Area in Nairobi, as well as regional scrap-metal markets and agricultural residue streams. Standard biomass inputs include char dust, rice husks, macadamia shells, and sawdust, sourced from milling operations, farming communities, and agro-processing centers. This domestic sourcing base supports affordability, local employment, and supply continuity, particularly for micro- and small-scale producers.
At the same time, reliance on local inputs introduces variation in raw material quality and consistency, especially for biomass fuels and stove components such as liners. Firms frequently noted the need to sort, blend, or preprocess to manage this variability, which can increase production time and affect product performance. Imported inputs, primarily specialty steels, electrical components, and select hardware, are used almost exclusively by larger, better-capitalized firms, mainly located in Nairobi, where access to foreign suppliers and logistics services is stronger.
The findings suggest that domestic supply chains provide a strong foundation for the sector but would benefit from incremental strengthening, including improved material grading, aggregation, and supplier coordination. These measures could enhance input quality and reliability while preserving the cost advantages and resilience of local sourcing.
Male-owned firms are disproportionately larger in maximum employment capacity due to a few large-scale industrial manufacturers (reaching up to 3,500 staff). Female-owned firms operate primarily in the small-to-medium bracket, with 100% of female-owned businesses employing 40 or fewer staff members. Enterprises in Kenya’s clean cooking sector are overwhelmingly small, yet employment is highly concentrated in a few large manufacturers. Nearly 60 percent (59.5%) of surveyed firms report fewer than ten employees, and a further 35.3 percent employ between 11 and 50 people; only 5.2 percent of firms have workforces exceeding 100 employees, and these larger enterprises are almost exclusively based in Nairobi. This skew matters for programming: while micro and small firms are numerous, their combined employment is modest. By one estimate, the cohort of firms with fewer than ten employees accounts for at most 600 jobs, whereas a single large manufacturer (Burn) employs over 3,000 people in the region. Targeting interventions only at the many small firms risks overlooking where most sector jobs are concentrated.
Annual revenue brackets remain very similar across owner gender: Micro (