To select the most promising issuers for a hybrid‑bond origination we look at several factors:

* **Existing hybrid‑capital programme** – both Ørsted and Enel already have hybrid bonds in their capital structure; A2A does not.
* **Leverage (Debt/EBITDA)** – Enel and A2A are highly leveraged (≈4.5‑5×) while Ørsted’s leverage is modest (≈2×). High leverage often creates a stronger need for sub‑ordinated (hybrid) financing.
* **Size and revenue** – Enel (≈140 bn EUR) and Ørsted (≈132 bn DKK ≈18 bn EUR) are large, whereas A2A (≈23 bn EUR) is considerably smaller. Larger issuers generate bigger, more attractive deals for a bank.
* **Profitability and cash‑flow strength** – Ørsted has the highest EBITDA margin (≈24 %) and strong operating cash‑flow, indicating excellent credit quality and ability to service hybrid coupons. Enel’s margin is moderate (≈13 %), while A2A’s is low (≈6 %).
* **Growth and capital needs** – All three are expanding rapidly, but Ørsted’s 70 % revenue growth and massive capex signal an active financing programme; Enel also shows strong growth (≈64 %) and high financing activity.
* **Recent hybrid‑issuance activity** – Ørsted issued additional hybrid capital in 2022, showing it is actively using this instrument. Enel has not issued new hybrid bonds in the latest year, suggesting it may be less immediate.

Combining these points, the most attractive prospect is Ørsted (A) – it has a solid credit profile, a proven hybrid‑bond programme, and significant capital needs. Enel (B) is the second‑best choice: it is highly leveraged, already has hybrid securities, and its sheer size makes it a prime candidate. A2A (C) ranks third as it lacks an existing hybrid programme, is smaller, and has lower profitability.

**Prioritization:** Ørsted → Enel → A2A.

<answer>A,B,C</answer>