Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Prepared by Climate Bonds Initiative. Sponsored by IDB, UniCredit and Lyxor ETF. Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 1
1. Introduction
This is Climate Bonds Initiative’s third study The impact reporting section explores Contents
of post-issuance reporting in the green bond several topics specific to the impact space. We
1. Introduction 2
market. By shedding more light on reporting significantly deepened our impacts research
practices, we aim to understand the availability this year, and thus cover a broader range of Report structure 2
and attributes of disclosure on the use of proceeds issues than our last report with the explicit aim Methodology 4
(UoP) and environmental impacts of projects/ of supporting further market development and
2. Report summary 4
assets/activities financed by green bonds, as well best practice.
as identify avenues for improvement. High-level findings & conclusion 4
Along with impact reporting, many readers may
Quantitative findings: more detail 5
Post-issuance UoP reporting is a core component be most interested by what the future holds.
of the Green Bond Principles (GBP) and the This section includes extensive critical reflections 3. Use-of-proceeds reporting 7
Green Loan Principles (GLP), and it is also on past and future market trends, both within
Quarterly analysis 7
recommended that issuers report on the and beyond UoP instruments. We hope it can
Deal size 8
environmental impacts achieved. Post-issuance be used as a platform for further progress and
Issuer type 8
disclosure provides transparency, ensures harmonisation of sustainability reporting.
External reviews 9
accountability and underpins the credibility
The conclusion summarises the key findings, Geographies 10
of green bonds and loans. As the market has
provides various best practice recommendations, At issuance vs. post-issuance 13
grown, so has investor interest in UoP and impact
and gives an overview of where reporting might
reporting to inform decision-making processes, 4. Quality scoring 14
be headed.
analysis and investor reporting.
Process overview & key variables 14
It is a long report. Our overarching aim was to
Case studies 14
Report structure be as comprehensive as possible in order to
Quantitative analysis 16
facilitate the continued evolution of sustainable
This report follows a broadly similar structure to Best reporters 17
finance. We have therefore addressed many
our 2019 study, but with greater depth.
topics, some of which are quite complex 5. Impact reporting 18
The report summary gives an overview of the key (especially related to impact reporting).
Overview 18
messages, findings and conclusions, as well as a
Impact reporting practices 18
summary of the key quantitative findings covering Methodology Impact case studies 20
different aspects of post-issuance reporting.
Report coverage: Metrics: analysis approach 21
The subsequent section covers the availability Metrics: analysis results 24
• Green bonds issued from Nov 2017 - March
of use-of-proceeds (UoP) reporting analysed Other relevant findings 33
2019 included in the Climate Bonds Green
through different perspectives, followed by an Impact reporting methodologies 34
Bond Database
assessment of the quality of reporting using
6. What the future holds 38
a scoring system almost identical to the one we • Loans and securitized instruments excluded
introduced in 2019. Here we also identify top State of play, and looking ahead 38
• The full universe is made up of 694 bonds from
performers and provide best practice examples. Looking further ahead 41
408 issuers = USD212bn
Getting there: the paradigm shift 45
The research underpinning this report looked Final remarks & food for thought 47
Climate Bonds Initiative at all publicly available information after the
7. Conclusion 48
bond has closed. Information sources include
The Climate Bonds Initiative is an
bespoke green bond reports, annual reports, Findings overview 48
international investor-focused not-for-profit
CSR/ sustainability reports, etc. Evolution of impact reporting 48
organisation working to mobilise
Best practice recommendations 49
the USD100tn bond market for climate The analysis is based on what was available
change solutions. at the time of the research, the bulk of which Appendices 51
happened in Q2 and Q3 2020 to allow just over a
We promote investment in projects 1. Research methodology 51
year for the last included deals to provide post-
and assets needed for a rapid transition 2. Climate Bonds Taxonomy 52
issuance reporting. This gives most, but not the
to a low carbon and climate resilient 3. External review types 53
latest, deals a two-year time frame to report, the
economy. Our mission is to help drive 4. Country ranking (by quality) 54
maximum recommended by the GBP.
down the cost of capital for large-scale 5. List of impact metrics 55
climate and infrastructure projects To read more detail about the methodology,
Endnotes 58
and to support governments seeking please see Appendix 1.
increased access to capital markets to
meet climate and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission reduction goals, as well as other
sustainability objectives.
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 2Glossary Impact metricsi: The KPIs that issuers use to Key acronyms /
Green bond: Labelled use-of-proceeds debt
measure/estimate and report impacts (e.g. GHG abbreviations
emissions saved, energy generated). There is a
instrument financing environmental projects/ UoP: use of proceeds
wide range, which we grouped together to form
assets and included in the Climate Bonds
a consolidated list – throughout most of this DM / EM: developed and emerging markets
Green Bond Database (as per our Database
report, ‘metrics’ refers to the consolidated list. (according to MSCI classificationiii)
Methodology).
General vs. Specific metrics: General metrics SDGs: Sustainable Development Goals
Post-issuance reporting: Includes all the
can be used across several or all project
publicly available information on a green bond’s GHG: greenhouse gases
categories (e.g. GHG emissions saved, energy
UoP and impacts after the bond has closed (often
saved, number of units built). Specific metrics are CO2: carbon dioxide
referred to simply as ‘reporting’). Providing this is
specific to each project category (e.g. building
a core component of the GBP. GBP: Green Bond Principles
certifications, number of journeys made).
Availability / Quality of reporting: For the ICMA: International Capital Market
Absolute vs. Relative metrics:ii Absolute
purposes of this report, availability of reporting Association
metrics reflect absolute measures of performance
refers to whether post-issuance UoP reporting
(e.g. GHG emissions, energy generated, capacity ICMA Harmonized Framework: Handbook
is available (except in the ‘Impact reporting’
installed, number of journeys made). Relative – Harmonized Framework for Impact
section); quality of reporting refers to how ‘good’
metrics reflect a comparison against some sort of Reporting (2020)
the issuer’s overall reporting is.
baseline, such as the performance in a previous
NPSI Position Paper: Nordic Public Sector
Use of proceeds (UoP): The projects/assets/ period (e.g. energy reduced, water reduced)
Issuers Position Paper on Green Bonds
activities financed by the bond proceeds. In or in the project’s absence / against a relevant
Impact Reporting (2020)
use-of-proceeds instruments, the proceeds are benchmark (e.g. GHG emissions avoided, energy
allocated to specific uses. avoided, building certifications, number of NFRD: EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive
journeys shifted).
Impacts: The environmental impacts achieved CSRD: EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting
through the projects/assets financed with green Absolute vs. Relative units: Absolute units Directive (replaces NFRD)
bond proceeds. However, in most of the ‘What express a ‘direct measurement’ (e.g. kWh/MWh,
SFDR: EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure
the future holds’ section, takes on a broader tonnes, ha) while relative units express a relative
Regulation
definition of the full social and environmental amount (almost always in %, but can be an
impacts of activities/entities (clarified there). intensity, e.g. kWh per $ or per m2). TCFD: Task Force on Climate-related
Financial Disclosures
Measured vs. Estimated impacts: Depends Impact methodologies: Defined as any type
on how the impact is calculated. Measured of framework that helps issuers decide which TNFD: Task Force on Nature-related
impacts are derived directly from measurement metrics to report and/or how to monitor, Financial Disclosures
(e.g. often the case for installed power capacity, measure/calculate and/or report them.
energy generated and area conserved/restored).
Estimated impacts require some form of
estimation and tend to refer to metrics that
are hard, if not impossible, to measure directly
(e.g. GHG emissions, GHG emissions avoided,
transport mode shifted).
Expected (ex-ante) vs. Actual (ex-post)
impacts: Depends on when the assessment is
conducted. Ex-ante impacts are forward-looking
(i.e. assessment before impact materialises) and
therefore necessarily estimated. Ex-post impacts
are assessed after the impact actually occurs, and
can be either measured or estimated.
i. Full list of (consolidated) metrics in Appendix 5, along with classification as general/specific and absolute/relative metrics.
ii. Relative metrics can be expressed in both absolute and relative units (e.g. energy saving in kWh and %); absolute metrics are almost always expressed in absolute units, but can be in relative units if an intensity, or in
some cases as a % (when reporting a share, e.g. share of building space covered by LED lighting or smart meters, and recycling/recovery rates).
iii. Frontier markets included within emerging.
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 32. Report summary
High-level findings &
UoP reporting more common than impacts
conclusions
Reporting Scope
Availability of post-issuance reporting is
Use of Impact Both At least
widespread, but UoP is still more commonly
proceeds one
reported than impacts.
Number of issuers Reporting % 77% 59% 57% 79%
77% of issuers representing 88% of the amount
issued provided use-of-proceeds (UoP) Number of bonds Reporting % 77% 63% 62% 78%
reporting, while 59% of issuers and 74% of the
Amount issued (USDbn) Reporting % 88% 74% 73% 88%
amount issued reported on impacts.
NB: A few repeat issuers had reporting and non-reporting deals (latter often more recent). ‘Number of bonds’ figures are not comparable
57% of issuers and 73% of the amount issued to the summary table in our 2019 report, since that one included securitized deals, which skewed the figures due to Fannie Mae.
reported on both UoP and impacts, demonstrating
best practice.
The real evolution is therefore yet to come, in the The key is to create a common language
The amount issued share is generally higher as
form of a common reporting framework and to assess impacts/sustainability/ESG
larger issuers are more likely to report.
platform that drives greater transparency performance.
The reporting share has increased versus the through added availability, quality and (crucially)
Integration of efforts is crucial: there is
early market (especially on impacts). However, consistency of disclosure.
currently a wide range of approaches, ideas,
several issuers are still not reporting within one
• There are several promising efforts to initiatives, tools and resources- creating a
year of issuance.
harmonise and centralise reporting common language and framework/platform is of
globally, including existing platforms the utmost importance.
Greenwashing is rare: from our estimates,
(e.g. Green Assets Wallet and Green Bond
almost all non-reporting issuers at the time of Now that the USA is back in climate talks, the
Transparency Platform), frameworks (e.g. ICMA
research have now reported at least UoP. time is ripe for a new global initiative that delivers
Harmonized Framework and NPSI Position
consistent sustainability reporting and rules
Nevertheless, there are improvements to Paper), and ICMA Impact Reporting Working
designed for a rapid, robust, resilient transition.
be made: some issuer types and regions are Group.
weaker, and impact reporting in particular is Comprehensive sustainability reporting
• The EU Green Bond Standard may also have the
highly unstandardised. under a common framework has the power
potential to contribute towards a globally adopted
to create a purpose-driven economy with
Almost no segment of the market has more reporting framework for thematic debt instruments.
impact at its core, as long as improvements in
non-reporting than reporting issuers, but
• Climate Bonds planning to work more in performance are properly integrated and valued,
there are still variations in availability of reporting
this space. enabled via adequate institutional set-ups, and
depending on deal size, external reviews, issuer
supported by coherent policies.
type and geography.
Beyond UoP instruments: urgent need for
Developed markets (DM) tend to have higher comprehensive sustainability reporting to create
share (and quality) of reporting, but the a purpose-driven economy with impact at its core
relationship is not perfect and there are several
A framework/platform targeting UoP instruments
exceptions.
would be beneficial in the interim, but the
Quality and consistency of reporting vary more current approach to impact reporting among
significantly, particularly regarding impacts, UoP instruments does not provide a real and
i.e. which metrics to report along with how to full picture of impacts.
measure/calculate and report them.
There is a need to assess holistic impacts,
An expanding market, together with use absolute – not relative – metrics, and
increasing guidance and developments look beyond UoP instruments for entity-level
in reporting practices, have contributed to assessments.
a rich and varied reporting landscape – now,
There are growing calls for globally consistent,
harmonisation of disclosure must be the priority,
comparable and reliable sustainability
but without losing granularity.
disclosure standards through a shared,
There is still a long way to go until reporting is versatile framework.
available market-wide in a consistent fashion,
• The EU is leading the drive towards
which poses problems especially in impact
comprehensive sustainability reporting
comparability and aggregation. This is hardly
from regulatory perspective through NFRD
surprising given the fragmented nature of
and more recently CSRD, supported by EU
reporting up to now – in the absence of a
Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities, SFDR
common framework to report within, issuers
and TCFD; some other geographies are also
must independently plan, create and publish
working with similar goals.
green bond reports.
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 4Financials top, non-financials bottom
Quantitative findings:
more detail Reporting Non-reporting Figures: Amount issued (USDbn)
Availability of UoP reporting is widespread 100%
but variations exist, especially depending on 1.5 6.0 2.0 2.8
1.5 12.8
external reviews and deal size, and to a lesser
80%
extent issuer type and region.
• Reporting share stable throughout sample
period, except for most recent quarter 60% 19.6 65.1 26.7 14.7 37.1 22.5
(Q1 2019) due to shorter window to report
(research conducted during 2020)
40%
• Larger issuers are more likely to report:
amount issued share larger than issuer count
share across virtually all market segments 20%
• Reporting availability is positively
correlated with deal size 0%
• Private sector issuers most polarised in Development Financial Government- Local Non-Financial Sovereign
Bank Corporate Backed Government Corporate
terms of reporting availability, with financial
corporates ranking first and non-financials last Entity
• Broadly more consistency in reporting
Quality of reporting is improving, but still A relatively high simple average reporting
availability across public sector issuers
varies considerably; larger issuers and more score of 19.2 (out of 25) - weighted average of
– development banks second overall (like
mature green bond markets more consistent. 20.0 reflects higher relative scores of larger issuers.
financial corporates, they tend to be large
repeat issuers), local governments improving Key aspects of quality reporting include The deal size analysis does not point to necessarily
providing clear, easily accessible and higher quality among issuers of large deals –
• There is clear positive correlation between
granular information, as well as reporting in and instead the average, median and maximum
reporting and external reviews – bonds with
line with commitments at issuance and obtaining scores relatively constant for all size brackets.
no review are much less likely to have post-
external reviews
issuance reporting This means that while larger issuers tend to
Most issuers report at project level, and the report more often than smaller ones, the average
• Higher reporting share in regions with
proportion seems to be rising. In addition, quality is not necessarily higher.
larger, more mature green bond markets,
most repeat issuers - especially financial
driven by large issuers that are more likely to However, there is a clear increase in minimum
institutions - report at programme level.
report as well as more robust & consolidated scores, which suggests larger issuers are less
issuing practices, including around reporting The average quality remained stable versus likely to have poor-quality reporting.
our 2019 study, but still some improvement,
• Most countries achieved at least 90% European entities are the most consistent
including fewer low-quality reporters.
reporting (by amount), including most large in reporting quality, with 110 issuers ranging
developed markets More issuers (majority) now have dedicated between 10–25 points; Asia-Pacific has a 6–25
webpages that make documents more easily range, and North America’s range is also wider than
• Most issuers delivered on reporting
accessible, more produce separate green bond Europe’s even though its issuer count is about half
commitments made at issuance: smaller
reports or standalone sections within annual,
issuers more likely to over-promise than larger • Apart from having high scorers, more mature
sustainability or CSR reports, and more report at
ones, while latter more likely to report in line green bond markets have consistently
project level.
with commitments at issuance good-scoring issuers
Countries with all deals reporting are mainly markets with under 5 deals and/or USD2bn issued
Amount issued (LHS) Number of deals (RHS)
10 15
8 12
Amount issued (USDbn)
6 9
Number of deals
4 6
2 3
0 0
ly
s
nd
d
d
d
e
nd
a
ile
nd
nd
ca
ia
k
al
u
g
nd
ar
or
ni
ur
an
an
an
r
Ita
ib
ug
Pe
ri
Ch
la
la
la
la
ua
nm
ap
bo
m
rla
Af
nl
el
al
er
rt
ai
Ire
Po
Na
Ic
th
Ze
Fi
ng
m
Po
h
e
Th
itz
De
th
ut
Li
xe
Si
w
Sw
Ne
So
Ne
Lu
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 5Reporting issuers scored between 6-25 points, with most at the top end
50 50
40 Amount issued Number of issuers 40
Amount issued (USDbn)
30 30
Number of issuers
20 20
10 10
0 0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Quality score
• Spain is the country with most high scorers Impact reporting is increasingly common, Impact reporting in the USA is considerably
(previously France), with four issuers scoring at but more complex than UoP reporting and highly weaker than UoP reporting – although
least 24 points; Hong Kong follows, with three unstandardised; harmonising impact disclosure this is driven by small US Muni issuers, this is
is vital (although will only truly come with still an area for improvement in the country’s
Corporates dominate among top scorers
comprehensive reporting beyond UoP instruments) sustainable finance market.
– seven of the Top 10 issuers are corporates
(mostly non-financials), although partly due to Availability Impact reporting practices
the larger sample of corporate issuers.
59% of issuers and 74% of the amount issued Less than half of the issuers, but almost
• Reasonable diversity among top scorers, report impacts post-issuance two-thirds of the volume, report impacts at
but more would be welcome; sovereigns, for programme level (assessed at the level of most
Almost all issuers reporting impacts also
example, tend to be high-quality reporters and granularity, as a few issuers report at both bond
report allocations (97%) but 74% of issuers
some will likely make it into the Top 10 as more and programme level)
that report UoP also provide impacts.
come to market
Larger issuers tend to report with less project
granularity, as they often finance many projects
European issuers most consistent, Africa with highest average and include many financial institutions.
Max Min Median Mean Three-quarters of issuers report actual
25 (ex-post) impacts, sometimes alongside. In
addition, almost half report a combination of
20 measured and estimated impacts.
Impact metrics
15
A wide breadth of metrics is used, even within
10 similar project types – these vary between
general and specific metrics.
5 The lack of uniformity in impact data makes
it very hard – if not impossible – to compare
Score
0 and aggregate, an issue many investors are
acutely aware of
Europe Asia-Pacific North Latin Africa Supranational
(110) (119) America America (3) (9) There are many reasons for this, but a key one is
(60) (9) the frequent use of relative metrics (especially
Region (Number of issuers) GHG emissions saved), which inherently depend
on the baseline used
Most issuers report both UoP and impacts The widespread adoption of relative metrics
100% (especially GHG savings) raises questions,
and should be viewed with caution as they
80% do not inform absolute performance and
trajectory towards climate and other targets.
60%
40%
Share of total
20%
0
No reporting UoP Impacts No reporting UoP Impacts
Amount issued Number of issuers
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 63. Use-of-proceeds reporting
This section delves into how the Substantial drop in Q1 2019 deals explained by reporting lag...
availability of reporting varies
according to different market Reporting Non-reporting Figures: Amount issued (USDbn)
attributes. Throughout it, 100%
‘reporting’ is classified as post- 25.6 3.7 2.7 2.1 2.7 13.4
issuance UoP disclosure. 80%
Reporting share stable except 60%
for most recent quarter
25.6 24.7 31.2 25.1 46.7 32.5
The first item we look at is issue date, in order 40%
to uncover changes over time. In our previous
report, we conducted a yearly assessment of 20%
issue dates since the analysis period was longer,
spanning 2007-2017. This provides more time for
0
market trends to emerge and we noted the clear
upward trend in reporting availability between Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
2014-17, following the release of the GBP in 2013. 2017 2018 2019
The quarterly analysis in this study yields less
striking conclusions. The reporting share remained
… and less visible by issuer count
relatively constant for the first five quarters – at Reporting Non-reporting Figures: Number of issuers
around 90% – but dropped significantly to 71% 100%
among bonds issued in Q1 2019.
18 14 22 21 32 38
Despite the GBP recommending a maximum 80%
two-year timeframe to report, market best
practice is generally to do so within one year of 60%
issuing a green bond, which is why we define
the issue date cut-off as just over a year (about 60 49 72 60 93 83
40%
400 days) before we conduct the research. Some
issuers are therefore not reporting within 12
20%
months of issuance.
However, several issuers – especially those 0
reporting at programme level – do so in cycles,
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
allowing them to aggregate reporting for multiple
bonds at a convenient time; usually the start or 2017 2018 2019
end of the calendar, or sometimes fiscal, year.
In such cases, the post-issuance report tends to
cover deals issued up to the preceding year. For
example, a report released in 2020 covering all
bonds outstanding as of the end of 2019 (project
allocations and/or impacts would generally also
refer to 2019).
This means that bonds issued in Q1 are more
likely to experience a greater reporting lag,
as this may only come in the next calendar year
(2020 in the case of 2019 deals). A high-level
assessment has confirmed many more reporting
deals if the research were repeated now,
particularly for those issued in Q1 2019.
In line with our last study, we also note that the
reporting share was lower by issuer count
compared to amount issued in every period,
i.e. larger issuers are more likely to report. This
is a near constant finding throughout our study.
Furthermore, the drop in Q1 2019 is far less evident
by issuer count – this is due to the lag explained
above often applying to repeat issuers reporting at
programme level, which tend to be larger.
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 7Large bonds more likely to have reporting; sharpest increase at benchmark size (issuer count)
Reporting Non-reporting
100%
4.2 8.8 7.1 6.4 73 35 7
80% 2
60%
40%
9.9 41.5 61.3 72.9 134 124 76 33
20%
0
Up to 100m 100-500m 500m-1bn 1bn or more Up to 100m 100-500m 500m-1bn 1bn or more
Amount issued (USDbn) Number of issuers
Reporting share increases with Significant variation across investment community contributes positively to
deal size issuer types reporting among financial institutions. The lower
reporting share among non-financial corporates
Slicing the deal universe by issue size paints a There are also differences by issuer type. Several
is partly due to a wider base of smaller issuers,
similar picture as our 2019 report: that larger reasons for this may exist, both directly and
many of which have only issued one bond.
deals are more likely to have post-issuance indirectly related to issuer type. For example,
reporting. This is visible by comparing the financial institutions are often larger and repeat There is more consistency in reporting levels
shares of different size brackets, both in terms of issuers with more advanced tracking and reporting across public sector issuers. Development
amount issued and number of issuers. systems, sovereigns are more likely to be in the banks rank second overall, since, similarly
public eye and face scrutiny if non-reporting, and to financial corporates, they tend to be large
To some extent, the positive correlation between
local governments may have increased budgetary repeat issuers with a more structured approach
bond size and reporting is also noticeable by
restrictions that make it harder to provide timely to applying the GBP guidelines on proceeds
comparing the amount issued and issuer count
and good-quality reporting. management and reporting.
shares for each size bracket, since deal and issuer
sizes are closely linked. The share of reporting by Corporates polarised, public sector issuers Sovereigns and local governments are the next
issuer count tends to be lower than by amount more consistent highest, with 89% and 88% respectively. That
issued, i.e. within a given bracket the non- not all sovereigns have reported is somewhat
Overall, private sector issuers are the most
reporting issuers tend to be relatively small. surprising given they tend to be high profile issuers
polarised in terms of reporting availability,
facing added public – and potentially investor
However, this does not hold among benchmark with financial corporates ranking first and
– scrutiny. In addition, our previous study had
size deals (USD500m+). In the top two brackets, non-financials last. Apart from often being large
found 100% reporting among this group.
the few non-reporting issuers are relatively large, and repeat issuers, perhaps being close to the
so the amount issued share is slightly higher than
the issuer count share.
Financials top, non-financials bottom
In our last study we had noted the particularly
sharp increase in reporting share for benchmark Reporting Non-reporting Figures: Amount issued (USDbn)
deals. The results this year point to a more 100%
gradual increase, although the largest jump is
1.5 6.0 2.0 2.8
indeed between the 100-500m and 500m-1bn 1.5 12.8
brackets, by number of issuers (78% to 92%). 80%
Large deals tend to be from more experienced
and repeat issuers, such as financial institutions,
and likely benefit from more comprehensive 60% 19.6 65.1 26.7 14.7 37.1 22.5
corporate-level monitoring and reporting
systems, combined with greater experience in
40%
issuing green.
20%
0%
Development Financial Government- Local Non-Financial Sovereign
Bank Corporate Backed Government Corporate
Entity
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 8However, there are valid reasons for this. Lower reporting shares and different ranking by issuer count
Firstly, this year’s research featured several more
sovereign issuers (nine versus two last time) as Reporting Non-reporting Figures: Number of issuers
governments from more countries green their 100%
expenditures and jump on the ‘thematic debt
4 12 16 24 46 3
bandwagon’ to finance these. Secondly, all
three non-reporting sovereigns – Indonesia, Fiji 80%
and Nigeria – have reported as of the time of
writing, although we do note that Nigeria could
make substantial improvements to the ease of 60%
accessibility and granularity of its reporting (its
most recent bond already has more detail, so this
40%
was likely related to the 2017 deal included in our 15 90 52 55 39 6
research having been its first).
20%
Local governments improving
Reporting among local governments
increased since our last study (previously 0%
78%). A large share of local government Development Financial Government- Local Non-Financial Sovereign
issuers consists of US Munis, for which Bank Corporate Backed Government Corporate
reporting is often lacking despite frequent Entity
commitments to provide post-issuance
information (usually in the bond prospectus), Issuer count analysis slightly more uniform We found that bonds for which there is no
at least for allocations. Indeed, this group review are much less likely to have post-
Finally, we note the smaller reporting shares by
accounted for 92% of the unreported amount issuance reporting; only 34% by amount issued
number of issuers, which lead to a slightly more
within local governments; excluding them and 35% by issuer count. These figures jump to
uniform picture and different ranking between
results in a boost to 98% reporting. 69% and 58% for deals that received an external
issuer types. Non-financial corporates and
review at issuance only.
Nevertheless, this is improving. A greater share government-backed entities exhibit the smallest
of US Munis was found to provide post-issuance difference versus their amount issued shares. However, the highest proportion of reporting
UoP reporting this year, although it is often clearly occurs when a post-issuance review
unclear where this is made available (e.g. is available. 100% of deals with only a post-
sometimes on EMMA, sometimes on city or
Clear positive correlation issuance review had reporting, while for deals
state government websites, and occasionally
between external reviews with external reviews both at and post-issuance
even elsewhere) and robust impact reporting
and reporting this dropped slightly to 99% of the amount
is still chronically lacking within this issuer Two categories of external reviews were defined in issued and 95% of issuers. The difference is likely
type. The lower availability and quality of order to assess how external reviews and reporting due to the many more deals with reviews at
reporting among US Munis may be due to correlate. For details on each type see Appendix 3. both stages versus only post-issuance (i.e. larger
budget constraints, incorporation in broader sample), since there is no reason to expect the
• External reviews at issuance include second-
city or state budget reporting, and/or to the latter to have more reporting.
party opinions (SPOs), green bond ratings, and
fact that they allocate a relatively high share for
Certification (under the Climate Bonds Standard). This analysis points to a similar conclusion as
refinancing, for which post-issuance reporting
in our last study: the likelihood of reporting
may be less relevant. Another key reason may • External reviews post-issuance include
increases significantly with either type of
be the investor base (e.g. retail), which is less audits/assurance, verification for Certified
external review, but the relationship is much
likely to demand reporting, especially for small Climate Bonds, and reviews by SPO providers
stronger for post-issuance external reviews.
bonds like US Munis. or rating agencies.
Post-issuance reviews excellent predictor of reporting
Reporting Non-reporting
100%
80% 5.3 20.3 0.9 39.0 77.0 8.0
60%
40%
20%
2.8 46.0 11.0 126.0 21.0 107.0 28.0 163.0
0
No review At issuance Post-issuance Both No review At issuance Post-issuance Both
only only only only
Amount issued (USDbn) Number of issuers
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 9This makes sense given that a post-issuance Higher reporting share in more mature markets
review reflects issuer engagement at the post-
issuance stage – in fact, many post-issuance Reporting Non-reporting Figures: Amount issued (USDbn)
reviews are included within green bond reports 100%
themselves – and confirms that reviews at
issuance should not be interpreted as a guarantee 11.5 7.3 5.9 0.8 0.1
0.9
of post-issuance reporting, but rather as a 80%
compliance check against the GBP (at issuance).
We also note the substantial difference between 60%
amount issued and issuer count shares when
a review is available (‘at issuance’ and ‘both’,
since ‘post-issuance only’ is at 100%), which is 40% 89.5 54.4 26.8 0.9 0.1 14
expected given that larger issuers report more
often. But when no review is available, the shares
20%
are very close, most likely because issuers that do
not obtain any review tend to be small anyway.
0
Regional ranking reflects
market size Europe Asia-Pacific North Latin Africa Supranational
America America
The regional analysis is clear: regions with
larger, more mature green bond markets Issuer count ranking same apart from Latin America and Africa
have higher reporting shares.
Reporting Non-reporting Figures: Number of issuers
As well as having more large issuers that are
more likely to report, they also tend to have 100%
more robust and consolidated issuing practices, 24 35 31 8 4 1
including around reporting. In addition, the
80%
ranking is the same looking at both issue
volume and number of issuers, apart from
Latin America and Africa which trade places 60%
depending on the metric.
Supranationals have the strongest
40%
reporting share, with only one issuer (Asian
Development Bank) non-reporting at the time
111 120 61 9 3 9
of our research – however, both its deals were 20%
issued in Q1 2019, and have subsequently had
post-issuance reports made available. In this
sense, ‘Supranational’ is the only exception to 0
the ‘market size leads to higher reporting’ rule, as Europe Asia-Pacific North Latin Africa Supranational
it is only the fourth largest group; but it consists America America
of several large and experienced issuers that
operate at global and regional scales, such as the
IFC, World Bank, EIB, NIB, etc.
Even so, the current performance of
Supranationals represents an increase from our
previous study and is a positive development.
It is particularly important for multilateral
institutions to set a good example as they often
set the tone for issuers in the regions where they
operate – in line with this, several MDBs are also
high-quality reporters (see pages 14-15).
NB: As with all our data, North America only
includes USA and Canada. Mexico is classified as
Latin America.
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 10Higher reporting levels in Over 90% of volume in 29 out of 50 countries has UoP reporting
larger green bond markets
Countries with one deal Countries with more than one deal
Our research dataset comprises issuers from 20
50 countries, five more than in our 2019 report.
Nine countries have just one bond issued (e.g.
15
Uruguay, South Africa, Lebanon) and thus have
Number of countries
either 0% or 100% reporting.
10 14
It is worth noting that some of the results below
are different to our last study, partly because 1
5
reporting practices do vary but also due to the 11
particular set of deals issued during the analysis 4 5 5 5 5
0
period, including some large issuers that skew
the results of their domiciles. 100% 90-100% 80-90% 60-80% 40-60% 0%
More than half the countries (29 of 50) have Reporting share
a reporting level of 90% or more by amount
issued. Of these, 18 boast 100% reporting, but USD2.0bn) and one by LISEA EUR900m/ (45% reporting). Taiwan is the only market in
are mostly relatively small green bond markets USD1.0bn). However, they were all issued in this group with more than five deals (7), of which
with less than five deals (see 100% Reporters Q1 2019 and have since made post-issuance three, representing 48% of the issue volume,
chart further down). Owing to the size of their reporting available. lacked reporting at the time of analysis.
green bond markets, the standouts in this group
The USA is very different. American issuers had Almost all countries with no reporting (i.e. 0%)
are clearly the Netherlands (13 deals, USD9.0bn)
USD5.6bn of non-reporting volume from 40 deals. had only one deal issued. The exception is
and Italy (eight deals, USD5.1bn), both of which
The vast majority of these deals were US Munis, Fiji, which had four bonds but all sovereigns:
have improved since our last report.
which is to be expected, but over half (52%) of the however, reporting has since been made
Most large markets with 90%+ reporting volume was contributed by two energy companies: available for all of them.
MidAmerican Energy (USD2.2bn) and Xcel Energy
Nonetheless, most countries with larger, The reporting share among smaller markets
(USD700m). Of their combined four deals, two were
more mature green bond markets (mainly fluctuates considerably. For instance, Switzerland
from Q1 2019 and two from 2018 – again, all now
developed economies) fall in the 90-100% and South Africa, which featured in the low-
have reporting available, although MidAmerican’s
reporting level bracket, such as China, reporting group in our 2019 study, both achieved
only seems to include UoP information.
Germany, Sweden, Canada, Belgium, and the UK. 100% reporting this time.
A few others follow in the 80-90% range, namely While it is true that the USA’s reporting share has
Between pages 14-17 we assess the quality of
Japan and Spain. risen from 71% in our previous study, we expect
reporting through a scoring method, explained
and hope to see this increase further. Now that
Only four countries with over USD1bn issued there in more detail. However, it is worth noting
sustainable finance is gaining more traction under
– within our analysis cut-off dates – have a here that countries with higher reporting levels
the Biden Administration, continued development
reporting share below 80%: the USA (77%), also tend to score better in terms of the quality
of the USA’s green bond market is also likely to
India (74%), Indonesia (72%) and France (68%). of reporting, even though there are several
bring improving post-issuance disclosure practices
With USD24bn each issued, the USA and France exceptions; for instance, China, Belgium,
from both private and public sector entities.
deserve a closer look. Singapore and Thailand have high reporting
Lowest reporting entirely from small markets shares but relatively low average scores. A
France’s relatively low share is largely due
summary of all countries ranked by quality score –
to a few deals over USD1bn classified as All countries with under 60% reporting have
and with corresponding reporting shares – can be
non-reporting: one by Société du Grand Paris a relatively small issuance volume, below
found in Appendix 4.
(EUR2bn/USD2.3bn), one Green OAT (EUR1.7bn/ USD500m apart from Mexico with USD787m
Countries with all deals reporting are mainly markets with under 5 deals and/or USD2bn issued
Amount issued (LHS) Number of deals (RHS)
10 15
8 12
Amount issued (USDbn)
6 9
Number of deals
4 6
2 3
0 0
ly
s
nd
nd
d
d
e
nd
a
ile
nd
nd
a
ia
k
l
u
g
ga
nd
ar
or
ric
ni
ur
an
an
r
Ita
ib
Pe
Ch
la
a
la
la
la
tu
ua
m
ap
bo
m
la
Af
nl
el
al
er
ai
Ire
Po
n
r
er
Na
Ic
th
Ze
Fi
ng
m
Po
th
Th
itz
De
th
Li
xe
u
Si
w
Sw
Ne
So
Ne
Lu
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 11Post-issuance UoP broadly similar to estimates at issuance - largest increases in Energy and Buildings
Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste Land Use Industry ICT
At issuance
Post-issuance
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
NB: Unallocated A&R excluded as only allocated amounts included post-issuance.
At issuance versus post- specific set of deals we looked at, and the fact that Most issuers delivered on reporting
issuance comparison the post-issuance split only includes allocated commitments
amounts (i.e. not the full amount issued).
Actual allocations replace estimates We also compared actual post-issuance reporting
at issuance A closer look behind allocations with commitments made at issuance. Whilst
providing post-issuance reporting is the single
One of the reasons for researching post-issuance Since UoP allocations are typically estimated
most important aspect of disclosure on a green
reporting is to determine the actual allocation of based on the information in issuer frameworks
bond’s UoP and impacts, planning to do so and
green bond proceeds. At issuance, Climate Bonds and/or external reviews such as SPOs, it is
communicating this effectively at issuance is also
screens deals to determine alignment with the sometimes the case that fewer categories are
important. This is especially relevant given the
Climate Bonds Taxonomy (see Appendix 2) and actually financed, as some issuers may prefer to
different possible ‘types’ of reporting: none, UoP
identify or estimate allocations. list many categories at issuance, giving them the
only, impacts only, and both UoP and impacts.
option to finance such projects or assets.
Since most issuers do not or cannot provide
In line with our last report, we found that 70%
sufficient detail at issuance, allocations are This happens most often for repeat issuers
of issuers, accounting for 77% of the amount
often estimated. As new information becomes with green bond programmes that fall under
issued, did as promised, i.e. the actual reporting
available – i.e. post-issuance – these are adjusted one framework, and is especially relevant
action was as per the commitment made at
to reflect the actual use of proceeds. for financial institutions – such as banks and
issuance (for instance, an issuer planning to
development banks – that are able to lend
The post-issuance disclosure analysed as part of report only on UoP and delivering that). The
to many different borrowers, as well as some
our study confirms that proceeds were indeed higher share by amount indicates larger issuers
large corporates that could potentially finance
allocated to assets aligned to the Climate Bonds are more likely to fall into this group.
various types of green projects.
Taxonomy, and no deals were removed from our
The rest either over-promised or over-delivered.
Green Bond Database following this research. In such cases, the issuer may end up financing
Over-promising includes failing to report, as well
However, actual allocations to some categories only one or two project types, and/or it could
as committing to report on UoP and impacts but
were lower than estimated at issuance, whereas be that the bond(s) issued during our analysis
only reporting one of them. Under-promising, or
some saw higher allocations. period happened to only finance some of the
over-delivering, is the opposite: delivering more
categories listed in the issuer’s framework, while
The post-issuance split in the chart above than the initial commitment.
future ones may finance a different set.
only includes allocated amounts, since the
split of unallocated proceeds would have to be A good example is the North American Smaller issuers more likely
estimated – similarly to how it is rare for issuers Development Bank (NADB), which has issued to over-promise
to disclose the proceeds split at issuance (apart two green bonds (the latest a two-part deal)
Over-promised (plan > actual)
from asset refinancing, where the expenditure is included in the Climate Bonds Green Bond
known a priori), it is rare to see issuers disclosing Database – but only the first, from 2018, was In line (plan = actual)
the expected split for unallocated proceeds at the included in our post-issuance research.
Under-promised (plan < actual)
post-issuance stage. However, it does happen,
NADB’s Green Bond Framework, which covers
and where possible we would encourage issuers 100%
both deals, lists renewable energy, water and
to indicate this, assuming they are confident
wastewater management, energy efficiency in 26.1 93
enough to do so.
buildings, and pollution prevention and control 80%
Based on this analysis, the largest increases are in as eligible project categories. In the absence
Energy (35% to 40%) and Buildings (21% to 24%), of a concrete split, Climate Bonds allocated 60%
with the most noticeable drop in Water (10% to 6%). proceeds evenly between applicable categories
The reasons for this are unclear, but could be related at issuance; in this case 25% respectively to 164.0 307
40%
to our methodology at issuancei underestimating Energy, Water, Buildings and Waste. However,
allocations to the largest categories and/or to post-issuance reporting for the 2018 bond
20%
proceeds in these being allocated more rapidly confirmed that only renewable energy projects
than in other categories, potentially due to a larger were financed, i.e. 100% to Energy and 0% to the
share of refinancing. However, the results are slightly other categories. The differences contribute to 0 22.1 37
different to those in our last report, so part of the those in the chart above, and have been reflected Amount Number of
changes are likely due to natural variation, the in the Climate Bonds Green Bond Database. issued issuers
(USDbn)
i. i.e. splitting proceeds equally between eligible categories, when not known.
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 12Over-promising seems to be more common than under-promising, which perhaps is not surprising given that many non-reporting deals now have reporting (i.e. would no longer be over-promising). The share of over-promising also falls significantly when looking at amount (12%) versus issuer count (21%), suggesting that smaller issuers are much more likely to over-promise than larger ones, which again is hardly surprising. Factor in quality assessment The relationship between actual post-issuance reporting and commitments at issuance is one of the metrics used to assess the quality of reporting. In general, for a given level of reporting – ranging from none to both UoP and impacts – the best option is to have planned to report to that level and then do so. In other words, over- and under-promising to report should be avoided, although over-promising (i.e. under-delivering) is, of course, worse. An issuer that committed to report on UoP but did not demonstrates bad practice, more so than one that did not commit to anything but ended up reporting on UoP. The other way to assess quality regarding commitments is to consider a given level of commitment. In this case, issuers should still strive to provide the best reporting possible even if it means under-promising. For example, if an issuer commits to report on UoP but then realises it is also able to report on impacts, it should do so. Such an issuer, therefore, scores higher than if it only disclosed the UoP. These – and other – considerations are reflected in our quality scoring analysis, which forms the next section. Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 13
4. Quality scoring
Process overview confidence, especially in emerging markets (EM).
Case studies:
As well as looking at the availability Other variables considered important for best examples of good practicei
of reporting (i.e. reporting/non- practice are included in the quality scoring model.
reporting) and its level (UoP and/ Most fall under two broad aspects of reporting: (1) Sociedade Bioelétrica do
or impacts), we capture data on clarity and ease of finding information, and (2) Mondego - SBM (Portugal)
many other variables as part of our post-issuance granularity of the disclosure.
SBM, a Portuguese company wholly owned
research. Almost all of these refer to each deal’s
Clarity and ease of access by the Altri Group, was one of only five
overall reporting characteristics, i.e. are not
issuers scoring the maximum of 25 points,
specific to either UoP or impacts. A key aspect of good reporting is providing
which is especially impressive since it is a
information in a clear and easy-to-find way.
12 of these variables are used to evaluate the one-time issuer. The fact that it only finances
Having a dedicated green bond webpage with all
quality of reporting for a given bond, computed one project – a biomass power plant – makes
the relevant material related to the issuer’s green
as a score which can range from 0 to 25 points. A reporting easier, and its green bond page is
bond issuance, including clear descriptions and
value is attached to each variable based on what both easily reached and laid out very clearly.1
links to all documents, is highly advised, as it
is reported by issuers, and variables are weighted
considerably facilitates the process of accessing The report is correspondingly simple but has
depending on their importance for the quality
information. all the key information, including the relevant
assessment. We have tried to be as objective as
time period for allocations and impacts (which
possible in doing so, and many of the variables Anecdotally, we noticed an improvement in
is not as common to find as one might think),
feed into the best practice recommendations in this regard versus our 2019 research, with more
the share of financing attributable to the
the Conclusion. issuers a) displaying all the information related to
green bond, impact data according to four
their green bonds on their websites, and b) doing
Only deals with post-issuance reporting are different metrics, and a methodology for
so more clearly, largely through dedicated pages.
included. When there are multiple bonds per calculating GHG emissions avoided.2 A post-
issuer, an average is calculated for the issuer to Furthermore, publishing separate green bond issuance external review from Sustainalytics
avoid skewing the results. reports – either individually for UoP and impacts, as well as a limited assurance report from
or combined – again makes it much easier to Deloitte form the rest of the document.
Variables considered crucial for obtain the relevant information. If provided
best practice within annual, sustainability or CSR reports, it Swire Properties (Hong Kong)
should be via dedicated, clearly labelled sections.
Communicating commitment Swire Properties is another maximum
at issuance and reporting in Also included in this category are: scorer with exemplary reporting. Several
line with this: the quality scoring property developers have particularly
• List of deals: particularly relevant for repeat
model assigns most points to simple reporting when they only finance a
issuers, providing a list of the bonds issued
bonds that have post-issuance reporting on few buildings/projects, but Swire combines
and their key details (e.g. issue date, amount
both the UoP and impacts, and which also simplicity with comprehensiveness.
issued) – either on webpages or ideally within
committed to report this at issuance. If a report
green bond reports – is a plus. This is a variable As well as a visually appealing green financing
is not available but the issuer committed to
we added this year. page3 which summarises most of the data and
producing one, then a penalizing system kicks in
details of its green financing in a very clear
and less points are assigned than if there was no • Report language: providing an English copy
way, its green bond report4 has bond-level
commitment at all. This is closely related to the of reports alongside local languages supports
allocations and granular information on
discussion on pages 12-13. transparency. Even if issuers do not have
each project, including environmental
a website with an English version (which
Project-level disclosure, at and post-issuance: impacts that go far beyond the building
would also be advised), at least translating
comparing at and post-issuance scenarios is also certifications achieved – this is refreshing,
green bond documents into English helps
relevant for the degree of project-level disclosure, since many issuers only rely on disclosing
significantly, especially since some formats do
which is the second most important variable. building certifications as a form of impact
not allow copying text and/or data.
Here, bonds with specific projects disclosed reporting, which is not ideal (see page 27).5
both at and post-issuance score higher than Granularity
A summary of the reporting process and
bonds with projects only disclosed at one stage,
Arguably the most important aspect of high- calculation methodology is also provided,
which in turn score higher than bonds with only
quality green bond reporting is the breadth along with a limited assurance report from
broad project categories (e.g. energy, wind, solar,
and level of detail of the information. PwC. Reporting is available for all the green
transport, rail etc) listed. This is discussed in more
bonds issued so far, and Swire’s webpage also
detail below. The main features of granular reporting can
includes a summary of the green loan obtained
broadly be divided into two areas: project
External reviews: another influential variable in in 2020 and the sustainability-linked loan
versus portfolio reporting for a given bond;
the model captures whether the bond received obtained from Crédit Agricole in 2019, which is
and bond versus programme reporting when
reviews from second- or third-party entities – contingent upon a target reduction in energy
multiple bonds are issued (i.e. at issuer level).
this reflects the reliability and robustness of use intensity of Swire’s real estate portfolio as
the disclosure. While external reviews released Project versus portfolio reporting well as continued listing on the DJSI World.
at issuance (e.g. SPOs) are important to verify Most issuers report at project level, although
i. There are many more good reporters in the market, including
compliance with the GBP and are included in the occasionally only for UoP and/or impacts rather many of the larger, more experienced issuers (e.g. financial
scoring, a higher score applies if post-issuance than both (the reason is unclear, but for impacts institutions, especially from Europe). These are simply some
examples, and to some extent we tried to pick some less
auditing is in place. On that note, audited UoP could be related to difficulties in measuring or well-known issuers.
reports have been noticed to increase investors’ estimating impacts at project level).
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 14This may be harder for larger issuers that Bond versus programme reporting The EIB discloses which individual bond(s)
finance many projects. Bonds issued by Most repeat issuers, especially financial were used to finance each project, although the
financial institutions, for example, often institutions, report at programme level (i.e. for proportion is not given when proceeds from
lack specific project disclosure. Limitations a combination of multiple bonds, normally those more than one deal were used. However, unlike
might derive from loan-level confidentiality outstanding). While this provides less granularity Iberdrola and Bank of China, a summary of
agreements with borrowers and/or portfolio compared to reports at bond level, it is a reasonable the allocations and impacts is not provided at
granularity (i.e. due to the number of bonds to approach when there are many bonds issued. deal level, so to obtain this one would have to
report on, e.g. 14 of Credit Agricole CIB’s green calculate manually using data from each project,
Financial institutions are usually large organisations
bonds were covered in our research). which is very time-consuming.
with access to more comprehensive systems
The EIB is a leader in granularity among large, and greater resources dedicated to reporting. In Other aspects
repeat issuers funding many projects. It gives this regard, they have a greater ability to provide Other aspects of granular reporting include
detailed information on the UoP and impacts reporting in a timely and granular manner; but providing detail on:
for each individual project (there are hundreds), doing so at bond level is often not possible given
• Share of refinancing (if applicable)
including the share attributable to EIB financing. that money is fungible, and the proceeds are
The World Bank (IBRD) and the IFC are other disbursed to borrowers from one pool of funds. • Balance – and ideally expected allocation – of
leaders, following a similar approach – the unallocated proceeds
Nevertheless, some issuers of multiple – in some
IFC additionally identifies contributions to the
cases many – bonds do report at bond level. • Other sources of financing (if applicable),
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for each
One of the largest and most frequent issuers which can be used to pro-rata impacts
project.
falling in this group is Iberdrola, which provides
• Several others linked to impact reporting
The proportion of issuers reporting at project allocations and impacts separately for each green
(e.g. clarifying the time periods of impacts,
level – both for UoP and impacts – seems to bond within a single document (but curiously not
whether impacts are calculated ex-post vs. ex-
be rising. This may be due to more advanced combined for the overall programme/portfolio).
ante, measured vs. estimated, etc).
tracking capabilities among issuers, greater
Among financial institutions, this is rare. The
adherence to best practice guidelines, and These did not feature in our quality scoring
best example is Bank of China, which has issued
investor demand. However, we note that best model, but may be included in our next study.
several bonds with different labels and provides
practice is to also provide aggregate figures Another criterion we may add is whether issuers
allocations, impacts, case studies and other
for the bond overall, which should at least be offer the ability to download/export data (e.g. in
supporting information for each one, as well as
possible for allocations and some impacts – most Excel format), which is still relatively uncommon.
for the overall portfolio.
issuers do so, but several do not.
More case studies: Danske Bank San Francisco Public Utilities
examples of good practice (Denmark) Commission - SFPUC (USA)
Danske Bank’s green bond page is easily reached SFPUC stands out as the US Muni issuer with
Manulife Financial from the Investor Relations section of its website, highest quality reporting, closely related to
(Canada) and includes various relevant documents.8 the Programmatic Certification it obtained
Manulife issued two green bonds in our sample under the Water Infrastructure Criteria of the
Danske Bank may have an advantage versus some
period, one of which was a Certified Climate Climate Bonds Standard. We experienced
other banks (especially European) in that its green
Bond financing wind and solar energy. issues accessing SFPUC’s website on multiple
issuance programme is smaller; but its report is
occasions, but the reporting is still easily
Manulife’s green bond report6 is easy-to-find nonetheless very well structured, with UoP and
reached from the Climate Bonds website.10
within the company’s Sustainability section, impact data given separately for the green bond
although there is a page7 dedicated to green issued by Danske Bank and those issued by its The annual green bond report includes the
bonds that is harder to access from within the mortgage subsidiary, Realkredit Danmark.9 amounts allocated and pending allocation
website. at bond- and project-level (there are many),
Clear charts provide a summary of allocations
along with qualitative and quantitative
The report is clearly structured, and despite and size of the eligible green loan pool, while
information on each one in supporting
being short and simple has a good amount a simple table gives the impacts according to
tables, including contributions to the SDGs
of detail. Both bonds are included with their several metrics (depending on the category),
(particularly rare among US Munis).11
relevant details, and the allocations, impacts along with contributions to the SDGs. The share
and project case studies are disclosed at bond of impacts attributable to the green bond is The green issuance programme is clearly
level, which is a plus. The name and location provided separately, although this could be framed within the issuer’s sustainability plans
of projects is also given, along with the correct directly referenced in the table. at the start of each report, and the pre- and
pro-rata share of impacts, a clear explanation post-issuance verification required by the
Other positive features include a clear methodology
of the calculation methodology (referencing Climate Bonds Certification scheme – in this
for impact calculation and table with all the
ICMA’s Harmonized Framework and data case provided by Sustainalytics – is attached
baselines used, various case studies, details of each
sources), qualitative project information, and at the end. One area for improvement,
bond with a useful breakdown of the allocation
the value of net proceeds. however, would be to provide project-level
to investors, an independent auditor’s assurance
quantitative impact data more consistently
report, and relevant contact details.
in the report (although there is more
information on this on its website).
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market 2021 Climate Bonds Initiative 15You can also read
