Post-Issuance Reporting in China’s Green Bond Market

This report by the Climate Bonds Initiative analyzes post-issuance reporting practices for green bonds in China, focusing on the availability and quality of Use of Proceeds (UoP) and environmental impact disclosures. While China possesses a stringent regulatory framework, the report finds that reporting availability is lower than global averages, particularly regarding impact disclosure. The study highlights a strong preference for core metrics and cumulative impact reporting among Chinese issuers, while identifying inconsistencies across different regulatory bodies and bond types.

• Post-issuance reporting availability in China is lower than global averages, with a significant gap between the reporting of Use of Proceeds (UoP) and environmental impacts. While 65% of issuers (74% by amount issued) provided UoP reporting, most of the market failed to disclose impacts post-issuance, and no issuers reported impacts without also reporting UoP.
• China's regulatory framework for green bond disclosure is described as more stringent and advanced than in other regions, particularly for financial bonds, but it suffers from inconsistency across different bond types, incompleteness in voluntary guidelines for non-financial bonds, and inconsistent disclosure channels.
• Financial corporate issuers demonstrate higher reporting rates and quality compared to non-financial corporates, likely due to stricter PBoC and NAFMII requirements. Financial institutions typically report UoP quarterly and impact annually, whereas non-financials generally report both annually or semi-annually.
• Impact reporting in China is characterized by a high prevalence of cumulative data, which is rare globally. 85% of issuers (65% by amount issued) provided cumulative impact data in their latest reports, reducing the need for data users to manually aggregate information from multiple reports.
• Chinese issuers rely heavily on a narrow set of core metrics but report them with greater granularity than global peers. Greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions are the most common metric (60% of issuers), and Chinese issuers frequently disaggregate GHGs and pollutants into individual substances.
• The use of 'fossil fuel savings' (standard coal equivalent) as a metric is unique to China. The report recommends replacing this with GHG or energy savings to align with international standards and provide a more accurate measure of impact by using grid intensity as a baseline.
• Offshore bonds in China are less likely to report UoP (53% by amount) compared to onshore bonds (79% by amount), but they are significantly more likely to report impacts (50% vs 27%), driven by foreign investor expectations and listing requirements on exchanges like the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
• External post-issuance reviews are common, with 25% of reporting issuers (43% by amount) utilizing assurance or Climate Bonds Certification. However, 53% of issuers and 38% of the amount issued lacked any post-issuance review, a trend typically seen among smaller issuers.
• There is a lack of standardization in impact methodologies in China. Most issuers do not disclose a specific methodology, though some reference national standards from AQSIQ and CBRC, or international guidelines from the UNFCCC.

APA

Almeida, M., Laqiqige, Z., Xie, W., Deng, M., & Shao, H. (2022). Post-Issuance Reporting in China’s Green Bond Market. Climate Bonds Initiative. https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/post-issuance_reporting_in_chinas_green_bond_market_en.pdf

Chicago

Almeida, Miguel, Zhu Laqiqige, Wenhong Xie, Manshu Deng, and Huan Shao. Post-Issuance Reporting in China’s Green Bond Market. Climate Bonds Initiative, 2022. https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/post-issuance_reporting_in_chinas_green_bond_market_en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Almeida |first1=Miguel |last2=Laqiqige |first2=Zhu |last3=Xie |first3=Wenhong |last4=Deng |first4=Manshu |last5=Shao |first5=Huan |title=Post-Issuance Reporting in China’s Green Bond Market |publisher=Climate Bonds Initiative |date=April 2022 |url=https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/post-issuance_reporting_in_chinas_green_bond_market_en.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{almeida2022postissuance, author = {Almeida, Miguel and Laqiqige, Zhu and Xie, Wenhong and Deng, Manshu and Shao, Huan}, title = {{Post-Issuance Reporting in China’s Green Bond Market}}, institution = {Climate Bonds Initiative}, year = {2022}, month = apr, url = {https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/post-issuance_reporting_in_chinas_green_bond_market_en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }