Transparency & Reporting in the GSS Bond Market

This report by the Climate Bonds Initiative analyzes post-issuance reporting practices for Green, Social, and Sustainability (GSS) bonds, based on a sample of 75 entities that issued USD 1.4 trillion between 2020 and 2023. While reporting is widespread and generally high quality, the study identifies significant gaps in project-level granularity, impact methodology disclosure, and the quantitative linking of bond-level impacts to entity-level sustainability strategies.

• Post-issuance reporting is widespread in the GSS bond market, with 88% of issuers from 2020–2022 reporting allocations and 83% reporting both allocations and impacts. When measured by amount issued, these figures rise to 97% and 85%, respectively.
• There is a notable gap between reporting commitments and actual timing; 35% of issuers failed to publish their first report within 365 days of issuance for at least one of their deals.
• Project-level disclosure is more detailed post-issuance than pre-issuance. While only 8% of issuers identified all projects in pre-issuance documentation, 61% did so in post-issuance reports.
• The use of science-based taxonomies to determine project eligibility remains a minority practice, with only 33% of issuers referencing such taxonomies.
• Impact reporting lacks methodological transparency, with approximately 55% of issuers failing to state a methodology for any impact indicator and 60% lacking disclosure of baselines.
• Impact reporting for social bonds is heavily biased toward simple output measures, specifically the 'number of beneficiaries', and is generally less quantitatively advanced than green bond reporting.
• While 76% of issuers link GSS issuance to entity-level strategies, these links are often generic. Only seven issuers provided quantitative data directly linking bond-level projects to entity-level targets.
• External reviews are common but often limited in scope; 63% of issuers obtained a post-issuance review, but 76% of those assurances were 'limited assurance' rather than 'reasonable assurance'.
• Sovereign issuers generally demonstrate the highest quality of reporting due to the completeness and granularity of their disclosures.
• The report recommends the creation of an official global reporting platform to standardize templates and facilitate data access, citing the IDB's Green Bond Transparency Platform (GBTP) as a positive example.

APA

Almeida, M., & Muldoon, C. (2025). Transparency & Reporting in the GSS Bond Market. Climate Bonds Initiative. https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/transparency_reporting_in_the_gss_bond_market_February-2025.pdf

Chicago

Almeida, Miguel, and Clodagh Muldoon. Transparency & Reporting in the GSS Bond Market. Climate Bonds Initiative, 2025. https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/transparency_reporting_in_the_gss_bond_market_February-2025.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Almeida |first1=Miguel |last2=Muldoon |first2=Clodagh |title=Transparency & Reporting in the GSS Bond Market |publisher=Climate Bonds Initiative |date=January 2025 |url=https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/transparency_reporting_in_the_gss_bond_market_February-2025.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{almeida2025transparency, author = {Almeida, Miguel and Muldoon, Clodagh}, title = {{Transparency \& Reporting in the GSS Bond Market}}, institution = {Climate Bonds Initiative}, year = {2025}, month = jan, url = {https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/transparency_reporting_in_the_gss_bond_market_February-2025.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }