Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market

This report by the Climate Bonds Initiative analyzes post-issuance reporting practices for green bonds issued before April 1, 2016. It evaluates the availability, frequency, and quality of reporting on the use of proceeds and environmental impact, comparing practices against market guidelines like the Green Bond Principles and the Climate Bonds Standard.

• Public reporting on the use of proceeds is common but varies by issuer type and bond size. Of the bonds analyzed, 74% complied by number of bonds, while 88% complied by value. Reporting is most prevalent among government agencies and commercial banks, and least common among corporates, sub-sovereigns, and asset-backed securities (ABS). All bonds exceeding USD1bn in size had reporting available, whereas the lowest reporting rates were found in bonds under USD100m.
• Reporting frequency and timeliness often fall short of market recommendations. While 78% of bonds report annually, 41% of bonds that do provide reporting fail to meet a basic 'up to date' requirement, defined as being published within 400 days of issuance. A small percentage of bonds (4%) provide quarterly reporting, primarily in China due to People's Bank of China (PBoC) guidelines.
• There is a significant lack of transparency regarding the proportion of funds used for refinancing existing projects versus new projects. Over 70% of bonds provided no clear information on this metric, which the report identifies as a clear breach of the Green Bond Principles and the Climate Bonds Standard.
• The depth of project-level disclosure is limited. Only 40% of bonds included specific project-level information in their reporting, with the majority providing only broad category-level disclosures (such as renewable energy or energy efficiency). Only 27% of surveyed bonds were classified as having 'high detail' disclosure, which includes all project names, descriptions, and refinancing percentages.
• Impact reporting—the numerical quantification of climate or environmental impact—is an increasing trend but lacks consistency. It was present in 38% of bonds. The report notes that while impact reporting is useful, it can be burdensome for smaller issuers and often lacks the baselines or benchmarks necessary to make the numbers meaningful.
• U.S. municipalities are identified as under-reporting compared to the rest of the market. Reasons cited include a reluctance to spend taxpayer funds on 'optional extras' like reporting and reviews, as well as the fact that many are pure-play issuers in sectors like clean water where investors may require less disclosure.

APA

Boulle, B., Frandon-Martinez, C., Meng, A. X., & Patzdorf, L. (2017). Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market. Climate Bonds Initiative. https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/UoP_FINAL_120717.pdf

Chicago

Boulle, Bridget, Camille Frandon-Martinez, Alan Xiangrui Meng, and Louise Patzdorf. Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market. Climate Bonds Initiative, 2017. https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/UoP_FINAL_120717.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Boulle |first1=Bridget |last2=Frandon-Martinez |first2=Camille |last3=Meng |first3=Alan Xiangrui |last4=Patzdorf |first4=Louise |title=Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market |publisher=Climate Bonds Initiative |date=28 June 2017 |url=https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/UoP_FINAL_120717.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{boulle2017postissuance, author = {Boulle, Bridget and Frandon-Martinez, Camille and Meng, Alan Xiangrui and Patzdorf, Louise}, title = {{Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market}}, institution = {Climate Bonds Initiative}, year = {2017}, month = jun, url = {https://www.climatebonds.net/files/documents/publications/UoP_FINAL_120717.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }