Search Climate Insights Directory

The Climate Bonds Initiative offers technical assistance to institutions to improve the credibility and comparability of transition investment frameworks, reducing greenwashing risks. Their review process utilizes the 'Five Hallmarks for a Credible Corporate Transition' and aligns with international taxonomies and market principles. The service includes tailored guidance and the possibility of public endorsement for frameworks that meet core principles for credible transition finance.

KPMG Services Proprietary Limited conducted a pre-issuance limited assurance engagement for the City of Cape Town's proposed Green Bond. The report concludes that the nominated projects and the Green Bond Framework V2.3 conform to the 'Selection of Nominated Projects & Assets' and 'Internal Processes and Controls' sections of the Climate Bonds Standard V2.1. The bond is designed to refinance existing projects, with 92.8% of the allocation dedicated to water projects and 7.2% to low-carbon transport. A specific emphasis is placed on Project 6 (flood defences), which remains subject to post-issuance assurance as the relevant Climate Bonds Standard Water Criteria Phase 2 were still in draft at the time of the report.

The report identifies six key mechanisms that taxonomies use to manage the transition of high-emission activities: periodic review of evolving criteria, forward-looking criteria, gradation, specific measures, sunset dates/phase-out guidelines, and transition plan requirements. It analyzes these mechanisms across different taxonomy archetypes—binary, 'traffic light', mixed, and standalone—and provides case studies from the EU, Australia, Singapore, Rwanda, and China to demonstrate their practical application. The document emphasizes that while no single mechanism is inherently superior, their credibility depends on robust governance, science-based pathways, and the avoidance of carbon lock-in.

The Climate Bonds Scientific Framework is a scientifically grounded analysis of emission mitigation pathways and technology options used to anchor the Climate Bonds Taxonomy and certification criteria. Overseen by the Climate Bonds Board and implemented by staff alongside Climate Wedge and research institutions, the framework is reviewed by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). The research, conducted by Climate Analytics and IIASA, analyzes emission pathways and technology alternatives, including data from the IPCC’s 5th assessment report, to identify technology categories essential for limiting global average surface temperature growth to 2°C.

The document outlines the role of green bonds in transforming financial centres into sustainable hubs, highlighting European market leadership and specific city-level case studies in listing, sovereign issuance, and development banking.

The report highlights Indonesia's growing green bond market, which reached nearly USD 3 billion by October 2019, and the government's efforts to scale up blended finance to meet climate targets and sustainable development goals. It emphasizes the role of development finance institutions (DFIs) in de-risking projects and the importance of avoiding deforestation in green investments.

The guidance outlines the roles, methodologies, and reporting standards for independent verifiers ensuring that bonds align with the Climate Bonds Standard. It details the two-phase certification process—pre-issuance and post-issuance—and specifies the types of verification engagements available, including Reasonable Assurance, Limited Assurance, and Agreed-Upon Procedures. The document establishes strict independence and conflict-of-interest criteria for verifiers and provides a structured methodology for engagement, planning, risk assessment, testing, and reporting to maintain the integrity of the Climate Bond Certification Mark.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) has established the Hydropower Criteria to help investors identify hydropower projects that support the Paris Agreement. To be certified, projects must pass a two-part assessment: Mitigation Criteria, which set specific greenhouse gas (GHG) emission thresholds based on the operational date, and Adaptation & Resilience (A&R) Criteria, which use the ESG Gap Analysis Tool to ensure adherence to international best practices across 12 environmental and social dimensions. Certification requires independent verification by accredited assessors licensed by the International Hydropower Association (IHA). The criteria exclude indirect emissions from construction and the economic viability of projects, focusing instead on climate integrity and social responsibility.

Beijing Zhongcai Green Financing Consultant Ltd. conducted a pre-issuance verification of a bond proposed by ICBC London Branch. The verification process, based on the Climate Bonds Standard (CBS) Version 2.1 and ISAE 3000, involved reviewing the issuer's Green Bond Framework, project lists, and declarations. The verifier concluded that the bond is in line with CBS requirements and specific sector criteria for solar, wind, low carbon transport, and marine renewable energy.

The guide specifies that commercial office buildings in Mexico are eligible for certification if their emissions intensity remains below a defined trajectory; for instance, a 10-year bond issued in 2025 requires an intensity of 22.27kgCO2e or less. Residential and new commercial/educational buildings are eligible if they hold Minergie certification and meet specific requirements regarding fossil-fuel-free energy production and electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

DNV GL has provided limited assurance that NAB's proposed SDG Green Bond complies with the Climate Bonds Standard Version 2.1 (CBS v2.1) and relevant Sector Technical Criteria. The verification covers a portfolio of eligible assets including wind, solar, marine renewables, electrified passenger rail, and commercial buildings. DNV GL also conducted a qualitative review confirming the bond's alignment with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), specifically targets related to affordable and clean energy, industry innovation and infrastructure, and sustainable cities and communities.

DNV GL verified that the National RMBS Trust 2018-1 (Class A1-G) SDG Green Bond, with a proposed issuance of AUD 300 million, meets the Climate Bonds Standard Version 2.1. The bond's proceeds are allocated to residential low carbon buildings in New South Wales, Victoria, and Tasmania, with an eligible asset pool totaling AUD 525 million.

The Nordex Green Bond was verified by DNV GL against the Climate Bond Standard version 2.1. The audit concluded that the bond's pre-issuance procedures and evidence are sufficient for compliance. The bond's proceeds are designated for refinancing a previous Green Schuldschein and investing in the development of the Delta4000 wind turbine, both of which fall under the Wind Energy Generation category. The verification process involved desktop reviews and interviews, resulting in no corrective action, clarification, or forward action requests.

The Climate Bonds Building Criteria establish standards for certifying assets, entities, and debt instruments in the building sector to ensure they contribute to a zero-carbon future by 2050. Certification is based on a compliance process involving disclosure and GHG mitigation, with the latter achieved through either absolute performance (using trajectories or proxies) or relative performance (demonstrating significant emissions reductions during retrofitting). New buildings face stricter requirements, including a total ban on fossil fuels for heating, hot water, cooking, and on-site electricity, alongside mandates for electrification and electric mobility infrastructure.

The document outlines a seven-step process for issuing green bonds for climate resilience, covering eligibility criteria, project identification, framework development, verification, and reporting. It emphasizes the importance of aligning with international standards to ensure investor credibility and provides guidance on distinguishing between system-level resilience investments and the adaptation of specific assets.

The report analyzes the role of taxonomies in climate transition finance, identifying six specific mechanisms used to define and evaluate transitional activities. It examines different taxonomy archetypes—binary, traffic-light, and mixed—and provides case studies from the EU, Australia, Singapore, Rwanda, China, and others to illustrate how these mechanisms are integrated to ensure credible decarbonization pathways.

The report identifies six core mechanisms used by taxonomies to manage the transition of hard-to-abate sectors: revision of criteria over time, forward criteria, shading, measures, sunset dates, and transition plan requirements. It analyzes these mechanisms across different taxonomy archetypes—binary, traffic light, and mixed—using case studies from the EU, Australia, Singapore, Rwanda, and China to demonstrate how static criteria can be used to assess a dynamic decarbonization process.

The Climate Bonds Resilience Taxonomy (CBRT) establishes a science-based classification system to direct capital toward climate resilience. It categorizes investments into four types—adapting measures, adapted activities, enabling measures, and enabling activities—and organizes them across seven thematic areas. To prevent greenwashing, the CBRT requires investments to demonstrate a 'Substantial Contribution' to resilience, manage maladaptation risks, and 'Do No Significant Harm' (DNSH) to climate mitigation and other environmental goals. The methodology emphasizes a graduated screening approach, ranging from automatically eligible investments to complex local threshold assessments, and ensures interoperability with the EU Taxonomy and MDB Joint Methodology.

The Bioenergy Criteria Background document outlines the framework for certifying bioenergy projects as climate-aligned. It establishes a temporal declining trajectory for life-cycle GHG emissions, aiming for near-zero emissions by 2050. The document defines eligible biomass feedstocks—categorized into agricultural, forestry, processing waste, and aquatic biomass—and sets strict sustainability requirements to prevent negative impacts on biodiversity, food security, and carbon stocks. Special emphasis is placed on mitigating methane emissions in the biogas and biomethane value chain through the adoption of 'best-practice' scenarios and leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs. Additionally, it provides a framework for assessing the adaptation and resilience of bioenergy assets against climate-related hazards.

The guide outlines a framework for deploying capital to reduce methane and flaring in the oil and gas sector, with a particular focus on National Oil Companies (NOCs). It provides detailed recommendations for selecting eligible projects, quantifying emissions, and establishing credible KPIs and sustainability performance targets (SPTs) aligned with the IEA's Net Zero Scenario. The document also specifies requirements for external verification and reporting to prevent greenwashing.