Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines how transition finance is being leveraged to decarbonise China's steel industry, focusing on the impact of the first subnational regulatory framework introduced in Hebei Province in December 2023. It finds that the market responded quickly to these guidelines, with steel transition loans in Hebei exceeding CNY20bn (USD2.8bn) by the end of 2024. The document estimates that the sector requires at least USD18bn in capex over the next five years to invest in electric arc furnaces (EAF), direct reduced iron (DRI) shaft furnaces, and electrolysers. While large state-owned enterprises lead in transition planning, smaller firms face greater financing gaps. The report recommends that the People's Bank of China introduce further incentives, such as interest subsidies, and that steel companies secure offtake contracts to improve the bankability of green steel projects.

The document provides a framework for certifying climate resilience investments through three primary components: making a substantial contribution to resilience, managing maladaptation risks, and ensuring no significant harm to climate mitigation. It defines specific requirements for 'adapted' and 'enabling' investments, including the need for investment-level assessments based on science-based projections and the use of multiple climate scenarios such as SSP5-8.5. These interim criteria are intended to be replaced progressively by validated, sector-specific criteria and proxies developed by technical working groups.

The report finds that the cumulative aligned GSS+ market reached USD 5.7 trillion by the end of 2024. Green bonds remain the dominant theme, while sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) saw a significant decrease in aligned volume. Europe continues to be the largest source of aligned GSS+ debt, and the report highlights the growth of sovereign issuance and the development of national taxonomies.

The document outlines a comprehensive approach to transition finance for Vietnam's high-emission industrial sectors. It introduces a 'Five Hallmarks' framework for creating credible transition plans—covering performance targets, robust planning, implementation, internal monitoring, and external reporting—and provides specific decarbonisation pathways and technical criteria for the steel, cement, and basic chemicals industries. Additionally, it offers a five-tier maturity scale for financial institutions to assess corporate transition credibility and provides best-practice recommendations for issuing sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) and loans (SLLs) to support the energy transition.

The document outlines a comprehensive methodology for creating and assessing corporate transition plans in Vietnam's high-emission industries. It introduces a 'Five Hallmarks' framework for credible plans, provides sector-specific decarbonization criteria for steel, cement, and basic chemicals, and details the use of sustainability-linked financial instruments. It also presents a five-level classification system for financial institutions to evaluate the maturity and ambition of corporate transitions.

The document analyzes Brazil's public incentives for agricultural methane abatement, noting that while the country is the fifth largest methane emitter globally and agriculture is its primary source, existing policies often lack specific, targeted strategies for methane reduction. It examines instruments like the Ecological Transformation Plan, the Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy, and the Eco Invest programme, while proposing the adoption of the Climate Bonds Agricultural Criteria to better direct capital toward low-carbon farming.

The report finds that while many global banks have committed to net-zero by 2050, their disclosures lack standardisation and transparency. Key issues include inconsistent sectoral coverage, the omission of facilitated emissions, and a failure to align sectoral targets with 1.5°C benchmarks. The report highlights that a significant portion of bank balance sheets remains uncovered by net-zero targets and that current levels of sustainable finance are insufficient to meet the 10-to-1 clean energy to fossil fuel investment ratio recommended by the IEA.

The report finds that while post-issuance reporting in the GSS bond market is widespread and generally high-quality, significant gaps remain in the disclosure of project lifetimes, impact assessment methodologies, and quantitative linkages to entity-level sustainability strategies. Analysis of 75 issuers (USD 1.4tn issued) shows that 88% of 2020–2022 issuers reported allocations, but 35% failed to report within 365 days of issuance. Sovereigns and development banks demonstrated the highest reporting quality, while non-financial corporates were the least likely to provide entity-level framing. The report recommends the adoption of standardized reporting platforms and mandatory regulatory frameworks to enhance market transparency.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) has established a methodology for its Social and Sustainability Bond Dataset (SSBD) to ensure the credibility of social and sustainability bonds. The framework requires that 100% of net proceeds be used for social or environmental projects, with at least 90% meeting specific screening criteria. Bonds are classified as 'aligned', 'non-aligned', or 'pending' based on their use of proceeds (UoP), disclosure transparency, and adherence to minimum safeguards. The methodology integrates ICMA principles and UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to categorize projects across sectors such as education, healthcare, and renewable energy, while explicitly excluding fossil fuels and weapons.

The Climate Bonds Initiative's methodology for the Social and Sustainability Bond Dataset (SSBD) establishes a rigorous screening process to identify credible social and sustainability bonds. To be included, instruments must be self-labelled debt, provide adequate public disclosure, and allocate 100% of net proceeds to social or environmental projects, with at least 90% meeting specific eligibility criteria. The framework emphasizes ex-ante impact confirmation for target populations and employs a strict list of absolute exclusions, including fossil fuel exploration and weapons production. Bonds are classified as aligned, non-aligned, or pending based on their adherence to these standards, with a two-year lookback period used for complex assessments.

The report provides a comprehensive analysis of the GSS+ debt market in H1 2025, highlighting a cumulative aligned volume of USD6.2tn. It examines the dominance of green bonds, the resurgence of social debt, and the growth of sustainability-linked bonds. The document also discusses the impact of the European Green Bond Standard, the rise of data-centre focused asset-backed securities, and strategic priorities for COP30, including methane abatement and the Tropical Forest Forever Fund.

The report details Brazil's GSS+ debt market, which reached USD 67.8bn in cumulative volume by June 2025, with a strong emphasis on green bonds and corporate issuance. It highlights the role of the upcoming Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy (BST) and the government's Sovereign Sustainable Bond Framework in driving market growth. Key sectors for investment include renewable energy, sustainable agriculture (AFOLU), and water sanitation, while noting a significant investment gap of USD 200bn to meet 2030 transition targets.

The report identifies three core pillars for scaling transition finance in China's steel sector: robust identification frameworks, financial incentives, and multi-party coordination. It highlights that while pilot regions like Hebei have made progress with specific standards and templates, the broader industry faces high costs, a lack of precise incentives for financial institutions and downstream buyers, and a gap between funding needs and available high-quality transition assets.

The International Platform on Sustainable Finance (IPSF) updated the Common Ground Taxonomy (CGT) in November 2024, expanding the analysis to include 96 activities across five environmental objectives. The CGT serves as a voluntary technical tool to enhance the interoperability of sustainable finance standards between the EU and China, potentially lowering trans-boundary costs for green investments. The report details a scenario-based methodology for mapping activities using the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) as a neutral code. While it identifies 76 climate mitigation activities and 20 non-climate activities with shared ground, it explicitly excludes 'Do No Significant Harm' (DNSH) criteria, minimum social safeguards, and climate change adaptation due to technical complexity and divergent regulatory approaches.

The report finds that while European DFIs are central to public climate finance, their current private capital mobilisation levels are low, with most lacking specific mobilisation targets. It identifies barriers such as low risk appetite from shareholders, a preference for transaction-level tools over institutional-level ones, and regulatory hurdles like the EU Taxonomy's limited applicability outside Europe. The document proposes 30 recommendations, including adopting broader mobilisation definitions, increasing on-selling of assets, and enhancing transparency through databases like GEMs to attract private investors.

The report argues that China's agri-food system requires significant investment to achieve net-zero emissions and climate resilience, but currently faces a massive funding gap and a mismatch between existing green finance policies and the sector's needs. It advocates for the use of transition finance—including sustainability-linked loans, bonds, and blended finance—to mobilize private capital. The authors emphasize that a 'just transition' is essential to protect vulnerable smallholder farmers. Key barriers identified include poor climate information disclosure by companies and a lack of credible transition plans. The report recommends that regulators standardize GHG accounting for agriculture, mandate climate disclosures for large firms, and align agricultural subsidies with climate goals.

The report identifies a significant funding gap in China's agri-food climate transition, noting that global climate finance for the sector is only one-seventh of what is required. It argues that while public funds currently dominate, mobilising private capital through transition finance—including sustainability-linked loans, bonds, and blended finance—is essential. The document highlights barriers such as inadequate GHG emission disclosure among Chinese agri-food companies and a lack of credible transition plans. It recommends that regulators establish standardised accounting for agri-food emissions, support the development of entity-level transition plans, and align agricultural subsidies with climate goals to ensure a just transition for smallholders and SMEs.

The guidance outlines the operational requirements for Approved Verifiers to ensure the integrity of the Climate Bonds Certification mark. It details the verification processes for four certification types: Use of Proceeds (UoP), Assets, Non-Financial Entities, and Sustainability-Linked Debt (SLD). The document specifies a multi-stage methodology—comprising engagement, planning, risk assessment, testing, evidence gathering, and reporting—and mandates adherence to professional standards such as ISAE3000 or AA1000. It establishes strict independence and conflict-of-interest rules, requires professional indemnity insurance, and defines the oversight mechanisms used by the Climate Bonds Standard Secretariat to monitor verifier performance.

The report examines how central banks in various jurisdictions integrate physical climate risks into banking supervision, highlighting a common shift toward enhancing regulated entities' capabilities rather than immediately adjusting capital requirements. Through case studies of six central banks, it identifies systemic challenges in data availability and technical capacity, advocating for a phased approach to policy implementation. It concludes with a stylised roadmap for the Reserve Bank of India to move from awareness-raising to mainstreaming climate risk assessment in supervisory processes.

The document evaluates the suitability of NGFS, IEA, and NITI Aayog scenarios for the Indian context, highlighting that global models often underestimate India's specific macroeconomic risks. It details transmission channels from macro-variables to micro-level financial risks and analyzes case studies from the ECB, Bank of England, Bank Negara Malaysia, and the Central Bank of Colombia. The authors propose a phased roadmap for the Reserve Bank of India, moving from preliminary top-down exercises to the development of in-house macroeconomic models and comprehensive bottom-up stress tests over a long-term horizon.