2019 Green Bond Market Summary
Februrary 20202019 at a Glance
Green bond issuance: 2017 - 2019
A new global record: USD257.7bn total green bondissuance*•

51% growth on 2018•

1788 green bonds from 496 issuers•

250 new issuers, bringing a total of USD67.8bn•

51 jurisdictions, of which 8 are new•

Dutch State Treasury Agency (Certified Climate
Bond) at EUR5.99bn (USD6.66bn)•

300

USD Billions

•

200

100

0
2017

Certified Climate Bonds cumulative total passed the
USD100bn market milestone

Government-backed entity

Local government

Development bankNon-financial corporate

Financial corporate

ABS

Quarterly issuance volume

80%

Industry
Land Use

60%

Waste

40%
20%
0%
2017

2018

2019

USD Billions

Unalloc. A&R
ICT

2019

Sovereign2019 Use of proceeds - Evolution
100%

2018

Loan

2017

70

2018

2019

60
50
40

Water

30

Transport

20

Buildings

10

Energy

0
Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2019 green bond issuance: top 15 countries
60

USD Billions

50

2019

Cumulative issuance (RHS)

150

40
30
20

100
50

10
0

0

* All charts and analysis are based on latest figures for 2019 issuance volume and number of deals. There are 28 deals still under assessment forinclusion in the CBI green bond database. Any subsequent variation will be reflected on the Climate Bonds website.

2019 highlights
Global green bond and green loan issuance reached
USD257.7bn in 2019, marking a new global record. The
total is up by 51% on the final 2018 figureof USD170.6bn.
Of the total, USD10bn (4%) are green loans. For
inclusion, at least 95% of proceeds must be dedicated togreen assets or projects aligned with the Climate Bonds
Taxonomy.
The 2019 volume was primarily driven by the European
market, which accounted for 45% of global issuance.
This is followed by the Asia-Pacific and North American
markets, at 25% and 23%, respectively. In 2019, thetotal amount of green bonds issued in Europe increased
by 74% (or USD49.5bn) year-on-year, reaching a total of
USD116.7bn.

USA, China and France continue as topranked countries
The USA, China and France topped the country
rankings once again. Together they accounted for 44%
of global issuance in 2019. US issuers contributed
USD51.3bn to the total, whereas their Chinese andFrench counterparts brought USD31.3bn1 and
USD30.1bn to market.
With debut green bond issuances from Barbados,
Russia, Kenya, Panama, Greece, Ukraine, Ecuador
and Saudi Arabia, the market saw further geographic
diversification. This is particularly welcome as all the
new entrants are from Emerging Markets (EM).

Issuer type evolution: 2014 - 2019100%

Top 3 issuers of 2019
Fannie Mae – the pioneer of issuing agency Green
Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) – remained thelargest green bond issuer in 2019 with USD22.9bn
issuance (or 9% of the total).
KfW, the German state-owned development bank, wasthe second largest issuer in 2019. It brought a total of
USD9bn worth of green bonds to market. Proceeds will
be used to provide financing or co-financing to
renewable energy and green building projects.
The Dutch State Treasury Agency (DSTA) ranked as
the third largest issuer in 2019 with its USD6.7bn debut
green sovereign bond. The Certified Climate Bond
meets the requirements of multiple sector criteria under
the Climate Bonds Standard, including: Low Carbon
Buildings (Upgrades), Low Carbon Transport, Marine
Renewable Energy, Solar, and Water Infrastructure.

Certified issuance accounted for 17% of2019 volumes
At USD45bn, Certified issuance in 2019 surged by 86%
from USD24bn in 2018, comprising almost a fifth (17%)
of global volumes.
The Netherlands Certified Sovereign Climate Bond
(EUR5.9bn/USD6.7bn) was both the largest green bondof 2019 as well as the second largest green bondissued to date.
Together with other Certified bonds from ABN Amro,
Obvion, Vesteda and De Volksbank, the Netherlands
was the largest source of Certified issuance in 2019 at
USD9.26bn (or 20%).
This was followed by France with a total of USD9.17bn
of Certified issuance. Issuers included SNCF which
continued to finance the multi-billion rail and metro
expansion in Paris along with a total of USD5.1bn fromothers, such as Société du Grand Paris, Société
Générale and Akiem Group.

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2014

2015

2016

Loan
Government-Backed Entity
Development Bank
Financial Corporate

2017

2018

2019

Sovereign
Local Government
Non-Financial CorporateABS

By the end of 2019, cumulative Certified issuanceunder the Climate Bonds Standard reached
USD101.4bn, marking a significant milestone for theinternational assurance scheme established by the
Climate Bonds Initiative in 2011.

1 The figures for China only include issuance that are aligned withinternational definitions of green.

2

2019 non-financial corporate issuancedoubled compared to 2018

Treasury Management Agency tapped their originalissuances.

2019 witnessed a boost in green bonds from nonfinancial corporates, whose issuance almost doubled
from 2018 (cumulative USD59.3bn in 2019 vs
USD29.5bn in 2018), representing 23% of the 2019
volumes. All of the top three non-financial corporates
operate in the energy sector: Engie, MidAmerican
Energy and Energias de Portugal SA (EDP) together
issued just below USD9bn. French utility company
Engie (USD3.8bn) has climbed up three notches fromthe 2018 rankings, while EDP (USD1.8bn) reachedthird place in 2019 after having entered the green bondmarket at the end of 2018.

Energy and Buildings remain the largest
Use of Proceeds sectors in 20192019 debut issuances from new EM entrants Kenya
and Barbados also came from non-financial
corporates: the former with Acorn Holdings’ USD41m
deal (also listed on the London Stock Exchange), andthe latter with Williams Caribbean Capital’s
BBD3m(USD1.5m) private placement. Both issuances
are Certified Climate Bonds.
Financial corporates have maintained stable growthover time, with 2019 reaching almost USD55bn (2018:
USD49.7bn), representing 21% of the total. The top two
issuers are Chinese financial institutions such as ICBC
and Industrial Bank. French banks Crédit Agricole
and BNP Paribas rank third and fourth, with a
combined total of USD4.5bn.
Notably, 2019 Saudi Arabia debut and Certified
Climate Bond came from Islamic Development Bank,
with its USD1.1bn deal allocated to renewable energy
and energy efficiency for buildings. Other debut
issuances from financial institutions came from
Ecuadorian Banco Pichincha (USD150m) andPanamanian CIFI (USD27m).
Government-backed entities issued around 15% of all
green bonds in 2019. SNCF, Societe du Grand Paris,
Kommuninvest, Ørsted and LBBW represent the top
five issuers, with combined volumes of USD 14.2bn.
Green asset-backed securities (ABS) have also been
widely issued in 2019 (USD32.4bn). However, theseare dominated by issuance from Fannie Mae, whichissued USD22.9bn of green agency mortgage-backed
securities (Agency MBS).
Sovereigns kept a strong pace throughout 2019, withdebut green issuances from the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region (SAR) and the Dutch State
Treasury, the latter a Certified Climate Bond. Further,
Chile, Poland, Indonesia and Nigeria all came to market
with new sovereign green bonds, while the Republic ofFrance, the Kingdom of Belgium and the Irish National

1% 1% 1%
3%
4%
9%

20%

31%

2019
USD257.7bn

30%EnergyBuildings
Transport
Water
Waste
Land Use
Industry
ICT
Unalloc. A&R

The Energy and Buildings sectors dominated green
proceeds allocation, with both sectors having a similar
share of the market (approx. 30%). Excluding Fannie
Mae, which allocated USD18.7bn to buildings, KfW
tops both sectors. Noor Energy 1, MidAmerican
Energy and Ørsted represented the top issuance in theenergy sector, while the Republic of France, theEuropean Investment Bank, the Dutch State
Treasury Agency and Vasakronan were prominentissuers for Low Carbon Buildings.
Transport and Water followed with 20% and 9%
market shares, respectively. SNCF (USD4.3bn),
Société du Grand Paris (USD3.6bn) and the Republicof Chile (USD2.2bn) represented top issuers in thetransport sector.
Fannie Mae (USD4bn) ranked first also in the watersector as both its “Green Rewards” and “Green Building
Certifications” programmes target water efficiency
improvements. After Fannie Mae, ICBC (USD2bn), theDutch State Treasury Agency (USD1.6bn) and Engie(USD825m) were the top issuers in the water sector.
Waste, land use, industry, information andcommunication technologies (ICT), and adaptation andresilience represented the remaining share of themarket, accounting for around 10% of total 2019issuance. Sectors such as ICT and industry started
gaining ground in 2019. The telecommunications
multinational Telefónica, for example, allocated part ofits green bond proceeds to improving the energy
efficiency of its network infrastructure.
Adaptation and resilience also came on the radar,
especially with the launch of the first ever dedicatedclimate resilience bond by EBRD (USD700m). The
deal is aligned with the Climate Resilience Principles
published by the Climate Bonds Initiative in September
20192.

2 https://www.climatebonds.net/files/files/climate-resilience-principles-climate-bonds-initiative-20190917.pdf

3All regions registered an increase involumes in 2019

Varied and evolving issuer type profiles

While issuance grew across every region, Europe was
the main driver behind the substantial increase in 2019
volumes. European issuance reached USD116.7bn, up
74% from 2018. Asia-Pacific, which saw nearly a third(29%) of year-on-year growth, remained the second
largest region, although North America’s 46% growthbegan to close the gap between the two.
Meanwhile, both Africa and LAC (Latin America & the
Caribbean) had a strong year with the latter reachingrecord levels in issuance volume, the number ofissuers, and country and issuer diversity. 2019 also saw
the first issuer from the Caribbean - Williams Caribbean
Capital, BBD3m (USD1.5m).
Supranationals issued a total of USD13.7bn in 2019.
While this represents 7% growth compared to 2018, theincrease is by far the smallest of the regionalclassifications. The largest issuers in this group were
the European Investment Bank, Asian Development
Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment, followed by the World Bank (IBRD) andInternational Finance Corporation.

USD Billion

Apart from natural variations, there are structuraldifferences in the types of issuers that access debt
markets in each region. For example:•

In the USA, significant issuance volume from
Fannie Mae leads to a very high share of ABS
deals and Muni bonds (issued by US local
governments) are also common.
In Europe, the share of government-backed
entities is much higher than in most other regions –especially North America – owing to the historicallygreater role played by European states in economic
activities and planning.
In certain countries, for instance Brazil, local
governments have limited abilities to issue debt,
since it requires a sovereign guarantee.

••

Regional issuer type split in 2019
100%
80%
60%

Europe fuels substantial 2019 growth250

Regional variations likely stand out more when looking
at issuer types than any other category tracked by
Climate Bonds Market Intelligence.

40%

Supranational

200

Europe20%

150

North America

0%

100

LAC

50

AfricaAsia-Pacific

0
2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Regional analysis of issuer types and Useof Proceeds
In this edition of our annual Highlights series, we shedadditional light on the differences and development ofissuer types profiles and the Use of Proceeds (UoP)
mix for each region. For the latter, we compared 2019
numbers with the cumulative total up to 2018 (shown incharts) as well as with 2018 only (not shown).

Sovereign

Non-Financial Corporate

Local Government

Loan

Government-Backed Entity

Financial Corporate

Development BankABS

Regional issuer type split up to 2018
100%
80%
60%
40%

The differences are not only noticeable in terms of bothissuer types as well as UoP, but the landscape is also
evolving quickly. In some cases, this showed up as
marked differences between 2019 and prior years.
Note: This analysis is not meant to uncoverdifferences in volume, but rather show the
relative differences in profiles between regions.
Therefore, all the charts add up to 100%.

20%
0%

ABS
Financial Corporate
Loan
Non-Financial Corporate

Development Bank
Government-Backed Entity
Local Government
Sovereign

4

Furthermore, it’s naturally expected for regions withless developed green bond markets, e.g. Africa, to haveless diversity in terms of issuer types than moredeveloped ones, e.g. Europe3. This main aspect thatstands out in the regional issuer split as shown.
Comparing the profiles in 2019 with those up to 2018, it
is also clear that less developed regions – namely
Africa and LAC – tend to have a more “volatile” mix of
issuer types than their more developed counterparts.
This is likely due to the fact that smaller markets are
more susceptible to the effects of individual deals.

UoP allocation in 2019100%

Unalloc. A&R

80%

ICT

60%
40%
20%
0%

Industry
Land use
Waste
Water
Transport
Buildings
EnergyKey takeaways by region
Europe: Financial corporate issuance fell in 2019
compared to 2018 yet maintaining a level well above
the cumulative total up to 2018. This suggests thesegment is gaining prominence in the region. Sovereignissuance also picked up in the last two years (especiallyin 2018). Overall, the issuer type mix in Europe isconsistently the most varied and balanced of theregions.
Asia-Pacific: The region saw a changing mix with anincrease in non-financial corporate issuance in 2019,
coupled with a decrease in financial corporate anddevelopment bank activity.
North America: The issuer mix was relatively
unchanged, although corporates – both financial andnon-financial – seem to be growing in share while local
governments are dropping on a relative basis.
LAC: 2019 was a special year given Chile’s sovereigndeals (the first ones from the region), which dominatedissuance volume. While the share of non-financial
corporates fell, their volume tripled from USD636m to
USD1.9bn. However, other issuer types lagged in 2019.
Achieving greater diversity of issuers will be a key
objective for the region going forward.
Africa: Totalling USD898m in 2019, Africa’s market
was dominated by the ZAR8bn (USD567m) project loan
to Redstone Solar Plant. Even when accounting for this,however, the mix changed considerably in 2019 withthe remainder composed of issuance from corporates
and Nigeria’s second green sovereign.

UoP allocations tend to be more stable but
still with significant differences
Globally, the share of energy in the mix seems to be
dropping gradually, although it is still the most fundedcategory. This is to be expected given the increasingly
diversified issuer and project base in the global green
bond market.

UoP allocation up to 2018
100%
80%

Unalloc. A&R
ICT
Industry

60%
40%
20%
0%

Land use
Waste
Water
Transport
Buildings
EnergyKey points by region
Europe: Energy allocations seem to have stabilised
below the cumulative total up to 2018, having dropped
from 45% in that period to 34% in 2018 and 2019. On
the other hand, Buildings and Transport each grew six
percentage points in 2019 versus 2018.
Asia-Pacific: There was a substantial increase in
Buildings and Transport allocations over the last two
years, driven by Chinese issuers investing in assets
and projects in these categories.
On the other hand, investments in Water and Waste
infrastructure fell markedly, both in 2018 as well as
further in 2019.
North America: In 2019, Buildings continued to grow inshare, representing almost half (48%) of allocations,while Transport and Water dropped distinctly below the
cumulative total up to 2018.
Compared to other regions, North America stands out
as the only one where Energy is not the most fundedcategory, and among developed markets, with muchsmaller allocations to Transport, Waste, Land Use,
Industry and ICT.
LAC: The mix in 2019 was very different driven by theshift to Transport as a result of Chile’s sovereign deals.

3 ‘Supranational’ region has been excluded as it is almost fully(>99%) composed of development banks.

5

After a strong few years underpinned by issuance frompaper and forestry companies (especially from Brazil),
allocations to Land Use have fallen in the last two
years, particularly in 2019.

However, Africa’s low issuance volume is naturally
subject to large shifts and we will continue to monitor
this space. For now, it is reassuring to see a greater
variety of assets and projects starting to get funded.

This is positive, as it indicates growing sector diversity
among green bond issuers; less positive is the fallingshare of Industry, which we hope will recover in the
coming years.

Supranationals: Among Supranational entities, themost noticeable trend is the declining share of Energy
allocations. Meanwhile, proceeds directed to most othercategories, namely Transport, Water and Waste, haveincreased. This is a welcome development andsuggests MDBs are being able to diversify the projects
and organisations they fund.

Africa: 2019 was an outlier year, with a very high shareof allocations to Energy – dominated by Redstone Solar
Plant’s inaugural deal, which financed solar energy
generation assets in South Africa.

SDG, sustainability and social bonds continue their ascent
The labelled bond market continues to expand beyond
green. Sustainability and social bonds are increasingly
prominent. Issuers and investors are increasingly
adopting policies and strategies linked to the SDGs.

390.5

While the Climate Bonds Initiative remains focused on
green bonds, which are specifically linked to climatechange-change mitigation, adaptation and resilience,
we acknowledge that other labelled bonds may alsofinance climate change solutions.
Sustainability and SDG bonds allow proceeds to beallocated to both green and social projects. 2019sustainability bond issuance totalled USD65bn,
according to our data. This is over a three-fold lift on
USD21bn in 2018. Adding these bonds to CBI’s green
bond tally of USD257.7bn results in a total of USD
USD322.9bn, a robust 72% year-on-year increase.

Sustainability / SDG Bond Frameworks
2019 has witnessed a continuing rise in
Sustainability / SDG bond frameworks, which
distinguish between green and social eligibility
criteria and allow the issuer to classify a bond as“green”, “sustainability” or “social” depending on
the use of proceeds.
Such frameworks allow the issuer to make a clear
distinction between bonds that financeenvironmental and social projects, if relevant. This
makes it easier for investors with a dedicatedmandate to identify bonds that comply with theirinvestment criteria.

Sustainability bond frameworks usually entail a set ofgreen and social eligibility categories. If a specificproceed allocation split between each category is notprovided by the issuer, we assume an equal split
among the listed categories. This means thatsustainability bonds may allocate a significant amountof funding to green projects – however, as the CBIGreen Bond Database Methodology allows only up to
5% of proceeds allocated to assets and projects thatare not aligned with the Climate Bonds Taxonomy, allbonds exceeding this threshold are excluded from thegreen bond database and associated figures.
As an example Philippines’ RCBC issued a USD300m
sustainability bond in September 2019. The bank’s
Sustainability Finance Framework includes seveneligible green categories (energy, buildings, transport,
urban and industrial energy efficiency, waste, waterand land use) and five eligible social categories(affordable basic infrastructure, access to essential
services, employment generation, affordable housing
and socioeconomic advancement and empowerment).
Applying an equal split among these categories resultsin 42% of funding allocated to social projects and therest to climate-aligned projects.
Another example is Starbucks, which issued a
USD1bn sustainability bond in May 2019.
Sustainalytics’ Second-Party Opinion confirmed two of
the eligible categories fall under the social umbrella(socioeconomic advancement and empowerment andaccess to essential services) and one under green(green buildings).
6Based on the information provided at issuance, both
RCBC’s and Starbuck’s bonds have therefore been
excluded from our database. However, if the additionalsocial benefits are achieved by delivering green
projects – e.g. if the affordable infrastructure andhousing are provided via green buildings – we may still
include sustainability and SDG bonds in our database,as long as the total proportion of funding directed togreen projects reaches 95%. This may happen with
the information provided at issuance or through postissuance reporting. In the examples above, thedisclosure at issuance is insufficient and so the
instruments would only be included if post-issuancereporting provides more detail on the green credentialsof the funded projects.
2019 also saw the issuance of the first SDG-linked
bond, launched by the Italian energy producer Enel,which had already issued USD4bn in green bonds.
While the use of proceeds is aimed at general
corporate purposes, the new instrument requires Enelto measure its performance against several
environmental and social KPIs and dependant onwhether they are achieved, to pay up to 25 basis
points more in the coupon to bondholders.
Social bonds also grew in 2019, albeit lessdramatically than sustainability/SDG bonds, with
USD20bn worth of deals coming to market – a 41%
increase versus 2018. Adding social bonds to green
and sustainability volumes yields an annual total of
USD342.8bn, 69% above 2018 volumes.
While most issuers have issued sustainability/SDG
bonds under which they can finance both green andsocial projects, some have opted to develop separate
green and social bond frameworks and as a result
issue bonds separately for the two purposes.
An example is the African Development Bank (AfDB),
a repeat issuer of green bonds (USD2.6bn in total) that
debuted in the social bond market last year. In April
2019, AfDB placed a dual-tranche NOK500m(USD59m) three-year social bond and SEK1.25bn(USD135m) five-year green bond. Eligible categories
under its Social Bond Framework include universal

access to electricity, agricultural transformation andaccess to a range of social and economic
opportunities, among others.
Climate Bonds is looking to expanding oursustainability and social bonds list. Analysis on theeligibility and proportion of the “green” component ofsuch bonds will also be developd

Excluded green bonds
Bonds allocating over 5% of proceeds to assets or
projects that are not necessarily linked to green (suchas social projects or general corporate working
capital), or financing for projects that are not alignedwith the CBI Green Bond Database Methodology, or
those without sufficient information on the proceeds
allocations, are excluded from the eligible green bonddatabase.
Bonds with more that 5% of proceeds used for general
corporate working capital or general funding purposes
represent 75% of all excluded deals in 2019, themajority of which are from Chinese issuers - asgeneral working capital is eligible under the guidelines
released by National Development and Reform
Commission (NDRC) and stock exchanges.
Bonds allocating proceeds to projects that are notaligned with Climate Bonds Taxonomy account for
25% of 2019’s excluded volumes. This category
includes retrofits of fossil fuel power stations, “clean”
coal, coal efficiency improvements, controversial hydroprojects or those without disclosure in power density,
etc. This category is also dominated by Chinese
issuers.
China’s local market context means some bonds
considered green in China are not regarded as green
by international investors. Overall, USD24.2bn worth oflabelled green bonds from Chinese issuers is not inline with international green bond definitions. However,as the regulators in China are trying to harmonise thelocal definitions of green with the international ones,
more aligned issuance is expected to be released tothe market in the future.

Trading venue league table
In 2019, USD167bn worth of green bonds were listed
on various stock exchanges, representing 65% of thetotal green bonds (USD257.7bn). Green bonds issued
on the over-the-counter (OTC) markets, including the
China Interbank market, account for 16%. The
remaining 19% was not listed or information was notavailable.
In the league table below, we have grouped venues bystock exchange group, if applicable. The numbers on
top of the bars indicate the ranking of each venue.
LuxSE (Luxembourg Stock Exchange) was the mostpopular green bond listing venue with USD19.8bn
worth of deals in 2019. 11% of the deals listed on its
platform are Certified Climate Bonds, including asovereign bond by Republic of Chile (EUR861m/USD972m). The German Stock Exchanges combined
took second place, followed by Euronext Paris.

7

LuxSE at the top of green bond listing venues so in 2019
Certified Climate Bonds

External review (excl CCB)No review

35 Bn
30 Bn
1
2

3

15 Bn
10 Bn

9

5 Bn

8

10

5

12

7
16

28

4

6
23

30

14

20

Borsa Italiana

20 Bn

MBV

25 Bn

1
13

3

17

18

19

SIX

AIAF

SGX

HKEX

SSE

Xetra

SIX

AIAF Others(Excl.
OTC)

OthersTradeGate

EuroTLX

SSE

LSEG

HKEX

EURONEXT

LSE

EURONEXT

Brussels

Amsterdam

DublinParis

BerlinStuttgartFrankfurt

All German SE

MunichAll German SE

SGX

LuxSE

EuroMTF

LGX

LuxSE

USD Billions

0 Bn

Trading venue league table: Methodology
•

•

•

•

•

Primary data sources for listing venues include
Thomson Reuters EIKON, Bloomberg Terminal
and Wind Financial Terminal. They are further
supplemented by information collected from stock
exchanges with a dedicated green bond segment,such as Luxembourg Green Exchange, London
Stock Exchange, Borsa Italiana, Shanghai Stock
Exchange and Taipei Exchange.
At most four listing venues are recorded for
calculation purposes. If a bond is listed on multiple
exchanges, primary vs. secondary listing venues
are not differentiated.
When a green bond is listed on more than one
venue, the issued amount is divided by the numberof venues and each venue is allocated an equalshare.
We have not allocated bonds listed on All German
SE, EURONEXT and Nasdaq Nordic to theconstituent stock exchanges.
A bond listing venue is treated as “Not listed” when
the bond is not listed, or relevant information is notavailable from the sources identified in thismethodology.

•

•

•

•

•

Bond volumes allocated to each listing venue arecategorised into Certified Climate Bonds, bonds
with external reviews (other than Certified Climate
Bonds) and bonds with no external reviews.
Commentary:
Bonds issued before the Green Bond Principles
were first published in 2014 generally do not haveexternal reviews. Many of the early issues have
now matured.
Some external reviews may not be available until
an assurance audit is completed. For instance,
KPMG provides an annual independent review of
EIB’s Climate Awareness Bonds. The 2017assurance report was published in Novermber2018.
All LGX deals without a review relate to those mostrecent EIB CAB, for which an assurance report
has not been published yet.
If a bond is traded on LuxSE and displayed on
LGX at the same time, only LGX is recorded as it’s
trading venue to avoid double counting.

Green bond underwriter league tables
In 2019, Crédit Agricole (USD10.6bn) was the largest
green bond underwriter in the global market, winning aclose race between BNP Paribas (USD10.5bn) and
HSBC (USD10.1bn). The top three underwriters
account for 17% of the total underwritten amount.

Agricole (USD1.1bn) and Republic of Chile(USD972mn).
In 2019, Morgan Stanley was the largest US green
Muni deal underwriter (USD1.96bn) followed closely by
BofA Securities (amount underwritten - USD1.82bn)

The top three underwritten green bonds by Crédit
Agricole include deals from Enel (USD1.3bn), Crédit

812 bnCredit Agricole, BNP Paribas & HSBC Top 3 green underwriters in 2019

10 bn
8 bn
6 bn
4 bn
2 bn
0 bn

Total without US Munis (TR Data)

3.0 bnUS Munis (CBI Data)

HSBC led the green bond underwriting in emerging markets

2.5 bn2.0 bn
1.5 bn1.0 bn0.5 bnUSD

0.0 bnData source: Climate Bonds Initiative, Refinitiv

Underwriter league tables: Methodology
Since Q3 2016, the underwriters league tables arecollated using data from Refinitiv except for US
municipal bonds which are calculated by the Climate
Bonds Initiative. As such, ranking volumes differ from
Refinitiv tables. Volumes may differ from other league
tables as they include ABS deals and US Muni bonds
and only include bonds which have 95% or more ofproceeds going to assets or projects, aligned to the
Climate Bonds Taxonomy.

•

•

•

Refinitiv data methodology:••••

Primary Issuance only. Excludes tax exempt US
Municipal bonds
Underwritten transactions only
The global table includes transactions that mature
at least 360 days after settlement
Transactions that mature or are callable/puttableless than 360 days after settlement are excluded

Climate Bonds Initiative © February 2020

•

•

•

Self-funded straight debt transactions are excluded(excluding mortgage and asset securitisations)
unless two or more managers/ underwriters
unrelated to the issuer are present
Transactions with an issue size of less than
USD1m (equivalent) are included; sole led MTN
take downs with a minimum size of USD50m forcore currencies are included, USD10m for noncore
Deals must be received within 5 business days ofpricing
For a transaction to be green league table eligible,
deals must have 100% of proceeds formallyearmarked for green projects
Issuances where there is a mixed use of proceeds
designated across different projects, are noteligible: e.g. ESG bonds that combine social andgreen projects
Securitisation deals and private placement will be
included provided they meet the standard criteria
www.climatebonds.net

Disclaimer: The information contained in this communication does not constitute investment advice in any form and the Climate Bonds Initiative is not an
investment adviser. Any reference to a financial organisation or debt instrument or investment product is for information purposes only. Links to external
websites are for information purposes only. The Climate Bonds Initiative accepts no responsibility for content on external websites. The Climate Bonds Initiative is
not endorsing, recommending or advising on the financial merits or otherwise of any debt instrument or investment product and no information within thisdocument should be taken as such, nor should any information in this communication be relied upon in making any investment decision. Certification under the
Climate Bond Standard only reflects the climate attributes of the use of proceeds of a designated debt instrument. It does not reflect the credit worthiness of thedesignated debt instrument, nor its compliance with national or international laws. A decision to invest in anything is solely yours. The Climate Bonds Initiative
accepts no liability of any kind, for any investment an individual or organisation makes, nor for any investment made by third parties on behalf of an individual ororganisation, based in whole or in part on any information contained within this, or any other Climate Bonds Initiative public communication.

9