2020

Green Bond
Treasurer
SurveyThis report was prepared by the Climate Bonds Initiative, with analysis support from Henley Business School.

Sponsored by Luxembourg Green Exchange and Danske Bank.

Introduction
This is Climate Bonds Initiative’s (Climate
Bonds) first Green Bond Treasurer Survey,
in which 86 treasurers (or equivalentrole) from a variety of institutions shared
their experiences of issuing green bonds.
Respondents represent emerging anddeveloped markets (EM and DM)1 andsupranational issuers. They constitute a
total of 34 countries of economic risk,2 29
industries,3 and credit ratings ranging from
AAA to BB+.4 Chinese issuers were notconsidered in the scope of this survey andwill be addressed in a separate upcoming
research project.
In October 2019 the first Climate Bonds
Green Bond European Investor Survey(the Investor Survey) was published.5
Respondents repeatedly referenced the lackof adequate supply of green bonds. Further,
the Investor Survey found a rough match
between the most carbon-intensive sectors
and investor demand for green bonds inthose sectors, but a clear shortage of green
bond supply. The overwhelming message
from investors was that more green bonds
were needed in all sectors, particularly
the most polluted (“brown”) ones. The
European investment community has moreexperience of, and exposure to, the climate
agenda compared to other regions. Whiledemand for green bonds is beginning to
spread to other territories, the number ofdedicated green bond funds outside Europe
is so far limited.
Green bonds offer organisations theopportunity to prepare for the impacts ofclimate change, initiate the transition toa greener business model or fund green
activities by providing access to low costcapital via well understood and labelled
products. Climate change will increasingly
impact all areas of societies and economies
globally. There is widespread consensus
that the physical risks arising from climatechange are likely to cause unprecedented
disruptions to supply chains acrossindustries, whereas transition risks could
result in entire industries ceasing to exist.
Companies that are unprepared for climate

About Climate Bonds Initiative
Climate Bonds Initiative is an investorfocused not-for-profit, promoting
investment in the low-carbon economy.
Climate Bonds undertakes advocacy andoutreach to inform and stimulate themarket, provides policy models, market

change effects could therefore incur
considerable financial losses through, forexample, stranded assets, limited resource
availability, prices or the effects of policy
choices, such as carbon pricing.6

Contents
3 Summary of findings
5 Results of survey: Sentiment
8 Issuance process
12 Exchange listing

Furthermore, the risks extend throughout theentire financial system. In a recent discussion
paper, the Bank of England observed that
insurance companies and banks in particularwill have to prepare: liability risks i.e. seeking
compensation for damage caused by climatechange, in the case of the former, andlending decisions and the associated effects
for the latter.7
The purpose of the Climate Bonds Green
Bond Treasurer Survey is to highlight thebenefits and challenges of issuing green
bonds with the intention of encouraging
more issuers to come to the market. Between
May and November 2019, 143 green bondissuers were invited to join the project.
Issuers were selected from the Climate Bonds
Green Bond Database, ensuring proportional
representation from EM/DM, country of
economic risk, industry, and a variety ofcredit ratings. Language barriers and timezone restrictions made it easier to engage
with some issuers compared to others. The
response rate was highest in Europe.

14 Post issuance
16 Sustainability
17 Moving the market forwards
20 Conclusion
21 Appendices1. Methodology
2. Survey participants
23 Endnotes
Chart 1 The treasury departments of theentities in the respondent sample hadcollectively issued 686 green bonds at thetime of data collection, and accounted fora total of USD7.4tn in bonds outstanding,including USD222bn of green bonds.8
Full methodology and a description of the
respondent sample are provided in Appendix 1.

1. Respondents encompass all regions

Supranational
North America
Middle East & Africa
Latin America & the
Caribbean
EuropeAsia Pacific010Number of respondents

data and analysis, and administers theinternational Climate Bonds Standard &Certification Scheme.
Climate Bonds’ Green Bond Databaseis based on alignment with the Climate
Bonds Taxonomy, which excludes all fossil
fuel power.

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative

20

30

40

50

Climate Bonds Certification is a labelling
scheme. Rigorous scientific criteria ensurethat it is consistent with the 2oC warming
limit of the Paris Agreement. Certification
requires initial and ongoing third-party
verification to ensure the assets meet the
metrics of Sector Criteria.

2Relationships

Investment banks

Visibility

Internalcollaboration &commitment
Risk
management

<--P
ric
ing
<-/t
-S
an
tan
gib
da
le b
rdi
sat
en
Reputation
efi
ion
ts

Understanding of
projects/ assets

Futureproofing of business

Summary of findings

Aligning
sustainability
goals withcompany
activity(company
strategy/
corporate
sustainability)

This survey was designed to highlight thebenefits and challenges of issuing green
bonds. The expectation was that cheaper
pricing would be at the core. Results,
surprisingly, suggested that pricing was
not the principal benefit of green bondissuance. Green bond pricing is the subjectof abundant debate, including whether
material pricing benefits exist and if so, towhat degree.
This raises the question of whether the
possibility of cheaper pricing for issuers
could be driving the growth of the green
bond market. Any benefits other than pricing
are largely intangible, and are described asancillary. The results of this survey suggestthat pricing is one of the ancillary benefits,
and from the perspective of green bondissuers, other impacts of issuing green bonds
exhibit greater value at present.
The results of this survey suggest thatgreen bonds can:Contribute to transition, risk
management, and future
proofing the business+–Broader
investor
base

Green assets

Robustinformation
systems

Framework

Second party opinion provider

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative

Most enterprises are naturally exposed
to climate risks and need to adjust
their business models towards a low
and ultimately, zero carbon future. This
exposure is determined by both thecompany’s core business and the extent
to which sustainability is integrated into
the company’s strategy. The degree of
integration varies, and organisations are atdifferent stages of transforming models frombrown to green.
As climate risks translate into financial risks,
companies, particularly those with a low
level of integration, must start preparing
and managing these risks in a structured
manner to protect both revenues andreputation. Green bonds are well understood,transparent instruments, that can help tofund this transition and catalyse this process.
• The process of issuing a green bondincludes an internal audit of climate risks
within a business. Several respondents
said that this gave them a better overview
of their projects and assets. This in turncan lead to a better understanding ofclimate-related risks. See page 16• Issuing a green bond also often included
a thorough review of processes,monitoring, and accountability. In somecases, improvements to IT were identified
as necessary to capture the relevant data.
See page 7

3

• While there were costs associatedwith implementing these adjustments,
it appears that respondents believe
them to be justified. Respondents told
us that this process resulted in a morerobust infrastructure, and the goodwill
and positive sentiment created between
companies and stakeholders as a result of
these efforts led to transformative effects
on their organisations; See page 9

Broaden the investor baseand offer new engagement
opportunities
The dialogue with investors appears to be
more extensive for those issuing green bonds,
with senior management often participatingin roadshows. Issuer profile is boosted, as
the green bond signals to the market thatthe organisation is incorporating green
considerations directly into capex planning.

• By issuing a green bond, an organisationis letting the world know it is open forgreen business, in much the same waythat a taxi puts its light on. Issuers said
they were offered more opportunities toparticipate in green projects as a result, andseveral banks were motivated to launch
green lending products. See page 16• 88% of respondents said they planned toissue more green bonds, while a further
15% said they would reopen their current
bond. This underscores the positive
experience of issuing green bonds. An
established investor base and greater
visibility in the market were the mostfrequently cited advantages of repeatedgreen bond issuance. Support from a
new pool of investors is invaluable toany treasurer, and it is unsurprising thatthey would wish to consolidate thoserelationships. See page 16• 98% of respondents said that their green
bond attracted new investors. The mostfrequently stated benefits of this were 1)
a more diverse pool of investors, offering
greater flexibility to reopen or issue new
bonds 2) a stickier investor base and 3)
greater visibility. See page 11• Of the green bonds in our sample, 84%
are listed on at least one stock exchange.
Visibility was the most frequently selected
reason for this, followed by perception andintegrity; See page 12• 91% of respondents said a green
bond facilitated more engagementwith investors compared to a vanillaone. Investors interrogated issuers on
topics including the use of proceeds, theframework, and post issuance reporting.
This dialogue resulted in investors
having a more intimate knowledge of theorganisation. See page 9

Respondents highlighted that green bondissuance resulted in positive changes tointernal relationships.

• Over two thirds (70%) of respondents
said the demand for their green bond washigher than for vanilla equivalents.
See page 14• On average, respondents said thatapproximately 50% of green bonds
were allocated to investors declaring
themselves as green or socially
responsible; See page 14

Enhance reputation and visibility
Reputational benefits and sending asignal to the market were ranked as the
top motivations for issuing green bonds,
followed by a desire to help curb climatechange. At present, the scant regulation
around green bonds does not influence
the decision to issue. This suggests latentpotential for regulation to play a critical rolein accelerating the brown to green transition.
See page 6

Strengthen internal integration• The process of issuing a green bondappears to be triggered by internal
stakeholders and can galvanise
momentum towards addressing climate
risk. Respondents identified the board andstaff (including treasurers) as the main
drivers of the initiative. See page 5• Preparation of frameworks and reporting,and identification of green assets, typicallyinvolved close collaboration among
various departments. This was repeatedly
cited as a positive outcome. See page 6• A sustainability committee is not aprerequisite for green bond issuance.
However, most who issued a green bondwithout one were motivated to set one up
either during or as a result of the exercise.
See page 5• Most respondents said that issuing agreen bond had positively impacted theirinternal commitment to sustainability;
See page 16

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative

Encourage better standards tobenefit all
Most respondents advocated thestandardisation of definitions, taxonomies,
and reporting to ensure the integrity of thegreen bond label.
Many supported the development
and implementation of the European
Commission’s Sustainable Finance Taxonomy(EU Taxonomy).
• There was debate about the strictness ofthe definitions. Some expressed concernsthat making definitions too stringent could
discourage smaller issuers from entering
the market. Others mentioned that the
chances of ‘getting it wrong’ could be
amplified. See page 17• Standardisation was named as both afactor to enhance, as well as an obstaclethat could impede growth and scale. It
was noted that taxonomies need to take
into consideration the disparity of markets,
such as the differences between EM and
DM; See page 10

Gains compensate for effort
When asked whether they had any advicefor other treasurers thinking of issuing green
bonds, time and again respondents said
simply: ‘Do it’.
• Most respondents (84%) said they had
help from independent third parties on
the issuance process of their green bond,including setting up the framework.
See page 8• 85% of respondents commissioned a
Second Party Opinion (SPO). An SPO
can help highlight the integrity of a greenbond, reassuring investors of the green
credentials of the project. See page 8• The costs of issuing a green bond wereregarded either as negligible or valid
due to other benefits. This is contrary
to the perception that green bonds carryconsiderably higher costs, which can be abarrier to market entry. See page 9• For 90% of respondents, the cost of
borrowing for green bonds was either
very similar to, or lower than vanillaequivalents. See page 11

4

Results of survey: Sentiment

Chart 2 Respondents were asked to select a
preferred age limit for projects suitable forgreen bond financing. The answers largely
indicated a desire to include projects initiatedmore than two years ago, with 58% selecting
this option. Preference for the recency ofthe projects differed by the asset class, andsector of the respondent. Jernhusen AB, andVasakronan, both Real Estate companies, issue
green bonds to finance loans that are utilised tomake old buildings energy efficient.9 Buildings(i.e. the asset) would only qualify for this if
they were more than two years old.10 KBC
opined that the age of a project does notnecessarily impact its green credentials, e.g.
a five-year-old windmill should be eligible asa green asset. Sub-Sovereign, Supranational,
and Agency (SSA) issuers, which included
Development Banks, also favoured a longer
time frame. For Development Banks,
particularly those operating in EM, it is not
unusual for the mobilisation of proceeds totake up to two years once the due diligencehas been completed. Smaller issuers alsopreferred this answer, possibly because they
have less choice of projects and thus want tochoose from a broader pool.
See Appendix 1 for parameters used tocapture small, medium and large issuers,
and the categorisation by recency of firstgreen bond.

“Green bonds should not
only fund new projects but
also sustaining projects
that support improvement
and capital expenditures inrelation to green assets.”
Alec Cheng, Treasurer, Ontario Power
Generation

3. The Board had the greatest influence on the decision to issue a green bondLess than 1 year

From 1 to 3 years

3210
Investors

Employees

Board

The board has the greatest
influence on the decision toissue a green bondChart 3 Respondents were invited to score alist of stakeholders from 1-5 based on theirinfluence on the decision to issue a green
bond. The board was the highest scoringof the stakeholder groups (4.01). It also
appeared to have greater influence on thoseentering the green bond market within thelast year (4.29) suggesting that the positive
profile of green bonds could have played arole in their motivation.
Employees was the second highest scoringgroup (3.99), and the respondents, who weremainly treasurers, included themselves inthis category. Many treasurers reflected thatthey pushed for green bonds in response toshareholder pressure.
Debt Capital Markets (DCM) desks atinvestment banks can exert influence byintroducing green bonds to treasurers. Basedon the success of similar organisations,they can and do approach clients with thesuggestion of issuing a green bond.

Sovereign
SSA
Non-Financial Corporate
Financial Corporate
20

Average4

2. Financial Corporates and SSA favoured the inclusion of older projects

0%More than 3 years

5

Average Score

Green bonds need not exclude
older projects

40

Only new projects
New projects or those completed within
the preceding two years (ICMA’s view)

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative60
All projects

80

100

Syndicate

Regulators

Regulators were cited as the least influential
stakeholder group in the decision to issue agreen bond to date, with an average score ofjust 1.82. Market forces appear to be driving
the green bond issuance for the time being,as opposed to regulation. This could be an
opportunity for regulators to enact policies
to facilitate an increase in the scale andrapidity of green bond issuance.

Consensus critical in sovereign
green decisions
Sovereign governments issue green
bonds in response to different pressures.
Sovereign respondents told us that thecritical stakeholders in the decision toissue a sovereign green bond were thecentral government, particularly theenvironment and finance ministries, the Debt
Management Office (DMO), and investors.
All had to be committed to sovereign green
bonds for them to materialise.

More than three quarters of
respondents had a sustainability
committee, which played a keyrole in the decision to issue agreen bondChart 4 A sustainability committee (SC) can
provide a pivotal platform to catalyse internal
support for a green bond by lending visibility
and influence to the project. Just over threequarters (78%) of respondents had a SC in
place. The proportion increased to 84% for
those with a longer history of issuing green
bonds, perhaps as a result of experience,and to 82% for larger issuers, possibly due
to more resources, and greater scrutiny. It
has become the norm for large organisations
to report on sustainability and overseeing
such reporting would fall under the remitof a SC. Among the 22% of those who

54. Most respondents had a Sustainability Committee regardless ofexperienceYesNoon the decision often did so because theSC had been founded after the framework
had been developed, and tended to be earlymovers, such as Municipality Finance, andNederlandse Waterschapsbank (NWB)
which issued its first green bond in 2014.
Société Générale was one of these earlymovers. Its more recently establishedSC has thus had limited contribution onprior issuance but is likely to grow as thecommittee becomes more established.

78% Average response% More than 3 years% From 1 to 3 years% Less than 1 year
0
%

20

40

60

80

100

For others, including Renewi, the SC was
created in concomitance with the issuanceof the green bond – in such cases often
also titled a ‘Green Bond Committee’ – anddrove the initiative. This suggests that green
bonds can make a critical contribution toan organisation focused on sustainability
by providing credibility to such initiatives.
Even when organisations began the process
of issuing a green bond without an SC, theexperience of doing so often provided the
motivation to set one up.

5. Sustainability Committees tended to collaborate with otherstakeholders in the decision to issue a green bond% Less than 1 year

% From 1 to 3 years% More than 3 years

40
30
20

Reputational benefits andmarket signal were the top
motivations for going green

%

10
0
Zero

Moderate
influence

Collaborated
with otherstakeholders

replied they did not have an SC, equivalentbodies having a similar function but different
name were nominated multiple times. For
example, Mexico’s FEFA (part of FIRA) has
a Sustainability Working Group, which was
responsible for driving the initiative to issue
a green bond. Chart 5

Drove theinitiative

Chart 6 Respondents were invited to assign
a score of between one and five to a list of
considerations according to what extent
each one contributed to the decision to issue agreen bond.

franchise was not part of their remit. A
quarter said that the SC had zero influenceon their decision to issue a green bond.
However, most respondents expressed that
the SC played a key role in the decisionmaking around green bonds, mainly in theform of collaboration with other stakeholders
or by driving the initiative.

Among those respondents that did havean SC, a minority said that the green bondReputational benefits and market signal(4.37 and 4.20 respectively) received the
top average scores, followed by a desire to
curb climate change (3.8). A green liability
franchise can be an effective tool to reinforce
all three of these messages.

Those that said the SC had zero influence

A desire to increase the stock price ranked

6. Reputational Benefits and Market Signal were the main reasons for issuing a green bondLess than 1 year

From 1 to 3 years

More than 3 years

Average

Weighted average by outstanding

5
4
3

Average score

2
1
0
Reputation- Changing
al benefits business
model

Cheaper
pricing

Investorpressure

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative

MarketsignalPublicFinancial
policy / flexibility
regulation

To curb
climatechangeResponse To increase The operto share- the stock ation was
holder expricesuccessful
pectations
for peers6When looking at the weighted averageof the scores, curbing climate change
and market signal seemed to be stronger
drivers to consider green bonds for larger
issuers, whereas cheaper pricing andinvestor pressure appeared to be less of aconsideration for them. More is at stake forlarger issuers: controversy would be relatively
more expensive, and therefore the market
signal is likely to be a more important driver.
For those that issued a first green bond lessthan a year ago, changing business model
was a stronger driver for issuing green bonds(3.09) than for respondents that had been
active in the green bond market for at least
three years (1.88). This is possibly because
those with more extensive experience of
issuing green bonds already have theirtransition underway.

Green Tagging refers to a systematic
process whereby financial institutions– typically banks – identify thegreen attributes of their loans andunderlying assets as a tool for scaling
up sustainable financing. If done
successfully, the process enables
smoother access to green bond markets
by creating a continual pipeline ofoften relatively small assets that can bepackaged into larger debt instrumentsthat the capital markets will accept.
Additionally, it can enable banks to
improve the performance trackingof their green loan portfolio, which
in turn can contribute to increasedtransparency of climate risks andportfolio resilience. These capabilities
are especially important as disclosure
requirements for investors are expected
to become more stringent along withthe recommendations of the Taskforce
on Climate-related Financial Disclosures(TCFD) and the European Commission’s
regulatory proposal on Sustainable
Finance Disclosures.

7. Market not being sufficiently evolved was the most popular reason
for not having previously issued a green bond regardless of recency
Less than 1 year

From 1 to 3 years

More than 3 years

Average

5
4
3
2
Average scorethe lowest (1.44), also receiving the highest
number of non-responses, since equity is
not part of the capital structure of manybond issuers. Public policy and regulation
were rated the second lowest (2.17) againemphasising the potential for regulators andpolicymakers to support the growth of thegreen bond market.

1
0
Awareness

Lack ofsuitable
projects

Lack of buy
in fromstakeholders

Market evolution a factor
for issuers
Respondents were asked to score a range ofoptions between one and five to explain why
they had not previously issued green bonds.
Markets not being sufficiently evolved(3.79) and awareness (3.22) were cited as
the main reasons. For larger issuers, thesematters were slightly more influential thanfor smaller ones.
Those that had issued their first green bondthree or more years ago assigned an averagescore of 4.46 to the lack of market evolution.
KfW issued its first green bond in 2014 andexplained that there was scant awarenessof green bonds at the time, an argument
supported by other early adopters. IFC
elaborated that prior to its first green bondin 2010, investor appetite for the productwas extremely niche, and limited to private
placement offerings in very small sizes.
Those issuing for the first time within 12
months of responding to the survey, assigned
an average score of 3.36 to this option.
The lack of suitable projects seemed tomainly be a concern for issuers that had
brought a first green bond to market in theyear prior to the survey (average score 2.83
compared to 1.5 for those that issued at least
three years ago).
Related to a lack of suitable projects,
several retail banks highlighted difficulties
around identifying green assets internally.
Mergers and acquisition (M&A) activity can
result in multiple legacy IT systems within
one organisation making it challenging tosearch for appropriate assets for inclusionin green bonds, an issue that was set forthGreen Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative

Market not
sufficiently
evolvedInvestor
appetite

Balancesheet
limitations

by several respondents. Furthermore, green
loans may not have been marked as suchhistorically. The implementation of a green
tagging system (see box left) can resultin a consistent and clear scoring system
for all loans, which can in turn be used to
identify projects suitable for green bondfinancing. More urgently, all organisations
should be able to assess the quality of their
liabilities from a climate risk management
perspective. In this way, the process of
issuing green bonds can contribute to betterrisk management and transparency.
In EM it is the expertise rather than thetechnology that can present challenges. The
legacy software and fragmented systems
are not really an issue, but the knowledge
and experience needed to identify and track
suitable assets is lacking.
Several respondents remarked that they had
postponed issuing a first green bond because
they had expected the gains to be minimalcompared to the costs and time required
to complete the process. Such ‘costs’
encompassed commitments around postissuance disclosure and additional scrutiny
by investors. However, these fears were
negated once the green bond materialised,
and they realised the outcomes were worth
the effort.
Deutsche Hypothekenbank brought its
first green (covered) bond to the market in2017. It acknowledged that it is difficult forsmaller issuers to create a blueprint andsend a signal in a growing market, becauseof the resources required to do so. It is thus
helpful if larger issuers create a precedent forsmaller ones to follow.

7Issuance Process
8. More recent first time green bond issuers are able to get the deal
done in less timeLess than 6 months

6 months to a year

1 year +% More than 3 years% From 1 to 3 years% Less than 1 year

Smaller issuers were more likely (36%) to
rely on consultants. Half of this category
was EM, where the consultant community
appears to be very active and able to assist
in the process of market discovery anddemonstration issues.

Most issuers get an SPO
0%

20

40

60

80

100

It usually takes less than a year
to plan and issue a green bond

DCM desks and SPO providers
can help with frameworks

Chart 8 The vast majority of respondents(88%) said that the process of issuing a firstgreen bond required less than a year oncethe decision had been made. Nearly half(47%) said that the exercise took six months
or less.11

Chart 9 Respondents were asked to name theparties who had guided them on the green
bond process and were able to select multiple
answers. Sixteen percent said that they
had received no external guidance, having
internally managed the issuance of their green
bonds. Larger issuers (21%), and issuers thathave been active in the market for longer(36%), were more likely to manage a green
bond issuance without external assistance.
In the case of pioneering issuers, this was
possibly because there was no infrastructurecommunity to help and they were navigatinglargely unchartered territory.

Those that issued a first green bond more than
three years ago needed slightly longer for theprocess, as indicated by the lower proportionof responses for ‘less than six months’ (25%).
This emphasises the importance of precedent
for the growth of the market, with standards
and norms being the expected result ofmarket development. The development ofwell-established practices around key partsof the green bond concept, for example
through the Green Bond Principles (including
the green bond framework, management ofproceeds and post-issuance transparency),
has likely benefitted recent issuers. Further,sovereigns and other high-profile issuers withthe capacity to sell green bonds at scale canplay a role in this process with demonstration
issuance going forward, particularly in lessdeveloped EM.

An SPO is an assessment of an issuer’s green
bond framework, analysing the “greenness”
of eligible projects/assets. It also establishes
whether the framework is aligned with thegreen bond principles. Most respondents (57%)
relied on SPO providers and DCM desks (57%),
irrespective of recency of issuance. Some told
us that the DCM desks’ experience of setting
up frameworks and selecting assets had been
invaluable in guiding them through the process
of issuing a green bond. Others highlighted the

9. SPO Providers and DCM desks provided the most help with green
bond frameworks
Less than 1 year

importance of an SPO and obtaining the Climate
Bonds Certification in adding credibility andtransparency to the project.12

From 1 to 3 years

More than 3 years

Average %65Chart 10 The Investor Survey emphasised
the importance of “green integrity”. Most(79%) investors said they would not buy agreen bond if the proceeds were not clearly
allocated to green projects.

10. Sustainalytics was the mostfrequently named SPO provider
Oekom 10%DNV 4%

Carbon Trust 1%
Sitawi 1%
None
13%
CICERO
15%

Viego Eiris
9%

Sustainalytics
33%
Over four fifths (85%) of respondents tothis survey commissioned an SPO for theirfirst green bond, and a total of seven SPO
providers were named. Sustainalytics was themost frequently chosen external reviewer,
followed by CICERO, ISS-Oekom and Vigeo
Eiris, respectively. Among issuers that had
recently entered the green bond market,
Sustainalytics was the most popular external
reviewer, while larger issuers and those thathave been in the green bond market thelongest relied more heavily on CICERO. Thisis likely related to many of the first movers
coming from the Nordic region, where
CICERO has a well-established franchise.
Several mentioned the disparities in themethodologies of different SPO providers.

4“An issue for the current
market is that there is limited
regulation for external reviews- the next step would be toaggregate and standardise
how SPO providers operate”.

Average score

3
2
1
0
Internally Developmanaged ment Bank

CBI

Consultant

SPO
Stock
provider exchange

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative

DCM
Desk

Other

Gerard Kits, Manager Treasury, TenneT8

Issuers perceive the extra costs
to be valid for reasons otherthan cheaper pricing

Vasakronan, among others, highlighted
the learning opportunity arising fromstakeholder education internally.

Chart 11 Most respondents (62%) perceived
the additional costs, such as those ofcommissioning an SPO, extra legal costs, andpost issuance reporting, as valid becauseof reasons other than pricing, while 41%
described the costs as negligible. Only 4%of respondents said the issuance costs were
justified because of cheaper funding. These
perceptions do not vary considerably by
issuer size or the duration of activity in thegreen bond market.13

Cheaper pricing does not seem to be theprimary motivation to issue green bonds.
Several respondents asserted that whencheaper pricing was evident, it had been
driven by supply demand imbalances which
would likely evaporate as supply increased.

Time and effort were regarded as being
the main costs rather than the fees
linked to direct costs such as SPOs,
respondents highlighted a range ofbenefits to compensate for this. Deutsche
Hypothekenbank was one of several who
said that through their green bond, theygained access to a wider investor baseoutside the traditional domestic territory.

11. Most respondents said extra
issuance costs were valid
Valid because
cheaper funding
expected 4%

Negligible
38%

Valid
becauseof other
benefits
58%“The green bond label was astamp of approval for us”.
Sheila Nyachieo-Ochieng, Green
Ambassador, Acorn Management
Services Ltd.

“The extra financial costs of
issuing a green bond were
negligible. It is the effort, notthe cost which is the barrier
to entry”.

Additional issuance costs are frequently
cited as a barrier to issuing a green bond.
The responses we received to this question
indicate that our sample does not believethat to be the case. Even the few thatlamented the costs added that they weremore than compensated for by gains otherthan cheaper pricing, which was viewed as“the icing on the cake”.

“Investors were particularly
keen to engage with acorporate green bond issuer
due to the lack of corporate
supply”.
Pasi Kyckling, Group Treasurer, Stora
Enso“Even without cheaper
funding, the green bondbrought us huge profile
benefits and engagement infinance”.
Sakorn Suriyabhivadh, Head of project
finance and M&A, B Grimm Group“The green bond provided us
with three clear advantages:
1. Demonstrating ourcommitment to sustainability
to investors
2. Alignment with investors topush the agenda for climate
action
3. Avoiding the negative
stigma of not being involvedin green bonds which, while
not currently a problem, willmaterialise in due course “.
Giorgio Erasmi, Head of Funding,
UBI Banca“Conversations about vanillabonds tend to revolve aroundspreads and liquidity, but withgreen bonds, the discussions
are about the transformationof the business”.
Tom Meuwisson, Treasury Manager,
NWB“The in-depth dialogue
with investors more thancompensates for the extra
issuance costs”.
Gerard Kits, Manager Treasury, TenneT

Almost all respondents agreed
that green bonds involve deeper
investor engagement
Chart 12 Almost all respondents (91%)
perceived that green bonds involved moreengagement with investors compared tovanilla bonds, and this seems independent ofinvestor size and green bond experience.
Some told us that they did a more
extensive roadshow for a first greenbond, and the dialogue resulted in greater
understanding of investor perceptions andexpectations around the core features ofgreen bonds, such as transparency anddisclosure. Generally, green bonds seem toinvolve a deepening of contact with clientsand investors.

12. Green bonds involve moreengagement with investors
according to 90% of respondents
Same 5%
No 5%

Yes
90%

Kee Chan Sin, Treasurer, Verizon

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative9

13. Investors wanted more information on a variety of green bondfeatures

Investors wanted more
information on use of proceeds
and post issuance transparency

Post issuancetransparency

Chart 13 Most respondents (57%) reported
that investors wanted more information on
the classification of the use of proceeds,
including details of how the proceeds
would be segregated from other funds, as
highlighted by Telefonica, among others,in their interview. This was followed byquestions around post issuance transparency(48%) and the green bond framework, i.e.
eligible asset and project categories (47%).

Classification ofuse of proceeds

SPO

Framework

Other
0
10
20
Number of respondents
Yes

30

40

50

60

70

80

No

What is impact reporting?
Impact reporting aims to provide insights
into the environmental effects of green
bond financing. The objective is tomeasure changes in the performance ofan asset, project or portfolio of projects
with respect to a set of relevant indicators.
In recent years, several market actors
have formed collaborations to create
frameworks for reporting on impact inprojects and portfolios spanning a variety
of use of proceeds sectors.
The earliest of these was initiatedby a group of International Financial
Institutions (IFIs) in 2015: The
Harmonized Framework for Impact
Reporting. The International CapitalMarket Association (ICMA) has sincejoined the effort and established a broader
Impact Reporting Working Group. The
Group has produced reporting guidance
for a total of six sectors, the latest addition
being Green Buildings. Another wellknown example comes from the Nordic
region, where a group of public sector
issuers came together in 2017 to produce
the Position Paper on Green Bonds Impact
Reporting. The Paper underwent an
update in 2020.14
CBI conducted research on post-issuancereporting in the green bond market. The
analysis, completed in November 2018
and published in March 2019, examineda set of 1,905 bonds and the associatedimpact reporting levels and metrics. Mostof the frameworks referenced above
recommended that issuers report on theimpact of financing within one year of
issuing the bond. Nearly 80% of bonds
were found to have some form of impact
reporting in place.
The rate of disclosure has grown at
an average rate of 139% since 2010
when the first currently outstanding
bonds in the analysed sample came tomarket. However, the issue of lack ofharmonization prevails: the research
uncovered more than 50 metrics in thereporting for each of the top three use ofproceeds categories (Energy, Buildings
and Transport).
In addition to the frameworks listed
above, there are efforts underway
from the European Commission to
help bring consistency and clarity tosustainable finance and the green bondmarket specifically. This includes the
EU Taxonomy, which sets out technicalscreening criteria for sustainableeconomic activities and investments,
along with the proposed European Green
Bond Standard that recommends a
uniform process for issuing and reportingon green bonds. We elaborate on bothon page 19. Considering this and otherdevelopments, Climate Bonds is currently
completing an update of our own researchon green bond disclosure and impact withpublication scheduled for Q4 2020.

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative

Classification of the use of proceeds andpost issuance transparency were relatively
more important issues for those investing in
the green bonds of large issuers. Meanwhile,
post issuance transparency weighed lessheavily for those investing in the bonds of
respondents that have been active in themarket for more than three years.
This is consistent with increased investor
sophistication manifesting as a preference
for more transparency, particularly impact
reporting (see box). The Investor Survey
found that 85% of investors would either
sell or be inclined to sell a green bond if post
issuance reporting was poor.
Sovereign issuers responding to this survey
mentioned they were scrutinised very
thoroughly with regards to the government’s
green strategy. This reflects the relevance ofsuch issuance and can also be seen in otherparticipants’ responses to later questions:
three respondents explicitly stated thatthey saw sovereign green bond issuance asa crucial factor that would enhance growthand scale of the green bond market.
A sovereign green bond is the ultimate
endorsement for a transition to the low
carbon economy.

“The French treasury isalways engaged withinvestors, but for the green
OAT the dialogue wasrefreshed to include a broader
range of topics”.
Alexandre Vincent, Green BondManager, French Treasury

10The cost of funding a green bond
was regarded as cheaper than,or similar to, a vanilla bondChart 14 Respondents were asked how thecost of funding for the green bond comparedto vanilla bonds. Just under half (48%) told
us that the cost of funding green bonds was
similar to that of vanilla equivalents, while
42% considered the costs to be lower. For
larger issuers, and those with more yearsof experience in the green bond market, thecosts of funding for green bonds were lower
than for vanilla bonds. This may relate tospreading the costs of issuing the bond, as
well as incurring economies of scale, andpossibly achieving a lower interest rate.
For example, Berlin Hyp recounted thatunique expenses, including the adaptationof IT systems and internal processes, wereincorporated into the cost of its first greenbond, but the ramifications extended tosubsequent issues.

14. Most respondents thought the costs of funding a green bond weresimilar to or less than a vanilla equivalent

Similar

Less

Greater

N/A

0

10

20

30

40

50

Number of respondents

98% said their green bondattracted new investors…
Chart 15 A new investor base is an oft citedfeature of issuing green bonds, and 98% of
respondents agreed that their green bondattracted new investors. This was particularly
helpful for issuers of bonds normally sold toa predominantly domestic investor base. The
green label appears to act like a magnet toattract the interest of socially responsible orgreen investors regardless of domicile.

15. Almost all respondents
said their green bond attracted
new investors
No 2%...bringing numerous gains
Chart 16 When asked to describe the valueof new investors, the majority (59%) of
respondents named a more diverse investor
base.15 Respondents commented that thisbrought benefits for future financing andenhanced liquidity of the instruments, as wellas higher oversubscription levels. The latter
may help to secure cheaper pricing, andnearly a quarter of the respondents (24%)
stated directly that they perceived this or
lower interest rates as a benefit, whereas

Yes
98%

17% agreed that the demand for green bonds
was generally higher. Nearly a third (28%) of
the respondents said that they were able toincrease visibility and boost their reputation
through accessing additional investors.
This can lead to more awareness in themarketplace beyond the usual scope, as wellas encompassing new geographic regions.
The new investor base was something that
respondents perceived as an advantage
when it came to repeat issuance.
The ‘stickiness’ of green bonds was
highlighted by 13% of respondents. Investors
tend to hold on to their green bonds rather
than selling them. This adds stability to thesecondary market, which in turn is attractive
to investors.16
Several respondents declared that green bonds
offered exposure to new communities ofinvestors. For example, a traditional EUR issuer
sold a green bond in USD. The green labelcaught the attention of new investors, who asa result, became familiar with the issuer andstarted buying their vanilla bonds as well.

16. Benefits of new investors
Cheaper Pricing 21

Enhanced Visibility 24

Contribution toGroup Strategy 7

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative

HigherDemand 15

StableSecondaryMarket 11

Increased Stakeholder
Engagement 9

11

Exchange listing
Green bonds can be listed on any exchangewith a bond platform, just like vanilla bonds.
As of January 2020, 17 stock exchanges
offered dedicated green bond sections,providing additional visibility to the green
bond label. Assistance and services vary,
but generally stock exchanges can provide
guidance and support to issuers. Listing
green bonds can offer improved access,flexibility and transparency for investors.
Climate Bonds published The Role of
Exchanges in Accelerating the Growth of theGreen Bond Market on this subject in 2017.17
Issuers can and do list their bonds on
multiple exchanges to enable maximum
exposure. The green bonds in our sample
ranged from zero to 12 listings on 40
different exchanges. Only 14 respondents inour sample did not list their green bond on
any exchange.

Name of Stock Exchange

Type of Dedicated Segment

Launch Date

Oslo Stock Exchange

Green bonds

January 2015

Stockholm Stock Exchange

Sustainable bonds

June 2015

London Stock Exchange

Green, social, & sustainability
bonds

July 2015

Shanghai Stock Exchange

Green bonds

March 2016

Mexico Stock Exchange

Green bonds

August 2016

Luxembourg Stock Exchange*

Green, social, & sustainability
bonds

September 2016

Italian Stock Exchange

Green & social bonds

March 2017

Taipei Stock Exchange

Green bonds

May 2017

Johannesburg Stock Exchange

Green bonds

October 2017

Japan Exchange Group

Green & social bonds

January 2018

Vienna Stock Exchange

Green & social bonds

March 2018

NASDAQ Nordic & Baltics**

Sustainable bonds

May 2018

The International Stock Exchange

Green bonds

November 2018

Frankfurt Stock Exchange

Green bonds

November 2018

Moscow Exchange

Green & social bonds

August 2019

Euronext

Green bonds

November 2019

NASDAQ Sustainable Bond
Network***

Green, social, & sustainability
bonds

December 2019

*LuxSE created LGX as a dedicated platform for green, social and sustainability bonds**Nasdaq’s joint offering of sustainable debt segments are operated by Nasdaq Europe. Sustainable bonds are currently listed on
Nasdaq’s sustainable bond markets in the Baltics, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Reykjavik, Stockholm and Vilnius***The Nasdaq Sustainable Bond Network is not a listing venue but a transparency platform open to all green, social andsustainability bonds meeting its inclusion criteria, regardless of the listing status.

Listing green bonds brings
visibility

17. Visibility is the main benefit of listing green bonds on a stock exchange

Chart 17 Respondents were asked to selectas many reasons to list green bonds as wereapplicable, and perceived listing green bonds
to be a helpful exercise. Visibility was themost popular choice (74%), followed byperception (of being a green organisation)(57%), integrity (36%), and secondary
market liquidity (31%). The integrity refers
to the credibility of the bond. Smaller issuers
and those that have been active in the green
bond market for less time ranked visibility andperception to be relatively more important
than the average respondent. Larger issuersviewed secondary market liquidity as agreater benefit of listing green bonds thansmaller issuers (41% vs. 18%).

Secondarymarketliquidity
Perception
Integrity
Visibility
Tax
N/A

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative

0
%

20

40

60

80

100

12

Most actively decided on theirlisting venue
Chart 18 The majority of respondents(64%) actively selected their listing venue.
This percentage was lower for issuers
which had recently entered the green bondmarket (50%). Respondents were asked toname the criteria guiding the decision andcould select as many as were applicable.
The most frequently selected reason wasfamiliarity, with 29% opting to remain
with their legacy platform. Those who
selected this option said they had done
so because they were satisfied with theguidance they received and the platform
afforded good visibility.
Proximity to head office (25%) and criticalmass (23%) were the second and third
most popular reasons. A very small minority(3%) selected fiscal considerations as
their motivation. The ‘Other’ category waschosen by 23%, within which, 10% gave nofurther explanation, 8% said they had been
attracted by the green segment, and 5% said
the exchange had invited them to list there.

“If the traditional listing venue
offers a green bond platform,
it makes perfect sense
to use that”
Peter Kammerer, Head of Investor
Relations, Landesbank BadenWurttemberg

What is liquidity?
The concept of liquidity is relativeand difficult to measure but generally
describes the ease with which one canbuy or sell securities without causinglarge price fluctuations in the market.
The illiquid nature of many non-sovereign
bonds can be because bonds are limited
in size, but share similar characteristics
such as duration, credit rating,sector or seniority, and are therefore
interchangeable.
Bonds are usually most active in the firstmonth post issuance. Liquidity then severely
diminishes as investors hold onto the bondeither until there is a credit event, or until
the bond is called or matures. For green
bonds, this is further exacerbated by supply
and demand imbalances. Some investors

18. Criteria guiding the listing venue decision

Critical mass

23%

25%

Local to head office

Local to domicile oftarget investors
Fiscal considerations

15%

3%

Familiarity

29%

Other

23%
% of Yes replies

Choice of listing venue
Almost two thirds (62%) of respondents
said that they were satisfied with theircurrent listing venue. Smaller issuers said
they would be more inclined to consider
changing it mainly for better visibility
among their target audience. Responses
to this question and those who had citedsatisfaction with their current venue in
response to the previous question, suggestthat the choice of listing venue tends to belong term.

cannot buy bonds on the secondary market
unless they are listed on at least one stock
exchange. Not listing could limit liquidity
to the degree that green bonds trade on
the secondary market, however, this is not
exclusive to green bonds.

Liquidity is important to green
bond issuers
Respondents were asked whether they caredabout the level of liquidity of their green
bond in the secondary market, and 70%
indicated that they did. This percentage wasgreater for larger issuers (82%). Several
respondents observed that vanilla bonds
offer scant liquidity, and green bonds tradeeven less since they are mainly bought by“buy and hold” investors. NWB added thatthe liquidity is one sided: selling a green
bond is easy, buying one, less so. Within thiscontext, issuers try to do everything they canto ensure their bonds are as easy to buy andsell as possible, and this may include listingthem on stock exchanges.

There is evidence to suggest that evenduring periods of volatility when investors
need to liquidate some of their assets,green bond prices remain steady comparedto vanilla equivalents. Jason Mortimer(Nomura Investment Management, Tokyo)
conducted research on this subject andconcluded that the green label does indeed
offer downside risk protection. A shortsummary of Jason’s research was featured
in Climate Bonds Pricing Paper JulyDecember 2018.18

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative

13

Post IssuanceGreen bonds experienced higher
demand compared to vanilla
Chart 19 Seventy percent of respondents
stated that the level of demand for green
bonds was higher than the demand forpreviously issued vanilla bonds, while 25%
said the same, and 5% were N/A (those
responding did not have access to that data
point). None of the respondents related
that they received less interest in its green
bond compared to vanilla equivalents.
These findings are supported by the Climate
Bonds Green Bonds Pricing in the PrimaryMarkets research (Pricing Papers) which hasmonitored green bond pricing since 2016.
The Pricing Papers state, that in general,
green bonds tend to be more oversubscribedand experience greater spread tightening
during book building compared to vanillaequivalents.19
The green bond demand was reported to behigher by issuers in the market for less thana year, and marginally, by larger issuers. The
results of the Investor Survey highlighted
that European investors wanted to buy more
green bonds of all types, and in that context,
this finding is unsurprising. European
investors are currently more engaged thanthose in other regions, but the low supplyof green bonds means that the increased
demand extends to all markets.

On average, half of green
bonds were allocated to green
investors
Chart 20 Green bonds are boosted by aunique source of support in the form ofinvestors having either dedicated green bondmandates or a sustainable investment bias.
Non-dedicated investors have no reason
not to buy green bonds in principle. Further,larger green bonds are eligible for inclusion
in benchmark bond indices, meaning thatmainstream investors will also be obliged tolook at them.

19. Most respondents said
demand for their green bond washigher than their vanilla bonds

21. Most respondents plan toissue more green bonds

N/A 5%

Unknown

Lower 0%
ReopenSame
25%

Issue more
No

Higher
70%

0
20
% Yes

Respondents told us that, on average, 50%of their green bond deals were allocated toinvestors with an explicit green mandate andthis proportion increased with issuer size.
The numbers given ranged from 100% to
5%. Again, this is supportive of the findingsin the Pricing Papers, which conclude that
as of mid-2019, on average, 53% of green
bonds were allocated to investors describing
themselves as green.
Sixty respondents were able to provide ananswer to this question. The remaining 26
either didn’t know the precise numbers
or were not confident with sharing thedata because of a lack of clarity about thedefinition of a “green” investor. IFC noted thatwhen it issued its first green bond in 2010, theconcept of categorizing investors as “green”
or “ESG investors” was not the standard.
It was a nascent reverse enquiry driven
product at the time. However, two
respondents declared ‘the majority’ andanother two asserted that ‘a significant
proportion’ was allocated to green investors.
Giving preferential allocations to green investors
can enhance the visibility of a green bond. Some,
including SBB, said that they prioritised green
investors when issuing green bonds.

40

60

80

100

“We have a commitment tosustainability and green capexand financing, and therefore togreen investors. It is also worth
noting that these investors
provide more stability in thesecondary market”.
Joseba Mota, Head of Fixed Income and
SRI, Investor Relations, Iberdrola SA

Most respondents plan to issue
more green bonds
Chart 21 Most respondents plan to issue
more green bonds (88%), while 15%
stated that they will reopen existing green
bonds. Only one respondent explained theyneither wanted to issue more green bonds
nor reopen its existing one, because it had
decided to issue under a different label (seebox on page 18). This gives credence to thefact that issuing a green bond is a positive
experience for the issuer. Forty-eight out of 86
respondents have already issued more than
one green bond and seven reopened their firstbond. Those in the unknown category cited acurrent lack of suitable assets as a barrier tocommitting to further issuance.

20. Deals issued by larger respondents were allocated to a higher percentage of green investors
Investors describing themselves as green

Other investors
50% Average response

Large
Medium
Small
0
%

20

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative

40

60

80

100

14

Larger issuers expect to issue
green bonds more often

22. Most respondents plan to issue green bonds at least once a year
% Small issuers

Chart 22 Larger issuers (44%) and thosewith more than three years of experiencein the green bond market (48%) would
be more likely to issue green bonds morethan once a year. Smaller issuers with lessexperience seem to be more inclined toissue green bonds ad-hoc (41%). Overall, thelowest frequency for repeat issuance wasless than once a year (15%) which, as one
would expect, was a more popular option
for smaller respondents. Some divulged they
had plenty of qualifying assets already on
their books that could be refinanced, whileothers said that the frequency of repeat
issuance was contingent on green asset
production. For others, issuing green bonds
extended green asset production because asa result of issuing a green bond, were invited
to support more opportunities.

% Large

% All

50

40

30

20

10

%

For sovereign issuers running a surplus,
the management plan of a green bond ismore complicated. Bond investors rely
on sovereign bonds to fill a large part of abroad market fixed income portfolio, andliquidity/size are critical. If there are enoughsuitable green projects, reopening may be
a better solution for a sovereign since thiscan be done in smaller increments without
fragmenting the yield curve. For example, theGreen OAT (French sovereign) was issued
in January 2017, and by February 2020 had
been tapped eight times reaching EUR22.6bn
outstanding (USD23.3bn).

% Medium0More thanonce a year

Once a year

Less thanonce a year

Ad hocN/A“The green bond programme isin itself a business development
outreach opportunity.
Knowledge of it leads sponsors
to create new eligible projects”.

“Sustainability is a significant
part of Danske Bank’s strategy
and our ambition is certainly
to be a recurring issuer in thegreen bond market”.

Denise Odaro, Head of Investor
Relations, IFC

Jonas Wikfeldt, Senior Funding
Manager, Danske BankGreen Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative15

Sustainability
Perceptions of integrated
sustainability varied in intensity
Respondents were asked to describe theirperception of integrated sustainability. The
sample included organisations of which
the core activity is “green”, such as Renewi,
and those that were established without
sustainability goals, but most of which seemto be shifting both the business model andstrategy towards that of a sustainabilityoriented company. The respondents
described a variety of perceptions of what
integrated sustainability means, ranging
from sustainability being a feature add-on, tohaving individual green business lines, andultimately to the integration of sustainability
considerations into every business decision.
Respondents described different degrees
of integration. However, the consensus wasthat sustainability is becoming increasingly
important. This is not just because
stakeholder groups other than investors arepushing companies to integrate such factors
in business decisions but also because
organisations acknowledge that a company
with a sustainability focus may constitute aless risky and more future-proof investment.
Enel said that they believe a sustainable
company is less risky compared to one thattakes a different approach.

“Finance got more involvedin the business; the businesslearned more about what was
suitable for green financing”.
Roland Metzler, Head of Group Financeand Tax, Encevo S.A.

In terms of green bonds, some respondents
explained that they were an expression ofan existing sustainability commitment andsome stated that the process of issuing agreen bond reinforced it. For instance, Zürcher
Kantonalbank has offered preferential loans toenergy efficient green buildings since 1992,
and the green bond spotlighted these efforts.
EBRD explained that organisations don’t
have to be sustainable immediately, theyshould have embarked on the journey andhave articulated a credible plan to achievesustainability. This is consistent with the
emerging trend that companies should starttransitioning from brown to green business lines,
while acknowledging that this will take time.
Sparebank described how its traditional lending
business was linked to the oil industry; green
bonds offered an opportunity to transition togreen lending and de-risk its business.

Furthermore, two respondents stated that
there is a misconception in the market
that sustainability costs are “additional”.
Many argue that integrating sustainability
is a part of risk management and leads tocloser collaboration internally. A fair share of
respondents stated that it involved additional
work but most thought it was worth the effort.

Green bonds positively impacted
commitment to sustainability
Asked whether the green bond had impacted
the internal commitment to sustainability,
77% of respondents replied that it had. This
percentage rose to 96% for smaller issuers.
Generally, respondents recounted that thegreen bond had enhanced or consolidated theinternal position on sustainability, spreading
understanding across various departments
and enabling them to learn more about how
they can contribute. Encevo stated thatthrough the preparation of issuing a green
bond it identified existing assets that it had
not known could be financed under sucha label. Others mentioned that the green
bond encouraged them to think about future
projects through a sustainability lens. This
point is in fact critical, as the process of
issuing a green bond offers an educational
experience, giving issuers the motivation toaudit what is being done, resulting in a deeper
understanding of the business. This enhanced
internal commitment also extended toemphasising sustainability to a broad externalaudience. Several lenders that we spoke tomentioned that the green bond motivatedthem to design green lending products. Berlin
Hyp stated that it is cheaper to finance green
rather than conventional buildings because
green loans are less risky. In 2016 it issued
a USD650m green bond, and by December
2019, its green issuance programme had risen
to USD4.5bn.
Among those that said no, several, including
the French Treasury and Credit Agricole,observed that its strong commitment tosustainability and the environment had
resulted in the green bond, not the otherway around. Credit Agricole described thiscommitment as part of its mission to have asocietal impact. Others, such as the Nordic
Investment Bank related that its decision toissue a green bond had been taken to enhance
its business, rather than transform it.

“Our commitment tosustainability was strong due
to the nature of our business.
The green bond improved thiscommitment”.
Adam Richford, Treasury and Investor
Relations, Renewi Plc“Our ambition is to be regarded
as a green issuer rather thanjust an issuer of green bonds”.
Enzo Soi, Funding Manager, KBC Group NV“Our green mortgage – a firstin the UK - was launched after
the bond was issued”.
Billy Suid, Head of Securitisation and
Secured Funding, Barclays“It was our commitment tosustainability that led us toissue green bond and act asa corporate pioneer in thismarket but indeed green
bonds have contributed tospread the sustainability
agenda”.
Philippe Meunier, CSR manager, ENGIE“We now offer green loans tocustomers”.
Philipp Bank, Funding & Investor
Relations, Deutsche Hypothekenbank“Issuing a green bond has
shown clients and investors
that our commitment tosustainability is serious”.
Janice Daly, Head of Sustainable
Finance, LeasePlan Corporation N.V.

Green bond issuance and organisational
commitment to sustainability seem to be
inextricably linked. If policy makers wanted
to encourage organisations to be moresustainable, one option could be to insist
that all bond issuance be green.

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative16

Moving the market forward
Other labels are growing in
popularity
Chart 23 Sustainability and social bonds
have been around for several years, butsince 2018 the number of sustainability
related bonds with labels other than green
has gained momentum. A quarter of the
respondents indicated that they were notconsidering other labels, either because
they didn’t have suitable assets to do so, or
because they felt that the introduction ofother labels could lead to the fragmentationof a growing market. Among other labels,sustainability was the one that issuerssuggested they would be most likely toconsider (40%) and was preferred bysmaller green bond issuers (52%). Larger
issuers expressed a preference for social
bonds (52%). Six respondents related
they had the assets to fill all the categories
and may explore them at some future
unspecified time but that it was not on theircurrent agenda. A further one nominatedresilience bonds. Anecdotally, at least adozen respondents lamented that they may
struggle to find enough assets suitable forgreen bonds straight away. However, they
did have assets that would fit under otherlabels, and that they may thus be inclined to
explore those labels.

Standardisation was preferred
Chart 24 Most respondents preferstandardisation of definitions, taxonomies, andreporting to ensure the integrity of the greenlabel, with a higher preference expressed byleast experienced issuers in the green bondmarket. However, respondents pinpointed
standards as having the potential to bothsupport and impede the growth of the market.
Several respondents remarked on the
reputational risks associated with issuinggreen bonds. Strict definitions could
expose issuers to more rigorous scrutiny,

23. For respondents considering other labels, sustainability was themost popular
Yes

No

Hybrid GB
Sustainability
Social
ESG
SDG
Other
0
%

20

“The green bond market isbased on generally accepted
standards and provides
transparency to investors tobetter allocate their funds andthe ability to measure theircontribution to sustainability”.
Joseba Mota, Head of Fixed Income and
SRI, Investor Relations, Iberdrola SA
thus enhancing the reputational risks of
issuing green bonds. There were also fears
that if too strict, standards could limit the
choice of assets suitable for inclusion ingreen bonds particularly in EM. On theother hand, for smaller issuers with lessexperience, guidelines, definitions, andstandards would help minimize someof the reputational risks. In general, allissuers appear to be making best efforts tocontribute to the transition to a low carbon
economy and perhaps this input could
be recognized in the form of tax or othersupport from governments.

24. Standardisation is preferred by respondents regardless of experience
Standardisation

Less strict definitions

No Preference

80

60

80

100

“If regulators want topreference green bonds,
standardisation withflexibility will be needed
to determine what is andis not green”.
Peter Kammerer, Head of Investor
Relations, Landesbank BadenWurttemberg
When investors were asked the samequestion as part of the Investor Survey 48%
preferred stricter definitions, 31% preferred
broader definitions, and 21% did not have apreference. Among those, many explainedthat they would like broader definitions toscale up the market followed by a progressive
tightening as the market becomes larger.

Regulation and investor demand
would grow the market
Respondents reflected that regulation ofgreen bonds would improve the market, andstandards would simplify such regulation.
In terms of quantifiable advantages, tax
incentives were perceived as useful by a few,
along with a pricing advantage comparedto vanilla instruments, which many issuers
would welcome in order to justify theinvested resources.
Investor demand was perceived as a factor
that could increase the growth and scale of
the green bond market. Duke Energy asserted
that clear expectations from investors would
help issuer confidence. Another issuer
considered that disclosure on green andnon-green holdings by investors would be
beneficial for market developments as well.

60
40
20
%

40

0
% Less than
1 year% From1 to 3 years

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative% More than
3 years
17

Climate Bonds support the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and green
bond finance can directly contributeto achieving specific SDG outcomes,
especially SDGs 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15.

However, Climate Bonds remains focusedon green bonds, which are specificallylinked to climate change mitigation,
adaptation and resilience. Consequently,
the proportion of proceeds allocatedto social projects which are not also
green may not exceed 5% for inclusionin the main Climate Bonds Green Bond
Database. As of the end of December
2019, labelled instruments that focus oncontributing to non-climate related SDGs
amounted to 85.1bn USD. 20 Chart 26
With the growth of the sustainablefinance agenda, the labelled bond market
has diversified beyond green bonds.
The issuance of sustainability and social
bonds has accelerated since 2018. SDG
bonds have emerged as issuers andinvestors have started adopting policies
and strategies linked to the UN’s 17
Sustainable Development Goals. Morerecently, some issuers have labelled theirbonds or loans sustainability- or SDGlinked. As opposed to the traditionaluse-of-proceeds model where fundingis earmarked to specific green and/or
sustainable assets or projects, the costof funding for such instruments is reliant
on sustainability improvements at theorganisational level. This could involve,
for example, a company committing to
improving its Environmental, Social andGovernance (ESG) rating by a specificmargin or meeting greenhouse gas
emission reduction targets within anagreed timeframe. A prominent exampleof this type of issuance came from global
energy provider Enel, which issued“General Purpose SDG Linked Bonds” inSeptember (in US dollars) and October
2019 (in euros). The bonds coupons are
subject to Enel meeting a “Renewable
Installed Capacity Condition”, i.e. having
at least 55% of its installed energy

generation capacity from renewablesources by the end of 2021 or, in the caseof the 2034 tranche of the EUR bond, 125
g/KWh direct Green House Gas Emissions
by 2030, as confirmed by an externalverifier. If the company fails to meet thetarget, the interest rate of its debt will berevised upwards by 25 basis points.
Additionally, the market has seen theappearance of labels that address more
specific agendas within the environmental
financing space. A prominent exampleof this are blue bonds, which target thesustainable use of ocean resources.
They first emerged with the launch of
the Sustainable Blue Economy FinancePrinciples by the European Commission
and UNEP FI in 2018. The Republic of
Seychelles was the first globally to issue a
blue bond in October 2018. The proceeds
were allocated to financing the expansionof Marine Protected Areas (MPAs),
improving the governance of fisheries
and facilitating the development of the
Seychelles’ blue economy.

bring clarity to eligible assets and projects
in such financing, as well as the need forthe bond issuance to be accompanied withadequate transparency and disclosurearound organisations’ transition strategy
and associated decarbonisation targets
and timeframes.21 Climate Bonds is also
undertaking work in this area in 2020 andbeyond in partnership with Credit Suisse.
Beyond climate change mitigation,
adaptation and resilience are becoming
more prevalent in the discussion aroundsustainable financing needs globally.
Climate Bonds published the Adaptation
and Resilience Principles in September
2019.22 That same month, the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development(EBRD) became the first institution toissue a Climate Resilience Bond in linewith the guidance in the Principles. The
bond’s proceeds fall under three broad
categories that the bank can match with
its USD7.7bn equivalent pool of climateresilient assets, including infrastructure(e.g. water, energy, communications

26. Labelled issuance
450

375

Sustainability
65.2

300

Social20

Excluded
40.9

Pending
6.8

Total
390.6

Green ex
CCB
212.7

225

150

USD Billions

The wider labelled bonduniverse

75

CCB
45

0
Total

Other themes that are emerging include
so-called transition bonds, which are aimed
at issuers that operate in ‘brown’ industries
today but have the ambition to transition togreen. This includes firms which lack enoughgreen projects and assets to finance usinglabelled green bonds. AXA IM publishedproposed Transition Bond Guidelines to help

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative

and urban infrastructure), relevantbusiness and commercial operations;and agriculture and ecological systems.
Examples of eligible projects include water
irrigation infrastructure in water-stressed
areas (e.g. Morocco) and resiliencespecific upgrades to a large hydropower
plant in Tajikistan.

18

A taxonomy is a classification system
which, in the context of green bonds, isapplied to sustainable economic activities.
Current taxonomy development involves
harmonising a list of eligible green andsustainable assets and metrics across themarket with the aim of providing guidance
to both issuers and investors in therelevant jurisdiction.
In December 2016 the European
Commission established the High-Level
Expert Group (HLEG) on Sustainable
Finance to propose measures that could
be taken to mobilise capital for sustainable
investments. One of the recommendations
was to establish an EU Taxonomy of

Sustainable Finance to provide a common
framework for investor disclosure, sustainablefinancial products and the green bonds market.
HLEG recommendations formed the basisof the European Commission action planon financing sustainable growth, which was
adopted by the Commission in March 2018.
To develop key regulatory proposals under the
Action Plan, including drafting a Taxonomy,
the Commission convened a TechnicalExpert Group (TEG) on Sustainable Finance.
The TEG published a draft taxonomy for
consultation in June 2019; In December 2019
the European Parliament, member States
and the Commission reached agreement on
implementation of the Taxonomy.

Sciencebased
Rapid change,
not incremental

The TEG report forms the basis fordelegated acts, which will include technicalcriteria. The Commission will developthese in two phases: The first technicalscreening criteria will cover activities which
substantially contribute to climate change
mitigation or adaptation. These will be
adopted by the end of 2020 and enter into
application by the end of 2021.
The second set of technical screening
criteria for activities making a substantial
contribution to the other four environmental
objectives will be adopted by end 2021
and enter into application by end 2022.
The EU Taxonomy on Sustainable Financewill comprise criteria for assessing theperformance of an economic activity to
the following six areas:• Climate change mitigation

Supporttransition frombrown to green• Climate change adaptation• Sustainable Use and Protection of
Water and Marine Resources• Transition to a Circular Economy, Waste
Prevention and Recycling

Leverage existinglabelling

Make it easy
to useTaxonomyEnvironmental
systemperspective

Insufficient opportunity could be
an obstacle to growth
The lack of eligible assets was highlighted
as an obstacle by 15 respondents. Further,where there were sufficient assets, several
banks noted that IT infrastructure needs tobe updated in order to be able to adequately
monitor what could be identified as a green
asset. UBI Banca pointed out that thefinancial flexibility of the bank can be limited
through a green bond since the proceeds
cannot be used for repurchase agreements
or collateral.
Many respondents viewed enhanced
awareness and reputation as beneficial,which is difficult to quantify. Hence, not

Dynamic
flexible tool

Make theprocess clear(now and after)

easily measurable benefits stand against thecost for issuance including annual reporting.
A tangible pricing benefit would allow
issuers to justify the investment.

Respondents advise othertreasurers to simply “do it”
Overall, issuing a green bond is perceived
as beneficial and most respondents
recommend any treasurers consideringtaking the plunge to simply “do it”. They
agreed that the advantages outweighed
the effort and costs that accompanied
green bond issuance. Some did stress that
there was additional work, which required
resources and commitment, but this also

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative• Pollution Prevention and Control, and• Protection and Restoration of
Biodiversity and Healthy Ecosystems
In order for an activity to qualify, it must
make a substantive contribution to atleast one of the six objectives and “Do
No Significant Harm (DNSH)” to theothers. Activities must also be carriedout in compliance with minimum social
safeguards to ensure a just transition as
well as complying with specific technicalscreening criteria.

offered a learning process. Those same
respondents emphasised the importanceof this process culminating in a robust
framework. Post-issuance reporting should
be considered from the beginning and wellthought through in advance. At the sametime, the involvement of different parts of
the organisation was considered crucial.
Respondents stated that they got in touchwith experienced issuers or had been, in turn,approached by others who were seeking
advice. In addition to that, they stressed theimportance of the sequence of the issuanceprocess: the assets and projects should bein place first, and after that funding could besought. Altogether, the process should be
kept simple.

19

Conclusion
The results of this survey
underscore that issuing green
bonds can bring multiple
benefits to organisations.
Beyond pricing, there are
numerous reasons for issuers toreturn to the green bond market
and consolidate their reputation
as organisations committed to asustainable future.
Issuing a green bond can enhanceorganisations, bringing opportunities in five
distinct areas:
1. Risk management and future proofing of
the business Issuing green bonds presents
an opportunity for organisations tothoroughly review their business models,
tighten up areas such as IT systems andtransparency, and prepare for a low carbon
future.
2. Broaden the investor base and offer
new engagement opportunities. Greenbonds afford access to the responsible
investment community, which tends
towards buy and hold strategies andcan offer greater stability to secondary
market performance in times of volatility.
On average respondents said thatgreen bonds attracted higher demandcompared to vanilla bonds, offered deeper
engagement with investors, and around
50% of their bonds were allocated toinvestors describing themselves as green
3. Enhance reputation and visibility.
Organisations stated that issuinggreen bonds reinforced their ‘green
commitment’. Most organisations havesustainability sections on their web sites,or in their annual reports, or produce
a sustainability report. Green bonds
demonstrate to the capital markets
that the commitment is serious andsupported by a thorough review ofinternal practises required for pre andpost issuance reporting. Green segments
on stock exchanges can support thegoals of enhanced visibility, perception,and integrity through the guidanceand expertise offered to issuers. Suchplatforms make it easier for investors to
identify and access credible green bonds.
4. Strengthen Internal relationships. The
process of issuing green bonds tends
to be initiated by internal stakeholders.
Respondents said that preparation of theframeworks, reporting requirements andidentification of eligible assets required
close collaboration among various
departments. Issuing green bonds canalso increase the internal commitment tosustainability. Many of those who did nothave a sustainability committee set one up
as a result of their first green bond.
5. Encouraging better standards to benefit
all market participants Most respondents
advocated the standardization ofdefinitions, taxonomies, and reporting
to ensure the integrity of the green bondlabel. Many supported the development
and implementation of the European
Commission’s Sustainable FinanceTaxonomy (EU Taxonomy).
Despite the additional monetary costs andtime investment, the exercise of issuinggreen bonds is widely perceived as
valuable. Cheaper funding can unfold
on a more consistent basis in the medium
term at least until supply can meetdemand, and hence offer even greater
motivation for issuers to preference green
projects. However, for the time being,cheaper pricing was not laboured as themain benefit.
At times, green business lines are developedon the back of issuing green bonds. Issuinga green bond can be both the initiator of
becoming green(er), or the result of having
considered climate related risks in the past.
Respondents highlighted two main business
opportunities that arose as a result of having
issued green bonds:

a. Platform to attract further
opportunities: a green bond is asignal that the issuer is engaged ingreen activities. Respondents said
that after they had issued a greenbond, they were actively offered more
opportunities to get involved in green
projects.

b. Green bonds have inspired banks
to offer green mortgages and green
loans to clients. Notwithstanding thefact that green projects are few andfar between, perhaps the availabilityof cheaper financing will encourage
more green projects.

If issuing green bonds adds as much value
as respondents claim, and the investor
demand remains robust, issuers will likely be
encouraged to actively seek out green assets
as some are already doing. The shortage ofgreen assets was highlighted by respondents
as a potential barrier to market growth, but
as the transition to a low carbon economy
becomes more pervasive, suitable projects
will no doubt become more commonplace.
Despite the positive sentiment, there is stillhuge potential to convert to green assets
and scale up the green bond market as also
stated by our ‘Bonds and Climate Change:
The State of the Market 2018’ report whichhighlighted issuers that could potentially
issue green labelled debt based on the“greenness” of business lines.
Even though the green bond market
experienced rapid growth over the past years(USD774.9bn cumulative issuance at theend of 2019 compared to only USD36.8bn
at the end of 2014), as of December 2019,
green bonds still constitute less than 1% of
the USD100trn bond market. Most issuersview the development and enhancementof standards as well as more tangible
benefits as the main factors that can leadto an expansion of this market. Issuers
contemplating green bonds and having
access to the relevant assets to support the
debt should not hesitate to issue. The resultsof the Climate Bonds Green Bond European
Investor Survey published in October 2019emphasised the need for more green bondsof all types.
This survey of treasurers provides solid
evidence from 86 organisations thatissuing green bonds is a transformativeand satisfying experience for the issuer andbeneficial for the overall business from a
reputational as well as a risk management
perspective. The motivations for issuinggreen bonds including visibility, reputation,
and a broader investor base all appear to besatisfied in doing so. Support and guidance
are available from numerous sources
including but not limited to NGO such as
Climate Bonds, investment banks, third party
SPO providers, development banks and stock
exchanges with green bond segments. The
overwhelming advice from those that havetaken the plunge is simply “do it”.

Larger issuers tend to have been active inthe market for longer than the smaller ones.
This is promising – larger organisations withmore resources and projects, are leadingby example and helping to determine themarket standards as they should be.

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative20

Appendix 1: Methodology
Survey respondents

A1. Credit rating category of respondents

Treasurers (or equivalent roles) of green bondissuers were invited to join the project. Issuers
were selected from the Climate Bonds Green
Bond Database. The intention was to create adiverse sample, with representation from EM/
DM, a broad range of countries of economic
risk, industries, and credit ratings.

• 86 green bond issuers participated in the
project• 71 participated in a full telephoneinterview of approximately 40-minutes
to discuss their responses to thequestionnaire• 15 completed and returned thequestionnaire, and were sometimes
contacted for more information or
clarification• 8 declined and,• 48 either did not respond or were unable
to commit to an interview before thedeadline.
The overall response rate was 60%. The
sample of respondents broadly matched thecharacteristics of the Climate Bonds Green
Bond Database in terms of market split.
There were some differences in the regional
split, the most prominent discrepancies
being the over representation of Europe, andthe under representation of the US. China
was not considered, and Fannie Mae, thelargest green bond issuer in the US, did not
respond, and was thus excluded from the‘market’ numbers used for the below charts.

25
20
Number of respondents

143 green bond issuers were approached

30

15
10
5
0
AAA

AA

A

There was no restriction on credit rating,and the sample included high yield andinvestment grade rated issuers.
The ratings of the last green bond issued by
the respective entity were identified. The
first source was the Bloomberg Composite
Rating, and where this was not available,
individual rating agency data was used.
Ratings were available for 66 out of 86
bonds ranging from AAA to BB.
At the time of data collection, collectively theseorganisations had issued 686 green bonds.
The bonds issued by these entities mainly
financed projects in the buildings (USD64bn)
and transport (USD36.5bn) space. Water,
waste and land use accounted for USD14.4bn,
USD8bn and USD13bn respectively. Industry
projects contributed USD0.2bn and USD7bn
were not allocated at the point of issuance.

BBB

BB

Survey design
The questionnaire included 32 questions andwas designed to capture details of the broad
experience of issuing a green bond from themotivation, to ideas for moving the market
forwards. Twenty-six of the questions wereclosed responses, the rest open ended.
Data collection
Participants were approached between
May and November 2019, with allinterviews concluded by November 29th,
2019. Respondents participated in a
telephone discussion during which thequestions were answered, and responses
discussed. The questionnaire was seenin advance to enable respondents to
prepare. For the 15 respondents who
could not, the questionnaire wascompleted and returned.

A2. Market type: Sample vs. Climate Bonds
Green Bond Database

A3. Country split: Sample vs. Climate Bonds
Green Bond Database

SampleNorth
America 6%Market5%
19%
Supranational
14%

EM
10%

LatAm & the
Caribbean
2%

19%

DM
76%
76%

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative2%
Sample

13%

0.5%

13%
Africa 0%
Asia-Pacific
10%Supranational
16%2%Europe73%51%

Market21

Data analysis
Climate Bonds partnered with Henley
Business School on the statistical analysisof the results. Some of the responses weresplit according to recency of entry into thegreen bond market. This variable is definedas the difference between 31/12/2019 andthe pricing date of the first green bond. The
range is two months to 12.5 years, and theaverage 2.62 years. The categories are basedon the empirical distribution of the variable,
less than a year, one to three years, and three
years plus.

A4. Collective use of proceeds of survey participants
Unallocated $7.0bn
Industry $0.2bn

Land Use$13.0bn

Transport$36.5bn

Waste$8.0bnWater$14.4bn

Total Bonds Outstanding (USD billion)is the sum of all green bonds and vanillabonds outstanding. These numbers are
based on data collected between 2nd
and 6th December 2019 taken from the
Climate Bonds Green Bond Database,and Bloomberg. The first, second andthird terciles of the variable Total Bonds
Outstanding was used to classify the issuers
based on size into small, medium, andlarge. Each category thus includes a similar
number of issuers (small 29, medium 29,
large 28).

Buildings$64.0bn

Number of bonds (including matured) issued by respondents, shown by country of risk
Norway 1
Netherlands 39
Belgium 3
Great Britain 3
Ireland 2
France 157

Canada 12

20+ bonds
Denmark 9
Finland 8
Sweden 90
Poland 4
Germany 45

10-20 bonds
5-10 bonds
1-5 bonds
1 bondPortugal 3

USA 17
Mexico 1

Spain 8Luxembourg 2

Italy 7
Switzerland 6

Japan 2
India 3

Nigeria 1

Colombia 2

Hong Kong 1
Thailand 1
Philippines 4

Kenya 1
Brazil 2

Indonesia 2Australia 6South Africa 1
Chile 3Supranational 236

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative

New Zealand 4

22

Appendix 2: The following organisations agreed to be named fortheir participation in the survey
AC Energy

ESB Finance DAC

Ministry of Finance, Poland

Access Bank Plc
Acorn Project Two LLP

European Bank for
Reconstruction & Dev.

Municipality Finance PLC
Neder Financierings-Maat

B Grimm Power PCL
Bancoldex
Bank of America
Barclays PLC
Berlin Hyp AG
BNG Bank NV
California Pollution Control
Financing Auth.
Cape Town City
CelsiaChile Government
Concordia
Contact Energy Ltd
CPI Property Group SA
Crédit Agricolé
Danske Bank
Deutsche Hypothekenbank
Deutsche Kreditbank AG
Digital Realty Trust LP
Duke Energy
Dutch Ministry of Finance
EDP Finance BV
Encevo SA

European Investment Bank
Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane SpA
Finanzdepartment des Kantons
Basel Stadt
Flexigroup

Nederlandse Waterschapsbank
Nordic Investment Bank
Ontario Power Generation Inc.
Oregon School District WIFondo Especial para
Financiamientos Agropecuarios
French Republic Government Bond

Orsted A/S

Iberdrola Finanzas SA
ING
International FinanceCorporation
Inversiones CMPC SA

Renewi Plc
SBB
SBAB Bank AB
Schiphol

Provence of Quebec
RCBC Philippines

Investa Property Group
Ireland Government BondJapan Railway Construction,
Transport and Technology
AgencyJernhusen AB
KBC Group NV
KlabinKommuninvest

Société du Grand Paris EPIC
Société Generale SA
Société Wallone des Eaux
Sparebank 1 SR Bank ASA
Stora Enso
Svenska Handelsbanken
Telefonica Emisiones SA
TenneT
Unione di Banche Italiane

Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau

Vasakronan AB

Landesbank BadenWuerttemberg

Verizon Communications
Yes Bank Ltd.
de Volksbank
Zurcher Kantonalbank

Enel International FinanceEngie SA
Eolica Serra das Vacas

LeasePlan Corporation NV
Manulife Financial Corp
Ministry Of Finance, Indonesia

Endnotes
1. https://www.msci.com/market-classification
2. According to Bloomberg Country of Risk classificaton

12. https://www.climatebonds.net/certification

17. https://www.climatebonds.net/resources/reports/role-ex-

13. Some issuers selected more than one response hence the total
is greater than 100%
14. https://www.kuntarahoitus.fi/app/uploads/2020/02/NPSI_

changes-accelerating-growth-green-bond-market
18. https://www.climatebonds.net/resources/reports/green-bondpricing-primary-market-july-december-2018

Position_paper_2020_final.pdf
15. Measuring the responses to open questions was an art

19. https://www.climatebonds.net/resources/reports/
green-bond-pricing-primary-market-h1-2019

3. According to Bloomberg Industry Classification Systems (BICS)
4. The source of credit rating information is Bloomberg
5. https://www.climatebonds.net/resources/reports/
green-bond-european-investor-survey-2019
6. https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/worlds-biggest-companies-face-1-trillion-in-climate-change-risks
7. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/paper/2019/biennial-exploratory-scenario-climate-change-discussion-paper
8. Source, Bloomberg data collected between 2nd and 6th December 2019
9. BICS
10. Jernhusen: apart from new buildings also issue green bonds tofinance existing building with a certification of at least Breaam
In-Use Very Good where investments have been made to createa more sustainable and energy efficient building.
11. Some issuers selected more than one response hence the total
is greater than 100%

rather than a science, since not all participants were able
to answer them. Furthermore, in some cases there was theopportunity given to name multiple aspects of which some of
the respondents made use of and others didn’t. These answers

20. Climate Bonds data
21. https://realassets.axa-im.com/content/-/asset_publisher/
x7LvZDsY05WX/content/financing-brown-to-green-guidelines-for-transition-bonds/23818

were then grouped into different categories and different
answers by an organisation may have fallen under the same

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

category. Therefore, the percentages and absolute numbersof these questions will not add up to 100% or 86 participants
respectively.
16. The work of Jason Mortimer (Nomura Investment Management, Tokyo), was featured in Climate Bonds Green Bond Pricing in the Primary Market H2 2018: https://www.climatebonds.
net/files/reports/cbi_gb_pricing_2h2018_08052019.pdf

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative23

About the sponsors

The Luxembourg Stock Exchange established the Luxembourg
Green Exchange (LGX) in 2016 as a contribution to the Paris Climate
Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The
objective of LGX is to unlock sustainable finance and help redirect
capital flows towards sustainable investment projects. Today, LGX
displays more than 680 sustainable finance securities, representing a
total value of USD 265 billion, from 120 issuers in 30 countries.
As the world’s first and leading platform dedicated exclusively tosustainable finance instruments, LGX has a leading market shareof listed green, social and sustainability bonds worldwide. LGX has
been chosen by the European Investment Bank, the World Bank andother important drivers of sustainable development as the reference
platform for their thematic bonds, and is widely recognised for its
positive contribution to the sustainable finance agenda.

Danske Bank wants to help societies transition to a net zero carbon
economy by offering green financing and providing a platformthat supports the allocation of capital towards projects with anenvironmental and/or social benefit. The bank is fully committed
to supporting the market for green and sustainability bonds byproviding expertise and advice to issuers and investors, and by being
an active issuer on the back of its green bond framework. Danske
Bank has been a signatory of the Green Bond Principles since 2014
and is the first Nordic partner of the Climate Bonds Initiative. It
recognises the importance of international commitments aimed at
helping businesses to operate responsibly, and thus among others
supports the 2030 Agenda and the UN Sustainable Development
Goals, the UN Global Compact, the recommendations of TCFD andthe UN Principles for Responsible Banking.

Suggested citation: Harrison C., Muething L., and Tukiainen K. Green Bond Treasurer Survey, Climate Bonds Initiative, April 2020
Authors: Caroline Harrison, Lea Muething, Krista Tukiainen
Henley Business School, analysis support: Dr. Ivan Sangiorgi, Dr. Lisa Schopohl
Design: Godfrey Design

Climate Bonds Initiative © April 2020 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 this document 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 attributesof the use of proceeds of a designated debt instrument. It does not reflect the credit worthiness of the designated debt instrument, nor its compliance with national or international laws. A decision to invest inanything 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.

Green Bond Treasurer Survey Climate Bonds Initiative24