Post-issuance reporting on the use of proceeds (UoP) is a core component of the Green Bond Principles (GBP) and the Green Loan Principles (GLP). It is also recommended that issuers report on the environmental impacts of funded projects. Post-issuance disclosure provides transparency, ensures accountability and underpins the credibility of green bonds and loans. As the market grows, so does interest in UoP and impact reporting to inform investor analysis and decision-making processes.
Post-issuance reporting in the green bond market | Informes post-emisión en el mercado de bonos verdes | Divulgação pós-emissao no mercado de títulos verdes
10 best practice reporting recommendations
1. Make information easy to find.
2. Provide comprehensive reporting.
3. Report regularly and consistently.
4. Display information clearly with graphics, benchmarks, comments.
5. Obtain post-issuance external reviews to confirm allocations and verify impact disclosure.
6. UoP: Disclose the funded projects, both at- and post-issuance.
7. Impacts: Disclose methodologies and specify if metrics are estimated or measured.
8. Impacts: Report absolute emissions reductions and relative to a specified benchmark level.
9. Impacts: Provide project-level reporting with bond and programme-level summaries.
10. Deliver on reporting commitment.
A report summary is available here.
Read the report in English here.
Lea aquí el informe en Español.
Leia aqui o relatório em Português.
Corrections to the English version published in March 2019:
1. In the Introduction, inserted a paragraph stating "The research does not capture reports issued from November 2018 onward. It is possible that some issuers did not report within 12 months of issuance but intend to report, or have since reported, within the two-year timeframe recommended by the Green Bond Principles." at the end of the methodology section titled "Which bonds are included?" This is to clarify that figures for "non-reporting" may, in fact, include issuers that have subsequently reported.
2. In the Executive summary, in the table entitled "Almost half of issuers provide reporting on both allocations and impact", inserted a fourth column to show figures for issuers that provided "At least one" type of reporting. Under "Both" and "Non-reporting" corrected 195 to 94 for number of issuers, 1404 to 177 for number of bonds, and 95 to 25 for amount issued (the original figures were incorrectly displaying data for "at least one" rather than "both").
3. In the section on Impact Reporting, p17, Data and measurement, 2nd para, replaced the end of the second sentence with the following wording to clarify the approach: "Disclosing actual impacts during construction could be misleading, while expected data for a representative year may be more reliable."
Posted Mar 4, 2019 by Leena Fatin