Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner.

SLBs financing fossil fuels highlights standards’ deficiency

© Shutterstock / William BartonHSBC bank

Sustainability-linked bonds (SLB) issuers are under fire for funding heavily polluting investments, but the fault may lie with the wider issuing standards.

  • Issuers of SLBs are being accused of using the proceeds to finance activities that are not sustainable, such as fossil fuel projects.
  • According to SLB principles, bond proceeds can be used for general corporate needs.
  • This exposes a flaw in the issuance criteria, their treatment by the financial services community with regard to discounted interest rates, and their inclusion in sustainable funds.

Issuance rules give SLB issuers wide berth on use of proceeds

Rules governing the issuance of SLBs are set by the International Capital Market Association (ICMA). In June 2022, it released additional details clarifying the setting of key performance indicators (KPIs) and their materiality. It clearly states that SLB proceeds are intended for general corporate purposes. Explaining the credibility of their sustainability or transition strategy, and how it relates to the SLB, is left up to the issuer.

In this regard, SLBs are different from green, social or sustainable (GSS) bonds, which are “use of proceeds” bonds. Their proceeds must be used for defined green, social or sustainable projects. A framework explaining the alignment of a GSS bond with green or sustainable bond principles is also recommended by ICMA.

KPI materiality needs to align with sustainability strategy 

Issuers can combine their SLB frameworks with those they develop for GSS issuance, but this is not a requirement. ICMA also leaves adequate room for interpretation when it comes to KPI selection. While SLB principles require KPIs to be material, ICMA states that “the notion of materiality is multi-faceted”.

It allows for setting KPIs based on ESG issues, or their impact on the environment or society, with the measurement of the scale or magnitude of the issue being the salient feature. The above seems to suggest that many of the SLB issuance criteria are subject to interpretation. 

SLBs have been widely viewed by the financial services industry as an instrument to finance the transition to sustainability by companies in hard-to-abate sectors. While the rise in their issuance suggests further support for transition finance, their use by banks to raise funds, especially those heavily involved in financing fossil fuel projects, has sparked concerns.

SLBs viewed as excuse to fund fossil fuels

According to industry sources, SLB KPIs based on Scope 1 and 2 are considered insufficient by market participants. This is because they account for a small volume of overall emissions. Scope 3 emissions account for 75% of a company’s overall emissions, on average, therefore KPIs to cut those emissions would be considered more relevant.

This is especially true for banks, as they generate very few direct emissions in daily operations. An EU report on the exposure of financial institutions to fossil fuel assets found that assessing environmental risks associated with a bank’s portfolio is more relevant when including Scope 3 emissions, especially with regard to financing the fossil fuel sector.

One bank that has drawn scrutiny in this regard is HSBC (LON:HSBA). The UK Advertising Standards Authority recently upheld complaints about the bank’s adverts providing misleading information about its financing of high-polluting sectors

Investigative media reports have also alleged that HSBC has raised sustainable financing to fund fossil fuel expansion. Specifically, it claims that part of the sustainable finance funds raised by the bank were directed to heavily polluting industries. In response, HSBC has said it is following industry standards in issuing sustainable bonds.

Greenwash concerns grow with rising ESG assets demand and SLB issuance 

SLB issuance has grown in size in 2022 despite a contraction in the wider bond market. SLBs now account for a larger portion of the overall GSSS bond universe as well. While this has been viewed as a favourable development for helping finance the transition, especially for hard-to-abate sectors, it has also raised concerns over the misuse of SLBs.

These concerns are typically over greenwashing claims. The latitude in setting sustainability KPIs is one reason for this concern. The chief executive of Climate Bonds Initiative, a global climate action non-profit, stated that he thought the SLB market was flawed, citing the KPIs set by banks as an example.

The demand for green and sustainable investments continues to rise at a rapid pace. Asset managers expect to increase ESG-related assets under management by 84% by 2026, compared to 2021 levels. When asset managers deliberately misstate the green or sustainability claims of their products, it may constitute greenwash. 

It is less clear whether there is a gap between investor expectations and those set by an asset manager. This disconnect is receiving a lot of attention, which could be resolved by better standards setting, improved transparency and educating investors on investment risks, according to Morningstar.

The Climate Bonds Initiative says that $5 trillion in annual green financing issuance is needed by 2025 to meet global net zero commitments. It advocates rapid deployment of sustainable finance to do so, in particular the issuance of more green bonds, and calls for accelerated development of policy to support this. 

In the near term, SLBs will continue to dominate green and sustainable issuance. Reducing friction between issuers and the marketplace may require ICMA to tighten up its SLB principles.

More from SG Voice

Latest Posts