The first official green bond was issued by the World Bank through its lending arm, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), in November 2008. Since then, public and private U.S.-domiciled companies have issued in excess of $90 billion in green-designated bonds. That figure does not include those green bonds issued by municipalities, government entities or “supranationals.” While annual corporate issuance fell year-over-year from 2015 to 2017, the growth from 2017 to the present day has been exponential; cumulative issuance increased from just over $20 billion in 2017 to more than $90 billion by the end of 2020. Annual issuance of roughly $35 billion of U.S. corporate green bonds in 2020 represented over one-third of the cumulative issuance from 2008 to 2020 and a 39% increase from 2018.
With record issuance levels of broad corporate debt mounting, green bonds have kept pace with the overall market. Despite an underlying expectation that the majority of sustainable debt is being offered by utilities or energy firms, companies like Citigroup, Apple and Verizon have brought some of the largest green bond issues to market recently. An increasing number of companies are issuing this sustainable debt as investor demand has grown in recent years and long-end rates have been relatively low. Some companies exaggerating their sustainability intentions have taken advantage of such demand. Lower borrowing costs and the rise of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing have encouraged more companies to join the party.
The boom in sustainable debt issuance has given way to the dilemma of “greenwashing.” The influx of both investors and corporations to the realm of responsible investing is nothing new. However, the influx of investors and corporations to the realm of ESG investing is relatively new, and this niche has become tremendously popular. Greenwashing highlights the eagerness of investors to buy up green-designated bonds, often purchasing such debt for the sake of its favorable designation. As a result, companies are designating projects as “sustainable” or “environmentally responsible” that would otherwise not warrant the designation, relying on investor appetite for these ESG assets.
Clear-cut standards have yet to be established for the issuance and use of proceeds from sustainable debt. However, the Biden administration has made it clear that improved corporate environmental-impact disclosures are needed. These disclosures would hold firms accountable for overstating their sustainability efforts and taking part in greenwashing.
Key Takeaway
The rush to allocate funds to ESG debt has caught the attention of both corporate borrowers and the broader finance community. Green bonds have proven to be a meaningful source of diversification for investors and a reliable source of funding for sustainable corporate initiatives. Although companies continue to face pressure to disclose more environmental impact metrics, I expect green bond issuance to increase as a proportion of total corporate debt issuance.
The push to hold companies more accountable comes with presidential approval, as the Biden administration has urged regulators to consider requiring environmental impact disclosures. These measures should help to prevent greenwashing, while also boosting demand for sustainable debt. Additionally, some investors who would have otherwise avoided ESG debt may be attracted by the improved transparency on the part of corporate issuers. The strong demand for green bonds and ESG investments, in general, is warranted, although investors should be wary of allocating funds to those offerings for the sake of their green designations.
The material provided here is for informational use only. The views expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Penn Mutual Asset Management.
This material is for informational use only. The views expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Penn Mutual Asset Management. This material is not intended to be relied upon as a forecast, research or investment advice, and it is not a recommendation, offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities or to adopt any investment strategy.
Opinions and statements of financial market trends that are based on current market conditions constitute judgment of the author and are subject to change without notice. The information and opinions contained in this material are derived from sources deemed to be reliable but should not be assumed to be accurate or complete. Statements that reflect projections or expectations of future financial or economic performance of the markets may be considered forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ significantly. Any forecasts contained in this material are based on various estimates and assumptions, and there can be no assurance that such estimates or assumptions will prove accurate.
Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All information referenced in preparation of this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. There is no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the information and Penn Mutual Asset Management shall have no liability for decisions based upon such information.
High-Yield bonds are subject to greater fluctuations in value and risk of loss of income and principal. Investing in higher yielding, lower rated corporate bonds have a greater risk of price fluctuations and loss of principal and income than U.S. Treasury bonds and bills. Government securities offer a higher degree of safety and are guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest if held to maturity.
All trademarks are the property of their respective owners. This material may not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission.
