Sustainability-linked finance has a transparency problem

Excerpt from article originally published in ESG Investor

Systemic shortcomings in current practices suggest a need for stronger regulatory guidance, says Emily Farrimond, Partner, ESG & Sustainability Lead at Baringa Partners.

Inconsistency and a lack of transparency in sustainable finance raise concerns that the practice is open to widespread abuse. As the market for sustainable finance grows rapidly, sustainable loans reached a record US$448 billion at the end of the third quarter. Baringa’s analysis suggests that up to half of these loans could be open to ‘greenwashing’.

To what extent, therefore, is sustainable finance really driving the change that its name implies? To answer this question, we reviewed a sample of sustainability-linked loans (SLLs) from a diversified pool of large, multi-region corporate borrowers totalling circa US$35 billion.

Sustainability plans are still lacking

Using public information, not a single loan in our sample could be shown to adhere to LMA principles, nor have a credible climate transition plan. When reducing the requirement to information that is most likely to be publicly stated (calibration of targets and verification of performance), combined with climate-plan data, only about half met the criteria. While our analysis of SLL borrowers was constrained by a lack of publicly disclosed information, what banks and borrowers choose to disclose is revealing:

• A fifth of SLLs assessed were to firms with no publicly stated sustainability targets associated with the loan. Only a further fifth had both environmental and social targets aligned to the lending, being deemed truly sustainability, and not just environmental.
• Only half of the SLLs revealed how the targets set would be measured or externally validated.
• 80% of companies had NOT set Scope 3 targets to reduce indirect emissions (often within the supply chain). This implies sustainability-linked borrowers aren’t even trying to support net zero goals.
• A significant minority did not have a publicly stated climate transition plan, yet were still benefiting from preferential pricing on the basis of lending designed to support climate transition.
• Additionally, 40% of companies did not disclose how often their boards discussed climate risk, and a further 30% were not incentivising their management towards climate objectives.

Cause for concern

While there is clearly some positive action, our analysis reveals systemic shortcomings in current practices around sustainable finance. Notably, a general lack of tracking metrics (less than half have KPIs, about 80% have published targets) prompts the question as to how finance providers are able to determine whether a loan qualifies as an SLL. Also concerning is that around half of sustainability-linked borrowers report no external verification of their transition plans.

There are also significant gaps with publicly available information around targets, reporting and verification processes. These failures open the door to criticisms that the practice is open to widespread abuse and greenwashing. Put another way, up to half of sustainability-linked loans could be greenwashed. Even among those who met our criteria, due to a lack of consistent information, it is impossible to provide any hard evidence for the impact of such financing initiatives.

To read the full article, click here.