Green Bonds and Sustainable Finance: Credibility Architectures, Challenges and Implications for the Green Transition

While green bonds are increasingly used to channel capital towards environmentally responsible projects, their effectiveness depends not only on market growth, but also on the credibility of the institutional frameworks that support the green label. Through focused bibliometric positioning, scoping synthesis and comparative document analysis, the paper examines how seven major green-bond frameworks organise credibility: the EU European Green Bond Standard, the ICMA Green Bond Principles, the Japan Green Bond Guidelines, the ASEAN Green Bond Standards, China’s catalogue-plus-principles framework, India’s Sovereign Green Bond Framework and China’s Sovereign Green Bond Framework 2025. The findings show that frameworks converge in product grammar, including project selection, management of proceeds, reporting and external review, but diverge substantially in credibility architecture, especially regarding external review, supervision, refinancing governance and environmental additionality. Current frameworks generally make green-bond labels more transparent, comparable and verifiable, but not necessarily more additional in environmental terms. Important challenges therefore remain: fragmented standards, greenwashing risks, information asymmetries, weak impact-reporting comparability and limited safeguards against refinancing existing assets. The paper argues that the contribution of green bonds to the green transition depends on how credibility is institutionally organised.