Executive summary

The Green Bond Principles (GBP), first published in January 2014, are voluntary guidelines that have underpinned the credibility and transparency of green bond issuance globally for more than a decade. By the end of 2025, the GBP were estimated to be the reference for over 97 per cent of green bond issuance, with a total market value exceeding USD 4 trillion. Since the inception of the GBP, several regions have developed official standards, including the European Green Bond Standard (EuGBS) established by EU Regulation in 2023. A Taskforce was formed in 2025 to clarify how these standards relate to the GBP, particularly as the EuGBS has already been referenced by nearly 40 issuers to date.

While both frameworks promote standardisation across use of proceeds, bond features, reporting, and external review, they differ in their level of prescriptiveness. The GBP offer flexible, principle-based guidance suitable for diverse market contexts, whereas the EuGBS establishes a prescriptive, taxonomy-aligned standard within a specific regulatory scheme. The Principles recommend that issuers adopting the EuGBS demonstrate alignment with both standards to ensure global investor recognition, as alignment with the EuGBS should not be considered a substitute for GBP alignment.

Comparison of GBP recommendations with EuGBS requirements

The comparison focuses on four logical cornerstones: use of proceeds, description of key features, reporting, and external review. Regarding the use of proceeds, the GBP require alignment with an indicative list of project categories, whereas the EuGBS mandates legally binding alignment with the EU Taxonomy. For describing bond features, the GBP recommend the use of the Green Bond Information Template, while the EuGBS requires a legally binding European Green Bond Factsheet.

Reporting requirements also show distinct differences in formalisation. The GBP mandate annual allocation reports until full allocation and recommend impact reporting using harmonised templates. In contrast, the EuGBS requires a legally binding annual allocation report to be published within 270 days of the reporting period end, alongside a mandatory impact report produced at least once during the bond’s lifetime. External review under the GBP is a key recommendation without set deadlines, whereas the EuGBS requires supervised reviewers to perform mandatory pre-issuance and post-issuance reviews within specific regulatory timelines, including a post-issuance review of allocation reports within 270 days of the reporting period end.

Conclusions on the relationship between alignment with the GBP and with the EuGBS

Quantitative analysis of the relationship between alignment with the GBP and the EuGBS reveals a high degree of proximity, with approximately 80 per cent of total items either matching or adding precision to common elements. Of the remaining differences, 80 per cent add further precision, demonstrating a high degree of synergy between the two frameworks. Complementarity is also evident, with supplemental differences evenly distributed between the standards.

The report suggests that issuers of EuGBS-aligned bonds can enhance their practice by adopting specific GBP recommendations, such as maintaining a formal Green Bond Framework and providing detailed sustainable strategy and governance disclosures. Specific GBP recommendations for external review include a Review Scope Declaration and Reviewer Role Identification to distinguish between different assessment services. Conversely, EuGBS requirements like external reviewer registration with ESMA and mandatory disclosures on taxonomy-aligned nuclear or fossil gas activities offer valuable additions for GBP-aligned issuers seeking to enhance their issuance frameworks.

General conclusions on the relationship between the GBP and the EuGBS

The report concludes that there is significant continuity between the two frameworks. GBP alignment serves as a highly relevant foundation for EuGB issuers, and investors recognise the value of the increased standardisation and comparability provided by both sets of guidelines. The overlap between GBP recommendations and EuGBS requirements facilitates the adoption of the latter for issuers already aligned with the former. Both frameworks aim to finance the transition to a more sustainable economy, regardless of the issuer’s geography.

Effective standardisation of reporting and external review enables clear analysis of transition efforts, building trust and facilitating cross-border capital flows. The monitorability of sustainability improvements is highlighted as a benefit, especially where meeting full taxonomy criteria may only be feasible over time through gradual investment. The report notes that alignment with the non-use-of-proceeds GBP recommendations can significantly enhance the practice of EuGBS-aligned bonds, supporting a common purpose in the evolution of sustainable finance.