Roberto Rodrigues Loiola

This study examines which bond-level, issuer-level, and institutional characteristics are associated with external recognition or alignment in the global corporate green bond market and whether these associations differ between Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) alignment and formal CBI certification. The database contains 6009 green bond issuances by 822 corporate issuers between 2016 and 2025. The main complete-case analysis uses 4875 bonds issued by 682 firms and estimates a multilevel logistic model with issuer random intercepts, Fitch-rating, sector, and issuance-year controls. Larger issuance amounts are positively associated with external recognition or alignment across every specification. Issuance in a developed market and average operating margin, which is treated as an exploratory covariate, are also positively associated with the broad outcome, whereas issuer size is negatively associated; however, these relationships are more sensitive to outcome definition, temporal measurement, or estimator choice. Financial leverage and credit-rating categories show no consistent association. Separate aligned-versus-self-labelled, certified-versus-aligned, and multilevel multinomial analyses reveal substantial heterogeneity between CBI alignment and formal certification, confirming that the two categories should not be interpreted as equivalent verification mechanisms. These findings identify transaction scale as the most stable correlate of external recognition or alignment and show that issuance-market context and issuer characteristics operate differently across recognition categories.

The growing relevance of sustainable finance has positioned green bonds as central instruments in debates on how capital markets can contribute to climate transition while creating value for firms. This article conducts a literature review to examine the relationship between green bond issuance, corporate financial performance, and the cost of debt. Using the PRISMA 2020 protocol, 59 articles published between 2019 and 2025 were identified and classified according to study type, methodological approach, analytical technique, sectoral and geographic focus, and performance indicators. A bibliometric analysis was also performed to map publication trends, research clusters, and thematic evolution. The results indicate a fragmented but expanding field, with most studies concentrated in developed markets, especially Europe, the United States, and China, and limited evidence from emerging economies. Empirical findings converge on modest but heterogeneous financial benefits, frequently reflected in the so-called “Greenium,” typically ranging between 1 and 63 basis points. Accounting-based effects on profitability (ROA, ROE) remain mixed, while econometric/regression, panel analysis and event studies dominate the empirical landscape. The paper’s incremental contribution lies in consolidating these quantitative insights into a reproducible classification framework that enables systematic comparison between developed and emerging markets, supporting future research on long-term financial and sustainability outcomes.