Research Article

Indian Journal of Socio-Economic Studies

Vol I | No 1 | January – March 2026 | page 4–13

The Impact of Green Bond Issuance on Corporate

Financial Performance and Environmental Sustainability:

A Quantitative Analysis

Anubha Srivastava

ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7055-2124

This paper explores the impacts of Green Bond issuance on corporate ﬁnancial performance and environmental

sustainability by conducting Spearman's Rank Correlation, Mann-Whitney U Test and Kruskal-Wallis H Test. The data for this

purpose has been collected from the Bloomberg terminal. The Results revealed that the issuance of Green Bonds has no statistically

signiﬁcant impact on corporate ﬁnancial performance. Instead, it was exposed by the results of the Mann-Whitney U Test and

Kruskal-Wallis H Test. The current study ﬁndings have identiﬁed a weak relationship between the issuance of Green Bonds and

corporate ﬁnancial performance and failed to demonstrate a strong impact on the ﬁnancial performance of ﬁrms due to issuing

Green Bonds. However, the scope of this study remains broad for future studies to focus more on how Green Bonds could play a

potential role in fostering sustainable development as well asthe achievement of corporate ﬁnancial success.

Keywords: Green bonds, corporate ﬁnancial performance, ESG risk score, sustainable ﬁnance, green bond market in India,

environmental risk, capital market sustainability.

opportunities in the green bond market. India has high

renewable energy target setting, both by 2022 with the capacity

he past decade has marked the green bond market in a

of reaching 175GW and by 2030, where it aims for 500 GW.

way that has become a very important tool for

This causes a high level of demand for green bond ꢀnancing

T

ꢀnancing environmentally sustainable projects and

infrastructure projects that will beneꢀt these targets. However,

awareness and regulatory aspects related to a speciꢀc market

face many challenges, including the unawareness of its

investors, missing frameworks of their respective regulations

and requirements of their standard reporting-on an Indian

aspect (Liu, 2024). And overcoming these limitations can play

important roles in heightening the eꢁciencies of green bonds,

both in the performance of company issues and to impact the

concernon environmental issue.

initiatives. This was especially true in emerging economies such

as India, whose need for environmental conservation and

sustainable development has reached critical levels. Green

bonds are debt instruments issued to raise capital for projects

that have environmental beneꢀts, such as renewable energy,

energy eꢁciency and pollution reduction (Abhilash, Shenoy,

& Shetty, 2024). Increasing green bonds in India reꢂects the

country's commitment towards its climate goals under the

Paris Agreement. In this regard, there is a need to understand

their impact on corporate ꢀnancial performance and

sustainability outcomes.

The Indian corporate sector is increasingly recognizing the

linkage between environmental sustainability and corporate

performance. Companies that issue green bonds contribute

not only to the environmental goals but also place them at the

helm of corporate sustainability, which might enhance their

reputation in the market and gain customer loyalty (Jaycocks,

2019). The social impact of green bonds is equally important

since many green bond projects are focused on energy access,

water conservation and poverty alleviation; hence, contri-

buting to the bigger SDGs. The Indian green bond market has

had tremendous growth over recent years. As one of the leading

Asian economies, India is one of the most exposed economies

to climate change eꢃects. This has made the private and public

sectors look for alternative sustainable funding. The issuance

of green bonds in India has therefore become part and parcel of

the country's eꢃorts towards achieving renewable energy

The most important point of research deals with the

ꢀnancial performance of companies that issue green bonds. It is

generally accepted that ꢀrms with eꢃective ESG policies, such

as green bond issuance, have better ꢀnancial performance and

investor conꢀdence (Afeku-Amenyo, 2022). Several studies

support this theory by showing that green bond issuers reduce

their cost of capital, increase access to ꢀnancing and improve

market perception (Mingfang, 2024). The ESG factors have

increasingly become relevant for investors and green bonds

have been perceived to be an attractive ꢀnancial instrument for

further strengthening the ꢀnancial position of companies

engaged in environmental sustainability.

The Indian context also brings forth unique challenges and

Anubha Srivastava is Associate Professor of Accounting and Finance at CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru.

4

Vol I | No 1 | January – March 2026

targets and combating climate change (Mingfang, H., 2024).

Indian companies, especially within energy, infrastructure and

real estate companies, have been applying green bonds to

ꢀnance initiatives related to clean energy, waste management

and more environmentally related projects in the country

(Abhani Dhara, K., & Desai, J., 2023).

framework of management control systems in understanding

through four expert interviews, how green bonds

operationalize mechanisms toward driving sustainable change.

The results indicate that the primary impact of green bonds

originates from organizational cultural control systems that

encourage an orientation toward sustainability and

sustainability practice.

The increased trend of green bonds in India and other

countries suggests that the environmental issues can only be

dealt with through ꢀnancial innovations and is gradually

becoming a conscious awareness among stakeholders. The

attention given to green ꢀnancing has resulted in the

development of indices as well as a set of norms that have

further guided issuers and investors who wish to provide and

acquire their green bonds and also guarantee proper clarity

(Jaycocks, A., 2019). Such norms guide the projects regarding

credibility while being green-oriented in order to attract

suꢁcient conꢀdence toward investors, both in terms of

ꢀnancial and environmental issues involved inthe processes.

Climate ꢀnance and the development of the green bond

market Jaycocks (2020) acknowledges the importance of

private sector engagement as a way to overcome climate

challenges. Mao (2020) examines how sustainability

experiments in green bonds contribute to sustainability

transitions. The ꢀndings reveal that networks in green bonds

depend on already existing business ties, whereas sustainability

experiments align the expectations of various stakeholders and

generate learning through frameworks, performance

evaluation and experience sharing. Landscape-level pressures,

such as climate change and supportive regime-level elements

like market preferences and government backing, create

avenues for green bonds to inꢂuence transitions, but

opportunities abound, however, including but not limited to:

lack of easy access to information on projects, weak civil society

engagement and a need for more formalized learning processes.

The study sheds light on the potential of green bonds to inspire

climate mitigation and adaptation eꢃorts globally, providing

insights into overcoming barriers to scaling sustainability

initiatives.

Emerging markets, including India, have also seen growth

in green bond issuances, though the growth pace is slower than

that of developed markets. The Indian market, however, has

been promising, especially with the increasing eꢃorts of the

Indian government to support green infrastructure projects.

(Upadhyay, S. (2024) emphasizes that India's green bond

market is becoming more active, with many state-owned

enterprises and private corporations issuing green bonds to

fund renewable energy projects, energy eꢁciency initiatives

and green building construction.

Alharbi et al. (2023) examine the eꢁciencies of in-house

manufacturing versus outsourcing in garment production

through a network DEA model and ꢀnds that in-house cutting

and outsourcing sewing show similar eꢁciencies, but

outsourcing has cost and speed advantages. Analysis by

Manoharan et al. (2017) focuses on the impact of rising

nationalism on consumer behaviour in India and ꢀnds that

nationalistic branding aꢃects buying motivations, but the

authenticity of such campaigns is still in question. Zheng et al.

(2023) looks at the role of guanxi in multicultural academic

environments, showing its importance in the Chinese context

and its linkage to Hofstede's cultural dimensions in research

collaboration. Andi et al. (2018) argue that research gaps exist

in the area of entrepreneurship in emerging markets (EMs) due

to the ignorance of speciꢀc contexts unique to EMs, which

include poor infrastructure, institutional voids and

governance challenges. Wang (2022) explores how quality

corporate governance impacts the preferences for green bond

issuance based on an international dataset consisting of 336

green bond and 13,408 conventional bond issuances from 30

economies. These results underscore the signiꢀcance of

governancequality in shaping sustainableꢀnance decisions.

The Indian Green Bond market has come to represent a

critical source of ꢀnancing for environmentally sustainable

projects. The market is expanding rapidly, with the increasing

interest from companies and government entities in raising

funds for projects in the ꢀeld of renewable energy, energy

eꢁciency and environmental conservation. A Green Bond,

therefore, is a class of ꢀxed income instruments especially for

use in funding projects which veriꢀably have environmental

value. A very fast growing space among companies in India and

investors alike, the chapter explores trends and developments

within India's Green Bond market- the key drivers, challenges

and future prospects.

Nugraha (2022) assesses the sustainable impact of green bonds

from a management accounting perspective, revealing insights

into how these instruments inꢂuence issuing companies'

sustainability practices. Green bonds are debt instruments

issued to ꢀnance or reꢀnance environmentally friendly projects

and have been issued tenfold over the past decade (ICMA,

2023). Although much has been researched into their pricing

and issuance motivations, as in Flammer (2021) and Maltais &

Nykvist (2020), this study ꢀlls the rather unexplored area of

their actual eꢃects on sustainability. The study applies the

Ghosh A (2023) explore the eꢃect of green bonds on carbon

emissions and GDP growth, focusing speciꢀcally on the Indian

5

Indian Journal of Socio-Economic Studies

economy. The study ꢀnds a signiꢀcant and positive impact of

green bond investments on both reducing carbon emissions

and promoting GDP growth, suggesting that green bonds can

drive sustainable development. Liu (2024) explores the

governance of green bonds in China, focusing on the key

drivers behind their "greenness" in the context of the bond

market's growth. Among its ꢀndings, this study identiꢀes the

ꢀve major inꢂuences on green bond governance: these are

regulators, bond issuers, investors, auditors and regional

authorities.

corporate landscape as well (Fatima, 2023). The literature

points out that green bonds minimise environmental risk

because they fund projects that contribute to nature. It also

assists in improving the ERS of a ꢀrm (Nugraha, 2022).

However, issues such as greenwashing and less uniform

regulatory policies pose a challenge for measuring the eꢃect of

such regulations Kovačević et al. (2023). For the Indian

context, regulatory eꢃorts from SEBI and RBI brought some

standards in green bonds, but whether such regulations aꢃect

corporate

ꢀnancial

performance

remains

uncertain

(Mingfang, 2024).

According to the Mingfang's Study (2023), it focuses on the

development of green ꢀnance through the industrial bank's

issuance of Sustainable Development Bonds. This study seeks

to understand the eꢃorts by the bank towards green ꢀnance

promotion and the inꢂuence of these bonds on the bank's

business, market response and the larger green economy. The

study is intended to advise other commercial banks on how to

better enhance their green ꢀnance initiatives. From the

ꢀndings, key observations indicate that Industrial Bank has

managed to use its sustainable development bonds to increase

its green ꢀnance activities while maintaining considerable

support toward the transition of the economy of China to a

greener one.

Empirical results of the global markets show mixed results.

While some research studies indicate that lesser capital costs

and better market perception could be obtained (Afeku-

Amenyo, 2022), other researches argue that the ꢀnancial

beneꢀts are industry-speciꢀc and investor sentiment-speciꢀc

Furthermore, Indian ꢀrms have several distinctive issues; these

include high issuance costs, sceptical investors and also an

immature green bond market for issues (Chandrasekaran,

2018). Considering these areas of a gap, the present research

study makes a quantitative analysis about relationships

between Green Bond Issuance, Corporate Financial

Performance and Environmental Sustainability in India,

validated by Spearman's Rank Correlation, Mann-Whitney U

Test and Kruskal-WallisH Test.

Kovačević et al. (2023) discuss the impact of existing green

bond standards on the application of proceeds from green

bond issuances, focusing on the limitations of these standards

and their potential for improvement. The study reveals the

problem of "greenwashing," which occurs when issuers

mislead investors about the actual environmental impact of

their projects. Kovačević et al. (2023) conclude that there is a

signiꢀcant need for more detailed and harmonized standards to

enhance the credibility and eꢃectiveness of the green bond

market, ensuring that funds are used as intended and fostering

greater market growth and investor conꢀdence. This study

provides critical insights for regulators, issuers and investors in

advancing the green bond market.

1. To examine the relationship between Green Bond Issuance

and corporate ꢀnancial performance (Revenue, ROA, Net

Income).

2. To analyse whether Green Bond Issuance signiꢀcantly

inꢂuences environmental sustainability (Environmental

Risk Score).

3. To compare ꢀnancial performance between companies

with high and low levels of Green Bond Issuance. Variables

Classiꢀcation

This study seeks to investigate how Green Bond Issuance

has aꢃected corporate ꢀnancial performance and sustainability

outcomes in an Indian context. While green bonds have gained

prominence globally, research on their implications for

This study examines the impact of green bond issuance on

corporate

ꢀnancial

performance

and

environmental

sustainability, assessing whether green bonds contribute to

ꢀnancial growth and improved sustainability outcomes. The

issuance of green bonds has garnered popularity as an

instrument that propels corporate sustainability, but also

arguably enhances the corporation's ꢀnancial performance.

Yet, whether the issuance of green bonds increases corporate

ꢀnancial ratios such as revenue, net income and ROA is

unexplored within the Indian markets (Abhilash, Shenoy, &

Shetty, 2024). While studies conducted in developed markets

have reported a positive correlation between green bonds and

ꢀnancial performance, only a few such studies are available in

the context of whether the beneꢀts are available for the Indian

corporate

revenues,

proꢀtability

and

sustainability

performance in emerging markets is still an open area. The

research mainly takes into consideration the relationship of

Green Bond Issuance, in millions of USD, to the key ꢀnancial

indicators, that is, revenue, net income and Return on Assets,

to check whether this green ꢀnancing aids corporate

performance or not. Finally, it takes into account whether

green bonds also aꢃect ERS or not by measuring their

performancetowards sustainability issues.

The study is conꢀned to Indian companies that have issued

green bonds, which allows a contextualized analysis of ꢀnancial

6

Vol I | No 1 | January – March 2026

and sustainability outcomes. A comparison between ꢀrms

with high and low levels of Green Bond Issuance will help in

determining whether higher participation in green ꢀnance

translates into measurable advantages.

•

H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): There is a signiꢀcant

diꢃerence in ꢀnancial performance between companies

with High vs. Low Green Bond Issuance.

H₀ (Null Hypothesis): There is no signiꢀcant diꢃerence in

Environmental Risk Score across diꢃerent levels of Green

Bond Issuance.

This study makes use of the quantitative approach in order

to examine the impact that Green Bond Issuance may have on

the corporate ꢀnancial performance and environmental

sustainability. The emphasis is on the Indian companies that

have issued green bonds; it would thus make possible an

industry-speciꢀc analysis of ꢀnancial and sustainability

outcomes. The database combines ꢀrm-level data on a yearly

basis on green bond issuance (number of bonds and total

amount raised) with performance indicators from 2020 to

2024. These include ꢀnancial metrics such as revenue,

operating income, net income, ROA and ROE, as well as

sustainability measures like ESG risk scores and the S&P

Global ESG score. The data scope covers the largest global

companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, Tesla,

General Motors, Siemens, Unilever and Procter & Gamble,

which ensures representation of diꢃerent kinds of industries.

Such ꢀrms have consistently raised green bonds, which makes

this sample relevant for the study of the trend of ꢀnancial and

environmental performance. Concentrating on 2020-2024

will provide both short-term and long-term impact of green

bond issuance, which can be sorted to study and analyse the

trendsand patterns across various years (Fatima, 2023).

H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): There is a signiꢀcant

diꢃerence in Environmental Risk Score across diꢃerent

levels of Green Bond Issuance.

Cases

Valid

Percent

Missing

Total

Percent

N

Percent

N

Revenue

(in billions

USD)

Operating

Income (in

billions USD)

Net Income

(in billions

USD)

Return on

Assets (ROA)

40 100.0%

0

0.0%

40

100.0%

0

0.0%

40

40 100.0%

0

0.0%

40

100.0%

This research will be based on a quantitative research

approach that utilizes secondary data acquired from

Bloomberg terminal, which are credible and exhaustive

ꢀnancial and sustainability metrics for ꢀrms that have issued

green bonds. The dataset will be for a number of years, 2020-

2024 and for ꢀrms across diꢃerent industries to perform a

longitudinal analysis of the eꢃect of Green Bond Issuance on

Corporate Financial Performance and Environmental

Sustainability. It has very well been accepted that green bonds

are identiꢀed as an alternative source of funding of sustainable

projects and their ꢀnancial analysis is still subjected to

persistent research study work (Abhilash, Shenoy, & Shetty,

2024).

Return on

Equity (ROE)

ESG Risk

Score

Environ-

mental Risk

Social Risk

40 100.0%

0

0.0%

40

100.0%

Governance

Risk

S&P Global

ESG Score

40 100.0%

0

0.0%

40

100.0%

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova

•

H₀ (Null Hypothesis): There is no signiꢀcant correlation

between Green Bond Issuance and corporate ꢀnancial

performance(Revenue, ROA, Net Income).

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic

.201

df

40

Sig. Statistic

df

Sig.

Revenue (in

.000

.851

40

.000

H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): There is a signiꢀcant

correlation between Green Bond Issuance and corporate

ꢀnancial performance.

billions USD)

Operating

Income (in

billions USD)

.318

40

.000

.787

.786

40

.000

H₀ (Null Hypothesis): There is no signiꢀcant diꢃerence in

ꢀnancial performance (Revenue, ROA, Net Income)

between companies with High vs. Low Green Bond

Issuance.

Net Income (in .332

billions USD)

contd....

7

Indian Journal of Socio-Economic Studies

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova

Shapiro-Wilk

where p < 0.001), Environmental Risk (p < 0.001), Social

Risk (p < 0.001), Governance Risk (p < 0.001) and the S&P

Global ESG Score (p < 0.001) also exhibit signiꢀcance

values below 0.05. This conꢀrms that the sustainability

variables donot follow anormal distribution.

Statistic

.149

df

40

Sig. Statistic

df

Sig.

Return on

Assets (ROA)

Return on

Equity (ROE)

.025

.927

40

.013

.286

40

.000

.654

40

.000

ESG Risk Score .215

Environmental .244

Risk

40

.000

.925

.778

40

.011

.000

Green

Bond

Amount

(in millions

USD)

Operating

Income

(in

billions

USD)

Social Risk

Governance

Risk

S&P

Global ESG

Score

.245

.240

40

.000

.847

.839

40

.000

Revenue

(in billions

USD)

Spearman's Green Bond

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

.271

40

.000

.822

40

.000

rho

Amount (in

1.000

.

-.141

.387

-.228

.158

millions USD)

Sig.

(2-tailed)

N

40

-.141

.387

40

1.000

.

40

.846**

.000

40

Revenue

(in billions

USD)

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

Mean = 154.437500000000000

Std. Dev. = 112.697718420469740

N = 40

Sig.

(2-tailed)

N

40

Operating

Income (in

billions USD)

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

-.228

.158

40

.846**

.000

40

1.000

.

Sig.

(2-tailed)

N

40

Net Income

(in billions

USD)

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

-.235

.144

.880**

.000

.991**

.000

Sig.

(2-tailed)

To determine whether the dataset follows a normal

distribution, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) and Shapiro-

Wilk tests were conducted for all ꢀnancial performance and

sustainability variables. The null hypothesis (H₀) for these tests

states that the data is normally distributed. If the signiꢀcance

value (Sig.) is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected,

indicating non-normality.

N

40

Return on

Correlation

Assets (ROA) Coeꢁcient

-.202

.750**

.945**

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.212

.000

N

40

Return on

Correlation

Equity (ROE) Coeꢁcient

-.126

.617**

.856**

The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk

tests, as presented in Table 1, revealthe following:

Sig.

.439

.000

(2-tailed)

N

40

ESG Risk

Score

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

-.269

-.364*

-.251

Operating Income (p < 0.001), Net Income (p < 0.001),

Return on Equity (ROE) (p < 0.001) and Return on Assets

(ROA) (p=0.013p = 0.013p=0.013 where p < 0.001) all

exhibit signiꢀcant values below 0.05. This indicates a

deviation from normality for all ꢀnancial performance

variables.

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.094

.021

.118

N

40

Environm-

ental Risk

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

-.067

-.566**

-.390*

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.681

.000

.013

contd....

8

Vol I | No 1 | January – March 2026

Green

Bond

Amount

(in millions

USD)

Operating

Income

(in

billions

USD)

Net

Return

on

Return

on

Equity

(ROE)

Revenue

(in billions

USD)

Income

(in billions Assets

USD)

.000

(ROA)

.000

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.

N

40

Social Risk

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

-.109

-.339*

-.347*

N

40

ESG Risk

Score

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

-.254

-.343*

-.279

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.503

.033

.028

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.113

40

.030

.081

N

40

Governance

Risk

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

-.248

.083

.090

N

40

Environmen- Correlation -.416**

-.455**

-.342*

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.123

.611

.582

tal Risk

Coeꢁcient

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.008

40

.003

.031

N

40

S&P

Correlation

-.088

.032

.133

N

40

Global ESG Coeꢁcient

Score

Social Risk

Correlation -.316*

Coeꢁcient

-.496**

-.397*

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.588

40

.847

40

.415

40

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.047

.001

.011

N

40

Governance Correlation

.078

.191

.108

Net

Return

on

Return

on

Equity

(ROE)

Risk

Coeꢁcient

Income

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.633

.238

.507

(in billions Assets

USD)

-.235

(ROA)

-.202

N

40

Spearman's Green Bond Correlation

-.126

rho

Amount (in Coeꢁcient

millions USD)

S&P

Correlation

.097

.182

.165

Global ESG Coeꢁcient

Score

Sig.

(2-tailed)

N

.144

40

.212

.439

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.553

40

.261

40

.309

40

.750**

40

.617**

Revenue

(in billions

USD)

Correlation .880**

Coeꢁcient

N

Sig.

.000

ESG Risk Environm- Social

(2-tailed)

Score

ental Risk

Risk

N

40

.945**

40

.856**

Spearman's Green Bond Correlation

-.269

-.067

-.109

Operating

Correlation .991**

Coeꢁcient

rho

Amount (in Coeꢁcient

millions USD)

Income (in

billions USD)

Sig.

.094

40

.681

.503

Sig.

.000

40

.000

(2-tailed)

N

40

N

40

.926**

40

.833**

Revenue (in Correlation -.364*

billions USD) Coeꢁcient

-.566**

-.339*

Net Income Correlation 1.000

(in billions

USD)

Coeꢁcient

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.021

.000

.033

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.

.000

N

40

Operating

Income (in

billions USD)

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

-.251

-.390*

-.347*

N

40

1.000

40

.934**

Return on

Correlation .926**

Assets (ROA) Coeꢁcient

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.118

40

.013

40

.028

40

Sig.

(2-tailed)

N

.000

40

.

.000

N

40

Return on

Correlation .833**

.934**

1.000

Equity (ROE) Coeꢁcient

contd....

9

Indian Journal of Socio-Economic Studies

Net Income Correlation

ESG Risk Environm- Social

Governance

Risk

S&P

Global

Score

ental Risk

Risk

ESG Score

-.254

-.416**

-.316*

(in billions

USD)

Coeꢁcient

Operating Income

(in billions USD)

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

.090

.133

Sig.

.113

40

.008

.047

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.582

40

.415

40

(2-tailed)

N

40

Net Income (in

billions USD)

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

.078

.097

Return on

Correlation -.343*

-.455**

-.496**

Assets (ROA) Coeꢁcient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.633

40

.553

40

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.030

.003

.001

Return on Assets

(ROA)

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

.191

.182

N

40

Return on

Correlation

-.279

-.342*

-.397*

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.238

40

.261

40

Equity (ROE) Coeꢁcient

Sig.

(2-tailed)

N

.081

40

.031

.011

Return on Equity

(ROE)

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

.108

.165

40

.577**

40

.798**

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.507

40

.309

40

ESG Risk

Score

Correlation 1.000

Coeꢁcient

ESG Risk Score

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

.274

-.002

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.

.000

N

40

1.000

40

.754**

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.087

40

.988

40

Environmen- Correlation .577**

tal Risk

Coeꢁcient

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Environmental Risk Correlation

Coeꢁcient

-.484**

-.395*

.000

.

.000

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Correlation

Coeꢁcient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.002

40

-.235

.012

40

-.448**

N

40

.754**

40

1.000

Social Risk

Correlation .798**

Coeꢁcient

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Social Risk

.000

.

.145

40

1.000

.004

40

.492**

N

40

.274

40

-.484**

40

-.235

Governance Risk

Governance Correlation

Risk

Coeꢁcient

Sig.

(2-tailed)

.

.001

40

1.000

.087

.002

.145

40

.492**

S&P Global ESG

Score

N

40

-.002

40

-.395*

40

-.448**

S&P

Correlation

.001

40

.

Global ESG Coeꢁcient

Score

40

Sig.

.988

40

.012

40

.004

40

To evaluate the relationship between Green Bond Issuance and

Corporate Financial Performance, Spearman's Rank

Correlation was employed due to the non-normality of the

dataset, as conꢀrmed in Section 4.1. The results of the

correlationanalysis are presented in Table2.

(2-tailed)

N

Governance

Risk

S&P

Global

ESG Score

Spearman's Green Bond Amount Correlation

-.248

-.088

rho

(in millions USD)

Coeꢁcient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.123

40

.588

40

The correlation between Green Bond Issuance (Amount in

millions USD) and Revenue is weak and negative

(ρ=−0.141,p=0.387, p = 0.387ρ=−0.141,p=0.387), indicating

no statistically signiꢀcant association. Similarly, Net Income,

Operating Income, ROA and ROE all exhibit weak, negative

correlations with Green Bond Issuance, none of which are

Revenue (in billions Correlation

.083

.032

USD)

Coeꢁcient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.611

40

.847

40

contd....

10

Vol I | No 1 | January – March 2026

statistically signiꢀcant at the 5% level. This suggests that Green

Bond Issuance does not exhibit a meaningful direct correlation

withcorporate ꢀnancial performance metrics.

GBIChighlow

N

Mean

Rank

20.68

Sum of

Ranks

393.00

2.00

Total

19

40

Environmental Risk

196.000

427.000

-.095

Strong positive correlations exist between Revenue and Net

Income (ρ=0.880,p<0.001), Operating Income (ρ=0.846,

p<0.001) and ROA (ρ=0.750,p<0.001) conꢀrming the

intrinsic relationships among ꢀnancial indicators. Operating

Income also strongly correlates with Net Income and ROA,

reinforcing the coherence of theseꢀnancial measures.

Mann-Whitney U

Wilcoxon W

Z

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)]

.924

.936b

a. Grouping Variable: GBIChighlow

b. Not corrected for ties.

correlation between Green Bond Issuance and ESG Risk Score

is negative but not statistically signiꢀcant (ρ=−0.269,

p=0.094\rho

=

-0.269,

p

=

0.094ρ=−0.269,p=0.094).

A benchmark for green bond issuance refers to the key

indicators used to assess its market quality and performance,

including issue size, pricing (greenium), investor demand and

credit quality. A high benchmark green bond typically has a

large size, strong demand and a lower yield than comparable

conventional bonds, while a low benchmark issue is smaller,

lessliquid and shows littleor no pricing advantage.

Similarly, Environmental Risk, Social Risk and Governance

Risk show weak and statistically insigniꢀcant correlations with

Green Bond Issuance. These ꢀndings suggest that Green Bond

Issuance does not have a strong direct impact on ESG risk

factors.

correlations are observed among sustainability variables, with

ESG Risk Score signiꢀcantly correlated with Environmental

Risk (ρ=0.577,p<0.001), Social Risk (ρ=0.798,p<0.001) and

Governance Risk (ρ=0.274,p=0.087). Environmental Risk

and Social Risk also exhibit a strong positive correlation,

reinforcing the interconnected nature of ESG riskcomponents

To examine whether ꢀrms with higher Green Bond

Issuance

(GBI)

experience

signiꢀcantly

diꢃerent

environmental and sustainability risks compared to ꢀrms with

lower Green Bond Issuance, the Mann-Whitney U Test and

Kruskal-Wallis H Test were employed. These non-parametric

tests were chosen due to the non-normality of the data, as

determined in Section 4.1.

·

between Green Bond Issuance and corporate ꢀnancial

performance.

The Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare the

Environmental Risk Scores of ꢀrms with high and low Green

Bond Issuance(GBI). The results are summarized in Table 3.

·

correlation between Green Bond Issuance and corporate

ꢀnancial performance.

Key Results:

Since all correlation coeꢁcients between Green Bond Issuance

and ꢀnancial performance indicators (Revenue, Net Income,

Operating Income, ROA, ROE) are weak and statistically

insigniꢀcant (p>0.05p > 0.05p>0.05), we fail to reject the null

hypothesis (H₀). This indicates that Green Bond Issuance does

not have a statistically signiꢀcant direct correlation with

corporateꢀnancial performance in this sample.

•

20.33

20.68

96.000

427.000

-0.095

p=0.924p =

0.924p= 0.924

0.936p=0.936

•

p=0.936p =

Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, the result is not

statistically signiꢀcant, meaning that there is no substantial

diꢃerence in Environmental Risk Scores between ꢀrms with

high and lowGreen Bond Issuance.

Rank

20.33

Ranks

427.00

Environmental Risk

1.00

21

contd....

11

Indian Journal of Socio-Economic Studies

•

There is no signiꢀcant diꢃerence

in environmental risk and ESG risk between ꢀrms with high

and low Green Bond Issuance.

As per the study ꢀndings, the companies should enhance the

transparency over the issuance process of their Green Bonds

and reporting. The integration of transparent reporting on

environmental as well as ꢀnancial impacts of Green Bonds may

attract more investors and build up credibility for the green

ꢀnance market (Ngunjiri, 2022). The overall ESG Risk Score

had an asymptotic signiꢀcance of 0.957 for the Kruskal-Wallis

H Test, thereby indicating that issuance of Green Bond does

not inꢂuence the ESG risk scores of corporations under

consideration.

Firms with high Green

Bond Issuance have signiꢀcantly lower environmental risk

and ESG risk compared to those with low Green Bond

Issuance.

The Mann-Whitney U test results suggest no signiꢀcant

diꢃerence in Environmental Risk Scores (p=0.924p =

0.924p=0.924). Therefore, we fail to reject the null hypothesis

(H₀) for Environmental Risk.

Because of these outcomes, they are consistent with other

studies apart from the one under discussion; Ngunjiri (2022)

add that the results were mixed on the ꢀnancial performance of

Green Bonds. Despite all the motivational underpinnings of

Green Bonds being for a positive cause - focusing more on

ꢀnancing environmentally friendly projects, the results of this

study failed to show a strong impact on the ꢀnancial

performance of ꢀrms due to issuing Green Bonds. However, it

must be noted that while the ꢀnancial beneꢀts are not directly

manifested in Green Bonds, they could be part of the long-term

sustainability objectives of organizations and the environment

atlarge.

ESG Risk Score

1.00

2.00

Total

21

19

40

20.60

20.39

a. Kruskal-WallisTest

b. Grouping Variable: GBIChighlow

This study shows that there is no signiꢀcant relationship

between Green Bonds and corporate ꢀnancial performance.

This indicates that further research may be necessary to explore

other factors, such as governance models, investor behaviour

and regional variations, which may explain the nuanced role of

Green Bonds in corporate strategy. Therefore, although Green

Bonds represent a promising tool for sustainable ꢀnancing, the

direct ꢀnancial impact might need further investigation in

future studies.

ESG Risk Score

Kruskal-WallisH

df

.003

1

Asymp. Sig.

.957

between ꢀrms with high and low levels of Green Bond

Issuance.

Companies should take the integration of more

comprehensive Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)

metrics into Green Bond frameworks in order to capture a

more holistic sustainability approach. This would bridge gaps

in the understanding of true environmental impact for Green

Bond proceeds (Fatima, 2023). Encouragement of green

ꢀnances can be achieved by the establishment of friendly

government policies, ꢀscal incentives and administrative

frameworks that inꢂuence the issuance of Green Bonds; this

will motivate a larger issue of green instruments (Mejía et al.

2021).

between ꢀrms with high and low levels of Green Bond

Issuance.

While Green Bonds focus more on climate risks, ꢀnancial

performance considerations cannot be ignored. Companies

should align their Green Bond strategy with long-term

ꢀnancial goals to balance environmental goals with proꢀt-

making aspirations (Jaycocks, 2019).

Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, the results indicate no

statistically signiꢀcant diꢃerence in ESG Risk Scores between

ꢀrmswithhigh and lowGreen Bond Issuance.

The ꢀrms should be able to diversify the investor base through

reaching SRI funds and institutional investors to achieve a

sustainable investment opportunity. The Demand for Green

Kruskal WallisTestispresented inTable 4.

12

Vol I | No 1 | January – March 2026

A bibliometric review. International Journal of System

Assurance Engineeringand Management.

Bonds shall be driven by their awareness regarding long-term

beneꢀts, which include both environmental and ꢀnancial.

Awareness programs will uplift knowledge among investors,

ꢀnancial analysts and companies regarding the beneꢀts

received through sustainable development relating to Green

Bonds, Yang et al. (2024)

Flammer, C. (2021). Corporate green bonds and ꢀnancial

performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2),

499–526.

International Capital Market Association. (2023). Green bond

principles: 2023report.

Jaycocks, A. (2019). Green bonds and corporate reputation in

emerging markets. Business Strategy and the Environment,

28(5), 890–902.

Future research may beneꢀt from long-term longitudinal

studies where researchers analyse the long-term ꢀnancial

implications of the issuance of Green Bonds on the companies'

performance. Over an extended period, data analysis will

enable researchers to evaluate if the consequences are sustained

over time on both the ꢀnancial performance and the

environment (Ngunjiri, 2022).

Jaycocks, A. (2020). Private sector role in climate ꢀnance. Climate

Policy, 20(6), 678–692.

Kovačević, V., Janković, I., Vasić, V., & Ljumović, I. Lj. (2023).

Does transparency pay oꢃ for green bond issuers? Evidence

from EU state agencies’ green bonds. Ekonomika

Poljoprivrede, 70(4).

Other area of study also comprises governance mechanisms

connected with Green Bond issuance. Future researchers may

note how diverse governance structures have implications on

the performance of Green Bonds in relation to the delivered

promisedsustainability performance (Wang, 2022).

Maltais, A., & Nykvist, B. (2020). Understanding the role of green

bonds in advancing sustainability. Journal of Sustainable

Finance & Investment, 1–20.

Manoharan, G., Nithya, G., Razak, A., Sharma, S., & Ashtikkar, S.

P. (2024). Challenges and opportunities in green ꢀnance:

Overcoming barriers and scaling up sustainable investments.

InPracticalapproaches to agile project management.

Further, A study could be conducted to examine how

investors use behavioral ꢀnance in determining their decision

to invest in Green Bonds. Understanding the risk appetite and

environmental concerns that drive the investors would give a

little insight into enhancing the attractiveness of Green Bonds

todiꢃerent groups of investors (Mejíaet al. 2021).

Mao, Q., Ma, X., & Sun, Y. (2020). Study of impacts of blockchain

technology on renewable energy resourceꢀndings. Renewable

Energy, 211, 802–808.

Exploring the role of Green Bonds in emerging markets,

particularly for those countries whose green ꢀnance markets

are relatively underdeveloped, has not yet been fully explored.

Future research may be conducted on how the Green Bonds

can be used as a resource to develop sustainable economies by

overcomingꢀnancial as well as infrastructural challenges

Mejía-Escobar, J., González Ruiz, J., & Franco-Sepúlveda, G.

(2021). Current state and development of green bonds market

in Latin America and the Caribbean. Sustainability, 13.

Mingfang, H. (2024). India’s green bond market growth.

Sustainable Finance Journal, 10(1), 34–50.

Ngunjiri, P. M. (2022). The inꢂuence of green bonds on ꢀnancial

performance of banks and investment ꢀrms listed in the

Nairobi Securities Exchange in Kenya (Doctoral dissertation,

KeMU).

REFERENCES

Abhani, D. K., & Desai, J. (2023). Green bonds for clean energy

projectsin India. EnergyPolicy, 178, 113567.

Abhilash, Shenoy, S. S., & Shetty, D. K. (2024). Factors

inꢂuencing green bond yield: Evidence from Asia and Latin

American countries. OpenAccess Archive, 10993.

Upadhyay, S. (2024). Impact of environmental, social and

governance (ESG) factors on individual investor performance.

International Journal of Scientiꢀc Research in Engineering

and Management, 8(4).

Afeku-Amenyo, H. (2022). The present value of growth

opportunities ingreenbond issuers.

Wang, J., Chen, X., Li, X., Yu, J., & Zhong, R. (2022). The market

reaction to green bond issuance: Evidence from China.

Paciꢀc-Basin Finance Journal, 60.

Alharbi, S. S., Al Mamun, M., Boubaker, S., & Rizvi, S. K. A.

(2023). Green ꢀnance and renewable energy: A worldwide

evidence. Energy Economics, 118.

Yang, X., & Shi, Y. (2024). Optimising corporate ꢀnancial

performance through ESG integration faced by climate

change. Advances in Economics, Management and Political

Sciences, 128(1).

Andi, A. D., Nainggolan, Y., & Chandrasekaran, A. (2018).

Climate risk materiality for investors. Journal of Financial

Stability, 39, 1–15.

Zheng, J., Jiang, Y., Cui, Y., & Shen, Y. (2023). Green bond

issuance and corporate ESG performance: Steps toward green

and low-carbon development. Research in International

Business andFinance, 66.

Chandrasekaran, A. (2018). Challenges in Indian green bond

markets. Emerging Markets Review, 35, 112–130.

Fatima, S., Tandon, P., & Singh, A. B. (2023). Current state and

future directions of sustainability and innovation in ꢀnance:

13