Cedric Rimaud & Christina Ng | April 2026
Download Full Report: English Copy
Key Takeaways
- The ICMA’s Climate Transition Bond Guidelines lack sufficient guard rails for credible transition finance. Four structural weaknesses undermine the transition label’s integrity: an unclear green-transition boundary, an overly broad definition of “climate transition”, weak entity-level safeguards, and inadequate protection against carbon lock-in. The ICMA should subject the guidelines to external review and public consultation before further institutionalising them.
- The green-transition boundary matters because transition finance is meant for sectors where decarbonisation is genuinely difficult. Relabelling activities already eligible under green bond standards dilutes analytical value, adds due diligence burdens, and risks crowding out capital from hard-to-abate sectors, which are high-emitting, technologically constrained and without readily scalable low-carbon alternatives.
- Entity-level transition credibility must be a core condition of transition finance. Without this criterion, a transition bond could fund a lower-emitting project while leaving the issuer’s wider business materially exposed to carbon-intensive operations. Mandatory Scope 1, Scope 2 and material Scope 3 disclosure – linked to the issuer’s overall decarbonisation pathway – should be a minimum requirement.
- In terms of carbon lock-in, the ICMA’s treatment is weaker than the LMA’s and insufficient to serve as a credible
international standard. Disclosing lock-in risk is not the same as preventing it. Transition finance should not support new greenfield fossil infrastructure where feasible lower-carbon alternatives exist.
Executive Summary
The International Capital Market Association (ICMA) published its Climate Transition Bond Guidelines[1] in November 2025. Shortly prior to that, the Loan Market Association (LMA) released its own version, entitled Guide To Transition Loans.[2] Both publications respond to increasing demand from issuers and investors for a financing label dedicated to the decarbonisation of hard-to-abate, high-emitting sectors.
Capital-intensive sectors that are technically difficult to decarbonise need large investments to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Green loans and bonds alone cannot deliver on the climate transition that is necessary for hard-to-abate sectors such as steel, cement, aviation, shipping and chemicals. While some markets have begun issuing guidance through local regulators, the ICMA and LMA guidelines are welcome initiatives as they seek to provide a common framework for transition finance in a global market where national starting points differ,[3] and where investors lack comparable and clearer scope on what constitutes a credible transition activity.
However, neither framework is sufficiently robust for the development of credible transition finance markets. In their current form, the guidelines leave substantial ambiguity regarding the definition of transition activities, the scope of eligible sectors, and the safeguards required to ensure meaningful emission reductions.
Four key structural weaknesses undermine the credibility of the guidelines.
First, the guidelines do not distinguish sufficiently between green activities and transition activities. Existing green bond and loan standards are good enough to serve green investments, such as renewable energy projects, energy-efficient buildings and electric mobility. Transition finance should be reserved for investments that reduce emissions directly from high-carbon assets or industrial processes in hard-to-abate sectors. Without this distinction, the transition label risks becoming a rebranding of conventional green finance, thereby raising due diligence burdens and becoming less useful to decision-making. Such a transition label would result in investors facing additional risks of mislabelling in forming their investment portfolios, which could lead to legal action and public relations issues. From a broader point of view, an ill-defined transition label may also reduce the amount of capital available to finance the climate transition.
Second, the definition of ‘climate transition’ remains unclear. The guidance is too broad and does not focus clearly on a list of defined categories of eligible activities. As a result, investments that are unrelated to decarbonisation can be labelled as transition finance. This will create confusion among investment professionals and weaken investor confidence.
An activity should receive the “climate transition” label only when it is linked directly to the abatement of carbon emissions of a hard-to-abate, high-emitting sector. |
Third, the guidance lacks sufficient entity-level safeguards. Without a defined approach to climate materiality or full value-chain assessment, issuers have significant discretion in framing their transition strategies, such as emphasising selected improvements while downplaying broader exposure to carbon-intensive activities. In a market where taxonomies already diverge, this loose approach allows issuers to align with the most favourable interpretation of “transition”, increasing the risk of inconsistent outcomes.
Fourth, the guidance does not protect against fossil fuel lock-ins. It is critical to prioritise technologies that avoid fossil fuels, such as gas or co-firing, as an essential part of establishing a credible carbon transition strategy.
Strengthening these elements, before establishing formal transition principles, will ensure that transition finance channels capital towards genuine decarbonisation efforts and maintains investor confidence in the integrity of sustainable finance markets.
[1] ICMA. Climate Transition Bond Guidelines. November 2025
[2] LMA. Guide To Transition Loans. October 2025
[3] ESI. Decoding Asia’s Transition Taxonomies. December 2025
Cedric Rimaud is fixed income and sustainable finance specialist with over 20 years of experience in credit markets across Asia. He has worked with financial institutions, regulators and multilateral organisations to advance green and transition finance, with a focus on corporate credit and labelled debt instruments.
Christina Ng is Managing Director of the Energy Shift Institute. Her work focuses on strengthening the role of financial markets in Asia’s decarbonisation, drawing on over two decades of experience in financial reporting standard-setting, financial risk analysis, and sustainable finance research in the energy sector.
The Energy Shift Institute is an independent non-profit energy finance think-tank driving context, clarity and credibility for Asia’s energy transition pathways.