Green finance provides a way for financial institutions and investors to direct capital towards environmental and, in some cases, broader social objectives. Green loans, green bonds, sustainability-linked loans and bonds, green investment funds and blended-finance structures are among the products being used to connect capital with sustainability priorities. But the growing number of products also raises an important question: how do financial institutions and investors determine what qualifies as green, which product is appropriate, and whether the financing is actually delivering the intended outcomes?
A useful starting point is a green finance taxonomy. A taxonomy provides a classification system for identifying economic activities that can be considered environmentally sustainable according to defined criteria. For financial institutions, this can provide greater clarity when developing products and deciding which activities are eligible for green financing. For investors, it can provide a more consistent basis for assessing whether an investment aligns with defined environmental objectives.
This is particularly important because the term “green” can otherwise mean different things to different institutions. A taxonomy can help establish a common language and reduce the risk of sustainability claims being based on vague or inconsistent definitions. It can also help financial institutions move from simply marketing green products to establishing clear eligibility criteria for the activities they finance.
Once an activity has been identified as eligible, the next question is which financial product is most appropriate?
Consider a company that wants to install a solar energy system. A green loan could provide financing specifically for the eligible green activity, with requirements around the use and tracking of the proceeds. The company receives the capital it needs for the project, while the financial institution can monitor whether the funds are being used for the intended purpose.
A green bond works differently. Instead of providing a loan directly to one borrower, an issuer raises capital from investors through a bond and commits to allocating the proceeds to eligible green projects. This can provide access to a wider pool of capital and can be particularly useful for institutions, companies or governments seeking to finance a portfolio of projects.
A sustainability-linked loan, on the other hand, does not necessarily require the financing to be used for a specific green project. Instead, the financial terms are linked to the borrower’s performance against predetermined sustainability targets. A company could, for example, commit to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, increasing its use of renewable energy or improving another material sustainability indicator. Achieving—or failing to achieve—those targets can affect the financial terms of the loan.
The same principle can apply in the bond market through a sustainability-linked bond. The issuer raises capital for general corporate purposes but commits to defined sustainability performance targets. The structure therefore creates a link between the company’s sustainability performance and the financial characteristics of the instrument.
Other financing structures can address different barriers. Blended finance, for example, combines capital from sources such as governments, development finance institutions and private investors to improve the risk-return profile of sustainable projects. This can help mobilise private capital towards investments that may otherwise be considered too risky, too costly or too early-stage for conventional financing.
The important point is that there is no single “green finance product.” Different sustainability needs require different financing structures. The role of financial institutions is therefore not simply to create more products carrying a green label, but to understand the financing needs of their clients and markets and determine which instruments can address them effectively.
Read also: Innovative finance models are unlocking new opportunities for SMEs
This also changes how the success of green finance should be assessed.
It is relatively straightforward to report how much capital has been mobilised. A bank can report the value of green loans issued, or an issuer can report the amount raised through a green bond. But the amount of capital alone does not demonstrate environmental impact.
For example, if a financial institution provides financing for renewable energy, it could look beyond the amount financed and measure indicators such as the renewable energy capacity installed, electricity generated or greenhouse gas emissions avoided. Financing for energy efficiency could be assessed through reductions in energy consumption. Sustainable agriculture financing could consider indicators such as land under improved management, water efficiency or emissions reductions.
This is where sustainability performance indicators and targets become important. Financial institutions need to establish what they expect financing to achieve and how those outcomes will be measured.
For investors, this creates an opportunity to become more precise about what they want from sustainable investments. An investor should not have to settle for the broad statement that an investment is “green.” They can consider questions such as: What environmental objective does the investment support? What activities does it finance? What sustainability outcomes are expected? How will those outcomes be measured? Over what period? And how does the expected sustainability performance sit alongside the investment’s financial return and risk?
An investor could therefore establish an investment objective that combines both financial and sustainability considerations. For example, an investment strategy might seek exposure to renewable energy while targeting a defined financial return and tracking indicators such as tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions avoided or megawatt-hours of renewable energy generated.
Similarly, an institutional investor could establish a target for the proportion of its portfolio aligned with a recognised green taxonomy, alongside conventional measures such as credit quality, liquidity, risk and return.
This approach shifts sustainable investment away from simply asking “Is this green?” towards more measurable questions: What is being financed? What outcome is expected? How much progress has been made? And does the investment meet the investor’s financial and sustainability objectives?
For Africa, this level of clarity is particularly important. The continent’s financing needs are diverse, spanning renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, climate adaptation, clean transportation, resource efficiency, nature and other areas of sustainable development. At the same time, businesses and projects can face significant barriers to accessing capital, including high upfront costs, perceived risk, limited collateral, inadequate project preparation and a lack of reliable sustainability data.
Financial product innovation can help address these barriers, but products need to be designed around the realities of the markets they are intended to serve. A financing structure that works in one market may not necessarily be appropriate in another. Product development therefore needs to consider local regulations, market conditions, customer needs, available data and the maturity of the underlying projects.
Financial institutions also need the internal capabilities to deliver credible sustainable finance. This includes understanding relevant taxonomies and frameworks, developing appropriate eligibility criteria, assessing environmental and social risks, setting meaningful sustainability targets, monitoring performance and communicating outcomes transparently.
The development of green finance markets therefore requires more than financial innovation alone. It requires an ecosystem involving financial institutions, investors, businesses, governments, regulators, development finance institutions and technical experts. Together, these actors can help build a stronger pipeline of investable sustainable projects and create the conditions for capital to flow towards them.
Africa’s green transition will require substantial investment, but the conversation should increasingly move beyond how much green finance has been mobilised. The more important questions are what that capital is financing, whether the financial product is appropriate to the need, what sustainability outcomes are being achieved and whether investors can quantify both the financial and environmental value of their investments.
The next phase of green finance in Africa will therefore be about more than creating new financial products. It will be about designing finance with clear objectives, credible criteria, measurable outcomes and appropriate financial incentives.
When financial products are designed this way, green finance can become more than a category of investment. It can become a practical mechanism for directing capital towards the businesses, technologies and projects that will shape Africa’s transition to a more sustainable and resilient economy.