Boxed In by Labels: What Use of Proceeds Data Really Tells Us

Use of Proceeds categories have helped green bonds scale. But the simplicity that made them effective is starting to show its limits. 

At SFI Data, we’ve reviewed hundreds of green and sustainability bond frameworks, along with post-issuance reports. The patterns are clear: categories often fail to reflect what’s actually being financed. 

Looking Beneath the Label 

The Use of Proceeds (UoP) model assigns capital to predefined categories, such as: 

• Renewable Energy

• Clean Transportation 

• Green Buildings 

• Water Management 

• Pollution Prevention 

It’s a clean, digestible system, but simplicity can come at a cost. The categories don’t always reflect real outcomes. When we track capital allocation at the project level, three things tend to happen: 

1. Three categories dominate: Renewable energy, buildings, and transport consistently receive the bulk of allocations. Not necessarily because they’re most urgent, but because they’re easiest to classify. 

2. High-impact areas are overlooked: Sectors like climate adaptation, circular economy, and biodiversity often show up in frameworks but receive little or no allocation. 

3. General categories lose precision: Terms like “Access to Essential Services” are frequently cited, but rarely tied to concrete, funded projects. 

This creates gaps between stated intent and actual deployment. 

How This Data Can Be Used 

SFI Data standardizes Use of Proceeds information down to the project type and impact theme. This allows investors, analysts, and public institutions to: 

• See which UoP categories consistently receive funding 

• Evaluate how SDG mappings hold up after issuance 

• Spot underfunded areas that matter to their mandate 

• Compare how issuers align intention and action 

For example, a user could benchmark a portfolio against actual post-issuance allocations to assess exposure to overlooked areas like biodiversity-linked finance. Others might identify recurring use of broad categories like “Access to Services” and assess whether actual spending supports the stated claims—informing better screening and engagement strategies.

From Framework to Reality 

We’re not saying the UoP model is flawed, but it’s not always complete. And if you're using it to guide investment or track impact, it's worth asking: what gets missed? 

Better data gives you a clearer picture. Not just of what’s promised, but what’s actually delivered, and here's where we can help. 

What SFI Data Offers 

We process and structure Use of Proceeds data across green, social, and sustainability bonds. That includes: 

• Actual project types, not just categories 

• Post-issuance allocation tracking

• Outcome-linked mapping to SDGs and impact themes 

• Flags for vague or unsubstantiated claims 

This helps investors, issuers, and public actors make better decisions, improve reporting, and identify market gaps. 

The Bottom Line 

Categories are a useful starting point. But today’s sustainability challenges often span sectors, themes, and impact areas. If you're working with green bond data, we can help you see beyond the label. Let’s talk about what’s really being financed and where the next opportunities lie. 

With rising interest rates, tightening capital, and growing scrutiny around ESG credibility, green bonds are under more pressure than ever. Investors are asking harder questions, regulators are pushing for clearer disclosures, and capital is being allocated more selectively. In this environment, broad labels and vague claims simply won’t hold up. SFI Data gives you the structure, verification, and granularity needed to navigate this reset and to ensure that what’s labeled sustainable is actually delivering on that promise. In today’s market, credible data is the foundation for trust.