This study examined whether the credibility of green bond verification depends not only on the presence of an external review but also on the governance structure of the issuer–reviewer relationship. The analysis combined assurance governance and information economics to evaluate whether repeated engagements are more consistent with learning benefits or with independence concerns that weaken the informational value of verification. The setting covered labeled corporate green use-of-proceeds bonds issued by firms domiciled in the European Union and the United Kingdom between 2015 and 2023. The bond-level sample contained 805 green bond issues from 312 issuers, and the issuer-year accountability panel contained 1986 issuer-year observations. Fixed-effects pricing models indicated that higher repeat-tie intensity is associated with weaker pricing-based credibility, reflected in a smaller greenium after controlling for bond structure, credit risk, liquidity, review type, and issuer fundamentals. Issuer-year analyses indicated that concentrated ties are associated with weaker reporting discipline, weaker impact-reporting continuity, and higher ex post credibility-risk signals. Moderation tests further indicated that strong audit quality and stronger green-finance policy environments attenuate these adverse associations. The findings contribute by showing that external review is better understood as a relational governance arrangement rather than as a binary disclosure attribute and by identifying relationship concentration as a distinct credibility feature that helps explain heterogeneity in green bond pricing and post-issuance accountability.
Citation: Hamzeh Al Amosh. Captured or credible? Issuer–reviewer repeat ties and the governance of green bond verification[J]. Green Finance, 2026, 8(3): 556-591. doi: 10.3934/GF.2026020
This study examined whether the credibility of green bond verification depends not only on the presence of an external review but also on the governance structure of the issuer–reviewer relationship. The analysis combined assurance governance and information economics to evaluate whether repeated engagements are more consistent with learning benefits or with independence concerns that weaken the informational value of verification. The setting covered labeled corporate green use-of-proceeds bonds issued by firms domiciled in the European Union and the United Kingdom between 2015 and 2023. The bond-level sample contained 805 green bond issues from 312 issuers, and the issuer-year accountability panel contained 1986 issuer-year observations. Fixed-effects pricing models indicated that higher repeat-tie intensity is associated with weaker pricing-based credibility, reflected in a smaller greenium after controlling for bond structure, credit risk, liquidity, review type, and issuer fundamentals. Issuer-year analyses indicated that concentrated ties are associated with weaker reporting discipline, weaker impact-reporting continuity, and higher ex post credibility-risk signals. Moderation tests further indicated that strong audit quality and stronger green-finance policy environments attenuate these adverse associations. The findings contribute by showing that external review is better understood as a relational governance arrangement rather than as a binary disclosure attribute and by identifying relationship concentration as a distinct credibility feature that helps explain heterogeneity in green bond pricing and post-issuance accountability.
| [1] |
Akerlof GA (1970) The market for "lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J ECON 84: 488–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431 doi: 10.2307/1879431
|
| [2] |
Allman E, Lock B (2024) External reviews and green bond credibility. J Clim Financ 7: 100036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclimf.2024.100036 doi: 10.1016/j.jclimf.2024.100036
|
| [3] |
Al-Okaily M, Al-Okaily A (2025) Financial data modeling: an analysis of factors influencing big data analytics-driven financial decision quality. J Model Manag 20: 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-08-2023-0183 doi: 10.1108/JM2-08-2023-0183
|
| [4] |
Baker M, Bergstresser D, Serafeim G, et al. (2018) Financing the response to climate change: The pricing and ownership of US green bonds (No. w25194). Natl Bur Econ Res. https://doi.org/10.3386/w25194 doi: 10.3386/w25194
|
| [5] |
Chen X, Long W (2023) To enhance the credibility of the green bond market through regulating GBERs: The case of China. Laws 12: 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws12060091 doi: 10.3390/laws12060091
|
| [6] |
Christensen HB, Hail L, Leuz C (2021) Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review. Rev Account Stud 26: 1176–1248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5 doi: 10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5
|
| [7] |
DeAngelo LE (1981) Auditor size and audit quality. J Account Econ 3: 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(81)90002-1 doi: 10.1016/0165-4101(81)90002-1
|
| [8] |
DeFond M, Zhang J (2014) A review of archival auditing research. J Account Econ 58: 275–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002
|
| [9] |
Distadio LF, Johl S (2025) Shades of green in the bond market: The role of external verification reports. Int J Account, 2541001. https://doi.org/10.1142/S109440602541001X doi: 10.1142/S109440602541001X
|
| [10] |
Dorfleitner G, Utz S, Zhang R (2022) The pricing of green bonds: External reviews and the shades of green. Rev Manag Sci 16: 797–834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00458-9 doi: 10.1007/s11846-021-00458-9
|
| [11] |
Dos Santos DLDJS, Dos Santos GC (2025) Technological convergence in financial auditing: A systematic literature review. Data Sci Financ Econ 5: 440–465. https://doi.org/10.3934/DSFE.2025018 doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2025018
|
| [12] |
Flammer C (2021) Corporate green bonds. J Financ Econ 142: 499–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.01.010
|
| [13] |
Francoeur C, Melis A, Gaia S, et al. (2017) Green or greed? An alternative look at CEO compensation and corporate environmental commitment. J Bus Ethics 140: 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2674-5 doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2674-5
|
| [14] |
Ghitti M, Gianfrate G, Lopez de Silanes F, et al. (2023) What's in a shade? The market relevance of green bonds' external reviews. Br Account Rev: 101271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2023.101271 doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2023.101271
|
| [15] |
Henide K (2022) Voluntary disclosure and adverse selection: Bayesian game theoretical inference for green bond labeling regimes. Int Rev Financ Anal 83: 102248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102248 doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102248
|
| [16] |
Hyun S, Park D, Tian S (2020) The price of going green: The role of greenness in green bond markets. Account Financ 60: 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12515 doi: 10.1111/acfi.12515
|
| [17] |
Hachenberg B, Schiereck D (2018) Are green bonds priced differently from conventional bonds? J Asset Manag 19: 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41260-018-0088-5 doi: 10.1057/s41260-018-0088-5
|
| [18] | International Capital Market Association (2021) Green Bond Principles. Int Cap Mark Assoc. Available from: https://www.icmagroup.org/assets/documents/Sustainable-finance/2021-updates/Green-Bond-Princi-ples-June-2021-140621.pdf. |
| [19] |
Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2015) The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts' perceptions and shifting institutional logics. Strateg Manag J 36: 1053–1081. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2268 doi: 10.1002/smj.2268
|
| [20] |
Jangid J, Bhardwaj B, Sharma D (2025) Green bonds and sustainable business: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Corp Gov Int J Bus Soc, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-08-2025-0555 doi: 10.1108/CG-08-2025-0555
|
| [21] |
Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 3: 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
|
| [22] |
Krueger P, Sautner Z, Starks LT (2020) The importance of climate risks for institutional investors. Rev Financ Stud 33: 1067–1111. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz137 doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhz137
|
| [23] |
Lutfi A, Alkilani SZ, Saad M, et al. (2022) The Influence of Audit Committee Chair Characteristics on Financial Reporting Quality. J Risk Financ Manag 15: 563. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15120563 doi: 10.3390/jrfm15120563
|
| [24] |
Lyon TP, Montgomery AW (2015) The means and end of greenwash. Organ Environ 28: 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575332 doi: 10.1177/1086026615575332
|
| [25] |
Mahmood S, Sun H, Iqbal A, et al. (2024) Green finance, sustainable infrastructure, and green technology innovation: pathways to achieving sustainable development goals in the belt and road initiative. Environ Res Commun 6: 105036. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ad898f doi: 10.1088/2515-7620/ad898f
|
| [26] |
O'Brien RM (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual Quant 41: 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6 doi: 10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
|
| [27] |
Rahman MM, Islam MF, Dyuti TI, et al. (2024) Driving net zero emissions through green finance, green logistics, and corporate social responsibility: findings from PLS-SEM approach. Discov Sustain 5: 439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00675-8 doi: 10.1007/s43621-024-00675-8
|
| [28] |
Simeth N (2022) The value of external reviews in the secondary green bond market. Financ Res Lett 46: 102306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.102306 doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2021.102306
|
| [29] |
Sharf N, Abu-Nassar M (2021) The effect of audit quality and auditor's opinion on earnings management: evidence from Jordan. Jordan J Bus Adm 17: 236–253. https://doi.org/10.35516/0338-017-002-005 doi: 10.35516/0338-017-002-005
|
| [30] |
Shi X, Ma J, Jiang A, et al. (2023) Green bonds: Green investments or greenwashing? Int Rev Financ Anal 90: 102850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102850 doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102850
|
| [31] |
Simnett R, Vanstraelen A, Chua WF (2009) Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. Account Rev 84: 937–967.https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937 doi: 10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.937
|
| [32] |
Song Y, Ren T, Zhang M (2024) Does the issuance of green bonds promote green practices among peer companies? Evidence from China's listed companies. J Clean Prod 477: 143899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143899 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143899
|
| [33] |
Spence M (1973) Job market signaling. Q J Econ 87: 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010 doi: 10.2307/1882010
|
| [34] |
Tang DY, Zhang Y (2020) Do shareholders benefit from green bonds? J Corp Financ 61: 101427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.12.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.12.001
|
| [35] |
Tian Y, Pan X (2024) Green finance policy, financial risk, and audit quality: Evidence from China. Eur Account Rev 33: 589–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2022.2109707 doi: 10.1080/09638180.2022.2109707
|
| [36] |
Tepalagul N, Lin L (2015) Auditor independence and audit quality: A literature review. J Account Audit Financ 30: 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X14544505 doi: 10.1177/0148558X14544505
|
| [37] |
Zhang L, Han J, Xiong Y, et al. (2025) Green investors, bond ratings and bond issuance spreads. Financ Res Lett: 108318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.108318 doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2025.108318
|
| [38] |
Zerbib OD (2019) The effect of pro-environmental preferences on bond prices: Evidence from green bonds. J Bank Financ 98: 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2018.10.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2018.10.012
|
 GF-08-03-020-s001.pdf |
 |
Hamzeh Al Amosh. Captured or credible? Issuer–reviewer repeat ties and the governance of green bond verification[J]. Green Finance, 2026, 8(3): 556-591. doi: 10.3934/GF.2026020
DownLoad: