1.    General Overview of the CBI Green Bond Verification Methodology
This methodology aims to assess a green bond issuance -either planned or already executed-against the Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) standards, technical criteria, and sector-specific eligibility framework. Assessments are conducted with reference to the most up-to-date standards and criteria published by CBI. The verification engagement covers both the pre-issuance (pre-certification) and post-issuance (post-certification) phases. Within this scope, an independent assessment process reviews, among others:
•    the alignment of the project’s activity area with CBI sector criteria,
•    the proposed use of proceeds and allocation plan, and
•    the adequacy of monitoring, reporting, and management systems.
Under this methodology, the review is limited to environmental eligibility and integrity. It does not include any credit rating activity or financial risk analysis. The methodology is also implemented in line with internationally recognized assurance practices and transparency principles.
2.    Certification Types Under the Climate Bonds Standard
The Climate Bonds Standard (CBS) is a comprehensive framework designed to classify green finance instruments based on environmental integrity. At its core, the standard relies on the scientific assessment of projects and investments that contribute to climate change mitigation (and broader climate objectives), using defined eligibility thresholds and sector-specific technical criteria.
Under CBS, our methodology covers verification processes for the following certification types:
•    Use of Proceeds (UoP) Certification: A certification type based on allocating bond proceeds to environmentally sustainable projects that meet CBI’s sector-specific technical criteria..
•    Asset Certification: Certification of a specific project, facility, or physical asset based on an assessment of whether it is climate-aligned and meets the relevant environmental eligibility requirements.
•    Non-Financial Entity (Corporate) Certification: Organizational-level certification of goods- or service-producing entities (or ring-fenced business units), assessed against climate-aligned transition plans and strategic roadmaps.
•    Sustainability-Linked Instruments: Specialized debt instruments structured around the issuer’s achievement of defined climate performance targets (CMPTs), supported by transition plans and designed around outcome-based performance rather than direct project allocation.
•    Programmatic Certification: A certification model designed for entities planning multiple bond issuances under a single green finance framework. This model applies only to Use of Proceeds instruments and aims to streamline and simplify the certification process.
3.    Applied Guidelines and Standards
The verification process is conducted on the basis of internationally recognized standards, as well as the sector-specific and technical requirements issued by CBI. The principal reference documents are as follows:
•    CBI Climate Bonds Standard (CBS): Defines the minimum requirements for project selection, use of proceeds, management, and reporting, as well as the pre-issuance and post-issuance certification conditions.
•    CBI Sector Criteria: Establishes sector-specific technical thresholds and eligibility requirements in line with science-based targets.
•    CBI Guidance to Verifiers: Provides a detailed description of verifier responsibilities, independence principles, documentation requirements, and reporting formats.
•    ICMA Green Bond Principles (GBP): Supports alignment with the green bond market standard through the four core components used in bond assessment (use of proceeds, project evaluation and selection, management of proceeds, and reporting).
•    ISAE 3000: An international assurance standard setting out a principles-based approach to independence, objectivity, and sufficient evidence to support assurance conclusions.
Collectively, these standards and guidance documents underpin the technical robustness of the verification and support the international acceptability of its outputs in capital markets.
4.    Verification Approach and General Principles
The verification process is conducted through a systematic assessment approach grounded in independence and technical competence. The objective is to analyse -through an impartial, transparent and traceable method- the environmental alignment of the project and the bond with the Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) criteria.
The core principles of the verification approach are as follows:
•    Impartiality and Independence: Verification activities are carried out by functionally independent units and competent experts in a manner that avoids any conflict with the interests of the issuer or investors; impartiality and independence declarations are obtained prior to the engagement. The verifier must have no past or prospective financial, commercial, or consultancy-based interest relationship with the issuer subject to verification. In addition, the personnel involved in the engagement must not have previously provided any services related to the project and must not be engaged in any direct or indirect business relationship with the issuer.
•    Evidence-Based Assessment: All analyses are performed based on tangible evidence such as documentation, datasets, technical reports, and project outputs. Each finding is reported in a traceable manner and supported with clear rationale. Where information is missing, this is reflected in the report with a reasoned explanation.
•    Risk-Based Approach: The depth of the assessment is determined by considering the project’s scale, complexity, and level of environmental impact.
•    Process and Consistency Focus: Pre-defined checklists and internal procedures are applied; internal quality control and a second review are performed before the report is issued. The verification process is implemented in line with predefined quality standards and documentation requirements.
•    Transparency and Traceability: The process is documented in a manner that is auditable and traceable by third parties; reporting is prepared to a standard suitable for public disclosure.
The methodology developed in line with these principles aims to ensure the technical accuracy of the CBI certification process and to support market confidence.
Although the verification is structured in alignment with ISAE 3000, it does not provide a rating in the classical sense of “reasonable assurance” or “limited assurance”; rather, it constitutes an eligibility/conformity assessment based on predefined criteria. The methods applied, the nature of observations, and any limitations are clearly stated in each report. The scope of verification may vary depending on the nature of the agreement with the issuer and the specific content of the verification engagement.
5.    Assessment Stages
The verification process is designed within a systematic and traceable structure. Each stage is carried out with due regard to the Climate Bonds Standard and the relevant Sector Criteria published by CBI, and all steps are supported by written documentation. The five complementary stages are as follows:
•    Scoping and document collection: Project documentation, the use-of-proceeds plan, environmental impact assessments, certifications, and relevant policy documents are obtained. Where information or evidence is deemed insufficient, additional clarifications are requested from the issuer.
•    Technical and structural eligibility analysis: Within the scope of the assessment, the alignment of the project’s activity area with the applicable taxonomy, the environmental characteristics of the proposed investments, and whether bond proceeds are allocated in sufficient proportion to eligible projects are analysed.
•    Environmental performance assessment: Depending on the sector, indicators such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions, energy efficiency, natural resource use, and climate adaptation are evaluated. Where necessary, additional technical explanations and third-party analyses may be requested.
•    Proceeds management and reporting capacity: The assessment considers whether proceeds are tracked separately, the transparency of allocation processes, the existence of an annual reporting plan, and the adequacy of the monitoring infrastructure (in alignment with the Green Bond Principles).
•    Final assessment and classification: Based on all findings, the degree of alignment of the project with the CBI criteria is determined and the final classification is made. This classification is substantiated with objective evidence and clearly reflected in the final report.
Each stage is conducted in line with the verification process envisaged by CBI and in accordance with internal quality assurance procedures. 
6.    Reporting and Classification of Results
Upon completion of the verification, findings are presented through a final report that is clear, well-reasoned, auditable, and aligned with CBI guidance. The report includes the scope, methodology, reference standards, findings, and -where applicable- limitations and areas for improvement.
The final verification report provides a clear assessment of the project’s environmental eligibility. It sets out the verification scope, the methodology applied, the standards referenced, and the conclusions reached. Each finding is substantiated by explicitly linking it to the underlying data and documentation reviewed. Where gaps, data limitations, or improvement recommendations exist, these are stated transparently.
As an outcome of the verification, the project’s alignment with the CBI criteria is expressed using one of the following classifications:

•    Fully Aligned: The project fully meets all technical, governance, and reporting criteria defined by CBI, with no material deficiencies. There are no identified barriers to certification.
•    Partially Aligned: The project is generally eligible; however, limited gaps, ambiguities, or improvement needs are identified in certain areas. Certification may still be achievable, but remediation of the highlighted issues is recommended.
•    Not Aligned: The project does not meet one or more core CBI criteria, and/or the required level of information and evidence cannot be obtained to demonstrate compliance. In this case, certification is not feasible.
The classification is determined holistically, taking into account both the technical assessment and the findings related to proceeds management and reporting arrangements. Each conclusion is supported by verifiable evidence and is subject to internal quality assurance review and approval.
Where requested, the final verification report may also be shared with regulatory authorities and other stakeholders. This supports transparency of the CBI certification process and helps strengthen trust in capital markets.
7.    Independence and Quality Assurance
The credibility of the verification process and its acceptance by the market depend on the verifier operating with full independence, impartiality, and robust quality standards. For this reason, verification activities are conducted by independent teams in a transparent, auditable manner and in a way that avoids any conflicts of interest.
Where the organisation acts as verifier, it maintains no past or prospective financial, commercial, or advisory relationship with the relevant issuer. Experts assigned to the engagement do not provide any prior services related to the project and do not enter into any direct or indirect business relationship that could compromise independence. Within the internal organisational set-up, verification activities are functionally and organisationally segregated from credit rating, advisory, or other commercial services. Prior to each engagement, written declarations of impartiality and independence are obtained, and the process is formally initiated on the basis of these declarations.
Our quality assurance system is designed to ensure consistency, technical accuracy, and alignment with international standards throughout the verification process. Each verification engagement:
•    is conducted in accordance with predefined checklists and internal procedures,
•    ensures that all findings and supporting evidence are systematically documented and retained, and
•    requires that final reports undergo a second review by another qualified expert as part of the quality control process.
The methodology is updated in line with changes to CBI requirements and relevant international standards, and the qualifications and competencies of experts are reviewed on a regular basis.