Fragmented rules, missing incentives hold back India’s green finance growth

The devastating floods that swept through Nepal in August 2026 did more than displace communities and disrupt cross-border trade. They served as a stark reminder that climate risk is no longer a distant, abstract concern, but a reality at India’s doorstep. Events of this magnitude necessitate a hard look at how we are funding our climate response.

 

Over the last decade, sustainable finance has moved into the mainstream of global capital markets. Green bonds, green deposits; and environmental, social, and governance (ESG)-labelled loans are now supported by thick layers of regulation and third-party verification. Yet, India’s share of the global green finance market remains an underwhelming one per cent. In stark contrast, the European Union (EU) dominates with a 45 per cent share, having successfully created an ecosystem that attracts robust private capital.

 

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued climate-finance directions for banks and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs), while the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) regulates green debt securities. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has also pushed for greater transparency through its business responsibility and sustainability reporting framework. However, the intent is often overshadowed by the implementation, which has unwittingly become a deterrent for market participants.

 

A key challenge stunting India’s green finance is a fragmented regulatory landscape. Regulators are operating through disparate rules and supervisory expectations rather than a cohesive policy framework. The most glaring gap is the absence of a finalised, statutory national green taxonomy. While the European Union’s taxonomy provides a uniform set of criteria to determine sustainable activities, India continues to rely on interim lists.

 

This absence of an anchor taxonomy forces issuers to seek bespoke legal opinions on eligibility for every green issue. It also creates a gap in documentation, as definitions linked to an official taxonomy are missing. The regulatory architecture demands extensive upfront disclosures, ongoing post-listing updates, and third-party impact reporting. Without Sebi or RBI-approved model documents or standard loan clauses, drafting these regulatory obligations into transaction documents is time-consuming and inconsistent. For smaller issuers, this multiplies legal review costs and acts as a severe barrier to entry.

 

To fix this, India needs scaled disclosures. The rules currently apply uniformly to all issuers regardless of size. Exploring a reduced pre-listing and post-listing disclosure regime for smaller issuances could heavily incentivise participation. Standardised template covenants for green financing would also ensure greater efficiency and enable quicker legal sign-offs.

 

Another major bottleneck is the lack of fiscal or prudential carrots. It is a common misconception that regulatory frameworks inherently offer financial perks for green initiatives. In reality, the RBI has not built prudential concessions into its climate finance directions. There are no relaxations on the cash reserve ratio (CRR) or statutory liquidity ratio (SLR) for green lending.

 

Green deposits are placed on the exact same commercial footing as ordinary rupee term deposits. Because current regulations expressly forbid a differential interest rate, there is no tangible “greenium” to attract depositors or lower the cost of capital for borrowers. ESG ratings are also not yet a mandatory input into credit decisions for banks in India; a higher ESG rating does not automatically equate to a lower cost of capital. Therefore, the pricing incentive for a borrower with strong environmental credentials currently lives in loan documentation rather than systemic regulation.

 

Permitting differential interest rates on green deposits would encourage both investors and borrowers to participate in the green debt market. Furthermore, the introduction of dedicated green alternative investment funds (AIFs) under the current Sebi regime would ensure a disciplined approach to the green use of proceeds.

 

India has successfully laid the foundation for a sustainable finance ecosystem. However, the next leap requires moving away from overlapping regulations towards regulatory harmonisation. A unified green taxonomy, standardised legal documentation, and tangible economic incentives are urgently needed. A well-intentioned regulatory framework without matching financial rewards is like an engine without fuel. If India wants to secure its position in the global green finance landscape, it must ensure the rules actually encourage the market to move. 
The writer is founder & chairman, SNG Partners, Advocates & Solicitors

Internship & Articleship

Error: Contact form not found.

Disclaimer

By proceeding further and clicking on the “I ACCEPT” button below, you acknowledge that you of your own accord wish to know more about SNG & Partners (“The Firm”) for your own information and use. You further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from SNG & Partners or any of its employees, partners, associates or members to create an attorney-client relationship through this website. You further acknowledge having read and understood this Disclaimer.

This website is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. While SNG & Partners has taken utmost care to ensure accuracy and completeness of the information contained on this website, the Firm does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability for any loss or damage caused or alleged to have been caused to any person by relying on any information contained on this website. The contents of this website should not be construed as an opinion, legal or otherwise, on any issue or subject. 

SNG & Partners further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained in this website, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner of this website does not intend links from this site to other Internet websites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. The Firm is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about the contents of websites to which links may be provided from this website.

Furthermore, the owner of this website does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this website or in a Country/State where this website fails to comply with local laws and ethical rules of that state. You may note that the use of the internet or email for conveying confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of disclosure associated with sending email over the internet.

The Firm advises against the use of the communication platform provided on this website for exchange of any confidential, business or politically sensitive information. User is expected to use his or her judgment and such information shared will be solely at the user’s risk.

Communication through this website in any form shall be for the purpose of enquiries only and shall not hold good for service of any kind of court proceedings, summons, advance notice, pleadings etc. For service of any such document and/or notice to the Firm and/or to any of its partners under the act or rules including under CPC, Cr. PC and/or any other law shall be served at our concerned office or to the concerned advocate dealing with the matter.