• England’s water utilities have issued £10.5 billion in green bonds since 2017, yet sector-wide environmental performance deteriorated last year.
• Major issuers Anglian Water (£3.5 billion) and Thames Water (£3.1 billion) recorded the highest pollution incident numbers and remain rated red by the Environment Agency.
• Investigators found that some green bond proceeds refinanced existing projects or funded activities already mandated by law, raising questions about additionality and credibility.

England’s Water Sector Faces Questions Over Green Finance Credibility

England’s water sector has raised more green finance than almost any other corporate segment in the UK. Yet the environmental conditions it is meant to improve continue to deteriorate. New analysis of Bloomberg data shows utilities have issued £10.5 billion ($13.3 billion) in green bonds since 2017, including a sharp acceleration over the past four years. In several years, water companies accounted for more than a quarter of all UK corporate green bonds issued.

The findings land at a moment when public frustration over sewage discharges, river pollution and infrastructure failures has reached the political mainstream. Regulators and investors now face a more complex question: why has massive green financing failed to produce visible environmental improvements?

The Unearthed investigation that reviewed the data found that overall environmental performance in the sector fell significantly last year. Pollution incidents increased sharply and most companies failed to meet regulatory targets on leakage, internal sewage flooding, supply interruptions and water consumption.

Large Issuers Recorded the Poorest Environmental Outcomes

Anglian Water and Thames Water, the two biggest green bond issuers, raised £3.5 billion and £3.1 billion respectively. Both companies were rated red by the Environment Agency for serious pollution incidents every year since 2021. They also reported some of the highest numbers of pollution events in the sector last year, despite access to substantial green capital.

The contrast between financing volumes and deteriorating outcomes has triggered concern among fixed-income specialists. “Green bonds can be a good way to raise capital and ultimately improve conditions but that is not what is happening here,” said Jonas David, research director at the Anthropocene Fixed Income Institute. “In most cases, these bonds have clearly not resulted in the desired sustainability outcomes that investors hoped for.”

His comments reflect a growing debate in sustainable finance about the difference between labelled use-of-proceeds instruments and performance-based sustainability outcomes. The UK water sector is now becoming a case study in how weak governance, limited additionality and underperforming assets can erode confidence in green debt markets.

How the Bond Proceeds Were Used

Water companies reported using the green bond proceeds for a range of activities, including water meter installation, energy efficiency upgrades, conservation programmes and measures to increase water supply resilience. Many of these activities align with recognised green bond categories, and there is no suggestion of misrepresentation to investors.

However, Unearthed identified two patterns that have raised governance flags for market participants.

First, some proceeds were used to refinance completed projects. While refinancing is allowed under most green bond frameworks, it provides no new environmental benefit beyond what has already been delivered.

Second, the investigation found cases where proceeds supported activities that companies are already legally required to undertake. This introduces a concern that the green bonds may not have delivered additional environmental value compared with a scenario where utilities complied using standard financing.

For investors focused on environmental impact, additionality is a core principle. Its absence does not breach rules but it weakens credibility, especially in a sector under regulatory pressure.

RELATED ARTICLE: ICMA Releases New Resources on Sustainability-Linked Bonds, Green Bonds and Sustainability-Linked Loans Financing Bonds

Regulatory and Political Stakes

The Environment Agency and Ofwat have already increased scrutiny after a series of sewage and storm-overflow scandals. The bond-use revelations add to pressure for stronger oversight of how green financing is applied in regulated utilities.

Executives across the ESG and infrastructure investment landscape are watching closely. The debate touches several issues central to global sustainable finance: the quality of issuer frameworks, the role of external reviewers, and the alignment of finance with measurable environmental outcomes.

In a broader policy context, the UK is entering a period of infrastructure renegotiation. Water companies are seeking approval for record bill increases to fund upgrades. Investors will weigh these requests against concerns that green financing has not delivered improvements commensurate with the scale of capital raised.

What Investors and C-Suites Should Take Away

The investigation reinforces a shift already underway in fixed income: labelled green bonds are attracting more rigorous scrutiny, with investors demanding outcome-based evidence rather than reliance on project categories alone. It also highlights the challenge for regulated utilities where public trust, environmental performance and cost recovery are tightly intertwined.

For global sustainable-finance leaders, the situation in England serves as a reminder that credibility in green debt markets depends on transparent reporting, clear additionality and regulatory frameworks that tie financing to measurable impact. Other regions advancing water-sector financing strategies are likely to draw lessons from the UK debate.

A Global Conversation About Integrity in Sustainable Finance

The scrutiny facing England’s water utilities aligns with a wider international discussion about the integrity of green finance instruments. As sovereigns and corporates expand issuance in support of national climate plans, the demand for demonstrable outcomes grows stronger.

The UK case shows that even in mature markets with strong disclosure expectations, the test for green finance is not how much is raised, but whether the environment improves as a result. That question now sits at the centre of investor-regulator dialogue, with implications far beyond the UK water sector.

Follow ESG News on LinkedIn