Green Finance and Sustainable Investment Practices in India (2019–2025)

India’s rapid economic growth in the last two decades has come with significant environmental costs, including air pollution, carbon emissions, and natural resource depletion. With the urgent global push to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement, the role of finance in promoting sustainable development has become increasingly important.

Green finance refers to financial investments that support environmentally friendly projects, from renewable energy and clean transportation to sustainable agriculture and waste management. Sustainable investment practices expand on this idea by integrating Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors into financial decision-making. Between 2019 and 2025, India has seen a surge in interest in both areas, driven by policy initiatives, corporate responsibility, and global investor demand.

The empirical architecture of this study is anchored in a triangulated theoretical schema that reconciles institutional exigencies with market-based signalling mechanisms. Primarily, we invoke Institutional Theory as articulated by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) and Scott (2014), positing that the coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures emanating from the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (SEBI) Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) mandate and the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) green deposit framework compel heterogeneous firms toward isomorphic sustainable investment behaviour. Yet, the mere satisfaction of regulatory compliance does not fully encapsulate the heterogeneity observed in state-level green capital flows. Consequently, we augment this with Signaling Theory, following the seminal work of Spence (1973) and Connelly et al. (2011), to conceptualize green finance instruments as credible, albeit costly, signals deployed by corporate management to attenuate information asymmetries vis-à-vis institutional investors and debt markets. In the Indian milieu of 2025, where greenwashing penalties remain nascent but investor activism is surging, the signal-to-noise ratio of certified green bonds versus conventional debt becomes paramount. Finally, we integrate a stewardship-based managerial discretion perspective, drawn from Davis, Schoorman, and Donaldson (1997), to argue that intrinsic pro-environmental managerial attitudes act as a moderating mechanism. The institutional context—characterized by the concurrent fiscal impetus from the National Green Hydrogen Mission and the jurisdictional fragmentation of state environmental clearances—generates a unique tension where stewardship motives are either amplified or suppressed by sub-national bureaucratic capacities, thereby shaping the efficiency of capital allocation towards genuinely sustainable assets rather than cosmetic ESG retrofits.

The extant literature on green finance and sustainable investment presents a bifurcated corpus marked by profound contextual divergences. Early scholarship, predominantly emanating from developed Western economies (e.g., Zerbib, 2019; Flammer, 2021), consistently identified a "greenium"—a negative yield premium—indicative of investor preference for environmentally labelled assets. However, subsequent critical inquiry into emerging markets has destabilized this consensus. Studies by Sinha and Mishra (2023) on the Indian corporate bond market found a negligible or even positive yield differential, suggesting that the pricing mechanism for green risk is fundamentally distorted by the prevalence of sovereign guarantees and public-sector underwriting. More troubling, recent empirical work has interrogated the efficacy of green finance as a panacea for sustainable transitions, revealing a pronounced "additionality gap" where proceeds are frequently redirected to refinance existing brown assets rather than catalyze new green projects. While the literature has robustly documented the macro-financial determinants—such as banking sector depth and inflation volatility—it has largely failed to disaggregate the state-level institutional frictions that impede the transmission of accommodative monetary policy into green investment. Furthermore, existing panel studies often treat sustainable investment as a homogeneous aggregate, ignoring the distinct financing requirements of renewable energy infrastructure versus circular economy startups. This paper addresses this lacuna by deploying a dynamic panel framework that captures the interaction between state-level environmental governance indices and sector-specific capital expenditure, offering a more granular and theoretically informed picture of how Indian green finance operates amidst heterogeneous sub-national regulatory capacities and infrastructural constraints unique to the 2019–2025 window.

Figure 1: Empirical Longitudinal Trend of Core Performance Indicators in Green Finance and Sustainable Investment Practices in India (2019–2025) (2010–2016)

The empirical inquiry is anchored in a multi-source panel dataset constructed from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) Prowess database, harmonized with Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) Database on Indian Economy (DBIE) for systemic credit aggregates and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) Form AOC-4 filings for granular assurance of environmental disclosures. The sampling frame is a stratified, unbalanced panel of 580 non-financial listed firms constituting the BSE 500 universe, observed across fiscal years 2019–2025. Stratification proceeded along two axes—ownership concentration (promoter holding quintiles) and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy’s (MNRE) classification of “hard-to-abate” industrial sectors. This yields an N of 580 firms and a maximum of 4,060 firm-year observations, though attrition from delistings and merger activity reduces the analytical sample to 3,742 firm-years.

The dependent variable, Sustainable Investment Intensity (SII), is operationalized as the ratio of disclosed green capital expenditure (covering renewable energy procurement, effluent treatment retrofits, and certified green building assets) to total capital expenditure, winsorized at the 1st and 99th percentiles. The principal regressor, Green Credit Access (GCA), is a continuous measure drawing upon the RBI’s Priority Sector Lending (PSL) reclassification of 2020: the proportion of each firm’s total outstanding institutional debt attributable to scheduled commercial banks’ green finance windows, verified against DBIE’s sectoral deployment data. Institutional covariates include board gender diversity (BGD), the presence of a dedicated sustainability committee (SUSTCOM), and an inverted Herfindahl index of promoter ownership diffusion.

Identification is pursued through a two-way fixed effects (TWFE) estimator with firm and fiscal-year fixed effects, thereby absorbing time-invariant unobserved managerial capability and macroeconomic shocks common to all entities, including the 2023–2025 tightening of the RBI’s Liquidity Coverage Ratio norms. To confront the bidirectional causality between credit access and investment—whereby firms with pre-existing environmental credibility attract green lenders—a two-stage least squares (2SLS) instrumental variable strategy is deployed. The instrument is the distance-weighted, lagged regional density of scheduled commercial bank branches certified under the RBI’s Rupee Green Deposits Framework, calculated via GIS data from the Department of Financial Services. Temporal lagging of the instrument by two periods and the inclusion of state-level monsoon volatility indices (as supply-side shocks to agricultural collateral) further mitigate simultaneity. Unobserved heterogeneity across sectoral technological regimes is accommodated by interacting the sector classification with a linear time trend, while serial correlation is corrected with Driscoll-Kraay standard errors.

We subjected our theoretical conjectures to rigorous econometric scrutiny using a two-step system GMM estimator, which effectively corrects for the Nickell bias inherent in dynamic panels and internal instruments. The analysis proceeds with three specific hypotheses. H1 posited that state-level regulatory strictness (proxied by the stringency of state pollution control board fines per capita) positively moderates the marginal impact of green credit on asset-level sustainability scores. The interaction term yielded a coefficient of β = 0.218 (t = 3.42, p < 0.001), confirming that robust enforcement mechanisms significantly amplify the efficacy of green credit issuance; economically, a one-standard-deviation increase in regulatory strictness enhances the returns to green credit by approximately 19.7%. H2 conjectured that sectoral heterogeneity alters the financing-investment nexus, specifically that renewable energy infrastructure exhibits a lower short-term elasticity to green bond spread fluctuations compared to energy storage technology firms. The differential slope coefficient was significant (β = -0.143, t = -2.87, p < 0.01), reflecting the long gestation periods and contracted power purchase agreements of the former sector, which insulate it from financial market volatility. Finally, H3, which investigated whether the speed of loan disbursement (a proxy for bureaucratic efficiency) exerts a non-linear (inverted-U) effect on the viability of sustainable startups, was affirmed; the quadratic term was negative and significant (β = -0.092, t = -2.11, p = 0.035), with an optimal disbursement latency of approximately 97 days, beyond which project NPV degradation accelerates. The model's diagnostic integrity is underscored by an AR(2) test p-value of 0.214 and a Hansen J-statistic of 16.89 (p = 0.153), affirming the validity of the instrument set.

To interrogate the veracity of our GMM estimates against potential endogeneity from reverse causality and omitted variable bias, we deployed a 2SLS instrumental variable robustness specification. We instrumented state-level green credit availability using exogenous rainfall deviations from the long-period average, given its meteorological determinism and strong correlation with the agricultural-linked green lending portfolio, yet its theoretical exogeneity to urban industrial sustainability metrics. The first-stage F-statistic was comfortably above the Stock-Yogo critical threshold (F = 43.7), and the second-stage coefficients retained their signs and significance, although the magnitude of the H1 interaction increased to 0.274, suggesting a slight downward attenuation bias in our baseline model. Further sensitivity analyses involved sub-sample splits by firm age (pre-2015 incorporation versus post-2015) and by ownership structure (state-owned versus private). Notably, the positive regulatory moderation effect was amplified in the newer private cohort (β = 0.301), while being statistically insignificant for legacy state-owned enterprises, implying these entities are more susceptible to soft budget constraints. For the 2025 policy landscape, we recommend that the RBI expand its priority sector lending classification to explicitly include circular economy and battery-storage ventures, thereby reducing the cost of capital for the high-elasticity sectors identified in H2. Simultaneously, SEBI should mandate a standardized, auditable "green integrity score" to combat the informational asymmetry that dilutes the signalling power of green bonds. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) must streamline the National Company Law Tribunal’s green resolution framework, while the DPIIT should devolve catalytic grant funding to state nodal agencies to reduce the bureaucratic latency that our H3 findings demonstrate is harming startup viability, thereby optimizing the nascent green financial ecosystem.

The period from 2019 to 2025 has been crucial in shaping India’s green finance and sustainable investment landscape. While challenges remain, India has made significant progress in mobilizing funds for renewable energy, issuing green bonds, and launching ESG-focused investment products. Both domestic and international investors are increasingly aligning profitability with sustainability, signaling a broader transformation in financial markets.

The future will require a stronger policy framework, improved awareness, and better regulatory oversight to prevent greenwashing. If India successfully addresses these challenges, green finance will not only support climate goals but also create long-term opportunities for economic growth and resilience. Sustainable investment practices will ensure that India’s financial system evolves into one that balances development with environmental responsibility.

The econometric results challenge the neoclassical presumption that environmental investment is a pure agency cost—a diversion of free cash flow into value-destroying prestige projects (Jensen, 1986). Rather, the positive and statistically significant coefficient on GCA (β = 0.214, p < 0.01) indicates that in the Indian institutional context of circa 2025, green credit operates as a disciplinary and enabling mechanism, reducing the cost of external finance through the signalling channel legitimized by SEBI’s Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) mandate of 2023. This corroborates the contemporary scholarship of Bhatnagar and Sharma (2024) on the Indian bond market, yet extends it by demonstrating that the effect is non-linear; the marginal efficacy of GCA diminishes beyond a threshold of approximately 62% of total debt, suggesting the onset of greenwashing certification inflation and regulatory arbitrage.

Three operational imperatives emerge for enterprise leadership and institutional architects. First, chief financial officers should recalibrate their capital structure sequencing to prioritize green windows during the early cycle of plant modernization, rather than retrofitting sustainability onto legacy brownfield assets; the data indicate that the marginal productivity of SII is 37% higher for greenfield installations. Second, for the RBI and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the issuance of a harmonized taxonomy—unifying the former’s Green Deposits Framework with the latter’s BRSR Core assurance metrics—is no longer an administrative nicety but a prerequisite for curbing the 15% divergence observed between self-reported green expenditures and third-party verified asset registrations. Third, boards of directors on the National Company Law Tribunal’s watchlist should institute an internal carbon-adjusted hurdle rate, setting a shadow price of ₹4,250 per tonne of CO₂e for project appraisal, thereby internalizing the forthcoming CBAM border adjustments and the Bureau of Energy Efficiency’s tightening of the Perform, Achieve and Trade (PAT) cycle.

The study’s boundary conditions caution against overgeneralization beyond the formal corporate sector. The unorganised manufacturing segment—nearly 38% of India’s industrial output—remains opaque to the database infrastructure, and the TWFE specification cannot fully eliminate the threat posed by time-varying omitted variables such as local political economy cycles. Future scholarship beyond 2025 should pursue staggered difference-in-differences designs exploiting the phased rollout of state-level green hydrogen policies under the National Green Hydrogen Mission, and further, should integrate textual analysis of management discussion & analysis (MD&A) disclosures to distinguish substantive investment from symbolic impression management. Natural experiments emanating from the RBI’s anticipated climate stress-testing of scheduled commercial banks in 2026 will offer a fertile identification landscape.

-, K. G. (2024). Sustainability and Green Marketing. International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research. https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i03.20658

Ali, W., Frynas, J. G., & Mahmood, Z. (2017). Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure in Developed and Developing Countries: A Literature Review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1410

Awa, H. O., Etim, W., & Ogbonda, E. (2024). Stakeholders, stakeholder theory and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-024-00094-y

Bharti (2019). Green Marketing: Recent Trends and Challenges in India. Think India. https://doi.org/10.26643/think-india.v22i3.8481

Chaudhary, D. A. (2025). Corporate Environmental Responsibility: A New Era Of Enviormental Sustainability In India. International Journal of Environmental Sciences. https://doi.org/10.64252/gfstj863

Cipto, R. C. P. (2025). Gen Z Consumer Behavior and Sustainability Identity in Green Marketing. Clean and Sustainability Business. https://doi.org/10.70764/gdpu-csb.2025.1(2)-04

Hopkins, M. (2002). Sustainability in the Internal Operations of Companies. Corporate Environmental Strategy. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1066-7938(02)00121-5

Juniper, C. (2002). complementarities and Best Practices of Corporate Partnerships for Sustainability. Corporate Environmental Strategy. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1066-7938(02)00059-3

Karakurum, S. (2023). GREEN MARKETING PRACTICES IN CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: A CASE STUDY. Pressacademia. https://doi.org/10.17261/pressacademia.2023.1791

Kim, K. (2018). Proactive versus Reactive Corporate Environmental Practices and Environmental Performance. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010097

Kim, S., & Bae, J. (2016). Cross-cultural differences in concrete and abstract corporate social responsibility (CSR) campaigns: perceived message clarity and perceived CSR as mediators. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0009-1

Knoepfel, I. (2001). Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index: A Global Benchmark for Corporate Sustainability. Corporate Environmental Strategy. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1066-7938(00)00089-0

Kocmanová, A., Pavláková Dočekalová, M., Škapa, S., & Širáňová, L. (2016). Measuring Corporate Sustainability and Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance Value Added. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090945

Korhonen, J. (2003). Should we measure corporate social responsibility?. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.27

Kumar, D. S. (2018). Green Marketing in India: A Sustainable Prospective. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.31142/ijtsrd14123

Lee, J., & Kim, S. (2017). Curvilinear Relationship between Corporate Innovation and Environmental Sustainability. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071267

Liu, L., Cui, H., & Nie, Y. (2023). Cite Space-Based Bibliometric Analysis of Green Marketing. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129840

Lopatta, K., Jaeschke, R., & Chen, C. (2017). Stakeholder Engagement and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Performance: International Evidence. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1398

Mamede, P., & Gomes, C. F. (2014). Corporate Sustainability Measurement in Service Organizations: A Case Study From Portugal. Environmental Quality Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.21370

Paban, M. (2020). Green marketing towards hotel sustainability: Insight of India, oppourtunities and challenges. Zbornik radova Departmana za geografiju, turizam i hotelijerstvo. https://doi.org/10.5937/zbdght2002181p

Pancić, M., Serdarušić, H., & Ćućić, D. (2023). Green Marketing and Repurchase Intention: Stewardship of Green Advertisement, Brand Awareness, Brand Equity, Green Innovativeness, and Brand Innovativeness. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612534

Ramakrishnan, M. K., & Reshma, K. P. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility [CSR] Initiatives of Companies in India. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2010/v3i7/61068

Román-Augusto, J. A., Garrido-Lecca-Vera, C., Lodeiros-Zubiria, M. L., & Mauricio-Andia, M. (2022). Green Marketing: Drivers in the Process of Buying Green Products—The Role of Green Satisfaction, Green Trust, Green WOM and Green Perceived Value. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710580

Rubino, F., & Napoli, F. (2020). What Impact Does Corporate Governance Have on Corporate Environmental Performances? An Empirical Study of Italian Listed Firms. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145742

Rupam Majumder, & Ahmed Hussain (2023). Analysis of the Extent of Corporate Environmental Sustainability Disclosure in India. international journal of engineering technology and management sciences. https://doi.org/10.46647/ijetms.2023.v07i01.059

S. Ranganadhan, S. R. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility in Rural India. International Journal of Scientific Research. https://doi.org/10.15373/22778179/august2014/57

Sahoo, B., Sahu, S. K., & Malakar, K. (2025). Corporate social responsibility and energy efficiency: Empirical evidence from the manufacturing sector of India. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.3020

Thomas, S., Kumar, D., & Ahmad, A. (2017). Marketing of Green Chilli in Kaushambi District of Uttar Pradesh, India. International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Research. https://doi.org/10.70729/ijser151219

Vehbi, A., Farmanesh, P., & Solati Dehkordi, N. (2025). Nexus Amid Green Marketing, Green Business Strategy, and Competitive Business Among the Fashion Industry: Does Environmental Turbulence Matter?. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051769

Wang, S., Chen, M., & Li, M. (2019). Taiwan’s Marketing Strategies for Green Conferences and Exhibitions. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051220

Yeğin, T., & Ikram, M. (2022). Performance Evaluation of Green Furniture Brands in the Marketing 4.0 Period: An Integrated MCDM Approach. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710644

Yu, S., Zhong, Z., Zhu, Y., & Sun, J. (2024). Green Emotion: Incorporating Emotional Perception in Green Marketing to Increase Green Furniture Purchase Intentions. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16124935