(1) Background: Green finance standards have proliferated with much need for harmonization to accelerate global green financial flows. However, little is known on the nature of green finance standards that accelerates differentiation, rather than harmonization. Therefore, we embark to answer the question what the nature of green finance standards is and specifically how green finance standards have evolved in major economic systems driven by different actors and leading to differences and commonalities over time and environmental focus area. (2) Methods: To analyze the question, we build a model based on institutional and standards theory and apply text analysis and statistical methods to analyze 84 green finance standards issued from 1998 to 2020. (3) Results: we find clear evidence that green finance standards evolve depending on economic governance types (e.g., market-based, government-based and in weak institutional environments), environmental focus areas (e.g., pollution, climate, biodiversity) and depend on actors in government, intermediaries and developing financial institutions. We also show that this development has been dynamic over the last few decades. We further test and confirm three models of green finance standards: output-based, input-based and process standards that have evolved. With the findings, we aim to provide a better foundation for both research and policy in future green finance standard research, development and harmonization.

A growing number of emerging economies receive significant parts of their overseas finance and investment from Chinese state‐owned or state‐linked institutions. While academic research has focused on how Chinese policy and state‐owned banks approach sustainable development issues, Chinese sovereign‐backed overseas development funds are a critical yet overlooked component. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by providing the first comprehensive overview of such funds regarding their scope, activities and capitalization, as well as by assessing the funds' policy approach to sustainability. Qualitative and quantitative data are collected from databases, funds' websites, newspaper articles and public statements in both Chinese and English to identify common features between funds and to analyse their sustainability policies in comparison with global best practices. The paper specifically analyses the funds' sustainability approaches rather than impact due to a lack of comprehensive data on the funds' investments. First, the paper finds that given their number, announced capital size of US$213 billion, geographic scope and sectorial focus, including on high‐emissions projects such as mining, energy and heavy industry, the funds are influential players in global development finance. Second, regarding the funds' approaches to sustainability, the paper finds that the funds lack transparency about their policies and practices, which is a key component of sustainable fund management practices. Third, based on an in‐depth analysis of available information, we identify a lack of sustainability in the funds' mandates, an absence of safeguards, limited project pipeline disclosure and no sustainability performance assessment. Lastly, the paper provides four policy recommendations on how to improve the funds' sustainability approaches based on the unique way they are governed by different parts of the Chinese state apparatus.