Objective: This research paper conducts a comprehensive systematic review of the literature published between 2015 and 2025 to evaluate the social co-benefits of green finance, specifically focusing on poverty alleviation in emerging markets (EMs). As the global financial architecture pivots toward sustainability to meet the Paris Agreement targets, the intersection of environmental objectives and social equity conceptualized as the "Just Transition" has emerged as a critical yet under-theorized area of inquiry. This study aims to determine whether a consensus exists regarding the causal linkages between green financial instruments (green bonds, green microfinance, and transition finance) and poverty reduction outcomes in high-impact regions including China, India, Southeast Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Methodology: Utilizing a simulated PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework, this study analyzes over 200 distinct data points, policy documents, and peer-reviewed studies. The review synthesizes empirical evidence on transmission mechanisms, ranging from macroeconomic "trickle-down" effects driven by industrial upgrading to direct micro-level interventions such as green microfinance for climate adaptation. Key Findings: The review reveals a bifurcated academic and policy consensus. While green finance has successfully mobilized capital for large-scale infrastructure, its direct impact on poverty alleviation remains heterogeneous, non-linear, and highly context-dependent. In state-led economies like China, green finance demonstrates a strong positive correlation with poverty reduction through industrial restructuring and job creation. Conversely, in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa and India, the evidence highlights a significant risk of "green gentrification" and displacement due to land-intensive renewable energy projects, suggesting that green finance can exacerbate inequality without robust social safeguards. Furthermore, the indefinite delay in finalizing the EU Social Taxonomy has created a regulatory vacuum, leaving social Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) underdeveloped and leading to "impact washing" in green bond reporting. Policy Implications: The paper concludes that green finance is not inherently pro-poor. To realize social co-benefits, policymakers must move beyond voluntary principles to integrate mandatory social impact metrics into green taxonomies, promote community-ownership models for renewable energy projects via blended finance, and expand green microfinance tailored to the specific adaptation needs of smallholder farmers