Are you bankrolling the climate crisis?
There’s a bleak poetry to 2024 being both the warmest year on record and the first since 2021 that the world’s banks collectively increased their fossil fuel financing.
Last year they channelled $869bn into the hands of big polluters.
Those include energy companies expanding fossil fuels, which flies in the face of the Paris Agreement and the International Energy Agency’s stark warning that if we have any hope of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, there must be no new long-term oil and gas fields, liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals or coal mines.
Campaigners say banks have quietly back-pedalled on commitments they made previously. The worst culprits are names you know, and ones that could be holding your money.
To help you find a greener bank, we’ve examined the policies of 16 current account providers in the UK with help from two non-governmental research organisations, Reclaim Finance and Global Canopy.
Is your bank a fossil fuel financier?
We've rated banks on whether they invest in fossil fuels and other industries or commodities that are detrimental to the environment (see our methodology).
We also wanted to know whether they had written policies to prevent such investments in the future.
Use our tool to find out how your bank fared, or skip to our top-rated Eco Providers. If you’re not happy with your bank, go elsewhere.
The worst offenders
We paid particular attention to the banks that have significant investments in fossil fuels.
We scored these banks on: the strength of their lending policies for fossil fuels and agricultural commodities such as palm oil and beef; their targets to reduce the impact of their harmful financing deals; and the transparency of their climate reporting.
Lloyds, NatWest and Danske Bank are far less involved in fossil fuels than their peers, but all three could take steps to be properly fossil-free.
Financing 2024 | Fossil fuel policies | Agricultural policies | Targets | Transparency | FINAL SCORE | |
Chase | $53.5bn | 5% | 8% | 38% | 17% | 10% |
Santander | $17.3bn | 16% | 22% | 63% | 50% | 28% |
HSBC (including First Direct) | $16.2bn | 25% | 14% | 50% | 50% | 29% |
Barclays | $35.4bn | 23% | 33% | 63% | 83% | 35% |
Lloyds (including Halifax and Bank of Scotland) | $1.6bn | 34% | 54% | 63% | 67% | 45% |
NatWest (including RBS) | $2.7bn | 27% | 59% | 75% | 83% | 46% |
Danske Bank | $1.3bn | 49% | 19% | 75% | 67% | 47% |
A higher score is better. Read more about our methodology below.
How ‘green’ are other banks?
Beyond the big banks, Allied Irish Bank, Bank of Ireland and TSB were found to have small exposure to fossil fuels, so we expected them to have strong policies. TSB is only exposed through its parent bank Banco Sabadell, though Santander, a major fossil fuel financier, is set to buy TSB.
The Co-operative Bank was sold to Coventry Building Society and Nationwide bought Virgin Money after our 2023 assessment. Coventry BS doesn’t lend to or invest in the fossil fuel industry, or offer commercial mortgages, so most of its emissions are from the UK homes it lends on.
Around 1% of Virgin Money’s loans are to field services that serve the oil and gas industry. Nationwide says it expects its emissions to fall as businesses transition to renewables.
The business model of some banks means they are broadly a safe bet
This meant it didn’t make the cut. However, the building society confirmed to Which? that its policies, targets, disclosures and overall approach apply to the Nationwide Group as a whole.
The business model of some banks means they are broadly a safe bet; for example, Monzo doesn’t provide any corporate financing, while other banks focus on lending to small and medium-sized UK businesses.
We think the standard has been set by Triodos and our other Eco Provider, the Co-operative Bank. Neither are perfect, but they are transparent about how they will (and won’t) use your money.
- Find out more: Ethical investing explained
Banks reneging on commitments
Things have gone backwards since we first assessed banks on their climate pledges in 2023.
Back then, we warned about banks’ misleading greenwashing claims, which the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has since created rules to prevent. But worse has followed.
After the election of Donald Trump, JPMorgan Chase and other US banks quit the UN-sponsored Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA – a coalition of banks committed to aligning their financing with net-zero emissions by 2050). HSBC became the first UK bank to jump ship in July 2025, followed by Barclays weeks later.
And NZBA has recently watered down its ambitions, meaning members are no longer locked to the central 1.5°C Paris climate goal and can just ‘strive’ for it.
It’s not all bad news. Some banks are disclosing and setting targets for their ‘facilitated emissions’ – the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the finance they help raise for their clients through bonds and equities.
But campaigners say their methodologies are badly flawed. Getting this right is crucial, as some investment banks provide more fossil fuel financing through this than their general lending.
Progress is undermined by a largely voluntary approach, with little oversight, leading to inconsistent reporting, limited transparency and no repercussions when banks move the goal posts or abandon promises.
Lifting the lid on fossil fuel financing
A quick scan of banks’ climate reports might reassure a casual reader, but the devil, as always, is in the detail.
‘There are loopholes everywhere – it’s what banks don’t include that speaks volumes,’ says Amy Owens, a policy analyst at Carbontracker.org. She adds: ‘Financing for fossil fuels has gone up and the numbers speak for themselves. It’s a dire situation.
'Some banks have very old commercial ties with energy companies and their lobbying power counteracts all the good engagement by climate conscious groups.’
It's what banks don't include that speaks volumes
Amy Owens, analyst at Carbontracker.org
Take JPMorgan Chase, which runs Chase in the UK. It only excludes clients that get the majority of revenues from the extraction of coal, the most polluting fossil fuel.
This means it can still provide finance for major coal developers like Glencore, which slip under this threshold. And it only excludes project financing for new thermal coal mines and plants, but has no such restrictions on general corporate financing (the money given to firms behind these projects).
Loopholes have also added to the already weak policies of other UK banks, and some providers with transparent reporting nevertheless greatly increased their funding of fossil fuels.
How to find out more about your bank
Anyone brave enough to dive into their bank’s public climate reports will know they are largely impenetrable.
Don’t be swayed by bold claims about funding ‘clean energy’, as this doesn’t cancel out the effects of fossil fuels, and such ‘green finance’ can serve as a smokescreen.
In addition to our ratings, you can learn more about your bank’s impact through research groups that assess banks on their public commitments:
- BankTrack.org highlights the banks providing finance for the most harmful projects and companies, and the annual Banking on Climate Chaos reports expose the world's biggest fossil financiers.
- Reclaim Finance and Global Canopy are data-driven not-for-profits that assess banks on the strength and implementation of their publicly available commitments for fossil fuels and deforestation, respectively.
- If you have concerns about where your money is invested, German environmental and human rights group Urgewald publishes detailed reports on the world’s biggest fossil fuel investors at investinginclimatechaos.org (highlighting Vanguard and BlackRock as the worst offenders in 2024).
- Learn about campaigns and community-based initiatives from the likes of Friends of the Earth and Rainforest Action Network.
- Ditch your bank if it’s a major fossil fuel financier, try one of our Eco Providers (Triodos or The Co-operative Bank), or a building society.
The policy loophole that allows banks to continue funding fossil fuels
Quentin Aubineau, policy analyst at BankTrack
'Banks have known for decades that by financing the expansion of the fossil fuel industry, they are helping to drive climate catastrophe. Although the biggest UK high street banks all pledged to align their finance with global climate goals in 2021, they have not stopped shovelling millions, sometimes billions, into the companies building new oil and gas projects.
'The policies that most of these banks developed not to fund fossil fuel projects directly are clearly not working. Around 95% of fossil fuel financing now happens through general -urpose finance to the companies building these projects, which most banks still allow. This needs to change.
'As well as damaging our climate, these projects often lead to human rights abuses and wildlife destruction. For example, Barclays – Europe’s biggest fossil fuel financier – financed Norwegian oil companies Equinor and AkerBP in 2024, whose oil drilling plans in the Barents Sea threaten Arctic wildlife. Meanwhile, HSBC is still financing the Saudi national oil company, Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest corporate emitter. And Santander’s fossil fuel finance grew in both 2023 and 2024, and includes finance for companies fracking for gas in Argentina in the face of opposition from Mapuche Indigenous communities.
'There are alternatives for those who don’t want their money fuelling destruction.’
Barclays and HSBC said they do not comment on individual clients due to confidentiality. Santander did not provide a comment.
Our ratings explained
We examined the policies of 16 current account providers in the UK with the help of two non-governmental campaigning and research organisations.
Reclaim Finance analysed coal, oil and gas policies, including unconventional sectors such as the Arctic, fracking, tar sands and seabed drilling below 1,500 metres.
We asked Global Canopy to assess policies for seven agricultural commodities: palm oil, soy, beef and leather, timber, pulp and paper, cocoa, coffee and rubber – the expansion of which causes more than 70% of tropical deforestation. Many banks fail to cover crucial fire-risk commodities, although none of our ‘amber’ or ‘green’ banks featured in Global Canopy’s F500 Finance and Floresta 250 reports, meaning they aren’t among the companies contributing most to deforestation through their financing deals.
We want all banks to have detailed public policies to futureproof them against harmful financing. We also rewarded transparent climate reporting, strong commitments, credible targets and use of shared standards such as the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) and Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi).
For the biggest banks, a weighting was applied to reach our final climate policy score: fossil fuels (50%) and financing (10%), deforestation (20%), transparency (10%) and targets to reduce financed emissions (10%). Fossil fuel financing figures are from the 2025 Banking on Climate Chaos report.
