Fossil Fuel Financing
Conduct Screen Environmental
Financial institutions whose lending, underwriting, and project finance activities provide material capital to fossil fuel companies — enabling exploration, production, pipeline construction, LNG terminal development, and other fossil fuel infrastructure. The test is whether the institution is a significant capital provider to the fossil fuel industry, not incidental banking services. Measured by annual fossil fuel financing volume (Banking on Climate Chaos report) and the institution's rank among global fossil fuel financiers. Distinct from fossil_fuel_ancillary (which covers oilfield services and equipment) and fossil_fuels_upstream/midstream/downstream (which cover the operators themselves).
53 companies currently excluded under this screen
Excluded Companies (53 total)
Showing 25 of 53 companies excluded under this screen.
| Ticker | Company | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| COF | Capital One Financial | Capital One Financial provides significant financing to fossil fuel operators through its lending and capital markets activities. The bank is among the world's 60 largest financiers of fossil fuels, committing billions of dollars to the industry. This financing enables the expansion and operation of fossil fuel projects, positioning Capital One as a critical ancillary service provider to the sector. The bank's financing activities have been linked to specific violations. In 2021, FinCEN announced a $390 million enforcement action against Capital One for willful and negligent violations of the Bank Secrecy Act from at least 2008 through 2014. These violations caused millions of dollars in suspicious transactions to go unreported, including transactions potentially linked to fossil fuel projects and other high-risk activities. This pattern of regulatory failure underscores systemic governance issues in its risk management. Despite increased public pressure on major banks to reduce fossil fuel financing, Capital One has not announced a comprehensive policy to restrict funding for new fossil fuel exploration or infrastructure. Its continued role in providing capital to the industry directly conflicts with global climate goals and supports the ongoing expansion of fossil fuel operations. |
| CRZBY | Commerzbank | Commerzbank provides financial services to fossil fuel operators, including lending and underwriting for companies engaged in coal, oil, and gas extraction and infrastructure. According to the 2024 "Banking on Climate Chaos" report, Commerzbank provided over $12 billion in fossil fuel financing between 2016 and 2023. Environmental organizations, including urgewald, have criticized the bank's fossil fuel policy as insufficient and not aligned with the Paris Agreement, noting its continued support for companies expanding fossil fuel operations. While Commerzbank published a fossil fuel guideline in 2021 with a commitment to end coal financing by 2030, analysis by climate groups indicates its policies contain significant loopholes. The bank has not set absolute financed emission reduction targets for its oil and gas portfolio and continues to finance major fossil fuel expanders. Its current framework is assessed as failing to restrict general corporate financing for clients active in fossil fuels, allowing continued capital flow to the sector. |
| LYG | LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC | Lloyds Banking Group was censured by the UK Advertising Standards Authority in December 2024 for running a social media advertisement that promoted its support for low-carbon projects. The ASA banned the advert for omitting material information about the bank’s ongoing financing of fossil fuel industries, ruling the claim was likely to mislead consumers. The watchdog stated the ad failed to provide balanced information, as it did not disclose that Lloyds continues to provide significant financial services to polluting sectors. This regulatory action highlights the bank’s role as a key financial enabler of the fossil fuel industry. As a major lender and underwriter, Lloyds provides the ancillary capital and services that allow fossil fuel operators to explore, extract, and expand infrastructure. The ASA ruling underscores a discrepancy between the bank’s public climate communications and its continued financial support for greenhouse gas-emitting activities. |
| PNC | PNC Financial Services | The 2025 Banking on Climate Chaos report documents PNC Financial Services providing $56.9 billion in financing to the fossil fuel industry between 2021 and 2024. In 2024 alone, PNC provided $15.3 billion, of which $6.9 billion went to oil, gas, and coal companies actively expanding fossil fuel production. PNC increased its fossil fuel financing by 77% between 2021 and 2022. PNC is among the major banks that funded the Mountain Valley Pipeline alongside Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and BNP Paribas. BankTrack identifies PNC as one of the 10 U.S. megabanks financing companies with leases to frack Ohio public lands. Between 2016 and June 2023, Reclaim Finance documented $3.8 billion in PNC financing to the fossil-steel industry, ranking it 41st globally. The bank has expanded its environmental finance pledge to $30 billion, but this commitment has not constrained its fossil fuel lending — the two financing streams run in parallel. |
| SAN | Santander | Banco Santander provided $48.28 billion in lending and underwriting to the fossil fuel sector between 2021 and 2024, ranking among the top 25 global financiers of fossil fuel expansion per the Banking on Climate Chaos 2025 report. 93.6% of this financing was general corporate finance — fungible capital that flows to expansion projects without project-level environmental safeguards. In July 2025, the bank gutted its own Environmental and Social Risk Management policy: removing restrictions on financing new upstream oil clients, dropping requirements for coal clients to maintain credible transition plans, and creating loopholes allowing unlimited 'sustainable finance' to coal conglomerates past its stated 2030 phase-out deadline. The bank is a leading European financier of oil extraction in the Amazon biome and global LNG expansion. BankTrack characterizes these policy rollbacks as a 'step backwards' and 'engagement failure.' |
| JPM | JPMorgan Chase | JPMorgan Chase is the largest fossil fuel financier in the world. The Banking on Climate Chaos 2025 report documents $53.5 billion committed to fossil fuel companies in 2024 alone, bringing the bank's cumulative total since the Paris Agreement to more than $430.9 billion in lending and underwriting. No other financial institution comes close. JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo together account for 21 percent of all global fossil fuel financing tracked by the report, and JPMorgan consistently leads the group. The bank has not made credible commitments to reduce this financing. It withdrew from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance and continues to underwrite expansion-stage capital for oil, gas, and coal projects worldwide. Global fossil fuel financing climbed to $869 billion in 2024, a $162 billion increase over the prior year, and JPMorgan's own share grew in step. |
| BAC | Bank of America | Bank of America provides critical financial services that enable fossil fuel expansion, including lending, underwriting, and project financing for oil, gas, and coal operations. According to a 2023 report titled "Complicit: Bank of America, Human Rights, and Fossil Fuel Expansion," the bank's financing drives climate impacts and associated human rights violations. In February 2024, Bank of America weakened its energy policy, removing explicit bans on financing new coal mines, coal-fired power plants, and Arctic drilling projects that it had established two years prior. This reversal aligns with its departure from the "Equator Principles," a set of environmental and social risk management standards for project finance. The bank's continued provision of capital and advisory services to fossil fuel companies constitutes a foundational ancillary service to the industry. |
| MUFG | Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. | Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) is one of the world's largest financiers of fossil fuel companies. The Banking on Climate Chaos 2025 report identified MUFG as a top-tier fossil fuel financier, with the three Japanese megabanks (MUFG, Mizuho, SMBC) collectively contributing 12% of total global fossil fuel financing in 2024, when banks provided a record $869 billion to the industry. MUFG ranked third globally among financiers of fossil fuel expansion companies in 2023, with $15.4 billion directed to companies expanding fossil fuel production. The bank is among the top financiers of LNG expansion, ultra-deepwater offshore drilling ($512 million in 2023), and gas-fired power globally. Since the Paris Agreement, MUFG has provided over $119 billion in cumulative fossil fuel financing. In March 2025, MUFG withdrew from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. |
| NWG | NatWest | NatWest Group provided $2.7 billion in fossil fuel financing in 2024, making it the 4th largest UK fossil fuel financier after Barclays, HSBC, and Lloyds, according to the Banking on Climate Chaos 2025 report (Rainforest Action Network et al.). While NatWest's fossil fuel financing is significantly smaller than global leaders (JPMorgan: $42B, Mizuho: $40B in 2024), the bank has been criticized for policy loopholes: despite publicly committing to restrict finance for oil and gas companies without credible transition plans, ShareAction identified that NatWest's policy contains a misleading loophole that allows continued financing of fossil fuel expanders. NatWest has not exited the Net Zero Banking Alliance. The bank's fossil fuel exposure is notably lower than peers, but it has not adopted a comprehensive exclusion policy for fossil fuel expansion. |
| 601166 | Industrial Bank | Industrial Bank is a major Chinese commercial bank that provides financial services to fossil fuel companies, enabling their operations and expansion. According to the Banking on Climate Chaos 2024 report, Industrial Bank is a significant financier of fossil fuel projects globally. The bank's own 2024 Green, Social and Sustainability Bond Impact Report highlights its sustainable finance activities but does not disclose the scale or proportion of its financing directed toward fossil fuel extraction, transportation, or power generation. This lack of specific disclosure for its fossil fuel portfolio, contrasted with its promoted green bond issuances, indicates continued material support for the fossil fuel industry. By providing capital and banking services, the bank acts as a critical ancillary enabler for fossil fuel operators. |
| PSTVY | Postal Savings Bank of China | Postal Savings Bank of China (PSBC) is one of China's six largest state-owned commercial banks, with the world's largest retail customer base. Banking on Climate Chaos 2025 ranks it #56 globally, with $1.3 billion in fossil fuel financing in 2024 and $8.2 billion cumulatively from 2021 to 2024, including $582 million directed to fossil fuel expansion companies. PSBC recorded one of the most dramatic financing increases of any bank tracked: its fossil fuel financing surged over 1,200 percent from $168 million in 2016 to $2.2 billion in 2020. The bank issued a controversial $47 million 'green loan' to a Shanxi coal producer, drawing scrutiny from environmental think tanks who challenged the classification. PSBC has no published policy restricting financing for new coal or upstream oil and gas projects. |
| TFC | Truist | Truist provides financial services to the fossil fuel industry, including lending and underwriting to companies in the oil, gas, and consumable fuels sector, as well as to equipment and services providers. The bank's own TCFD reports classify these exposures as "carbon-related assets." While Truist has been included in recent fossil fuel finance analyses, specific details on the scale and materiality of its financing to ancillary service companies—such as oilfield equipment manufacturers or drilling contractors—are not publicly detailed in the gathered evidence. The available disclosures confirm the bank's ongoing role in supporting the fossil fuel value chain but lack the transaction-level data needed to quantify its support for the ancillary services segment specifically. |
| NRDBY | Nordea | Nordea is the largest financial services group in the Nordic region, headquartered in Helsinki. Banking on Climate Chaos 2025 ranks it #53 globally, with $1.5 billion in fossil fuel financing in 2024 and $5.9 billion cumulatively from 2021 to 2024, including $448 million directed to fossil fuel expansion companies. Nordea has provided over $20 billion to fossil fuel-based companies since the Paris Agreement. The 2025 Banking on Thin Ice report identifies Nordea as the third-biggest Nordic investor and financier in fossil fuel expansion, with substantial exposure to Arctic drilling — Norwegian oil company Aker BP has received 7 billion SEK in loans from Nordea and SEB combined. Danish investors challenged Nordea's Arctic fossil fuel financing ahead of its 2025 AGM. |
| MS | Morgan Stanley | Morgan Stanley is a significant financier of the fossil fuel industry. According to the Banking on Climate Chaos reports (Rainforest Action Network et al.), Morgan Stanley has provided more than $183 billion in cumulative fossil fuel financing since the 2016 Paris Agreement, making it the 15th largest private financier of fossil fuels globally. The bank is also the 6th largest financier of fracked methane gas. From 2022 to 2023, Morgan Stanley increased its annual fossil fuel financing from $14.7 billion to $19.1 billion, despite its public 2021 commitment to reach net-zero financed emissions by 2050. Morgan Stanley remains among the top U.S. banks dominating the fracking sector alongside JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup. |
| NAZBY | NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED | National Australia Bank is one of Australia's Big Four banks. Banking on Climate Chaos 2025 ranks it #54 globally, with $1.1 billion in fossil fuel financing in 2024 and $6.6 billion cumulatively from 2021 to 2024, including $279 million directed to fossil fuel expansion companies in 2024. NAB has moved more aggressively than ANZ and Westpac: from October 2025, it requires the majority of fossil fuel extraction companies to have Paris-aligned transition plans in order to receive additional lending. NAB's share of Big Four fossil fuel financing to Exit List companies dropped from 43 percent in 2021 to just 9 percent in 2025. However, $6.6 billion in cumulative financing since 2021 remains material, and NAB continues to service existing fossil fuel relationships. |
| SCGLY | Société Générale | Societe Generale is France's third-largest bank. Banking on Climate Chaos 2025 ranks it #29 globally, with $11.2 billion in fossil fuel financing in 2024 and $37.9 billion cumulatively from 2021 to 2024. Among French banks, only BNP Paribas and Credit Agricole have provided more fossil fuel capital. Reclaim Finance reports that between 2021 and 2023 alone, Societe Generale directed $15.6 billion specifically to fossil fuel expansion companies. While the bank has reduced thermal coal exposure to below 0.1 percent of total outstandings and cut upstream oil and gas exposure by over 50 percent versus 2019, Reclaim Finance notes it continues to support oil and gas expansion and has not committed to ceasing financing for companies developing new fields. |
| DNKEY | Danske Bank | Danske Bank is Denmark's largest bank and one of the Nordic region's major financial institutions. Banking on Climate Chaos 2025 places it at #55 globally, with $1.1 billion in fossil fuel financing in 2024 and $4.2 billion cumulatively from 2021 to 2024. Despite this ranking, Danske Bank has taken notable steps: it became the world's first major bank to quit financing oil and gas exploration and production companies working to expand extraction, and in 2025 it removed over 1,700 fossil fuel-related companies from its investment universe. However, residual lending and underwriting relationships persist, and total cumulative financing since 2021 remains material. Danske sits alongside Nordea as one of only two Nordic banks in the BOCC Top 65. |
| ITUB | ITAU UNIBANCO HOLDING SA | Itau Unibanco is Latin America's largest bank by market capitalization, headquartered in Sao Paulo. Banking on Climate Chaos 2025 ranks it #42 globally, with $3.8 billion in fossil fuel financing in 2024 and $8.9 billion cumulatively from 2021 to 2024, including $1.6 billion directed to fossil fuel expansion companies in 2024 alone. Itau has been particularly active in financing Amazon-region fossil fuel development: it underwrote $1.3 billion in bonds for Eneva S.A., a company involved in fossil fuel operations on Indigenous lands in the Amazon. A 2025 investigation by Stand.earth and BankTrack identified Itau among eight banks responsible for the majority of $20 billion in financing for oil and gas companies operating in the Amazon basin. |
| BLK | BlackRock, Inc. | BlackRock manages approximately $400 billion in fossil fuel securities, making it the second-largest institutional fossil fuel investor globally (behind Vanguard). This includes $109 billion in the coal sector and $34 billion in companies developing new coal projects. In Q1 2025, BlackRock invested $3 billion in fossil fuel companies through funds labeled "sustainable." ClientEarth filed a greenwashing complaint with France's AMF (October 2024) targeting 18 BlackRock funds; BlackRock subsequently renamed 17 of 18, dropping "sustainable" from their names. BlackRock withdrew from the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative on January 9, 2025. Proxy voting support for environmental/social proposals collapsed from >40% (2021) to <2% (2025). |
| CIHHF | China Merchants Bank | China Merchants Bank (CMB) is a major financier of the fossil fuel industry. According to the Banking on Climate Chaos 2025 report (Rainforest Action Network et al.), CMB provided $50.0 billion in cumulative fossil fuel financing from 2021 to 2024. In 2024 alone, CMB provided $12.8 billion in fossil fuel financing, of which $11.4 billion went to oil, gas, and coal companies actively expanding fossil fuel operations. CMB was specifically identified as a leading Chinese bank financing coal mining — in 2023, 81% of the $42.5 billion in global coal mining finance came from Chinese banks, with CMB among the top five. CMB has no public commitment to phase out fossil fuel lending and is not a member of any net-zero banking alliance. |
| KB | KB FINANCIAL GROUP INC | KB Financial Group is South Korea's largest financial holding company, controlling Kookmin Bank. Banking on Climate Chaos 2025 ranks it #52 globally, with $1.6 billion in fossil fuel financing in 2024 and $7.6 billion cumulatively from 2021 to 2024. Notably, $1.2 billion of KB's 2024 financing went to companies actively expanding oil, gas, and coal extraction — meaning roughly 75 percent of its fossil fuel capital supports expansion. While KB Financial became the first Korean bank to stop funding new coal-fired power projects, it has not extended restrictions to upstream oil and gas or LNG. South Korean banks collectively remain significant financiers of global fossil fuel expansion, per a report by Solutions for Our Climate. |
| MFG | Mizuho | Mizuho Financial Group is one of the world's largest financiers of fossil fuels. According to the Banking on Climate Chaos reports (Rainforest Action Network et al.), Mizuho provided $40.3 billion in fossil fuel financing in 2024, ranking 4th globally. In 2023, Mizuho ranked 2nd globally with $37.0 billion in fossil fuel financing and $18.8 billion specifically for fossil fuel expansion projects. Mizuho was also among the worst funders of tar sands extraction. In March 2025, Mizuho withdrew from the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) along with Japan's other two megabanks (MUFG and SMBC), signaling retreat from climate commitments. Japanese megabanks collectively contributed 12% of all tracked fossil fuel financing in 2024. |
| CBA | COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA | Commonwealth Bank of Australia is the country's largest bank by market capitalization. Banking on Climate Chaos 2025 reports CBA provided $616 million in fossil fuel financing in 2024 and $2.9 billion cumulatively from 2021 to 2024, ranking approximately #60 globally. CBA has taken more aggressive steps than its Australian peers, requiring fossil fuel companies to disclose credible Paris-aligned transition plans since 2024. Its upstream oil and gas lending exposure has dropped 75 percent over three years. However, total cumulative financing since 2021 still runs to billions, and its residual exposure to fossil fuel expansion companies — $175 million in 2024 alone — warrants continued exclusion under ECIC standards. |
| CHCJY | China CITIC Bank | China CITIC Bank is a major financier of fossil fuel projects globally. According to the Fossil Fuel Finance Report 2021, the bank was a leading financier of coal power after the Paris Agreement, alongside Bank of China and ICBC. The report identifies multiple coal power case studies linked to its financing. Further analysis from 2023 notes that global money is flowing in the wrong direction, with Chinese banks like CITIC continuing to provide significant capital for fossil fuel expansion. The bank's own sustainability and ESG reports do not indicate a policy to restrict or phase out this financing activity, focusing instead on general environmental risk management without excluding fossil fuels. |
| Debt | BPCE/Natixis | Groupe BPCE, parent of investment bank Natixis, is France's second-largest banking group. Banking on Climate Chaos 2025 ranks BPCE #31 globally, with $11.0 billion in fossil fuel financing in 2024 and $37.5 billion cumulatively from 2021 to 2024, including $4.2 billion directed to fossil fuel expansion companies in 2024 alone. Reclaim Finance identifies BPCE as France's worst performer on climate among major banks: 11 of the 20 largest European banks have ended direct financing for all upstream oil and gas projects, but BPCE has not. Natixis ranks among the top five bond underwriters for major oil and gas companies and has channeled significant capital to gas developers in Southeast Asia. |
+ 28 more companies excluded under this screen
Sign in to see the full list. We cap the public list to keep our research from being scraped wholesale.
The Naughty List
A digest of changes to our exclusion list — new additions, removals, and the evidence behind them. We review the list continuously as new evidence surfaces.
RSS feed
No spam · Unsubscribe anytime