Blog
BankTrack news
BankTrack blog
Partner news
Partner blog
Bank
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG)Japan
Active
This profile is actively maintained
Last update: 2024-12-17 00:00:00
MUFG head office in Tokyo. Photo: Katamakura via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Active
This profile is actively maintained
Last update: 2024-12-17 00:00:00
Bank info
BankTrack campaigns
All
About
| Website | http://www.bk.mufg.jp/global/ |
| Headquarters |
7-1 Marunouchi 2-Chome Chiyoda
100-0005 Tokyo
Japan
|
| CEO/chair |
Hironori Kamezawa President & Group CEO |
| Supervisor | |
| Ownership |
listed on NYSE & Tokyo Stock Exchange
MUFG's shareholder structure can be accessed here. |
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) is a Japanese financial services company headquartered in Tokyo. The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, the largest bank in Japan, serves as its core retail, corporate, and investment banking arm. The bank was established on January 1 2006, through the merger of the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi and UFJ Bank. MUFG is the world's seventh largest bank by assets.
Sustainability
Commitments
Policies
Voluntary standards
MUFG's most important sustainability commitments can be found at the website sections listed below.
See MUFG's coal policy below:
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) has committed itself to the following voluntary standards:
Dodgy Deals
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) is linked to a number of companies and projects that BankTrack considers controversial (so called Dodgy Deals), e.g. as a current or past financier or through an expression of interest. The profiles below provide more details on the nature of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG)'s link to these deals.
Projects / Companies
Finance type
Year
News
BankTrack
Partners
Blog
External
Resources
Documents
Links
Accountability
Grievances
Response
tracking
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) is a member of the Japan Center for Engagement and Remedy on Business and Human Rights (JaCER), which operates a grievance mechanism based on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Engagement and Remedy Platform”. Individuals and communities affected by the bank’s finance can report human rights grievances here.
Stakeholders may also raise complaints via the OECD National Contact Points (see OECD Watch guidance).
MUFG is an Equator Principles signatory. While the Equator Principles have no official grievance mechanism, complaints relating to this bank's financing of Equator Principles projects can be filed through our own website www.equator-complaints.org.
This page evaluates Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG)'s responses to instances of alleged human rights violations linked to its finance, raised by civil society organisations. It is not intended to be exhaustive, but covers selected impacts raised by BankTrack and other civil society partners since 2016. For the full scoring methodology, see here. For more information about BankTrack's evaluation of bank responses to human rights impacts, see the 2021 report "Actions speak louder: assessing bank responses to human rights violations".
Impacts reviewed
Responded?
Total score
Response
Action
Monitoring
Santos' Barossa gas project, Australia (July 2023)
0
0
0
0
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank did not respond. Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank engaged with its client or took appropriate action. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank did not acknowledge the grievance brought by Equity Generation Lawyers or respond to it, despite having committed to the UNGPs. More info
Banks and Dirty Diesel: Vitol and Trafigura (May 2017)
0
0
0
0
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank publicly responded stating that it had "no comment to make at this time". Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank engaged with its client or took appropriate action. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank monitored progress. More info
East African Crude Oil Pipeline (March 2021)
1
0.5
0.5
0
Response
0.5
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank responded to civil society to indicate, in a statement shared publicly, that it is not involved in financing EACOP, but it did not speak to the substance of the issues raised. Action
0.5
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank took appropriate action by stating that it would not provide finance to the project; however, the bank remains exposed to TotalEnergies, the project developer, and it has not (yet) set out specific actions that it requires (or will require) the company to take to address the impacts raised. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank monitored measures taken by its client to address the impacts associated with the project. IOI Corporation labour standards violations (February 2016)
0
0
0
0
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank publicly responded citing client confidentiality. Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank engaged with its client or took appropriate action. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank monitored progress. More info
Myanmar: Equity exposure to companies linked to the military regime (October 2021)
0
0
0
0
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank, in response to an inquiry from the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, referenced its Environmental and Social Policy Framework and stated that it does not provide financing for transactions which violate public order and good morals. However, MUFG did not acknowledge its association with companies linked to the Myanmar junta and did not respond to the substance of the issues raised. Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank engaged with its client or investee companies or took appropriate action. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available about whether the bank monitored progress. More info
Rio Tinto's Jadar mine, Serbia (December 2021)
0
0
0
0
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank did not respond. Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank engaged with its client or took appropriate action. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information to indicate the bank is monitoring the actions of its clients, or actions it might itself have taken in response to the impacts raised. More info
ArcelorMittal steel impacts (June 2024)
0
0
0
n/a
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank responded but cited that they "refrain from commenting on the transactions of individual companies", but have shared the report with relevant parties. Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank engaged with its client or took appropriate action. Monitoring
n/a
Rationale for score
The impact was not raised over a year ago and therefore is not scored on monitoring progress. More info
JSW Utkal steel and coal, India (February 2025)
0
0
0
n/a
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank responded, stating: "due to confidentiality concerns, we would like to refrain from commenting on individual transactions." Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank stated it had shared the letter with the relevant internal parties, but no information is available on whether the bank engaged with its client or took appropriate action. Monitoring
n/a
Rationale for score
The impact was not raised over a year ago and therefore is not scored on monitoring progress. More info
Impacts of Indonesia’s state electricity company PLN (March 2025)
0
0
0
n/a
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank responded, stating: "Due to confidentiality concerns, we would like to refrain from commenting on individual transactions." Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information is available on whether the bank engaged with its client or took appropriate action. Monitoring
n/a
Rationale for score
The impact was not raised over a year ago and therefore is not scored on monitoring progress. More info
See the letter BankTrack sent the bank here.
Average
78%
0.11
0.06
0.06
0
Banks and Climate
Banks and Climate
The 2025 Banking on Climate Chaos report showed that Mitsubishi UFJ provided $155.3 bn in financing to the fossil fuel industry between 2021 and 2024. In 2024 only, Mitsubishi UFJ provided $38.1 bn, including $16.1 bn for oil, gas and coal companies expanding fossil fuels. Mitsubishi UFJ was one of the 10 largest fossil fuel financiers in 2024. Find further details on Mitsubishi UFJ's fossil fuel portfolio and how it compares to other large banks globally on the Banking on Climate Chaos website below.
Partner organisation Reclaim Finance tracks the coal, oil and gas policies of financial institutions, including banks, in their Coal Policy Tool (CPT) and the Oil and Gas Policy Tracker (OGPT). BankTrack works closely with Reclaim Finance and endorses their policy assessments. Find further details on their assessment of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group’s fossil fuel policy below.
False Solutions Tracker
BankLast update
Country
Wind Energy
Solar Energy
Geothermal Energy
Ocean Energy
Energy grids and storage
Hydropower
Hydrogen
Solid Biomass
Biofuels
CCUS
Nuclear Power
Details
Explanation
The purpose of the False Solutions Tracker is to give a clear overview of energy technologies that fall under banks' individual sustainable finance commitments. The tracker lists 11 energy technologies that are usually associated with the energy transition and the decarbonisation of the economy. These technologies are defined here and classified in three categories:
-
Real solutions: Technologies that deliver on a Just Transition towards Energy Democracy. BankTrack considers these technologies as real solutions only if and when they do deliver Energy Democracy.
-
Solutions under strict conditions: Energy technologies that could be real solutions if they deliver on a Just Transition towards Energy Democracy but that could also be false solutions. This is the case of hydrogen and hydropower. On one hand, fossil-free and green hydrogen could be a real solution under certain conditions. However, fossil-based hydrogen and nuclear hydrogen are always false solutions. On the other hand, hydropower lifespan extension could also be a real solution under strict conditions while hydropower expansion is a false solution.
-
False solutions: Energy technologies that are not aligned with a just transition towards Energy Democracy.
For each one of the 11 energy technologies, the tracker indicates if it is included in bank's individual sustainable finance commitments:
For Real solutions:
- : Yes, the bank includes its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
- : Yes, the bank includes its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting, but under certain conditions. In this case, those conditions are mentioned in the "relevant policy document" section for each bank.
- : No, the bank does not include its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
- : It is unclear whether the bank includes or not its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
For solutions under strict conditions and for false solutions:
- : Yes, the bank includes its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
- : Yes, the bank includes its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting, but under certain conditions. In this case, those conditions are mentioned in the "relevant policy document" section for each bank.
- : No, the bank does not include its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
- : It is unclear whether the bank includes or not its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
False Solutions Tracker expansion
BankLast update
Country
Wind Energy
Solar Energy
Geothermal Energy
Ocean Energy
Energy grids and storage
Hydropower
Hydrogen
Solid Biomass
Biofuels
CCUS
Nuclear Power
Details
Explanation
The purpose of the False Solutions Tracker is to give a clear overview of energy technologies that fall under banks' individual sustainable finance commitments. The tracker lists 11 energy technologies that are usually associated with the energy transition and the decarbonisation of the economy. These technologies are defined here and classified in three categories:
-
Real solutions: Technologies that deliver on a Just Transition towards Energy Democracy. BankTrack considers these technologies as real solutions only if and when they do deliver Energy Democracy.
-
Solutions under strict conditions: Energy technologies that could be real solutions if they deliver on a Just Transition towards Energy Democracy but that could also be false solutions. This is the case of hydrogen and hydropower. On one hand, fossil-free and green hydrogen could be a real solution under certain conditions. However, fossil-based hydrogen and nuclear hydrogen are always false solutions. On the other hand, hydropower lifespan extension could also be a real solution under strict conditions while hydropower expansion is a false solution.
-
False solutions: Energy technologies that are not aligned with a just transition towards Energy Democracy.
For each one of the 11 energy technologies, the tracker indicates if it is included in bank's individual sustainable finance commitments:
For Real solutions:
- : Yes, the bank includes its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
- : Yes, the bank includes its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting, but under certain conditions. In this case, those conditions are mentioned in the "relevant policy document" section for each bank.
- : No, the bank does not include its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
- : It is unclear whether the bank includes or not its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
For solutions under strict conditions and for false solutions:
- : Yes, the bank includes its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
- : Yes, the bank includes its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting, but under certain conditions. In this case, those conditions are mentioned in the "relevant policy document" section for each bank.
- : No, the bank does not include its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
- : It is unclear whether the bank includes or not its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
For more details see this page.
Banks and Human Rights
Banks and Human Rights
BankTrack assessed Mitsubishi UFJ in its 2024 Global Human Rights Benchmark, where it achieved 9 points out of 15 and was ranked as a “moderate achiever”.
The bank scored 0.5 out of 3 points on the new “specific rights indicators”, which assess how banks address human rights defenders, Indigenous Peoples’ right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and environmental rights in their policies and practices.
In addition, Mitsubishi UFJ scored 0.14 out of 3 on how it responds to alleged human rights violations linked to its finance, which were raised by civil society organisations. More information is detailed in the “Accountability” section of this profile.
The table below shows BankTrack's assessment of how Mitsubishi UFJ has implemented the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Please click on 'expand all details' and 'explanation' for further information on the methodology.
Our policy assessments are always a work in progress. We very much welcome any feedback, especially from banks included in the assessments. Please get in touch at humanrights@banktrack.org.
Global Human Rights Benchmark 2022
BankLast update
Country
Score
Ranking
Details
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG)
JPN
3.5
Follower
3.5
0
Explanation
Laggard
Follower
Front runner
Leader
0 - 3 points
3.5 - 6.5 points
7 - 10 points
10.5 - 14 points
For more details see this page.
Global Human Rights Benchmark 2024
BankLast update
Country
Score
Ranking
Details
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG)
JPN
9
Moderate achiever
9
0
Explanation
Laggard
Follower
Moderate achiever
Leader
0 - 3 points
3.5 - 7 points
7.5 - 10.5 points
11 - 15 points
For more details see this page.
Banks and Nature
Banks and Nature
MUFG’s policies for forest-risk sectors (beef, soy, palm oil, pulp and paper, rubber and timber) have been assessed by the Forests & Finance coalition, achieving an overall score of 5.4 out of 10 and ranking it as a front runner. MUFG achieved a score of 2.7 out of 10 specifically for its policies related to the beef sector and 6.3 out of 10 for its policies related to the palm oil sector. In addition, BankTrack and the Environmental Paper Network have assessed MUFG’s policies related to the pulp and paper sector.
Between 2016 and 2022, MUFG provided USD 7,364 million in credit to companies operating in these forest-risk sectors and held investments amounting to USD 145 million as of 2022. For more information, see the links below.
Forest & Finance Policy Assessment 2022: Overall scores
BankLast update
Country
Score
Ranking
Details
Explanation
A bank can obtain a total of 10 points for the quality of its policies. The total score is based on their scores per sector, weighted against their financing and investment for each sector. For further details on this see here. Based on their overall score, banks are then classified as Laggards, Followers, Front runners or Leaders, as follows:
Laggard
Follower
Front runner
Leader
0 - 1 points
1 - 4 points
4 - 7 points
7 - 10 points
For more details see this page.
Forest & Finance Policy Assessment 2022: Beef
BankLast update
Country
Score
Ranking
Details
Explanation
A bank can obtain a total of 10 points for the quality of its beef policy. The total score is based on their scores per sector, weighted against their financing and investment for each sector. For further details on this see here. Based on their overall score, banks are then classified as Laggards, Followers, Front runners or Leaders, as follows:
Laggard
Follower
Front runner
Leader
0 - 1 points
1 - 4 points
4 - 7 points
7 - 10 points
For more details see this page.
Forest & Finance Policy Assessment 2022: Palm Oil
BankLast update
Country
Score
Ranking
Details
Explanation
A bank can obtain a total of 10 points for the quality of its palm oil policy. The total score is based on their scores per sector, weighted against their financing and investment for each sector. For further details on this see here. Based on their overall score, banks are then classified as Laggards, Followers, Front runners or Leaders, as follows:
Laggard
Follower
Front runner
Leader
0 - 1 points
1 - 4 points
4 - 7 points
7 - 10 points
For more details see this page.
Tracking the NZBA
Tracking the Net Zero Banking Alliance
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) is a member of the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) and has therefore committed to reduce its financed emissions to net zero by 2050; within 18 months of joining the alliance set interim targets for 2030 (or sooner) for high emission priority sectors, and within 36 months set further sector targets; set new intermediary targets every 5 years from 2030 onwards; annually publish data on emissions and progress against a transition strategy including climate-related sectoral policies; and take a robust approach to the role of offsets in transition plans. BankTrack track's implementation of these commitments in the NZBA compliance tracker.
Banks and Russia
Banks and Russian Aggression in Ukraine
BankTrack is keeping track of the public response of MUFG (Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group) to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. MUFG did not publicly condemn the war. MUFG is considered by Leave-Russia.org to be "scaling back" its operations in Russia. We consider its exposure to Russia as limited, with over $ 2.2bn of financial assets. MUFG supports the Russian fossil fuel industry through investments, loans and underwriting. For further details, see the table linked below.
Banks and Steel
Banks and Steel
As part of the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), Mitsubishi UFJ Financial is required to set interim targets for 2030 for high emission priority sectors. For Mitsubishi UFJ Financial, this includes its lending to the steel sector. You can see Mitsubishi UFJ Financial’s iron and steel decarbonisation targets, and its progress towards meeting them in our NZBA steel targets compliance tracker:
Partner organisation Reclaim Finance’s 2023 report on metallurgical coal financing showed that Mitsubishi UFJ Financial provided US$ 21.2 billion in loans and underwriting to developers of new metallurgical coal between 2016 and 2022. Find further details on Mitsubishi UFJ Financial’s metallurgical coal financing and and how it compares to other large banks globally in the report.
Reclaim Finance tracks the metallurgical coal policies of financial institutions, including banks, in their Coal Policy Tool. BankTrack works closely with Reclaim Finance and endorses their policy assessments. Find further details on their assessment of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial’s metallurgical coal policy below.
According to a report by Reclaim Finance, between 2016 and June 2023, Mutsubishi UFJ Financial Group provided $5.5 billion in finance to the fossil-steel industry, making it the 26th largest financier worldwide. Find further details on Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group's steel financing and how it compares to other large banks globally in the report.
Good Moves
Good moves
Year:
Send feedback
on this profile