A bank can obtain a total of 200 policy points for its fossil fuel policies; 120 possible points for oil and gas policies and 80 possible points for coal policies. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards, followers, front runners or leaders.

The scores for a bank's policies restricting expansion of fossil fuels - in each area, prohibitions against financing projects and/or companies expanding that area - are aggregated into a fossil fuel expansion policy score.

The point-based policy ranking for fossil fuel expansion consists of the following distribution:

• Coal mining: 14 points​
• Coal power: 14 points
• Other coal: 7 points
• Tar sands: 7 points
• Arctic oil and gas: 7 points
• Offshore oil and gas: 7 points
• Fracked oil and gas: 7 points
• LNG: 7 points
• Other oil and gas: 12 points

A bank can obtain a total of 82 policy points for its fossil fuel expansion policy. Based on this score, banks are then classified as laggards, followers, front runners or leaders.

For tar sands, Arctic oil and gas, fracked oil and gas, offshore oil and gas and LNG, 18 possible policy points can be obtained. For other/conventional oil and gas, 30 policy points can be obtained. In total, a bank can score a total of 120 policy points for its oil and gas policies. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards, followers, front runners or leaders.

The point-based policy ranking above assesses bank policies in four ways:

1) Restriction on direct financing for tar sands projects.

• None (0), weak exclusion (1), moderate exclusion (2), strong exclusion (3)

2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand tar sands.

• None (0), weak exclusion (2), strong exclusion (4)

3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for tar sands.

• None (0), reduction (1.5), weak phase-out (3), strong phase-out (5)

4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in tar sands above a certain threshold.

• None (0), enhanced due diligence (0.5), weak exclusion threshold (2), moderate exclusion threshold (4), strong exclusion threshold (5), full exclusion (6)

A bank can obtain a total of 18 policy points for its tar sands policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards, followers, front runners or leaders.

The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:

1) Restriction on direct financing for Arctic oil and gas projects.

• None (0), weak exclusion (1), moderate exclusion (2), strong exclusion (3)

2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand Arctic oil and gas. 

• None (0), weak exclusion (2), strong exclusion (4)

3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for Arctic oil and gas.

• None (0), reduction (1.5), weak phase-out (3), strong phase-out (5)

4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in Arctic oil and gas above a certain threshold.

• None (0), enhanced due diligence (0.5), weak exclusion threshold (2), moderate exclusion threshold (4), strong exclusion threshold (5), full exclusion (6)

A bank can obtain a total of 18 policy points for its Arctic oil and gas policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards, followers, front runners or leaders.

The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:

1) Restriction on direct financing for offshore oil and gas projects.

• None (0), weak exclusion (1), strong exclusion (3)

2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand offshore oil and gas.

• None (0), weak exclusion (2), strong exclusion (4)

3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for offshore oil and gas.

• None (0), reduction (1.5), weak phase-out (3), strong phase-out (5)

4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in offshore oil and gas above a certain threshold.

• None (0), enhanced due diligence (0.5), weak exclusion threshold (2), strong exclusion threshold (5), full exclusion (6)

A bank can obtain a total of 18 policy points for its offshore oil and gas policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards, followers, front runners or leaders.

The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:

1) Restriction on direct financing for fracked oil and gas projects.

• None (0), weak exclusion (1), moderate exclusion (2), strong exclusion (3)

2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand oil and gas fracking.

• None (0), weak exclusion (2), strong exclusion (4)

3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for oil and gas fracking.

• None (0), reduction (1.5), weak phase-out (3), strong phase-out (5)

4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in oil and gas fracking above a certain threshold.

• None (0), enhanced due diligence (0.5), weak exclusion threshold (2), moderate exclusion threshold (4), strong exclusion threshold (5), full exclusion (6)

A bank can obtain a total of 18 policy points for its fracking policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards, followers, front runners or leaders.

The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:

1) Restriction on direct financing for LNG projects.

• None (0), weak exclusion (1), strong exclusion (3)

2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand LNG.

• None (0), weak exclusion (2), strong exclusion (4)

3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for LNG.

• None (0), reduction (1.5), weak phase-out (3), strong phase-out (5)

4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in LNG above a certain threshold.

• None (0), enhanced due diligence (0.5), weak exclusion threshold (2), strong exclusion threshold (5), full exclusion (6)

A bank can obtain a total of 18 policy points for its LNG policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards, followers, front runners or leaders.

The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:

1) Restriction on direct financing for other/conventional oil and gas projects.

• None (0), weak exclusion (1.5), strong exclusion (5)

2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand other/conventional oil and gas. 

• None (0), weak exclusion (3), strong exclusion (7)

3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for other/conventional oil and gas.

• None (0), financing reduction (1.5), weak phase-out (6), strong phase-out (8)

4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in other/conventional oil and gas above a certain threshold.

• None (0), enhanced due diligence/Equator Principles commitment (0.5), weak exclusion threshold (3), strong exclusion threshold (7), full exclusion (10)

A bank can obtain a total of 30 policy points for its other/conventional oil and gas policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards, followers, front runners or leaders.

For both coal mining and coal power, 32 possible policy points can be obtained, while for other coal,16 possible policy points can be obtained. So a bank can obtain a total of 80 policy points for its coal policies. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards, followers, front runners or leaders.

The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:

1) Restriction on direct financing for coal mining projects.

• None (0), mountaintop removal mining exclusion (0.5), weak exclusion (2), moderate exclusion (4), strong exclusion (6)

2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand coal mining.

• None (0), weak exclusion (4), strong exclusion (8)

3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for coal mining.

• None (0), exposure reduction (1.5), financing reduction (3), weak phase-out (4), moderate phase-out (6), strong phase-out (8)

4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in coal mining above a certain threshold.

• None (0), enhanced due diligence (0.5), weak exclusion threshold (3), moderate exclusion threshold (5), strong exclusion threshold (8), full exclusion (10)

A bank can obtain a total of 32 policy points for its coal mining policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards, followers, front runners or leaders.

The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:

1) Restriction on direct financing for coal power projects.

• None (0), weak exclusion (2), moderate exclusion (4), strong exclusion (6)

2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand coal power.

• None (0), weak exclusion (4), strong exclusion (8)

3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for coal power.

• None (0), proportional reduction (1), exposure reduction (1.5), financing reduction (3), weak phase-out (4), moderate phase-out (6), strong phase-out (8)

4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in coal power above a certain threshold.

• None (0), enhanced due diligence (0.5), weak exclusion threshold (3), moderate exclusion threshold (5), strong exclusion threshold (8), full exclusion (10)

A bank can obtain a total of 32 policy points for its coal power policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards, followers, front runners or leaders.

The point-based policy ranking assesses bank policies in four ways:

1) Restriction on direct financing for coal infrastructure projects.

• None (0), weak exclusion (1), strong exclusion (3)

2) Restriction on financing for companies that expand coal infrastructure.

• None (0), weak exclusion (2), strong exclusion (4)

3) The bank’s commitment to phase-out financing for coal infrastructure.

• None (0), exposure reduction (1), weak phase-out (2), strong phase-out (4)

4) The bank’s commitment to exclude companies active in coal infrastructure above a certain threshold.

• None (0), enhanced due diligence (0.5), weak exclusion threshold (2), strong exclusion threshold (4), full exclusion (5)

A bank can obtain a total of 16 policy points for its coal infrastructure policy. Based on this score banks are then classified as laggards (0-4 points), followers (4.5-8 points), front runners (8.5-12 points) or leaders (12.5-16 points)

Project name reporting status of Equator Principles signatories for each financial institutions' most recent reporting period. Where there is no percentage presented the EPFI has not reported having financed any project transactions in that reporting period.