BANKS DODGY DEALS CAMPAIGNS
About BankTrack
Visit us
Organisation
Our team
Our board
Guiding principles
Team up with us
Jobs at BankTrack
Our annual reports
Funding and finances
History
BankTrack in the media
Our privacy policy
Donate
2023-03-17 00:00:00
Briefing: The role of financial institutions in decarbonising the steel sector
2023-03-09 00:00:00
Dutch bank ING supports controversial pipeline to import gas from authoritarian Azerbaijan
2023-02-23 00:00:00
Financial institutions need to address steelmaking’s coal addiction
2023-02-07 00:00:00
What COP15 means for banks: meeting the Global Biodiversity Framework requires protecting Indigenous rights and divesting from harmful industries
2023-03-20 08:50:41
Who dares to finance Eni and Exxon’s dangerous Rovuma gas plans in Mozambique?
2023-03-14 14:59:00
New ING policy could spark bank shift away from financing oil and gas infrastructure
2023-02-24 13:46:14
Pego power station conversion plans halted
2022-12-14 11:08:26
HSBC announces it will no longer finance new oil and gas fields
Connect
2022-11-22 00:00:00
Banking on Thin Ice: Two years in the heat
2022-11-17 00:00:00
BankTrack Global Human Rights Benchmark 2022
2022-10-21 00:00:00
Burning forests in the name of clean energy? How banks are failing to exclude the harmful wood biomass industry from finance
2022-06-28 00:00:00
The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP): Finance Risk Update No. 3
2022-04-05 00:00:00
The BankTrack Human Rights Benchmark Asia
2022-03-30 00:00:00
Banking on Climate Chaos 2022
See all publications
Sections
Banks Dodgy Deals Campaigns
Our campaigns
Banks and Climate
Banks and Human Rights
Banks and Nature
Banks and Pandemics
Our projects
Tracking the NZBA
Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine
Tracking the Equator Principles
Tracking the PRBs
Find a Better Bank
Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances History BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter Login
Home › BankTrack news ›
BankTrack News

Most banks failing to deliver on UN human rights principles: new research

BankTrack releases 2016 update of "Banking with Principles?" report
2016-06-27 | Nijmegen
By: BankTrack
Contact:

Ryan Brightwell, Banks and Human Rights Campaign Coordinator: ryan@banktrack.org

"Banking with Principles? 2016 Update" front cover image. Photo: BankTrack
2016-06-27 | Nijmegen
By: BankTrack
Contact:

Ryan Brightwell, Banks and Human Rights Campaign Coordinator: ryan@banktrack.org

  • 45 banks benchmarked and ranked on integration of UN Guiding Principles
  • Over half of banks are “laggards”, showing little or no evidence of human rights due diligence
  • Report identifies three major gaps that all banks are failing to address

Most banks have made little progress towards meeting UN human rights principles introduced five years ago this month, and even the most advanced banks have significant gaps in their approach. These are the conclusions of the second edition of BankTrack's "Banking with Principles?" report, a major benchmarking study released today.

The report evaluated 45 of the largest banks globally on their progress towards integrating the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights into their policies, due diligence processes and reporting. The report comes five years after the Principles were unanimously endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in June 2011. Banks were ranked against 12 criteria based on the text of the UN Principles, in four categories: policies, due diligence commitments, reporting and provision of access to remedy.

More than half of the banks assessed (24 out of 45) scored 3 out of 12 or less, showing little or no evidence that they are actively assessing the potential human rights impacts of their finance. These laggards include major Western banks such as Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Société Générale, Crédit Agricole, Morgan Stanley, Standard Chartered and Bank of America, as well as the "big three" Japanese banks and all four Chinese banks assessed.

Eight banks were identified as front-runners, scoring more than 6 out 12. Rabobank and Citi topped the list, followed by ANZ, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and UBS. All have developed human rights policies and due diligence processes, and report on their human rights impacts to some degree. However, no bank scored more than 8 out of 12, indicating that all have substantial progress to make before they are fulfilling their human rights responsibilities.

The report also identifies three requirements from the UN Guiding Principles that are not being met by any of the banks assessed. Firstly, no banks showed clearly how they include meaningful consultation with potentially affected people in their human rights due diligence. Secondly, bank reporting on specific human rights impacts was limited and insufficient to evaluate how banks had responded. Thirdly, no banks have yet met the requirement to establish or participate in effective complaint mechanisms.

Fifteen banks improved their scores since BankTrack's first "Banking with Principles?" report in December 2014; half of the 30 banks assessed in both reports. Of the remainder, 13 showed no progress and two declined slightly.

The report follows two Human Rights Impact Briefings published by BankTrack earlier this year, which focus on links between bank finance and serious allegations of human rights abuses: the first looks at labour standards violations in IOI Corporation's Malaysian plantations, and the second at Drummond and paramilitary violence in Colombia. Banks were invited to respond to show how they had met their responsibilities to attempt to avoid or mitigate these impacts, however most banks were unwilling to provide details on the actions they had taken in specific cases.

Ryan Brightwell, BankTrack's human rights campaign coordinator, commented: "The Guiding Principles are a standard of business conduct that is expected by UN member states. Yet we have to conclude that, five years on from their adoption, the level of implementation in the banking sector remains poor.

"It is particularly worrying that banks are apparently ignoring important principles entirely, especially those which require them to ensure that people potentially affected by their finance have their voices heard. Such alarming gaps call into question whether the essentially self-regulatory approach of the UN Guiding Principles is working. "

Andreas Missbach of the Berne Declaration, a BankTrack board member, commented, "Already in 2013 the Thun Group of banks issued a discussion paper that made clear that bank human rights policies should ‘establish clear accountabilities and allocation of responsibility, monitoring and reporting requirements and an escalation procedure for evaluating risks'. That two of the seven signatories of this discussion paper (BBVA and RBS) do not meet this basic requirement is worrying. Equally disappointing is the fact that four of the initial signatories, including Credit Suisse and UBS, did not improve at all since BankTrack's first assessment."

Footnotes:

The Banking with Principles? Second Edition is available here.

The first version of "Banking with Principles?", published in December 2014, is available here.

The Human Rights Impact Briefings are available here.

Update: "Banking with Principles?"  on BHRRC:

In September 2016 the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) published the above report together with six responses from banks. BHRRC invited 6 banks to respond to the findings: Santander, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Credit Agricole, Bank of America and Sumitomo Mitsui (all banks which had not responded to BankTrack for the first or second Banking with Principles reports). Responses from Credit Agricole, HSBC, Santander, and Sumitomo Mitsui were recieved. Bank of America and Goldman Sachs did not respond. 

Results by region

BWP II results per region

Click map to view full size.

 

Summary table of results

 

 

 TRUE LEADERS: 9.5  - 12 points

There are no banks in this category

 

 

FRONT RUNNERS: 6.5 – 9 points

 

Policy

Due dil.

Reporting

Remedy

Total

Trend

Rabobank

3

2.5

2

0.5

8

▲ 

Citi

3

2

2

0.5

7.5

▲ 

ANZ

1

2.5

2

1

6.5

▲ 

Barclays

3

2

1

0.5

6.5

▲ 

BNP Paribas

3

1.5

2

0

6.5

▲ 

Credit Suisse

3

2

1

0.5

6.5

↔  

Deutsche Bank

3

2

1

0.5

6.5

▲ 

UBS

3

2

1.5

0

6.5

↔ 

 

 

FOLLOWERS: 3.5 –6 points

 

Policy

Due dil.

Reporting

Remedy

Total

Change

Nordea Bank

3

1.5

1.5

0

6

New

Unicredit

3

1.5

1

0.5

6

  ▲ 

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

3

1.5

1

0

5.5

New

ING Group

3

2

0.5

0

5.5

 ↔  

RBS Group

3

1.5

0.5

0

5

 ▲ 

Wells Fargo

3

1

1

0

5

 ▲ 

Westpac Banking Corp

3

1

0.5

0.5

5

New

Commerzbank

2

1.5

1

0

4.5

▲ 

Intesa Sanpaolo

1

1

1.5

0.5

4

New

JPMorgan Chase & Co

2

2

0

0

4

 ↔ 

Banco Santander

3

0.5

0

0

3.5

 ▼ 

BBVA

2

0.5

0.5

0.5

3.5

▲ 

Itaú Unibanco

2

0

0.5

1

3.5

New

 

 

 

 

LAGGARDS: 0 – 3 points

 

Policy

Due dil.

Reporting

Remedy

Total

Change

BMO Financial Group

2

0

1

0

3

New

Caixa Econômica Federal

2

0

1

0

3

New

Goldman Sachs

2

1

0

0

3

↔

HSBC

2.5

0

0.5

0

3

▲

Mizuho Financial Group

1

1

1

0

3

▲

National Australia Bank

1

0.5

1

0.5

3

New

Société Générale

1

0.5

0.5

0.5

2.5

▲

Banco do Brasil

1.5

0.5

0

0

2

New

Crédit Agricole

1.5

0.5

0

0

2

↔

Lloyds Banking Group

2

0

0

0

2

New

Morgan Stanley

1

1

0

0

2

↔

Bank of Nova Scotia

1

0

0.5

0

1.5

New

Standard Chartered

1

0.5

0

0

1.5

▲

Banco Bradesco

0

0

1

0

1

New

Bank of America

0.5

0.5

0

0

1

▲

Crédit Mutuel Group

0

0

0.5

0

0.5

New

Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)

0

0

0.5

0

0.5

↔

Royal Bank of Canada

0.5

0

0

0

0.5

New

Sumitomo Mitsui 

0

0

0.5

0

0.5

↔

Toronto-Dominion Bank

0

0

0.5

0

0.5

New

Agricultural Bank of China

0

0

0

0

0

↔

Bank of China

0

0

0

0

0

↔

China Construction Bank 

0

0

0

0

0

↔

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial 

0

0

0

0

0

▲

 

Sections
Banks Policies Dodgy Deals Campaigns
Our campaigns
Banks and Climate Banks and Human Rights Banks and Nature Banks and Pandemics
Our projects
Tracking the NZBA Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine Tracking the Equator Principles Tracking the PRBs Find a Better Bank Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances History BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Vismarkt 15
6511 VJ Nijmegen
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 24 324 9220
Contact@banktrack.org
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter
©2022 BankTrack
BankTrack is a registered charity in the Netherlands (ANBI) - RSIN 813874658
Find our privacy policy here

Stay up to date

Sign up now for all BankTrack's news


Make a comment

Your comment will be reviewed, before being posted