Banks
About Compare Banks
Market Forces is about “using your money as a force for good”. With our Compare Banks table we aim to show people which banks are investing in the fossil fuel industry. We’ve included 103 banks, mutuals and credit unions in our table and tried to make it easy for you to find information and take action to change your bank’s behaviour, or just change your bank!
We only publish what we know. The table is not intended to be a “ranking”. Rather, it aims to clearly present the information Market Forces has gathered so people can compare their current bank, credit union or building society’s position on investing in the fossil fuel industry against possible alternatives. The table only deals with the issue of fossil fuel investments and does not take into account other environmental and social issues.
It should be noted that Market Forces is not a financial adviser and we don’t make recommendations on where people should put their money. Compare Banks provides factual information and not general or personal advice. People should seek independent financial advice before making a decision in respect of their money.
All figures provided are in Australian Dollars (AUD), unless otherwise specified.
Did we forget a bank or credit union?
We have done our best to list every Australian bank, credit union and building society but if we’ve missed any please email us and we’ll add them to the table: [email protected]
Methodology – scope and data collection
This research analysed finance provided to global fossil fuel companies by retail banks operating in Australia between 2016 and 2023, alongside the banks’ current position on financing fossil fuels. It builds on our annual Banking Climate Failure research, which provides an in-depth analysis of finance to fossil fuels by the big four Australian banks (ANZ, Commonwealth Bank, NAB and Westpac) in the form of corporate and project loans (2016-2023) and bonds (2021-2023 only). For this analysis, data featured for the big four Australian banks was obtained from the 2024 Banking on Climate Chaos (BOCC) research by the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), Oil Change International (OCI), the Sierra Club, Reclaim Finance, Urgewald and CEED.
The fossil fuel finance data featured in BOCC includes loans, bonds and share issuance underwriting for fossil fuels between 2016-2023. We have chosen to use BOCC’s research as it covers the fossil fuel finance of international banks with a retail presence in Australia such as ING, HSBC, Bank of China and Rabobank as well as the big four Australian banks. The methodology of Banking Climate Failure differs slightly from that used in BOCC and for the sake of a consistent and comparative analysis across domestic and international banks we have chosen to use BOCC’s research and data in our Compare Banks table.
Banks
Includes banks operating in Australia which are registered with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) as either an ‘Australian-owned authorised deposit-taking institution’ or a ‘foreign subsidiary bank’. These categories represent retail banks which offer banking services to the general public and small businesses.
Financing
Includes corporate and project loans, bonds and share issuance underwriting between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2023. Financial transactions to fossil fuel companies were extracted as described under Fossil fuel companies below.
Finance data for ANZ, Commonwealth Bank, NAB, Westpac, Bank of China, HSBC, ING and Rabobank was obtained from BOCC. The BOCC methodology assesses fossil fuel financing by the 60 biggest banks globally. Each bank included in the BOCC report was given two opportunities to comment on financing attributed to them and all feedback, clarifying questions and rebuttals were responded to.
For approximately 73% of the transactions in the BOCC dataset, the individual contributions of each bank were not reported. In order to fill in the gaps, BOCC uses an allocation formula developed by Netherlands-based research consultancy, Profundo, which is based on banks’ roles in transactions, the number of participants and the type of financing. The value of the transaction is thus divided among all known participants, with a greater share allocated to the banks in leading roles (bookrunners). Profundo has developed this approach over the course of a decade and have sought feedback from banks on their approach, and regularly consult with finance professionals to check their assumptions.
BOCC reports fossil fuel finance data in USD. For this analysis, an average exchange rate for USD to AUD was used for each year from 2016 to 2023 to convert the reported figures into the local currency. Exchange rates were sourced from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) website.
Financial transactions data for AMP, Arab Bank, Bank of Queensland and Macquarie, which were not in the scope of the BOCC research, were collected by Market Forces and analysed using the same approach as BOCC. The analysis found that of these, AMP and Bank of Queensland had no record of funding fossil fuels since 2016. The fossil fuel finance data attributed to Arab Bank and Macquarie as part of this analysis was shared with both banks as an opportunity to provide feedback. Macquarie disputed the total amount attributed to the bank since 2016 as overstating their contribution, largely due to Macquarie’s share of certain transactions where its individual contributions were not disclosed and the BOCC methodology was applied to estimate its contribution to the transaction. However, Macquarie was unable to provide supporting evidence for an alternative figure that justified departing from the methodology used for all other banks.
Each transaction identified was in USD and was converted to AUD based on the exchange rate of the day the deal was finalised.
No financial transaction data was found for the remaining banks featured in this table. In these cases, we sought a position statement on financing fossil fuels, as summarised under Position statements below.
Fossil fuel companies
Fossil fuel companies were identified using the same methodology and fossil fuels company list as the BOCC research.
Allocating financing to fossil fuels for diversified companies
For finance to diversified companies involved in sectors outside the fossil fuel supply chain, the total value of the transaction was proportionally adjusted to reflect the proportion of the company’s business involved in fossil fuels.
Where available, we used the ‘adjuster’ factors used by RAN and partners in their BOCC research. For the remaining financial transactions, we based these calculations on companies’ most recent revenue information, obtained from company filings, reports and market disclosures.
Position statements
Many banks and credit unions in the table did not appear in our research as having funded the fossil fuel industry since 2016. In these cases, we sought a position statement on financing fossil fuels online (bank webpages and reports). We then approached each bank that did not have a current position statement by email to request their current position. All position statements are current as of December 2024. All position statements shown in the table are unedited unless for brevity purposes.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Sierra Club, Reclaim Finance, Urgewald and CEED for sharing their excellent Banking on Climate Chaos research with us. In particular, we are very grateful for the support of Caleb Schwartz, Research and Policy Analyst at RAN, and April Merleaux, Research Manager at RAN.
Disclaimer
We have tried to capture as much information as possible in this table, but a lack of transparency about fossil fuel finance means that the financing data featured here likely only represents a partial picture.
Most banks in this analysis report on their ‘fossil fuel exposure’, which is the amount ‘on their books’ on the reporting date.
However, the reporting methodologies of the banks are not consistent. Some banks report their exposure to the full fossil fuel value chain and some only report exposure to certain segments. Additionally, some banks report the full extent of their lending exposure (i.e. all money made available to a company), while some report only the total predicted loss a bank may face if the borrower defaults (i.e. outstanding debt at the time of default).
These inconsistencies make cross-bank exposure comparisons difficult, but in the interests of transparency we have also published each banks’ reported fossil fuel exposure for the latest financial year (as of January 2025).
Banks’ latest reported fossil fuel exposure
ANZ
Source: 2024 Climate-Related Financial Disclosures
Exposure reported as ‘Exposure at Default’ as of 30 September 2024.
Oil and gas: $13.1bn
Coal: $0.7bn
Total reported: $13.8bn
ANZ reported $13.8bn in fossil fuel exposure in FY2024. However, ANZ also reported $13.1bn in exposure to ‘Electric Utilities’ which “includes exposures to electricity generators that own or operate a mix of thermal and renewable generation assets as well as transmission and distribution infrastructure.” While no breakdown has been provided of the mix of fossil fuel/renewables electric utilities exposures, the presence of fossil fuel electric utilities in ANZ’s exposure means that exposure to fossil fuels is certainly higher than the $13.8bn reported.
Commonwealth Bank
Source: 2024 Climate Report
Exposure reported as ‘Total Committed Exposure’ as of 30 June 2024.
Oil and gas: $6.5bn (includes LNG terminals, oil and gas shipping including FPSOs, pipelines, petroleum refining, automotive fuel retailing, petroleum product wholesaling and marketing and gas supply, as well as upstream oil and gas exploration and production)
Coal: $1.4bn (includes thermal and metallurgical coal mining and coal terminals).
Non-renewable power generation (breakdown not provided): $1.5 billion
Total reported: $9.4bn
NAB
Source: NAB 2024 Full Year Results Investor Presentation
Exposure reported as ‘Exposure at Default’ as of 30 September 2024.
Oil and gas: $2.23bn (includes oil and gas extraction, and gas-fired power generation)
Coal: $0.43bn (includes metallurgical coal and thermal coal mining)
Other/mixed fuel (non-renewable): $1.38bn
Total reported: $4bn
NAB does not report its exposure to the full fossil fuel value chain, leaving out projects such as coal terminals and gas pipelines.
Westpac
Source: Westpac 2024 Climate Report
Exposure reported as ‘Total Committed Exposure’ as of 30 September 2024.
Oil and gas: $7.1bn (includes oil and gas exploration, oil and gas extraction and terminals, oil and gas refining, oil and gas distribution and retail and fuel retailing and gas supply)
Coal: $0.55bn (includes thermal coal mining, metallurgical coal mining, and coal ports)
Fossil fuel power generation: $0.8bn (includes generation from gas, black and brown coal, and liquid fuel)
Total reported: $9.2bn
Macquarie
Source: Macquarie 2024 ESG Dataset
Exposure reported as ‘Exposure at Default’ as of 31 March 2023.
Macquarie Bank was the only major Australian bank that did not report its fossil fuel exposure in FY24, despite doing so in the previous two years.
Macquarie’s latest reported fossil fuel exposure was in FY23. Reported exposure includes on-balance sheet lending and equity investments for all sectors.
Oil and gas: $2bn
Coal: less than $0.1bn
Total reported: $2bn
ING
Source: ING Group Climate Progress Update 2024
Exposure reported as of 30 June 2024, converted from Euro to AUD based on 1 July 2024 exchange rate.
Upstream oil and gas: $1.94bn
Mid- and downstream oil and gas: $10.5bn
Total reported: $12.4bn
ING also reported $16.3bn of exposure to companies/projects in ‘Power Generation’, which includes both fossil fuel power and renewables but is reported in aggregate. The presence of fossil fuel electric utilities in ING’s exposure means that exposure to fossil fuels is certainly higher than the $12.4bn reported.
Bank of China
Bank of China (BOC) does not publicly report its fossil fuel exposure. BOC’s 2024 Interim Report only disclosed its exposure to two broad sectors, listed below.
Exposure reported as of 30 June 2024, converted from Chinese Yuan to AUD based on 1 July 2024 exchange rate.
Production and supply of electricity, heating, gas and water: $237.9bn
Mining: $53.24bn
Arab Bank
Arab Bank has not reported its fossil fuel exposure in its most recent ESG Reports and Annual Reports.
HSBC
Source: HSBC ESG Datapack 2022
Exposure reported as of 31 December 2022, converted from USD to AUD based 30 December 2022 exchange rate.
HSBC did not report its fossil fuel exposure in FY23, but did in FY2022.
Oil and gas: $25.7bn
Total reported: $25.7bn
HSBC also reported $20.8bn of exposure to ‘Metals and mining’ which likely includes coal mining and $33.9bn to ‘Power and utilities’ which includes a mix of renewables and fossil fuel power generation. HSBC does not detail how much of its substantial exposure to these industries is for fossil fuels, but its fossil fuel exposure is certainly higher than the amount reported for oil and gas alone.
Join us
Subscribe for email updates: be part of the movement taking action to protect our climate.