There's a lot of attention right now on what banks are financing and what that means for the climate transition. We think that's a good thing. The more eyes on how capital flows to and from carbon-intensive activity, the better – for investors, for issuers, and for the banks themselves.
Who is lending money to the fossil industry?
Banking on Climate Chaos recently released their new report,[1] which has got the conversation started.[2] It shines a valuable light on which banks have lend the most money to the fossil fuel industry – with the headline figure of USD906bn committed in 2025, a rise of 8% on 2024.
AFII league tables
For over three years we have also been monitoring banks’ role in supporting the fossil fuel industry. Our work comes from a complementary angle.
Firstly, we focus on syndication fees rather than financing volumes. This is the cash generated by banks for helping borrowers issue bonds or loans into the capital markets. We think that matters for a few reasons. Fees are the revenue banks actually optimise for: they're capital-light, sit outside balance-sheet risk charges, and often fall outside the scope of banks' own sustainability policies, which tend to focus on direct lending. By following the fees, you're looking at the part of the business that most directly drives behaviour, and you're measuring it in the currency a bank's own desks respond to.
The second difference is that we net green activities against fossil. Rather than counting only what a bank finances on the fossil side, we offset it against the aligned business they do. That gives a view not just of who is exposed, but of who is actively supporting the transition – which banks are putting their syndication capacity behind green issuance, not only stepping back from brown. For investors thinking about the transition as something to finance rather than only to divest from, that two-sided picture is the one that counts.
We’ve released the latest league tables today, which can be viewed and interacted with on our webpage here.
The Box
We’ve identified the banks actively supporting fossil financing, but how do investors leverage their influence for better outcomes?
We call this workstream ‘the Box’, after an age-old market practise of putting a bank ‘in the box’ when you no longer trade with them to sanction inappropriate behaviour. Such ‘responsible procurement’ thinking can be used alongside bank league tables to ensure that all financial services are procured only from banks aligned with investor values.
By using AFII league tables in counterparty selection - a basis to reward the banks doing the right thing with more business, and to raise the harder questions with those who aren't. Information only changes behaviour when it's put to work, and the most powerful lever investors have is the business they choose to direct.
If you'd like to understand how The Box works, or how to use it to engage your banking counterparties, we'd be glad to talk. Reach out, we're always happy to walk through it.
[1] “Fossil fuel finance report 2026”, Banking on Climate Chaos, accessed 15 Jun 2026.
[2] “World’s largest banks pledged $906 bn to fossil fuel companies in ‘unfathomable’ increase in 2025, report finds”, The Guardian, 09 Jun 2026.
