Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
There is no single score that tells you whether a bank is climate-aligned. Compare three things separately: the quality and progress of its climate commitments, its financing for fossil-fuel companies—especially companies expanding production—and its financing for low-carbon energy. Then check what each source counts, which banks it covers, and the year measured. A bank ranking describes only the measure behind it; it is not a complete verdict on the bank or a trace of your deposits.
Start with the right kind of comparison
A net-zero pledge, a fossil-fuel financing estimate, and a low-carbon finance total answer different questions. Treat them as separate evidence, not ingredients in an unexplained composite score.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Climate Finance | $44.23 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Climate Economics and Finance | $38.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Climate Capital: Investing in the Tools for a Regenerative Future | $26.95 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Climate Finance: Taking a Position on Climate Futures (Economic Transformations, 31) | $29.95 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Climate Finance With Big Data Analytics | $98.00 | Buy on Amazon |
- Commitments and implementation: What does the bank promise, what activities and sectors are covered, and does it disclose progress?
- Fossil-fuel financing: How much financing does a dataset attribute to the bank, and what transaction types and companies count?
- Expansion and low-carbon finance: Does the bank finance companies expanding fossil fuels, and how does its low-carbon financing compare under the same source’s definitions?
For a bank-by-bank comparison, identify the bank entity and year, and keep each dataset’s measure distinct. Banking on Climate Chaos and the OECD use different samples, scopes, and financing definitions, so their totals should not be merged into one ranking without a defensible method for making them comparable.
Assess what a climate commitment actually covers
A net-zero target is a starting point, not proof that a bank has stopped financing fossil fuels. World Resources Institute notes that commitments vary in breadth and depth. Review the target’s boundaries and the bank’s evidence of implementation rather than relying on a pledge or alliance membership alone. The Transition Pathway Initiative Centre’s Banking Tool provides a structured framework covering strategy, governance, exposure and emissions disclosure, and target alignment.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstall#1 Best Overall
Target coverage and milestones
- Sectors and activities: See which parts of the economy and banking activity the target includes. A narrow boundary can leave significant financing outside the target.
- Emissions metric: Check whether the bank uses absolute emissions or an emissions-intensity measure, and what that means for interpreting progress.
- Baseline and dates: Record the baseline year, interim milestones, and end date. A distant end date without meaningful interim checkpoints offers limited evidence of near-term change.
- Benchmark alignment: Check what benchmark or pathway the bank uses and whether the assessment evaluates its targets against low-carbon benchmarks.
Governance, disclosure, and delivery
Look for board and senior-management oversight, a transition plan, clear accountability, and disclosure of progress against interim targets. A commitment is more assessable when the bank explains how it intends to meet it and reports measurable progress. Note the assessment year and bank sample when using a third-party framework such as TPI’s; its assessment does not automatically cover every bank or every aspect of climate impact.
Read fossil-fuel financing figures in context
“Fossil-fuel financing” is not one universal accounting measure. Banking on Climate Chaos includes lending and debt and equity underwriting. The OECD’s energy-supply estimate includes recourse debt, public equity, project finance, and tax equity. These are defined measures of bank-facilitated financing, not a record of where a particular customer’s deposit went. See the Banking on Climate Chaos methodology and the OECD’s review for their respective scopes.
Rank #2
The OECD’s June 2026 review estimates that close to 1,400 large banks provided almost USD 1.1 trillion in fossil-fuel energy-supply financing in 2024, compared with just under USD 1 trillion in low-carbon energy-supply financing. Those are 2024 flows for the report’s stated categories and bank sample—not totals directly comparable with a differently defined dataset.
Banking on Climate Chaos’s 2026 report covers 65 banks. Rainforest Action Network’s June 8, 2026 release says those banks committed USD 906 billion to fossil-fuel companies in 2025 and USD 8.7 trillion since the Paris Agreement. The report also puts 2025 financing for companies expanding fossil fuels at USD 508 billion, a 27% increase from the prior year. That expansion figure applies to the report’s defined company set; consult its 2026 data overview and methodology before comparing it with another source or year.
Recommended Free Tools
These estimates do not establish an exhaustive worldwide total or show that an individual customer’s money funded a particular transaction. The OECD cautions: “Continued limitations in granular and standardised global data on banks’ holdings and new investments prevent a comprehensive climate assessment of their portfolios.”
Separate general fossil-fuel finance from expansion
A bank’s total financing to fossil-fuel companies and its financing to companies expanding fossil fuels are related but distinct measures. The latter helps answer whether financing is associated with businesses developing additional fossil-fuel supply or infrastructure. The Banking on Climate Chaos 2026 dataset tracks expansion companies and breaks out upstream, midstream, and power expansion categories.
When reviewing an expansion figure, check the report’s company list and definitions. Then note which categories are included—for example, new extraction, pipelines, LNG infrastructure, or fossil-fuel power development. A project-level restriction may coexist with financing to a company involved in expansion elsewhere, so company and project policies do not answer precisely the same question.
Examine exclusions for scope and exceptions
Policy headlines can conceal important limits. Determine whether a restriction applies to a specific project or to a company, and whether it covers coal, oil and gas, or both. For oil and gas, inspect upstream activity, midstream infrastructure, and LNG facilities separately; also look for thresholds, geographic limits, and exceptions.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Best Value
The Reclaim Finance Oil and Gas Policy Tracker grades policies by their scope, including the treatment of LNG infrastructure. Its stated last update is June 2026. Record that date and the exact policy boundary rather than treating a grade or “no new projects” pledge as a blanket ban on all fossil-fuel financing.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Compare low-carbon financing on like terms
A bank’s sustainable-finance target is not automatically comparable with its fossil-fuel financing. The eligible activities, instruments, reporting period, and denominator may differ. Use the same source, year, and activity definition for both sides of a comparison whenever possible.
The OECD’s 2026 review found fossil-fuel energy-supply financing remained higher than low-carbon energy-supply financing in 2024 for its large-bank sample, although the gap had narrowed since 2021. This comparison belongs to the OECD’s categories and sample. Separately, WRI reported a median green-finance-to-fossil-fuel-finance ratio of 1.3 to 1 for its bank sample between 2018 and 2022. That is a historical, sample-specific measure, not a current industry-wide ratio; the definition of green finance also matters.
How to research a particular bank
- Identify the institution. Confirm the legal bank entity, country, and any parent or subsidiary relationship. Do not automatically assign parent-company figures to every local brand.
- Read the bank’s own climate strategy and policies. Record the publication date, covered sectors, baseline, target dates, and stated exceptions.
- Check a structured commitment assessment. Use TPI’s framework to examine strategy, governance, disclosure, target coverage, and benchmark alignment. Note the assessment year and which banks it covers.
- Inspect detailed oil-and-gas restrictions. Use a policy tracker to distinguish project from company exclusions and check upstream, midstream, and LNG coverage. Note the tracker’s update date.
- Review financing datasets separately. Banking on Climate Chaos 2026 covers 65 large banks and reports fossil-fuel and expansion-related measures. The OECD supplies a broader aggregate estimate based on a different definition and sample.
- Compare only matching measures. Check the year, transaction types, client scope, and company-attribution rules. If they do not match, present the figures separately rather than calculating a falsely precise combined score.
- Date your conclusion. Policies and financing data change. Recheck the evidence when comparing accounts or deciding whether to switch.
What the comparison can—and cannot—tell you
These sources can help you judge whether a bank’s stated climate ambition is specific and accountable, how its defined financing activity relates to fossil fuels and low-carbon energy, and whether its policies address expansion. They do not provide one complete measure of a bank’s climate impact, and an aggregate financing total does not identify the destination of any individual retail deposit. The OECD specifically notes limits in granular, standardized global data on banks’ holdings and new investments.
There is no universal best-bank recommendation in these figures alone. Which banks are available and suitable depends on your country and account needs; use the comparison as evidence about climate commitments and financing, not as a substitute for those other considerations.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
