A new report has revealed that most commercial banks are failing to acknowledge the environmental, health, and social risks associated with financing companies in the plastics supply chain. The findings come from the first assessment of bank policies on plastic, conducted by the Plastic Banks Tracker, which exposes the role of financial institutions in supporting the production and disposal of plastic.
The report examines the commitments and policies of 20 major global banks that play a significant role in financing various stages of the plastics life cycle, including polymer production, retail, and waste management. Worryingly, the report found that none of these banks could be classified as leaders in addressing the plastics crisis.
The research evaluated banks based on their acknowledgment of their involvement in the plastics issue, their commitment to being part of the solution, and the development and implementation of policies to address these risks. Despite growing awareness of the environmental harm caused by plastics, only two banks—ProCredit of Germany and Dutch banking group ING—were identified as having made reasonable progress in recognising the issue.
Banks Lag Behind on Plastics Policies
ProCredit qualified as a moderate achiever in the ranking, while ING was categorised as a follower. However, the remaining 18 banks, including major names such as Barclays, Mitsubishi UFJ, and BNP Paribas, were found to be among the slowest performers. These banks, the report notes, may have general policies addressing climate change, health, and human rights, but they lack specific commitments related to the plastics crisis.
Jan Willem van Gelder, Director of Profundo, the research group behind the study, commented: “It is striking to see that so many banks heavily exposed to companies in the plastics life cycle fail to acknowledge the severity of the plastics crisis and their own responsibility for it.”
The report highlights how banks’ policies on health and climate will not be effective unless they prioritise plastics-related policies in their dealings with clients in the plastics sector.
Reputational Risks for Banks
Maria Westerbos, Director of the Plastic Soup Foundation, warned that banks are not responding to the urgency of the plastic pollution crisis. She emphasised the dangerous growth in plastic production, which currently stands at 500 million tonnes annually and is projected to triple in the coming decades. “We eat, drink, and breathe plastic, and scientists have even found plastic in our blood and brains,” she said. “Banks can play a crucial role in changing the course of plastic production by rethinking their financing strategies.”
Johan Frijns, Director of BankTrack, echoed these concerns, stating that banks involved in financing plastics face significant reputational risks, similar to those faced by banks that finance fossil fuel industries. “Being perceived as a ‘Plastic Bank’, bankrolling plastics production, carries severe reputational risks. Banks must disentangle themselves from these two strongly connected industries and instead focus on financing the energy and plastics transition,” Frijns said.
The report, which provides a detailed analysis of bank policies, is now available on the Plastic Banks Tracker website. It aims to encourage financial institutions to reconsider their role in perpetuating the global plastic crisis and take more decisive action in support of sustainable practices.