Education
Standard Bank faces greenwashing complaint over EACOP financing – EnviroNews
– Advertisement –
A civil society coalition has filed a formal complaint against Standard Bank with South Africa’s Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB), challenging the bank’s claims of leadership in sustainable finance and climate action amid its involvement in financing the controversial East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).
The complaint, filed on October 27, 2026, by Fossil Free South Africa (FFSA), represented by Lawyers for Human Rights, alongside the StopEACOP Coalition, asks the regulator to investigate whether the bank’s environmental advertising and sustainability claims are misleading.
The complainants argue that Standard Bank’s portrayal of itself as a leading provider of sustainable finance and an enabler of Africa’s just energy transition must be assessed against its financing activities, particularly its involvement in major fossil fuel infrastructure.
The complaint targets environmental claims in the bank’s 2025 Report to Society, Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and commercial advertising for its energy, infrastructure and sustainable finance businesses.
According to the complainants, the materials promote the bank’s commitments to renewable energy, reducing fossil fuel exposure, water conservation, biodiversity protection and achieving net-zero financed emissions by 2050.
They contend that these representations risk misleading the public if they fail to adequately reflect the environmental and social consequences of projects supported by the bank.
At the centre of the dispute is EACOP, a 1,443-kilometre heated crude oil pipeline designed to transport oil from Uganda’s oilfields to the Tanzanian coast.
The project has attracted sustained opposition from environmental organisations and affected communities over its potential climate impacts, threats to sensitive ecosystems and reported effects on livelihoods.
The complaint cites estimates that the pipeline could facilitate emissions of up to 34 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually at peak production and approximately 379 million tonnes over its lifetime.
It also highlights the pipeline’s route through or across 158 wetlands in Uganda, 11 rivers and numerous legally protected and ecologically sensitive areas.
According to the complainants, these impacts raise questions about the compatibility of the project with Standard Bank’s public commitments to climate action, water stewardship and environmental protection.
The groups further point to reports of land loss, economic displacement, compensation disputes and threats to livelihoods among communities affected by the pipeline. Environmental and human rights defenders opposing the project have also reportedly faced harassment, arrests and intimidation.
Kholwani Simelane, Campaign Coordinator and Team Lead at Fossil Free South Africa, said the complaint sought to establish whether the bank’s public environmental image accurately reflected the projects it financed.
“We are asking the Advertising Regulatory Board to test whether the environmental image Standard Bank sells to the public can actually survive scrutiny against the reality of the projects it finances,” Simelane said.
He accused the bank of promoting an image associated with renewable energy, wind power and sustainable finance while helping to finance a major crude oil pipeline in East Africa.
The complaint also questions the bank’s commitment to achieving net-zero financed emissions by 2050 while supporting infrastructure expected to facilitate crude oil production and transportation for decades.
It asks Standard Bank to substantiate its assertion that EACOP meets the Equator Principles and International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards.
The complainants also question how the bank’s water conservation commitments can be reconciled with financing a pipeline that passes through or near freshwater systems, including the Lake Victoria basin, which supports the livelihoods of millions of people.
Zaki Mamdoo, Coordinator of the StopEACOP Coalition, said the consequences of the project were already being felt by communities along its route.
“For people living along the EACOP corridor, this is not an abstract debate about corporate language,” Mamdoo said.
He said affected communities had experienced land and livelihood losses, pressure on local ecosystems and the repression of people challenging the project.
“Financial institutions should not be able to present themselves elsewhere as champions of climate action and environmental stewardship without being accountable for what their money is making possible,” he added.
The campaigners noted that more than 40 banks and 30 insurers internationally had distanced themselves from EACOP or adopted policies excluding the project or similar developments.
They also cited Absa, FirstRand, Nedbank and Investec among major South African financial institutions that had declined involvement in the pipeline.
Under the ARB Code, environmental claims must be substantiated and must not mislead consumers through omission, ambiguity, inaccuracy or exaggeration.
The complaint therefore asks the regulator to scrutinise Standard Bank’s environmental advertising, require evidence supporting its claims about climate alignment, fossil fuel reduction and sustainable finance, and direct the bank to amend, qualify or withdraw any representations found to be misleading or inadequately substantiated.
Brighton Aryampa, a Ugandan human and environmental rights lawyer working with communities affected by EACOP, said the complaint was intended to promote greater accountability in how financial institutions communicate their environmental commitments.
“Greenwashing matters because advertising shapes how the public understands where money is flowing and what kind of development financial institutions are building,” Aryampa said.
He clarified that the complaint was not based on the premise that financing one fossil fuel project automatically negated every renewable energy investment made by the bank.
“The question is whether the overall story being presented to the public is an honest one,” he added.
The case raises broader questions about the responsibility of financial institutions to ensure that their sustainability claims reflect the environmental and social implications of their investments.
For the StopEACOP Coalition and its partners, the complaint represents another effort to hold institutions supporting the pipeline accountable for their role in enabling fossil fuel infrastructure.
The complainants are seeking regulatory scrutiny of Standard Bank’s advertising and evidence that its public commitments to climate action and environmental stewardship are consistent with its financing decisions.