FinanceMap scores this financial institution in the following areas. Please navigate to the relevant tab for in-depth analysis
FinanceMap assesses these portfolios for this financial institution. Please navigate to the relevant tab for in-depth analysis.
The board has incorporated climate-related issues into corporate strategy, and has a Board Sustainability Committee which oversees climate matters. The entity also has management-level committees and positions with climate responsibilities, such as its Group Sustainability Committee, Climate Risk Committee, and its Group Head of Climate Risk.
Barclays has clearly defined the climate-related risks and opportunities it considers relevant to its business operations over different time horizons and has mentioned some ways it expects its financial position to change over time. It clearly describes the processes used to determine which risks and opportunities could have a material risk on the organization, including a review of the global market to determine key opportunities for sustainable and transition financing.
Barclays discloses that it is incorporating climate risks and opportunities into its financial planning process, has some descriptions of resource allocation for responding to climate risks and opportunities such as its sustainable financing goal, and has some examples of where in its business model climate risks and opportunities are concentrated.
In 2022, the organization participated in internal and external scenario analysis exercises to comprehensively test the resilience of its business strategy, including the Bank of England’s CBES and ECB Climate Risk Stress Test, analyzing several business units’ resilience to climate-related risks and opportunities across various climate scenarios, including those consistent with a 2°C or lower warming. In 2023 Barclays conducted two short/medium term climate stress tests with physical and transition risks. In 2024, it conducted an internal stress test as well as a reverse stress test. Barclays discloses some implications of this scenario analysis on its strategy and business model, and how it plans to respond to identified effects, including incorporating results into the group’s ICAAP.
Barclays has clear processes in place to identify and assess climate risks, and in 2023 conducted industry-specific deep dives for carbon-intensive sectors. Additionally, it has some descriptions of processes to identify and assess climate opportunities, such as a market review and scenario analysis. It has processes in place to manage risks and opportunities such as a Climate Risk Framework and Climate Risk Policy, and its frameworks for sustainable and transition financing. The organization has clearly embedded climate-related risks and opportunities into its overall risk management approach, integrating climate risk into its Enterprise Risk Management Framework and developing a sustainable financing strategy aligned to the group’s overall strategy.
Barclays is transparent about some key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities, including progress towards its sustainable and transition financing goal of $1 trillion by 2030, its exposure to carbon-related assets, and how it has linked sustainability, including climate, in its remuneration policies.
The organization discloses Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions data as well as comprehensive operational Scope 3 emissions. Barclays has also disclosed comprehensive Scope 3 Category 15 emissions in its reporting, meeting the requirements outlined by the PCAF, such as reporting absolute emissions, covering several sectors and asset classes, and including Scope 3 emissions from clients in certain sectors.
In its 2020 TCFD Report, Barclays outlined its net zero by 2050 'ambition'. In March 2022, Barclays outlined 2030 interim sector targets for energy, power, cement, and steel. In February 2023, Barclays set additional targets for the automotive manufacturing and residential real estate sectors, and in 2024 it added three new targets for the aviation, agriculture, and UK commercial real estate sector, and updated its residential real estate target to a UK housing 'convergence point'. Its targets apply to both lending and capital markets activities, however only its agriculture and energy targets are set in absolute emissions reduction metrics, while the rest are set in emissions intensity metrics.
Barclays has set a coal phaseout policy in line with IPCC guidance, phasing out financing to coal by 2030 in OECD countries and 2035 in non-OECD countries, but has outlined a few exceptions, including for coal-fired power plants if the plants are abated to reduce GHG emissions to near zero. It will not provide financing to companies planning expansion or construction of new coal mines and has excluded companies that generate more than 30% of revenue from thermal coal mining or more than 50% from coal-fired power generation, though it will bring this threshold down to 30% by 2025.
With regard to natural gas and oil, Barclays will not provide financing for oil or gas expansion or infrastructure projects. Additionally, it will not finance new clients that are energy groups with more than 10% of planned capital expenditure in expansion, and expects all energy groups to be producing transition plans by 1 January 2025. In terms of unconventional natural gas and unconventional oil, the bank has set some exclusionary policies that limit financing at the project and entity level for activities for projects in the Arctic Circle and Amazon Biome, and fracking, oil sands, and ultra-deep water and/or extra heavy oil projects. Barclays has set a financed emissions target for the energy sector, committing to a 40% reduction in absolute emissions by 2030.
Barclays is increasing its financing of renewables by committing to mobilize $1 trillion in sustainable finance and transition financing by 2030. It has outlined what renewable energy activities are eligible for this financing goal in its Sustainable Finance Framework. Barclays has also included nuclear energy in its Transition Finance Framework, supporting nuclear in the transition to a zero-carbon energy mix.
FinanceMap’s Climate Governance and Policies analysis assesses statements financial institutions (FIs) are making on how they are incorporating climate issues into their decision-making and operations using FinanceMap’s matrix methodology. This methodology is adapted from the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations and guidelines, Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) or equivalent Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net-Zero (GFANZ) initiative reporting, and IPCC and IEA technology statements. The TCFD provide guidance on 11 recommendations across four areas which are reflected in our matrix: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics and Targets. Additional benchmarks have been introduced to strengthen the ambition of scoring criteria in the assessment of targets, which are supplemented by guidance from the NZBA or equivalent GFANZ initiatives.
Additionally, Science-Based Policy (SBP) benchmarks are used to measure alignment of an FIs technology positions with the science of climate change. These benchmarks are applied to an FIs internal policies on technologies including coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and renewables and also assesses its engagement with broader climate and energy policy issues such as advocacy on the role and importance of different strategy types in the future energy mix.
For each TCFD recommendation and technology, FIs statements are applied to a five point scoring scale ranging from +2 to -2, measuring alignment with the relevant benchmarks. The detailed scores for this FI are displayed below within each matrix cell.
The following table outlines the key queries and data sources, which FinanceMap uses to assess financial institutions climate governance, targets and policies. Every evidence piece is assessed on a five-point scale of -2,-1,0,1,2 or NA (not applicable)/NS (not scored). All queries, data sources, and evidence pieces are weighted against one another in a matrix system to arrive at a final top-level score. Clicking on specific cells will load the underlying evidence and information on how it has been assessed.
Fossil fuel companies are those whose primary sector falls within coal mining and services, or up-, mid-, and downstream oil and gas sectors. Green companies are defined as companies having over 75% revenue deriving from Substantial Contribution to Mitigation activities under the EU Taxonomy.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area assesses deals in 2020–2024.
Value Assessed: $574B
Sector Paris Alignment scores for the sectors to which this portfolio has exposure. FinanceMap Paris Alignment analysis is limited to the automotive, upstream fossil fuel, and power sectors.
Fossil fuel companies are those whose primary sector falls within coal mining and services, or up-, mid-, and downstream oil and gas sectors. Green companies are defined as companies having over 75% revenue deriving from Substantial Contribution to Mitigation activities under the EU Taxonomy.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area assesses deals in 2020–2024.
Value Assessed: $536B
Sector Paris Alignment scores for the sectors to which this portfolio has exposure. FinanceMap Paris Alignment analysis is limited to the automotive, upstream fossil fuel, and power sectors.
Climate Lobbying Overview: Barclays appears to be actively engaged on climate-related policy, showing top-line support for climate-related disclosures, transition planning, and energy efficiency policies. However, it has been more cautious toward stringent sustainable finance regulation in the UK, including around the UK Green Taxonomy and definitions and requirements around transition finance.
Top-line Messaging on Climate-Related Financial Policy: Barclays stated support for action to keep global temperature rise to 1.5C in its 2022 Climate Strategy. Barclays broadly supported the need for sustainable finance policy in the UK in its response to the government’s Updated Green Finance Strategy and comments to the UK Net Zero Review, both in 2022. More recently, in response to the UK Transition Finance Market Review (TFMR) in 2024, it emphasized that climate-related financial policy should not be prescriptive, and characterized the EU sustainable finance policy framework as "overly restrictive." In the same comments it opposed government action around transition finance, warning that stringent regulation could hinder capital flows.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: In its 2023 CDP response, Barclays supported the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), but advocated for the introduction of ‘phase-in’ levers and expressed a preference for International Sustainability Reporting Standards (ISSB) standards as a global baseline. In its 2024 response to the TFMR, while Barclays supported the UK's adoption of ISSB standards, it advocated for additional flexibility in Scope 3 reporting. In response to the UK’s Update to its Green Finance Strategy in 2022, and its 2023 CDP response, Barclays supported the UK Transition Plan Taskforce’s (TPT) proposed disclosures, highlighting the importance of Scope 3 disclosures for investors. However, in its 2023 response to TPT implementation guidance Barclays suggested the framework should create safe harbors and modify engagement proposals.
Position on Taxonomies: In its 2024 consultation response to the UK TFMR, Barclays opposed mandatory reporting against a UK taxonomy and advocated for an industry-led, non-legislative approach. This was in contrast to broad support for a UK Green Taxonomy expressed in its 2022 CDP response. In response to the UK’s Update to the Green Finance Strategy in 2022, Barclays expressed concerns with the EU taxonomy's DNSH criteria and GAR reporting suggesting it was ‘overly-prescriptive’, and pressed for a more expansive approach to categorizing transition activities in the UK. Barclays also supported a “market-led” and flexible approach to transition finance in a 2024 consultation response.
Position on Climate Standards, Labels, Benchmarks: In its 2022 CDP response, Barclays appeared to support a voluntary EU Green Bond Standard suggesting it should be aligned with the EU Taxonomy and granted until the maturity of the bond. In its response on the Update to the UK Green Finance Strategy in 2022, it broadly supported the labeling system under the UK’s Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR), but suggested a less prescriptive approach, while in its 2023 CDP response it called for a wider definition of ‘contributions’ to sustainability outcomes.
Position on Real Economy Climate Policy: Barclays supported the UK and EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) in its 2023 Annual Report. It did not take a clear position on the UK CBAM and Emissions Trading System (ETS) in a 2024 consultation response, but expressed support for the inclusion of Greenhouse Gas Removals in the ETS. It also supported the development of energy efficiency policy for the housing stock in its 2023 Annual Report and supported reform to the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) system in a 2022 response to the UK Update to the Green Finance Strategy.
Position on Energy, Industry, and Land Transition: Barclays expressed broad support for the energy transition in its 2024 Transition Finance Framework, and supported the production of sector-specific decarbonization policies by the UK Government in its 2023 Annual Report. However, in a 2024 consultation response, it supported a definition of ‘transition finance’ that could encourage investment in shifts from coal and heavy fuel oils to fossil gas without placing clear conditions on the need for CCS or methane emission abatement on the use of gas. It broadly supported renewable energy policies in the EU including the Renewable Energy Directive and ReFuelEU in a 2024 consultation response.
Industry Association Governance: Barclays has disclosed a partial list of its trade association memberships . However, it has excluded memberships to the Canadian Bankers Association, the Japan Investment Advisers Association and the Japanese Bankers Association. The company has not disclosed an account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities.
InfluenceMap collects and assesses evidence of corporate climate policy engagement on a weekly basis, depending on the availability of information from each specific data source (for more information see our methodology). While this analysis flows through to the company’s scores each week, the summary above is updated periodically. This summary was last updated in Q2 2025.
InfluenceMap’s methodology for assessing lobbying on climate finance policy closely follows InfluenceMap’s established methodology on climate policy engagement, which is used extensively by investors, including via the Climate Action 100+ investor engagement process. Our full methodology can be found here.
Under our lobbying assessment, InfluenceMap considers engagement on all financial policies which intersect with climate issues, as well as “real economy” climate change policies.
The analysis takes into account both the engagement of the financial institution and the activities of industry associations they hold membership of. InfluenceMap’s methodology covers seven publicly available data sources, searching for evidence of engagement and corporate positioning since 2017. To determine the policy issues within the scope of the analysis, InfluenceMap breaks down policy engagement into a series of subcategories, or 'queries'. These are designed to cover high-level issues relating to the importance of sustainable finance, as well as more specific areas of sustainable finance policymaking. InfluenceMap’s research process searches for evidence of an organization's engagement with each policy issue, across each of the data sources.
The following table outlines the key queries and data sources, which InfluenceMap uses to assess financial institutions' policy engagement. Every evidence piece is assessed on a five-point scale of -2,-1,0,1,2 or NA (not applicable)/NS (not scored). All queries, data sources, and evidence pieces are weighted against one another in a matrix system to arrive at a final top-level score. Clicking on specific cells will load the underlying evidence and information on how it has been assessed.
In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party.
In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.
