KAMPALA, October 15, 2025 — Banks and asset managers have made US$ 26 billion in income from financing deforesting companies since the Paris Agreement, according to a new investigation by Global Witness, a U.S-based not-for-profit organisation that supports investigations and research exposing the causes and effects of environmental exploitation
The money was generated through investments, loans and issuance underwriting services provided to 50 deforesting companies between 2016-2024. Cumulatively, the most income was made by US financial institutions – a list which includes Vanguard, JPMorgan Chase and BlackRock.
According to Global Witness, the new analysis represents the largest ever mapping of income from the harmful financing of companies accused of deforestation, land grabs and human rights abuses, including through some of the world’s largest agribusinesses.
The analysis was commissioned by Global Witness and carried out by Dutch research consultancy Profundo using Forests & Finance data.
All financial institutions named were approached for comment by Global Witness. Their responses can be found at the end of this report.
The findings come less than a month before COP30, where the host Brazilian government plans to launch the Tropical Forests Forever Facility [TFFF] a flagship new fund designed to protect tropical forests by investing in global financial markets and using the returns to support forested countries.
As governments look to harness the financial system to deliver forest protection through initiatives like the TFFF, Global Witness’s new analysis exposes a stark contradiction – that the same financial system has been generating vast profits from companies driving deforestation and human rights abuses.
Global Witness says it asked Professor Nicola Ranger from the London School of Economics about funding forest protection in the absence of regulating the existing finance around deforestation.
“Today, globally only around $200 billion a year is invested in nature, versus more than $7 trillion of financial flows to activities that contribute to environmental degradation. Every little helps but trying to increase nature-positive finance to forests or other critical natural systems, without addressing the negative, is fighting a losing battle,” she is quoted in the report as saying.
US$26 billion in a decade of forest loss
The majority of tropical deforestation is driven by a handful of sectors, and often by large multinational businesses.
But despite multiple pledges from both countries and companies to curb deforestation, the destruction of the world’s forests reached the highest level ever recorded in 2024, leaving leaders off track to meet the global target to halt deforestation by 2030.
Protecting forests, grasslands and other ecosystems is vital for the communities that live there and for a stable climate. But deforestation continues because companies driving it can largely still trade freely in goods produced on cleared land – making it highly profitable to finance them.
This means that tropical deforestation is predominantly driven by agricultural expansion, as well as mining, infrastructure development and logging. The money behind the companies responsible flows from financial institutions across the world.
To estimate how much financial institutions have earned from 50 companies publicly accused of being involved in deforestation, Global Witness and Profundo used the Forests & Finance database to analyse hundreds of thousands of deals worth a total of $184 billion over nearly 10 years.
The 50 companies operate across six of the most damaging commodity supply chains: cattle, soy, palm oil, rubber, timber, and pulp and paper.
The results showed that nearly 4,000 financial institutions made a total income of US$ 26 billion from financing the deforesting companies. For context, this is more than double the total climate finance spent by the UK between 2011 and 2021.
This US$ 26 billion figure is “segment-adjusted” downward to reflect income financial institutions made from only the parts of companies involved in activities with a high risk of deforestation.
But if the entire banking and investment relationships with the companies are included, across all business areas, their earnings rise to US$ 104.7 billion.
Financiers headquartered in the US earned the most of any country in this analysis [US$ 5.4 billion], closely followed by Indonesia [US$ 4.9 billion]. Also within the top 10 countries by earnings were the Netherlands [US$ 1.2 billion], France [US$ 1.2 billion] and the UK [US$ 1.2 billion].
Global Witness put the findings to Linda Rosalina, executive director of the NGO TuK INDONESIA. “That Indonesian financial institutions rank second globally in financing sectors linked to deforestation is, unfortunately, not surprising,” the report quotes er as saying.
“In our view, change must occur at both local and global levels for the financial sector to stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. Investors and financial institutions from the Global North are the main sources of capital and play a significant role in sustaining destructive business practices.
“Without change on the side of global investors, banks in Indonesia will continue to be pushed to follow the logic of expansion and short-term profit.”
How Global Witness did the analysis
Global Witness says it began its analysis by compiling a list of companies with credible links to actual deforestation, severe forest degradation or land conversion – either directly, through their supply chains or their subsidiaries.
The final list of 50 companies included some of the world’s largest agribusiness giants which have been publicly accused of deforestation, land grabs and human rights abuses, often over many years.
A fuller explanation of the methodology for how companies were selected can be found at the end of this article.
Profundo then analysed income made from deals with these companies by global financial institutions, looking at a wide range of data, including loans and issuance underwriting fees to investment in corporate bonds and listed equities.
Credit-related data was measured across time between 2016 to 2024, and for shareholding was measured from January 2016 to May 2025. Bondholding positions were calculated as of May 2025.
Where total income is quoted throughout this report it includes all credit- and shareholding-related income across this period, and the bondholding positions as a single date snapshot.
Throughout this report, the terms deforestation and tropical deforestation are used interchangeably. According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), deforestation is defined as “the conversion of forested areas to non-forest land use such as arable land, urban use, logged area or wasteland.”
Income flows by financial institution headquarters and commodity sectors
Segment-adjusted income linked to deforesting companies since the Paris Agreement, 2016-2024, US$ billion
United States [20.9 percent], Indonesia [19.0 percent], European Union [13.4 percent], Brazil [8.2 percent], China [4.7 percent], United Kingdom [4.7 percent].All other countries [29.2 percent] Pulp & Paper (48.1 percent], palm oil [40.9 percent] Soy [4.0 percent], beef (3.4 percent], rubber [2.7 percent, timber [0.9 percent]
In 2021, Global Witness reported that banks made US$ 1.74 billion in income from financing just 20 deforesting companies between 2016 to 2020, also based on research carried out by Profundo. This latest analysis is more comprehensive, analysing a larger number of companies and running over a longer timeframe.
But while the new figures are the most complete picture possible of the incomes being made from the harmful financing of forest destruction, significant gaps in company reporting, global financial data and transparency of which companies are directly responsible for deforestation mean the true scale of profits is likely to be much larger.
The global financial giants behind the forest loss
Despite US banks making the most income in total, the top five individual banks are all from Indonesia and Brazil. Indonesia’s Bank Central Asia made the most from deforesting businesses with $1.1 billion, largely from businesses in the palm oil and pulp and paper sectors.
US-based institutions – more than 2,000 in total – were found to have earned the most income overall from financing deforestation.
This total was dominated by asset managers Vanguard, BlackRock and Capital Group, reflecting how most US institutions made the majority of their income through holding shares in deforesting business, as opposed to loans and other fees. None of these companies commented on the analysis’s findings after being contacted by Global Witness.
For the EU, the bloc’s largest bank BNP Paribas was also the bank with the largest deforestation income at $810 million, 90% of which was generated by financing forest loss linked to the pulp and paper sector. Rabobank followed closely behind at $750 million.
Global Witness has reported on multiple occasions how BNP Paribas has financed major deforesters.
Between 2020 and 2022, Global Witness revealed the bank increased its stake in meatpacking giant Minerva despite the investigative outlet Earthsight having exposed the company’s role in illegal land‑clearing and land‑grabbing on Indigenous Ayoreo territory in Paraguay.
Separately, in 2023 NGOs filed a lawsuit against BNP Paribas for its links to financing deforestation in the Amazon. BNP Paribas told Global Witness that it categorically refutes the criticisms made of its business in the lawsuit.
Responding to Global Witness’s new analysis, BNP Paribas also rejected some of the methodologies used in this report and said that it “is strongly committed to protecting ecosystems and in particular to fighting deforestation as forests are indispensable allies to protect biodiversity and fight climate change.”
UK banks’ incomes were led by HSBC, a company that Global Witness has linked to mass deforestation in Paraguay and found to have been the largest UK financer of “forest-risk” companies.
In July 2025, HSBC became the first UK bank to leave the Net Zero Banking Alliance – a voluntary pledge to align finance with net zero by 2050 – following an earlier exodus by US financial institutions.
HSBC declined to comment on Global Witness’s new analysis.
BNDES, the Brazilian Development Bank, had the second highest income globally at $868 million, despite its mission to transform “the lives of generations of Brazilians by promoting sustainable development.”
BNDES has been criticised in the past for its financing of companies involved in the destruction of the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado. The company’s subsequent efforts to tighten up its lending rules for clients linked to deforestation have also been found to have loopholes.
The bank is the second largest shareholder in JBS, which Global Witness has previously reported bought cattle from suppliers breaking environmental laws and destroying protected jaguar habitat in Brazil.
In an emailed statement, BNDES denied that Global Witness’s new data showed a clear link between its financing, companies’ operations and deforestation. It also said it has numerous measures in place to block financing for companies involved in illegal deforestation.
On the other side of the world, Chinese banks have also played an increasingly central role in deforestation finance in recent years.
Previous Global Witness analysis reported how CITIC, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Bank of China have been among the top creditors for “forest-risk” companies such as Royal Golden Eagle Group, which has faced repeated allegations that its palm oil and pulp and paper supply chain has driven deforestation.
These recent trends were backed up by Global Witness and Profundo’s new data. It showed Chinese financial institutions’ cumulative income in the top 10 countries globally, and that this income was almost entirely from credit-related deals and fees rather than investments.
The new analysis showed that Chinese lenders cumulative income remained fairly steady from 2016 to 2021, before declining slightly since 2022.
When looking only at income from credit ties to deforesting companies, a trend emerges that sees Indonesian and Malaysian banks playing a significant role in lending in recent years, despite dropping off slightly in 2024. EU-based financers, on the other hand, saw a large jump in credit-related income in the same year.
Why income is not a proxy for forest destruction
Global Witness’s new analysis found that companies operating in the pulp and paper and palm oil sectors together accounted for 89 percent of the total US$ 26 billion in income across the businesses analysed and their commodity sectors.
For example, the data revealed that $5.8 billion worth of income was generated by financing Latin America’s largest pulp company Suzano, which has been accused of land grabs and damaging biodiversity through its strategic acquisition of businesses which have cleared land for enormous eucalyptus plantations – allegations which Suzano strongly denies.
But while Global Witness’s analysis found that pulp and paper generated much higher incomes for financial institutions than beef and soy, this does not necessarily mean that that commodity sector is responsible for a greater amount of deforestation on the ground.
For example, it is well evidenced that beef has been one of the largest drivers of tropical deforestation in recent years. A 2022 peer-reviewed study found that over half of tropical deforestation between 2011 and 2025 was driven by cattle, palm oil and soy alone.
When contrasting this with Global Witness’s analysis, it suggests that a bank’s total income from its relationship with a company accused of deforestation does not necessarily mean it has funded the most deforestation by hectare of land clearance – or even the largest number of companies selected for the analysis.
The income a bank earns from financing a company is not a reliable proxy for the company’s deforestation footprint. In other words, higher financial returns to banks reflect the structure and financing needs of certain industries, not necessarily the scale of forest clearance associated with them.
Understanding this helps contextualise trends in the list of top global earners from forest-risk sectors.
For example, the prevalence of a few Indonesian and Brazilian banks in the list of top global incomes can be attributed to other key factors.
In Indonesia, the pulp, paper and palm oil industries play significant roles in the national economy. Both sectors require large capital expenditure to achieve financial success – one 2023 analysis suggested that a 5,000 hectare (ha) palm plantation and mill require at least a $90 million upfront investment.
Considering this next to Global Witness’s new findings, it suggests that companies operating in these sectors are typically more reliant on financial institutions for capital injections through loans and bond issuances.
In turn, this means more profits for banks providing the loans – not that higher incomes equate to more forest destruction.
Another crucial element of financing is locality. Even in a globalised age, for many regions banks invest based simply on business relationships, language and more local knowledge of their sectors. It may also be cheaper for companies to use local banks.
Consequently, for many Indonesian palm oil or paper companies, or indeed for Brazilian beef companies, doing business with local banks is the simplest option. This results in more business and revenue for banks in that country.
Some national development banks, including Brazil’s BNDES, which is the second largest financer globally in the analysis, have a specific mandate to invest in companies based in their own country.
For example, for decades BNDES had invested heavily in Brazilian meatpacking giants JBS and Marfrig, both of which became Brazilian powerhouses long before the bank’s divestment from Marfrig in 2019. BNDES has also offered significant credit to Minerva, another large Brazilian meatpacker.
All three companies have been linked to vast deforestation. A 2024 Global Witness report found that nearly 60,000 ha of deforestation in Brazil’s Mato Grosso state was linked to the supply chains of these three meatpackers alone.
For some companies, a record of deforestation and devastation has piled up over years, and yet regulation to prevent finance reaching companies without systems in place to prevent these abuses has remained elusive.
Global Witness asked Professor Ranger about whether there is hope despite the persistence of these dynamics.
“The economic and security case for protecting the world’s critical natural assets like tropical forests is undisputable,” she said.
“You don’t need to care about biodiversity to see that our whole economies, water and food systems depend on these critical assets. For investment firms and governments exposed to these risks, the business case for investment is sound and clear.”
US financers and the most destructive sectors
For the cattle sector, the top 10 financers in the new analysis were all US- or Brazil-based, and over 21 percent of the total income made went to Capital Group, BlackRock and Vanguard.
This tallies with a wider financial story of the past 15 years – the dominance of asset managers in global investment flows.
Given that asset managers invest on behalf of their clients, Global Witness’s analysis suggests that the savings of pensioners, institutions and even private individuals are being channelled into the destruction of Latin American forests.
The world’s largest asset managers have failed to meaningfully incorporate the environment into their investment decisions. For example, neither BlackRock nor Vanguard has a deforestation policy to guide their investments.
A 2024 Global Witness report revealed that BlackRock and Vanguard were among six institutions holding over US$ 11 million in JBS bonds via funds labelled specifically as environmentally-responsible “ESG” – despite JBS’s well-known track record of deforestation.
Likewise for soy, another major driver of deforestation, Global Witness’s new analysis showed that over a third [33.5 percent] of soy-derived income was made by US banks and asset managers backing businesses accused of deforestation in the sector. The second highest country by income in soy was Japan at only 9 percent.
The deforestation behind the incomes
The most widely recognised global forest loss data found that 2024 saw a record spike due to a jump in wildfires. But the same data shows that between 2002 and 2024, the overwhelming majority of deforestation [67.2 percent] was due to agriculture and logging.
Elsewhere, a 2022 study suggested that between 90 percent and 99 percent of the world’s tropical deforestation between 2011-2015 came from clearance for agriculture.
When looking at the incomes related to these agri-commodities in Global Witness’s new analysis, palm oil generated the most with a total of $10.6 billion.
One of the world’s largest palm oil companies is Singapore-headquartered Wilmar, which has a history of extensive deforestation across South East Asia. The company has a “No Deforestation” policy, but in 2020 exited from a key forest conservation coalition and in 2025 was accused of sourcing deforestation-linked palm oil.
In an emailed statement to Global Witness, Wilmar rejected claims that it continues to drive deforestation. It said that past allegations of deforestation within its supply chain have since been addressed and remedied by the company, which has a robust deforestation monitoring and reporting system. More details of these can be found at the end of this report.
Global Witness’s analysis revealed that Wilmar’s largest two financers were Singapore’s DBS and Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation, closely followed by the UK’s HSBC.
Another business in Global Witness’s analysis was JBS, the world’s largest meat company, which has faced decades of controversy over its deforestation record.
In 2024, Global Witness reported that JBS’s sourcing of cattle had helped drive a deforestation crisis in Brazil’s climate-critical savannah called the Cerrado.
Later that year, Global Witness also reported that JBS sourced cattle from land invaders on Indigenous Apyterewa territory, home to the Parakanã.
At the time, Mama Parakanã, chief (cacique) of Apyterewa Indigenous Village, told Global Witness: “The meat from the Apyterewa Indigenous land is meat from our territory … They destroyed everything. All we have left is grass. Our animals burned to death.”
JBS did not respond to comment on this report.
Elsewhere the company has been linked to cattle laundering, human rights abuses and corruption. None of this has stopped the company’s recent listing on the New York Stock Exchange, despite protests from civil society and some lawmakers.
Global Witness’s new analysis found that US$ 390 million of income was generated via JBS’s financing, the largest of which came from US banks and asset managers.
When contacted about this new analysis, JBS told Global Witness in an emailed statement that it has numerous procedures to ensure sustainability in its supply chains.
“Contrary to [Global Witness’s] claims, JBS is a driver of best practices throughout the supply chain. All cases analyzed by JBS complied with the company’s responsible sourcing policies at the time of purchase,” the company said.
Global Witness also analysed deals with Cargill, one of the largest private companies in the US and the world’s largest grain trader.
In 2020, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism linked Cargill to destruction of the Brazilian Cerrado region and, in 2023, Global Witness linked Cargill to more than 20,000 ha of Bolivian deforestation for soy in five years.
The company also faces a legal challenge over its lack of due diligence on deforestation and human rights in its soya supply chain in Brazil.
In Global Witness’s new analysis, all five of Cargill’s largest financers by income were from the EU, US and UK.
Cargill declined to comment on the report authored by Global Witness.
As an Indigenous community which has been repeatedly hurt by the impacts of deforestation, Global Witness contacted the Parakanã following the findings of this report and asked what governments should do to better protect them.
Kawowe Parakanã said: “The government must create laws and firmly demand accountability from companies, ensuring that no public or private resources are used to destroy the forest. The financial system must support those who protect, not those who devastate. I say no: financing destruction means destroying the lives of Indigenous peoples and the future of the planet.”
The financial system must support those who protect, not those who devastate. I say no: financing destruction means destroying the lives of Indigenous peoples and the future of the planet
How governments have regulated finance and supply chains to curb deforestation
Ending forest loss is essential to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. But unless the businesses and financial institutions driving this destruction are held to account and prevented from doing so in the future, there is no credible path to limiting warming to 1.5°C.
At COP26 in 2021, governments pledged under the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration to end forest loss by 2030. A year later, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted by 196 countries, committing to realign financial flows with an end to nature loss.
But as this investigation shows, these commitments are slipping further out of reach. Tropical forest loss rose by 80 percent in 2024 compared to 2023 – a devastating signal that the current course is leading away from, not towards, global goals. The financing behind the destruction has not decreased.
Yet rather than legislating for corporate accountability, governments have backed disclosure schemes like the Taskforce on Nature-Related Financial Disclosures [TNFD], which risk delaying action by focusing on creating more information on how biodiversity loss affects businesses, instead of introducing new rules that prohibit the financing of deforesting businesses.
Governments have also leaned on voluntary initiatives like the Agricultural Sector Roadmap to 1.5°C and Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero [GFANZ], both driven by the corporate sector, including companies analysed in this report. As this investigation shows, these voluntary approaches have been inadequate in stopping deforestation or finance flowing to destructive companies.
Even where some vital regulatory progress has been made, there has been delay. The EU’s flagship Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), the first of its kind to require companies to ensure their supply chains are deforestation-free and legal, including by complying with applicable human rights law in tropical forest countries, is now under threat of further dilution and an additional one-year delay.
Landmark commitments to review the role of the European financial sector in driving deforestation and harms in corporate supply chains – through the EUDR itself and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which requires companies to identify and address human rights and environmental risks in their operations and value chains – are also under threat.
Global Witness’s analysis shows the EUDR could save more than 8 million hectares (ha) of forest in its first decade, but rather than pressing forward with urgently needed implementation, the EU appears to be retreating, undermining its role as a global standard-setter and emboldening other consumer markets to drag their feet too.
The UK provides another example where delay must end. A law passed in 2021 creates the powers needed by government to require businesses to carry out due diligence to prevent the use of forest-risk commodities linked to “illegal” deforestation.
Yet almost four years on, the law remains unenacted despite public and political pressure to bring forward these protections and expand them to cover legal deforestation and improved human rights safeguards.
The law cannot properly take effect until the government issues further rules, known as “secondary regulations”, which will spell out crucial details such as which commodities and businesses are covered.
Only once these rules are in place will the UK Treasury then be required to review the financial sector’s role in driving illegal deforestation, which could see due diligence extended to financial actors.
For many of the biggest consumer and financial markets tied to forest destruction, however, the reality is still one of denial about the binding rules and financial safeguards required to end deforestation by 2030 and deliver on global forest and climate goals.
The US has moved to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, while rules requiring financial institutions to disclose climate-related risks are on hold, and the FOREST Act, a bipartisan-backed law to restrict imports of illegal deforestation-linked commodities, has stalled – leaving one of the world’s largest consumer markets wide open to goods driving forest loss.
China is the world’s largest importer of soy and a major consumer of other forest-risk commodities such as palm oil, timber and beef. Yet the country lacks binding rules to ensure these supply chains are deforestation-free and, despite some recent evidence of demand for clean soy shipments from Brazil, the country does not appear to be moving towards regulation.
At the same time, although regulators have introduced green finance guidelines that could, in principle, be applied to deforestation risks, Chinese banks continue to rank among the largest global financiers of forest-risk companies.
Indonesia, meanwhile, has taken some measures to improve financial sector reporting on environmental and social risk, but no law exists to prohibit the financing of companies involved in conversion of natural landscapes, and forests are under significant threat from state-sponsored projects that could deforest millions of hectares, locking in incentives for deforestation rather than reform.
This patchwork response from governments leaves financial institutions free to bankroll destructive companies with little scrutiny. It also undermines other efforts to protect forests – so long as capital keeps flowing, destructive business models will thrive.
Financing forest destruction first, protection later?
With COP30 taking place in the Amazon city of Belém, the summit is a critical moment to spur urgent action to protect forests and accelerate progress on global deforestation goals.
Global Witness asked the London School of Economics’ Professor Ranger about what action governments should be taking to better protect forests.
“Embedding the systemic value of nature into the financial system is important, but fundamentally the incentives on companies need to change, and this requires action at the political and government level to shift the landscape of incentives and build demand for deforestation-free supply chains,” she said.
Embedding the systemic value of nature into the financial system is important, but fundamentally the incentives on companies need to change, and this requires action at the political and government level to shift the landscape of incentives and build demand for deforestation-free supply chains
To meet global deforestation targets, governments backing the TFFF at COP30 must address the financial sector’s harmful role in forest loss.
A decade of lost progress since the Paris Agreement shows that while some limited climate finance has flowed, harmful financial streams have widened the forest funding gap – proving that new funds alone are no substitute for robust regulation.
The TFFF is designed to pool $125 billion from public and private sources, invest it in global markets, and use the profits to pay tropical forest nations for keeping their forests standing – with a share of at least 20% designated for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Supporters view the TFFF as a bold bid to channel much-needed capital into forest protection efforts. Others have cautioned against a model that will centre financial actors and likely reward private investors for the damage they have helped to cause.
This investigation suggests that for the TFFF to succeed in its ultimate aims to reduce forest loss, it must be accompanied by numerous accompanying measures. These include national commitments to regulate the financial system through binding laws that prevent banks and investors from financing deforestation, robust accountability mechanisms, and more finance redirected to support Indigenous Peoples and local communities protecting forests. The TFFF should be part of a systemic reset in how global finance values forests.
This should entail action by the government of Brazil itself, with this report showing that stronger regulation of both public and private finance will be essential to defunding deforesting businesses.
Kawowe Parakanã told Global Witness: “The government must create strong laws and stop financing those who destroy [the forest]. It is not right to profit from deforestation, that profit is dirty. My message is clear: stop investing in death, support those who protect the forest.”
What’s at stake is more than climate and biodiversity: it is the rights, livelihoods and futures of millions of people who depend on forests.
How the companies responded
ABN Amro
In an emailed statement to Global Witness, ABN Amro said that in 2020 it had adjusted its strategy by focusing on clients in the Netherlands and Northwest Europe. Therefore, while for confidentiality reasons it could not confirm whether individual companies named in this report has been or is currently an ABN AMRO client, its relationships with a large number of clients outside Europe have been terminated and that “at least a majority” of the companies named in this report are not currently ABN AMRO clients.
“Therefore, a long-term overview of our financial services to internationally active commodity companies does not do justice to the current state of affairs, and we therefore do not recognize ourselves in the research results [Global Witness] attribute to ABN AMRO,” it said.
The company added that, since 2020, it has taken concrete steps to phase out the financing of companies active in the commodity sectors, and that this process was virtually completed by the end of 2022.
Aberdeen
Aberdeen did not respond to comment on this report despite multiple approaches by Global Witness.
Banco do Brasil
In an emailed statement to Global Witness in response to this report, Banco do Brasil said that it does not provide finance or credit to illegal deforestation practises and that the company’s credit policy has environmental and social policy requirements. Its credit rules contain clauses which prohibiting deforestation without proper the authorisation, it added.
Bank Central Asia
Bank Central Asia did not respond to comment on this report despite multiple approaches by Global Witness.
Bank Mandiri
Bank Mandiri did not respond to comment on this report despite multiple approaches by Global Witness.
Bank Negara Indonesia
Bank Negara Indonesia did not respond to comment on this report despite multiple approaches by Global Witness.
Bank of America
Bank of America did not respond to comment on this report despite multiple approaches by Global Witness.
Bank of China
Bank of China did not respond to comment on this report despite multiple approaches by Global Witness.
Bank Rakyat Indonesia
Bank Rakyat Indonesia did not respond to comment on this report despite multiple approaches by Global Witness.
BlackRock
BlackRock declined to comment on this report after being contacted by Global Witness.
BNDES – Brazilian Development Bank
In an email to Global Witness, BNDES said that “the data provided by Global Witness does not show clearly and objectively the relation between the alleged financial support from the BNDES, companies’ operations, and deforestation.”
It added that since 2023 the company has blocked BRL 806.3 million in funding to landowners involved in illegal deforestation.
BNP Paribas
In an emailed statement to Global Witness, BNP Paribas said it is “strongly committed to protecting ecosystems and in particular to fighting deforestation as forests are indispensable allies to protect biodiversity and fight climate change”. The company rejected some of Global Witness and Profundo’s methodology used in this report, including how specific exposure to deforestation was accounted for the underlying companies being financed.
The company said it has “a strong risk management system that encompass ESG-related risks” and that in 2021 it had adopted specific policies to help specifically target the issue of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon and the Cerrado.
It said: “BNP Paribas will only provide financial products or services to companies that have implemented a strategy towards zero deforestation in their production and supply chains by 2025 at the latest, and clients’ compliance with the mandatory criteria of the agriculture policy will be assessed following the publication of annual reports or client audits in 2026.”
Bradesco
Bradesco declined to comment on this report after being contacted by Global Witness.
Caixa Econômica Federal
Caixa Econômica Federal did not respond to comment on this report despite multiple approaches by Global Witness.
Cargill
Cargill decline to comment on this report after being contacted by Global Witness.
Capital Group
Capital Group declined to comment on this report after being contacted by Global Witness.
China Eximbank
China Eximbank did not respond to comment on this report despite multiple approaches by Global Witness.
China Minsheng Banking
China Minsheng Banking declined to comment on this report after being contacted by Global Witness.
CITIC
CITIC did not respond to comment on this report despite multiple approaches by Global Witness.
Crédit Agricole
In an emailed statement to Global Witness, Crédit Agricole said it could not comment on specific business relationships due to client confidentiality but that it has developed policies for responsible investing in sectors that have a risk of negative environmental and social impacts.
It said: “More specifically, Crédit Agricole attaches the utmost importance to fighting against deforestation and to this end we published a Deforestation sector policy in December 2024 covering cattle, soy, palm oil, timber, rubber and cocoa. The purpose of this Policy is to provide Crédit Agricole S.A.’s entities with a framework for the timber industry and the production of agricultural commodities linked to potential tropical deforestation.”
DBS
DBS did not respond to comment on this report despite multiple approaches by Global Witness.
Deutsche Bank
In an emailed statement to Global Witness, Deutsche Bank said that it could not comment on any existing or potential business relationships due to client confidentiality. It said that it does address environmental and social issues in our ongoing dialogue with its clients, however.
Fidelity Investments
Fidelity Investments declined to comment on this report after being contacted by Global Witness.
Finnvera
In an emailed statement to Global Witness, Finnvera said that it has strict environmental and social screening processes as part of its financing decisions which ensure compliance with corporate responsibility rules, and that it follows international rules and guidelines on export financing. It added that in recent years these processes and standards have been made more stringent than some of the financing periods covered in this report.
HSBC
HSBC told Global Witness in an emailed statement that it does not comment on specific client relationships but that its current approach to deforestation is outlined in the Nature Section of its Net Zero Transition plan: https://www.hsbc.com/who-we-are/our-climate-strategy/our-net-zero-transition-plan
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China declined to comment on this report after being contacted by Global Witness.
Itaú Unibanco
In an email statement to Global Witness, Itaú Unibanco said: “Itaú Unibanco rigorously complies with environmental legislation, such as the Forest Code and reaffirms its commitment to complying with the laws and best environmental and social practices. In this respect, the bank’s strategy to support the transition to a low carbon emission farming activity is based on the supply of financial products aimed at the agribusiness industry that encourage the adoption of good production practices…For specific products provided by Itaú, the bank also encourage zero deforestation, through better negotiation conditions, in connection with these products during the term of the agreement, in addition to an exclusive programme for the conversion of degraded areas into productive areas. It is also noteworthy that Itaú’s ESG strategy is aligned with the main international standards and initiatives, such as the Paris Agreement and the Net Zero Banking Alliance.”
JBS
JBS told Global Witness in an emailed statement: “JBS has a five-pronged approach to a sustainable production in its supply chain that includes: [1] enforcing a rigorous zero-tolerance agricultural commodity sourcing policy with strong anti-deforestation measures; [2] deploying a state-of-the-art supply chain monitoring and enforcement capabilities; [3] providing free technical assistance and extension services for producers to help regularise their farms and improve their operations; [4] accelerating sectoral changes through multi-stakeholder engagement and collaboration; and [5] promoting sustainable development in the Amazon region with the JBS Fund for the Amazon.
Contrary to the NGO’s [Global Witness’s] claims, JBS is a driver of best practices throughout the supply chain. All cases analyzed by JBS complied with the company’s responsible sourcing policies at the time of purchase.”
JPMorgan Chase
JPMorgan Chase declined to comment on this report after being contacted by Global Witness.
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial
After being contacted by Global Witness, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial had not commented on this report at the time of writing.
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation did not respond to comment on this report despite multiple approaches by Global Witness.
Rabobank
When contacted regarding this report Rabobank told Global Witness in an email that it could not comment on specific client relationships due to confidentiality.
Safra Group
After being contacted by Global Witness, the Safra Group had not commented on this report at the time of writing.
Schroders
Schroders told Global Witness in an emailed statement:
“We are focused on tackling forest-risk agricultural commodity-driven deforestation in the companies held in our investment portfolios for the priority commodities of palm oil, soy, cattle products and timber.
“Deforestation, conversion and associated human rights abuses pose potentially significant risks to the value of the investments we manage on behalf of our clients.
“We define two risk tiers of companies – companies with direct exposures to deforestation risk commodities (producers and processors) and companies with exposure to deforestation risk commodities in their supply chain (manufacturers and retailers). We assess our exposure to these types of companies on an annual basis.
“Our proprietary ‘Deforestation Scorecard’ analyses company management of deforestation risks. This scorecard enables us to identify companies that are failing to meet our standards on commodity-driven deforestation and to monitor progress over time.
“We engage with companies on their management of deforestation risk with a broader range of forest risk commodities such as cocoa and rubber where we have identified this as a material risk for the company.
“Our clear engagement escalation framework sets out the steps we will take where companies fall short of our expectations to address deforestation risk. This can result in divestment.”
Silchester International Investors
Silchester International Investors told Global Witness in an emailed statement: “We are not and have never been a shareholder of Sinar Mas Group – a privately held company.”
Standard Chartered
Standard Chartered told Global Witness in an emailed statement that it could not comment on specific client relationships due to confidentiality. However, the company said:
“We also recognise that agro-industries, and the soft commodities sectors in particular, face potential environmental and social challenges, some of which may include nature degradation through clearance of forests and other habitats. Our Agribusiness Position Statement outlines our soft commodity specific policies including on illegal logging and supply chain traceability across the forestry, palm oil, and soy sectors…
“Our Position Statements for Forestry, Palm oil and Soy, which outline the specific criteria which informs our financing decisions, can be found on pages 7-8 of our Agribusiness Position Statement. How we apply our cross sector and sector specific Position Statements is explained in our Environmental and Social Risk Management [ESRM] Framework. Our approach is informed by international standards including the IFC Performance Standards, the Equator Principles, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Furthermore, clients must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, and we expect that their approach be guided by international conventions, international standards and best practice.
“We have a dedicated Nature Risk working group, comprising of cross-functional teams, to advance our Nature Risk analysis, leveraging our climate risk data to support more in-depth analysis of potentially material sectors and assess our financed assets exposure to nature impacts and dependencies. In 2024, our Nature team conducted an internal research project to better understand the Group’s potential exposure to the proceeds of illegal deforestation and how the risk of illegal deforestation may manifest in our clients’ supply chains. “
Suzano
In an emailed statement Suzano said “we strongly reject accusations that our current business practises are environmentally destructive, and therefore that finance provided to Suzano between 2016 and 2026 has funded deforestation, forest degradation or damage to biodiversity.”
The company said that “we accept Suzano has historically been involved in behaviours that do not reflect the environmental and social standards we uphold in our business today” and that it now implements “high standards of corporate sustainability and governance” through numerous measures.
United Overseas Bank
When contacted regarding this report United Overseas Bank told Global Witness in an email that it was unable to comment due to client confidentiality.
Vanguard
Vanguard did not respond to comment on this report despite multiple approaches by Global Witness.
Wilmar
Wilmar refuted that it continues to drive deforestation in an emailed statement to Global Witness.
Wilmar said that it had adopted a landmark “No Deforestation, No Peat and No Exploitation” (NDPE) policy across its entire global palm oil supply chain in 2013, and that robust monitoring and verification systems are in place which track its progress.
Regarding this system, the company said: “Each case is investigated and publicly documented. When non-compliances are identified and verified, corrective actions and implementation progress required of the related supplier are also updated accordingly. In 2019, we furthered strengthened our approach by introducing a “suspend first” policy to immediately halt sourcing from suppliers who have been verified as having deforested and with new development on peatland, pending corrective engagement…We therefore firmly reject any unsubstantiated claims that Wilmar continues to drive deforestation or sources from deforestation-linked suppliers.”
In response to a 2018 Greenpeace report, Wilmar said it had since taken corrective action. The company did not respond directly to a separate Greenpeace report from March 2025 which suggested the company had sourced palm oil kernel from deforested land in Indonesia.
Wilmar added: “With respect to Wilmar’s decision to exit the High Carbon Stock Approach (HCSA), we published a statement to publicly share our reasons, which centered on governance concerns and financial irregularities. We have stated our willingness to rejoin once these issues are resolved, but to date, HSCA has not provided a resolution. It is worth noting that other key members have since left as well, and that the HCSA methodology has already been incorporated into RSPO certification standards since 2018. Our decision does not weaken our commitment: we continue to apply the HCSA toolkit and its quality assurance process in all HCV-HCS joint assessments for all new developments, both within our operations and across third-party suppliers at group level.”
uy your copy of thecooperator magazine from one of our country-wide vending points or an e-copy on emag.thecooperator.news
