The paper includes an analysis of five years of correspondence with big international banks about problematic projects they finance, and finds that in nearly half of all responses, banks said they could not comment on whether they had a relationship with the customer or project in question. Meanwhile other banks are routinely more transparent. The paper explores some of the problems with this, and digs into the legal frameworks around client confidentiality in major banking centres. While this is not an exhaustive legal review, we found that the differences between bank behaviour cannot be explained by national legislation. Further we found no obstacles to banks disclosing information about their clients provided they secure their consent - and no obstacles to banks writing the right to disclose into loan agreements (as a few banks already do).

As we argue in the paper, we consider that greater transparency of bank lending is essential for greater accountability, the effective functioning of grievance mechanisms, and for banks to show how they meet their responsibility to respect human rights. The paper aims to call time on the myth that banks are ‘unable’ to comment on specific customers, and calls on banks to make new corporate lending and project finance contingent on clients consenting to disclosure, and then move towards publishing details of their lending, beginning with high risk sectors. Regulation may be needed to embed this, where voluntary action is not forthcoming ...

The paper and its recommendations are also endorsed by a civil society coalition including Oxfam, Fair Finance Guide International, Accountability Counsel, ACCR, BIC Europe, Bankwatch, Conectas, SOMO, Facing Finance, Les Amis de la Terre France, PAX, Public Eye, RAN and Share Action.