Britain’s climate ambitions may be moving toward a cleaner future, but a new report suggests that some of the country’s biggest banks are still sending substantial amounts of money in the opposite direction.
Since the 2021 COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, UK-based banks have provided an estimated $8.3 billion (£6.2 billion) in financing to companies connected to the global coal industry, according to research by German environmental and human rights organisation Urgewald.
That figure places UK banks ahead of their counterparts in Germany and France, whose banks provided about $4.9 billion and $3.4 billion, respectively, over the same period.
The issue becomes more striking when the money is traced to individual institutions.
According to the research, Barclays increased its coal financing by 34%, rising from roughly $1.2 billion in 2022 to $1.6 billion in 2025. HSBC’s financing more than doubled, from around $200 million to $414 million.
For campaigners, the figures raise an uncomfortable question: how can banks publicly commit to net zero while continuing to finance businesses linked to one of the world’s most carbon-intensive energy sources?
Heffa Schücking, director of Urgewald, said Barclays and HSBC should explain why their financing trends appeared to be moving differently from those seen across much of Europe.
But the banks dispute the picture presented by the research.
HSBC says it has committed to ending financing for thermal coal mining and coal-fired power in EU and OECD markets by 2030, and elsewhere by 2040. The bank also says its financed emissions from thermal coal mining fell by 94% between 2020 and 2024.
Barclays, meanwhile, argues that the report includes diversified energy and mining companies rather than companies whose businesses are exclusively dependent on coal. The bank says it does not finance companies generating more than 30% of their revenue from thermal coal mining or power generation.
It also points to more than $300 billion in sustainable and transition finance facilitated over the past three years.
At the heart of the disagreement, therefore, is not simply whether banks are financing coal. It is how coal exposure should be measured and what counts as meaningful progress during the transition to cleaner energy.
Urgewald says its definition of the “coal value chain” is consistent with a framework used by many financial institutions. Its research examines financing reaching companies involved across the industry — from mining and power generation to transportation, exploration and trading.
And when the wider European picture is examined, Britain stands out.
While EU banks collectively reduced their financing of the coal value chain by 46%, financing from UK-based banks increased by 17%, according to the report.
Yet Britain is only one part of a much larger global story.
Worldwide, annual bank financing for coal remained broadly unchanged between 2022 and 2025, averaging around $117 billion a year. The promise made at COP26 to move away from coal has therefore not translated into a comparable collapse in the money supporting the industry.
The geography of coal finance is changing instead.
Chinese banks accounted for an estimated 62% of global coal financing, providing $289 billion during the period — an increase of 8%. US banks supplied $67 billion, up 23%, while Indonesian banks increased their coal financing by 64%, reaching $2.3 billion in 2025.
Meanwhile, banks in the EU, Taiwan, Malaysia and Thailand significantly reduced their exposure.
The result is a global financial paradox.
Some banking systems are closing the door on coal while others are widening it. Money is moving away from the industry in parts of Europe, yet increasing elsewhere, potentially limiting the impact of regional climate policies.
For Urgewald, the lesson is straightforward: climate commitments cannot remain distant promises. The organisation argues that banks need concrete policies restricting new coal financing and must reduce existing exposure.
The numbers ultimately tell a story bigger than any single bank.
The transition away from coal is no longer only a question of power stations, mines or energy policy. It is also a question of where the world’s money goes.
And as long as billions continue to follow coal, the distance between a bank’s climate promises and its financial decisions remains a question that cannot easily be ignored.
