Royal Bank of Scotland's chairman, Sir Tom McKillop, claimed this week that an attempt by environmental activists to hold it responsible for the carbon emissions of oil and gas projects which it finances was "deeply, deeply flawed".
London-based Platform, which describes itself as a campaigner "for social and ecological justice", claimed in a recent report backed by Friends of the Earth Scotland that Royal was responsible for carbon emissions greater than those of all of Scotland.
McKillop rounded on Royal's critics as the bank published its 2006 Corporate Responsibility Report. Unveiling this report, Royal declared: "As a responsible business, we recognise the significant global threat posed by climate change and take a proactive role to ensure we make a difference where we can."
The report highlights Royal's purchases of electricity from renewable sources. The bank also points to £55m of investment in its property portfolio, including implementation of energy-saving measures such as insulation and piloting of solar roof tiles and biomass boilers.
When it was put to him by The Herald that Royal's consideration of its carbon footprint appeared to focus on internal matters, and asked whether he viewed criticism of the impact of its financing of oil and gas projects as overblown, McKillop highlighted the bank's position as the world's largest arranger of finance for renewable energy schemes. Royal noted it had committed $2.6bn of funding to such renewable schemes last year - the same amount as it had provided for oil and gas infrastructure projects.
McKillop said: "There has been one particular report which accused us almost of being responsible for some of the carbon emission issues that are around through our financing activities in the energy sector."
He claimed that this Platform report was, on an economic and social basis, "deeply, deeply flawed".
McKillop said the report implied "banks should be responsible for the carbon footprints of everyone they lend to".
He added: "That would mean banks would be responsible pretty much for the carbon emissions of the world."
"It is just completely flawed," he claimed, saying that the argument could be extended to take in the impact of households' carbon emissions if Royal provided a mortgage, or the environmental impact of cars if it had provided motor finance.
Platform claimed Royal was, in 2005, responsible for about 37 million tonnes of carbon emissions, more than one hundred times the level the bank had reported for that year.
On a separate matter, albeit another with an environmental slant, McKillop made plain his opinion that the size of Royal's annual report was "ludicrous". Royal's 2006 annual report runs to more than 260 pages.
However, making it plain this was not by choice and highlighting international regulatory requirements, McKillop added: "The problem is driven (by) the demands of regulatory bodies. I think the direction we have gone in is a bit ludicrous, but it is sadly where we are driven."
McKillop, however, reserved particular scorn for form 20-F, required by US regulators.
He said this involved "horrendous box-ticking and accounting for anything that could move in any direction".
In its Corporate Responsibility Report, Royal says it last year recorded its largest-ever figure for lending to small businesses and social enterprises in the UK's most deprived areas - £677m.
It declares that it led the banking sector with a commitment to install 300 free-to-use cash machines in rural and deprived areas, and says it will put in a further 200 this year. Royal also highlights its efforts to educate children and adults about personal finances and flags its achievement of a 14% reduction in internet fraud, in contrast to an industry-wide increase of 46%.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article