It’s an activist site, of course it knows nothing other than angry faces and calls to action.
Might as well put a Thunberg photo on it
Edit: continue to boo me, I’m right (but if you’ve got anything of substance, I’m willing to hear it)
1 Like
Poorly researched? Yes.
Bilge? No.
They have the fundamentals right for the tool to do its job, which is to inform you, at a glance, if the bank you’re with is using your deposits to fund fossil fuels.
This stuff is useful because it is incredibly hard to research yourself for the simple reason banks aren’t transparent about it. This is a point I know folks will pick on because they have in the past, and they’ll point you to some complex report from that bank, full of industry terminology, as a means to discredit the assertion of a lack of transparency. But the point is the information is very hard to find when you don’t know what you’re looking for or where you should be looking for it, or just don’t understand the industry terminology.
tools and resources from organisations like bank green remove that barrier, and that in my view is a solid foundation and overall good thing, regardless of the quality of the more in depth research. I just wish they’d share the sources, go into more detail and allow errors to be flagged. The services I use which do a similar thing for skin care, clothes, household essentials, among others all do a much better job of this.
1 Like
Bilge because the sheer fact is without fossil fuel financing we’d be pushing large sections of the earth into the 1900s
This website should be postponed 20 years while alternative means are made to meet capacity; it’s already a fact that all of these “fossil fuel funding banks” also finance green projects. there’s simply just no short-term fix for a stable energy supply
That would rely on government policy leading the charge on this. Governments around the world have historically sucked at this. Ours being amongst the worst.
What doesn’t suck at driving change is consumer demand. If consumers are able to make a conscious choice on this, and then act on that choice, it encourages industries to adapt to changing demands. Which means the shift away from fossil fuels happens faster.
The only reason the world isn’t 100% powered be renewable sources of energy is funding, and funding alone. We have everything else necessary to attain it in a very short period of time. You could argue lack of talent to get to scale so quickly, but funding solves that problem in a very short amount of time too.
The U.K. alone could get almost 100% of the way there in less than 2 years according to several energy sector bosses. They need only fund it. This is largely true with renewables generally. The large reason it’s still viewed as a future goal and not a present day reality is lack of funding, and no real incentive to change that in a short sighted capitalist society. Fossil fuels are big profits, and the consequences are the problem of the next generation.
1 Like
I’m not a climate change denier, I think it’s great that there’s a movement for greater awareness of the environmental cost of consumer behaviour.
I’m not entirely sold that not taking £15 a month off Halifax, for example, is actually going to achieve much, but it’d certainly be a valid decision to make when deciding to invest significant savings or take a (straight forward, interest payable) loan.
The problem is none of the information presented on that website can be relied upon since there is so many glaring errors; we’re not talking about minutae which needs a full fact check we’re talking about the fact several building societies are listed as offering current accounts and credit cards. These are facts which it’d be the research of literally 2 mins per institution to properly establish, but instead they’ve either used a very wonky dataset or worse just made it up. In either case, if I can see glaring errors in the stuff I know about why should I trust what they say about the stuff I don’t know about?
It’s bilge. Perhaps well meaning bilge but bilge nonetheless.
1 Like
With thousands of banks around the world, you have to rely on collating data stores sourced directly from banks and government bodies. It’s not feasible to independently go to every bank and research their financial products or whether they’re still an active bank, when that’s not the goal of the data.
I’ve raised some of the errors with them, enquired as to why there are inaccuracies here it, and it stems, ultimately from the ONS. The data comes from a range between 2016 and 2021 for U.K. banks. It’s collated with other sources beyond the ONS. But in regards to the financial products on offer, that’s self reported by the banks! So you can’t blame them if the banks are claiming they offer products they don’t.
The banks that exist on their database come from both government databases from that date range, or from crowdsourcing. If a bank isn’t listed, it’s because it’s not included in any of the ONS datasets, or hasn’t been reported by a user. If a bank is included it’s because someone’s asked them to add it, or it’s included in one of the ONS (or another group’s) datasets.
I’ve reported the errors you’ve highlighted along with some other errors I’ve noticed myself to bank green, like they ask if something doesn’t look right when you look up a bank, because it makes the tool better for everyone, and more trustworthy.
I received a reply from their director within 20 minutes promising to update and correct the errors.
1 Like
I disagree, you absolutely can. It’s called basic fact checking.
If they are simply parroting whatever the banks are claiming via some data collection exercise as you claim (I doubt that, btw), does that not give you doubts about the usefulness of the platform?
Do you have any idea the sort of resources that would take for a project of this scale? It’s not something a small not for profit can do on its own.
The only feasible way to build tools like this is to collate datasets from statistical bodies around the world, who arguably bear the burden of the duty of ensuring the data they collect and report is accurate, so that when organisations and news networks use the data for reporting, that they paint a picture of truth.
The only fact checking they need to do is whether the claim of a certain bank investing in fossil fuels is true or not, and they’ve got that stuff dead right. It’s not meant to be relied upon as a sole source though, but act as a starting point for delving deeper.
It’s not my claim, it’s theirs, explained prominently on their website. They even list some of the sources of those datasets, though not all. One they list, if you look into it, credit ONS 2016 - 2021 as the source for their U.K. centric data.
I’m waiting to hear back from bank green directly on explicitly which data source is responsible for the inclusion of now defunct building societies, but I do suspect it’s also the ONS having had a brief look myself. The data ONS collect is often self reported by the banks. I know this because I used to work at Barclays and we’d have to do it annually.
Personally no, not for its intended purpose. Every other platform that offers a similar thing works in largely the same way. I find them very useful. Albeit I’m not as knowledgeable on clothes manufacturing as I am with banks, so I’m not likely to notice any inaccuracies in their data either. But that’s not the point of the service.
The point is they use that data to paint a very rough idea, so someone can quickly see if a company may be right for them to do business with or not. In terms of informing you of whether the bank you check funds fossil fuels or not, I think tool succeeds at that.
Just as goodonyou.eco compile a database of ethical clothes manufacturers through collating various datasets around the world to give me an idea of who is or isn’t making their clothes in sweatshops or sourcing their materials unethically. They’re meant to serve as a starting point to prompt a deeper look. I don’t just buy t shirts from Rapanui because they told me to. I buy from Rapanui because I looked into them on the back of discovering them via that platform and liked what I saw.
I suspect you’re overthinking it and coming at it through a banking know-it-all lens, dismissing it because the datasets they pull from haven’t educated them on each and every bank to the extent you have educated yourself. I’d suggest that’s less of an issue with the intention of the tool itself, and more that, when it comes to banks, you don’t need something like this because you already have better knowledge. It’s a starting point for folks who have no knowledge at all, and there are a lot more of those than there are of you or I!
In short, it’s a prompt to encourage you to look deeper. Not a be all end all of 100% factual information on every minutia of everything every bank everywhere does.
huh my bank is investing in fossil fuels, I don’t like that, maybe I should switch… ooo this one apparently doesn’t, maybe I should check them out…
That’s the sort of interaction expected from a tools like this. Not a one stop shop for comparing banks.
1 Like
The errors I’ve noticed would take 2 mins of Googling per institution. Google website, check brand actually exists and is not just a legacy operation, check each product is available. 1 person could cover the UK market in an afternoon.
Which ONS dataset do you think categorises the product each financial institution offers? I doubt such a dataset exists.
Why would I feel prompted to look deeper when just scratching the surface I can see errors? It’s not trustworthy.
ooo this one apparently doesn’t but oh wait it hasn’t existed in any real sense for over a decade nvm
That’s not proper fact checking and would just lead to more inaccuracies. There are some brands who no longer operate from a consumer perspective, but do elsewhere. Some which have shut to new clients but still serve existing ones (Brexit led to a few of these), some which previously offered certain products and then pulled them and no longer list, but still continue to provide such services to existing customers.
Those are just a few things a quick google won’t inform you of. And it’s not really useful for the purpose of the tool.
It’s a not for profit. Crowdsourcing really helps tools like this. Wikipedia wouldn’t exist the way it does without it. You’re more than welcome to do some good and take an extra 30 seconds on top of the time you’ve spent looking into their data and criticising it on a forum to help them improve it so it becomes better for everyone.
None. I didn’t suggest one exists. Which financial institutions are they listing individual products offered for? I took you at your word last time, but I’ve just checked about 15 different banks, and they don’t show any information on any financial products they offer.
For the specific errors I’ve found and reported in regards to defunct banks, and the inconsistency between RBS and NatWest, I’ll let you know the data source as soon as they let me know. I have asked and I’m just waiting on a reply.
Because it’s not for you. You don’t need a tool like this because you already know everything they could possibly have to teach you.
It’s for the people who don’t know anything but care about the issue at hand.
I don’t think this is as important as you think it is. Brexit probably buggered up goodonyou.echo’s database, and so a good number of the ones who deliver to the U.K. didn’t when I checked.
When that happens, I’d just check a different one I like and flag the error and they fix it.
1 Like
I disagree. If an institution isn’t open or offering those products then it’s not a viable choice is it, so its presence on a list aimed at helping consumers choose is unhelpful.
In any case it’s always better to presume something isn’t available than mistakenly signpost that it is.
I’d offer feedback if they invited it.
So presume they offer none until you can establish otherwise. Easy.
If a bank isn’t advertising for customers it probably means they don’t want new customers. Even credit unions with arcane procedures tend to have a basic listing of what they can offer eligible clients.
1 Like
They have a big green button for it on every page for every bank 
Isn’t that what they’re doing?
I don’t see them advertising any bank products on the pages of the 15 or so I’ve just checked.
Incase you missed missed my question, I’ll ask again, which ones are they doing this for?
1 Like
Ah! That’s a different part to the website I’d not seen, and isn’t part of the tool provided on the home page.
Coincidentally, that’s a curated list and isn’t pulling from any databases, or at least they don’t specify they are for that list, rather they claim it comes from the websites of those banks.
Don’t have time to check them all, but a few are apart of YBS Group, who own Egg, who did used to offer credit cards before Barclaycard got those customers. There are documents still on their website that do reference those credit products, and that probably causes confusion.
A good number of others will identify as Barclays if you run their sort codes, and depending which checker you use to identify banking facilities, some will report that they offer credit cards, because Barclays offer credit cards.
I’ve reported these to them now too. Also asked where they got the data from. Will report back with any answer.
Even with crowdsourcing, which we’ve done both on here and at the Monzo community a few times, we get this stuff wrong quite a lot too, and it’s not for lack of googling or fact checking. But it’s just not that straightforward and there’s conflicting information everywhere. Especially when half the time, it’s one page on the bank’s own website contradicting another!
1 Like
POV the Paris Agreement lol
Our country’s historical emissions by now have left the atmosphere by large, iirc. So I wouldn’t really say the British Industrial Revolution matters today.
And I’d say today we’re doing quite well. Wind farms flourish here. Solar panels are 0% VAT (better than the EU by the way).
Consumer demand is based around products historically. Government is there to regulate what’s inside of said products.
This is a ludicrous assumption. Talent and experience doesn’t appear from thin air because we throw money at it. Especially within your 2 year claim.
If we did that let’s assume engineers then came from abroad. Now we’ve done zero net for the world and spent a bunch of money for no benefit. Because we’ve sucked the ability from other people to increase theirs.
If it were this easy do you not think HSBC, Lloyds etc. Some of the largest lenders on earth, could build these themselves and then stabilise their income for decades? Yet instead Lloyds is buying homes.
money can apparently solve all problems, so I’d recommend they start generating some cash flow and use that to fix their poor data pool
Didn’t M&S technically still offer current accounts for a period even though they were rolling down that part of the brand?
They could start with Britain, China, India, the USA and get those right. Would cover a lot of the financing of fossil fuels and scale themselves down a lot. France too, now that I think about it.
Businesses aren’t going to be researching on some meme site that can’t get basic information about the big banks right.
They should reduce scope over to retail banking.
I think we have to bare in mind that this resource is possibly geared more towards people who genuinely see no difference between the activities of certain banks and/or have no understanding of how deposits can be used by banks. With us lot the impact of this sort of resource is bound to be minutiae but if it engenders multiple incremental changes in people’s banking arrangements perhaps it could have some impact? I’m not commenting either way there!
1 Like
Yeah, until very recently from some new found experience through a hobby project, I too was quite adamant that this sort of stuff is dead easy minimal effort work to get right. I now know it unequivocally is not!
Through a bizarre set of circumstances I wound up having a website for my dog, which I started to roll with as a journal of sorts in the summer to capture and immortalise some memories now she’s getting old. It’s intended as a hobby just for myself and friends and family and the local neighbourhood who all love her. so its not monetised in any way, and I spend about an hour in each weekend typing up a little journal entry for that week.
But then I had this big brain idea to compile a small curated collection of products, services, and business I’ve used over the years for my dog that have been really good. Again, for personal use, because I’ll no doubt own more dogs in the future and will want to look back on which businesses to get stuff for the dogs from. But I acknowledge a website is public and others might stumble across it and find some value so it was worth taking some care to make sure it’s done right. I thought it would take the same time and effort as a journal entry, and planned to add one per month during some downtime from the longer walks. I’ve stuck with it, but it was clearly a mistake.
Those posts take multiple days worth of work to put together, and they’re relatively short and light on depth. But it’s hard work, and I don’t have the time to be doing it in my spare time at the pace I’m going. Especially when the goal is to maintain existing ones and update them regularly as needed, which I’ve so far not been able to do. I’ll be revising the post schedule for that for sure in the new year to probably once every two or three months. So I can completely emphasise with the scale of the task an organisation like Bank Green have if they were to even attempt to do the same sort of thing for every bank in the world.
Equally I find myself having more sympathy for Monzo’s merchant data woes now too, though they’ve gotten significantly better at it this month.
With that said, I do believe if you’re going to do something, you should take the care and time necessary to do it right, otherwise I’m not sure there’s a point to it. Especially if it’s something not terribly relevant to your goal in the first place. But I do understand why they’ve tried, much like I understand why Monzo tried the merchant logos route. A fools errand that probably requires more time and research than it’s really worth in terms of value.
Here’s an update from Bank Green:
Hi there,
Thanks very much for reporting this. The reasons are as follows:
The credit card issue was a mistake. We recently relaunched this section of the website with a much wider selection of options, and the person doing it for some reason ticked this option for almost all of the listings, where that was obviously incorrect. We’re addressing and it should be fixed shortly.
The RBS/Coutts/Natwest issue: we recently built a new database for the website and after the migration, subsidiary relationships (whereby RBS/Coutts etc. used to inherit Natwest’s score due to being part of the group) was broken and have not yet gotten around to fixing it, but it is a priority.
The issue of defunct banks: I’m not sure how these made their way into the database, but we’ll also be double-checking them soon and removing all defunct ones such as Abbey National.
We use multiple data sources as well as manual checks, but obviously things can fall through the cracks. It’s imperative that we keep the records accurate, however, so I really am grateful for your pointing these out. We’ll absolutely get them all fixed in the next week or two (feel free to check back!) - the reason things don’t always happen immediately is because we’re still a team of volunteers.
Thank you again for pointing these things out.