A complaint has been filed with South Africa’s Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) challenging Standard Bank’s environmental and climate-related advertising, with civil society organisations questioning whether its sustainability claims are consistent with its reported involvement in financing the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).
The complaint was filed on 27 October by Lawyers for Human Rights, representing Fossil Free South Africa (FFSA) and the StopEACOP Coalition, an international alliance of community groups and civil society organisations opposing the pipeline.
Standard Bank Group is a major South African financial services group headquartered in Johannesburg. It provides banking, investment, insurance and other financial services to individuals, businesses and institutions across Africa and internationally. It is one of Africa’s largest banking groups by assets and operates in areas including personal and business banking, corporate and investment banking, and wealth management.
The complainants have asked the regulator to examine environmental claims in Standard Bank’s 2025 Report to Society, its climate-related financial disclosures and advertising for its energy, infrastructure and sustainable finance services. These communications describe the bank as a “leading provider of sustainable finance solutions” and a “leading enabler of Africa’s just energy transition”, while highlighting its commitments to renewable energy, reducing fossil-fuel exposure and achieving net-zero financed emissions by 2050.
The complaint argues that these claims should be assessed against the bank’s financing activities, particularly its involvement in EACOP, a 1,443-kilometre heated crude-oil pipeline connecting Uganda’s oilfields to the Tanzanian coast.
According to the complaint, the pipeline could generate up to 34 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually at peak production and approximately 379 million tonnes over its lifetime. The complainants also point to its route through 158 wetlands in Uganda, 11 rivers and numerous protected or ecologically sensitive areas.
Communities affected by the project have reported land loss, economic displacement, disputes over compensation and threats to their livelihoods, the complaint states. Environmental and human rights defenders opposing the pipeline have also faced allegations of harassment, arrests and intimidation, according to the complainants.
Kholwani Simelane, campaign coordinator and team lead at Fossil Free South Africa, said the complaint sought to establish whether Standard Bank’s environmental image could withstand scrutiny of the projects it financed.
“We are asking the Advertising Regulatory Board to test whether the environmental image Standard Bank sells to the public can actually survive scrutiny against the reality of the projects it finances,” Simelane said.
“Standard Bank wants the South African public to associate its brand with wind turbines, renewable energy, sustainable finance and a just transition. Yet, they are helping finance a massive new crude-oil pipeline through East Africa,” Simelane added.
The complaint raises questions about how the bank’s commitment to achieving net-zero financed emissions by 2050 can be reconciled with financing infrastructure expected to facilitate crude-oil production and transportation for decades. It also challenges the bank’s assertion that EACOP complies with the Equator Principles and International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards, asking it to substantiate that claim.
The complainants further question how the bank’s stated commitments to water conservation and environmental stewardship align with financing a pipeline that passes through or near extensive freshwater systems, including the Lake Victoria basin, which supports tens of millions of people.
Zaki Mamdoo, coordinator of the StopEACOP Coalition, said the consequences of the project were directly experienced by communities along its route.
“For people living along the EACOP corridor, this is not an abstract debate about corporate language,” Mamdoo said, citing the loss of land and livelihoods, pressure on local ecosystems and the repression of people who have challenged the project.
“Financial institutions should not be able to present themselves elsewhere as champions of climate action and environmental stewardship without being accountable for what their money is making possible,” he added.
The complaint also notes that 43 banks and 30 insurers have ruled out support for EACOP, according to the StopEACOP Coalition. Major South African financial institutions, including Absa, FirstRand, Nedbank and Investec, have also declined to participate in the project, the complainants said.
Under the ARB Code of Advertising Practice, environmental claims must be substantiated and must not mislead consumers through omission, ambiguity, inaccuracy or exaggeration. The complainants have asked the regulator to assess Standard Bank’s claims relating to climate alignment, fossil-fuel reduction, sustainable finance and environmental responsibility.
They are seeking an assessment of whether the bank’s representations are accurate and adequately supported by evidence, and have asked the regulator to direct it to amend, qualify or withdraw any claims found to be misleading or insufficiently substantiated.
Brighton Aryampa, a Ugandan human and environmental rights lawyer working with communities affected by EACOP, said the complaint was not based on the premise that financing a single fossil-fuel project automatically invalidated every renewable-energy investment made by the bank.
“The question is whether the overall story being presented to the public is an honest one,” Aryampa said, adding that environmental advertising influences public understanding of how financial institutions deploy their money and what forms of development they support.
The complaint does not ask the regulator to rule that all fossil-fuel financing is incompatible with sustainable finance. Instead, it seeks scrutiny of Standard Bank’s specific environmental representations in light of its financing activities, including its involvement in EACOP.
The case raises broader questions about the standards that financial institutions should meet when making public claims about sustainability and climate action while supporting fossil-fuel infrastructure.
Comments