Banking and capital markets play a fundamental role in enabling economic growth, and supporting most sectors of the economy. Through the allocation of capital, the banking and capital markets sectors can be linked to a wide range of adverse environmental, social and governance impacts. In response, policymakers, standard-setters and financial service providers have developed various responsible and sustainable investment and lending practices, frameworks and policies, including some related to risk-based due diligence for responsible business conduct (RBC). This case study explores significant impacts related to banking and capital markets and challenges and opportunities in addressing them in line with international standards on RBC.1 It is targeted at companies involved in banking and capital markets who are seeking to understand their exposure to related risks, and also for policymakers and stakeholders seeking to better understand opportunities for promoting effective due diligence in the sector.
Due diligence essentials for responsible banking and capital markets
Abstract
Common features and interconnectivity across the financial system
In both the banking and capital markets sectors, banks, asset managers, asset owners, or pension funds provide a range of financial products and services to individuals, households, businesses and governments. It enables economic actors to swiftly and cost efficiently move money in exchange for good and services and better manage financial risks. Financial institutions also play a role in directing the financial resources of individuals (e.g. as savers, pensioners, policyholders, taxpayers and investors) towards productive uses that fuel economic activity. In return, the increase in the value of the assets invested, along with any profits or dividends, is expected to benefit the ultimate asset owners, while also supporting the operations and profitability of financial intermediaries. This flow of capital, and the interconnected roles of financial actors, is illustrated in Figure 1.
Financial service providers across the banking and capital markets sectors have similar operating models. All have assets and liabilities to be managed, with obligations towards their clients, policyholders or beneficiaries. In the case of banks and some pension funds, they have some discretion in how they select and serve those clients. On the assets side, they also have responsibilities to allocate and steward that capital in a way that maximise financial value.
Banking and capital markets are interlinked functions of the financial sector. Often, asset owners are advised by investment consultants, who they pay to help them make investment decisions. Asset owners also invest in banks and insurance companies, which, as well as receiving deposits and insurance premiums to help manage and mitigate risk respectively, aggregate these resources and finance the economy. Similarly, commercial banks, export credit agencies and development finance institutions may engage in syndicated loans in the context of project-based finance transactions and similar infrastructure financing. Finally, blended finance instruments, defined as the strategic use of development finance for the mobilisation of additional finance towards sustainable development in developing countries, aim to pool resources from development finance institutions and various commercial actors, including institutional investors (OECD, 2025[1]).
Geographical concentration is a clear feature in the banking and capital markets sector. As of 2025, nine of the ten largest banks globally are headquartered either in the US or in the People’s Republic of China (here after “China”) (US Federal Reserve, 2025[2]). As for capital markets, the United States is, in recent years, responsible for about 60% of global equity market capitalisation, with China in second standing at only about 10%. US companies represent about 70% of the S&P 500 Dow Jones, the leading stock index worldwide, and 27% of all shares worldwide (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, n.d.[3]).
Market actors by sector
Banking sector
Broadly speaking, banking refers to financial services and activities provided by institutions that are licensed to accept deposits, extend credit, and offer other financial intermediation services to clients, usually for their own consumption or investment. The banking sector includes retail, commercial, investment, development and central banks. Each plays a distinct role within the broader financial sector, offering specific, though often overlapping, financial products and tools to different types of clients. Access to banking is an essential capacity for market formalisation, and the financial services banks provide facilitate economic growth, stabilise economies, and drive wealth creation by enabling capital flows and transactions.
Many banks have overlapping functions, but they can broadly be divided based on their targeted client type:
Retail banks provide basic financial services to the public and businesses. Retail bank financial services include checking and savings, personal loans, and home or business mortgages.
Commercial banks focus primarily on financial services for businesses. Examples of the types of financial services commercial banks typically provide include loans, lines of credit, cash management, and corporate treasury functions. Commercial banks may concentrate in specific sectors, such as agriculture, construction, real estate, or infrastructure, and they may be organised as co‑operatives.
Investment banks act as intermediaries in the capital market by ensuring that companies receive funding from other financial institutions. Investment banks provide more specialised services including securities underwriting or raising capital (as either equity or debt) from institutional investors.
Beyond these key types of public- and business-facing banks, there are a number of other specialised banks that fulfil specific needs in the economy. For instance, development finance institutions support long-term investments for economic development in emerging economies. Development banks may be multilateral (i.e. owned and managed by several countries), bilateral (i.e. owned and managed by one country in the context of public development banks), may further focus on target regions (e.g. Asia or Africa), or may function specifically in individual states, to support local economic development.
Export credit agencies (ECAs) are governmental or semi-private agencies that facilitate domestic exports and support international trade by absorbing some of the risk to the exporter. ECAs support exporters through loan guarantees, credit insurance, and direct lending.
Source: Based on graph from WBA Financial System Transformation.
Finally, central banks, are the branch of the state that is responsible for currency issuance and maintaining financial system stability. Central banks critically develop and deploy monetary policies, controlling inflation and overall economic fluctuation by buying and selling securities and lending. In some cases, central banks can have investment activities.
Banks range in size from small local retail banks with assets of less than USD 100 million to global players, often bridging retail, commercial, and investment functions, with trillions of US dollars in assets. Many banks have specific subsidiaries that complement their primary activities. For example, large retail and commercial banks have wealth management, investment, or insurance subsidiaries; investment banks and asset management firms often have subsidiaries in management and trading as well as international branches; development banks have subsidiaries that focus on specific topics like infrastructure, education, or climate finance (Cerutti, Dell’Ariccia and Martínez Pería, 2005[4]). Organisationally, whether a bank opens overseas branches, or a subsidiary is a function of economic and political risk, regulation and taxation in the host country (OECD, 2017[5]).
Capital markets and institutional investors
Capital markets are crucial for the economy as they allow businesses to access capital and help households to manage their savings. They also support financial stability by providing market-based financing to complement the use of bank credit by the corporate sector. The term “capital markets” refers to exchanges in which different types of financial instruments are bought, sold, and traded. Capital markets, including equity, debt, and derivatives, are important for economic growth and wealth creation by generating liquidity for investment. Through capital markets, various equity and debt instruments are traded by a wide range of economic actors. Equity, or stock markets are where shares of companies are issued and traded, providing firms with capital in exchange for ownership stakes.
On debt markets, bonds and other debt instruments are issued by governments and corporations, enabling these actors to borrow capital from bond holders for extended periods. Corporate bond markets have become an increasingly important source of financing since the 2008 financial crisis, especially for non-financial companies. They allow companies to diversify their funding sources and to reduce their reliance on bank lending. Bonds can also be issued by governments into public markets, to finance various public spendings and services. Investment-grade bonds (i.e., the corporation has a high credit rating) can be purchased from brokerage firms, via bond-trading platforms, through investment funds, or directly from a corporation or government. In other cases, corporations issue bonds that are either investment-grade or high-yield. Investment-grade bonds are often bundled with stocks into a diversified portfolio of assets called mutual funds, which are then professionally managed by a fund a manager or brokerage firm.
In derivatives markets, contracts are bought and sold as futures, options, forwards, and swaps. Stocks, equities, or bonds commonly underpin derivatives markets, which may include other financial instruments and assets like commodities. In the capital markets sector, institutional investors ranging from asset management firms to venture capitalists intervene to pool capital and grow profits. On derivatives markets, contracts for assets ranging from stocks, equities, and bonds to commodities are traded in the form of futures, options, forwards, or swaps. In some instances, these trades take place on established exchanges or can be traded over the counter as contracts tailored between parties with the facilitation of brokers or investment institutions. Derivatives markets enable investors to engage in hedging, speculation, and arbitrage. Exchange‑traded derivatives and some over the counter deals are settled by a clearing house, an organisation that reduces the counterpart risk in a transaction arrangement.
Institutional investors are the primary actors operating in capital markets. Part of the institutional investors are asset owners. Asset owners steward assets on behalf of their beneficiaries and invest them directly or indirectly through asset managers. It is their fiduciary duty to manage assets in their beneficiaries’ long-term interest. These responsibilities translate into asset allocation activities (such as selecting investments in various asset classes, geographies and industries) and ownership strategies (such as voting or engagement). Investment consultants support asset owners throughout the investment decision making process. Some investment consultants usually perform an “outsourced Chief Investment Officer” function, through which they have the discretion to manage assets on behalf of their clients. This binds them to the same fiduciary duty as the asset owners whose assets they manage. Endowments and sovereign wealth funds are typically categorised as asset owners.
Asset managers manage a wide array of assets, and usually pool assets from different asset owners into products (investment funds or other vehicles). There are many different types of asset managers, determined by the type of client, asset class, term and geography they invest in. Asset managers include mutual funds, hedge funds, private equity firms, and venture‑capital (VC) firms. Some may be autonomous investment firms and other may be subsidiaries of financial institutions. VC is often invested through VC‑specific firms in-high risk, high-growth potential companies in their early stages. Depending on the products they offer, asset managers seek to attract a range of clients, often by customising their offers, which, for those operating on a vast scale, can influence the direction of the economy.
Insurance companies are also investors, with total insurance assets reaching over USD 36 trillion by 2020. They pool premiums paid by policyholders and invest them in the economy, to increase sufficient funds to pay out insurance contracts that mature or materialise, as well as earn a profit. Many insurance companies also serve external clients through asset management arms of the business.
Fintech
“Fintech” (short for financial technology) companies have reshaped financial services over the past decades through the introduction of digital solutions for everything from payments, lending, personal finance to cryptocurrencies and blockchain. As of 2021, about 20% of all venture capital was invested in fintech. Business-to-business (b2b) and banking-as-a-service (BaaS) fintech solutions offer digital payment methods and other banking products, often through third-party distributors. Common examples of these solutions include popular “buy now, pay later” plans; cashier-less shopping using an app that debits the customer’s account directly; and point-of-sale loans on goods purchased at a store. Often, non‑banks are the customer-facing face of these tools, which operate through behind-the‑scenes arrangements with banks.
Regulatory and non-regulatory bodies
Central banks act as an important regulator for the banking sector (otherwise regulated by a separate banking authority). Central banks are non-market-based institutions, usually independent authorities, responsible for the formulation of monetary policy and the regulation of member banks. They regulate member banks through capital requirements, reserve requirements, and deposit guarantees, among other tools. They also provide loans and services for a nation’s banks and its government and manage foreign exchange reserves.
Securities regulators and financial markets authorities play a key role in the capital markets ecosystem by overseeing financial markets, ensuring compliant trading of stocks, bonds, and derivatives, and preventing fraud. In particular, securities regulators are concerned with preventing the abuse of information about securities that are traded on the market, enabling fair and transparent financial markets practices that foster stability and growth. Regulators also monitor Initial Public Offers (IPOs) of companies and oversee stock exchange operations, and regulate capital flows between market participants. Both central banks and securities regulators can issue mandatory or voluntary frameworks related to the management and disclosure of financial and non-financial risks and impacts by regulated entities. In addition, in a number of jurisdictions, stock exchanges play a quasi-regulatory role, setting listing requirements and disclosure standards that effectively complement or substitute for legislative mandates.
Both credit and increasingly ESG rating agencies play a key role in capital markets by helping to reduce the informative asymmetry between lenders and investors, on one side, and issuers on the other side, about the creditworthiness of companies or countries or about their exposure to or impacts on sustainability factors. In practice, issuers with lower credit ratings pay higher interest rates embodying larger risk premiums than higher rated issuers. Moreover, ratings determine the eligibility of debt and other financial instruments for the portfolios of certain institutional investors due to national regulations that restrict investment in speculative‑grade bonds (UNCTAD, 2008[6]).
ESG ratings and scores aim to provide an opinion on the performance of a company, asset or financial instrument in the context of indices by assessing its exposure to and/or impact on environmental, social and governance factors, including the company’s ability to manage impacts, risks and opportunities associated with such factors. ESG ratings providers include firms that are providing assessments of equity and debt issuers based on their disclosures that explicitly or implicitly offer sustainability metrics and information that help determine ESG scores. Some of the ratings are based on weighing numerous subcategory metrics based on identified quantitative data, either offered by corporate issuers or taken from other industry data sources.
A number of rating providers are also index providers. These index providers offer a range of stylised benchmarks that in turn allow for fund products to be developed for passive or active investment, and also for portfolio managers to utilise as a benchmark to compare their ability to generate excess risk-adjusted returns. The use of such indices is growing rapidly as means to track relative performance of various ESG tilted market portfolios, from which institutional investors can benchmark performance. Also, such indices are used by ESG funds and ETFs for passive and active investment management. By virtue of their growing use as benchmarks for ESG investing, the ways in which indices are created, including exclusion, extent of tilting portfolios toward issuers with higher ESG scores, and other forms such as thematic indices (e.g. high “S” issuers), is currently highly influential in guiding overall ESG portfolio management.
The banking and capital markets sectors, as primary sources of finance for the rest of the real economy can be involved in a broad range of environmental, social and governance risks and impacts related to the activities they invest in and finance. Bank and investors often hold investments in a wide range of different companies. For financial institutional their portfolios may be a reflection of the market as a whole. As a result, they may be directly linked to a comprehensive range of adverse impacts through their financial and investment activities and need to carefully prioritise where they focus on their due diligence efforts.
Some impacts may be more likely depending on the financing approach or asset class. For instance, project and asset finance transactions related to large‑scale infrastructure and land development projects are often correlated to projects with an extensive environmental and social footprint and a change in land use. Such investments may be more likely to be linked to issues involving land rights, displacement, and forced relocations, particularly in countries where access to remedy for these violations is curtailed or non-existent, or when financing projects near Indigenous Peoples’ land. Corruption is pervasive in large‑scale projects that seek outside funding, especially those taking place in autocratic countries, carried out by state‑owned enterprises, or overseen by politically connected individuals. Some types of risk are more acute in the VC realm which is a key source of financing unregulated and novel technology companies whose products promise innovation but also pose potential human rights impacts. Surveillance and generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are two key areas of concern.
Specific financial instruments have been linked to adverse human rights impacts. During the food price crisis 2007-2008, for example, speculation on derivatives for agricultural commodities like grain exports directly contributed to “food bubbles,” or price spikes that set off a chain reaction from regulators and suppliers. Ultimately, commodity exchanges in Africa and Asia shuttered futures trading.
Likewise certain practices or strategies with respect to finance have been linked to adverse human rights impacts or discrimination. As seen in the subprime mortgage crisis, individual brokers may target minority borrowers for loans they are unlikely to afford in the long term. Similarly, entire lending institutions may deny customers access to finance based on race, religion, or gender. As loans are increasingly approved or denied by algorithms, financial models have the potential to perpetuate, exacerbate, or mask discrimination (BSR, 2018[7]). Data breaches and misuse of customer or employee information may result in human rights violations, particularly if sensitive financial information is disclosed.
Fraud is another significant risk in the banking and capital markets sector. Fraud takes a variety of forms that can impact shareholders and the broader economy, but insider trading, in which stocks, bonds, or other securities are unfairly traded based on non-public, materials information, impacting the company’s stock prices, is one key example (New York Times, 2008[8]).
Information deficit or barriers
Banks and institutional investors may be engaging with thousands of clients and investee companies in their portfolio or be assessing a wide range of companies for investment or to provide lending to, making identification of risk challenging. This challenge is also exacerbated by the potential information deficit in certain sector, geography, or in relation to smaller enterprises. Of the estimated 80 000 multinational companies in the world, only around 5 000‑10 000 are estimated to publish environmental and social performance reports. Company disclosure on adverse impacts remains uneven, partial and biased. As a result, may be difficult for investors to gain a full understanding of risks facing a company in their portfolio and whether they are being adequately addressed.
Further, the rapid growth of the sustainable and responsible investment markets has resulted in a wave of greenwashing and unsubstantiated claims about the sustainability of financial offerings. Given that consumers of purported green or sustainable financial services are distant from the claims, it is difficult to carry out due diligence to assess their accuracy. In some cases, banks have been found to use “green” or sustainable claims to mask massive simultaneous investment in fossil fuels, as in the case of a large asset manager. In other instances, studies have unveiled that consumer-facing ESG claims are not backed up by any actual impacts or data.
A related investment practice that may impede value chain due diligence in banking and capital markets contexts is the use of firewalls, or information barriers established to prevent transmission of sensitive, material information between departments or divisions of a firm. Firewalls are mandated by regulators to prevent improper disclosures of confidential information while undertaking an investment or in the run-up to an IPO (European Securities and Markets Authority, 2015[9]; Yan, 2023[10]). While compliance ensures confidentiality and reducing the risk of insider trading by preventing information flows, firewalls within institutional investor firms also create an overall fragmented picture of investments, limiting capacity to conduct robust value chain due diligence and overall consideration of non-financial risk.
Prioritisation
For banks and investors with large and diverse portfolios the universe of potential adverse impacts among investee companies or client may be vast, making identifying and prioritising impacts a challenge. Portfolios are also dynamic and can shift frequently as holdings are acquired or divested, adding a further layer of complexity to an already demanding prioritisation exercise.
Engaging with stakeholders
Direct engagement with stakeholders, in particular impacted stakeholders, is not common practice for banks and investors. Financial institutions usually limit their stakeholder engagement to direct clients and beneficiaries. Banks may face constraints in engaging directly with stakeholders impacted by the behaviour of their clients due to concerns about client confidentiality, logistical constraints as well as other perceived legal risks associated with their interference in management activities.
Leverage limitations
When risk and impact are identified, investors and lenders have the responsibility to exercise influence over the company concerned, to use its so-called leverage to mitigate the risk. However, financial institutions’ ability to exercise leverage may be impacted by a number of factors:
Minority shareholding: Even the largest institutional investors may be only small minority shareholders in many companies. For publicly traded companies, corporate ownership structures and corporate governance rules and practices in some countries may impede minority shareholders, particularly foreign shareholders, from exercising influence. For example, companies may give shareholders limited information and access to management. Only in exceptional circumstances do shareholders as a whole have the formal power to direct the board of a company to take a specific action.
Asset class limitations: The ability to exercise influence may be limited by the characteristic of an asset class. For example, investors in corporate or government bonds may have very limited opportunities to influence the company or government that issued the bond. Bond investors may insert conditions into loan agreements when bonds are issued that restrict the company’s ability to make certain kinds of investment. However, their ability to exercise ongoing influence over a company’s day-to-day actions is limited. The individual bondholder’s influence over a government in the case of sovereign bonds is even more limited.
Passive investment strategy: Passive investment managers may require client consent to exclude companies from an index and may complicate investors’ ability to conduct due diligence. Exchange‑traded funds (ETFs), valued at approximately USD 14 trillion in 2024, are a key example; ETFs are diversified baskets of assets that allow investors to spread risk across mixed stocks, bonds, and commodities, often packaged for the consumer into a user-friendly, low-fee, app-based financial services experience. Many passive investments on the market are computer-run indices that are managed and calculated automatically to track the performance of the portfolio in real time. However, as a result of the design of passive investment tools, where due diligence concerns arise, it can be difficult to exercise leverage or disengage from investments that are diversified and passive.
Leverage post-disbursement: A bank’s ability to exercise leverage is generally higher before the actual provision of a financial service. Once the transaction has been concluded, a bank’s leverage may be significantly reduced.
Competitive business environment: In competitive markets, banks face limitations on their ability to influence clients or prospective clients and may stand to lose clients as a result of requiring certain information or standards of conduct, which may extend the timeline of the transaction, where other banks have lower requirements in place.
Antitrust and competition issues
Investors and banks have a range of stewardship tools available to them to protect and enhance risk-adjusted returns, including raising material sustainability concerns directly with investee boards and management. Such engagement, grounded in the exercise of shareholder rights and consistent with fiduciary duties, is both widely practised and broadly permitted across jurisdictions (OECD, 2025[11]).
That said, specific attention must be paid to the applicable legal framework in each jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, investors and banks may not be permitted to formally “influence” the boards or management of their investee companies due to anti-trust concerns or to condition specific business conduct to investment decision collectively. Competition and antitrust obligations become particularly relevant where collective approaches by financial institutions entail common positions on clients, sectors, or products in ways that could be interpreted as limiting market choice, raising barriers to entry, or involving the sharing of competitively sensitive information such as pricing models or future business strategies.
Balancing transparency and confidentiality
Client confidentiality is fundamental to the banking and capital markets sectors. Many jurisdictions have legal frameworks, which recognise that a bank has a legal duty to keep its clients’ affairs confidential. The scope of the duty may differ considerably from one country to another and will vary depending on the law governing the relationship between banks and their clients. Where it exists, a bank’s duty of client confidentiality generally covers more than just financial information (e.g. the state of the client’s account) and extends to all information received in the course of the relationship. It may also require the bank to keep confidential the existence of the client relationship itself. The duty usually applies to information received about prospective clients and can continue after a client relationship has ended. A further constraint arises in certain sectors (e.g. defence) where companies operate under strict non-disclosure agreements with governments, limiting the amount of information that can be made available to investors in the exercise of due diligence.
The duty of confidentiality is owed by the bank to the client and is intended to protect the client’s interests. This means that generally the client can waive the right to confidentiality with respect to their information. Accordingly, one way to respond to client confidentiality restrictions is to obtain (ideally at the outset of the relationship) the consent of the client to disclose specific information; for example, the existence of the client relationship with the bank.
Despite challenges to conducting due diligence in the banking and capital markets sectors, risk management, traditionally in terms of financial risk, is at the core of the banking and capital markets sector. Financial sector actors thus have a wealth of experience that makes them well-placed to expand due diligence to consider ESG risks and impacts more broadly.
Existing due diligence‑related practices
The financial sector is highly accustomed to conducting finance or compliance‑based due diligence. Existing financial-related regulations, as well as market practice, have helped create a culture of identifying risk and impact. Traditionally, financial institutions such as banks, asset managers, insurers, and institutional investors have relied on financial and legal due diligence to assess the creditworthiness, financial health, and operational viability of clients, counterparties, and investee companies. Over time, also due to investor expectations, and market dynamics, this due diligence scope has expanded to include ESG factors, which are now widely recognised as material to financial performance and long-term value creation. ESG due diligence enables financial actors to identify and manage sustainability-related risks that may affect the value or stability of assets, counterparties, or supply chains. As a result, due diligence processes in the financial sector are no longer confined to financial metrics alone but are increasingly geared toward assessing both financial and non-financial risks and impacts, positioning financial actors as key enablers of responsible business conduct and sustainable development.
Stewardship by investors in line with emerging global standards is another approach enhancing the environment for due diligence in the banking and capital markets sector. The UN Principles for Responsible Investment define stewardship as the use of investor rights and influence to protect and enhance overall long-term value for clients and beneficiaries, including the common economic, social and environmental assets on which their interests depend. Stewardship expands the framework of fiduciary duty to consider ESG impacts in the management of assets, carrying out value chain due diligence to understand and address risks before they negatively impact investment financials (CFA Institute/Global Sustainable Investment Alliance/Principles for Responsible Investment, 2023[12]). The practice of investor stewardship is reflected in both voluntary guidance like the OECD Corporate Governance Principles and in some regulatory expectations.
Rise of sustainable finance
Forms of sustainable finance have grown rapidly in recent years, as a growing number of institutional investors and funds incorporate various ESG investing approaches, with global ESG-labelled assets on track to surpass USD 40 trillion in 2030 (Bloomberg, 2024[13]). The growing investor interest in ESG factors reflects the view that environmental, social and corporate governance issues including risks and opportunities can affect the long-term performance of issuers and should therefore be given appropriate consideration in investment decisions. In light of growing demand, the finance industry is creating more products and services related to ESG ratings, indices, and funds. Firms calling themselves ESG ratings providers have multiplied. The number of ESG indexes, equity and fixed income funds and ETFs are now in the many hundreds and are continuing to expand (OECD, 2020[14]).
Sustainable finance has particularly focussed on climate impacts with the introduction of the 2015 Paris Agreement and its emphasis on green finance to fight climate change; and the establishment in 2016 of the Task Force on Climate‑Related Financial Disclosures (World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), n.d.[15]). There are a wide variety of actors involved in sustainable finance to meet growing demand from consumers, investors, and regulators, offering consumers sustainable financial products across the banking and capital markets sectors. Examples range in scale from individual mission-driven consumer-facing banks to multi-stakeholder efforts across the sector. These efforts bring together leading financial institutions to support progress toward decarbonisation and support of the Paris Agreement in the banking and capital markets sectors.
The OECD has developed various resources to support businesses carrying out due diligence in the financial sector, notably through sector specific due diligence guidance, broader cross-sectoral resources, as well as topical resources on climate impacts.
Due Diligence for Responsible Corporate Lending and Securities Underwriting
Responsible business conduct due diligence for project and asset finance transactions
Managing Climate Risks and Impacts Through Due Diligence for Responsible Business Conduct
Cross-sectoral resources:
OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct
Other relevant resources:
References
[13] Bloomberg (2024), Global ESG assets predicted to hit $40 trillion by 2030, despite challenging environment, https://www.bloomberg.com/company/press/global-esg-assets-predicted-to-hit-40-trillion-by-2030-despite-challenging-environment-forecasts-bloomberg-intelligence/ (accessed on 18 March 2026).
[7] BSR (2018), 10 Human Rights Priorities for the Financial Sector, https://www.bsr.org/en/primers/10-human-rights-priorities-for-the-financial-sector (accessed on 18 March 2026).
[4] Cerutti, E., G. Dell’Ariccia and M. Martínez Pería (2005), “How Banks Go Abroad : Branches or Subsidiaries?”, Policy Research Working Papers, No. 3753, World Bank, https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-3753.
[12] CFA Institute/Global Sustainable Investment Alliance/Principles for Responsible Investment (2023), Definitions for Rresponsible Investment Approaches, https://www.gsi-alliance.org/members-resources/definitions-for-responsible-investment-approaches/.
[9] European Securities and Markets Authority (2015), Status of Implementation of the Standards for Participants in an offering (ref. 99-FESCO-B), https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/2015/11/compilation_offering.pdf.
[3] Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (n.d.), S&P 500, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SP500 (accessed on 18 March 2026).
[8] New York Times (2008), Société Générale loses $7 billion in trading fraud, https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/business/worldbusiness/24iht-socgen.5.9486501.html.
[11] OECD (2025), Institutional Investor Engagement and Stewardship, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a4902cee-en.
[1] OECD (2025), OECD DAC Blended Finance Guidance 2025, Best Practices in Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e4a13d2c-en.
[14] OECD (2020), ESG Investing: Practices, Progress and Challenges, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b4f71091-en.
[5] OECD (2017), Conditions for establishment of subsidiaries and branches in the provision of banking services by non-resident institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/96bf908c-en.
[6] UNCTAD (2008), Credit rating agencies and their potential impact on developing countries, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/624687/files/osgdp20081_en.pdf.
[2] US Federal Reserve (2025), “Large Commercial Banks”, Federal Reserve Statistical Release, https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/lbr/current/ (accessed on 18 March 2026).
[16] World Benchmarking Alliance (2021), Financial System Transformation Scoping Report, https://archive.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/research/fst-scoping-report/.
[15] World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (n.d.), Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) Response and Development, https://www.wbcsd.org/actions/tcfd/ (accessed on 17 March 2026).
[10] Yan, Q. (2023), “The Importance of Chinese Walls in Banks and Management of Information Flows”, Frontiers in Business, Economics and Management, Vol. 8/3, https://doi.org/10.54097/fbem.v8i3.7871.
← 1. The sector was chosen for a case study based on a previous study by the OECD to identify and synthesise insights from key resources on the prevalence of issues covered by the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (the OECD Guidelines) across industry sectors. To complement this analysis, the OECD further conducted an expert survey to attain a broad picture of the perceived association with Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) issues across sectors.
This work is issued under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD, and does not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD Member countries.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Photo credits: © Tyler Thompson / Getty Images
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.
