Qualitative multi-method study reveals divergent ESG operational pathways and persistent disclosure gaps in leading global banks, highlighting the need for harmonized accountability standards.
Sustainability has become a strategic priority for the banking sector, yet evidence on how banks translate environmental, social and governance (ESG) commitments into concrete organizational practices remains fragmented. This gap is particularly relevant because banks play a central role in allocating capital, managing climate‐related risks and shaping the credibility of sustainable finance. This study examines the challenges, strategies and prospects of sustainability implementation in banking by analyzing how major global banks operationalize ESG principles across strategy, risk management, operations and client‐facing activities. The study adopts a qualitative multi‐method design, combining multiple case studies of 10 leading global banks with inductive content analysis of sustainability reports, ESG disclosures, annual reports, policy documents and relevant academic literature. The findings identify three dominant sustainability approaches: strategic commitments and sustainable finance pledges, operational decarbonization and ESG risk integration, and market‐oriented leadership through green products, transition finance and client engagement. However, the analysis also reveals persistent contradictions, including continued financing of carbon‐intensive sectors, inconsistent Scope 3 financed‐emissions disclosure, fragmented ESG data, regulatory asymmetries and greenwashing risks. The study contributes by integrating institutional, stakeholder and legitimacy perspectives into a conceptual framework that links external pressures, banking operationalization channels and sustainability outcomes. For practitioners and policymakers, the findings highlight the need to move from symbolic ESG practices toward outcome‐based metrics, harmonized reporting standards, stronger accountability mechanisms and cross‐sector collaboration capable of supporting a credible low‐carbon and inclusive financial transition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Filho et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: