Citigroup

Does the core business genuinely avoid or reduce emissions, or build climate resilience? Share of revenue that is actually 'green'. Fossil-dependent models score low.

Citigroup's core business actively finances fossil fuel expansion at massive scale — it is the single worst funder of fossil fuel expansion since the Paris Agreement at $204 billion, dwarfing any climate-positive lending it undertakes.

Credible, science-based targets (SBTi), a real net-zero plan with progress to date, and CDP disclosure — not just a dated press release.

Citi has published 2030 interim emissions-reduction targets for 10 loan portfolios and has a 2050 net-zero commitment, but targets are not SBTi-validated, 42–71% of key energy clients lack credible transition plans, no targets exist yet for facilitated emissions, and Citi exited the NZBA in January 2025.

Operational footprint, labour and social practices, and governance quality across the company's own operations and supply chain.

Citi reports reaching or surpassing five of eight operational footprint reduction targets by 2025 and has financed $441B toward its $1 trillion sustainable finance goal, but these operational gains are vastly overshadowed by its financed emissions profile and the scale of fossil exposure in its loan book.

Quality of disclosure, independent third-party verification, and how much hard data backs the company's claims.

Citi publishes detailed annual climate reports, TCFD disclosures, PCAF-aligned facilitated emissions data for energy and power sectors, and green bond reports with Sustainalytics second-party opinions — but impact data for some sustainable projects is not independently verified, and it still lacks targets for reducing facilitated emissions from underwriting.

Controversies, litigation, pollution, fossil-fuel lobbying, conflict-zone involvement and governance scandals. Higher means cleaner.

Citigroup faces severe integrity concerns: it is the #1 global funder of fossil fuel expansion since Paris, a top funder of Arctic oil and gas, a named funder of Amazon oil destruction, subject to sustained public protests and shareholder activism, and exited the NZBA in January 2025 amid political pressure — undermining its stated net-zero commitments.