SOStainabilityWeekly

By Oke Epia, E-mail: sostainability01@gmail.com  | WhatsApp: +234 8034000706

Trends and threads

Sustainability Reporting: Nigerian banks and the visibility test

When the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) introduced the Nigerian Sustainable Banking Principles (NSBP) over a decade ago, a key goal was to embed environmental and social responsibility into the core of financial institutions in the country. Last week, this pageestablished that visibility must precede accountability in sustainability reporting. Commitments, no matter how noble, lose their value when hidden from the public eye. Building on that, we present a sustainability visibility scan of one of Nigeria’s most regulated and influential sectors- the banking industry.

What We Found

A desk review of ten randomly selected Nigerian banks – Access Bank, Zenith Bank, UBA, First Bank, GT Bank, Ecobank, Fidelity Bank, Stanbic IBTC, FCMB, and Union Bank – shows significant but uneven progress in the visibility of sustainability efforts and reporting.All ten companies have published various forms of sustainability policies, statements, and reports on their websites (viewed as of October 6th, 2025). This represents a significant step in sustainability reporting because it shows that awareness and structural governance for sustainability are emerging in Nigeria’s banking sector. Most have gone beyond just formulating policies to providing structured disclosures, such as dedicated sustainability or CSR reports. However, beneath this progress, two crucial aspects need closer attention: visibility and recency.

The visibility issue

While all sampled banks have sustainability materials online, the ease of access varies sharply. This difference speaks volumes about how transparency is valued. Banks such as Zenith Bank, UBA, and First Bank make their sustainability or CSR statements easy to find, prominently displayed on their homepages or website headers and footers. This visibility signals openness and an invitation for external stakeholders to engage. By contrast, Stanbic IBTC’s sustainability policy is tucked away within its investor relations section, making it difficult for a broad range of stakeholders to locate. Similarly, Access Bank’s sustainability policy is less visible than its other policies, such as its privacy or IMS policies. For some of the banks, even when the information exists, its placement often determines who actually sees it, and by extension, who holds the companies accountable. Visibility, therefore, remains more than a design issue; it is a statement of intent. A hidden policy may appear to satisfy compliance on paper but falls short of the transparency test in practice.

Recency: When compliance outpaces currency

The second concern revealed in the sampled study is recency, which is the timeliness and consistency of sustainability reporting. While several banks have moved from policy adoption to active disclosure, not all the published reports are up to date.Most of the sampled banks, including UBA, First Bank, Ecobank, Fidelity, FCMB, and GTCO, have published their 2023 sustainability reports on their websites. Only a few, such as Union Bank and Zenith Bank, have published updated 2024 reports on their sustainability web sections. This raises valid concerns about whether sustainability reporting is being treated as a living, ongoing process or a periodic compliance exercise. Are these reports being updated frequently enough to reflect current realities and evolving stakeholder expectations?  If sustainability is to remain credible, reporting must keep pace with changing realities. Policies and reports that remain static risk becoming symbolic rather than strategic.

Local versus global standards

At the national level, compliance with the NSBP is a positive indicator of regulatory awareness. Yet, as global ESG standards evolve rapidly through frameworks like the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the question arises: To what extent are Nigerian banks aligning with these global benchmarks? While local compliance demonstrates regulatory discipline, global compliance demonstrates competitiveness. Nigerian banks may meet domestic disclosure obligations, but whether they measure up to evolving global ESG expectations remains to be seen. Authentic sustainability leadership requires bridging this gap, moving from “we comply” to “we lead.”

Beyond tokenism: From policies to practice

Another area demanding attention is the risk of tokenistic sustainability policies- documents that exist for compliance or branding purposes but do not necessarily translate to measurable environmental or social outcomes. A sustainability statement without clear action plans, performance metrics, or levels of oversight risks becoming mere window dressing. How many of these policies are backed by tangible actions? Are sustainability targets integrated into executive performance appraisals? Are external assurance and stakeholder engagement part of the reporting process? These questions are intended to invite introspection. For a sector that commands such public trust and determines capital flows for green initiatives, sustainability must go beyond formality to function, from glossy PDFs to verifiable impact.

The way forward

Our findings confirm that visibility is the first step toward accountability. To lead in sustainable finance disclosure, Nigerian banks must move from occasional publications to consistent communication, from local compliance to global relevance, and from superficial policy statements to impactful performance. The groundwork has been established, and progress deserves recognition. However, as the financial sector becomes more climate-conscious and data-driven, sustainability in Nigeria’s banking industry needs to shift from the subpage to the spotlight — from visibility to verifiability. This page will continue to evaluate and highlight how organisations across Nigeria’s private sector are turning their sustainability commitments into clear, verifiable actions. Our goal is to foster transparency, promote genuine accountability, and build a culture where sustainability reporting is both standard practice and a competitive advantage.

Washing and hushing

Brush with workers: The war Dangote Refinery cannot win

The tense standoff between Dangote Refinery and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) has Nigeria on edge. The reason for this is clear – the dispute revolves around the availability and cost of petroleum products. That’s why everyone, including citizens and businesses, is talking about it, and the government is stepping in. The ripple effects and repercussions of an unresolved or escalating conflict between the company and the labour union could severely harm the economy and the country’s stability.   

It could also harm the Dangote brand – a global conglomerate built on the name, sweat, and wealth of Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote. And the responsibility to prevent this (and mitigate current negative reputational impacts) rests solely with the leadership and management of the group of companies. Interventions by the government and other stakeholders to resolve the conflictbetween the refinery and PENGASSAN mayhelp maintain a stable and cost-competitive petrol product supply, but they will not address the underlying questions of ethical governance that have invariably arisen.

To emphasise this point, it is crucial to understand the primary issue at dispute. Dangote Refinery recently dismissed 800 Nigerian workers in what it termed an internal reorganisation occasioned by reported sabotage, which it said led to safety concerns in the plant. PENGASSAN disagreed swiftly, saying the disengaged staff were targeted for joining the workers’ union. The union deplored the manner of the sack and claimed that Indian nationals replaced the sacked employees. It then proceeded tomobilise its members to shut down oil and gas facilities, which not only affected the company but also threatened production across the value chain of the industry. Dangote, on the other hand,labelled union leaders as terrorists and signalledto the government to guarantee energy security, and by extension, national security. The 650-barrels-per-day plant refuted the union’s claims, insisting that it respects internationally recognised labour principles, including the rights of workers to unionise. While the impasse lasted, the market experienced a swift reaction, with prices of cooking gas skyrocketing by as much as 100 percent in some parts of the country. Dangote Refinery reached out to its arsenal,saying it would sell its products in US Dollars in a naira economy. It was a case of two elephants fighting, leaving the grass to suffer the consequences. The federal government quickly intervened and secured what appears to be a temporary truce between the feuding parties, thereby saving the nation from the agony of a paralysing strike action.Dangote reportedly agreed to recall the sacked workers, but on a redeployment to its other subsidiaries.

This is where the question of ethical governance gets escalated. Dangote is struggling to convince the public that the workers in question were laid off to protect the operational integrity and safety of its plant. Sabotage is not an accusation that should be frivolously used. The company must have had substantial evidence of such actions before laying off 800 staff in one fell swoop. Was the evidence presented to PENGASSAN and, indeed, the federal government? Are there consequences for wilful sabotage beyond lay-offs of the employees that could have been activated to validate the weighty allegations against them? Was it just a coincidence that the sack affected staff members who had agreed to join the union?Are the replaced staff Indian nationals as alleged? These and other related questions call out Dangote Refinery to convincingly explain the ethics behind its corporate governance practices. Compliance with human rights, as well as national and international labour laws and statutes, is non-negotiable. This includes the right of workers to associate freely in their own self-interest. This also includes the right to decent work and fair wages, as well as protection against unfair and discriminatory employment practices. The Refinery has insisted that it complies with these.However, such defences are hardly enough, as sustainability auditing can easily unravel counterclaims, especially when built on quicksand or exaggerated. 

But in today’s world, where businesses must look beyond the bottom line to consider social responsibility and strong ethical governance, a leading brand with global recognition cannot afford to be entangled in the controversy Dangote Refinery has encountered. ESG-conscious companies are guided by the triple bottom line principles of profit, people, and planet (depending on the specific priorities of the business). The conflict with workers may create the impression that the human resources—those who produce the products and, by extension, the profits—of Dangote Refinery occupy a lower position in the value chain. For a major brand that will be evaluated by its compliance with global and national sustainability reporting standards, Dangote must be mindful of the image it projects. Even if it wins the battle with PENGASSAN, it’s unlikely to win the long-term war for brand reputation, which depends on sustainable corporate practices.  

Spotlight

COP30: What is Nigeria’s goal at Belem?

In just over a month, the world will gather in Belem, Brazil, the gateway city to the Amazon River. From November 10 to 21, high-level climate diplomacy will take centre stage as government officials, business leaders, lobbyists, civil society members, scientists, journalists, and organizers of various side events engage in discussions about the future of the planet and its inhabitants. The Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the annual flagship gathering to examine the state of affairs and negotiate or renegotiate a range of scientific, economic, political, social, and other factors impacting the Paris Agreement’s goal to keep global temperature rise below 2oC or within 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Participants at COP meetings often arrive with agendas aligned with their goals. For countries and companies, especially, these agendas are usually carefully planned and integrated into the conference schedule, which is released beforehand. Some nations conduct extensive consultations across economic sectors, demographic groups, intergovernmental, intra-governmental, and non-governmental organisations to present a unified and consistent front at these pivotal global climate meetings. Already, COP30 organizers have published a thematic days calendar for August. Over 30 interconnected themes are incorporated into a comprehensive six-pronged action plan focused on energy, industry, and transport; forests, oceans, and biodiversity; agriculture and food systems; cities, infrastructure, and water; human and social development; and cross-cutting issues.

The key questions include: What are Nigeria’s objectives in Belem? Has there been any coordination of a clear agenda behind which participants from the country—whether from the public, private, or non-governmental sectors—are being mobilized? Which government department, agency, or officials are leading the process, if any? Where is the National Council on Climate Change (NCCC) in all of this? What is the composition of the official government delegation? Who are Nigeria’s champions from the private sector and civil society? Is the government or private sector hosting any side event?