• Chinese banks ranked top international creditors to deforestation-linked firms from 2018–2024
• $23 billion in credit issued to “forest-risk” companies, a rise from $18 billion in 2014–2020
• Top Chinese lenders include CITIC, ICBC, and Bank of China
• Major recipients include Sinochem, RGE, and COFCO, all facing deforestation allegations
• “Sustainable” loans to RGE raise credibility concerns
• Chinese banks rank poorly on deforestation and human rights policy indices
• Forest 500 gives four out of six Chinese banks a policy score of zero
• Despite public commitments, China lacks national import bans on deforestation-linked commodities
• China’s 2022 Green Finance Guidelines require stricter ESG risk controls
• Global Witness urges stronger policies, transparency, and regulatory enforcement

Chinese banks have vaulted into the top spot as international financiers of companies accused of driving tropical deforestation, according to new data from the Forests & Finance coalition.

Between 2018 and 2024, Chinese lenders issued $23 billion in credit to agribusinesses linked to forest destruction — a sharp increase from the $18 billion total in the prior seven-year period. 

This new ranking excludes banks based in Brazil and Indonesia, which primarily fund domestic commodity producers.

When included, China still lands in third place globally, but the rise in cross-border financing marks a sharp pivot in global financial influence over deforestation-linked sectors.

At the center of this surge are three of China’s largest financial institutions: CITIC, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), and Bank of China.

Together, they fueled massive loans to companies like Sinochem and Royal Golden Eagle Group (RGE), the latter of which has long been accused of environmental destruction across its palm oil and pulp supply chains.

RGE, which denies wrongdoing, has blamed local communities for land clearing linked to its operations, despite offering no concrete evidence.

In 2024, its access to $1 billion in sustainability-linked loans — provided by a consortium that included Chinese banks — sparked criticism from watchdogs, who questioned the credibility of so-called “green” financing.

The loans hinged on RGE’s compliance with environmental benchmarks, even as the group continued to face new allegations.

Another major recipient, Chinese agribusiness giant COFCO, has faced deforestation claims related to soybean sourcing from Indigenous lands in Brazil.

Though the company insists it is increasing traceability in its indirect supply chain, repeated allegations cast doubt on its sustainability pledges.

Responding to the data, UK NGO Global Witness, which campaigns against corporate destruction of forestation, warned that China’s financial institutions are undermining the country’s climate leadership image by failing to align lending practices with global deforestation goals.

Despite signing the 2021 Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration to end forest loss by 2030, none of the top three Chinese banks responded to requests for comment on their lack of environmental safeguards. 

A review by Forest 500 — which evaluates financial institutions on their public deforestation policies — found that four of the six major Chinese lenders scored zero points.

Only China Construction Bank and Agricultural Bank of China scored above zero, and even then, according to Forest 500, their policy commitments remain vague and unenforced.

These policy gaps appear increasingly out of step with China’s own environmental guidance.

In 2022, China’s Green Finance Guidelines mandated that banks restrict credit to clients facing severe environmental or social violations. The rules also required stricter ESG oversight for overseas projects under the Belt and Road Initiative.

Despite these rules, China still lacks a national regulation to ban the import of commodities linked to deforestation — unlike the European Union, which has already enacted enforceable legislative measures.

That legal vacuum enables Chinese banks to support companies with questionable environmental records while facing little scrutiny at home.

China’s global green image is further strained by the fact that these financial flows often contradict its bilateral agreements. In 2023, for instance, China and Brazil jointly pledged to eliminate illegal logging and promote traceable, deforestation-free supply chains. Yet Chinese lenders continue to back firms accused of violating these very goals.

Global Witness is now calling for urgent reform, recommending that Chinese banks publish and enforce zero-deforestation and human rights policies, adopt due diligence processes in line with the Green Finance Guidelines, and respond swiftly to international deforestation allegations.

Without these actions, experts warn, Chinese finance will remain one of the world’s most powerful drivers of deforestation.