State Bank of India

The financial institution specifies that it does not make political contributions. It assigns decision-making and oversight responsibility for its sustainability strategy to the highest governance body, while implementation is handled by specific functions, teams, or committees within the institution. The institution discloses a list of the trade associations of which it is a member and provides at least one example of how its products, services, and capital support climate adaptation and resilience in society. Additionally, it discloses the amount and/or share (in monetary terms) of products, services, and capital provided to small and medium-sized enterprises.

The financial institution discloses commitments to respect the ILO’s fundamental rights at work but has the opportunity to formalise these in a policy document approved by its highest governance body. It can also disclose its methodology for determining a living wage in its operational regions and include anti-bribery and anti-corruption clauses in contracts. While it identifies material sustainability impacts across its value chain, further detail on the criteria and evidence used for prioritisation is needed. Linking senior executive remuneration to specific sustainability targets is recommended. Although it claims impartiality in political matters, it could commit to not using lobbying to create adverse sustainability impacts. The target of a 7.5% green portfolio ratio in domestic advances by 2030 could be specified further regarding climate solutions. Information on financed emissions and the methodology for footprint calculation should be transparently disclosed. Establishing a transition plan for its operations, supply chain, and portfolio is recommended, along with a breakdown of clients by income group and a more detailed workforce breakdown by country. The risk assessment process should include risks related to ILO fundamental rights and social risks associated with the net zero transition. Lastly, providing examples of conclusions and actions taken on salient human rights issues from recent assessments is advised.

The financial institution discloses commitments to respect the ILO’s fundamental rights at work but has the opportunity to formalise these in a policy document approved by its highest governance body. It can also disclose its methodology for determining a living wage in its operational regions and include anti-bribery and anti-corruption clauses in contracts. While it identifies material sustainability impacts across its value chain, further detail on the criteria and evidence used for prioritisation is needed. Linking senior executive remuneration to specific sustainability targets is recommended. Although it claims impartiality in political matters, it could commit to not using lobbying to create adverse sustainability impacts. The target of a 7.5% green portfolio ratio in domestic advances by 2030 could be specified further regarding climate solutions. Information on financed emissions and the methodology for footprint calculation should be transparently disclosed. Establishing a transition plan for its operations, supply chain, and portfolio is recommended, along with a breakdown of clients by income group and a more detailed workforce breakdown by country. The risk assessment process should include risks related to ILO fundamental rights and social risks associated with the net zero transition. Lastly, providing examples of conclusions and actions taken on salient human rights issues from recent assessments is advised.

This scorecard refers to information in English which was publicly available by July 15 2024. AuM and Total assets are stated in USD for comparability and have been calculated based on reported local currency values multiplied by applicable IMF currency converter values.