FirstBank Screened N10 Trillion for ESG Risk. The Public Needs to Know What Changed

LAGOS, 26 August 2026 — FirstBank says it screened 505 corporate transactions worth more than N10 trillion for environmental, social and governance risks in 2025, compared with 237 transactions worth more than N3 trillion in 2024. It also says more than 200 corrective action plans followed and that its lending standards now include sector-specific checks.

The scale is notable. The value screened is not the value of green finance, nor proof that every transaction met a high sustainability standard. Screening is a process. The public-interest question is what the process found, which deals changed and whether harm was prevented.

Define what “screened” means

An ESG screen can range from a short checklist to detailed due diligence with site visits, stakeholder consultation and binding conditions. FirstBank should explain how transactions are classified by risk and what level of review each class receives.

The bank's framework reportedly draws on its environmental and social management system, IFC performance standards and climate policy. A public methodology should show exclusions, escalation thresholds and who can approve exceptions.

Comparability matters. The sharp rise in transactions and value may reflect broader coverage, larger deals or changed counting. Year-to-year data should use consistent definitions or explain revisions.

Corrective action plans need completion data

More than 200 action plans suggest screening identified material issues. A plan is not an outcome. The bank should report how many actions were completed, overdue, waived or linked to disbursement.

Examples can be anonymised: improved waste treatment, worker safety, community compensation, biodiversity protection or governance controls. Case studies should include problems and delays, not only success stories.

Where a borrower repeatedly fails, the consequences should be clear. Covenants without enforcement risk becoming paperwork that protects reputation rather than communities.

High-risk sectors require different evidence

Oil and gas, power, construction and agriculture carry distinct impacts. A single generic score cannot capture land acquisition, emissions, labour conditions, water use and community security.

Sector standards should identify permits, consultation, climate risks, grievance systems and monitoring. Large infrastructure may require independent advisers and public environmental assessments.

Small businesses should face proportionate rules. Heavy compliance designed for a refinery can exclude a solar installer or farmer. Banks can provide templates and technical support while preserving essential safeguards.

Screening must include affected people

Documents supplied by a borrower may not reveal unpaid compensation, unsafe work or local pollution. High-risk reviews should include credible channels for workers and communities to raise concerns without retaliation.

Grievances need tracking and response deadlines. The bank should clarify when complainants can approach it directly and how confidentiality is protected.

Community consent does not mean one meeting with selected leaders. Reviewers should identify different users of land and resources, including women, tenants and displaced residents.

Climate risk is credit risk—but transition can also exclude

Flooding, heat, changing regulation and stranded assets can weaken a borrower's ability to repay. Integrating climate risk is sound banking, not charity.

A rapid withdrawal from carbon-intensive clients can shift assets to less transparent financiers without reducing emissions. Transition finance should set measurable pathways, deadlines and verification.

The bank should disclose financed emissions and portfolio targets over time. Operational solar panels at branches are positive but much smaller than the impact of lending decisions.

N10 trillion needs context

Readers should know what share of relevant corporate lending was screened, how many transactions were approved, modified or declined, and how the value relates to outstanding exposure rather than gross proposals.

A large transaction can dominate the total. Number and value should be broken into risk categories and sectors without revealing client secrets.

Screening the same facility at several stages should not be counted as separate impact unless the methodology says so. Clear counting protects credibility.

Green products need measurable additionality

FirstBank says it is expanding solar, alternative-energy and green vehicle finance and has prepared a Green Product Credit Policy. A green label should identify eligibility, verification and use of proceeds.

Additionality asks whether the finance caused more or faster environmental benefit than ordinary lending. Refinancing an existing asset may be useful but should not be described as new capacity.

Customer affordability matters. Green finance that reaches only wealthy borrowers can improve assets while leaving small firms dependent on costly generators.

External assurance would strengthen the report

The bank plans a sustainability report aligned with IFRS S1 and S2. Independent assurance of key metrics can test controls, definitions and data quality.

Assurance scope should be visible. A limited review of selected numbers is not the same as comprehensive verification. The provider's independence and methodology should be disclosed.

Restatements should be welcomed when better data emerges. Quietly changing historical figures undermines the trend analysis sustainability reporting is meant to support.

Regulators should make bank claims comparable

Nigerian sustainable-banking principles provide a foundation, but customers and investors need common indicators across banks. CBN can standardise risk categories, financed-emissions reporting, grievances and corrective-action completion.

Standardisation should not prevent stronger practice. It should create a floor and make marketing claims testable. Enforcement should address greenwashing as a consumer and prudential risk.

Public data can also show whether sustainability rules shrink credit to important sectors without supporting transition. Regulation should monitor unintended effects.

Borrowers need predictable review, not a moving checklist

Companies can improve environmental and labour performance when the bank communicates standards early, supplies sector guidance and allows time for credible correction. Requirements introduced after a facility is substantially negotiated create delay and encourage box-ticking.

FirstBank should publish typical review stages and timelines by risk category. Borrowers should know what evidence is required, who evaluates it and how to challenge a factual error. Predictability makes strict standards more investable.

Consultants used for environmental and social assessment should disclose conflicts and meet competence requirements. A borrower-paid report can still be reliable, but the bank must review its assumptions and retain responsibility for the credit decision.

Shareholders should scrutinise both risk and opportunity

ESG failures can produce fines, project delay, litigation, damaged collateral and community conflict. Shareholders should ask how the screening system changes expected losses and capital allocation, not treat sustainability as a separate philanthropy presentation.

They should also examine opportunity: renewable power, efficient buildings, climate-resilient agriculture and cleaner transport may create new lending markets. Targets should identify risk-adjusted returns and default performance so enthusiasm does not weaken credit discipline.

Board oversight should include expertise, meeting frequency and escalation of major exposures. Responsibility cannot sit only with a sustainability team if relationship managers and credit committees still receive incentives based entirely on volume.

TalkTalkNigeria's view: publish the decisions behind the number

FirstBank deserves attention for expanding ESG review and linking sustainability to core credit risk. The N10 trillion headline will matter more when the bank shows outcomes.

How many deals changed? How many action plans finished? What harm was avoided? What finance reached women-led firms or small clean-energy providers on affordable terms? What exposure remains high risk?

Screening is the beginning of responsible lending. Transparent decisions, enforcement and community outcomes are the proof.

Comparable reporting should begin immediately.

Read next: How Nigeria Lost 1.11 Million Hectares Of Tree Cover and Nigeria Is Building A Digital Economy On Unreliable Power.

Sources: Report of FirstBank's 2025 ESG screening disclosures; FirstHoldCo 2024 Sustainability Report for prior-year methodology and indicators; FirstBank description of its ESG management system.