The Equator Principles and Their Effects on Project Lending - Research Paper Example

Banks and Equator Principles Introduction Global sustainability is a very important concept. This is because sustainability is the essence of living. Individuals and organizations must conduct their affairs in a manner that does not endanger the environment and harm the people. Many initiatives have been established and nurtured to promote sustainability of life in the planet. The initiatives guide the conduct of organizations and individuals as they exploit the natural and man-made resources. The initiatives have either legal backing or voluntary in nature. The initiatives include equator principles, pollution prevention and abatement policy. Equator Principles are voluntary guidelines developed to guide the transactions of project financing banks and their clients1. The principles discourage project-financing banks from lending money to companies that destroy the environment or harm people. The principles suggest that the project financing banks should finance companies that conform to the ten principles of equator principles. The initiatives help to reduce the destruction of the natural environment and improve the rights of the communities. The banks initiated the Equator Principles because they wanted to manage the criticisms leveled against them by the non-governmental organizations, students and indigenous communities. Non-governmental organization such as Greenpeace and Rain Forest Action Network blamed banks for promoting environmental degradation and violation of human rights by financing companies that destroy the environment and livelihood of indigenous people2. However, they believed that banks have the influence to prevent the negative effects caused by companies benefiting from their finances. Therefore, they exert pressure to the banks to ensure that the projects funded must meet higher social and environmental standards. The pressures were in the form of protests from non-governmental organizations ad students, questions by political parties and published articles in the websites. The pressure focused on the role of banks in promoting environmental degradation and abuse of human rights. The banks have financed construction of roads, dams, power plant, pipelines, meat processing factories and logging companies. The above projects cause disruptions to the local communities and the ecosystems if not appropriately regulated. For example, logging companies cut trees and convert them to timber and other construction materials. Most forests in several African countries may be extinct. Greenpeace reported that the logging companies in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are causing environmental havoc by cutting down trees with impunity. The survival of thousands of animal species are threatened, child labour is rampant, intimidation tactics are used against people who protest and companies fail to honor their promises3. Though companies play key roles in the economy, they need regulation to prevent them from harming the ecosystem. Higher standards lead to quality products, services and sustainable development. In response to questions, campaigns and protests, the banks decided to develop framework that guide them transact business in a more responsible manner. The guidelines help banks to deal with the socio-economic and environmental challenges caused by their clients. The framework that guides their lending practices is the Equator Principles. Equator principles aim at creating sustainable development and level ground for all banks that subscribe to them. The equator principle covers the protection of human health, cultural properties as well as biodiversity. It promotes careful use of dangerous substances, fire prevention, as well as acceptable occupational health and safety and life safety. Furthermore, it aims at ensuring that companies financed by equator banks follow proper procedure and guidelines in acquiring and using land. It discourages pollution, waste minimization and encourages proper solid and chemical waste management4. The principles require the bank to confirm that borrowing companies demonstrate compliance with laws of the host country as well as those of the World Bank and International Finance Corporation on Pollution Prevention and Abatement. The private sector borrowed environmental standards and social policies of the World Bank and International Finance Corporation5. Equator principles are very important guidelines that might help reduce environmental degradation. Therefore, it might promote the sustainability of the biodiversity if both the lending institutions and borrowing companies commit themselves to observing them diligently. In addition, there would be more respect to human rights in the countries where borrowing companies operates. However, equator principles pose a daunting task to the banks whose business is lending money and increase profitability of their business rather than act as an environmental regulators or enforcers. Success of the applications of equator principles depends on the cooperation of the banks, the lobby groups as well as the borrowing banks. Application of the principles would reduce delays and derailments caused by lobby groups thus save money in the end. The Equator Principles Equator Principles are the responses of project financing institutions to the needs of the environment and its people. Citigroup, ABN AMRO, Barclays and WestLB were the first banks to initiate the equator principles in 2002 when they were invited by International Finance Corporation to present their case studies in dealing with environmental risk challenges6. Between 1970’s and 2002, many colleges and universities planned and executed protests against environmental deterioration and human rights abuses. They fought against oil spills, factories and power plants that emitted dangerous substances to the environment, raw sewage, dumping of toxic wastes, pesticides, loss of forests, unsafe dams, destruction of biodiversity, employment of child labour and other human rights abuses. The initiatives such as Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the Ozone Layer (1987), Environmental Protection Agency (1970), Federal Clean Air Act (1970, 1977 and 1990), and Clean water Act (1977, 1987) and Toxic substance Act (1976) set the pace for equator principles. In addition, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (1980), the Rotterdam Convention (1998), Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the International Declaration on Cleaner Production (1998) speeded up the move towards creation of the principles7. Banks have been on record for financing projects that cause wide spread environmental degradation and extensive human suffering. In September 1994, Green peace organization released a report that put blame squarely on the World Bank. The report alleged that World Bank failed to implement and undermined the Montreal Protocol by financing companies that produced chlorofluorocarbons (CFC)8. Chlorofluorocarbons are substances that deplete ozone layer. The protest groups realized that banks played the role in promoting the companies that caused the problems. Therefore, they exerted their pressure on banks to stop lending money to companies that caused human rights abuse and environmental degradation menace. The reputation of Citigroup suffered adversely when SRI funds and Rainforest Action Network (RAN) criticized the bank for participating in degrading the environment9. SRI funds moved motions on environment against Citigroup during Citigroup’s annual meetings and Rainforest Action Network launched campaign against the bank on allegation that it participated in destroying tropical forests in Amazon and developing nations. The allegations against the bank were piling and its reputation suffered when celebrities Sarandon and Hannah urged Citigroup’s credit holders in New York on a cable television to destroy the bank’s credit cards. At the same time, Rainforest Action Network (RAN) published photographs of clear-cut forests implying that Citigroup was the one to blame for the wanton destruction of the forest and its ecosystem10. Other banks were also experiencing similar attacks from the communities, students and non-governmental organization concerned for the environment and the lives of the communities. The indigenous people, students and environmental groups protested against the projects that caused suffering to the people. For example, Sardar Sarovar displaced over two hundred and forty thousand people in India. The people relocated to areas where there was lack of clean water and electricity and the soils were poor. However, the World Bank withdrew from the project in 199311. Other projects include Polonoroeste Frontier Development Scheme (Brazil) and Pak Mun Dam (Thailand) that displaced thousand of people. Pak Mun Dam destroyed important fisheries on the Mun River destroying the livelihood of people who depended on fish. Singrauli coalmines polluted regions’ water, fish and crops. It also forced relocation of over three hundred thousand people to slums that lacked basic sanitation and their land taken from them without possibility of securing them12. Greenpeace reported that logging companies in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are causing social chaos and wreaking environmental havoc13. The report documented several irregularities done by the companies, which promised gifts inform of motor bikes for a chieftain, bags of salt and crates of beer for villagers, intimidation tactics used against people who protested, and pledged to build schools and hospitals14. However, most promises were not realized. The above companies are funded by the banks. The 1050 km pipeline built from Chad’s Doba oilfields to Kribi in Cameroon increased the urgency for the development of equator principles. The US$3.5 billion pipeline project initially funded by World Bank was marred by controversies and wide spread criticism. There were allegations of child labour, human rights abuses, environmental degradation and wide spread displacement of people who lived on the land used to construct pipeline15. The banks were criticized for feeding the bad companies with money. The genesis of equator principles can be traced back to 1970’s when the consciousness of nations was awaken by disturbing scenes of the effect of environmental degradation and human rights abuses. The principles were introduced in 2003 after series of attacks threaten to tear apart the reputation of the banks. Herman Mulder who was a senior executive of the Dutch Bank ABN AMRO approached Peter Woicke the head of International Finance Corporation and asked him to convene meeting with other project financers in order to discus and develop the solution to the problems that were facing them. On October 21, 2002, the head of International Finance Corporation convene a meeting attended by the representatives of the nine banks namely; ABN AMRO, Barclays, BHP Paribus and Citigroup16. Others who attended the meeting were Deutsche Bank, Rabobank, Society General, Sumtomo Mitsui Banking Corporation and WestLB17. Herman Mulder urged the meeting to develop a framework that would help manage the criticism advanced by various stakeholders against them. As a result, the equator principle idea was conceived in 2002 meeting and in June 2003, the principles were adopted and later amended in 2006. Equator principles provide lenders with shared framework of assessing and managing social and environmental issues linked to the project they finance. The principles aim at protecting the environment and the society from the negative impacts caused by the projects financed by banks. The banks that adopt the equator principles agreed to comply with the principles as they finance new and existing projects. As a result, they would be acting socially responsible by integrating acceptable environmental principles to the projects they finance. Equator Principles are voluntary guidelines developed to guide the transactions of project financing banks and their clients on environment and socio-economic issues18. The equator principles are stated and briefly explained as follows; the first is review and categorization. The project is assessed and categorised into Category A, B or C. Category A are projects with significant environmental as well as Social impact. Categories B are projects with limited impacts while Category C have minimum or no social and environmental impacts. The second principle is social and Environmental assessment. Projects in category A and B must be assessed. It must meet and address appropriately critical social and environmental issues. Third principle is applicable social and environmental standards. The assessment reports must address all social and environmental requirements applicable to host country as well as treaties and agreements that are international in nature. The requirements and standards stated in the principles covers natural resources, human rights, cultural properties, handling of dangerous substances, occupational health and safety, land acquisitioning and use, resettlement, economic impacts and hazard prevention among many others. The requirements apply to existing, proposed and anticipated future projects. The fourth principle is action plan and management system. The equator banks make agreements with their clients on how they are going to manage the socio-economic and environmental impacts that the project causes. The fifth principle is consultation and disclosure. The borrower must consult the stakeholders and disclose all the relevant information to them if the project being undertaken falls in category A or B. The sixth principle is grievance mechanism. All companies carrying out projects must include a clear grievance procedure to handle all grievances that may present themselves during project implementation. The seventh principle is independent review. The companies must be willing to engage the services of an independent consultant who monitor and evaluate the projects processes and report them to relevant stakeholders. The eighth principle is covenants. The companies and banks should enter into covenants linked to compliances. In case companies do not comply with covenants, the lending equator banks have a right to institute corrective measure as required. The ninth principle is independent monitoring and reporting. Companies undertaking projects that fall in category A and B must engage an independent expert to do monitoring and evaluation of projects’ activities and processes. The tenth principle is equator banks reporting. The equator banks commit to report annually about their equator principles as implemented and experience19. In 2006, 2003 equator principles were amended to cover all projects worth US$10 million and at all levels. This was a reduction from US$50 million initially set in 2003 to cover many projects. The 2006 changes extended to project finance advisory services. The new adjustment considers local law requirements in OECD and placed greater emphasize on the social risks and impacts associated with the project. Furthermore, it deepened commitment to periodic reporting20. The equator banks have created set of governing rules that are meant to provide guidance and will be implemented in the spring of 2010. Equator principles are extending to Islamic countries and developing nations. Arab African international Bank (Egypt) has already joined to become part of equator banks21. Bank Muscat of Oman joined equator principles in August 18, 200722. The problems the banks tried to solve by adopting the Equator Principles. The banks suffered skating attacks from the non-governmental organizations and institutions of higher learning because they were providing finances for the companies that destroyed the environment and abuse human rights. The pressure to make banks responsive to the needs of the society was intense and devastating. The lobbyists used both mild and strong engagements techniques that threatened to tear reputations of the banks apart. At one point, celebrities urged credit holders of Citigroup to destroy bank’s credit cards because the profit earned from members of the public was used to destroy the Amazon forests and tropical forests in the developing countries23. The three main problems that the banks were trying to solve by adopting the Equator principles were their reputation, credit risk and responsibility. First, the pressure on banks to be responsive to the needs of the society from lobbyists affected negatively the reputation of the banks. Bad reputation was likely to reduce the demand of banks credit cards and overall number of customers. This automatically affects the profitability of banks as well as their general performances. Secondly, the banks wanted to minimize their credit risks. The lobbyists had very powerful networks and support. As a result, they were able to derail the activities of the companies that were being funded by the banks. In addition, some companies suffered losses when lobbyists became extremely destructive. Destruction of companies’ assets and derailment of their activities affected their cash inflows. They also made losses24. If the trend continued, the loans borrowed by the companies may not have been repaid as agreed and banks would have made losses. To protect the reputation and their borrowers, the banks had to listen to the lobby groups and bore to their pressure. Consequently, they developed the equator and adopted them to save themselves. Finally, the banks wanted to become responsible for their actions. Though banks are in the business of making money, they want to behave responsibly by ensuring they contributed to the sustainability of the environment. Corporate social responsibility is a current trend that drives the value of corporations and banks did not want to be left behind. How banks contributed to the environmental degradation and human rights abuses. The banks contributed to environmental degradation and abuse of human rights by financing the companies that caused them. For example, International Finance Corporation gave money to Bertin ltd, one of the largest leather and beef suppliers for expansion of slaughterhouse operation. The above projects would have led to destruction of 10,000 sq km of Amazon forest25. The banks also funded construction of dams that destroyed important fisheries as the case of Pak Mun Dam. Singrauli coalmines polluted regions’ water, fish and crops. It led to displacement of thousands of people who relocated to the slums. Logging companies are cutting trees indiscriminately threatening to cause extinction to thousands of plant species and animal species that depend on such forests26. The 1050 km pipeline built from Chad’s Doba oilfields caused wide spread use of child labour, human rights abuses, environmental degradation and displacement of people who lived on the land used to construct pipeline. The problems that are caused by the companies funded by the banks spill over to the bank themselves. The banks may not have the power to control affairs of the borrowing companies but the can influence them to mitigate environmental degradation and human rights abuses. The principle may solve the problem The equity principles would enable the banks to handle some of the criticism leveled against them. This is because the principles set standards and rules of engagement. Through enforceable covenants contained in the equator principles, the banks are able to influence the behavior of their borrowers. Higher standards lead to better ways of doing things. As a result, environmental degradation and human rights abuses will be eliminated or reduced and this will be beneficial to the reputation of the financing banks. The principles may not be very effective but at least it will work to reduce or mitigate environment degradation and human rights abuses. The problem with equator principles The Equator Principles help to guide the project financing banks to finance projects that add value to the lives of the communities and protect the environment. However, there are various criticisms leveled against the Equator Principles. The criticisms include lack of integrity and transparency, lack of comprehensive measure of success, inadequate legal support and lack of commitment, and right attitude to implement the equator principles27. The first problem with equator principle is lack of integrity. The banks that subscribe to the equator principle continue to finance companies that continue to infringe human rights and degrade the environment. Equator banks claimed that they comply with the principles yet most of them have financed and supported companies that are nuisance to the environment. Credit Suisse, HBSC and Marquarie handled the initial public at Hong Kong of US$280 for Saling Global, which is a Malaysian logging company accused of systematic destruction of tropical rain forest in Sarawak 28. ABN AMRO and Standard Chartered have been critiqued for financing Lafayette mine of Rapu Rapu Island in the Philippines. However, pressure groups perceived that environmental assessment indicate that the project is incompatible with Principles. The second problem with equator principles is lack of transparency. The equator principles do not force the banks to disclose all the information to the relevant stakeholders. This is because some information are considered private and confidential. For example, some non-governmental organizations claimed that they have not seen environmental and social impact studies of the (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) BTC pipeline, was not disclosed to all stakeholders. ABN AMRO claimed that it had complied with International Financial Corporation rules and standards but failed to show the assessments done. In addition, equator banks are reluctant to disclose information pertaining specific projects citing confidentiality especially when the project is high impact and little can be done to salvage it from the sharp criticism29. Therefore, it becomes extremely difficult to establish and judge whether the projects are equator compliant. The bank watchdog Bank Track seeks some form of formal information disclosure from the Equator banks, similar to that implemented by the International Finance Corporation for projects it funds. It also seeks some means of redress to the affected stakeholders. The third problem is lack of comprehensive measure of success in the use of the equator principles. They are no benchmarks to indicate the success in the use of the principles. Most banks measure their successes by the number of companies not given finances because of non-compliance of the principles. In its 2003 Sustainability Report, published figures pertaining to the number of project the banks approved or declined, which indicated that only a small number of companies did not get financing. ABN AMRO published figures indicating the number of projects they rejected because the bank believed that they contravene the equator principles. However, number of projects declined and approved doe not effectively measure the Equator Principle30. Fourthly, equator principles do not have adequate legal backing. All the equator principles are guidelines developed and adopted voluntarily by project financing banks. Some banks may refuse to adopt it while those that have already adopted may apply it selectively. It is important to note that banks business is to make money through lending. As a result, they may not be too keen in ensuring that their clients follow the requirements and guidelines because they do not wish to loose their customers. Most banks prefer educating their clients rather than refusing to finance them31. The fifth reason is lack of commitment and right attitude to implement the principles. The bank such as ABN AMRO has been blamed for financing projects that are unfriendly to the environment. The projects were estimated to emit almost 250 million tons of CO2 indirectly in 2005. Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan pipeline also indicate lack of commitment on the side of the equator banks to equator principles32. The project was financed by eight banks including International Finance Corporation. The assessment done by non-governmental organizations revealed that the project had one hundred and twenty-seven violations to the equator principles. The banks that financed the projects argued that an independent consultant confirmed that the principles were followed. The soft approach that the banks have adopted draws accusations of hypocrisy33. The sixth problem is free riding. Free riding is basking on the reputations of the others without paying for it. The adoption of equator principles is voluntarily. Those banks that fail to adapt the equator principles reap the benefits of good reputations brought about by those who comply. Non-compliance banks are reaping what they have not sowed. Compliance involves some cost and may be disadvantaged because their costs are higher as compared to those who do not comply. This endangers the effectiveness of the initiatives34. Equator Principle a bold step The Equator Principles are bold steps towards achieving sustainable development. This is because it promotes sustainable use of resources and respect for human rights. Without them, companies would continue cutting down trees to disturb the ecosystem and violate human rights. In addition, dangerous emission and substance could still find its way to the environment in significant proportions. All the above activities destroy the environment and life will cease to exist. Therefore, the adoption of equator principles put check and balances to the companies’ activities to ensure that they exploit the available resources in a sustainable manner. There are tremendous achievements made by the equator banks. First, banks have declined lending to companies whose projects failed to comply with the equator principles. For example, World Bank cancelled $90 million meant to expand Brazilian meat processing giant Bertin Limited in March 2007. This is because Greenpeace and Friend of the earth linked Bertin to illegal deforestation of Amazon forest. The proposed Bertin expansion will add one million herds of cattle to the Amazon. This Imply deforestation of 10,000 sq km to give way for herd’s space and pasture production35. Secondly, most banks have integrated equator principles into their risk management practices. This has helped banks like Standard Chartered to integrate the principles into their core business practices. They have developed their position statements, reviewed and responded to equator principles in a positive manner36. Thirdly, equator principles are gaining wide acceptance from many banks across the world. This means that banks are experiencing good performances causing non-members to follow suit. Citigroup has implemented environment and social management policy consistent with equator principles, which guide its bankers to evaluate complex issues across many industries across the world37. Fourthly, Banks are joining the bandwagon of pro equator principle crusaders. The number of equator banks was ten in 2003, increased to twenty by February 2004 and the increased to sixty-seven by end of April 200938 (see appendix 1). This indicates that the principles are good and continues to gain popularity39. The new members include Islamic banks. The fifth reason why equator principles are a bold step towards better future is the amount of cash that banks are spending to publicize the equator principles. For example, HSBC in Hong Kong implemented six-month programme called Ecogala. Ecogala uses web-based material to educate its 22,000 local staff and the wider community on the importance of environmental protection and importance of adopting low-carbon style. HSBC became the first major bank to achieve carbon neutrality in October 200540. Conclusion The headlines appearing in daily basis about dangers of global warming, biodiversity destruction, emission of dangerous substances to the atmosphere and abuse of human rights has helped to awaken conscious of nations. The governments and state authorities have enacted laws while interest groups have developed self-regulating guidelines to curb bad behavior of individuals and companies that have negative impact to the environment and the people. Noble statements in support of good practices that promote sustainability have emerged. The equator principles are a bold step the project finance banks are taking towards achieving sustainable development. The progress may be slow but the pressures from non-governmental organizations and other bodies that are sensitive to the environment help to keep the commitment for achievement of the principles. Greenpeace established Bank Track to monitor and evaluate banks compliance to equator principles41. The principles are good because they encourage sustainability by ensuring that higher quality projects are supported and implemented at all levels. There is greater flow of information necessary for credit assessment process. Successful implementation of equator principles might lower default rates because projects would be acceptable to both communities and regulatory bodies. Therefore, there would not be protests that may cause delays or even closures of the financed projects. Most banks are becoming equator principle compliant and their capacity to handle non-economic impact of their transactions is improving. The road to effective implementation is bumpy. Banks need to deal with institutional and capacity constraints and recognize that they have to start taking responsibility for implementing the safeguards rather then delegating away. The banks should be willing to view corporate social responsibility has an integral part of successful business dealings and not other cost centre created to eating into their profits. The managers should encourage their staff to properly implement and monitor the Equator principles. Therefore, banks should view principles as a way to recognize environmental and social issues. Their conviction to adhere to the principle should be based on the premise that sustainability creates security for basic life and powerful driving force behind corporate value. Sustainability should be perceived as creating opportunities for growth, enhance earning potential, reduce credit risk as well as optimize workflows. Principles help to promote transparency and accountability in business dealings. The project financing banks should continue committing to the equator principles to be relevant in the current world where people are more concern with clean and sustainable environment as well as respect of human rights. World Bank should continue working hard to ensure that environmental sustainable and human rights issues are discussed and good practices adopted. The World Bank should develop an initiative of making all banks adopt the principles. This prevents companies from shifting to banks that do not subscribe to the equator principle causing loss of business to principle compliant banks. Finally, more pressure should be exerted by banks to loggers, miners and fossil fuel producers by placing stringer environmental requirements and standards on their funding criteria. Companies such as Danzer Group should be asked to consider respecting human rights and harvesting trees in a sustainable manner or face the wrath of both the banks and non-governmental organizations42. The local people and non-governmental organizations should be empowered to prevent environmental degradation and abuse of human rights. Bibliography Africa Review 200 -Op/075, 25th edition. Kogan Page Publishers, London, 2003. Allens A. Robinson, Focus: Project finance, < http://www.equator-principles.com/documents/AARFocusProjectFinance%20August%202006.pdf>, August 2006, (accessed 23 April 2010). Asianmoney Sustainable finance – banks buy into green revolution. , Hong Kong, 2007 (accessed April 21, 2010). Ausubel, J., Victor, D. and Wernick,I. The Environment Since 1970 May 15, 1995 , 1995, (accessed 23 April 2010). Bank Information Centre, IFC withdraws loan from Brazilian cattle corporation, Bertin < http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.11258.aspx >, 16 June 2009, (assessed 23 April 2010) BankMuscat Adopts the ‘Equator Principles’. First Bank from across the Middle East to take this ‘environment-friendly’ stand. , 2007, (accessed 23 April 2010). Banktrack, “Bold Steps Forward Towards Equator Principles that deliver to people and the planet “A civil society call to the Equator Principles Financial Institutions, http://www.banktrack.org/download/bold_steps_forward_towards_equator_principles_that_deliver_to_people_and_the_planet/100114_civil_society_call_equator_principles.pdf (accessed April 21, 2010). Carpon, N. Promoting Greater Responsibility in Project Financing < http://www.equator-principles.com/documents/equator-principles-e.pdf >, 2008, (assessed 23 April 2010). Carrasco, E., Wendt, N. & Weidner, M. 50th Anniversary of the World Bank and IMF Prompts Criticisms , (accessed 23 April 2010). Deibert, F. Global Head of Sustainability Management, WestLB AG Moscow, , April 2009, (accessed 23 April 2010). Equator Principles, A Matter of Principles: Eighteen months ago a group of leading project finance banks adopted the Equator Principles. They are now under attack from critics who claim the banks were more interested in profits and PR than in principles , 2005, (assessed 23 April 2010). Equator Principles, About Equator Principles http://www.equator-principles.com/documents/AbouttheEquatorPrinciples.pdf, (assessed 23 April 2010), Equator principles, Institutions Which Have Adopted the Equator Principles, , (assessed 23 April 2010). Equator Principles, The “Equator Principles”, 2006, p. 2-5, (accessed April 21, 2010) Esposito, M. Put Your Corporate Social Responsibility Act Together! Tate Publishing, USA, 2009. Fresh fields Banking responsibility < http://www.freshfields.com/publications/pdfs/practices/12057.pdf >, 2005, (assessed 23 April 2010), p.14 Gerber, P., Mooney, H. and Jeroen Dijkman. Livestock in a Changing Landscape, Volume 2: Experiences and Regional Perspectives.USA. Island Press, 2010 p. 74. Greenpeace, Danzer involved in bribery and illegal logging, , June 2004 , (accessed 23 April 2010) Heal, G. When principles pay: corporate social responsibility and the bottom line, Columbia University Press, Columbia 2008. Hoffman, L. S. The law and business of international project finance. 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008. Machteld Spek, Financing pulp mills: an appraisal of risk assessment and safeguard Indonesia: CIFOR, 2005.53.-54) Moscow, 29. April 2009 http://www.wwf.ru/data/events/3/fdeibert_westlb.pdf Nelthorpe, T. “A group of major financial institutions adopted the Equator Principle” Project Finance Magazine, < http://www.equator-principles.com/pfm.shtml>, June 2003, (accessed 23 April 2010 Nijmegen Bold Steps Forward Towards Equator Principles that deliver to people and the planet :A civil society call to the Equator Principles Financial Institutions, , Netherlands, January 2010, (accessed 23 April 2010). Robinson, A. A. Focus: Project finance , August 2006, (accessed 23 April 2010) Robinson,A. Focus: Project finance, , August 2006, (accessed 23 April 2010). Scholtens, B. and Dam, L. Banking on the Equator. Are Banks that Adopted the Equator Principles Different from Non-Adopters? World Development Vol. 35, No. 8, p. 1307–1328 , 2006, (assessed 23 April 2010). The "Equator Principles" A financial industry benchmark for determining, assessing and managing social & environmental risk in project financing http://www.equator-principles.com/documents/Equator_Principles.pdf (accessed April 21, 2010). Vinter, D. G and Gareth Price. Project finance: a legal guide. 3rd edition. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006. World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Bank - World Bank critics on the right and left < http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/International-Monetary-Fund-and-World-Bank-World-bank-critics-on-the-right-and-left.html>, (assessed 23 April 2010). Appendices 1: Sixty-seven banks have adopted the equator principles as at the end of March 2010. Access Bank CORPBANCA Millennium bcp ANZ Credit Suisse Group National Australia Bank ASN Bank NV FirstRand Bank Ltd Industrial Bank Co., Ltd Banco Bradesco RBC Caixa Econômica Federal Banco do Brasil BMO Financial Group Societe Generale Banco Galicia Fortis Bank Nederland Standard Bank Group ING Group Fortis Bank NV/SA Standard Chartered Bank SMBC HSBC Group TD Bank Financial Group Bank of America Rabobank Group Bancolombia S.A. BankMuscat Nedbank Group UniCredit Bank AG Barclays plc Itau Unibanco S/A The Royal Bank of Scotland BBVA Intesa Sanpaolo Wells Fargo & Company BES Group FMO Westpac Banking Corporation BNP Paribas Manulife Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank Caja Navarra JPMorgan Chase Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ CIBC KBC Banco de la República Oriental del Uruguay CIFI KfW IPEX-Bank Banco Santander Dexia Group Absa Bank Limited Mizuho Corporate Bank DnB Nor Citigroup Inc Arab African International Bank E+Co la Caixa Export Development Canada EFIC Nordea Lloyds Banking Group Plc EKF WestLB AG Scotiabank SEB Source: Equator Principles 2010 Appendixes 2: The questions that the paper answered 1. How has the banks implemented the equator principles? 2. Why did the banks adopted the equator principles? 3. Is the number of banks adopting the equator principles increasing? 4. Has adoption of equator principles reduced criticism leveled against the Banks? 5. What are the criticisms leveled against the equatorial principles? 6. How did equator principles evolved? 7. Is acceptance of the of equator principles universally acceptable? 8. Has progress been made by banks who have adopted? 9. Are equator principles effective in promoting environment sustainability? 10. Has the banks rejected any projects due to non-compliance with equator principles? Read More