FFGI Policy Assessment Context

Fair Finance Asia (FFA) works in close alignment with the Fair Finance International (FFI) network which is currently active in ten countries globally. FFA and FFI national coalitions use a common methodology, the Fair Finance Guide International (FFGI) Methodology, to assess financial institutions’ policies & practices. The methodology has been developed together with Profundo.

The FFGI Methodology encompasses:

  • Assessing Financial Institutions' approach to sustainability issues across 23 influential cross-cutting themes, including corruption, human rights, gender, and climate change;
  • Assessing publicly available information on how financial institutions' (FIs) incorporate sustainability considerations into their operations;
  • Research data compiled and used by civil society organizations to conduct constructive, evidence-based dialogue with key financial sector actors responsible for promoting sustainable financial policies and practices.


The Fair Finance Guide International Methodology is developed based on existing international standards and conventions such as those of the International Labour Organisation, as well as a range of other widely accepted guidelines in areas pertaining to responsible businesses such as the UNGPs, and responsible finance such as the Principles for Responsible Investment and the Equator Principles.

How do country comparisons feature on the FFA website?


  • The country level comparisons on the FFA website cover nine mandatory themes from the Fair Finance Guide International (FFGI) Methodology. Every assessment carried out by FFA coalitions examines 9 core themes: Climate Change; Corruption; Human Rights; Labor rights; Nature; Tax; Arms; Transparency; Gender.
  • Since the methodology has been designed to be responsive to the countries and contexts a financial institution operates in, some country coalitions assess more than 9 themes. In Asia particularly, financial inclusion is a key theme assessed by all FFA national coalitions except Japan.


  • The scores comprise of country level assessments conducted by the respective country coalitions (except Cambodia and the Philippines in 2020, which were assessed by Profundo).
  • The country level comparisons have been included for Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.
  • The results of the policy assessments include: 8 Indian banks, 11 Indonesian banks, 7 Japanese banks, 9 Thai banks, 5 Philippine banks and 10 Vietnamese banks. All these assessments are conducted at the country level by the Fair Finance network.

Policy assessments for Cambodia and the Philippines

  • The banks policy assessments for selected Cambodian and Philippine commercial banks were commissioned by the FFA Executive Team for comparative purposes, since the Fair Finance Cambodia and Fair Finance Philippines coalitions do not currently conduct country level assessments. These assessments cover nine themes (Climate Change; Corruption; Gender Equality; Human Rights; Labour Rights; Nature; Taxes; Transparency & Accountability; Consumer Protection; Financial Inclusion) for five Cambodian and five Philippine banks using the FFGI Methodology. The scores presented here are Cambodian and Philippine country averages side by side the policy assessments conducted by other FFA country coalitions.

Country level policy assessment timelines and visualization

  • All FFA country coalitions have varying financial year cycles, thus all the country level assessments are published on different timelines depending on the countries’ context.
  • The countries have also began publishing these assessments in different years, given their advocacy agendas.
  • The comparative scores contain the latest scores of the policy assessments in the FFA countries.
  • The following are the latest years that the policy assessments consider across FFA countries- 2019: India; 2020: Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam; 2022: Japan and Thailand.
  • Under the FFGI methodology, scores are given on a 10 point scale: 0 being the lowest and 10 being the highest. Most countries convert the point scale to percentages. The FFA cross-country comparisons retain the 10 point scale.