A “Transition” or a Termination? NZBA’s Shutdown Sparks Skepticism

The Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) has announced its shutdown using the term “transition,” stating members voted to move from an alliance to a “framework.” However, this optimistic phrasing has been met with skepticism, as most observers see the immediate cessation of operations as a straightforward termination forced by a mass exodus of members.
This so-called transition was precipitated by a turbulent political climate, particularly in the US. After Donald Trump’s re-election on a pro-fossil fuel agenda, banks in the NZBA became targets for an “anti-woke” movement. The political risk of remaining in the high-profile climate group grew exponentially.
The first to reject the alliance were its most powerful members. Six of Wall Street’s biggest banks, from Citigroup to Wells Fargo, quit in a move that crippled the organization. Their departure was a clear signal that the alliance model had broken down under political stress, regardless of any official talk of a “transition.”
The international members soon followed, seeing little value in a coalition abandoned by its leaders. The recent withdrawals of European banking giants HSBC and Barclays further cemented the reality that the NZBA was being dismantled, not “transitioned.”
This has led to a debate about the alliance’s legacy. While the NZBA claims its guidance will live on, critics argue that a framework without an alliance to champion it is largely meaningless. They contend the “transition” narrative is a face-saving measure for a failed project and that the real lesson is the futility of voluntary commitments. The focus, they insist, must now shift to creating binding regulations.