London, April 27, 2026, 14:03 BST
NatWest Group Plc shareholders are set for a showdown this week, with activists urging a vote against chair Rick Haythornthwaite after the bank tweaked its fossil-fuel lending policy. The row puts Tuesday’s annual general meeting in the spotlight, as investors weigh just how tough they’ll get when banks alter climate commitments but stick with net-zero language.
Timing’s key here. NatWest lines up its AGM for 11 a.m. Tuesday, April 28, at Gogarburn in Edinburgh—meaning shareholders will confront the dispute head-on, not just watch a policy back-and-forth from afar.
Sixteen institutional investors overseeing a combined $1.38 trillion have put their names to a statement accusing NatWest of “backtracking” on climate, according to BusinessGreen. The move lends heft to the protest, far beyond a typical activist push, though the size of the vote against Haythornthwaite remains uncertain. Business Green
ShareAction, in its submission on the PRI platform, argues against re-electing Haythornthwaite, claiming NatWest rolled back significant oil-and-gas restrictions and diluted its climate target transparency. The group highlights board oversight as the central concern—this isn’t only about a specific lending policy.
The issue goes back to February, when NatWest rolled back restrictions on reserve-based lending—these are loans backed by projected oil-and-gas reserves—and lifted blocks on providing this type of financing to new oil-and-gas clients. The bank also scrapped its prohibition on working with oil-and-gas majors that don’t have climate transition plans in line with global targets, according to Reuters.
NatWest insists it’s sticking to its climate pledges. Kirsty Britz, who oversees group sustainability, said the bank’s energy review highlights “the complexity of the economic transition.” Oil-and-gas lending now makes up less than 1% of NatWest’s balance sheet, according to the group, which still plans to cut the climate footprint of its financing by at least 50% by 2030. The “financing” label refers to emissions linked to the firms and projects a bank backs—not just its own operations. NatWest Group
Some critics argue the bank is moving away from policies that distinguished it from competitors. Jeanne Martin, who heads up ShareAction’s banking programme, called NatWest’s board “heading in the wrong direction.” Campaigners are preparing to deliver letters at the AGM—one of them signed by 70 climate scientists and experts. The Guardian
NatWest isn’t the only bank under scrutiny. Back in March, the Church of England Pensions Board announced plans to oppose key proposals at the AGMs of NatWest, Santander, and HSBC, pointing to what it called a significant rollback of climate pledges by these lenders. “Good governance is the first line of defence” against systemic risk, said Laura Hillis, the Board’s managing director for responsible investment. Church of England Pensions Board
Still, this revolt looks more like a signal than a clear decision. NatWest pointed out that proxy voting closed at 11 a.m. on Friday, April 24. Online viewers are locked out of voting during the meeting; only shareholders physically present at the AGM get a say on the day. If the protest stays relatively small, the board can claim investors are on board with their updated stance.
For NatWest, the immediate risk is to its reputation, not its finances—at least for now. Even a large protest vote against the chair wouldn’t trigger an automatic policy U-turn. Still, unless management can demonstrate that the new rules continue to curb exposure to higher-risk fossil-fuel clients, defending the bank’s climate stance could become a much tougher sell.
Shareholders face a tight, uncomfortable dilemma: did NatWest simply adjust its stance for a choppier, more gradual energy shift, or did it relax critical boundaries without giving a clear enough reason? Tuesday’s vote will reveal just how many backers think that distinction is significant.
