The financial institution stated the choice to shut Mr Farage’s account was taken partly as a consequence of him falling beneath Coutts’ “commercial criteria” and partly as a consequence of his political opinions.
The Brexit campaigner claims to have a 40-page doc exhibiting that the financial institution wished him to go away given “his publicly stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation”.
Mr Farage criticised the tradition throughout the business and referred to as for the whole NatWest board to resign.
He informed GB News: “It was the board that sanctioned this culture – a culture that talks about diversity and inclusion, and actually is very divisive and in my case, as you can clearly see, pretty poisonous stuff.”
It comes as policing minister Chris Philp stated numerous MPs or their households have been turned down by banking companies due to “politically exposed persons” guidelines, which cowl anybody thought-about to be increased danger due to their political connection.
Responding to the controversy, Justin Doherty, chairman of status danger advisers Hemington Consulting, stated the reputational injury to Natwest “shows what happens when a company or institution goes rogue and – in the most hypocritical manner imaginable – uses the cloak of ESG and ethics to behave badly”.
“It is a tragedy that well-intentioned initiatives such as diversity and inclusion and ESG have been subverted in this way, and hijacked by narrow agendas and partisan interests,” he stated.
Mr Doherty warned that “other banks may have used ESG and D&I as cover for bad behaviour”.
“We do not yet know the full extent of this but thanks to government intervention and the media people are starting to come out of the woodwork and share their stories,” he stated.
Meanwhile, Anthony Quigley, director and co-founder of the Corporate Governance Institute, stated “all hell, rightly, broke loose” when it emerged that Coutts had dropped Mr Farage as a buyer.
He stated: “Farage has never been formally charged with any wrongdoing, and as a citizen of a democratic society, his freedom of speech matters just as much as anyone else’s.”
But Mr Quigley argued that ESG – a agency’s efficiency on environmental, social and governance points – shouldn’t be confused with “woke capitalism”.
“The reality is that proper environmental, social and governance will strive to protect the diversity of thought and the freedom of speech of all involved – corporate bosses, their employees and their customers,” he stated.
“ESG should not be confused with the radical ‘woke’ brigade, and Nigel Farage deserves better treatment.”
You wouldn’t anticipate some other impartial enterprise to be pressured to tackle any buyer beneath the solar regardless
Meanwhile, Gary Greenwood, a banking analyst at Shore Capital, argued that banks will nonetheless want to think about whether or not their reputations can be tarnished by having some clients on their books in addition to the authorized and regulatory necessities reminiscent of monetary crime.
Mr Greenwood stated: “They’ve got their brands and reputations to consider as well.
“You wouldn’t expect any other independent business to be forced to take on any customer under the sun regardless.”
Last week Home Secretary Suella Braverman accused NatWest of “politically biased dogma” in a tweet, claiming that “the Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry.”
NatWest declined a request for remark.
