The aim of this paper is to show that there are other options for a firm (or a bank) than just following the mainstream logic of maximizing financial profits. This is the case of the so‐called “social banks”, which appeared in the mid‐1980s. Unlike the “financial green‐washing” of traditional banks, social banks have shown in their everyday practice that a bank can still be a competitive institution whilst committing wholeheartedly to the concept of sustainable development.
The analysis compares social banks to traditional universal banks at two levels: analysis of what they say, namely by looking at their annual report; and analysis of what they do, namely by looking at their activities as reflected in their balance sheet.
Concerning traditional banks, there is a major gap between what they say and what they do, whereas social banks are much more consistent in this regard. This is simply because social banks have put in place a different organization and different management structures and, overall, because they apply a different business model.
All banks are not the same. Beyond the “declarative ethics”, the methodology used in this paper helps to make the difference among them by using concrete evidence for measuring their “social added value”.
