Abstract
ABSTRACTFinancial institutions typically avoid projects that will have a significant adverse effect on cultural heritage because it creates unwelcome risk and can affect their reputation. For bank clients, adverse project effects on cultural heritage can result in reputation risk, impede access to finance and insurance, increase operational costs, and jeopardize on-time and on-budget delivery of projects. To address this risk, financial institutions implement environmental and social policy frameworks that include specific requirements for the consideration of cultural heritage. This article examines the place of cultural heritage in the lending practices of 25 of the world's largest private-sector banks and its relevance for heritage practitioners who may be retained to provide advice, review or undertake fieldwork, and prepare studies in keeping with the private-sector bank policies and external standards described. The article concludes with a recommended best practice for private-sector financial institutions, a call to action for heritage practitioners to advocate for robust safeguards, and a call for support of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals by both heritage practitioners and private-sector financial institutions.
Highlights
Financial institutions typically avoid projects that will have a significant adverse effect on cultural heritage because it creates unwelcome risk and can affect their reputation
Considerable attention has been paid by the banking industry to the protection of UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHSs)1 inscribed under natural criteria, initiatives for cultural-heritage preservation have received less attention
We provided an in-depth review of business practices adopted by private-sector financial institutions for the safeguarding of cultural heritage and the ways in which these practices interface with heritage practitioners
Summary
In 2017, when we began to work on this article in earnest, we decided to focus on the practices of the world’s top banks, with the idea that this would reflect the approach of those industry leaders with the greatest capacity to engage in best practices. Salient aspects of Performance Standards 7 and 8 include the need for the project proponent to protect—and avoid adverse impacts to—significant cultural heritage in the course of project activities; comply with host-country laws and regulations; implement internationally recognized practices for the protection, field-based study, and documentation of cultural heritage; and use competent professionals. Early-stage studies requiring heritageresources input include the following: gap analyses, which identify the nature and scope of work that still needs to be undertaken; feasibility studies, which evaluate the technical, environmental, social, and financial aspects of a proposed project to determine if it is viable; and National Instrument 43–101 (NI 43–101) reports, which govern a company’s public disclosure of scientific and technical information about its mineral projects In those instances where a proposed project is considered viable, an assessment of environmental and social impacts is typically. The SME will be asked to evaluate the quality and adequacy of the heritage study as well as provide a statement to the effect that the work of the other party meets regulatory requirements and was undertaken with the same degree of care, skill, and diligence as would reasonably be expected from a professional qualified to perform services similar in scope, nature, and complexity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
