As France’s fourth-largest banking group, Banque Populaire Caisse d’Épargne (BPCE) has stood out in recent years for lagging in addressing climate issues. Rather than adopting ambitious exclusion policies, the bank continues to finance major players in oil and gas expansion, maintaining support for production companies in the sector as well as for liquefied natural gas (LNG). This is despite the fact that gas production expansion and new LNG export terminals are incompatible with the International energy agency’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario, which aims to limit global warming to 1.5°C. BPCE’s inertia puts it at odds with trends observed among some of its peers, highlighting a lack of willingness to align its practices with the imperatives of the energy transition.
When it comes to climate, major French banks are progressing at two different speeds. While BNP Paribas and Crédit Agricole have moved forward — announcing in May 2024 that they would no longer support conventional bonds issued by hydrocarbon producers (including major companies) — some of their peers stand out for their inaction. Société Générale and BPCE have yet to adopt similar measures. However, BPCE is even further behind, having failed to implement some of the most basic commitments that would demonstrate even a minimal understanding of the climate emergency.
BPCE’s weak commitments reflected in its portfolios
BPCE remains deeply involved in bond financing for the oil and gas industry. In 2024, BPCE participated in a significant number of bond transactions involving oil and gas companies, including Saudi Aramco, TotalEnergies, and Eni — all ranked among the world’s 20 largest hydrocarbon developers (1). BPCE’s support enabled Saudi Aramco, the world leader in upstream expansion, to raise US$6 billion, while TotalEnergies raised US$6.9 billion.
BPCE is also the only major French bank that has not set decarbonization targets to reduce its exposure to the oil and gas sector. While its peers plan to significantly scale down their financing volumes, BPCE has only committed to a 70% reduction in financed emissions related to the sector by 2030 (2). However, as has been previously highlighted, this calculation method includes factors that can artificially reduce figures without reflecting actual emissions (3). Furthermore, BPCE’s trajectory does not guarantee any reduction in financing for companies in the sector, as evidenced by its 12 transactions with developers of new oil and gas fields in 2024 (4) and its continued support for the most problematic companies.
While this initial assessment focuses solely on support for hydrocarbon production, it can also be applied to the entire value chain. BPCE continues to heavily support companies developing LNG. In 2024, it participated in three capital-raising rounds for Energy Transfer, a company recently known for filing a SLAPP lawsuit against Greenpeace (5), totaling US$7.7 billion. Even more revealing of its strong appetite for North American gas, BPCE backed Venture Global LNG, the world’s largest developer of LNG terminals, in its recent initial public offering (6).
BPCE: A laggard on gas projects
Regarding LNG, BPCE has committed to ceasing direct support for greenfield (7) export terminals that are powered by more than 25% shale gas. This exclusion policy should prevent BPCE from directly financing most new North American infrastructure (8). However, this commitment omits brownfield terminal expansions, which are also driving LNG expansion today (9). A clear example is the expansion of Sabine Pass LNG, which is expected to increase its export capacity by more than 50% (10). A first step toward curbing this expansion would be to halt direct financing for all LNG export terminals, a measure recently adopted by ING (11).
But BPCE’s shortcomings run even deeper. While the group has abandoned direct support for new oil fields, it has not extended this measure to gas fields. By refusing to take this elementary step, BPCE lags behind a new standard emerging in Europe, where 11 of the 20 largest banks — including France’s other five major banks — have ended direct financing for all upstream oil and gas projects in recent years. Direct financing represents only a small fraction of banks’ total fossil fuel funding (12), yet BPCE has still not given up this part of its business. This inertia reflects a persistent but mistaken belief: that fossil gas is a viable energy source for the energy transition.
Reclaim Finance is calling on BPCE to strengthen its commitments regarding the oil and gas sector, as its current measures fall far short of what is needed to address the climate emergency. Specifically, BPCE must adopt policies restricting both project financing and corporate financing for companies developing new oil and gas fields or new LNG export terminals. Will BPCE finally take a decisive step toward a more ambitious policy, or will it remain the worst-performing French bank on climate issues?
