The <\/b>2025 Banking on Climate Chaos<\/b><\/a><\/span> (BOCC) report, co-published by 8 NGOs including Reclaim Finance (1) and endorsed by more than 480 organizations, has raised criticism from banks exposed for their increasing support for fossil fuels. Banque Populaire Caisse d\u2019Epargne (BPCE) is one of the banks to have spoken out. By publicly criticizing the report\u2019s data findings and methodology rather than questioning its own commitments and practices, the French banking group once again shows its unwillingness to support the global fight against fossil fuel expansion and climate change.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div> In its public response (2), BPCE presents three main arguments aimed at discrediting the report:<\/p>\n Let us have a look at them.<\/p>\n<\/div> The French group chose to emphasize its financing of renewable energies to downplay the fossil fuel figures highlighted in the BOCC. However, financing renewables does not offset increased support for fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency (IEA) is clear: renewables must replace, not add up to, fossil fuels. By backing fossil fuel expansion in 2024, BPCE undermines its own climate commitments, including its membership in the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA).<\/p>\n A closer look at BPCE\u2019s so-called renewable energy financing target<\/a><\/span> also reveals misalignment with climate science. This anticipated 15% increase in financing by 2026 is insufficient: fully aligning with a 1.5\u00b0C pathway<\/a><\/span> requires allocating six dollars to sustainable energy for every dollar directed toward fossil fuels by 2030 – an objective that BPCE is not on track to meet. Moreover, the scope of activities BPCE defines as renewable is vague and misleadingly includes unsustainable technologies and sources, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and biomass.<\/p>\n<\/div> In response to the BOCC numbers, BPCE draws attention to the recent reduction of their fossil fuel exposure (3), but only looks at the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, the scope of activities it reports on is too narrow: for hydrocarbons, oil and gas extraction and petroleum refining are the only segments considered. However, it is critical to also consider gas liquefaction and regasification<\/a><\/span>, transportation by pipeline and gas power generation, to grasp the full extent of its impact on climate. As Reclaim Finance previously noted<\/a><\/span>, BPCE has supported companies like Venture Global LNG, the world\u2019s largest LNG export developer, in its IPO (4), and underwrote a bond issuance for one of its subsidiaries in April 2025 (5). In 2024, BPCE also took part in three capital raises for Energy Transfer totaling US$7.7 billion (6).<\/p>\n While fossil assets are often a limited share of bank balance sheets, even small amounts of money – especially when lent to the biggest drivers of fossil fuel expansion – can have outsized climate impacts. BPCE\u2019s fossil financing indicator, exposure, also omits bond underwriting, a powerful tool for supporting the sector.<\/p>\n<\/div> Even though bonds and shares are two distinct financial services, they serve the same functions: providing a company with cash. Nearly half of the $869 billion granted by the world\u2019s 65 largest banks to fossil fuels in 2024 consisted of bond and share underwriting (7). Still, BPCE\u2019s figures ignore the amount of money recently borrowed on the bond market by oil and gas developers with the bank\u2019s helping hand: for example, $5 billion for Saudi Aramco in June 2025, and $1 billion for Eni in May (8). The French bank simply objects with fossil bonds being reported, period.<\/p>\n The importance of bonds is also recognized by BPCE\u2019s peers. BNP Paribas and Cr\u00e9dit Agricole, through their 2024 announcements on conventional bonds<\/a><\/span>, implicitly underlined how crucial this type of financial service is for oil and gas expansion. Even if BPCE\u2019s bonds and loans were reported on separately, the outcome would remain the same: BPCE has been ramping up its support to oil and gas developers<\/a><\/span> (9), in contradiction with its climate pledges.<\/p>\n<\/div> BPCE argues that the \u201cassimilation of bonds and bank financing\u201d is invalid, stating they are \u201cof a totally different nature\u201d. Yet, in its own 2024 sustainability report, BPCE aggregated both on- and off-balance sheet financing, including bond underwriting, to claim over \u20ac16 billion allocated to renewable energy (10). This shows the hypocrisy of BPCE\u2019s point on opposing loans and bonds being mixed together for fossil fuel financing. It also makes these 16 billion uncomparable to the bank\u2019s own reporting of fossil fuel financing, which focuses on exposure.<\/p>\n This inconsistency is not isolated. BPCE also ignores the French Banking Federation\u2019s (FBF) numbers aggregating bonds and loans to show how French banks rank among international fossil fuel financiers (11). Finally, BPCE itself acknowledges the significance of these financial services by including bond underwriting in the scope of its policies, and by applying the same commitments to underwriting and lending.<\/p>\n<\/div> Instead of looking away from its own responsibility in aggravating climate chaos, BPCE should start by disclosing its financing to the fossil fuel sector more accurately and transparently. Most of all, we, authors of the BOCC report, call on BPCE to finally make firmer commitments to end its support for fossil expansion. This starts with cutting all types of financial services to all new upstream oil and gas as well as LNG export terminal projects and to the companies developing them.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n
BPCE, a leader in financing renewables?<\/h2><\/span>
BPCE\u2019s numbers exclude key fossil fuel activities\u2026<\/h2><\/span>
\u2026And key financial services<\/h2><\/span>
A double standard on aggregation<\/h2><\/span>