{"id":40522,"date":"2026-09-29T08:00:32","date_gmt":"2026-09-29T06:00:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reclaimfinance.org\/site\/?p=40522"},"modified":"2026-09-28T14:21:46","modified_gmt":"2026-09-28T12:21:46","slug":"targets-to-cut-lending-to-oil-and-gas-are-a-start-to-meaningful-bank-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reclaimfinance.org\/site\/en\/2026\/09\/29\/targets-to-cut-lending-to-oil-and-gas-are-a-start-to-meaningful-bank-action\/","title":{"rendered":"Targets to cut lending to oil and gas are a start to meaningful bank action"},"content":{"rendered":"

BNP Paribas, <\/span>Cr\u00e9dit Agricole, Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale, and ING<\/span> have set targets to reduce their lending<\/span> to upstream oil and<\/span>\/or<\/span> gas<\/span> activities<\/span>. <\/span>These financial targets contrast with <\/span>most<\/span> major banks'<\/span> <\/span>oil and gas<\/span> emission targets<\/span>, which <\/span>for <\/span>methodological <\/span>reasons <\/span>do<\/span> little <\/span>to <\/span>cut<\/span> r<\/span>eal-world emissions. <\/span><\/span>While <\/span>targets <\/span>to reduce financial flows <\/span>are<\/span> a step forward, comprehensively restricting capital to <\/span>oil and gas<\/span> companies<\/span> requires cutting<\/span> not just lending exposure but also <\/span>the volume of bond and equity issuances to the sector. Financial targets <\/span>should cover <\/span>both credit and capital <\/span>markets<\/span> issuances <\/span>and <\/span>cover midstream and downstream in addition to upstream activities.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

Well-designed targets can complement bank policies that stop support for oil and gas companies involved in the most climate-incompatible activities, in particular developing new projects. While policies can quickly end finance for the worst activities, targets can commit a bank to a defined pace of phase-down for a whole sector against a measurable baseline. Most banks, however, base their oil and gas targets on flawed metrics that do little if anything to achieve real-world emission reductions. (1)<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The most common bank oil and gas targets are based on financed (from lending) or facilitated (from capital markets activities) emissions. These are calculated using formulas with the perverse effect that financed\/facilitated emissions drop when corporate values increase. Progress on meeting financed\/facilitated emissions targets has therefore revealed more about the soaring values of fossil fuel companies after the invasion of Ukraine and attack on Iran than it has about actual emission reductions. (2)<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Like most of their peers, BNP Paribas, Cr\u00e9dit Agricole, Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale, and ING have set financed emissions reduction targets for the oil and gas sector. But these four banks have also adopted financial volume targets. Financial targets, if ambitious, properly structured, and transparent, could help accelerate real-world decarbonization by sending a clear signal to investors, executives and policymakers that oil and gas companies' access to capital will be increasingly restricted.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/span>

Targets should cover all<\/span> finance<\/span>, not just lending, and not just upstream activities<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>

These banks' oil and gas finance targets cover their lending exposure but not their capital markets activities \u2014 mainly the bond issuances through which oil and gas companies raise much of their finance. (3) Likewise, in covering only upstream exploration and production activities, the financial targets fail to cover oil and gas companies' midstream activities such as LNG terminals and transport, and downstream activities such as refining. By contrast, the banks' financed emissions reduction and intensity targets cover upstream, midstream and downstream. (4)<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

BNP Paribas and Cr\u00e9dit Agricole announced in May 2024 that they would stop underwriting conventional bonds for companies involved in oil and gas extraction. This is notable progress \u2014 but it leaves equity issuances and midstream and downstream activities untouched.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/span>

Progress at meeting the targets<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>

The four banks' lending targets <\/span>are for <\/span>2025 and<\/span>\/or<\/span> 2030 (see Table). <\/span>The <\/span>banks claim their targets align with the International Energy Agency's net zero emissions by 2050 scenario. <\/span>ING also has a target to zero out its upstream <\/span>oil and gas<\/span> credit exposure by 2040. <\/span><\/span>Cr\u00e9dit Agricole has failed to set any financial target after 2025.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Bank<\/th>\nSegment covered<\/th>\n2025 target (baseline)<\/th>\nProgress at meeting 2025 target<\/th>\n2030 target (baseline)<\/th>\nProgress at meeting 2030 target<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
BNP Paribas<\/td>\nUpstream oil and gas<\/td>\n-12% (2020)<\/td>\n2020 exposure not disclosed; target presumably exceeded<\/td>\nNone set<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
BNP Paribas<\/td>\nUpstream oil<\/td>\n-25% (2020)<\/td>\n2020 exposure not disclosed; target presumably exceeded<\/td>\n-80% (2022)<\/td>\n-80% (2022 to 2025)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
BNP Paribas<\/td>\nUpstream gas<\/td>\nNone set<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\n-30% (2022)<\/td>\n-66% (2022 to 2025)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Cr\u00e9dit Agricole<\/td>\nUpstream oil<\/td>\n-25% (2020)<\/td>\nAchieved (-72%)<\/td>\nNone set<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale<\/td>\nUpstream oil and gas<\/td>\n-50% (2019)<\/td>\nAchieved (-76%)<\/td>\n-80% (2019)<\/td>\n-76% (2019 to 2025)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
ING<\/td>\nUpstream oil and gas<\/td>\nNone set<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\n-35% (2019)<\/td>\n-71% (2019 to 2025)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Table<\/span><\/span><\/strong>: Progress at meeting lending exposure targets. <\/span><\/span>Baselines and progress figures as reported by each bank<\/span> in their 2026 annual\/sustainability reports<\/span>.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

The banks report<\/span> significant<\/span> progress<\/span> at meeting the<\/span> targets<\/span>. BNP Paribas set an 80% cut in upstream oil exposure by 2030 against a 2022 baseline and had already met this target by 2025, with its exposure falling from \u20ac5.0 billion to \u20ac1.0 billion. Its 30% fossil gas target has been <\/span>greatly exceeded<\/span>, with exposure down 66%. <\/span>ING<\/span>'<\/span>s 2030 target<\/span> is a 35% cut from 2019 \u2014 it reports having already reduced its exposure by 71%. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale stands at 76% against an 80% target for 2030. Cr\u00e9dit <\/span>Agricole far<\/span> exceeded its 2025 oil target.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div><\/div><\/span>

What these banks still need to do<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2><\/span>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>