BANKING ON BUSINESS AS USUAL

The report finds a significant imbalance in energy financing among the 65 largest global banks, with a ratio of 0.42:1 in favor of fossil fuels over sustainable power supply between 2021 and 2024. This is far below the 6:1 ratio by 2030 recommended by the IEA's Net Zero Emissions scenario. While European banks show slightly better ratios, financing for sustainable power remains heavily concentrated in OECD countries and China, leaving emerging markets underfunded. The report also criticizes banks for using 'blurry' targets and problematic technologies like CCUS and bioenergy to inflate their green credentials.

• Between 2021 and 2024, the 65 largest banks globally allocated more than twice as much financing to fossil fuels as to sustainable power supply, resulting in an Energy Supply Financing Ratio (ESFR) of 0.42:1.
• The current financing ratio is significantly lower than the 6:1 ratio by 2030 suggested by the International Energy Agency (IEA) Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario, or the 4:1 ratio proposed by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).
• Regional disparities exist, with European banks achieving a regional ratio of 0.70:1, while banks in Japan (0.35), the US (0.25), and Canada (0.22) have much lower ratios.
• Sustainable power supply financing is highly concentrated, with 93% of funds going to companies and projects in China and OECD countries.
• Only one bank, La Banque Postale, is currently meeting both net-zero requirements: increasing sustainable power supply financing by at least 15% per year and decreasing fossil fuel financing by at least 9% per year.
• Banks are criticized for including 'false solutions' in their sustainable scopes, such as carbon capture, use and/or storage (CCUS), bioenergy, and nuclear energy, which the report argues are incompatible with a rapid and just transition.
• Most banks lack specific financial targets for the power sector; of the 65 banks, only 8 have set a dedicated financing target and only 4 publish their ESFR.
• The report highlights the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) as a project financed by major banks that has caused significant human rights and environmental harm, contrasting it with community-led sustainable alternatives like the REPower Afrika campaign.

APA

Hermant, R., Hernandez, A., & Miomandre, L. (n.d.). BANKING ON BUSINESS AS USUAL. Reclaim Finance. https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Banking-on-business-as-usual.pdf

Chicago

Hermant, Rémi, Andréa Hernandez, and Léa Miomandre. BANKING ON BUSINESS AS USUAL. Reclaim Finance, n.d. https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Banking-on-business-as-usual.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Hermant |first1=Rémi |last2=Hernandez |first2=Andréa |last3=Miomandre |first3=Léa |title=BANKING ON BUSINESS AS USUAL |publisher=Reclaim Finance |url=https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Banking-on-business-as-usual.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{hermantndbanking, author = {Hermant, Rémi and Hernandez, Andréa and Miomandre, Léa}, title = {{BANKING ON BUSINESS AS USUAL}}, institution = {Reclaim Finance}, url = {https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Banking-on-business-as-usual.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }