Search Climate Insights Directory

The Energy Supply Financing Ratio (ESFR) compares a bank's financing of fossil fuels against its financing of sustainable alternatives, with a target ratio of 6:1 by 2030 based on IEA scenarios. Reclaim Finance warns that varying methodologies allow banks to present misleading ratios, often by excluding capital market activities or including fossil-fuel-related technologies like CCUS in 'low-carbon' scopes. While some North American and French banks have begun publishing these ratios, significant gaps in transparency and scope persist.

The Energy Supply Financing Ratio (ESFR) compares a bank's financing of fossil fuels against its financing of sustainable energy alternatives. Based on the International Energy Agency's (IEA) Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario, a ratio of 6:1 is required by 2030 to meet climate goals. However, Reclaim Finance finds that the 65 largest global banks averaged a ratio of only 0.42:1 between 2021 and 2024. The document warns that banks often use misleading methodologies—such as excluding capital markets activities or including fossil-fuel-linked technologies like CCUS in 'low-carbon' categories—to greenwash their climate strategies.

The document highlights a commitment by the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance (CCR) in June 2026 to cease new investments in companies developing new oil and gas projects. It argues that this is a necessary preventive measure to avoid financing the drivers of global warming, which in turn increases the climate risks these entities underwrite. Reclaim Finance calls on other European public-private schemes—specifically Flood Re (UK), Consorcio de Compensacion de Seguros (CCS, Spain), and SACE (Italy)—to adopt similar investment policies and use their leverage with asset managers and insurance clients to combat fossil fuel expansion.

Reclaim Finance calls on European public reinsurers, specifically Flood Re (UK), CCS (Spain), and SACE (Italy), to follow the example of France's Caisse Centrale de Réassurance (CCR) by committing to cease new investments in companies developing new oil and gas projects. The document asserts that financing fossil fuel expansion contradicts the mandate of these entities to preserve the insurability of climate risks, noting that a world warming by 3°C would render such risks untransferable to the insurance sector. It highlights that bonds make up between 70% and 97% of the financial asset portfolios of these public reinsurers, providing a significant lever for change. Furthermore, the author urges these actors to demand alignment from their asset managers and to integrate financial incentives or strict conditions into reinsurance contracts for insurance clients that continue to support fossil fuel development.

The document argues that financial choices are often overlooked in corporate decarbonization strategies despite the direct impact of bank deposits, asset managers, and insurers on the real economy. It encourages organizations to shift their funds toward financial institutions with robust climate commitments and identifies specific French institutions that limit their support for fossil fuel expansion.

The report argues that the European Central Bank (ECB) fails to account for the biodiversity risks associated with the fossil fuel industry in its monetary and supervisory operations. Despite recognizing nature-related risks, the ECB maintains assets from high-risk fossil fuel companies in its corporate portfolios and allows them as collateral. Furthermore, the report finds that EU banks under ECB supervision provided US$161 billion to companies with fossil fuel projects in critical biodiversity areas between 2021 and 2025. The authors recommend that the ECB adopt a 'double materiality' approach, exclude biodiversity-harming fossil fuel companies from its portfolios and collateral framework, and require banks to implement roadmaps to cease financing such activities.

The document asserts that climate change is a systemic financial risk that threatens the global economy and the living conditions of beneficiaries, thereby making climate action an integral part of an asset owner's fiduciary duty. It advocates for a 'systemic approach' that prioritizes long-term stability over short-term gains, urging asset owners to halt capital allocation to fossil fuel expansion, engage aggressively with portfolio companies, influence asset managers, and advocate for ambitious public policies. The report highlights that current risk models often underestimate the potential for catastrophic economic losses, which could reach 50% of global GDP by the end of the century.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the Council of the European Union for proposing that "transition" funds under the SFDR be available to oil and gas companies, provided they meet a 20% EU Taxonomy capex threshold and set Scope 1 and 2 targets. The author contends this position, influenced by lobbying from entities like TotalEnergies and the French government, ignores Scope 3 emissions and allows continued fossil fuel expansion. The document calls on the European Parliament to exclude companies developing new oil and gas projects from such funds to ensure the credibility of sustainable finance.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the EU Council's June 2026 position on the SFDR, which would allow fossil fuel developers to access "transition" funds based on a 20% capex alignment with the EU taxonomy and scope 1 and 2 decarbonization targets. The author contends this approach, influenced by oil and gas lobbying—specifically TotalEnergies and the French government—ignores scope 3 emissions and risks legitimizing greenwashing. The document calls on the European Parliament to exclude companies developing new oil and gas projects from such funds during its September 2026 deliberations.

The European Central Bank (ECB) is integrating a 'climate factor' into its collateral framework to account for climate transition risks when banks borrow from the ECB. This factor calculates an 'uncertainty score' based on sector exposure, company-specific emissions and disclosures, and asset maturity. Reclaim Finance argues that the current design is flawed due to annual rather than automatic calculations for new assets, a lack of transparency regarding the factor's parameters, and penalties that may be too small to deter the worst polluters. Furthermore, the document notes that the factor currently applies to less than 5% of pledged collateral (non-financial corporations) and urges the ECB to extend it to other asset classes, specifically credit claims, which represent nearly 30% of pledged collateral.

The 17th edition of the Banking on Climate Chaos report finds that the world's largest banks committed $906 billion to fossil fuel companies in 2025, an 8% increase from 2024. Financing for fossil fuel expansion rose by over 27% to $508 billion. The report highlights a high concentration of finance, with a 'Dirty Dozen' of banks providing nearly 39% of global fossil deals. It also notes a trend of policy backsliding, where banks are weakening climate commitments and abandoning net-zero targets, particularly in the US. The report argues that this financing amplifies energy instability and inequality, especially during geopolitical crises like the 2026 US-Israel war on Iran.

Eleven civil society organizations, including Reclaim Finance, have called on Agirc-Arrco, ERAFP, and the Fonds de réserve pour les retraites to cease supporting fossil fuel expansion. The signatories argue that continued investments, particularly through bonds and external managers like BlackRock, exacerbate climate change and expose portfolios to financial risks. They specifically highlight TotalEnergies' recent climate setbacks, including the abandonment of its 2050 carbon neutrality goal in March 2026, as evidence that shareholder dialogue is insufficient. The letter demands an immediate end to new investments in oil and gas projects, systematic voting against directors of expanding fossil fuel companies, and the implementation of science-based climate criteria for selecting external asset managers.

The report argues that the TotalEnergies-EPH joint venture (TTEP) locks Europe into fossil gas dependency, increases energy bill volatility through LNG imports, and relies on public subsidies that should be redirected toward clean energy. It highlights that the venture's 12.5 GW gas capacity will produce emissions comparable to entire countries like Ireland or Denmark over five years, while challenging the companies' claims that such assets are necessary for grid flexibility.

The report finds that TotalEnergies' investment strategy heavily favors fossil fuels, with 4.8 dollars invested in oil and gas for every dollar spent on integrated power in 2025. The company's 2030 production targets are projected to be at least 59% higher than levels required for NZE alignment. While diversifying into renewables, the report notes this is largely through acquisitions and remains marginal, with oil and gas expected to represent 83% of the energy mix by 2030. Additionally, the company is expanding its LNG capacity and gas power production, while relying on CCUS and offsets to meet emissions targets it has recently modified, including a statement in 2026 that it could no longer commit to a 'net zero' objective.

The author contends that raising interest rates to curb inflation caused by the war on Iran would disproportionately hinder renewable energy investments compared to fossil fuels, thereby prolonging Europe's energy vulnerability. To maintain price stability and support the energy transition, the document proposes that the ECB introduce 'Green TLTROs'—Targeted Longer Term Refinancing Operations—to provide lower interest rates for lending dedicated to renewable deployment, electrification, and grid upgrades.

The document warns that the European Central Bank's potential interest rate hikes, prompted by inflation from the war against Iran, could disproportionately hinder renewable energy deployment compared to fossil fuels. It argues that reducing fossil fuel dependence is essential for long-term price stability and proposes the use of 'green' targeted longer term refinancing operations (TLTRO) to support the energy transition.

The document asserts that TotalEnergies has effectively abandoned its 2050 net zero target in its March 26, 2026, Sustainability and Climate Progress Report. It argues that the strategy of life insurers who continue to finance the company under the guise of shareholder engagement has reached its limits, as the company's transition is described as being "in name only".

Reclaim Finance calls for the financial sector to stop funding fossil fuel projects in critical biodiversity areas, arguing that current biodiversity commitments are inadequate and that the fossil fuel industry is a primary driver of ecosystem collapse and climate change.

Reclaim Finance argues that the financial sector continues to drive biodiversity loss by funding fossil fuel exploitation, which causes deforestation, habitat fragmentation, and pollution. The organization criticizes current financial frameworks like the TNFD for focusing too much on transparency rather than concrete action. It demands that financial actors and regulators exclude all support for oil, gas, and coal projects in critical areas such as the Amazon, the Arctic, and the Coral Triangle, noting that the latter is threatened by over 450 offshore exploration blocks and 31 LNG terminals.

The document asserts that private finance continues to bankroll the fossil fuel industry despite net-zero alliances, which have largely collapsed or been gutted due to industry backlash. It calls for regulators to mandate climate transition plans, exclude fossil fuel assets from central bank collateral frameworks, and pass legislation to choke off funding for fossil fuels. While some progress is noted in coal restrictions and specific European institutional investor pledges, the author maintains that binding regulation is essential to ensure private capital accelerates rather than obstructs the global energy transition.