FinanceMap scores this financial institution in the following areas. Please navigate to the relevant tab for in-depth analysis
FinanceMap assesses these portfolios for this financial institution. Please navigate to the relevant tab for in-depth analysis.
BNP Paribas's board of directors incorporates climate-related issues into corporate strategy, and discloses the frequency by which its committees discuss climate, though details on the board’s role on climate in the organization has decreased in recent reporting. It has assigned clear climate-related responsibilities to senior management and board-level committees, but again detail on management’s role decreased in recent climate reporting.
BNP Paribas has clearly defined the risks and opportunities it considers to be relevant to its business over different time horizons, and across various business areas, including real estate, corporate banking, asset management, and insurance. It has also described its risk identification process for assessing which climate-related risks it considers relevant to its business.
The organization is transparent about the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities over various business areas, and has described how it is incorporating climate into Corporate & Institutional Banking, Commercial and Personal Banking Services, Investment and Protection Services, as well as operations and external engagements
The organization uses climate scenarios to discuss the resilience of its business strategy, and in 2022 participated in a European scenario exercise supervised by the ECB and conducted its own internal simulations for both physical and transition risks. In 2023, BNP Paribas tested its corporate portfolio against three transition scenarios, and undertook climate stress tests which it uses for internal risk management processes.
BNP Paribas uses clear risk management processes to identify and assess climate-related risks, and has disclosed the materiality relationships between climate risk drivers and major risk categories. It also uses risk management processes and systems to manage climate-related risks, and has outlined how products or investment strategies across sectors might be affected by the transition and how it is working to reduce emissions in those sectors. It appears to have comprehensively integrated climate-related risks into its overall risk management system by incorporating climate factors into its Risk Appetite Framework.
BNP Paribas is transparent about some key metrics used to measure and manage climate-related risks and opportunities, such as exposure to sectors sensitive to and contributing to climate change, financing towards low-carbon energy, and remuneration policies.
The organization discloses Scope 1, Scope 2 emissions data along with Scope 3 from business travel. BNP Paribas does disclose financed emissions, however its measurements for all sectors except for the oil and gas sector are in intensity-based metrics rather than absolute emissions metrics.
In April 2021, the bank was announced as a founding member of the UN convened Net Zero Banking Alliance, building on its existing targets and efforts around decarbonizing its financing activities. In May 2022, it announced a series of financed carbon emissions intensity reduction targets for three key sectors: power generation (a reduction of at least 30% by 2025), upstream oil and gas and refining (a reduction of at least 10% by 2025), and automotive (a reduction of at least 25% by 2025). In May 2023, BNP Paribas announced three additional sector targets, for aluminum, steel, and cement, though all three targets are measured in emissions intensity metrics. In May 2024, it announced three additional emissions intensity targets for aviation, shipping, and commercial real estate, and updated its existing oil and gas target from emissions intensity metrics to absolute emissions metrics, targeting a 70% reduction in emissions by 2030 for the sector.
BNP Paribas has set a coal phase out policy for the thermal coal sector of 2030 in OECD countries and 2040 globally. Additionally, it will only provide financing to power companies that have a strategy to reduce coal power generation in line with IPCC guidance and will not add new coal-fired power capacity to its power portfolio. It has similar restrictions on coal mining companies, only providing financing to companies with a coal exit strategy, no new coal extraction development, and that generate less than 20% of revenue from thermal coal.
BNP Paribas has set exclusionary policies that limit financing to unconventional oil and gas, stating that it will not finance unconventional projects or companies that generate more than 10% of revenue from unconventional oil and gas. In 2023, BNP Paribas announced that it would withdraw from exploration and production of oil by reducing its financing to upstream oil by 80% by 2030, and will not finance new oil fields or companies in upstream oil that are non-diversified. For natural gas, it has excluded all financing dedicated to the development of new gas exploration and production, but will continue to finance new-generation thermal power plants with low emission rates as well as natural gas infrastructure. Additionally, it has set an emissions reduction target of 70% by 2030 for the oil and gas sector.
The entity has a nuclear financing policy that supports an increase in nuclear in the energy mix, given that the clients meet international safety standards. BNP Paribas is actively expanding its financing of renewables with a 40 billion EUR financing goal, and as of September 2023 has financed EUR 32 billion to low-carbon energy, representing 65% of its financing to energy production. 28.8 billion of this financing has been to renewables.
FinanceMap’s Climate Governance and Policies analysis assesses statements financial institutions (FIs) are making on how they are incorporating climate issues into their decision-making and operations using FinanceMap’s matrix methodology. This methodology is adapted from the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations and guidelines, Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) or equivalent Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net-Zero (GFANZ) initiative reporting, and IPCC and IEA technology statements. The TCFD provide guidance on 11 recommendations across four areas which are reflected in our matrix: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics and Targets. Additional benchmarks have been introduced to strengthen the ambition of scoring criteria in the assessment of targets, which are supplemented by guidance from the NZBA or equivalent GFANZ initiatives.
Additionally, Science-Based Policy (SBP) benchmarks are used to measure alignment of an FIs technology positions with the science of climate change. These benchmarks are applied to an FIs internal policies on technologies including coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and renewables and also assesses its engagement with broader climate and energy policy issues such as advocacy on the role and importance of different strategy types in the future energy mix.
For each TCFD recommendation and technology, FIs statements are applied to a five point scoring scale ranging from +2 to -2, measuring alignment with the relevant benchmarks. The detailed scores for this FI are displayed below within each matrix cell.
The following table outlines the key queries and data sources, which FinanceMap uses to assess financial institutions climate governance, targets and policies. Every evidence piece is assessed on a five-point scale of -2,-1,0,1,2 or NA (not applicable)/NS (not scored). All queries, data sources, and evidence pieces are weighted against one another in a matrix system to arrive at a final top-level score. Clicking on specific cells will load the underlying evidence and information on how it has been assessed.
Fossil fuel companies are those whose primary sector falls within coal mining and services, or up-, mid-, and downstream oil and gas sectors. Green companies are defined as companies having over 75% revenue deriving from Substantial Contribution to Mitigation activities under the EU Taxonomy.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area assesses deals in 2020–2024.
Value Assessed: $707B
Sector Paris Alignment scores for the sectors to which this portfolio has exposure. FinanceMap Paris Alignment analysis is limited to the automotive, upstream fossil fuel, and power sectors.
Fossil fuel companies are those whose primary sector falls within coal mining and services, or up-, mid-, and downstream oil and gas sectors. Green companies are defined as companies having over 75% revenue deriving from Substantial Contribution to Mitigation activities under the EU Taxonomy.
Portfolio Paris Alignment analysis of this institution's activities in this portfolio area assesses deals in 2020–2024.
Value Assessed: $435B
Sector Paris Alignment scores for the sectors to which this portfolio has exposure. FinanceMap Paris Alignment analysis is limited to the automotive, upstream fossil fuel, and power sectors.
Fossil fuel companies are those whose primary sector falls within coal mining and services, or up-, mid-, and downstream oil and gas sectors. Green companies are defined as companies having over 75% revenue deriving from Substantial Contribution to Mitigation activities under the EU Taxonomy.
Portion of AUM Assessed: $73.2B
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Engie SA | 39.6% |
| Fortum Oyj | 7.5% |
| Iberdrola SA | 7.4% |
| EDP SA | 6.9% |
| Enel SpA | 6.9% |
| Boralex Inc | 3.8% |
| E.ON SE | 3.7% |
| NTPC Ltd | 2.9% |
| EDP Renovaveis SA | 2.2% |
| Auren Energia SA | 2.0% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Stellantis NV | 29.5% |
| Renault SA | 15.9% |
| BYD Co Ltd | 8.9% |
| Toyota Motor Corp | 8.7% |
| Bayerische Motoren Werke AG | 6.2% |
| Ford Motor Co | 3.5% |
| Volkswagen AG | 2.9% |
| General Motors Co | 2.6% |
| Honda Motor Co Ltd | 2.6% |
| Hyundai Motor Co | 2.5% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| Coal India Ltd | 86.1% |
| Glencore PLC | 13.6% |
| Adani Enterprises Ltd | 0.3% |
| Holding Name | Contribution to Sector Production |
|---|---|
| TotalEnergies SE | 47.7% |
| Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras | 8.8% |
| Talos Energy Inc | 7.5% |
| Kosmos Energy Ltd | 5.7% |
| China Petroleum & Chemical Corp | 4.8% |
| Eni SpA | 4.8% |
| Shell PLC | 4.4% |
| BP PLC | 4.4% |
| OMV AG | 2.3% |
| Equinor ASA | 1.6% |
BNP Paribas appears to be a leader in engaging with companies around climate. The asset manager has several defined climate themes in its climate engagement framework, and states that it is committed to aligning its portfolios with the goals of the Paris Agreement. It does not appear to use milestones to track progress of engagements, but does track successes on voting-related engagements. The asset manager has a clearly defined escalation strategy and has escalated engagements by filing shareholder resolutions at ExxonMobil and Delta in 2021.
BNP Paribas is actively engaging companies to transition in line with the Paris Agreement. For example, its engagements with Iberdrola and PTT Pcl led the companies to improve on climate transition plans and net zero targets. The asset manager is engaging on climate policy influence, including pushing for an evaluation of Delta and ExxonMobil’s lobbying efforts measured against the Paris Agreement. In 2022, it filed climate lobbying shareholder proposals at ExxonMobil, General Electric, and UPS. It is a highly active collaborative engager, leading or co-leading CA100+ engagements with ten companies.
BNP Paribas has described its stewardship governance structure and appears to review stewardship policies and activities. The asset manager has disclosed some companies it is engaging with, including both collaborative and direct engagements. It also discloses all proxy voting data but does not include rationale for voting decisions.
BNP Paribas has used shareholder authority to engage companies on climate, including filing Paris Aligned shareholder resolutions as well as opposing management resolutions concerning the approval of financial statements, discharge of the board, or election of directors due to climate considerations.
Insightia data suggests that BNP Paribas has been consistent in supporting AGM resolutions InfluenceMap categorizes as in line with the Paris Agreement, supporting 90.9% in 2019, 88.9% in 2020, 94.9% in 2021, and 100% in 2022.
FinanceMap's methodology to measure the engagement process on climate was developed in consultation with several of the world's leading asset managers and uses key aspects of the UK Financial Reporting Council's 2020 Stewardship Code . The Stewardship Code was chosen to benchmark engagement quality as it provides an ambitious framework and detailed definitions of what constitutes effective engagement. FinanceMap defines the term ‘engagement’ as referring to all investor actions undertaken to influence the management strategy of the companies they own including private communications with corporate management and appointed advisors; questions at AGMs/other company meetings; comments on the company in the media; escalation and the shareholder resolution process (filing, voting behavior). FinanceMap’s methodology breaks the engagement process down into a set of sub-activities and looks for evidence associated with these across publicly available data sources.
Climate-relevance categorization of shareholder resolutions is based on the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5°C and its concluded need for “rapid and far-reaching transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities.” FinanceMap scored voting on any resolution where the intent and likely outcome is consistent with this IPCC stated need. The voting data is drawn from asset managers' disclosures to the US Security Exchange Commission (SEC), asset manager websites (including third-party websites they link to), directly from the asset managers, and through specialist voting data provider Insightia. The full list of resolutions assessed is available here.
The following table outlines the key queries and data sources, which FinanceMap uses to assess asset managers' corporate engagement programs. Every evidence piece is assessed on a five-point scale of -2,-1,0,1,2 or NA (not applicable)/NS (not scored). All queries, data sources, and evidence pieces are weighted against one another in a matrix system to arrive at a final top-level score. Clicking on specific cells will load the underlying evidence and information on how it has been assessed.
Climate Lobbying Overview: BNP Paribas appears to have positive top-line positions on climate, with more mixed engagement on specific climate-related policies. Subsidiary BNP Paribas Asset Management contributes a significant proportion of its policy engagement, and in general, engagement from BNP Paribas Asset Management appears to be more supportive on climate-related finance policy than group-level engagement.
Top-line Messaging on Climate-Related Finance Policy: BNP Paribas has supported urgent action to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement as a signatory to a 2023 PRI joint initiative, and BNP Paribas Asset Management has stated support for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees in its 2023 Sustainability Report and as a signatory to the 2022 Global Investor Statement. BNP Paribas Asset Management has supported government regulation on climate-related finance regulation in its Global Sustainability Strategy.
Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: In a 2024 meeting with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), BNP Paribas supported mandatory GHG emissions disclosure, across Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. However, in 2022 comments to the SEC on climate-related disclosures, it proposed the introduction of more flexibility, calling certain aspects "overly prescriptive". It also supported global climate-related disclosures in 2022 response to the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), including a "double materiality" approach. Although it supported the role of the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in tackling greenwashing in a 2022 website article, in response to the European Commission on CSRD in 2022, BNP Paribas argued that the disclosure requirements were "overly complex”. BNP Paribas Asset Management advocated for increased ambition in a 2022 consultation response to Canadian Securities Administrators’ Draft Regulation on disclosure of climate-related matters.
Position on Taxonomies: BNP Paribas Asset Management supported the use of double materiality in EU Taxonomy Regulation in a 2023 website article. BNP Paribas CIB also offered broad support for an Australian sustainable finance taxonomy in a 2022 website article. In its 2023 CDP response, BNP Paribas supported extending the taxonomy to cover transition products.
Position on Climate Standards, Labels & Benchmarks: In feedback to the European Commission's 2023 consultation on the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), BNP Paribas supported the development of a product labeling system, and the alignment of these categories with sustainability preferences under MiFiD II. In a 2022 consultation response to ESMA, although it supported the introduction of quantitative thresholds for fund names using sustainability-related terms, it did not support the application of Paris-Aligned Benchmarks and supported a delay to the implementation.
Position on Incorporating Climate Factors Into Investor Duties: In its 2023 consultation response to the EU Commission’s Targeted Consultation on SFDR, BNP Paribas supported the broad aims of SFDR, however recommended the narrowing of entity-level disclosures and reduction in the number of mandatory PAI indicators at product level, as well as describing Article 8 and 9 templates as ‘too granular’. In a 2023 comment on SFDR Delegated Regulation, it supported weakening the regulation through the introduction of materiality in disclosures, in line with EU CSRD.
Position on the Integration of Climate Factors into Prudential Regulation and Risk Management: In response to the European Banking Authority’s (EBA) proposal on integrating climate risks into prudential regulation in August 2022, BNP Paribas supported scenario analysis, however cautioned against regulation disincentivizing financing the transition. In a website article in 2022, BNP Paribas CIB offered broad support for efforts to introduce climate-related financial risks into regulation in Australia, while in a 2022 website article, BNP Paribas Asset Management supported the integration of climate risks into scenario analysis as part of Solvency II.
Industry Association Governance: BNP Paribas has disclosed a partial list of its industry association memberships, but appears to exclude more than three industry associations which are actively engaged on climate policy including SIFMA, TheCityUK, UK Finance, and Investment Company Institute. The company's disclosure does not reference specific climate policies and the company has not disclosed an account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities.
InfluenceMap collects and assesses evidence of corporate climate policy engagement on a weekly basis, depending on the availability of information from each specific data source (for more information see our methodology). While this analysis flows through to the company’s scores each week, the summary above is updated periodically. This summary was last updated in Q1 2025.
InfluenceMap’s methodology for assessing lobbying on climate finance policy closely follows InfluenceMap’s established methodology on climate policy engagement, which is used extensively by investors, including via the Climate Action 100+ investor engagement process. Our full methodology can be found here.
Under our lobbying assessment, InfluenceMap considers engagement on all financial policies which intersect with climate issues, as well as “real economy” climate change policies.
The analysis takes into account both the engagement of the financial institution and the activities of industry associations they hold membership of. InfluenceMap’s methodology covers seven publicly available data sources, searching for evidence of engagement and corporate positioning since 2017. To determine the policy issues within the scope of the analysis, InfluenceMap breaks down policy engagement into a series of subcategories, or 'queries'. These are designed to cover high-level issues relating to the importance of sustainable finance, as well as more specific areas of sustainable finance policymaking. InfluenceMap’s research process searches for evidence of an organization's engagement with each policy issue, across each of the data sources.
The following table outlines the key queries and data sources, which InfluenceMap uses to assess financial institutions' policy engagement. Every evidence piece is assessed on a five-point scale of -2,-1,0,1,2 or NA (not applicable)/NS (not scored). All queries, data sources, and evidence pieces are weighted against one another in a matrix system to arrive at a final top-level score. Clicking on specific cells will load the underlying evidence and information on how it has been assessed.
In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party.
In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.
