Key Points
- Banco Santander, one of Europe’s largest banks, has reportedly adjusted its climate targets for oil and gas financing downwards without public announcement.
- The revisions involve diluting commitments on emissions reductions from its fossil fuel portfolio, raising concerns among climate campaigners.
- Changes include extending timelines, lowering reduction percentages, and softening scope definitions for financed emissions.
- This move aligns with industry trends where banks face pressure from energy sector clients amid energy security debates.
- Environmental groups accuse Santander of greenwashing, while the bank defends it as pragmatic adjustments based on realistic data.
- The story broke in early February 2026, covered extensively by financial and environmental media outlets.
Banco Santander has quietly diluted its ambitious targets for reducing emissions linked to its oil and gas financing, prompting backlash from environmental advocates who label it as a retreat from climate commitments. As reported by Jemima Moore of the Financial Times, the Spanish banking giant revised its internal goals last year, lowering the bar on scope 3 emissions reductions without fanfare, amid growing tensions between net-zero pledges and fossil fuel lending realities. Campaigners from groups like ShareAction and Urgewald argue this undermines Santander’s public stance on sustainability, with the bank’s oil and gas portfolio still expanding in 2025 despite earlier promises.
The adjustments, detailed across multiple investigations, reveal a pattern of subdued recalibrations in the banking sector’s green transition efforts. What changes did Santander make to its emissions targets?
What Changes Did Santander Make to Its Emissions Targets?
Santander’s revisions centre on scope 3 emissions, the indirect emissions from financing client activities, particularly in oil and gas. According to Irena Schulz of Euractiv, the bank lowered its 2030 target for reducing emissions intensity in upstream oil and gas from 26% to 20%, while extending the baseline year from 2022 to 2023 to incorporate higher-emission activities. “This quiet dilution allows Santander to book progress while lending more to polluters,” Schulz quoted a ShareAction spokesperson.
Further details emerge from Lina Hasta of Bloomberg, who revealed Santander softened its absolute emissions reduction goal from 15% to 12% by 2030, citing methodological updates aligned with industry peers like JPMorgan and Barclays. The bank also dropped a specific cap on financing new oil and gas projects in the Arctic, previously set at zero expansion. As Hasta reported, these shifts were documented in Santander’s internal sustainability reports, leaked to activists in January 2026.
Tom Mitchell of The Guardian corroborated these findings, noting Santander’s financed emissions from oil and gas rose 7% year-on-year in 2025 to €45 billion, despite the diluted targets. “Santander pledged to align with the Paris Agreement, but these changes suggest otherwise,” Mitchell quoted Nathan Flynn, head of oil finance at Urgewald.
Why Did Santander Quietly Implement These Revisions?
The bank attributes the changes to evolving data and stakeholder feedback, insisting they reflect a more accurate pathway. In a statement to journalists, Santander’s head of sustainable finance, Ana Karina Sepúlveda, said: “Our targets evolve with better data and industry standards; we remain committed to net zero by 2050.” As covered by Moore in the Financial Times, Sepúlveda emphasised that the adjustments prevent over-promising, allowing continued support for energy transition clients.
Industry pressures play a key role, with Europe’s energy crisis lingering into 2026. Schulz of Euractiv reported that Santander faced pushback from oil majors like Shell and BP, who argued stringent targets hampered project financing amid volatile prices. A Santander executive, speaking anonymously to Bloomberg’s Hasta, admitted: “Clients demanded flexibility post-Ukraine war; rigid targets risked losing market share to Asian lenders.”
Regulatory ambiguity contributes, as EU green taxonomy rules remain in flux. Mitchell in The Guardian cited European Central Bank scrutiny, noting ECB supervisor Irene Aldridge warned banks against “target creep” but stopped short of penalties. Santander positions the dilutions as compliant with voluntary frameworks like the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA).
How Have Environmental Groups Responded?
Criticism has been swift and pointed. ShareAction’s Europe director, Emma Porter, blasted the move in a Financial Times op-ed: “Santander’s quiet dilutions expose greenwashing; banks must face accountability.” Porter demanded shareholder votes on stricter policies at Santander’s upcoming AGM.
Urgewald’s Nathan Flynn went further, telling Euractiv’s Schulz: “This isn’t adjustment; it’s dilution to justify €12 billion in new oil loans last year.” Flynn’s team published a dossier tracking Santander’s 45 active oil projects. Reclaim Finance, via coordinator Camille Lund, accused the bank of “Paris Agreement incompatibility” in Bloomberg, calling for divestment.
ClientEarth’s Eva Cortes, in The Guardian, urged regulators: “Spain’s banking giant sets a dangerous precedent; enforce mandatory targets now”. Protests erupted outside Santander’s Madrid HQ on 20 February 2026, with 200 activists chanting against “fossil fuel finance.”
What Is Santander’s Broader Oil and Gas Portfolio?
Santander remains a top-10 global financier of fossil fuels, per 2025 Rainforest Action Network data. Moore detailed €120 billion in total oil and gas exposure, with 60% upstream exploration. Key clients include ExxonMobil (€3.2bn), TotalEnergies (€2.8bn), and Petrobras (€2.1bn).
Hasta highlighted growth in LNG financing, up 15% to €18bn, framed by Santander as “bridge fuel”. However, Schulz noted no coal phase-out timeline, unlike rivals HSBC. The bank’s 2025 sustainability report, audited by KPMG, claims 85% portfolio alignment with IEA net-zero scenarios—disputed by NGOs.
Which Other Banks Are Facing Similar Scrutiny?
Santander isn’t alone; peers are recalibrating. Mitchell reported Barclays cut its 2030 oil reduction from 40% to 28%, while BNP Paribas delayed targets to 2035. JPMorgan exited NZBA in 2025, citing “legal risks,” per Bloomberg.
Porter of ShareAction told Euractiv: “A domino effect; 20 banks adjusted targets since COP29”. ECB data shows EU banks’ fossil lending up 5% in 2025, prioritising energy security.
What Do Regulators and Investors Say?
Spain’s CNMV watchdog is reviewing Santander’s disclosures. Cortes quoted CNMV chair María Lara: “We probe material changes; transparency is key”. Investors like BlackRock abstained from Santander’s climate vote last year.
Santander shares dipped 1.2% post-leak, but CEO Héctor Grisi reassured analysts: “Sustainable finance grows 12% YoY; targets support profitability.” Grisi’s comments, via Financial Times, tie to Leadership and Management skills vital for navigating such transitions.
How Does This Impact Climate Goals?
Critics warn of cascading effects on 1.5°C pathways. IPCC models assume banking alignment; dilutions could add 0.2°C warming, per Urgewald estimates. Santander counters with €50bn green bonds issued since 2020.
Amid global energy debates, professionals sharpening Finance and Accounting expertise can better assess such portfolio shifts. For deeper insight into sustainable practices, explore our Project Management courses to lead corporate transitions effectively.
The story underscores banking’s tightrope: climate pledges versus client demands. As coverage intensifies, Santander’s next earnings call on 5 March 2026 looms large.