Santander's Climate Retreat: A Signal for Banks to Loosen Green Pledges?

The Spanish banking giant has quietly gutted its climate commitments, marking what appears to be a coordinated retreat across the financial sector from green pledges made just years ago. The changes, buried in Santander's latest annual report, replace hard emissions targets with vague monitoring commitments that critics say eliminate accountability. What makes the move particularly significant is the timing: it comes as banks worldwide recalibrate their climate positions in response to shifting political winds.

The Scope 3 Sleight of Hand

Santander has dropped its previous target to reduce all emissions linked to its financing of the oil and gas sector, replacing it with a narrower goal that excludes so-called Scope 3 emissions. These are the indirect carbon emissions generated when consumers actually burn the fossil fuels that energy companies extract and sell. The bank has moved these emissions to a monitoring framework rather than setting reduction targets.

The distinction matters enormously. Scope 3 emissions account for the vast majority of greenhouse gases attributable to the fossil fuel industry. By removing them from its targets, Santander has effectively eliminated the most significant chunk of its climate footprint from scrutiny. The aviation sector has been dropped from specific targeting altogether, moved instead to the monitoring category alongside oil and gas Scope 3 emissions.

Enjoying this article?

Get stories like this in your inbox every week.

Join the Community

By moving Scope 3 emissions to a monitoring framework rather than setting reduction targets, Santander has effectively removed the most significant chunk of its climate footprint from scrutiny.

A Sector-Wide Rollback

What makes Santander's move particularly telling is the timing. The bank is hardly alone. HSBC became the first British lender to exit the Net Zero Banking Alliance last year, following several major US banks out of the door. The coalition itself ceased operations shortly afterwards, a striking collapse for an initiative that once represented the industry's flagship climate commitment.

Banks are now recalibrating in real time, and the direction of travel is unmistakable. Political consensus on climate action has fractured, particularly following Donald Trump's return to the White House. For financial institutions with significant US operations and fossil fuel exposure, the calculation has shifted. The question isn't whether to maintain ambitious targets, but how quickly to revise them without triggering investor backlash.

Santander's annual report also reveals another significant change: the bank has replaced single-point emission reduction targets with ranges. The lower bound aligns with scenarios limiting global warming to 1.5C, whilst the upper bound accommodates 1.7C of warming. On paper, the bank can claim alignment with Paris Agreement goals. In practice, the range provides substantial wiggle room and lowers the floor of ambition.

The Financing Defence

Santander's justification for the policy shift rests on a particular logic: that fossil fuel consumption is "primarily driven by demand-side dynamics—such as electrification of transport, heating and industrial processes." The bank argues it already has targets in those relevant sectors, making oil and gas Scope 3 targets redundant.

It's a tidy argument, but one that conveniently sidesteps the role that financing plays in determining supply. Banks don't just passively respond to energy demand; their lending decisions actively shape which projects get built, which companies expand, and how quickly the energy transition actually occurs. By providing capital to fossil fuel producers, lenders directly influence the pace at which new supply comes online—and how long carbon-intensive infrastructure remains economically viable.

After already rolling back key fossil fuel policies, Santander has now quietly diluted the ambition of its targets to cut emissions driving dangerous global heating.

Elliot Thornton, senior research manager at shareholder activist group ShareAction, didn't mince words. "After already rolling back key fossil fuel policies, Santander has now quietly diluted the ambition of its targets to cut emissions driving dangerous global heating," he said. The bank's revised oil and gas target "leaves out the vast majority of the pollution the sector is responsible for, making it one of the weakest across all major European banks." His assessment points to a deeper concern for investors: if targets can be rewritten whenever progress becomes inconvenient, what value do they actually hold as accountability mechanisms?

What Comes Next

The immediate implication is that investors and climate advocates will need to scrutinise banks' climate reporting far more closely. Top-line commitments to net zero by 2050 mean little if the interim targets and sectoral exclusions keep changing. The shift from hard targets to monitoring frameworks is particularly problematic because it reduces transparency and makes year-on-year progress harder to measure.

European banks have generally maintained stronger climate positions than their American counterparts, but Santander's move suggests that gap may be narrowing. Other UK and European lenders will be watching closely to see whether this weakening triggers significant pushback from shareholders or regulators. If the response is muted, expect others to follow suit.

The broader context matters too. Climate policy faces headwinds across multiple jurisdictions, with governments rowing back on transition timelines and fossil fuel phase-out commitments. Financial institutions are reading the political weather and adjusting accordingly. Whether this represents pragmatic realism or opportunistic backsliding depends largely on your perspective—and your tolerance for warming scenarios above 1.5C.

For now, the trend is clear. Banks are rewriting their climate rule books in real time, and the revisions are consistently moving in one direction.

More articles by Ross Williams