Indexing capital requirements on climate : What impacts can be expected ?

23 September 2021 - Climate Report - By : Benjamin CHAMBERLIN / Julie EVAIN

As the main financier of the French and European economies, banks play a key role in financing the transition. Their current contribution in France is in the order of 8 billion euros per year, but this will need to more than double according to estimates by I4CE. To accelerate this shift for banking institutions and to prevent their increasing exposures to climate risks, the debate has tended to revolve around whether or not there is a need to reform prudential requirements. The purpose of these requirements is to safeguard financial stability and to protect banks in crisis situations, by obliging them to hold reserves against different risks. There are two conflicting positions on climate issues, between those in favour of a Green Supporting Factor (GSF) and those who advocate a Penalising Factor (PF).


The former, mainly from the banking sector, argue that “green” assets are less risky, which should justify a prudential relief measure. For example, for a loan to purchase an electric car, a bank could hold less capital than in the case of a loan for a conventional car. The latter, in other words regulators and researchers, stress that the risk differential between green assets and normal assets has not been demonstrated, but that harmful assets – fossil fuels, aeronautics, combustion vehicles, etc. – are more exposed to transition risks.


This argument is the theoretical basis for penalising harmful activities with a PF. Beyond the debate on the existence of a risk differential, there is a more political issue of establishing whether these instruments would be an appropriate way to increase the contribution of banks to financing the transition. The I4CE report provides new findings on this point. It determines the impacts a GSF or a PF would have on project financing, on the internal profitability of banks, and on credit growth or contraction. Quantitative modelling has been used to outline the whole impact chain, from a change in prudential rules to the financing of a project.


Click on this button to see the image


Click on this button to see the image


Faced with the challenge of climate change, the mobilisation of the financial sector is crucial, but the conditions of this mobilisation remain to be defined. Minimum capital requirements are perhaps a response to the problem of risk, but with the exception of certain specific cases, their impact on the financing of the transition is limited.


The effects of a GSF (even high) are too limited to stim ulate new projects across all transition sectors. A GSF improves the internal profitability of banks, but does not significantly increase the volume of green loans. As for a PF, it would need to be both high and applied to a limited scope in order to accelerate the planned withdrawal from certain fossil fuel-based activities, while limiting contraction effects for all credit. A broader PF could have counter-productive impacts on the transition.


In view of these limitations, other prudential options are worth exploring and developing , yet receive far less attention, such as the obligation to implement transition plans in the context of supervision (Pillar 2), which would result in changes in the composition of bank balance sheets to finance the low-carbon transition.



Indexing capital requirements on climate : What impacts can be expected ? Download
See appendices
  • Instructions for use for the models Download
  • Model 1 : rate model Download
  • Model 2 : GSF impact model for banks Download
  • Model 3 : PF impact model for banks Download
I4CE Contacts
Project Manager – Financial regulation and Europe Email
To learn more
  • 03/31/2023 Foreword of the week
    Sustainable Finance: the EU enters the final stretch

    Elections of the European Parliament are coming up in June 2024 and will be followed by the renewal of the Commission. Hence, there are only a few months left to finalize the implementation of the renewed sustainable finance strategy adopted in 2021. This strategy aims, among other things, to increase the contribution of the financial sector to sustainability. It seems too early to already draw conclusions on how the Commission delivered on its objectives as some key legislative and supervisory processes are still under way. This newsletter focusses on some of these ongoing processes that receive quite some attention in the public debate

  • 03/30/2023
    Climate stress tests: what co-benefits can we expect for transition financing

    Since their introduction, climate stress tests have taken a lot of space in the public debate. Put in the spotlight by supervisors and the NGFS, their primary objective is to encourage banks to integrate climate-related risks into their activities and to carry out an initial assessment of the banks’ capacity to deal with these risks.

  • 03/30/2023 Op-ed
    OP-ED – Corporate due diligence: what is the added value for climate?

    Negotiations are under way on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, commonly known as the “CSDDD”. Regarding climate, an obligation of climate transition plan for companies is discussed. But let’s keep careful on this point. Europe is in the process of developing climate transition plan requirements in two other directives on corporate sustainability reporting (CSRD) and on prudential requirements for banks (CRD). We must therefore ensure that the discussions result in a final version of the CSDDD that is consistent with these other texts and at the same time complementary.

See all publications
Press contact Amélie FRITZ Head of Communication and press relations Email
Subscribe to our mailing list :
I register !
Subscribe to our newsletter
Once a week, receive all the information on climate economics
I register !