Blog
BankTrack news
BankTrack blog
Partner news
Partner blog
Bank
Crédit AgricoleFrance
Active
This profile is actively maintained
Last update: 2024-12-17 11:44:48
Credit Agricole headquarters at Campus Evergreen, Paris. Photo: Luc Bernard via Wikimedia Commons (CC-BY-SA 3.0)
Active
This profile is actively maintained
Last update: 2024-12-17 11:44:48
Bank info
BankTrack campaigns
All
About
| Website | http://www.credit-agricole.com/en |
| Headquarters |
114, avenue de la République
92120 Montrouge
France
|
| CEO/chair |
Philippe Brassac CEO |
| Supervisor | |
| Ownership |
listed on NYSE
Crédit Agricole is majority-owned by 39 French Caisses Régionales de Crédit Agricole Mutuel. |
The Crédit Agricole Group, founded in 1894, is a unified but decentralised group consisting of 39 regional banks, Crédit Agricole S.A. and many subsidiaries. It includes Crédit Agricole, a semi co-operative retail bank, being majority owned by 39 French Caisses Régionales de Crédit Agricole Mutuel as well as investment bank Crédit Agricole CIB, the former Calyon. For a full overview of all entities under the group see here.
[This profile covers both Crédit Agricole and Crédit Agricole CIB].
Sustainability
Commitments
Policies
Voluntary standards
Crédit Agricole's most important sustainability commitments can be found at the website sections listed below.
Crédit Agricole has committed itself to the following voluntary standards:
Dodgy Deals
Crédit Agricole is linked to a number of companies and projects that BankTrack considers controversial (so called Dodgy Deals), e.g. as a current or past financier or through an expression of interest. The profiles below provide more details on the nature of Crédit Agricole's link to these deals.
Projects / Companies
Finance type
Year
News
BankTrack
Partners
Blog
External
Resources
Accountability
Grievances
Response
tracking
Crédit Agricole does not operate a complaints channel for individuals and communities that may be adversely affected by its finance.
Stakeholders may raise complaints via the OECD National Contact Points (see OECD Watch guidance).
Crédit Agricole is an Equator Principles signatory. While the Equator Principles have no official grievance mechanism, complaints relating to this bank's financing of Equator Principles projects can be filed through our own website www.equator-complaints.org.
This page evaluates Crédit Agricole's responses to instances of alleged human rights violations linked to its finance, raised by civil society organisations. It is not intended to be exhaustive, but covers selected impacts raised by BankTrack and other civil society partners since 2016. For the full scoring methodology, see here. For more information about BankTrack's evaluation of bank responses to human rights impacts, see the 2021 report "Actions speak louder: assessing bank responses to human rights violations".
Impacts reviewed
Responded?
Total score
Response
Action
Monitoring
Banks and Dirty Diesel: Vitol and Trafigura (May 2017)
0
0
0
0
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank publicly responded citing client confidentiality. Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank engaged with its client or took appropriate action. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank monitored progress. More info
Banks profiting from the construction and hotel boom in Qatar (November 2022)
0
0
0
0
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank responded publicly but did not speak to the substance of the issues raised nor did it acknowledge a link to the impacts raised; rather, it referenced its relevant human rights policies and procedures. Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank does not indicate whether it plans to engage or has already engaged its clients or investee companies on this issue. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information to indicate the bank is monitoring the actions of its clients, or actions it might itself have taken in response to the impacts raised. More info
Complicity in Destruction IV: Mining and Indigenous Rights in the Amazon (March 2022)
0
0
0
0
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank refutes the findings of the report, but it is not clear why. It does not confirm or deny its finance for the mining companies included in the report, for which it is the largest financier identified. Its response neither acknowledges its link to the impacts, nor details specific actions taken, and is therefore not sufficient to score. Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No action taken is detailed in the response. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank monitored progress. More info
Deforestation in the Amazon (July 2019)
0.5
0.5
0
0
Response
0.5
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank publicly responded confirming its link to the company. It did not comment on or respond to the substance of the issues raised. Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank did not outline any engagement with the company nor provide detail on whether it had taken any appropriate action itself. According to the bank, the company (Louis Dreyfus) "communicates on a very pro-active CSR policy" and the bank is "therefore comfortable with the financing we provide to the companies mentioned in the Amazon Watch report". Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank monitored progress. More info
Don't Buy into Occupation report (November 2022)
0
0
0
0
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank responded publicly but without acknowledging the bank's link to the impact. Instead, the bank refuted the allegations and its links to the impacts raised. Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank engaged with its client or took appropriate action. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information to indicate the bank is monitoring the actions of its clients, or actions it might itself have taken in response to the impacts raised. More info
Don't Buy into Occupation report (September 2021)
0
0
0
0
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank responded citing client confidentiality Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank does not develop on the allegations because of client confidentiality. The bank only states to comply with ESG standards and that their business partners do too. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank monitored progress.
Following the bank's response: The bank has not provided details on how it monitored the progress of specific companies or how the bank monitored the impact on rights-holders involved in raising the issue with the bank of its own action of updating the Agriculture sector policy. Therefore, the score remains unchanged.
More info
IOI Corporation labour standards violations (February 2016)
1
0.5
0.5
0
Response
0.5
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank publicly responded acknowledging its link to the company. Whilst the bank references some RepRisk reports on the company resulting in it being "internally downgraded", it does not comment on or respond to the substance of the issues raised. Action
0.5
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank excluded the company from its SRI (socially responsible investment) funds in response to the issues identified. However, this action does not prevent or mitigate the adverse impacts identified, as the bank still holds shares via its other ("non-socially-responsible") funds, therefore only a half point is awarded. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank monitored progress. More info
Myanmar: Equity exposure to companies linked to the military regime (October 2021)
1.5
1
0.5
0
Response
1
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank responded publicly to the Business and Human Rights Resouce Centre by commenting to the substance of the issues raised and acknowledging that its asset management branch, Amundi, has indirect exposure to Myanmar through investment in international companies with operations in the country. Action
0.5
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank stated that Amundi has initiated engagement with certain companies mentioned in the report, notably "a French based Oil & Gas company". The bank also commented on the nature of its engagement but it did not set out further steps required from its client or taken by the bank to address the impacts raised. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available about whether the bank monitored progress. More info
UN human rights complaint regarding Saudi Aramco and its financiers (July 2023)
0
0
0
0
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank responded publicly but it did not acknowledge a link to the impacts raised or to the company in question. Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank did not provide information on whether it has engaged with its client or took appropriate action on the impacts raised. In its response, the bank outlined its approach to climate change and human rights more broadly. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank monitored progress. More info
Rio Tinto's Jadar mine, Serbia (December 2021)
0
0
0
0
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank did not respond. Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information available on whether the bank engaged with its client or took appropriate action. Monitoring
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information to indicate the bank is monitoring the actions of its clients, or actions it might itself have taken in response to the impacts raised. More info
ArcelorMittal steel impacts (June 2024)
1
0.5
0.5
n/a
Response
0.5
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank responded publicly acknowledging that ArcelorMittal is a client of theirs, but without speaking to the substance of the issues raised. Action
0.5
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank stated that it has engaged with ArcelorMittal on the impacts raised. However, it did not set out how it has exercised its leverage or taken any further steps to address the impacts. Monitoring
n/a
Rationale for score
The impact was not raised over a year ago and therefore is not scored on monitoring progress. More info
Impacts of Indonesia’s state electricity company PLN (March 2025)
0
0
0
n/a
Response
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
The bank responded, stating: "regarding our relationship with PNL, for reasons of client confidentiality, we cannot provide
precise details except to say that our policy concerning this relationship will respect our commitments." Action
0
Out of 1
Rationale for score
No information is available on whether the bank engaged with its client or took appropriate action. Monitoring
n/a
Rationale for score
The impact was not raised over a year ago and therefore is not scored on monitoring progress. More info
See the letter BankTrack sent the bank here.
Average
92%
0.33
0.21
0.13
0
Banks and Climate
Banks and Climate
The 2025 Banking on Climate Chaos report showed that Crédit Agricole provided $55.8 bn in financing to the fossil fuel industry between 2021 and 2024. In 2024 only, Crédit Agricole provided $12.7 bn, including $5.4 bn for oil, gas and coal companies expanding fossil fuels. Find further details on Crédit Agricole's fossil fuel portfolio and how it compares to other large banks globally on the Banking on Climate Chaos website below.
Partner organisation Reclaim Finance tracks the coal, oil and gas policies of financial institutions, including banks, in their Coal Policy Tool (CPT) and the Oil and Gas Policy Tracker (OGPT). BankTrack works closely with Reclaim Finance and endorses their policy assessments. Find further details on their assessment of Crédit Agricole's fossil fuel policy below.
False Solutions Tracker expansion
BankLast update
Country
Wind Energy
Solar Energy
Geothermal Energy
Ocean Energy
Energy grids and storage
Hydropower
Hydrogen
Solid Biomass
Biofuels
CCUS
Nuclear Power
Details
Explanation
The purpose of the False Solutions Tracker is to give a clear overview of energy technologies that fall under banks' individual sustainable finance commitments. The tracker lists 11 energy technologies that are usually associated with the energy transition and the decarbonisation of the economy. These technologies are defined here and classified in three categories:
-
Real solutions: Technologies that deliver on a Just Transition towards Energy Democracy. BankTrack considers these technologies as real solutions only if and when they do deliver Energy Democracy.
-
Solutions under strict conditions: Energy technologies that could be real solutions if they deliver on a Just Transition towards Energy Democracy but that could also be false solutions. This is the case of hydrogen and hydropower. On one hand, fossil-free and green hydrogen could be a real solution under certain conditions. However, fossil-based hydrogen and nuclear hydrogen are always false solutions. On the other hand, hydropower lifespan extension could also be a real solution under strict conditions while hydropower expansion is a false solution.
-
False solutions: Energy technologies that are not aligned with a just transition towards Energy Democracy.
For each one of the 11 energy technologies, the tracker indicates if it is included in bank's individual sustainable finance commitments:
For Real solutions:
- : Yes, the bank includes its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
- : Yes, the bank includes its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting, but under certain conditions. In this case, those conditions are mentioned in the "relevant policy document" section for each bank.
- : No, the bank does not include its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
- : It is unclear whether the bank includes or not its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
For solutions under strict conditions and for false solutions:
- : Yes, the bank includes its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
- : Yes, the bank includes its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting, but under certain conditions. In this case, those conditions are mentioned in the "relevant policy document" section for each bank.
- : No, the bank does not include its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
- : It is unclear whether the bank includes or not its finance towards this energy technology in its sustainable finance reporting.
For more details see this page.
Banks and Human Rights
Banks and Human Rights
BankTrack assessed Crédit Agricole in its 2024 Global Human Rights Benchmark, where it achieved 4 points out of 15 and was ranked as a “follower”.
The bank scored 0.5 out of 3 points on the new “specific rights indicators”, which assess how banks address human rights defenders, Indigenous Peoples’ right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and environmental rights in their policies and practices.
In addition, Crédit Agricole scored 0.36 out of 3 on how it responds to alleged human rights violations linked to its finance, which were raised by civil society organisations. More information is detailed in the “Accountability” section of this profile.
The table below shows BankTrack's assessment of how Crédit Agricole has implemented the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Please click on 'expand all details' and 'explanation' for further information on the methodology.
Our policy assessments are always a work in progress. We very much welcome any feedback, especially from banks included in the assessments. Please get in touch at humanrights@banktrack.org.
Global Human Rights Benchmark 2022
BankLast update
Country
Score
Ranking
Details
Crédit Agricole
FRA
4
Follower
4
0
Explanation
Laggard
Follower
Front runner
Leader
0 - 3 points
3.5 - 6.5 points
7 - 10 points
10.5 - 14 points
For more details see this page.
Global Human Rights Benchmark 2024
BankLast update
Country
Score
Ranking
Details
Crédit Agricole
FRA
4
Follower
4
0
Explanation
Laggard
Follower
Moderate achiever
Leader
0 - 3 points
3.5 - 7 points
7.5 - 10.5 points
11 - 15 points
For more details see this page.
Banks and Nature
Banks and Nature
Crédit Agricole’s policies for forest-risk sectors (beef, soy, palm oil, pulp and paper, rubber and timber) have been assessed by the Forests & Finance coalition, achieving an overall score of 5.2 out of 10 and ranking it as a front runner. Crédit Agricole achieved a score of 1.7 out of 10 specifically for its policies related to the beef sector and 5.4 out of 10 for its policies related to the palm oil sector. In addition, BankTrack and the Environmental Paper Network have assessed Crédit Agricole’s policies related to the pulp and paper sector.
Between 2016 and 2022, Crédit Agricole provided USD 1,742 million in credit to companies operating in these forest-risk sectors.
BankTrack has also assessed Crédit Agricole’s policies related to the wood biomass sector and found that biomass is not mentioned in its policies and no safeguards or exclusions are in place for wood biomass. For more information, see the links below.
Forest & Finance Policy Assessment 2022: Overall scores
BankLast update
Country
Score
Ranking
Details
Explanation
A bank can obtain a total of 10 points for the quality of its policies. The total score is based on their scores per sector, weighted against their financing and investment for each sector. For further details on this see here. Based on their overall score, banks are then classified as Laggards, Followers, Front runners or Leaders, as follows:
Laggard
Follower
Front runner
Leader
0 - 1 points
1 - 4 points
4 - 7 points
7 - 10 points
For more details see this page.
Forest & Finance Policy Assessment 2022: Beef
BankLast update
Country
Score
Ranking
Details
Explanation
A bank can obtain a total of 10 points for the quality of its beef policy. The total score is based on their scores per sector, weighted against their financing and investment for each sector. For further details on this see here. Based on their overall score, banks are then classified as Laggards, Followers, Front runners or Leaders, as follows:
Laggard
Follower
Front runner
Leader
0 - 1 points
1 - 4 points
4 - 7 points
7 - 10 points
For more details see this page.
Forest & Finance Policy Assessment 2022: Palm Oil
BankLast update
Country
Score
Ranking
Details
Explanation
A bank can obtain a total of 10 points for the quality of its palm oil policy. The total score is based on their scores per sector, weighted against their financing and investment for each sector. For further details on this see here. Based on their overall score, banks are then classified as Laggards, Followers, Front runners or Leaders, as follows:
Laggard
Follower
Front runner
Leader
0 - 1 points
1 - 4 points
4 - 7 points
7 - 10 points
For more details see this page.
Tracking the NZBA
Tracking the Net Zero Banking Alliance
Crédit Agricole is a member of the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) and has therefore committed to reduce its financed emissions to net zero by 2050; within 18 months of joining the alliance set interim targets for 2030 (or sooner) for high emission priority sectors, and within 36 months set further sector targets; set new intermediary targets every 5 years from 2030 onwards; annually publish data on emissions and progress against a transition strategy including climate-related sectoral policies; and take a robust approach to the role of offsets in transition plans. BankTrack track's implementation of these commitments in the NZBA compliance tracker.
Banks and Russia
Banks and Russian Aggression in Ukraine
BankTrack is keeping track of the public response of Crédit Agricole to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Crédit Agricole's position on the war is unclear. Crédit Agricole is considered by Leave-Russia.org to be "scaling back" its operations in Russia. We categorise its exposure to Russia as moderate with over $4.6bn of financial assets. Crédit Agricole supports the Russian fossil fuel industry through investments, loans, and underwriting. For further details, see the table linked below.
Banks and Steel
Banks and Steel
Credit Agricole is a member of the Sustainable Steel Principles. This means it has committed to measuring and disclosing its steel-related financed emissions on an annual basis, and reporting its alignment with the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero by 2050 pathway for the steel industry.
As part of the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), Credit Agricole is required to set interim targets for 2030 for high emission priority sectors. For Credit Agricole, this includes its lending to the steel sector. You can see Credit Agricole’s iron and steel decarbonisation targets, and its progress towards meeting them in our NZBA steel targets compliance tracker:
Partner organisation Reclaim Finance’s 2023 report on metallurgical coal financing showed that Crédit Agricole provided US$ 3.7 billion in loans and underwriting to developers of new metallurgical coal between 2016 and 2022. Find further details on Crédit Agricole’s metallurgical coal financing and and how it compares to other large banks globally in the report.
Reclaim Finance tracks the metallurgical coal policies of financial institutions, including banks, in their Coal Policy Tool. BankTrack works closely with Reclaim Finance and endorses their policy assessments. Find further details on their assessment of Crédit Agricole’s metallurgical coal policy below.
According to a report by Reclaim Finance, between 2016 and June 2023, Crédit Agricole provided $7.8 billion in finance to the fossil-steel industry, making it the 13th largest financier worldwide. Finf further details on Crédit Agricole's steel financing and how it compares to other large banks globally in the report.
Good Moves
Good moves
Year:
2025
2015
2014
Send feedback
on this profile