• Climate litigation increasingly targets banks for financing fossil fuel projects
• Report by Rick Bosman and Jasper Blom highlights rising legal risks
• ING sued in the Netherlands for portfolio misalignment with 1.5°C goal
• BNP Paribas faces lawsuit in France under duty of vigilance law
• Cases build on Dutch ruling that held Shell accountable for emissions
• Courts may impose binding duties on banks to cut financed emissions
• Litigation risks include legal liability, reputational harm, and regulatory pressure
• Voluntary climate pledges seen as inadequate without enforceable timelines
• Legal outcomes could reshape global investment flows and corporate transition plans
• Era of consequence-free fossil fuel financing may be coming to an end

Banks across Europe are finding themselves in the crosshairs of climate litigation as lawsuits increasingly target financial institutions for their role in funding fossil fuel activities. 

An article written by Rick Bosman, a senior researcher for climate and energy with Milieudefensie, and Jasper Blom, senior policy officer focusing on financial sector regulation with Milieudefensie, warns that legal challenges could permanently reshape the responsibilities of banks in addressing climate change.

The shift comes as the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion confirming that climate change leads to infringements of human rights and that the law has a role to play in addressing these harms. The ruling underscored principles such as precaution and polluter pays, placing banks’ duty of care under sharper scrutiny.

Behind every fossil fuel giant stands a bank, the report notes, and litigators are increasingly asking how far financial institutions must go in reducing emissions tied to their services. 

Lawsuits are no longer just about developing green portfolios but about forcing the phase-out of high-carbon activities.

In the Netherlands, ING has been summoned to court over allegations that its financing of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with international climate goals. 

The case, brought by Milieudefensie, argues that ING’s policies fall short of aligning its portfolio with the 1.5°C target and that it continues to support businesses expanding fossil fuel projects.

In France, BNP Paribas is facing a similar legal battle under the country’s duty of vigilance law. A coalition of NGOs alleges the bank’s continued fossil fuel financing violates obligations to prevent human rights and environmental harms linked to its activities.

These cases follow the landmark Dutch ruling against Shell, in which a court held that companies could be legally accountable for their contributions to climate change. 

Climate advocates now want that same reasoning applied to banks, arguing that if fossil fuel companies must cut emissions, then so too must their financiers.

The stakes are high. If courts rule in favor of the plaintiffs, banks could face binding legal duties to phase out fossil fuel investments. This would expose them to litigation risk, reputational damage, and tighter regulatory oversight.

The report notes that voluntary initiatives such as the Net-Zero Banking Alliance have so far allowed institutions to make vague climate commitments without binding enforcement. 

Litigation could change that by imposing judicially enforceable obligations, forcing banks to clarify targets and timelines.

The implications extend beyond finance. Most high-carbon projects rely heavily on external funding. 

If banks are legally responsible for financed emissions, companies will face stronger pressure to produce credible transition plans, accelerating climate alignment across energy, transportation, and heavy industry.

Legal scholars and advocacy groups are closely watching the cases against ING and BNP Paribas, which could set global precedents. 

Even if the lawsuits do not succeed outright, the proceedings are expected to generate scrutiny, influence corporate behavior, and expand the legal reasoning around climate responsibility.

According to Bosman and Blom, the age of consequence-free financing of high-emitting activities is ending. 

Courts are increasingly positioned to define the obligations of banks in a warming world, with potential consequences for investment flows, financial regulation, and the future of climate accountability.