Policy Research Working Paper 11098 Just Transition Risks in the Banking Sector Pietro Calice Finance, Competitiveness and Investment Global Department April 2025 Policy Research Working Paper 11098 Abstract The transition to a net-zero economy presents significant Regional analysis reveals that 2.7 percent of total just tran- social and economic challenges, particularly for industries sition relevant sector credit is concentrated in European and regions reliant on high-carbon activities, hence the Union Just Transition Fund–backed regions, where policy need for a just transition. This paper examines exposure to support mitigates some risks, but residual social risks may just transition risks—a newly introduced category of finan- persist. Meanwhile, 9.1 percent of total credit is linked cial risk defined as social risks driven by climate transition to non–Just Transition Fund regions, where exposure to risks—in the Polish banking sector. Using a sector- and just transition risks is potentially higher. Although not place-based methodology, the paper identifies financial conclusive, these findings underscore the need for Polish exposures to just transition relevant sectors, classified as banks to integrate just transition considerations into risk declining (subject to job losses) or transforming (requiring management frameworks—enhancing due diligence and adaptation to lower-carbon processes). Leveraging granular data aggregation capabilities—and engage with affected credit data, the findings show that 17.2 percent of Polish stakeholders to mitigate legal and reputational risks while banks’ financing is exposed to just transition relevant sectors, supporting a socially equitable climate transition. predominantly in transforming sectors like transportation. This paper is a product of the Finance, Competitiveness and Investment Global Department. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://www.worldbank.org/prwp. The author may be contacted at pcalice@worldbank.org The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Produced by the Research Support Team Just Transition Risks in the Banking Sector Pietro Calice† JEL Classification Numbers: G28, G29, Q48, Q54 Keywords: just transition; financial stability, financial regulation, climate change. Authors’ E-Mail Address: pcalice@worldbank.org † Senior Financial Economist, World Bank. The author is indebted to Ezio Caruso, Emma Dalhuijsen, Mirko de Giovanni, Nepomuk Dunz, Markus Kitzmuller. Rodrigo Pereira Porto, Martijn Regelink, and Achim Schmillen for their comments on an earlier draft. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. I. Introduction The “just transition” is a defining principle of the European Green Deal, the European Union’s (EU) decarbonization strategy that pledges to leave “no person and no place behind”. Achieving the ambition of a net zero economy by 2050 will require transformative change across all economic sectors, which will also significantly restructure labor markets. While in net terms the effect of the transition on employment could be neutral or even slightly positive (see, for example, Eurofound 2019), some jobs will disappear, some will be transformed, and others will be created. This reshuffling of employment is expected to have major social and economic repercussions that will be felt unevenly by different sectors and regions. From a sectoral perspective, mining of coal and lignite and the extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas are the sectors that will experience the largest contraction in jobs, while others such as steel, cement, chemicals, and car manufacturing will have to be heavily transformed to be a part of the net zero economy (European Commission 2018). A key issue is that these “declining” and “transforming” sectors tend to be geographically concentrated within countries. Regions that are heavily reliant on these sectors for employment and economic growth will be disproportionately negatively affected by the transition, suffering heavier job losses and losing key drivers of their economic growth. To address these distributional consequences, the EU authorities established a dedicated policy tool: the Just Transition Mechanism (JTM). Created as part of the Green Deal, the JTM aims to support those regions most affected by the energy transition through a mix of financing and technical assistance. It is constituted by a dedicated Just Transition Fund (JTF) of €19.2 billion—which is expected to mobilize around €25.4 billion in investments in the eligible regions—complemented by a budgetary guarantee under the InvestEU program and a Public Sector Loan Facility intermediated by the European Investment Bank. These three financing pillars are tied together by the so-called Territorial Just Transition Plans (TJTPs), which are prepared by member states and identify the territories and sectors in which the JTF and complementary funding will be used, and the specific actions to be financed. The just transition is relevant to the EU financial industry. The just transition to net zero requires investment far in excess of public sector available financing; hence, the role of the financial sector will be pivotal in steering the economy towards a just green transformation. 1 Financial firms have been subject to heightened scrutiny by various stakeholders to comprehensively incorporate just transition issues in their business and governance practices. To this end, “soft law” standards such as the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) on Business and Human Rights 2 (United Nations 2011) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) on Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) 3 (OECD 2023)—which are extensively referenced in the EU Taxonomy Regulation, 4 the cornerstone of the EU Green Deal —provide a set of high-level guidelines, standards and recommendations for firms across economic sectors to integrate social and human factors in their business strategy, governance and risk management 1 This is debatable for the just transition is fundamentally a political project that is difficult to size a priori, depending on context-dependent notions of fairness that determine a hierarchy of priorities in terms of sectors and regions to be supported (see Calice and Demekas 2024 for a discussion). Nonetheless, the JTM is by design meant to crowd in private capital. 2 The UNGPs on Business and Human Rights are based on the concept of do no harm that stresses the states’ “responsibility to protect” and the corporate “responsibility to respect” human rights. 3 The OECD Guidelines for MNEs on RBC provide standards of “responsible conduct” for multinational firms that include observance of the UNGPs. The most recent update of the guidelines, approved in June 2023, make explicit reference to the need to “to assess and address social impacts in the context of their environmental management and due diligence activities and to take action to prevent and mitigate such adverse impacts both in their transition away from environmentally harmful practices, as well as towards greener industries or practices” (OECD 2023, 36). 4 Regulation (EU) No 2020/852. 2 practices. As a result of the increased public sector scrutiny and oversight on just transition issues, private stakeholders such as shareholders and investors have also been progressively shifting their focus on just transition considerations within the management of financial firms. Importantly, concerns about social risks may also be adding to the pressure on financial firms to incorporate just transition considerations into their business and risk management practices. Social risks are the risks of any negative financial impact stemming from the current or prospective impacts of social factors (e.g., labor relations and practices, employee wellbeing, and community relations) on financial firms’ counterparties or invested assets (see EBA 2021). Unlike climate-related financial risks, which have seen more regulatory and analytical advancements, social risks are still in the early stages of being understood and integrated into financial risk frameworks in many jurisdictions. However, like climate risks, they should not be viewed as entirely new risk categories but rather as factors that influence traditional financial risks through various transmission channels. In this paper we introduce the novel concept of “just transition risk”, defined as social risk driven by climate transition risk, i.e., the risk of a negative financial impact on a financial firm if the latter does not take into account the climate transition-driven social impacts of its business decisions. Just transition risk represents the intersection of two established risk categories— climate transition risk and social risk—capturing the unique dynamics that emerge when climate policies create social disruptions that can subsequently impact financial institutions. For example, the envisaged technological and regulatory changes to combat climate change through climate transition policies may have negative repercussions on employment, local communities, or labor relations, especially for counterparties (or investment) in non-green industries such as the coal mining industry and hard to abate sectors. This, in turn, can translate into social risks for the financial firm, hence the label “just transition risk.” Just transition risks, like social risks in general, can emerge through traditional categories of prudential risk, especially operational risk through legal risk, and reputational risk (Calice and Demekas 2024). 5,6 Social impacts from an “unjust” transition could also morph into credit risk for lenders (Fitch Ratings 2021). While social risks have not yet materialized for financial firms in relation to the just transition (Clifford Chance 2021), it is a growing concern for financial firms (and non-financial firms) in relation to climate commitments (NGFS 2023), with a potentially non-negligible impact. For example, a recent study of 108 climate change lawsuits worldwide against US and European-listed firms during 2005–2021 found that a filing or an unfavorable court decision in a climate case reduced firm value by about half a percentage point on average, relative to expected values (Sato and others 2023). In that respect, EU regulatory and supervisory authorities have started prioritizing social risks and, indirectly, just transition risks in their agendas. In the context of the revised Capital Requirements Regulation and Capital Requirements Directive, the European Banking Authority (EBA) recommended that financial firms assess whether social factors could trigger operational risk losses (EBA 2023). Akin to other major central banks, the European Central Bank (ECB) issued supervisory expectations on climate-related and environmental risks for banks (ECB 2020). One of them (expectation 7.5), advises banks to take into account the OECD Guidelines for MNEs on RBC in their due diligence assessment of clients in order to reduce reputational risk as well as litigation and liability risk. More recently, EBA issued guidelines on the management of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) risks (EBA 2025). Among others, the guidelines recommend that financial firms systematically collect data on social risks and 5 The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) explicitly includes legal risk (but not reputational risk) in the definition of operational risk, which is subject to capital requirements (BCBS 2024). 6 Some authors have introduced the concept of “just transition litigation” (see Savaresi and Setzer 2022; and Tigre and others 2023). 3 implement due diligence processes to verify the adherence of corporate counterparties to social standards, taking into account the UNGPs on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for MNEs on RBC. While all these steps are far from a “just transition regulation,” they could be seen as an indirect way to introduce just transition considerations in EU banks’ risk management. This paper proposes a simple sector- and place-based methodology to estimate bank exposures to just transition risks using data on Polish banks. Assessing the potential for the just transition to translate into operational risk losses for financial firms via legal risk is arguably a daunting task (see Calice and Demekas 2024). There is no historical record of losses associated to legal risk specifically related to the just transition. More fundamentally, plaintiffs’ claims for violations of social norms of fairness are essentially arbitrary. And if these claims are successful, any court-mandated compensation would be entirely at the discretion of the court. It is even more complicated to assess reputational risk, a second-order risk, for there are no standardized measures to calculate reputational risk and each financial institution manages it differently. 7 For these reasons, reputational risk is not subject to regulatory capital requirements but rather considered part of the Supervisory Review Process under Pillar 2 of the Basel Framework (BCBS 2019). Nonetheless, identifying and quantifying banks’ exposure to sectors and regions impacted by the just transition is a necessary first step towards better understanding the potential negative financial impacts of the just transition on financial firms. There is evidence that operational risk losses and reputation risk losses are associated with bank size (see, for example, Dahen and Dionne 2012, and Curti, Frame and Mihov 2022, for operational risk losses; and Fiordelisi, Soana and Schwizer 2013, for reputational risk losses), hence a focus on (gross) exposure is warranted. To the best of our knowledge, this paper represents a first attempt to identify banks’ exposure to just transition risks, filling a gap in the relevant literature. We apply our methodology to a cross-section of Polish banks. Poland represents an interesting case study to estimate banks’ exposure to just transition risks for a number of reasons. After Germany, Poland is the EU’s second largest coal producer and consumer (Christiaensen, Gajderowicz and Wrona 2022). While the transition out of coal in Poland started long time ago, the sector remains of strategic importance to the Polish economy. In 2020, over 40 percent of the country’s total energy supply and 70 percent of its electricity generation came from coal and lignite (IEA 2022), the highest rate in Europe. And in 2020, more than 170,000 people were employed in the coal sector (about 45 percent of Europe’s coal related labor force), concentrated in five regions—Dolnośląskie, Łódzkie, Małopolska, Śląskie, and Wielkopolska— which are the beneficiaries of more than €3.85 billion under the JTF. These regions also account for the vast majority of the more than 500,000 employed in sectors that are expected to transform as a result of the carbon-neutral transition such as motor vehicles and basic metals. Exposure to just transition-relevant sectors and regions via loans and investments may entail just transition risks for Polish banks, in addition to the risks of creating carbon stranded assets (McGlade and Ekins 2015; Mercure and others 2018). 8 7 A few studies (see, for example, Gillet, Hubner and Plunus 2010, Fiordelisi, Soana and Schwizer 2012) provide empirical evidence of reputational risk in financial services. Most of these studies focus on estimating the extent of reputational losses as market reaction to the operational loss announcement running an event study. These studies find that overall operational loss announcements are usually found to generate statistically significant reputational damage. 8 A number of actions have been brought against the Polish government and Polish firms alleging environmental rights violations for their failure to protect citizens from the worsening effects of climate change (see https://climatecasechart.com/). While no Polish bank has been targeted so far, it cannot be ruled out entirely that it could happen in the future. 4 The methodology employed in this paper to assess just transition risks in Polish banks focuses on estimating banks' exposure to firms operating in sectors subject to climate transition risk and regions facing potential labor-related issues associated with the energy transition. Given the challenges in quantifying the probability of social risk events and the financial losses they may entail, this paper primarily examines the financial exposures of Polish banks to sectors that are either declining due to job losses from the carbon-neutral transition or transforming as they adapt to lower-carbon processes. These sectors, collectively labeled Just Transition Relevant Sectors (JTRS), are classified using the climate-policy-relevant sectors (CPRS) framework developed by Battiston and others (2017; 2022), which refines traditional industrial classifications to better capture climate transition risks. JTRS exposures are then mapped into territories, distinguishing between territories covered by the Just Transition Fund (JTF), where transition risks are mitigated by policy support, and those outside its scope, where financial institutions may still face heightened social risks. The study relies on loan-level data from the Biuro Informacji Kredytowej, the Polish credit bureau, covering over 200,000 firm-level observations across various financial instruments, industries, and territorial units as of September 2022. This granular dataset enables a detailed assessment of banks' credit exposures to just transition risks across different sectors and regions in Poland. The results reveal that Polish banks hold significant exposures to climate transition risks, with 17.2 percent of total financing allocated to JTRS. The vast majority (94 percent) of these exposures are concentrated in transforming sectors, particularly transportation, which alone accounts for 9.5 percent of total financial claims. In regions that receive support from the JTF, JTRS financial claims account for 2.7 percent of total national credit, with Śląskie dominating at 88 percent of JTRS claims within JTF-supported regions, reflecting its strong reliance on coal, fossil fuels, and energy-intensive industries. Despite JTF support, residual social risks persist, as banks financing JTRS firms in JTF-backed territories may still face legal and reputational challenges if the transition is mismanaged. In regions that lack JTF-backed mitigation measures, JTRS financial claims are even more pronounced, representing 9.1 percent of total bank credit, with high concentrations across several regions. These regions, heavily dependent on fossil fuel-based industries and energy-intensive manufacturing, face heightened risks of economic disruption, social unrest, and labor market disruptions, which may ultimately turn into legal liabilities and reputational damage for financial institutions. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The next section presents the proposed methodology to identify and measure just transition risks as well as the data used for an application to Polish banks. Section III discusses the results, and Section IV concludes. II. Methodology and data The measurement of just transition risk presents unique challenges as it requires assessing both climate transition exposure and the likelihood of associated social impacts creating financial losses for banks. While established methodologies exist for measuring traditional climate transition risk (e.g., carbon foot-printing, scenario analysis) and some frameworks are emerging for social risk assessment, just transition risk measurement remains largely unexplored territory. Our methodological approach builds upon three strands of literature: • Climate transition risk measurement: We draw on established frameworks for identifying sectors vulnerable to transition policies, particularly the Climate Policy Relevant Sectors (CPRS) approach developed by Battiston and others (2017, 2022). • Social risk assessment in banking: We incorporate insights from emerging literature on how social factors can translate into financial risks (EBA 2021, 2023). 5 • Regional economic vulnerability studies: We integrate approaches for identifying geographic areas particularly dependent on carbon-intensive industries (OECD 2023). By combining these perspectives, we develop a simple methodology that captures both the sectoral and regional dimensions of just transition risk, while acknowledging the significant data and modeling challenges that currently limit more sophisticated quantitative approaches. As shown in Table 1, our just transition risk analysis combines elements of both traditional approaches while introducing unique considerations around the interaction between climate policies and social impacts. While our approach shares the sectoral focus of transition risk analysis, it specifically incorporates the regional dimension and focuses on different transmission channels. For the purpose of this paper, just transition risk (JTR) refers to the likelihood that a lender will incur a loss caused by a social risk event, specifically a legal risk event and/or reputational risk event, related to an exposure to firms in sectors/regions subject to climate transition risk. Formally: = ∑ =1 ∑=1 , ∗ , �� , � ∗ , ( ) (1) where: , = Bank exposure to climate transition risk related to firms in sector ( ) in region (), representing the bank's financial relationships (e.g., loans, investments) with firms in sectors undergoing energy transition in specific regions. , ��, � = Probability of social risk in sector ( ) in region (), conditional upon climate transition risk , , which arises from being invested in firms in sectors in specific regions experiencing adverse social impacts from the energy transition. This reflects the likelihood that the bank will suffer litigation exposure and/or reputational damage due to its loans and/or investments in firms in sectors in specific regions experiencing adverse social impacts from the energy transition. , () = Loss given social risk in sector ( ) in region (), representing the financial loss the bank faces if litigation and/or reputational damage materializes due to its exposure to firms in transitioning sectors in certain regions. This could include the costs of litigation, settlements, or fines, and/or loss of customers, decreased brand value, or a drop in stock price. Equation (1) follows a structure similar to expected loss calculations in traditional risk modeling, but with important modifications to capture the unique nature of just transition risk. The , term represents the financial exposure at risk, while , ��, � captures the conditional probability of social risk materializing given climate transition impacts, and , () quantifies the potential financial impact of such events. This theoretical framework faces several estimation challenges: • Conditional probability estimation: Limited historical data on social risks specifically triggered by climate transition makes direct estimation of , ��, � challenging. • Loss quantification: The diverse nature of potential losses from legal and reputational events makes standardized estimation of , ( ) difficult. • Regional heterogeneity: Social impacts vary significantly across regions based on factors like labor market flexibility, social safety nets, and political factors that are difficult to quantify consistently. 6 Given these challenges, we focus on the first term of Equation (1), i.e., , , as a necessary first step in understanding just transition risk exposure. Future research can build on this foundation as methodologies and data for estimating the probability and loss components evolve. To estimate Polish banks’ exposure to just transition risks, we adopt a simple sector- and place-based methodology. As a first step, we identify banks’ exposure to “declining” (D) and “transforming” (T) sectors. D are sectors that are expected to experience the largest contraction in jobs as a result of the carbon-neutral transition; T are sectors that will have to adapt their production by phasing out carbon-intensive technology and processes and thus mostly transform jobs internally rather than destroy them. Both D and T are subject to climate transition risk and have a significant spatial dimension in terms of employment. We label D and T as Just Transition (JT) exposures. The JTF Regulation does not uniquely define D and T in terms of NACE Rev.2—the European System of Industrial Classification—leaving to member states through the TJTPs the onus to identify industries (and regions) that would benefit from funding. The guidance provided by the European Commission to member states generically identified D as economic activities based on the production of fossil fuels, and T as sectors with high greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity levels, for which technological alternatives to carbon-intensive processes can be found in order to maintain economic output and increase employment (European Commission 2021). As a matter of fact, while Poland’s approved TJTPs focus exclusively on mining of coal and lignite, other member states’ TJTPs include a wider range of industries, from metals and chemicals to cement, fertilizers and shipping. To classify JT exposures in Poland, we resort to the concept of climate-policy-relevant sectors (CPRS) developed by Battiston and others (2017, 2022). CPRS is a classification of economic activities to assess climate transition risk, which has been widely used by policy makers to assess financial firms’ exposure to climate transition risk (see, for example, EBA 2020 and ECB 2021). CPRS overcomes an important limitation of traditional classification of economic sectors such as NACE and NAICS, for the latter were not designed to estimate financial exposures to climate transition risk. This is because the same economic activity can be carried out with different technologies (e.g., coal-fired power plants or wind turbines), which are ultimately associated with very different levels of GHG emissions. Therefore, they do not provide an identification of activities that are exposed to climate transition risk and, for the purpose of this paper, to social risk driven by climate transition risk (i.e., just transition risk). CPRS fill this gap by defining a unique correspondence between international standard classifications of economic activities such as NACE and activities characterized by a specific climate transition risk profile. CPRS offer a standardized and practical framework for classifying activities based on how their revenues might be impacted, either positively or negatively, during the transition to a low-carbon economy. The classification of a firm or economic activity into the CPRS is guided by four key criteria (see Battiston and others 2022): • Role in the value chain: This dimension assesses if the activity produces energy (primary or secondary) or goods. • Role in GHG emissions chain: This criterion determines whether GHG emissions are direct (Scope 1) or mostly indirect (Scope 2 and 3). • Specific policy processes: This dimension evaluates if the activity is a policy actor with lobbying influence or regulated by specific authorities. For example, oil and gas companies often have political influence and are subject to specific regulations, unlike sectors like building-related activities. 7 • Business model: This considers whether fossil fuel provision is an output (e.g., extraction, refinement) or an input. Low substitutability of fossil fuels as an input implies higher climate transition risk, as the sector may adapt more slowly to the low-carbon transition. If a firm operates in multiple business lines with different NACE codes, its overall risk depends on the revenue share of each line. CPRS are available at increasing levels of granularity, from “CPRS Main” to “CPRS2” and then to “CPRS Granular”. At their most aggregate level is CPRS Main, which include CPRS1-fossil- fuel, CPRS2-utility, CPRS3-energy-intensive, CPRS4-buildings, CPRS5-transportation, CPRS6- agriculture. The classification of economic activities into CPRS Main is based on the NACE codes. In contrast, while still being based on information that can be retrieved from the NACE 4-digit classification of the activity, CPRS2 add details to CPRS Main with regard to the business specialization by energy technologies. Table 2 shows the rationale for allocating NACE 4-digit codes into CPRS Main according to the four criteria above and provides examples. To identify JT financial exposures, we focus on a subset of CPRS that are particularly exposed to climate transition risk in Poland. This is because revenues in these sectors are highly dependent on the value chain of fossil fuels (declining sectors), or they require a technological transformation to become aligned with the climate objectives (transforming sectors). We call these sectors Just Transition Relevant Sectors (JTRS), which we further disaggregate into Declining Just Transition Sectors (DRS) and Transforming Just Transition Sectors (TRS), with declining and transforming as defined above. They include (see Table 3 for more details): 9 • All sectors in CPRS Main 01-fossil and selected subsectors of CPRS Main-03-energy intensive such as basic chemical and plastic because their revenues depend on the value chain of fossil fuels. • Selected subsectors in CPRS Main 02-utility, for in Poland more than 80 percent of electricity is generated by fossil sources. • Selected subsectors in CPRS Main-03-energy intensive such as cement and steel because they face the need to improve their technology to drastically reduce emissions. • Selected subsectors in CPRS Main-05-transportation, for in Poland the share of electric vehicles is significantly lower than in the rest of the EU. Instead, railways are not included because the level of electrification in Poland is in line with the EU average. Taken together, these sectors accounted for 34 percent of output in Poland and 33 percent of employment, compared to the EU average of 19 percent and 26 percent, respectively, in 2022. The next step is to map JTRS financial exposures into territories. Given our focus on just transition risks, we begin with the territories eligible for receiving JTF funding. In the case of Poland, these are the five coal regions of Dolnośląskie, Łódzkie, Małopolska, Śląskie, and Wielkopolska. However, these regions or voivodeship (NUTS 2) are not equally beneficiaries of JTF funds for the latter are allocated to activities located in subregions or powiats (NUTS 3 level) within the regions according to the approved TJTPs. Therefore, we map JTRS financial exposures into JTF eligible subregions (“JTF Covered” or JTFC) and label them JTRSJTFC. In these sectors/territories, just transition risks are mitigated by the JTF. The JTF in Poland is aimed to support the local economic diversification by investing in small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs); working on renewable energy, clean mobility and other green sectors; workers retraining from the fossil fuels sector to renewable and climate neutral industries; and restore 9 In line with the general guidance provided for the JTF and approved TJTPs, we do not include Agriculture in the list of JTRS sectors though Agriculture is classified as CPRS (CPRS6-agriculture). 8 environmental damage from the mining activities. Nonetheless, residual risks may arise from social impacts related to an incomplete or unfinished just transition, i.e. not aligned with TJTPs and expected outcomes. JTF eligible subregions identified through approved TJTPs reflect political priorities within the budget constraints set by the JTM. This does not rule out that employment, local communities, or labor relations can be negatively impacted by the carbon-neutral transition in JTRS economic activities located in other regions/subregions. To identify territories currently not covered by the JTF (“JTF Uncovered” or JTFU) but nonetheless relevant for the just transition (and therefore a potential source of just transition risk for financial firms), we compute employment levels by NACE 2 industries mapped into CPRS at the NUTS 2 level, select the combination of NACE 2/CPRS/NUTS 2 with a minimum threshold of employment in line with OECD (2023), and associate financial exposures to them (Table 4). While imperfect, such an approach is driven by the availability of data. Accordingly, we define as JTRSJTFU the JTRS financial exposures to JTFU territories. These exposures are subject to social risk to the extent that the envisaged technological and regulatory changes affecting transitioning sectors may negatively impact local labor markets and communities, potentially causing reputational damage and operational risk losses for financial firms. We use credit bureau data from Biuro Informacji Kredytowej (BiK), the Polish credit bureau. Our BiK sample is a cross-section of all reporting banks’ outstanding loans to firms as of September 30, 2022 (PLZ 441.5 billion). The sample contains more than 200,000 anonymized borrower- level observations aggregated by lending banks. Exposures are disaggregated by product type, including: (i) revolving loan; (ii) investment loan; (iii) mortgage loan; (iv) loan; (v) overdraft – payment credit in the current account; (vi) overdraft limit/overdraft facility; (vii) revolving working capital loan; (viii) credit or payment card, debit card with a limit; and (ix) other. Data are further disaggregated by economic sector (NACE 3), region (NUTS 2), subregion (NUTS 3), and local administrative unit (LAU). This allows us to study in detail Polish banks’ JTRS exposure to just transition risks in both JTFC and JTFU territories. The choice to focus on exposure measurement rather than attempting to fully quantify probabilities and loss severities is driven by several data limitations: • Insufficient historical precedent: There are no reliable historical cases of just transition risk materializing for banks that would enable statistical estimation of probabilities. • Regional heterogeneity: Social vulnerability to transition varies significantly across regions based on factors like labor mobility, social safety nets, and alternative economic opportunities. • Policy uncertainty: The timing and intensity of climate policies remain uncertain, making it difficult to predict when and how severely social impacts might manifest. • Sectoral interdependence: Complex supply chain relationships mean that impacts in one sector can cascade to others in ways that are difficult to model with available data. These limitations highlight the need for future research to develop more sophisticated methodologies as data availability improves and as the climate transition progresses. Our exposure-based approach serves as a necessary first step that can inform risk management practices while acknowledging these constraints. III. Results Using the granular credit data described above, we present the results on Polish banks’ exposure to just transition risk. We start by characterizing the allocation of bank claims to JTRS 9 economic activities and thus their overall exposure to climate transition risk and, by inference, to just transition risk. Note that in this analysis we only aim to measure the exposure subject to climate transition risk as a first and preliminary step to estimate just transition risks (i.e., social risks conditional upon climate transition risks); we do not quantify any impact resulting from potential sectoral losses. Neither do we aim to express an opinion on the materiality of these risks for individual Polish banks, for the level of aggregation of the data (at the banking industry level) prevents us from estimating and assessing bank-level exposures. Table 5 presents Polish banks’ JTRS financial exposures aggregated into the CPRS Granular categories discussed above. Claims not falling into these sectors are grouped in the “other” category. In total, Polish banks held JTRS claims worth PLZ 75.8 billion as of September 30, 2022. This implies that 17.2 percent of Polish banks’ financing was exposed to climate transition risks that may result from disorderly changes in climate policies, technological breakthroughs or preference shocks. The vast majority of JTRS financial claims are found in TRS economic activities (94 percent of total JTRS exposures). The largest JTRS claims (PLZ 41.9 billion or 9.5 percent of total claims) are linked to the transportation category. This encompasses a diverse range of economic activities, including road freight transport, warehousing and logistics, sale of motor vehicles, and construction of roads. These activities present heterogeneous risks, varying in their likelihood of occurrence and impact on the debt- servicing capacity of affected firms. The majority of bank claims in the transportation category originate from road freight transport and sales of motor vehicles—activities particularly vulnerable to climate transition risks, and, if regionally concentrated, to just transition risks. For example, as road freight operators shift to cleaner technologies or face increasing carbon taxes, businesses in the sector may experience financial strain, impacting their ability to repay loans. Additionally, stricter emission standards and the push for electric vehicles could lead to a decline in demand for traditional internal combustion engine vehicles, affecting manufacturers and dealers in these industries. These dynamics create climate transition risks for banks, as they face potential financial losses from their exposure to transport operators and vehicle manufacturers struggling to adapt. Importantly, they could also result in reputational damage and legal liabilities (and potential losses) for banks, particularly if lenders do not adequately assess the social and employment impacts of the transition. Local communities reliant on traditional vehicle manufacturing or freight transport jobs could also be affected, leading to broader socio-economic challenges that further exacerbate risks for financial institutions with investments or lending in these sectors. The remaining JTRS financial claims account for PLZ 33.9 billion (7.7 percent of total credit), and are spread across different sectors, with concentrations in electric power generation, transmission and distribution, and the manufacture of rubber products. Interestingly, exposure to coal mining activity is very limited, accounting for only 0.2 percent of total claims, while other fossil fuel categories represent 1.7 percent of total credit. This may reflect the commitment by several Polish lenders to significantly scale down their involvement in these sectors. Next, we explore the spatial dimension of JTRS financial claims. To assess the exposure of the Polish banking system to just transition risks, it is important to examine the relationship between exposures to JTRS activities and territories where the just transition is relevant. Table 6 highlights the regional distribution of total credit and JTRS credit across Polish regions (NUTS 2 level). Overall, the allocation of credit to the economy largely reflects the relative importance of regions in terms of contribution to national GDP. As a share of regional financial claims, JTRS claims vary between 12 percent in Warmińsko-Mazurskie and 27 percent in Śląskie. 10 As expected, JTRS credit is more concentrated in regions with higher exposure to declining or transforming industries. Mazowieckie leads in both total credit (28.1 percent) and JTRS credit (24.7 percent), reflecting its overall economic significance, though its share of JTRS claims is slightly lower. Mazowieckie also catches the eye for its relatively high share of DRS in its total JTRS economic activities (Śląskie stands out with 8.7 percent of total financial claims but a disproportionately higher 13.4 percent of JTRS credit, indicating its reliance on sectors undergoing significant transition). Wielkopolskie has a similar share in both categories, with 12.8 percent of total credit and 12.2 percent of JTRS credit. In contrast, regions like Kujawsko- Pomorskie and Łódzkie show lower shares of JTRS credit (3.6 percent each) compared to their shares of total credit (3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively), reflecting lesser reliance on declining or transforming industries. Smaller regions like Lubuskie and Warmińsko-Mazurskie, with minimal industrial transformation, have the smallest shares of JTRS credit (1.9 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively). The regional distribution of financial claims is useful information but does not tell us much about potential sources of just transition risk for Polish banks. To estimate banks’ exposure to just transition risk, we need to investigate JTRS financial claims in territories where the just transition is important. The next step is, therefore, to analyze JTRS credit granted to just transition relevant territories. We start with JTC territories, i.e. the territories that are eligible for receiving JTF funding (Dolnośląskie, Łódzkie, Małopolska, Śląskie, and Wielkopolska). Table 7 provides a granular breakdown of total credit and JTRS credit across JTF eligible Polish regions. Overall, JTRS financial claims in JTC territories account for 2.7 percent of total national credit. Śląskie stands out with the highest share of JTRS financial claims (24 percent of total regional credit and 88 percent of total JTRS claims in JTC territories), indicating a particularly high concentration of climate transition risk due to its strong ties to coal, fossil fuels, energy- intensive industries, and transportation. In contrast, Wielkopolskie has a relatively lower JTRS credit share in both total regional claims and JTRS claims (1 percent and 7 percent, respectively), suggesting a more diversified credit portfolio with reduced exposure to litigation and reputational fallout from the transition. At the sectoral level, fossil fuel-dependent industries, utilities (especially waste management and electricity generation), energy-intensive industries (such as cement and iron & steel), and transportation (notably roads and water transport) account for the bulk of JTRS credit in the five JTF eligible regions. The exposure is particularly pronounced in coal-related sectors, where nearly all credit is JTRS credit. While the JTF provides financial and technical support to mitigate just transition risks in these regions, legal and reputational risks may still materialize if the transition is not effectively managed. Banks financing businesses in JTRS sectors in JTC territories could face legal risk exposure if affected workers and communities file lawsuits against firms they finance, alleging that the transition is being conducted unfairly or violating social protections. For instance, if a steel manufacturer in Wielkopolskie receiving JTF support reduces jobs without providing mandated worker reskilling, affected employees could sue the company, and by extension, its financiers. Reputational risks may also arise if banks are perceived as obstructing or mishandling the transition. Even with JTF-backed projects, public backlash from labor unions and local communities could damage banks’ reputations, particularly if they continue financing firms in declining industries without supporting their transition. In Śląskie, for example, a bank that continues to provide loans to coal companies despite JTF efforts to foster alternative industries could be accused of perpetuating economic distress, “stranding” jobs, and failing to support a just transition. The next and final step in our analysis is to assess JTRS financial claims in territories that are not supported by the JTF (i.e., JTU territories) but that are nonetheless relevant for the just transition, for they concentrate a significant share of employment regionally (our key criterion to identify JTU territories, as discussed above). In other words, these are regional exposures to 11 JTRS economic activities that are not mitigated by JTF-backed interventions, and where in principle just transition risks for lenders may be higher. Tables 8 and 9 summarize Polish banks’ credit exposures to JTRS across various JTU regions. JTRS credit in JTU territories represents 9.1 percent of total financial claims of banks, with very heterogeneous exposure at the regional level. For example, regions such as Opolskie and Podkarpackie have a substantial percentage of their total credit allocated to JTRS economic activities, at about 80 percent. These areas face vulnerabilities due to the high reliance on fossil fuel-based industries like coal mining and energy-intensive manufacturing. For financial institutions exposed to those sectors/regions, failing to anticipate the social risks arising from the transition could lead to operational setbacks, legal liabilities, and reputational damage. For banks in other regions only partially covered by the JTF (for the JTF is allocated at the subregional level within regions), such as Śląskie and Wielkopolskie, the exposure to JTRS remains a critical concern. Although these regions receive some support from the JTF, the financial institutions operating there are still at risk due to the high concentrations of financial claims in sectors vulnerable to climate transition, such as energy-intensive industries and fossil fuels. For example, in Śląskie, significant portions of credit are allocated to cement and iron and steel industries, which are poised for substantial changes as the government implements stricter climate policies. Similarly, Wielkopolskie, with a focus on transportation and energy- intensive sectors, could see considerable disruptions if these industries fail to adapt to new green technologies or face economic decline due to regulatory pressures. In these regions, banks may encounter challenges related to the retraining and reskilling of workers in impacted sectors, potential social unrest, and local economic and social instability. For instance, employment in energy intensive industries could face significant losses due to shifting energy policies, which could lead to legal actions from affected workers or communities. Furthermore, failure to properly assess the social risks associated with these sectors may also damage the banks' reputations, as investors, regulators, and customers increasingly demand sustainable and socially responsible business practices. IV. Concluding remarks This paper introduces the novel concept of just transition risk for the banking sector—defined as social risk driven by climate transition risk—and provides a first attempt to estimate exposure to that risk, using aggregated data for Polish banks. By applying a sector- and place- based methodology, our findings reveal that Polish banks hold substantial financial claims in sectors and regions that are highly susceptible to climate transition risk. These exposures, if not properly managed, may translate into operational and reputational risks for financial institutions, particularly through legal liabilities and societal pressures stemming from employment disruptions and social dislocation—the key drivers of just transition risks. The analysis highlights that 17.2 percent of total Polish bank financing is allocated to JTRS, with the majority concentrated in transforming sectors such as transportation. Additionally, regions covered by the JTF account for 2.7 percent of total national credit, with Śląskie dominating JTRS claims. However, substantial exposures also exist in regions not supported by the JTF (estimated at 9.1 percent of total financial claims), where banks face heightened risks due to the absence of policy-backed mitigation measures. The paper emphasizes that just transition risks, although currently underappreciated, can emerge through legal challenges and reputational damage linked to financial institutions' involvement in socially sensitive sectors and regions. Given these findings and recent guidance provided by EBA (2025), it is imperative that Polish banks start integrating just transition considerations into their business strategy and risk management frameworks. Banks could conduct regular materiality assessments, enhance due 12 diligence on counterparties to assess the potential social impacts of climate transition on borrowers, and gradually embed just transition risks (and other social risks) into risk appetite, governance, and business strategies. Risk monitoring could include both qualitative and quantitative methods, which would benefit from improving data aggregation capabilities (se also Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego 2023: 67). Signing and ensuring alignment with the Equator Principles could facilitate better just transition risk management. 10 Moreover, Polish credit institutions could engage more proactively with affected stakeholders, including businesses, workers, and local communities, to support a smoother transition. Collaborative efforts with policy makers and development institutions can help channel financial flows toward sustainable investments that facilitate economic diversification and workforce retraining in transitioning regions. In doing so, banks can not only mitigate their exposure to legal and reputational risks, but also contribute to a more inclusive and socially equitable energy transition. This paper is a first attempt to identify bank exposures to just transition risks. Further research could explore how to quantify the probability of just transition risk events—such as litigation, regulatory penalties, or reputational damage—emerging from climate transition-driven disruptions. Comparative research across different EU countries, using more granular, bank- level data, could provide additional insights into the relevance of just transition risks for the banking sector. Finally, further research could explore how financial innovations, such as sustainability-linked financial instruments, can help mitigate just transition risks in banking portfolios. 10 The Equator Principles are a set of voluntary guidance intended to serve as a common baseline and risk management framework for financial institutions to identify, assess and manage environmental and social risks when financing projects. To date, no Polish bank is a signatory of the principles. See https://equator-principles.com/. 13 References Battiston, S., A. Mandel, I. Monasterolo, et al. (2017). A climate stress-test of the financial system. Nature Clim Change, 7: 283–288. Battiston, S., I. Monasterolo, B. van Ruijven, and K. Volker (2022). The NACE – CPRS – IAM mapping: A tool to support climate risk analysis of financial portfolio using NGFS scenarios. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4223606. BCBS (2019). Supervisory review process: Risk management. Basel Framework. BCBS: Basel. BCBS (2023). Calculation of RWA for operational risk. Basel Framework. BCBS: Basel. Calice, P. and D. G. Demekas (2024). Just Transition: Issues for Central Banks and Financial Regulators, Policy Research Working Paper 10685. World Bank, Washington D.C. Christiaensen, L., T. Gajderowicz, T., and S. Wrona (2022). Towards a Just Coal Transition: Labor Market Challenges and People’s Perspectives from Lower Silesia. Jobs Working Papers 69. World Bank: Washington, D.C. Clifford Chance (2021). Just Transactions. White Paper on Just Transition and the Banking Sector. Institute for Human Rights and Business and CDC Group. Curti, F., W. S. Frame, and A. Mihovare (2022). Are the largest banking organizations operationally more risky? Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 54(5): 1223-1259 Dahen, H. and G. Dionne (2021). Scaling models for the severity and frequency of external operational loss data. Journal of Banking and Finance, 34(7): 1484-1496. EBA (2020). Risk assessment of the European banking system. EBA: Paris. EBA (2021). EBA Report on management and supervision of ESG risks for credit institutions and investment firms, EBA/REP/2021/18. EBA, Paris. EBA (2023). EBA Report on the role of environmental and social risks in the prudential framework. EBA/REP/2023/34. EBA: Paris. EBA (2025). Guidelines on the management of environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks. EBA/GL/2025/01. EBA: Paris. ECB (2020). Guide on climate-related and environmental risks: Supervisory expectations relating to risk management and disclosure. ECB: Frankfurt. ECB (2021). Climate-related risk and financial stability. ECB: Frankfurt. Eurofound. (2019). Energy Scenario: Employment implications of the Paris Climate Agreement (Publications Office of the European Union). Eurofound, Brussels. European Commission (2018). A Clean Planet for all: A European long-term strategic vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy. In-Depth Analysis in Support of the Commission Communication Com(2018) 773. European Commission, Brussels European Commission (2021). Commission staff working document on the territorial just transition plans. SWD(2021) 275 final. European Commission: Brussels. Fiordelisi, F., M.G. Soana, and P. Schwizer (2011). The determinants of reputational risk in the banking sector. Journal of Banking and Finance, 37(5): 1359-1371. 14 Fiordelisi, F., M. G. Soana, and P. Schwizer (2012). Reputational losses and operational risk in banking. The European Journal of Finance, 20(2): 105–124. Fitch Ratings (2021). ESG in credit: White Paper. July, 2021. Gillet, R., G. Hübner, and S. Plunus (2010). Operational risk and reputation in the financial industry. Journal of Banking and Finance, 37(5): 1359-1371. IEA (2022). Poland: Energy policy review. IEA: Paris. Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (2023). Report on the situation in the banking sector in 2022. KNF: Warsaw. McGlade, C., and P. Ekins (2015). The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature, 517: 187–190. Mercure, J. F., H. Pollitt, J. E. Viñuales, et al. (2022). Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assets. Nature Clim Change, 8: 588–593. NGFS (2023). Climate-related Litigation: Recent Trends and Developments. NGFS Technical Document. Network for Greening the Financial System. OECD (2023). OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct. OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2023). Regional Industrial Transitions to Climate Neutrality. OECD Regional Development Studies. OECD Publishing: Paris. Sato, M., G. Gostlow, C. Higham, J. Setzer and F. Venmans (2023). Impacts of climate litigation on firm value. Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy Working Paper 421/Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Working Paper 397. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Savaresi, A., and J. Setzer (2022). Rights-based litigation in the climate emergency: mapping the landscape and new knowledge frontiers. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 13(1): 7-34. Tigre, M. A., L. Zenteno, M. Hesselman, N. Urzola, P. Cisterna-Gaete, and R. Luporini (2022). Just Transition Litigation in Latin America: An Initial Categorization of Climate Litigation Cases Amid the Energy Transition. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, January 2023. United Nations (2011). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework. United Nations, New York. 15 Table 1: Comparison of Risk Analysis Approaches Feature Traditional Social Risk Analysis Unjust Transition Transition Risk Risk Analysis (This Analysis Paper) Primary focus Financial impacts of Financial impacts of Financial impacts of climate policy social factors social disruptions changes caused by climate policy Key drivers Carbon intensity, Labor practices, Employment technological community relations dependence on vulnerability carbon-intensive sectors, regional concentration Time horizon Medium to long-term Short to medium- Short to long-term term (varies by transmission channel) Risk transmission Market, credit, Operational, Primarily operational channels liquidity risks reputational risks (legal) and reputational risks Measurement Scenario analysis, Qualitative Sectoral and regional approach stress testing assessment, exposure controversy assessment monitoring Data requirements Carbon emissions, Social indicators, Sectoral exposures, technology pathways controversies regional employment data, policy support indicators Regulatory Well-established in Emerging in ESG risk Very limited, implicit integration supervisory guidelines in broader ESG frameworks frameworks 16 Table 2: Example of mapping of individual NACE 4-digit codes into CPRS Main CPRS Main Category of Role of GHG Specific policy Nature of transition NACE 4 digits (selected) economic activities emissions in value processes chain Fossil fuel Carry out / support Mostly indirect CO2 Oil politics, No fuel B-Mining and quarrying: coal, oil and gas; production / delivery emissions. taxes/subsidies. substitutability. C-Manufacturing: coal, oil and gas; D- of primary energy Electricity and gas (e.g. 35.21); G- based on fossil fuel. Wholesale: fuel sales (e.g. 47.30); H- Transportation: pipelines (e.g. 49.50). Utility electricity Carry out / support Mostly indirect CO2 Oil politics, No fuel B-Mining and quarrying: coal, oil and gas; production / delivery emissions. taxes/subsidies. substitutability. C-Manufacturing: coal, oil and gas; D- of primary energy Electricity and gas (e.g. 35.21); G- based on fossil fuel. Wholesale: fuel sales (e.g. 47.30); H- Transportation: pipelines (e.g. 49.50). Energy intensive Manufacturing Mostly direct CO2. No specific policy. Low substitutability. B-Mining and quarrying (e.g. 07.10, 07.29, activities with emissions (fuel mix). processes as a group. (e.g. steel or rockets). 08.91 etc.); C-Manufacturing (about 200+ intensive use of sectors, e.g. 11.01, 13.10, 15.11 etc.). energy according to NOTE: NACE codes falling in other CPRS EU classification are not included. Carbon Leakage. Transport Provision of or support Mostly direct CO2 Transport authorities Low substitutability C-Manufacturing: motor vehicles, ships to transport services emissions (fuel mix). and policies. (e.g. motor vehicles and trains (e.g. 29.10, 29.20, 30.11, 30.20 (e.g. vehicles fleet). etc.); F-construction: roadways and manufacturing, roads railways (e.g. 42.11, 42.12); G-Wholesale: and railways). vehicles (e.g. 45.32); H-Transportation: land, air, and sea transport (49.10, 49.20, 49.41, 50.10, 51.10, etc.) Buildings Provision of or support Mostly direct CO2 Housing policies. Low substitutability F-Construction: residential and to buildings services emissions (fuel mix). (e.g. heating/cooking). commercial building (e.g. 41.10, 41.20, (e.g. residential/ and 43.22, 43.91 etc.); I-Accommodation (e.g. commercial) 55.10, 55.20); L-Real-estate (e.g. 68.10,68.20, 68.30); M-Professional: architectural activities (e.g. 71.11) 1 Agriculture Provision of and Direct CO2 emissions Agricultural policies. Low Substitutability A - Agriculture forestry and fishery (from support of agriculture from fossil fuel; other (as for transport). But 01.10 to 02.40) and forestry. direct GHG emissions. emission reductions Negative emissions via low carbon (afforestation) farming. Source: Battiston and others (2022) 2 Table 3: Mapping of NACE codes into CPRS and JTRSs (Poland) NACE Description CPRS Main CPRS2 CPRS Granular D/T B.05.1 Mining of hard coal 1-fossil-fuel 1-fossil|coal fuel|fossil|coal D B.05.2 Mining of lignite 1-fossil-fuel 1-fossil|coal fuel|fossil|coal D B.06.1 Extraction of crude petroleum 1-fossil-fuel 1-fossil|oil fuel|fossil|oil D B.06.2 Extraction of natural gas 1-fossil-fuel 1-fossil|gas fuel|fossil|gas|manufacturing D B.09.1 Support activities for petroleum and natural gas 1-fossil-fuel 1-fossil fuel|fossil|oil&gas D extraction C.17.1 Manufacture of pulp, paper and paperboard 3-energy- 3-energy-intensive energy-intensive|other T intensive C.19.1 Manufacture of coke oven products 1-fossil-fuel 1-fossil|coal fuel|fossil|coal D C.19.2 Manufacture of refined petroleum products 1-fossil-fuel 1-fossil|oil fuel|fossil|oil|manufacturing D C.20.1 Manufacture of basic chemicals, fertilisers and 3-energy- 3-energy-intensive energy-intensive|other T nitrogen compounds, plastics and synthetic intensive rubber in primary forms C.20.2 Manufacture of pesticides and other 3-energy- 3-energy-intensive energy-intensive|fertilisers and T agrochemical products intensive agrochemicals C.22.1 Manufacture of rubber products 3-energy- 3-energy-intensive energy-intensive|rubber and T intensive plastics C.22.2 Manufacture of plastic products 3-energy- 3-energy-intensive energy-intensive|rubber and T intensive plastics C.23.5 Manufacture of cement, lime and plaster 3-energy- 3-energy- energy-intensive|cement T intensive intensive|cement C.23.6 Manufacture of articles of concrete, cement and 3-energy- 3-energy- energy-intensive|cement T plaster intensive intensive|cement C.24.1 Manufacture of basic iron and steel and of ferro- 3-energy- 3-energy- energy-intensive|iron and steel T alloys intensive intensive|iron and steel C.24.2 Manufacture of tubes, pipes, hollow profiles and 3-energy- 3-energy- energy-intensive|iron and steel T related fittings, of steel intensive intensive|iron and steel 3 C.24.3 Manufacture of other products of first processing 3-energy- 3-energy- energy-intensive|iron and steel T of steel intensive intensive|iron and steel C.24.5 Casting of metals 3-energy- 3-energy- energy-intensive|iron and steel T intensive intensive|iron and steel C.25.4 Manufacture of weapons and ammunition 3-energy- 3-energy-intensive energy-intensive|other T intensive C.29.1 Manufacture of motor vehicles 5-transportation 5- transportation|vehicles T transportation|roads C.29.2 Manufacture of bodies (coachwork) for motor 5-transportation 5- transportation|vehicles T vehicles; manufacture of trailers and semi- transportation|roads trailers C.29.3 Manufacture of parts and accessories for motor 5-transportation 5- transportation|vehicles T vehicles transportation|roads C.30.1 Building of ships and boats 5-transportation 5- transportation|water|vehicles T transportation|water C.30.3 Manufacture of air and spacecraft and related 5-transportation 5-transportation|air transportation|air|vehicles|combust T machinery ion C.30.4 Manufacture of military fighting vehicles 5-transportation 5- transportation|vehicles|combustion T transportation|other D.35.1 Electric power generation, transmission and 2-utility 2-utility|electricity electricity T distribution D.35.2 Manufacture of gas; distribution of gaseous fuels 1-fossil-fuel 1-fossil|gas fuel|fossil|gas D through mains D.35.3 Steam and air conditioning supply 2-utility 2-utility|other heat/cool T E.38.2 Waste treatment and disposal 2-utility 2-utility|waste waste services T F.42.1 Construction of roads and railways 5-transportation 5-transportation transportation|infrastructure T G.45.1 Sale of motor vehicles 5-transportation 5- transportation|vehicles T transportation|roads G.45.2 Maintenance and repair of motor vehicles 5-transportation 5- transportation|vehicles T transportation|roads G.45.3 Sale of motor vehicle parts and accessories 5-transportation 5- transportation|vehicles T transportation|roads 4 G.45.4 Sale, maintenance and repair of motorcycles and 5-transportation 5- transportation|vehicles T related parts and accessories transportation|roads G.47.3 Retail sale of automotive fuel in specialised 1-fossil-fuel 1-fossil fuel|fossil|oil T stores H.49.3 Other passenger land transport 5-transportation 5-transportation transportation|land|infrastructure T H.49.4 Freight transport by road and removal services 5-transportation 5- transportation|road|infrastructure T transportation|roads H.49.5 Transport via pipeline 1-fossil-fuel 1-fossil fuel|fossil|gas T H.50.1 Sea and coastal passenger water transport 5-transportation 5- transportation|water|infrastructure T transportation|water H.50.2 Sea and coastal freight water transport 5-transportation 5- transportation|water|infrastructure T transportation|water H.50.3 Inland passenger water transport 5-transportation 5- transportation|water|infrastructure T transportation|water H.50.4 Inland freight water transport 5-transportation 5- transportation|water|infrastructure T transportation|water H.51.1 Passenger air transport 5-transportation 5-transportation|air transportation|air|infrastructure T H.51.2 Freight air transport and space transport 5-transportation 5-transportation|air transportation|air|infrastructure T H.52.2 Support activities for transportation 5-transportation 5-transportation transportation|infrastructure T N.77.1 Rental and leasing of motor vehicles 5-transportation 5- transportation|road|vehicles T transportation|roads 5 Table 4: Employment shares in JTRS for Polish regions B05 B06 B09 C17 C19 C20 Manufact Extractio Manufact Manufact ure of n of crude Mining ure of Mining of ure of coke and NUTS 2 petroleu support chemical Regions coal and paper and refined m and service s and lignite paper petroleu natural activities chemical products m gas products products PL21 Małopolskie 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.9 PL22 Śląskie 5.6 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.7 PL41 Wielkopolskie 1.0 0.6 PL42 Zachodniopomorskie 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.6 PL43 Lubuskie 1.6 0.8 PL51 Dolnośląskie 0.0 0.6 1.0 PL52 Opolskie 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.7 PL61 Kujawsko-pomorskie 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.5 PL62 Warmińsko-mazurskie 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 PL63 Pomorskie 0.0 0.7 0.5 PL71 Łódzkie 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.9 PL72 Świętokrzyskie 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 PL81 Lubelskie 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.6 PL82 Podkarpackie 0.0 0.4 1.5 PL84 Podlaskie 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 PL91 Warszawski stołeczny 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 PL92 Mazowiecki regionalny 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.0 Minimum empolyment share: 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.65 0.20 Table 4 (cont’d) C22 C23 C24 C25 C29 C30 Manufact Manufact Manufact Manufact Manufact ure of ure of ure of ure of Manufact ure of fabricate motor NUTS 2 rubber other non- ure of other Regions d metal vehicles, and metallic basic transport products, trailers plastic mineral metals equipmen except and semi- products products t machiner trailers PL21 Małopolskie 1.8 1.3 1.4 3.6 1.3 0.1 PL22 Śląskie 3.2 1.7 1.8 4.7 5.0 0.4 PL41 Wielkopolskie 2.2 1.1 0.4 3.5 2.3 0.4 PL42 Zachodniopomorskie 2.3 1.1 0.1 4.5 1.2 0.6 PL43 Lubuskie 1.7 2.2 0.8 4.9 4.1 0.3 PL51 Dolnośląskie 2.8 1.6 0.8 3.5 4.9 0.6 PL52 Opolskie 2.0 2.4 1.4 6.0 3.5 0.2 PL61 Kujawsko-pomorskie 3.6 1.1 0.5 6.6 0.8 0.9 PL62 Warmińsko-mazurskie 4.0 1.9 0.2 3.9 0.4 1.3 PL63 Pomorskie 2.2 1.1 0.1 4.5 0.7 1.2 PL71 Łódzkie 2.8 2.1 0.3 3.1 1.1 PL72 Świętokrzyskie 1.3 6.2 1.7 3.9 PL81 Lubelskie 1.0 1.3 0.3 3.1 0.7 PL82 Podkarpackie 4.8 2.4 1.4 5.7 3.2 2.4 PL84 Podlaskie 3.1 1.4 0.2 2.8 0.5 PL91 Warszawski stołeczny 1.1 0.6 0.2 1.1 0.4 0.1 PL92 Mazowiecki regionalny 1.6 1.6 0.3 4.9 0.7 0.5 Minimum empolyment share: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 2 Table 4 (cont’d) D35 E37 E38 F42 G45 G47 Electricity Waste Wholesal Retail , gas, collection e and trade, steam , Civil retail except of NUTS 2 Regions and air Sewerage treatment engineeri trade and motor condition and ng repair of vehicles ing disposal motor and supply activities; vehicles motorcycl PL21 Małopolskie 0.93 0.31 0.74 1.95 3.02 12.53 PL22 Śląskie 1.35 0.44 0.85 2.29 3.06 9.55 PL41 Wielkopolskie 0.73 0.29 0.65 1.57 2.91 19.74 PL42 Zachodniopomorskie 1.52 0.49 0.98 1.77 2.95 11.53 PL43 Lubuskie 0.95 0.59 0.91 1.32 3.64 11.83 PL51 Dolnośląskie 0.94 0.32 0.91 1.58 2.61 11.04 PL52 Opolskie 1.66 0.41 1.05 1.72 3.51 9.37 PL61 Kujawsko-pomorskie 1.10 0.43 1.03 1.67 3.23 10.00 PL62 Warmińsko-mazurskie 1.32 0.64 1.13 1.66 3.22 10.91 PL63 Pomorskie 1.04 0.40 0.78 1.99 2.94 10.29 PL71 Łódzkie 1.51 0.46 0.70 1.51 2.81 12.85 PL72 Świętokrzyskie 1.82 0.60 1.08 2.49 4.27 13.44 PL81 Lubelskie 1.15 0.48 0.85 4.17 3.67 16.40 PL82 Podkarpackie 1.28 0.23 0.84 1.95 3.11 11.82 PL84 Podlaskie 1.48 0.36 0.96 2.01 3.55 12.86 PL91 Warszawski stołeczny 0.84 0.22 0.45 1.86 2.42 13.60 PL92 Mazowiecki regionalny 1.54 0.24 1.01 2.36 3.79 12.09 Minimum empolyment share: 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 3 Table 4 (cont’d) H49 H50 H51 H52 N77 Warehou Land sing and transport Rental support NUTS 2 and Water Air and Regions activities transport transport transport leasing for via activities transport pipelines ation PL21 Małopolskie 5.73 0.02 0.02 1.28 0.34 PL22 Śląskie 5.99 0.00 1.69 0.33 PL41 Wielkopolskie 6.40 0.00 0.01 1.77 0.35 PL42 Zachodniopomorskie 7.07 0.26 3.89 0.36 PL43 Lubuskie 9.33 0.01 1.54 0.29 PL51 Dolnośląskie 5.36 0.02 1.88 0.42 PL52 Opolskie 7.47 0.04 0.47 0.51 PL61 Kujawsko-pomorskie 6.90 0.01 0.70 0.33 PL62 Warmińsko-mazurskie 5.48 0.05 1.35 0.34 PL63 Pomorskie 6.20 0.12 2.68 0.38 PL71 Łódzkie 7.06 0.01 1.93 0.41 PL72 Świętokrzyskie 7.89 0.01 0.43 0.42 PL81 Lubelskie 8.64 0.01 1.03 0.33 PL82 Podkarpackie 5.84 0.01 0.75 0.29 PL84 Podlaskie 7.80 0.01 0.93 0.42 PL91 Warszawski stołeczny 6.08 0.02 0.25 4.43 0.66 PL92 Mazowiecki regionalny 10.69 0.00 0.01 1.62 0.32 Minimum empolyment share: 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4 Table 5: JTRS financial claims by CPRS Granular PLZ ,000,000 JTRS categories Total credit JTRS credit % Total credit % Total JTRS DRS TRS 1-fossil-fuel 8,121.4 8,121.4 1.8% 10.7% 1-fossil 3,477.7 3,477.7 0.8% 4.6% fuel|fossil|gas 2,230.2 2,230.2 0.5% 2.9% - 1 fuel|fossil|oil 1,094.7 1,094.7 0.2% 1.4% - 1 fuel|fossil|oil&gas 152.7 152.7 0.0% 0.2% 1 - 1-fossil|coal 681.0 681.0 0.2% 0.9% fuel|fossil|coal 681.0 681.0 0.2% 0.9% 1 - 1-fossil|gas 2,292.0 2,292.0 0.5% 3.0% fuel|fossil|gas 2,292.0 2,292.0 0.5% 3.0% 1 - 1-fossil|oil 1,670.6 1,670.6 0.4% 2.2% fuel|fossil|oil 27.6 27.6 0.0% 0.0% 1 - fuel|fossil|oil|manufacturing 1,643.1 1,643.1 0.4% 2.2% 1 - 2-utility 13,374.5 11,033.4 2.5% 14.6% 2-utility|electricity 9,457.1 9,457.1 2.1% 12.5% electricity 9,457.1 9,457.1 2.1% 12.5% - 1 2-utility|other 805.7 805.7 0.2% 1.1% heat/cool 805.7 805.7 0.2% 1.1% - 1 2-utility|waste 2,307.7 770.6 0.2% 1.0% waste services 2,307.7 770.6 0.2% 1.0% - 1 2-utility|water&sewerage 804.0 - 0.0% 0.0% sewerage services 315.7 - 0.0% 0.0% - - water services 488.2 - 0.0% 0.0% - - 3-energy-intensive 31,858.8 14,756.0 3.3% 19.5% 3-energy-intensive 24,389.6 10,809.9 2.4% 14.3% energy-intensive 3,482.1 - 0.0% 0.0% - - energy-intensive|electrical 306.5 - 0.0% 0.0% - - energy-intensive|fertilisers and agrochemica 54.3 54.3 0.0% 0.1% - 1 energy-intensive|other 12,292.3 2,934.5 0.7% 3.9% - 1 energy-intensive|pharmaceutical 433.3 - 0.0% 0.0% - - energy-intensive|rubber and plastics 7,821.1 7,821.1 1.8% 10.3% - 1 3-energy-intensive|cement 1,824.8 1,824.8 0.4% 2.4% energy-intensive|cement 1,824.8 1,824.8 0.4% 2.4% - 1 3-energy-intensive|electrical 3,523.0 - 0.0% 0.0% energy-intensive|electrical 3,523.0 - 0.0% 0.0% - - 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel 2,121.4 2,121.4 0.5% 2.8% energy-intensive|iron and steel 2,121.4 2,121.4 0.5% 2.8% - 1 5-transportation 44,424.0 41,915.6 9.5% 55.3% 5-transportation 10,048.3 9,650.6 2.2% 12.7% transportation|infrastructure 8,171.6 7,773.8 1.8% 10.3% - 1 transportation|land|infrastructure 1,876.7 1,876.7 0.4% 2.5% - 1 5-transportation|air 267.7 267.7 0.1% 0.4% transportation|air|infrastructure 200.2 200.2 0.0% 0.3% - 1 transportation|air|vehicles|combustion 67.5 67.5 0.0% 0.1% - 1 5-transportation|other 519.6 0.1 0.0% 0.0% transportation|vehicles|combustion 0.1 0.1 0.0% 0.0% - 1 transportation|vehicles|other 519.5 - 0.0% 0.0% - - 5-transportation|railways 1,591.2 - 0.0% 0.0% transportation|rail|infrastructure 625.5 - 0.0% 0.0% - - transportation|vehicles 965.7 - 0.0% 0.0% - - 5-transportation|roads 31,316.1 31,316.1 7.1% 41.3% transportation|road|infrastructure 14,875.8 14,875.8 3.4% 19.6% - 1 transportation|road|vehicles 2,942.6 2,942.6 0.7% 3.9% - 1 transportation|vehicles 13,497.7 13,497.7 3.1% 17.8% - 1 5-transportation|water 681.1 681.1 0.2% 0.9% transportation|water|infrastructure 167.2 167.2 0.0% 0.2% - 1 transportation|water|vehicles 514.0 514.0 0.1% 0.7% - 1 other 857,431.3 - 0 0 Grand Total 441,491.5 75,826.4 17.2% 100.0% Table 6: JTRS financial claims by region PLZ ,000,000 % Total regional Regions Total credit % JTRS credit % credit DRS credit % Total JTRS TRS credit % Total JTRS DOLNOŚLĄSKIE 334,325.7 7.6% 68,559.4 9.0% 0.2 95.1 0.0% 68,464.3 9.0% KUJAWSKO-POMORSKIE 167,091.2 3.8% 27,146.6 3.6% 0.2 10.3 0.0% 27,136.3 3.6% ŁÓDZKIE 236,251.4 5.4% 27,392.4 3.6% 0.1 0.5 0.0% 27,392.0 3.6% LUBELSKIE 132,225.0 3.0% 23,994.4 3.2% 0.2 40.7 0.0% 23,953.8 3.2% LUBUSKIE 78,890.7 1.8% 14,485.5 1.9% 0.2 84.4 0.0% 14,401.1 1.9% MAŁOPOLSKIE 348,709.5 7.9% 54,200.5 7.1% 0.2 41.9 0.0% 54,158.6 7.1% MAZOWIECKIE 1,238,900.8 28.1% 187,241.5 24.7% 0.2 33,088.5 4.4% 154,153.0 20.3% OPOLSKIE 77,191.6 1.7% 16,085.1 2.1% 0.2 46.9 0.0% 16,038.2 2.1% PODKARPACKIE 142,625.9 3.2% 32,764.4 4.3% 0.2 9.6 0.0% 32,754.7 4.3% PODLASKIE 87,350.9 2.0% 15,684.7 2.1% 0.2 479.7 0.1% 15,205.0 2.0% POMORSKIE 296,483.8 6.7% 41,782.8 5.5% 0.1 2,060.7 0.3% 39,722.2 5.2% ŚLĄSKIE 382,191.4 8.7% 101,796.6 13.4% 0.3 4,145.9 0.5% 97,650.7 12.9% ŚWIĘTOKRZYSKIE 85,898.2 1.9% 12,236.4 1.6% 0.1 1.2 0.0% 12,235.2 1.6% WARMIŃSKO-MAZURSKIE 105,564.3 2.4% 12,326.4 1.6% 0.1 1.6 0.0% 12,324.8 1.6% WIELKOPOLSKIE 564,055.1 12.8% 92,185.9 12.2% 0.2 1,108.0 0.1% 91,077.9 12.0% ZACHODNIOPOMORSKIE 137,159.0 3.1% 30,381.7 4.0% 0.2 6,749.5 0.9% 23,632.2 3.1% Grand Total 4,414,914.7 100.0% 758,264.4 100.0% 0.2 47,964.5 6.3% 710,299.9 93.7% 2 Table 7: JTRS financial claims in JTC territories by CPRS-2 PLZ ,000,000 Region Total credit JTRS credit JTRS credit in JTC % Total credit % of JTRS credit DOLNOŚLĄSKIE 33,432.6 6,855.9 699.4 2.1% 10.2% 1-fossil 50.3 50.3 3.0 6.0% 6.0% 1-fossil|coal 8.5 8.5 7.7 90.8% 90.8% 1-fossil|oil 0.7 0.7 0.6 80.0% 80.0% 2-utility|electricity 2,209.9 2,209.9 1.1 0.1% 0.1% 2-utility|other 9.5 9.5 6.2 65.1% 65.1% 2-utility|waste 291.8 137.0 126.1 43.2% 92.1% 2-utility|water&sewerage 60.6 - - 3-energy-intensive 1,600.5 798.9 135.7 8.5% 17.0% 3-energy-intensive|cemen 149.3 149.3 8.9 6.0% 6.0% 3-energy-intensive|electri 553.8 - - 3-energy-intensive|iron an 65.2 65.2 9.5 14.5% 14.5% 5-transportation 470.6 439.6 72.4 15.4% 16.5% 5-transportation|air 7.6 7.6 0.3 3.4% 3.4% 5-transportation|other 8.8 - - 5-transportation|railways 361.5 - - 5-transportation|roads 2,971.1 2,971.1 327.4 11.0% 11.0% 5-transportation|water 8.4 8.4 0.5 5.7% 5.7% ŁÓDZKIE 23,625.1 2,739.2 718.9 3.0% 26.2% 1-fossil 56.8 56.8 17.7 31.2% 31.2% 1-fossil|gas 0.0 0.0 - 0.0% 0.0% 1-fossil|oil - - - 2-utility|electricity 44.8 44.8 13.5 30.0% 30.0% 2-utility|other 60.2 60.2 28.3 47.0% 47.0% 2-utility|waste 65.8 27.5 15.4 23.4% 56.1% 2-utility|water&sewerage 23.0 - - 3-energy-intensive 1,676.1 411.3 96.4 5.7% 23.4% 3-energy-intensive|cemen 131.4 131.4 26.5 20.1% 20.1% 3-energy-intensive|electri 69.3 - - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron an 107.6 107.6 41.7 38.8% 38.8% 5-transportation 349.6 325.9 97.1 27.8% 29.8% 5-transportation|air 0.2 0.2 0.0 13.5% 13.5% 5-transportation|other 11.7 - - 5-transportation|railways 28.2 - - 5-transportation|roads 1,570.2 1,570.2 381.1 24.3% 24.3% 5-transportation|water 3.5 3.5 1.3 36.1% 36.1% MAŁOPOLSKIE 34,871.0 5,420.0 900.2 2.6% 16.6% 1-fossil 153.1 153.1 6.5 4.3% 4.3% 1-fossil|gas 0.1 0.1 0.1 87.1% 87.1% 1-fossil|oil 0.8 0.8 0.5 57.2% 57.2% 2-utility|electricity 324.9 324.9 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 2-utility|other 18.5 18.5 11.7 63.4% 63.4% 2-utility|waste 106.3 35.3 33.4 31.4% 94.6% 2-utility|water&sewerage 28.0 - - 3-energy-intensive 2,724.8 1,562.6 229.9 8.4% 14.7% 3-energy-intensive|cemen 110.4 110.4 3.6 3.3% 3.3% 3-energy-intensive|electri 582.5 - - 3-energy-intensive|iron an 147.1 147.1 10.0 6.8% 6.8% 5-transportation 586.7 568.7 72.6 12.4% 12.8% 5-transportation|air 0.9 0.9 0.0 4.2% 4.2% 5-transportation|other 5.8 - - 5-transportation|railways 4.7 - - 5-transportation|roads 2,496.5 2,496.5 531.7 21.3% 21.3% 5-transportation|water 1.2 1.2 - 0.0% 0.0% 3 Table 7 (cont’d) Region Total credit JTRS credit JTRS credit in JTC % Total credit % of JTRS credit ŚLĄSKIE 38,219.1 10,179.7 8,989.1 23.5% 88.3% 1-fossil 71.7 71.7 54.9 76.5% 76.5% 1-fossil|coal 365.4 365.4 365.4 100.0% 100.0% 1-fossil|gas 0.4 0.4 0.4 100.0% 100.0% 1-fossil|oil 48.4 48.4 48.4 99.9% 99.9% 2-utility|electricity 1,639.5 1,639.5 1,628.0 99.3% 99.3% 2-utility|other 135.0 135.0 132.5 98.1% 98.1% 2-utility|waste 292.9 45.7 45.7 15.6% 100.0% 2-utility|water&sewerage 197.0 - - 3-energy-intensive 2,825.4 1,701.5 1,566.3 55.4% 92.1% 3-energy-intensive|cemen 166.6 166.6 129.2 77.5% 77.5% 3-energy-intensive|electri 284.5 - - 3-energy-intensive|iron an 789.1 789.1 409.1 51.8% 51.8% 5-transportation 1,311.4 1,266.1 1,156.9 88.2% 91.4% 5-transportation|air 6.5 6.5 6.5 99.7% 99.7% 5-transportation|other 26.1 - - 5-transportation|railways 68.9 - - 5-transportation|roads 3,920.9 3,920.9 3,423.2 87.3% 87.3% 5-transportation|water 22.7 22.7 22.7 99.9% 99.9% WIELKOPOLSKIE 56,405.5 9,218.6 610.8 1.1% 6.6% 1-fossil 192.0 192.0 28.3 14.7% 14.7% 1-fossil|coal 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 1-fossil|gas 4.8 4.8 4.5 92.9% 92.9% 1-fossil|oil 3.8 3.8 0.0 0.1% 0.1% 2-utility|electricity 591.7 591.7 65.9 11.1% 11.1% 2-utility|other 25.0 25.0 3.0 11.9% 11.9% 2-utility|waste 319.5 89.3 0.3 0.1% 0.4% 2-utility|water&sewerage 51.9 - - 3-energy-intensive 3,103.0 1,701.9 21.6 0.7% 1.3% 3-energy-intensive|cemen 425.8 425.8 4.9 1.1% 1.1% 3-energy-intensive|electri 360.4 - - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron an 40.0 40.0 15.0 37.5% 37.5% 5-transportation 1,544.1 1,508.9 58.3 3.8% 3.9% 5-transportation|air 18.7 18.7 0.1 0.6% 0.6% 5-transportation|other 33.1 - - 5-transportation|railways 16.7 - - 5-transportation|roads 4,505.2 4,505.2 308.5 6.8% 6.8% 5-transportation|water 11.4 11.4 0.3 2.3% 2.3% 4 Table 8: JTRS financial claims in JTU territories by region Regions Total credit JTRS credit JTRS credit in JTU % Total credit % of JTRS credit DOLNOŚLĄSKIE 33,433 6,856 1,844 5.5% 26.9% KUJAWSKO-POMORSKIE 16,709 2,715 1,833 11.0% 67.5% ŁÓDZKIE 23,625 2,739 1,442 6.1% 52.7% LUBELSKIE 13,223 2,399 1,493 11.3% 62.2% LUBUSKIE 7,889 1,449 954 12.1% 65.8% MAŁOPOLSKIE 34,871 5,420 3,087 8.9% 57.0% MAZOWIECKIE 123,890 18,724 13,660 11.0% 73.0% OPOLSKIE 7,719 1,609 1,283 16.6% 79.8% PODKARPACKIE 14,263 3,276 2,614 18.3% 79.8% PODLASKIE 8,735 1,568 1,177 13.5% 75.1% POMORSKIE 29,648 4,178 1,752 5.9% 41.9% ŚLĄSKIE 38,219 10,180 966 2.5% 9.5% ŚWIĘTOKRZYSKIE 8,590 1,224 727 8.5% 59.4% WARMIŃSKO-MAZURSKIE 10,556 1,233 709 6.7% 57.5% WIELKOPOLSKIE 56,406 9,219 4,907 8.7% 53.2% ZACHODNIOPOMORSKIE 13,716 3,038 1,683 12.3% 55.4% Grand Total 441,491 75,826 40,131 9.1% 52.9% 5 Table 9: JTRS financial claims in JTU territories by CPRS-2 and region PLZ ,000,000 JTRSJTFU % Regional Region/CPRS-2 JTRSJTFU Credit DOLNOŚLĄSKIE 1,843.9 100.0% 1-fossil 47.1 2.6% 1-fossil|coal - 0.0% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity - 0.0% 2-utility|other - 0.0% 2-utility|waste - 0.0% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 662.3 35.9% 3-energy-intensive|cement 140.4 7.6% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel - 0.0% 5-transportation 312.8 17.0% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|other - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 681.5 37.0% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% KUJAWSKO-POMORSKIE 1,832.9 100.0% 1-fossil 48.4 2.6% 1-fossil|gas 0.0 0.0% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity 338.9 18.5% 2-utility|other 15.7 0.9% 2-utility|waste 23.4 1.3% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 483.1 26.4% 3-energy-intensive|cement 80.6 4.4% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel - 0.0% 5-transportation 170.3 9.3% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|other - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 672.5 36.7% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% ŁÓDZKIE 1,442.4 100.0% 1-fossil 39.1 2.7% 1-fossil|gas 0.0 0.0% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity 31.3 2.2% 2-utility|other 31.9 2.2% 2-utility|waste - 0.0% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 314.6 21.8% 3-energy-intensive|cement 104.9 7.3% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel - 0.0% 5-transportation 221.7 15.4% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|other - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 698.9 48.5% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% 6 Table 9 (cont’d) JTRSJTFU % Regional Region/CPRS-2 JTRSJTFU Credit LUBELSKIE 1,492.7 100.0% 1-fossil 75.2 5.0% 1-fossil|coal - 0.0% 1-fossil|gas - 0.0% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity 103.0 6.9% 2-utility|other 62.0 4.2% 2-utility|waste - 0.0% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 252.7 16.9% 3-energy-intensive|cement 31.7 2.1% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel - 0.0% 5-transportation 241.6 16.2% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|other - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 726.6 48.7% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% LUBUSKIE 953.7 100.0% 1-fossil 61.5 6.4% 1-fossil|gas - 0.0% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity - 0.0% 2-utility|other - 0.0% 2-utility|waste - 0.0% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 117.0 12.3% 3-energy-intensive|cement 39.7 4.2% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel - 0.0% 5-transportation 70.0 7.3% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|other - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 665.6 69.8% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% MAŁOPOLSKIE 3,087.2 100.0% 1-fossil 143.3 4.6% 1-fossil|gas - 0.0% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity - 0.0% 2-utility|other - 0.0% 2-utility|waste - 0.0% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 1,332.6 43.2% 3-energy-intensive|cement 106.8 3.5% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel 137.0 4.4% 5-transportation 418.3 13.6% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|other - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 949.1 30.7% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% 7 Table 9 (cont’d) JTRSJTFU % Regional Region/CPRS-2 JTRSJTFU Credit OPOLSKIE 1,282.8 100.0% 1-fossil 2,334.0 17.1% 1-fossil|coal - 0.0% 1-fossil|gas 2,273.7 16.6% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity 2,674.0 19.6% 2-utility|other 32.8 0.2% 2-utility|waste 120.1 0.9% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 1,022.1 7.5% 3-energy-intensive|cement 179.2 1.3% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel - 0.0% 5-transportation 2,553.4 18.7% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|other - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 2,470.7 18.1% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% MAZOWIECKIE 13,660.0 100.0% 1-fossil 18.9 1.5% 1-fossil|coal - 0.0% 1-fossil|gas 0.0 0.0% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity 58.3 4.5% 2-utility|other 60.9 4.7% 2-utility|waste 10.6 0.8% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 464.5 36.2% 3-energy-intensive|cement 123.0 9.6% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel 121.6 9.5% 5-transportation 98.7 7.7% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|other - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 326.4 25.4% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% PODKARPACKIE 2,613.8 100.0% 1-fossil 97.3 3.7% 1-fossil|coal - 0.0% 1-fossil|gas 0.1 0.0% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity 271.2 10.4% 2-utility|other 13.1 0.5% 2-utility|waste - 0.0% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 1,067.1 40.8% 3-energy-intensive|cement 54.7 2.1% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel 211.4 8.1% 5-transportation 337.0 12.9% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|other - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 561.9 21.5% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% 8 Table 9 (cont’d) JTRSJTFU % Regional Region/CPRS-2 JTRSJTFU Credit PODLASKIE 1,177.2 100.0% 1-fossil 41.0 3.5% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity 148.0 12.6% 2-utility|other 137.9 11.7% 2-utility|waste 9.1 0.8% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 221.5 18.8% 3-energy-intensive|cement 75.2 6.4% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel - 0.0% 5-transportation 128.4 10.9% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 416.2 35.4% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% POMORSKIE 1,752.1 100.0% 1-fossil 56.7 3.2% 1-fossil|gas - 0.0% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity - 0.0% 2-utility|other - 0.0% 2-utility|waste - 0.0% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 369.6 21.1% 3-energy-intensive|cement 164.4 9.4% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel - 0.0% 5-transportation 260.2 14.9% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|other - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 901.2 51.4% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% ŚLĄSKIE 966.4 100.0% 1-fossil 16.8 1.7% 1-fossil|coal - 0.0% 1-fossil|gas - 0.0% 1-fossil|oil 0.0 0.0% 2-utility|electricity 11.5 1.2% 2-utility|other 2.5 0.3% 2-utility|waste - 0.0% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 133.8 13.8% 3-energy-intensive|cement 37.4 3.9% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel 74.5 7.7% 5-transportation 326.0 33.7% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|other - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 363.7 37.6% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% 9 Table 9 (cont’d) JTRSJTFU % Regional Region/CPRS-2 JTRSJTFU Credit ŚWIĘTOKRZYSKIE 726.9 100.0% 1-fossil 22.7 3.1% 1-fossil|gas - 0.0% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity 96.0 13.2% 2-utility|other 12.1 1.7% 2-utility|waste 52.1 7.2% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 87.2 12.0% 3-energy-intensive|cement 14.7 2.0% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel 16.2 2.2% 5-transportation 100.3 13.8% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 325.6 44.8% WARMIŃSKO-MAZURSKIE 708.6 100.0% 1-fossil 36.6 5.2% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity 47.5 6.7% 2-utility|other 66.6 9.4% 2-utility|waste 6.8 1.0% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 99.9 14.1% 3-energy-intensive|cement 23.4 3.3% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel - 0.0% 5-transportation 76.0 10.7% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|other - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 351.6 49.6% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% WIELKOPOLSKIE 4,907.4 100.0% 1-fossil 161.6 3.3% 1-fossil|coal - 0.0% 1-fossil|gas - 0.0% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity - 0.0% 2-utility|other - 0.0% 2-utility|waste - 0.0% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 1,680.3 34.2% 3-energy-intensive|cement 420.9 8.6% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel - 0.0% 5-transportation 588.8 12.0% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|other - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 2,055.9 41.9% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% 10 Table 9 (cont’d) JTRSJTFU % Regional Region/CPRS-2 JTRSJTFU Credit ZACHODNIOPOMORSKIE 1,682.7 100.0% 1-fossil 14.8 0.9% 1-fossil|coal - 0.0% 1-fossil|gas 0.4 0.0% 1-fossil|oil - 0.0% 2-utility|electricity 450.1 26.8% 2-utility|other 97.7 5.8% 2-utility|waste 9.7 0.6% 2-utility|water&sewerage - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive 380.2 22.6% 3-energy-intensive|cement 54.8 3.3% 3-energy-intensive|electrical - 0.0% 3-energy-intensive|iron and steel - 0.0% 5-transportation 159.0 9.4% 5-transportation|air - 0.0% 5-transportation|other - 0.0% 5-transportation|railways - 0.0% 5-transportation|roads 516.0 30.7% 5-transportation|water - 0.0% 11