This briefing presents InfluenceMap’s initial analysis of how companies in Brazil are engaging with climate policy. The results, featured on our new Brazil Platform, show that while many sectors express general support for climate action, most companies do so in broad terms and without clear strategic intent.
In contrast, influential industries such as oil and gas and agriculture are much more active in shaping climate policy—and often in ways that conflict with Brazil’s climate goals.
To advance science-based climate policy, greater transparency and stronger leadership from companies that support climate action are essential.
InfluenceMap defines “policy engagement” in accordance with the United Nations 2013 Guide for Responsible Corporate Engagement in Climate Policy. The guide includes activities like advertising, social media, PR, sponsoring research, lobbying officials, and joining advisory committees. It outlines two dimensions:
It applies a consistent global assessment while accounting for regional differences in business practices, data availability, and language. The methodology assesses companies’ and industry associations’ alignment with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s recommended pathways for limiting warming to 1.5ºC on policy issues, including the energy transition, carbon pricing, and land-use change (see here for further detail on InfluenceMap’s methodology). This approach has already been adapted for Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, and India, with localized platforms used by investors. We have extended this methodology to Brazil, beginning with consultations with key stakeholders and the launch of the Brazil Platform.
The UNFCCC 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) is taking place in Belém, Brazil, in November 2025, with a focus on the energy transition, deforestation, climate finance, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. Considering its role as host of COP30, Brazil has positioned itself as a climate policy leader: the government has set out to implement vital policies, such as an emissions trading system, a “sin tax” targeting environmentally harmful products, and regulations to scale up hydrogen production and use. In conflict with these milestones, the government has also supported new fossil fuel exploration and production, notably in sensitive environments in Brazil. This stance is not aligned with pathways to limit warming to 1.5ºC, according to analysis from the Climate Action Tracker.
Corporate advocacy from companies and industry associations across the economy will play a key role in ensuring the effectiveness of ambitious policy action and pushing back against regressive measures.
InfluenceMap’s global methodology assesses companies and industry groups using three metrics that help investors and other stakeholders evaluate their performance on climate policy engagement. The Organization Score measures support or opposition to Paris-aligned policy, the Engagement Intensity reflects the level of activity, and the Relationship Score (for companies only) aggregates the positions of affiliated industry associations.
The Organization Score (horizontal axis) and Engagement Intensity (vertical axis) can be plotted on a quadrant chart to compare companies’ influence over climate policy. The chart below shows a range of Brazil’s largest corporations and key industry associations, coded by sector, and their climate policy engagement behavior. Most companies and industry associations are not strategically engaged (below the 25% Strategic Engagement line), while a few in fossil fuels, mining, and agribusiness are strategically and negatively engaged.
The entities which are strategically engaged on climate policy according to InfluenceMap's methodology are operating in the energy and agriculture sector, or are cross-sector associations: the Confederation of National Industry (CNI), the Brazilian Tree Industry Association (Ibá), the Brazilian Institute of Oil and Gas (IBP), the Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development (CEBDS) and the company Petrobras.
InfluenceMap’s analysis of climate policy engagement in Brazil found that, so far, only one entity covered—the Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development (CEBDS)—undertakes climate policy engagement that supports science-aligned pathways to deliver the 1.5°C warming goal.
According to InfluenceMap’s research, the top corporate performers are Suzano and Eletrobras, but both companies’ climate policy engagement is only partially aligned with science-led policy to limit global warming to 1.5°C. In total, InfluenceMap assessed 15 of the 20 companies and nine of the 12 industry associations to be partially supportive of science-aligned pathways in their climate policy engagement.
The energy sector appears to be the most misaligned with science-aligned climate policy. Of three companies and industry associations engaging with misaligned positions, two represent the fossil fuel sector. The industry association representing the fossil fuel sector, the Brazilian Institute of Oil and Gas (IBP), is the most negatively and actively engaged entity assessed by InfluenceMap in Brazil, scoring D-.
InfluenceMap detected broad top-line support across sectors for policies to decarbonize the economy, including policies covering carbon pricing, scaling up biofuels, decarbonizing transportation, and developing carbon capture and storage capacities. For example, between 2023–25:
However, InfluenceMap did not detect high levels of strategic, detailed engagement in support of these decarbonization policies. Corporate statements were generally broad and did not reference aligning climate policy with climate targets or climate science.
These broad statements of support come up against strategic, frequent advocacy for new fossil fuel development stemming from the fossil fuel sector:
The sector uses misleading narratives that reflect a fossil gas industry playbook to justify new fossil fuel development, including: a) stressing the need for fossil fuel revenues to pay for the energy transition; and b) pressing for new fossil fuel exploration and production to export oil and gas to other countries, citing “lower emissions.” For example, in March 2025, Petrobras’ CEO stated that exploration in the Amazon basin is absolutely mandatory and emphasized the importance of exporting oil products for Brazil’s economy.
This advocacy undercuts nominally positive, high-level messaging from these fossil fuel groups, including Petrobras, in which they acknowledge the need to respond to climate change and deliver on the Paris Agreement. This discrepancy is likely part of a recognizable strategy to control the narrative in the run-up to COP30 by publicly presenting fossil fuel entities as positive and proactive actors—despite substantial evidence of strong advocacy for energy pathways that contradict science-based guidance (from the IPCC) on how to deliver the Paris Agreement’s goals.
InfluenceMap detected low levels of strategic engagement across the Brazilian economy (outside energy and land-use related sectors), with only six of 32 entities assessed demonstrating strategic levels of engagement. The most actively engaged sectors—agriculture and energy—also appear to trend towards the most negatively engaged. (See the graph on the Companies tab of the platform for a comparative visual of how Brazilian companies perform.)
Many companies covered in this assessment have internal climate commitments, but do not appear to advocate for a supportive policy landscape to achieve them. Nominal, inconsistent support for climate action from companies is often insufficient to counter the organized opposition to climate policy exhibited by vested interests. Strategic, coordinated action from corporate climate policy leaders is critical to tip the scales in favor of science-aligned climate policy.
For example, Brazil’s biofuel regulation, RenovaBio, has likely been impacted by the absence of coordinated support across Brazilian corporate sectors, combined with obstructive pressure from powerful economic groups, such as fuel distributors, that question the law’s constitutionality and oppose the mandatory targets. Since 2023, compliance rates have declined, while policymakers have revised targets downwards during the legislative process.
A similar trend is likely to have affected Brazil’s Selective Tax on environmentally harmful products. So far, almost all engagements detected by InfluenceMap (95%) did not support the tax and came from only a limited number of sectors: agri-food, transport, and fossil fuels. The oil and gas industry actively advocated for excluding exported fossil fuel products, while the automotive industry opposed including vehicles in the tax. As of October 2025, the government responded to pressure from the automotive sector by excluding trucks from the tax. In December 2024, policymakers approved an exclusion of exported fossil fuel products from the file; however, President Lula vetoed it in January 2025 when signing the bill into law. Congress could still overturn this veto to allow exports to be excluded.
InfluenceMap’s engagement intensity score is an independent measure of how active a company or industry association is in its direct climate policy engagement activities. A score ranging from 0 to 100 indicates the intensity of policy engagement. A score above 12 indicates active engagement, while a score above 25 indicates highly active or strategic engagement. A score below 12 indicates relatively limited engagement. See here for further explanation of the methodology.
A lack of comprehensive transparency around corporate engagement with regulatory processes in Brazil could also be contributing to oppositional lobbying flying under the radar. This could give opponents of climate policy an unfair advantage, as these actors may be able to influence climate policy without public or investor scrutiny. Without greater transparency, investors and the public cannot assess whether corporate influence aligns with Brazil’s high-level climate ambitions.
The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying and Influence provides a comprehensive set of recommendations for improving government lobbying transparency, including:
