InfluenceMap maintains the world’s leading platform (LobbyMap) for assessing corporate climate policy engagement, with assessments of 600 of the world’s largest companies and over 300 of their most important industry associations. These metrics support thousands of investors globally in their efforts to assess and address the climate performance of companies, including via feeding into the Climate Action 100+ (CA100+) Net Zero Company Benchmark, which covers 165 of the world's largest corporate emitters.
Using a recognized process for collecting data from a range of sources and assessing this against IPCC science-aligned benchmarks, the LobbyMap platform offers a near real-time analysis of whether companies and their industry associations are supporting or opposing key government policy required to deliver the goals of the Paris Agreement. This system also provides a robust measure of the accuracy of corporate reporting on climate policy engagement, as well as the robustness of a company’s efforts to manage climate policy engagement misalignments, where they arise. Metrics on these three related issues are supplied directly from the LobbyMap platform into the CA100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark.
In 2024, investor pressure helped secure several improvements for CA100+ target companies on this topic. Principally, there was a 5% reduction in the proportion of companies assessed as being ‘misaligned’ overall in their real-world climate policy engagement activities, bringing the total down to 23%. This trend appears to have been driven predominantly by improvements in companies’ indirect climate policy engagement through their industry associations.
Relatedly, a record number of CA100+ target companies (69/165) are now enacting and reporting on enhanced governance efforts to identify and address climate policy misalignments with their industry associations. 2024 was a breakthrough year, with two companies broadly meeting the ‘best practice’ assessment criteria on how to manage and report on climate policy engagement misalignment for the first time.
However, despite progress across several sectors, companies from the fossil fuel value chain have remained highly resistant to change. North American oil and gas companies remain the worst performers across the benchmark and continue to consistently advocate to delay the transition of the energy mix and prolong a global role for fossil fuels. More broadly, across the CA100+ target companies assessed, many companies continue to fall short of investor expectations put forward under the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying, by failing to embed science-based policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement into their climate policy engagement governance and reporting practices.
Indicator 1, Real World Climate Policy Engagement is an assessment of a company’s direct and indirect (via industry associations) real-world climate policy engagement. In the graphic below, companies have been identified as laggards, sector leaders, and overall leaders in the CA100+ benchmark based on their Indicator 1 scores.
Please note that, despite leading relative to other companies in their sector, "Sector Leader" companies have scores that remain partially misaligned with science-based pathways to limit warming to 1.5°C.
Corporate disclosures on climate policy engagement should provide investors with an accurate and comprehensive view of how a company is influencing the climate policy landscape. Indicator 2, Accuracy of Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure, assesses how accurately a company has reported on its direct and indirect (via industry associations) climate policy engagement activities. In the graphic below, company scores under Indicator 2 have been categorized by sector, with "Sector Leader" companies being showcased on the upper section of the graphic.
Please note that, despite leading relative to other companies in their sector, "Sector Leader" companies have scores that remain partially misaligned with investor expectations outlined in the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying.
In 2024, the accuracy of corporate reporting on climate policy engagement remained consistent compared to 2023, with just 1% of companies publishing a detailed and accurate account of its climate policy engagement activities in both years. Refer to the full briefing for further comparative analysis between 2024 and 2023.
Companies are assessed on the accuracy and transparency of their reporting through Indicator 2, while Indicator 3, Corporate Climate Policy Engagement Review and Misalignment Management, assesses the quality and robustness of a company’s corporate climate policy engagement review process. Corporate climate policy engagement reviews provide a mechanism for companies to ensure that their climate policy advocacy is consistent with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
A robust review process allows companies to implement the necessary internal governance processes to identify and address advocacy that is misaligned with delivering 1.5°C warming. Additionally, the review process provides a critical foundation for engagement between investors and companies, as companies are expected to commit to taking specific actions to address misaligned advocacy, providing an opportunity for accountability.
In the diagram below, company scores under Indicator 3, Corporate Climate Policy Engagement Review and Misalignment Management have been categorized by sector, with '"Sector Leader" companies being shown on the upper section of the graphic.
Please note that, despite leading relative to other companies in their sector, "Sector Leader" companies have scores that remain partially misaligned with investor expectations outlined in the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying.
