Corporate Climate Policy Engagement Leaders, 2024

This report was amended on 25th September 2024 to recognize that EDF meets the minimum criteria for recognition, bringing the total number of companies meeting this standard as 41.

Climate Change and Corporate Influence

In April 2022 the UN’s climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released its Sixth Assessment Report: Mitigation of Climate Change. The report emphasizes the need to substantially reduce fossil fuel consumption and shift investments from fossil fuels toward low-carbon technologies in order to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2°C. It also reiterates the importance of regulatory action at various levels of government to achieve necessary emissions reductions.

International bodies have consistently identified the need for decisive policy interventions by governments around the world to drive the energy transition and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Despite this urgent, science-based guidance, the policy plans of the world’s governments fall short of global climate goals: in its 2023 Emissions Gap Report, the UN Environment Program finds that current climate policies globally point to a 2.8°C temperature rise by the end of the century and that only an “urgent system-wide transformation” will deliver the necessary GHG emissions reductions.

The IPCC’s April 2022 report identified “opposition from status quo interests”—primarily fossil fuel companies, both upstream and downstream—as a key reason for the lack of progress on climate policy globally. In line with this, InfluenceMap’s policy trackers in Australia, Europe, Japan, South Korea, and the US regularly find that the majority of engagement on key climate policies comes from vested, oppositional interests in the fossil fuel value chain. Yet these interests holding back progress represent only a fraction of the overall economy, leaving a vacuum for corporate leadership in climate advocacy. Identifying the companies advocating positively and actively on climate policy is critical, as these entities may serve as an effective counterforce for negative influence.

Best Practice in Climate Policy Engagement

InfluenceMap regularly publishes its “Global Leaders in Climate Policy Engagement” report to identify the companies around the globe that are most actively supporting climate policy ambition. The report fully aligns with and reflects a number of other frameworks and standards offering guidance around climate policy engagement, including but not limited to:

• The Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying, launched by a wide coalition of investors in 2022 to achieve a "step-change in the commitment of investors and companies to responsible climate lobbying in practice.” 

• The UN High-Level Expert Group’s ‘Integrity Matters’ report, published at COP27 as a “roadmap to prevent net zero from being undermined by false claims, ambiguity and ‘greenwash.’” One of the report’s recommendations focuses specifically on policy engagement, noting that “Non-state actors must align their external policy and engagement efforts, including membership in trade associations, to the goal of reducing global emissions by at least 50% by 2030.”  

• The AAA Framework for Climate Policy Leadership, launched in 2019 by 11 NGOs including Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Ceres, Union of Concerned Scientists, and others. The three actions of the AAA Framework– Advocate, Align, and Allocate– are also captured in We Mean Business Coalition’s Framework for Responsible Policy Engagement (RPE).

• Race to Zero is a global campaign rallying non state actors to “take rigorous and immediate action” to halve global emissions by 2030. Criteria for Race to Zero members within a year of joining include the need to “align external policy and engagement, including membership in associations, to the goal of halving emissions by 2030 and reaching global (net) zero by 2050.” In June 2024, Race to Zero co-authored the “Business Associations Action Guide” with Exponential Roadmap to offer “business leaders, sustainability professionals, board members and employees a simple, step-wise approach” to addressing industry associations’ climate policy advocacy.

This year’s Global Leaders report from InfluenceMap offers three broad categories in which a company may achieve leadership status: Science-Aligned Advocacy, Strategic Engagement, and Addressing Indirect Influence. Companies highlighted as leaders in these categories have likely instituted many of the steps outlined in the frameworks listed above.

Methodology: Corporate Climate Policy Engagement Leaders, 2024

While previous Global Leaders reports by InfluenceMap have offered a wide list of companies that meet all criteria for best practice in climate policy engagement, this year’s report features a category system that more clearly highlights what companies are doing well:

• Science-Aligned Advocacy: The LobbyMap methodology assesses the extent to which corporate entities support, or oppose, science-aligned climate policy. In its guidance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lays out science-aligned policy pathways to deliver the Paris Agreement’s goals of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C (or as close as possible). Companies recognized in this area will have extremely high Organization Scores with consistently positive, ambitious positions aligned with IPCC guidance.

• Strategic Engagement: Some corporate entities are more active in their advocacy than others. InfluenceMap analysis consistently shows high engagement among companies along the fossil fuel value chain. Per this report, companies highlighted in the area of Strategic Engagement will show a particularly strong commitment to active (positive) advocacy on climate-related policy.

• Addressing Indirect Influence: Many companies see their positive, direct influence outweighed by the negative activity of their industry associations. The issue of industry association alignment—i.e., actively working to address negative indirect influence—has become a pressing topic in the climate space. Companies notable for their efforts in Addressing Indirect Influence will have taken clear steps through a range of potential actions, from best practice in disclosure to engaging within groups to reform them, to exiting those that appear incapable of reform.

In addition, this report highlights the importance of transparent disclosures by companies concerning their climate policy engagement activities. While corporate reporting differs from ‘real world’ policy engagement activities, comprehensive disclosures can lay the groundwork for meaningful and science-aligned action. As such, an assessment of the robustness of companies’ reporting on their climate policy engagement is not included in the criteria for Global Leadership in this report, though the final chapter highlights some examples of best practice in this area.

This report seeks to identify one company from Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific that demonstrates exceptional performance for each of the three main categories (Science-aligned Advocacy, Strategic Engagement, Addressing Indirect Influence). InfluenceMap identified leading companies from its universe of 500+ companies (and 250+ industry associations), which includes the 300 largest non-financial companies from the 2024 Forbes 2000 list. Expansion of the LobbyMap database prioritizes the largest companies as measured by the Forbes Global 2000, along with other considerations¹. More details on the LobbyMap methodology are available here.

To be identified as a leader in any category, a company must have an Organization Score, Engagement Intensity, and Relationship Score above a certain threshold, indicating a strategic level of positive, direct advocacy on climate-related policy which is not fully offset by the indirect influence of its industry associations.

• Organization Score (OS) at or above 75%: OS measures an entity’s direct policy engagement, from a scale of 0 to 100%. Scores above 75% indicate supportive or positive positions that are aligned with the scientific recommendations of the IPCC for 1.5C warming, while scores below 50% indicate increasing opposition and misalignment. To qualify for category leadership in this report, scores at or above 75% are necessary.

• Engagement Intensity (EI) at or above 25%: EI measures how actively an entity is advocating on climate policy, regardless of whether that activity is positive or negative. Scores above 12% indicate somewhat active engagement, while scores below 12% indicate limited engagement, and scores above 25% indicate active or strategic engagement. EI at 25% or higher is necessary to qualify in this report, with an exception for Asia-based companies of only 15%. Compared to Europe and the US, corporate engagement on climate policy in Asia is less visible, partly due to transparency laws and practices. A relatively lower EI threshold acknowledges the nuances of climate policy progress and related advocacy in this region.

• Relationship Score (RS) at or above 50%: RS measures the climate policy engagement of a company’s industry associations, aggregating the Organization Score of each individual group. Low Relationship Scores indicate that a company’s industry associations are negatively influencing climate policy. In addition to the criteria above, companies must have an RS over 50% to qualify for consideration in this report.

Companies identified as category leaders demonstrate exceptional performance in that area, particularly in comparison to their sector peers. This year’s methodology also acknowledges opportunities for further growth in different aspects of climate policy engagement. Leadership in one area could mean that there is room for improvement in others: for example, while recognized for leadership in Science-Aligned Advocacy, a company may still seek to increase its efforts in the area of Addressing Indirect Influence.

41 companies met the minimum criteria for leadership status² in this report, according to their Organization Score, Engagement Intensity, and Relationship Score. The bullets below list qualifying companies according to sector, followed by the location of their corporate headquarters. For comparison, InfluenceMap’s 2023 Leaders Report identified 27 companies meeting the criteria for leadership status.2 Newcomers to the list of qualifiers are General Mills, Biogen, Amazon, L’Oreal, Johnson Controls, Coca Cola, Daiwa House Industry, and Deutsche Telekom.

• Energy and Power Utilities: EDP (Portugal), Enel (Italy), SSE (UK), Iberdrola (Spain), Ørsted (Denmark), EDF (France) and Verbund (Austria)

• Information Technology: Salesforce, Microsoft, Apple, HP Inc, Amazon, and Alphabet (US); Sony, Ricoh, and Fujilim Holdings (Japan)

• Industrials and Construction Materials: Schneider Electric (France), Vestas Wind Systems (Denmark), ABB (Switzerland), Saint-Gobain (France), and Acciona (Spain); Trane Technologies and Johnson Controls (US, formal headquarters of Ireland for Johnson Controls)

• Consumer Staples and Retailing: Unilever (UK), IKEA (the Netherlands), L’Oreal (France), Danone (France), H&M (Sweden), and Nestlé (Switzerland); Aeon (Japan); Coca-Cola, General Mills, and Amazon (US)

• Transport: Volvo Cars (Sweden), Moller Maersk (Denmark)

• Chemicals and Healthcare: DSM-Firmenich (The Netherlands), Novo Nordisk (Denmark); Takeda Pharmaceutical (Japan); Biogen (US)

• Telecommunications and Business Services: Softbank Group, Sekisui House, and Daiwa House Industry (Japan); Deutsche Telekom (Germany)

Most companies that qualified for consideration of leadership status are headquartered Europe, while nine are based in the US and eight are based in Asia-Pacific. The dominance of European companies in these results, not dissimilar from previous reports, may speak to greater levels of climate policy in the region as well as the progress of the European corporate sector in accepting climate policy and the energy transition.

Additionally, no US-based utilities qualified for consideration of leadership status in this report. These results contrast with analysis in Europe, where the utilities sector makes up a large portion of the list of qualifying companies.

• US utilities assessed by InfluenceMap to be relatively positive on climate policy did not take the opportunity to clearly and consistently advocate for major climate measures over the past year, such as the federal power plant rules or key facets of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) implementation. InfluenceMap finds that these utilities either took a mix of positive and negative positions on these proposals, or did not engage at all. Edison International, for example– which qualified for the Global Leaders reports in previous years– aligned itself with Edison Electric Institute’s oppositional position on the power plant rules.

• In addition, utilities remain members of highly negative and influential groups like the American Gas Association, which counts Consolidated Edison, Exelon, Pacific Gas & Electric, and Public Service Enterprise Group among its board members.

• Leading companies in each category are detailed in the following sections. Full profiles on all qualifying companies are linked in the Appendix.

Science-Aligned Advocacy

Notable leaders in Science-Aligned Advocacy are DSM-Firmenich for Europe, Softbank Group for Asia-Pacific, and General Mills for North America.

Several other companies show strong elements of leadership in the category of Science-Aligned Engagement, indicating potential for progress over time.

• Information Technology: Apple, Salesforce, Alphabet, and Microsoft are highly positive on a range of climate policy issues globally, including the phaseout of fossil fuel subsidies and decarbonizing electricity systems. Sony also advocates positively on climate policy in Japan.

• Utilities: Several European utilities engage on climate policy with highly positive positions, particularly EDP, which is the highest-scoring utility by Organization Score in Europe. The company demonstrates science-aligned advocacy on issues such as building electrification and the phaseout of fossil gas.

• Industrials: While relatively smaller companies on Forbes’ Global 2000, Acciona and Vestas both demonstrate science-aligned advocacy, pushing for an increase in policy ambition in the EU through a range of measures, from building sector electrification to the removal of fossil fuel subsidies.

Strategic Engagement

Notable leaders in Strategic Engagement are IKEA for Europe, Ricoh for Asia-Pacific, and Trane Technologies for North America.

In addition, the following companies show a strong commitment to Strategic Engagement on climate policy, indicating potential for progress over time.

• Utilities: Iberdrola, EDF and EDP have the highest Engagement Intensity scores of all European utilities, at 61%, 57% and 52%, respectively. Notably, however, Iberdrola’s climate policy advocacy in Europe is more positive than that of its subsidiary Avangrid in the US.

• Industrials: Schneider Electric is strategically engaged with EU climate policy—including through CEO advocacy—on measures such as the EU Fit for 55 Package, Emissions Trading System, and building energy efficiency legislation.

• Consumer Staples and Retailing: Unilever and Danone both engage highly actively on climate policy, with some of the highest EI scores of all qualifiers besides IKEA. (While notably high in EI, Unilever is highlighted in the section below on Addressing Indirect Influence).

• Transportation: Volvo Cars narrowly makes the list of qualifiers with an Organization Score of 76%. Despite a lower Organization Score than many qualifiers in this report, the company’s strategic level of engagement is notable, particularly in the EU where it has consistently intervened in support of the EU’s 2035 zero-emissions CO2 target for light-duty vehicles, and against an e-fuels loophole that would likely weaken the policy.

Addressing Indirect Influence

Notable leaders in Addressing Indirect Influence are Unilever for Europe and Apple for the North America. A leader in this category was not evident for Asia-Pacific, offering a clear opportunity for leadership by companies operating in this region.

While not yet achieving best practice, the following companies show elements of leadership in Addressing Indirect Influence, indicating potential for progress over time.

• Utilities: Enel and EDF have both published high-quality reviews of their indirect influence, as assessed by InfluenceMap. While not meeting all criteria for best practice, both reviews are scored much higher than most other disclosures currently assessed.

• Information Technology: Microsoft’s disclosure was assessed by InfluenceMap to have room for improvement. However, the company was the first in its sector to publish a review of its indirect influence; future reviews by the company may improve.

In addition, all qualifying Asia-Pacific companies in this report (except Sony)—Ricoh, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Aeon, Sekisui House, Fujifilm Holdings, Softbank, and Daiwa House Industry—along with international companies such as Apple are members of Japan Climate Leaders Partnership (JCLP). Managing indirect influence can take different forms: it often entails efforts to rectify negative advocacy, but can also include efforts to support and scale the influence of highly positive groups. JCLP coalesces a group of positive companies in the country. Most notably, JCLP has called for a 65% renewable target in 2035 in the upcoming 7th Strategic Energy Plan, 60% GHG reductions by 2035 (from 2013) in Japan’s next NDCs, greater offshore wind capacity targets, and advocated for much higher ambition of the emissions trading system, including broader coverage and accelerated timelines.

Companies are now facing growing scrutiny over their climate change policy engagement. Some of this pressure comes from investor processes like Climate Action 100+ (CA100+), a voluntary initiative of 700 investors responsible for over $68 trillion in assets under management, working to ensure the world's largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change. Through CA100+ as well as various other investor initiatives, shareholders have been requesting enhanced disclosures from companies on the topic of climate policy engagement and industry association membership.

Comprehensive reporting by companies can lay the groundwork for meaningful action on climate policy engagement. Such reviews can help companies identify the best opportunities for increasing science-aligned engagement and guarding against risks of being linked to misaligned third-party groups, such as industry and trade associations, nonprofits, and research institutions.

In 2023, InfluenceMap updated its methodology to assess corporate disclosures on climate policy engagement in line with the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying and stakeholder input. While the methodology previously focused on companies’ review of their indirect influence, it now looks for reporting on the company’s own engagement as well as that of its industry associations. Details of this methodology and related assessments are available here.

Disclosure is key part of corporate governance, relating to and informing each of the three categories of this report. The examples below highlight instances of high-quality disclosure by qualifying companies in this report:

• Unilever, highlighted in this report as a leader in Managing Indirect Influence, published a 2024 disclosure on climate policy engagement. The company’s disclosure is the only such review to have achieved best practice per InfluenceMap’s assessments of these reviews. (Assessment of Unilever’s review is available here).

• Ricoh records a relatively high level of detail on its direct climate policy advocacy, including policy positions and details of engagement, in both its corporate reporting and CDP questionnaire responses.

• Alphabet (Google) has published detailed reports that clearly outline its positions on a wide range of climate policy strands globally. Its 2022 “Policy Roadmap for 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy,” for example, cites specific measures such as Clean Electricity Standards and tax incentives for clean energy while advocating for policy to phase out coal and fossil gas in clear alignment with IPCC guidance.

Companies that offer transparent detail on their policy engagement lay the groundwork for science-aligned and strategic direct engagement, and for addressing the indirect influence of membership associations that engage on their behalf.