October 2024
Companies
Influence
Climate Policy
Welcome back to Connect the Dots, a newsletter from ClimateVoice focused on exploring the connection between companies, political influence, and U.S. climate policy. Since the newsletter launched last year, we’ve examined why policy is so important, the ways that companies engage (or, more often, sit on the sidelines), the impact of trade associations in obstructing action, and when companies and their trade associations diverge.
This month we’re looking at how companies obstruct climate policy through trade association memberships and by hiring lobbyists who also work for the fossil fuel industry. These practices not only undermine companies’ green reputations and sustainability commitments, but also thwart meaningful climate progress. We’ll dig into ClimateVoice’s new Climate Policy Obstruction Scorecard, spotlighting the role that 15 large U.S. companies play.
Action Items
Read the new Climate Policy Obstruction Scorecard, demanding stronger climate policy leadership.
Share ClimateVoice’s post via LinkedIn, and also with leaders at your company. Ask whether your company is a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers, or other trade associations actively working to obstruct climate action. Investigate whether your company hires lobbyists who also work for the fossil fuel industry. If so, gather your colleagues to urge your company to leave those groups and lobbyists, and lead on climate policy advocacy.
Dig into our Employee Climate Action Guide (now available in Spanish) and start asking questions at town halls or all-hands meetings. Check out step 2 in the Employee Climate Action Guide for initial inspiration.
The Big Picture
How Companies Obstruct Climate Policy Through Trade Groups + Lobbyists
As we’ve covered in previous issues of this newsletter, companies exert significant influence on climate policy, especially through direct lobbying as well as through trade association memberships. Unfortunately, most companies’ political influence contributes to an obstructive role against climate action, even when a company’s outwardly stated values may suggest otherwise (as laid out in the 2023 InfluenceMap study Net Zero Greenwash: The Gap Between Corporate Commitments and their Policy Engagement).
Companies are members of large cross-sector trade associations such as the Business Roundtable (BRT) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, groups that have consistently opposed clean energy investments, climate disclosure laws, and strong pollution standards. From lobbying against the Inflation Reduction Act, to millions spent on misleading advertising, these powerful U.S. trade groups have a long history of opposing climate action.
According to InfluenceMap, which tracks the climate lobbying of companies and trade associations, the BRT, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), all receive failing grades when it comes to climate policy engagement (E, E and D, respectively). Furthermore, the U.S. Chamber’s policy engagement mirrors fossil fuel interest advocacy positions, aligning most closely with the American Petroleum Institute (graded E- by InfluenceMap), and the American Gas Association (which receives a solid F grade).
A recent Bloomberg article illustrates this pattern of companies “outsourcing their climate obstruction to their trade groups,” spotlighting how companies such as Hilton, Marriott, and Chipotle are “bankrolling climate opposition, despite green claims.” On one hand, companies are publicly committing to reducing emissions while simultaneously supporting trade groups that are fighting climate rules. This pattern of contradiction and misalignment between corporate climate commitments and trade group actions is undermining efforts to fight climate change at the policy level. The article underscored the importance of companies being aligned with the trade associations they fund, including advocating for climate-friendly policies inside of the groups and publicly speaking out in favor of legislation when views differ.
Last month, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a piece highlighting how the Business Roundtable is pushing an oil and gas industry agenda on climate. In case you were wondering about the BRT’s level of influence when it comes to policy: the group reported spending nearly $20 million last year, sealing its position as one of the country’s top ten spenders on federal lobbying. Unfortunately, as we’ve laid out, the BRT has not only opposed methane regulations and climate-related provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, but also more recently filed an amicus brief to a lawsuit against the SEC’s proposed climate-disclosure rule, continuing its pattern of climate policy obstruction.
ClimateVoice calls on companies who value climate and sustainability action to step up to be strategic leaders by opposing the obstructive positions of these trade groups. In a previous issue of this newsletter, we covered the ways companies engage in climate policy, noting that companies fall into three broad categories: Obstructors, Sideliners, and Strategic Leaders.
While many companies would prefer not to identify with being Obstructors, if they are paying dues to obstructing trade associations and not actively leading to counter their trade associations’ influence, these companies are participating in climate policy obstruction. There is also a second group of companies – we’ve called them Sideliners in previous issues of this newsletter – who are largely not engaged in climate policy. Unfortunately, both obstructing and sideliner company policy positions end up enabling a systemic status quo that is overly influenced by heavy-emitting sectors. As we laid out before, when companies stay on the sidelines, polluters win.
This is why we so desperately need companies – and employees – who care about climate action to be Strategic Leaders – and that is what our new Climate Policy Obstruction Scorecard aims to underscore. We need true climate Leaders – not Sideliners or Obstructors – and we need them now.
The Nitty Gritty
We’ll use this section to wade deeper into top news in the climate world.
Introducing the Climate Policy Obstruction Scorecard
Enter the new Climate Policy Obstruction Scorecard, which shows how 15 large, U.S. based companies are undermining their sustainability commitments (and harming their green reputations) by obstructing climate progress. By financially supporting the BRT, the U.S. Chamber, and by hiring lobbyists who also work for the fossil fuel industry, these companies are obstructing climate policy.
This scorecard ranks a selection of large, U.S. based companies that are members of the BRT and/or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These 15 companies are all in the top 650 of the Forbes Global 2000 list and have engaged on climate policy according to InfluenceMap. This scorecard shows continued barriers to generative climate policy leadership given problematic trade association relationships as well as lobbying activities skewed in favor of a status quo fossil fuel agenda.
The scorecard relies on information that is publicly available – and it is important to note that the BRT and U.S. Chamber do not disclose membership dues publicly. All data is based on what companies share publicly, which serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency in reporting. Of note: the International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN), representing more than $18 trillion in assets, recommends full disclosure of lobbying activities, and disclosure of political contributions of $10,000 or more as best practice.
Beyond assessing membership dues paid to trade associations that are obstructing climate policy progress, we also assess publicly disclosed paid lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry. These lobbyists are lobbying on behalf of these companies while also working for the fossil fuel industry. This data was collected from the F Minus Lobbyist Database, which shows that more than 1,500 state-level lobbyists are playing both sides of the climate crisis. F Minus calls compromised lobbyists those who are working both for multiple stakeholders (whether it be environmental groups, schools, governments, or tech companies) as well as for fossil fuel companies with opposing views on the same issues. You can dig into the inside scoop on double-dealing lobbyists here.
Last year, ClimateVoice interviewed James Browning, the Founder of F Minus, where we discussed the need to break ties with fossil fuel lobbyists, and the many problems associated with entities like museums, schools, hospitals, and businesses sharing lobbyists with oil, gas, and coal companies. We also discussed the critical role employees and institutions who are worried about the climate crisis can play in delegitimizing the fossil fuel industry by cutting ties with its lobbyists and speaking up about the misalignment at play.
Despite the challenges inherent in our current systems of lobbying, it’s time for companies to use their influence to counter obstructionist positions and the fossil fuel interests which have captured the agendas of these trade groups and lobbyists. Companies and employees can seize the opportunity to cultivate greater transparency and alignment – and the first step is understanding the current playing field.
The new Climate Policy Obstruction Scorecard underscores how companies are participating in and supporting imbalanced lobbying decision making processes. The invitation is to double down on responsible political engagement and corporate political responsibility – which absolutely must include a focus on climate action and a systemic shift away from climate policy obstruction.
** Wanting a bit more background? We highly recommend checking out The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance’s article from this week on Climate Lobbying: Investor Interest and Corporate Disclosures, which underscores increased investor interest in climate lobbying transparency. Also be sure to check out The Good Lobby, the Erb Institute’s Principles of Corporate Political Responsibility, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, and the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying for inspiration.
For a Deeper Dive
Companies *Can* Lead on Climate Policy Action
In September, InfluenceMap released its annual Climate Policy Engagement Leaders Report, which highlights 41 leading companies working to advance climate policy. Of the 41 qualifying companies, 23 are based in Europe, with nine in the U.S. and eight in Asia-Pacific. The report recognizes corporate climate policy leadership in three key areas: science-aligned advocacy, strategic engagement, and addressing indirect influence (which includes trade association relationships).
Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and Salesforce made this new leaders list, which is a strong reminder that companies can strategically lead the way in one area – and then should quickly work to address the ways they are obstructing climate policy leadership in another area.
Of note, leaders in the “Addressing Indirect Influence” category are Unilever in Europe and Apple in the U.S., with the report citing Apple’s decision to leave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2009 over climate disagreements. According to InfluenceMap’s analysis, the company has disclosed clear detail around its attempts to influence trade associations including the Business Roundtable on climate policy issues. Microsoft’s 2024 Sustainability Policy Alignment: U.S. Trade Associations audit (which ClimateVoice dug into in a previous issue of this newsletter) is also referenced in the new InfluenceMap report. Microsoft is listed as an example of a company “not yet achieving best practice,” but showing “elements of leadership” in addressing indirect influence.
Stronger climate policy engagement and leadership from companies is urgently needed, along with decisive policy interventions to catalyze the energy transition and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, current U.S. energy transition plans are in line with a 2.6 degree temperature rise, a far cry from where we need to be to curb the worst impacts of climate change. Furthermore, the U.S. is set to cut just 22% of its emissions by 2030 at its current pace of decarbonization, rather than the 50% required to be on track to meet its Paris Agreement goals. Despite incremental strides, current efforts are falling woefully short.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a 2022 report, which spotlighted “opposition from status quo interests” as a key barrier to climate policy progress. InfluenceMap’s U.S. policy tracker confirms 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.”
It’s time to take the vested interests of trade groups’ and compromised lobbyists’ anti-climate actions head on. That is why ClimateVoice is urging 3M, Amazon, Apple, Cisco, Coca-Cola, Ford, Google, Johnson & Johnson, Meta, Microsoft, PepsiCo, Pfizer, Qualcomm, Salesforce, and Visa to step up their climate leadership and climate policy engagement to match the urgency of the climate crisis. It’s time to call on these companies to use their influence to further catalyze meaningful climate policy action and live up to their green reputations.
What Does Stronger Climate Policy Leadership Look Like?
Stronger leadership means no longer lobbying against climate policies via trade associations or lobbyists playing both sides of climate-related issues. Companies must close the gap between public support of climate policy while simultaneously funding efforts to oppose it.
Companies should:
✅ Lobby for bold and just climate policies at the federal, state, and local levels
✅ Stop lobbying against climate policy progress
✅ Make strong public statements in support of climate policy progress
✅ Leave the Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce over their anti-climate positions
✅ Join pro-climate coalitions to advocate for strong, pro-climate policies.
All 15 companies ranked in the new scorecard were invited to sign a Business Statement urging the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to lobby for climate policy. The text of this business leadership statement is below.
Sustainability is good for business, which is why our company has set net-zero targets, developed climate transition plans, and disclosed our emissions. While we are focused on our internal operations, we also recognize that decarbonizing the economy at scale will require public policy.
Since 2022, the Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce have used their influence to block the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) climate disclosure rules, fight against pollution standards, oppose EPA power plant regulations, and lobby against the clean energy investments in the Inflation Reduction Act. These anti-climate positions are not aligned with ours.
That is why we, the undersigned, are urging the Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce to lobby for – not against – climate policy going forward.
We urge companies to take the first steps of auditing and disclosing when it comes to trade group relationships, to immediately stop supporting obstruction, and to advocate hard for good policies. We also urge companies to demonstrate leadership by both publicly and privately calling on the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber to lobby for – and not against – climate policy. Here’s to bringing this consistent advocacy to the fore, not only for the sake of greater alignment and corporate political responsibility – but also for our communities and for our planet.
Coming soon...
Stay tuned for our next issue where we’ll continue digging into corporate climate policy advocacy and sustainability professionals’ duty of care.
Have a specific question about Corporate Political Responsibility that you’d like us to address? Shoot your questions to us with subject line "Connect the Dots."
Have a specific question about Corporate Political Responsibility that you’d like us to address? Shoot your questions to us with subject line "Connect the Dots."