BHP

InfluenceMap Score
D+
Performance Band
53%
Organisation Score
46%
Relationship Score
Sector:
Metals & Mining
Head​quarters:
Melbourne, Australia
Official Web Site:
Wikipedia:

Climate Lobbying Overview: BHP appears to have mixed engagement on climate policy, albeit with limited engagement on specific regulations in 2021-22. The company is supportive of ambitious climate action in its top-line messaging, but continues to support a sustained role for fossil fuels in the energy mix. At the same time, the company remains a member of many highly oppositional industry associations, including the Minerals Council of Australia.

Top-line Messaging about Climate Policy: BHP appears broadly supportive of ambitious climate action in its top-line messaging, however it has limited transparent engagement in 2022. In its 2021 Annual Report, published in September 2021, the company appeared to support emissions reductions in line with 1.5°C. In the same report, BHP called for increased levels of national and global ambition to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. BHP also appeared to support the US reaching its nationally determined contributions, as stipulated in the Paris Agreement, in its Q4 Lobbying Report published in January 2022. In its Global Climate Policy Standards, released in August 2020, BHP also appeared to retract its previous support for the use of Kyoto carryover credits, which can be used to weaken Australia’s climate ambition under the Paris Agreement.

In its 2021 Climate Transition Action Plan, published in September 2021, BHP supported global climate policy including market-based mechanisms and outcomes-based regulatory approaches. This appears to be an update on BHP’s previous comments on the need for government regulation to respond to climate change, which suggests a less positive stance. In its 2020 Annual Report, published in September 2020, BHP stated that climate policy should not affect trade competitiveness and should achieve “lowest cost abatement”.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: BHP appears to have limited transparent engagement with specific climate policies in 2021-22. BHP has disclosed some positive high-level positions on climate policies, although with limited details on the activities it undertakes to advocate these positions. In its 2021 Climate Transition Action Plan, published in September 2021, BHP disclosed its opposition to the Trump administration’s rollback of methane emissions regulation. In the same report, BHP appeared to support the development of international and sub-national carbon market mechanisms. This follows the company's 2020 Global Climate Policy Standards, where BHP stated support for national emission reduction targets. While BHP has not lobbied positively on renewable energy policies, its 2021 Global Climate Standards Policy specified that its industry associations should not advocate against policies regarding the deployment of renewable energy.

Positioning on Energy Transition: BHP appears to support a continued role for fossil fuels, despite top-line support for the energy transition. In a July 2022 Sydney Morning Herald article, BHP Australian Minerals President Edgar Basto opposed Queensland’s decision to increase royalties on the state’s coal mining sector, stating that the decision is a “backwards step”. Additionally, in May 2021, BHP CEO Mike Henry supported a continued role for oil and gas on the pathway to decarbonization. In April 2021, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that BHP directly advocated the Australian federal government to retain the existing fuel tax credit system, which is a form of fossil fuel subsidy. In contrast, in an April 2022 Steel Times International report, BHP appeared to support the decarbonization of the maritime shipping industry. Similarly, in a July 2022 press release, CCO Vandita Pant supported the decarbonization of the steel industry. In its Climate Transition Action Plan, published in September 2021, BHP supported a role for low-carbon alternatives such as copper, nickel and green ammonia, however in the same statement the company also supported LNG and “blue” ammonia.

In its 2020 Global Climate Policy Standards, BHP stated support for policies that ‘aim to support the development and deployment of pre-commercial low emissions technologies’. In an October 2021 statement by Leslie Arnold, Head of International Relations & Public Policy in Washington, BHP called for policy support for zero-carbon electricity under the US infrastructure bill and reconciliation proposal. On its social media in 2021-2022, BHP has also consistently supported the energy transition, transition to a low-carbon economy and electrification of transport.

Industry Association Governance: BHP has disclosed annual reviews and updates of its industry association memberships from 2017-2020, but has not published a review in 2021-22. The first review concluded there were material differences between its position on climate and the World Coal Association, resulting in BHP quitting the group in April 2018. However, while BHP also found material differences with highly oppositional lobby groups, including US Chamber of Commerce and Minerals Council of Australia, it has elected to retain its memberships and directly engage these groups on their climate and energy policy positions. BHP’s 2020 review also outlined detailed actions to be taken at four ‘partly aligned’ associations: American Petroleum Institute, Mining Association of Canada, NSW Minerals Council, and US Chamber of Commerce. However, BHP retains membership to these organizations as well as other highly oppositional groups including Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association and Minerals Council of Australia.

InfluenceMap collects and assesses evidence of corporate climate policy engagement on a weekly basis, depending on the availability of information from each specific data source (for more information see our methodology). While this analysis flows through to the company’s scores each week, the summary above is updated periodically. This summary was last updated in Q3 2022.

A detailed assessment of the company's corporate review on climate policy engagement can be found on InfluenceMap's CA100+ Investor Hub here.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
21NA2122
12NS021NS
02NS0NSNSNS
11NS1122
0NA0NANANANS
0NS0-2-20NS
1NS0NS1NSNS
NSNS1NSNSNSNS
NSNSNS-2-2-2NS
11-1-100-1
1NS0-1NSNSNS
1NS1NANANANS
1NSNSNSNSNSNS
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
55%
 
55%
 
51%
 
51%
 
38%
 
38%
 
38%
 
38%
 
51%
 
51%
 
53%
 
53%
 
47%
 
47%
 
43%
 
43%
 
34%
 
34%
 
34%
 
34%
 
48%
 
48%
 
75%
 
75%
 
29%
 
29%
 
67%
 
67%
 
46%
 
46%
 
36%
 
36%
 
41%
 
41%
 
28%
 
28%
 
23%
 
23%
 
66%
 
66%

How to Read our Relationship Score Map

In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party. In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.