Home

About

About Us

FAQ

Methodology

Data

LobbyMap Updates

LobbyMap Scores

Platforms

Reports

By Program

Climate Policy Engagement

Finance and Climate Risk

Energy Policy

Sustainable Finance

Digital Media

By Region

Japan

Australia

Korea

United States

Europe

Rest of World

By Sector

Automotive and Transport

Fossil Fuels

Electric Power

Technology

English日本語한국어

guest

BHP

InfluenceMap Score
for Climate Policy Engagement
C-
Performance Band
62%
Organization Score
50%
Relationship Score

Land-use analysis, October 2022

We have expanded the list of climate policies we assess company engagement with to incorporate land-use related policy, referring to legislative or regulatory measures to enhance and protect ecosystems and land where carbon is being stored. Assessments under this category are currently underweighted in terms of their contribution to the overall company metrics. This weighting will be progressively increased over the next 6 months.

Updated terminology, February 2021

We adjusted the terminology used to describe the queries running down the left-hand side of our scoring matrix and added additional explanatory text to the info-boxes. This has no impact on the scores and methodology. It has been done following user feedback to improve clarity.

Disclosure Scorecard
Sector:
Metals & Mining
Head​quarters:
Melbourne, Australia
Official Web Site:
www.bhpbilliton.com
Wikipedia:
BHP Billiton

Climate Policy Engagement Overview: BHP is strategically engaged on climate policy and displays a mix of positive and negative positions. The company is supportive of ambitious climate action in its top-line messaging, yet continues to advocate a sustained role for fossil fuels in the energy mix. BHP also retains membership to a number of industry associations actively lobbying negatively on climate policy, 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. The company supported the goals of the Paris Agreement in its 2022 Annual Report, published in September 2022, and likewise communicated support for global progress towards limiting warming to 1.5°C in a February 2023 consultation submission. However, in its May 2023 Climate Policy Principles document, BHP appeared to support the need for government regulation to combat climate change with some qualifications, emphasizing the need for climate policy to embrace market-based approaches and technology-neutral frameworks.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: BHP appears to have increased its engagement with specific Australian climate-related regulations in 2022-23. The company expressed mixed positions on Australia’s Safeguard Mechanism Reforms in September 2022 and February 2023 consultation responses. For example, while BHP supported the removal of headroom from the policy and the “concept” of reducing emissions baselines aligned with Australia’s net-zero by 2050 target, it also appeared to advocate for additional financial assistance for facilities scheduled for closure prior to 2030. Additionally, BHP appeared to advocate for Safeguard facilities to be exempt from additional state-based emissions reduction policies.

The company also appears to adopt mixed positioning on state-based renewable energy targets. In its February 2023 Pre-Budget submission, BHP appeared to advocate for state-based renewable energy targets to be consolidated into a national clean energy standard, stating that divergent Federal and State approaches to climate policy risk increasing transaction costs and discouraging investment. However, in a May 2023 consultation submission, BHP issued support for South Australia’s “renewable energy generation goals”. The company also appeared to indicate support for Australia’s 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target and the implementation of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism in Australia in its September 2022 and February 2023 consultation submissions on the Safeguard Mechanism Reforms.

Positioning on Energy Transition: BHP communicates broadly supportive top-line statements on the energy transition, yet at the same time appears to advocate a continued role for fossil fuels in the energy mix. In a May 2023 consultation submission, BHP appeared to issue support for the urgent decarbonization of the power sector and for government policy settings to transition to low emissions technology. The company likewise indicated its support for policy measures to expand the supply of clean energy in Australia in its September 2022 submission to the Safeguard Mechanism Reform consultation paper.

However, BHP also appears to support a continued role for fossil fuels in the energy mix. As reported in a December 2022 Australian Financial Review article, BHP appeared to suggest that Australia’s energy policy should include support for coal and fossil gas during the transition to a decarbonized future. In addition, BHP appears to support the decarbonization of the steel industry with major exceptions. As reported in an August 2022 Australian Financial Review article, BHP stated that “We believe that a wholesale shift away from blast furnace steel-making, which uses metallurgical coal, is still decades in the future and that metallurgical coal will remain an essential input into the steelmaking process". The company also appeared to support an increased role for nuclear energy in its February 2023 Pre-Budget submission, though its position on the role of nuclear in regards to a full transition towards a zero-emissions energy system is unclear.

Industry Association Governance: BHP published an annual review of its industry association memberships in June 2023. In its review the company notes that it has found some non-material misalignment between its positions on climate and the climate-related advocacy of 5 of its industry associations: the Queensland Resources Council, the New South Wales Minerals Council, the Minerals Council of Australia, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the United States Chamber of Commerce. InfluenceMap analysis indicates that all 5 groups have engaged in oppositional advocacy on climate policy in 2021-23. BHP also maintains membership to several other oppositional industry associations, including the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy and the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western 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 2023.

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
21NA212NS
12NS121NS
01-10NS1NS
21NS11NS2
2NA-2NANANANS
0NS010-1NS
11NS0-1NSNS
NSNS11NSNSNS
NSNSNS0NS-2NS
11-1000-1
2201NSNSNS
2NS-2NANANANS
1NSNSNSNSNSNS
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
Business Council of Australia
58%
 
Business Council of Australia
58%
 
Mining Association of Canada (MAC)
50%
 
Mining Association of Canada (MAC)
50%
 
Australian Industry Greenhouse Network
49%
 
Australian Industry Greenhouse Network
49%
 
Instituto Brasileiro de Petróleo e Gás (IBP)
52%
 
Instituto Brasileiro de Petróleo e Gás (IBP)
52%
 
Minerals Council of Australia (MCA)
42%
 
Minerals Council of Australia (MCA)
42%
 
Canadian Chamber of Commerce
49%
 
Canadian Chamber of Commerce
49%
 
Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia (CME)
46%
 
Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia (CME)
46%
 
South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy
47%
 
South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy
47%
 
NSW Minerals Council
32%
 
NSW Minerals Council
32%
 
Queensland Resources Council (QRC)
40%
 
Queensland Resources Council (QRC)
40%
 
Carbon Market Institute
78%
 
Carbon Market Institute
78%
 
Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
73%
 
Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
73%
 
US Chamber of Commerce
28%
 
US Chamber of Commerce
28%

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.