BHP

InfluenceMap Score
D
Performance Band
49%
Organisation Score
45%
Relationship Score
Sector:
Metals & Mining
Head​quarters:
Melbourne, Australia
Official Web Site:
Wikipedia:

Climate Lobbying Overview: BHP has consistently communicated top-line support for action on climate change between 2019-2021. At a more detailed level, however, BHP appears to have lobbied to undermine and weaken ambitious climate policy, including greenhouse gas emissions regulations, and 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 trade groups, 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. 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. 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. However, BHP’s previous comments on the need for government regulation to respond to climate change 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”. This position echoes BHP’s position in previous engagements on climate policy. In a submission to the Environmental Protection Authority of Western Australia (WA EPA) in September 2019, BHP argued that “Government intervention should be limited to where required to address demonstrated market failure."

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: BHP appears to have limited transparent engagement with specific climate policies in 2021, with disclosures broadly limited to top-line position statements such as support for carbon pricing. However, 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. In its 2020 CDP response, BHP appeared to support energy efficiency measures as part of an effective policy framework.

However, BHP has previously lobbied negatively on GHG emissions standards in Australia. In a September 2019 consultation response, BHP did not appear to support the WA EPA’s greenhouse gas assessment guidance, cautioning that state-based policy should align with weaker national emissions reduction targets, and arguing the guidance should be flexible rather than prescriptive. In its 2020 Global Climate Policy Standards, BHP appeared to state support for national emissions reduction targets. While BHP has not lobbied positively on renewable energy policies, its Global Climate Standards Policy also 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 May 2021, 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 acts as a fossil fuel subsidy. In its Climate Transition Action Plan, published in September 2021, BHP supported a role for LNG and blue ammonia alongside low-carbon alternatives such as copper, nickel and green 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, BHP has also consistently supported the transition to a low-carbon economy and electrification of transport. However, this support appears to be on the condition that policies are technology and commodity neutral.

Industry Association Governance: BHP has disclosed annual reviews and updates of its industry association memberships since 2017. 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).

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
21NA2122
12NS-1210
021-1NSNSNS
21NS1122
0NA1NANANANS
0NS0-2-20NS
1NS0NS1NS1
NSNS1-1NSNSNS
NSNSNS-2-2-2NS
01-1-100-1
110-1-10NS
1NS1NANANANS
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
40%
 
40%
 
39%
 
39%
 
51%
 
51%
 
67%
 
67%
 
50%
 
50%
 
47%
 
47%
 
47%
 
47%
 
35%
 
35%
 
34%
 
34%
 
75%
 
75%
 
28%
 
28%
 
67%
 
67%
 
31%
 
31%
 
53%
 
53%
 
41%
 
41%
 
27%
 
27%
 
23%
 
23%
 
63%
 
63%

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.