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
D+
Performance Band
61%
Organization Score
48%
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.

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

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. In its 2022 Annual Report, published in September 2022, the company appeared to recognize the need for urgent action to combat climate change, and supported the goals of the Paris Agreement. BHP also supported reaching global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions but did not specify a date by which this should be achieved. In its Notice of AGM 2022 release, BHP also appeared to support achieving greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions in line with 1.5°C target. 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.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: BHP appears to have limited its transparent engagement with specific climate policies in 2021-22, however it appears to have increased its engagement in September 2022. In a September 2022 consultation response to Australian Safeguard Mechanism Reforms, BHP expressed mixed positions on reforms to the policy, expressing support for removing headroom from the policy, and did not support free allocations or adjusted baseline decline for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industry. BHP did however advocate for the use of international offsets alongside SM credits and supported the extension of multi-year monitoring periods. In the same consultation response, BHP also supported an increase in Australia's GHG emissions reduction target from 28% to 43% by 2030. 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.

Positioning on Energy Transition: BHP appears to support a continued role for fossil fuels, despite top-line support for the energy transition. In an October 2022 interview at the Financial Times Mining Summit, BHP CEO Mike Henry opposed Queensland’s decision to increase royalties on the state’s coal mining sector. Additionally, in a September 2022 Australian Financial Review article, Henry stated that an Australian energy transition needed to be “grounded in reality”, and claimed that Australia does not have the same natural advantages in renewable energy compared to other regions. 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 its 2022 Annual report, published in September 2022, BHP supported the decarbonization of the steel and maritime shipping industries. Similarly, in a July 2022 press release, CCO Vandita Pant supported the decarbonization of the steel industry.

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. BHP’s 2020 review outlined detailed actions to be taken at four ‘partly aligned’ associations: American Petroleum Institute (API), Mining Association of Canada, NSW Minerals Council, and US Chamber of Commerce. However, BHP retains membership to these organizations (bar API) as well as other highly oppositional groups including 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 Q4 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
21NA212NS
12NS221NS
01NS0NS1NS
11NS11NS2
0NA0NANANANS
0NS01NS-1NS
11NS0NSNSNS
NSNS11NSNSNS
NSNSNS-1NS-2NS
01-100-1-1
1201NSNSNS
1NS1NANANANS
1NSNSNSNSNSNS
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
Business Council of Australia
58%
 
Business Council of Australia
58%
 
Canadian Chamber of Commerce
48%
 
Canadian Chamber of Commerce
48%
 
Minerals Council of Australia (MCA)
42%
 
Minerals Council of Australia (MCA)
42%
 
Mining Association of Canada
50%
 
Mining Association of Canada
50%
 
Instituto Brasileiro de Petróleo e Gás (IBP)
52%
 
Instituto Brasileiro de Petróleo e Gás (IBP)
52%
 
Australian Industry Greenhouse Network
50%
 
Australian Industry Greenhouse Network
50%
 
South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy
47%
 
South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy
47%
 
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)
34%
 
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)
34%
 
International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP)
44%
 
International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP)
44%
 
Carbon Market Institute
79%
 
Carbon Market Institute
79%
 
NSW Minerals Council
32%
 
NSW Minerals Council
32%
 
Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia (CME)
44%
 
Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia (CME)
44%
 
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.