Boeing

InfluenceMap Score
D
Performance Band
48%
Organisation Score
38%
Relationship Score
Sector:
Industrials
Head​quarters:
Chicago, United States
Brands and Associated Companies:
McDonnell Douglas, Hawker de Havilland Aerospace, Alteon Training
Official Web Site:
Wikipedia:

Climate Lobbying Overview: Boeing appears to have mixed engagement with climate policy for the aviation sector in 2020-22. Boeing appears to prioritize global climate regulations for aviation, at the expense of more ambitious action at a national and regional level. Boeing also retains memberships to several industry associations actively opposing stringent regulatory intervention on climate, including policy relating to international aviation.

Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Boeing stated support for the goals of the Paris Agreement in its 2022 sustainability report while in its 2021 Annual Report, released in 2022, Boeing endorsed "our industry’s commitment to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050". Boeing further echoed this support in a August 2022 US consultation response and an October 2022 press release supported the adoption of a 2050 CO2 net-zero aspirational goal for international aviation at ICAO. In 2021, Boeing communicated top-line support for the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Carbon Offset and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), under which airlines must buy offsets for emissions beyond average baseline emissions of 2019, and/or use ‘CORSIA eligible’ fuels (a voluntary scheme until 2027).

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: In 2020-22, Boeing has had mixed engagement with specific climate regulations in the EU and US. In 2020, according to E&E News, Boeing advocacted for the US to certify ICAO’s global CO2 standard for aircraft into US law. However, this support appears to be qualified by major exceptions, urging the US government in a 2020 consultation response not to introduce a more ambitious CO2 standard than set by ICAO, and to delay the regulatory standard-setting date by ten years for in-production mid-size widebody purpose-built freighter aircraft from 2028 to 2038. Moreover, a February 2021 Reuters article suggested that Boeing had actively opposed legal efforts to increase the stringency of the CO2 standard in the US from the EPA. Another August 2022 Boeing consultation response appeared to support the FAA adopting ICAO-equivalent CO2 standards in the US while advocating against higher standards and opposing their application to military & modified in-service aircraft.

Regarding an EU sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) mandate, Boeing stated opposition to introducing an EU SAF mandate in an April 2020 consultation response, citing competitiveness concerns. Similarly, in an October 2020 response to the RefuelEU aviation consultation, Boeing stated “we caution against imposing a minimum share of sustainable fuel in the form of mandates”, arguing that “without mechanisms to advance production and R&D, a blending mandate is premature”. However, in October 2020, as part of the World Economic Forum's Clean Skies for Tomorrow initiative, Boeing appeared to endorse an EU sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) blending mandate alongside other measures to increase European SAF supply and demand. This position appears to be echoed in the July 2021 Clean Skies for Tomorrow Insight Report, again endorsed by Boeing. Additionally, a November 2021 EU consultation from Boeing Europe appeared to support an EU SAF mandate. Boeing also supported the EU Renewable Energy Directive with minor exceptions in a September 2020 EU public consultation, proposing that the multipliers applying for sustainable aviation fuels be increased by 2x or more.

Positioning on Energy Transition: Boeing appears to have limited recent engagement on measures to decarbonize aviation, although it appears to broadly support policies that increase production of SAFs. In a joint 2020 letter to ICAO, Boeing advocated for “broad agreement” on measures to encourage the development of SAFs without stating positions on specific policy measures. Responding to an EU public consultation in September 2020, Boeing stated that financial mechanisms and holistic frameworks that increase the supply and stimulate technological advance in SAFs should be a key focus of the EU Transport White Paper. In October 2021, Boeing published a joint letter with several other major aviation manufacturers, in which it broadly called for “appropriate regional policy mechanisms and positive incentives” that stimulate the production of SAFs and green hydrogen in the aviation sector. A May 2022 Boeing Twitter post further appeared to support increased SAF use in response to high oil prices.

Industry Association Governance: Boeing publicly discloses a limited list of its memberships to industry associations on its website without disclosing its direct engagement with them on climate change, their climate policy positions, nor the company’s role within each association. Boeing has also not published a review of its alignment with its industry associations. Boeing remains a member of the National Association of Manufacturers and US Chamber of Commerce, both of which are actively lobbying against US climate policy. Boeing is also a strategic partner of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) which has consistently opposed ambitious climate policy for international aviation.

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.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
1NSNSNSNSNSNS
12NS2NSNSNS
00NSNS1NSNS
11NSNSNSNSNS
-1NA-1NANANANS
NSNSNSNSNSNSNS
NSNSNSNS-2NSNS
NSNSNSNSNSNSNS
11NS00NSNS
00NS01NSNS
1NS1-10NSNS
-1NS-1NANANANS
NS1NSNSNSNSNS
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
51%
 
51%
 
22%
 
22%
 
46%
 
46%
 
22%
 
22%
 
29%
 
29%
 
49%
 
49%
 
52%
 
52%
 
29%
 
29%
 
40%
 
40%
 
54%
 
54%
 
48%
 
48%

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.