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.
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.
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.
Open PDF file of Data Source
Climate Lobbying Overview: CSX Corp (CSX) appears to have very low engagement with US climate policy, with limited evidence and disclosure of its recent climate policy positioning and engagement in 2018-22. Historically, CSX appears to have funded organizations promoting climate change denial, including America’s Power (formerly ACEEE), of which it no longer appears to a member as of 2022.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: CSX Corp's top-line messaging on its corporate website as of 2022 appears to recognize some of the science of climate change. CSX’s communications around climate change in its 2020 ESG report do not take a clear position on IPCC-aligned emissions reductions. CSX has not disclosed clear positions on the Paris Agreement or climate regulations in its top-line messaging.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: In 2018-22, CSX appears to have had limited engagement with US climate policy. CSX does not seem to disclose its positions towards, or engagement with, climate policy on its website. In a Q4 2018 Senate Lobbying Disclosure, the company disclosed it had lobbied on the Clean Power Plan, although with an unspecified position.
Positioning on Energy Transition: CSX appears to have limited disclosure on the energy transition in 2018-20, although messaging on its corporate website in 2020 suggests support for fracking. In 2017 CSX’s former CEO, Hunter Harrison, stated that “fossil fuels are dead. That’s a long-term view. It’s not going to happen overnight. It’s not going to be in two or three years. But it’s going away, in my view.” This statement appears more supportive of the energy transition compared to previous communications, with CSX’s former CEO Michael Ward communicating in 2016, referring to Donald Trump, that “we certainly like his policy on coal."
Industry Association Governance: CSX does appear to publicly disclose a list of its memberships to industry associations on its website, but without clarity on policy positions and its influence within associations. The company discloses the membership of only one trade association its 2021 CDP response. CSX has not published a review of its alignment with its industry associations.