Chevron

InfluenceMap Score
D-
Performance Band
41%
Organisation Score
40%
Relationship Score
Sector:
Energy
Head​quarters:
San Ramon, United States
Brands and Associated Companies:
Texaco, Caltex
Official Web Site:

Climate Lobbying Overview: Chevron has stated top-line support for climate action including the Paris Agreement and a net-zero emissions target in the second half of the century, rather than the IPCC-specified target of 2050. The company has communicated broad-based support for climate-related regulations, however, appears to not support a number of specific regulations. The company also appears to have lobbied actively to maintain the role of gas in the future energy mix. Chevron retains memberships to several industry associations engaged in obstructive climate lobbying.

Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Chevron’s high-level communications appear to support climate action. Chevron’s 2020 Sustainability Report, published in September 2021, supported efforts to limit global temperature increase below 2 °C, although the company did not specify the timeframe for achieving it. Similarly, Chevron has supported achieving net-zero 'in the second half of the century', rather than by 2050, in its updated Climate Change Resilience Report in October 2021. In the same report, the company supported the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Chevron appears to take a mixed position on the need for climate policies. In the 2022 Annual Stockholder Meeting, Chevron stated that climate policies should ensure “affordable, reliable, and ever-cleaner energy”. However, during the CERAWeek conference in March 2022, the Chevron CEO, Mike Wirth, appeared to support a market-based response to climate change over government regulations. Chevron supports carbon pricing, as revealed in the corporate website when accessed in February 2022.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: In 2021 and 2022, Chevron appears to have disclosed its positions on climate regulations only in broad terms. In the company’s Climate Change Resilience Report from March 2021, Chevron stated support for "well-designed" emissions regulation that sets "appropriate methane metrics," without further details on what it entails.

Despite stating general support for methane regulation in an October 2021 release], the company opposed the US Environmental Protection Agency's proposed methane standards in its January 2022 comments submission. This included support for American Petroleum Institute’s (API) submission contesting the legal authority of the EPA to regulate methane emissions from existing sources. Further, on the methane leak detection provisions in the EPA proposal, Chevron wrote a joint letter that did not support the proposal for frequent optical gas imaging (OGI) surveys, and instead stated that these surveys should be not required more than once annually. Chevron’s comments to the EPA on Renewable Fuel Standard in February 2022 opposed the proposed volume standard for renewable fuels in 2022 and advocated for a lower volume standard.

In November 2021, the company’s additional ‘Lower-Carbon’ website supported the development of a global carbon market.

Positioning on Energy Transition: Chevron appears to support the long-term need for oil and gas in the energy mix and undertakes advocacy in that direction. In January 2022, Chevron’s CEO, Mike Wirth, opposed the decision of a US federal judge that invalidated the results of an oil and gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico, and in doing so, called for the need for “continued development and investment in the United States energy economy”. Later, in a testimony to the US Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in April 2022, Wirth appeared to support new energy exploration and streamlined permitting process for energy infrastructure to “bolster” American energy supply. In Canada, the company’s registration at the federal lobbying registry in April 2022 revealed that it had advocated for several incentives for the oil and gas industry, including investments and support for oil and gas exploration in the country. A July 2021 report by Unearth revealed that Chevron has backed government policy to facilitate a ‘gas-led recovery’ in Australia in a consultation submission in November 2020, and lobbied the UK government for “a greater recognition of the role of gas in transition” in February 2020.

Additionally, in its 2021 Climate Change Resilience Report, the company appeared to criticize subsidies for clean technologies, such as solar and wind, claiming that it would create “harmful market distortions”. Further, in an August 2021 interview with the Washington Post, Wirth appeared to criticize the California government’s target of phasing out gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, stating that dialogues on related technical and economic issues “will bring some reality to the ambition.”

Industry Association Governance: Chevron has disclosed a list of its key trade association memberships and the high level climate policy positions of these associations in its 2021 Lobbying and Trade Associations Report. The report stated that the company’s position does not always align with that of the associations', however, except for the American Petroleum Institute API, the company did not provide details on where its position differs from the organizations and how it sought to influence their positions. Chevron is represented on the board of directors of the API, which has consistently and negatively lobbied on US climate policy. Chevron’s report also does not disclose the company’s membership to several key industry associations actively and negatively engaging on climate policy, including Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA), Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), and International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP).

A detailed assessment of the company's corporate review on climate policy engagement can be found on InfluenceMap's CA100+ Investor Hub here.

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
20NSNS12NS
11NSNS1-1NS
0000000
11NSNS111
0NA-2NANANANA
1NSNS0-1-1NS
11NSNS00NS
1NSNSNS-1NSNS
00-2-2NS-1NS
-10NS-2-1-1-1
01-1-1-2-2NS
0NS-2NANANANA
NSNSNSNSNSNSNS
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
23%
 
23%
 
40%
 
40%
 
29%
 
29%
 
38%
 
38%
 
22%
 
22%
 
35%
 
35%
 
20%
 
20%
 
45%
 
45%
 
67%
 
67%
 
53%
 
53%
 
67%
 
67%
 
42%
 
42%
 
29%
 
29%
 
25%
 
25%
 
36%
 
36%
 
48%
 
48%
 
47%
 
47%
 
52%
 
52%
 
29%
 
29%
 
44%
 
44%
 
40%
 
40%
 
50%
 
50%
 
12%
 
12%
 
57%
 
57%
 
41%
 
41%
 
52%
 
52%
 
57%
 
57%
 
62%
 
62%

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.