Chevron

InfluenceMap Score
E+
Performance Band
35%
Organisation Score
41%
Relationship Score
Sector:
Energy
Head​quarters:
San Ramon, United States
Brands and Associated Companies:
Texaco, Caltex
Official Web Site:

Climate Lobbying Overview: At the top-line level, Chevron has stated support for the Paris Agreement and the target of net-zero emissions, although without a clear timeframe. At a detailed level, Chevron appears to be opposing many forms of climate-motivated regulation, including the US Renewable Fuel Standards and California’s target to phase out gas-powered vehicles. The company also appears to have lobbied actively on the role of gas in the future energy mix. Additionally, Chevron retains memberships to several industry associations engaged in obstructive climate lobbying.

Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: In Chevron’s Climate Change Resilience Report from March 2021, the company states it supports the Paris Agreement and global net zero "in the second half of this century", without the exact timeframe left undefined. Chevron’s 2019 climate policy position states support only for a “market-based” route to “lower-carbon outcomes”, whilst opposing a regulatory approach that establishes GHG emission targets on the use of its products. In line with this view, as of March 2021 Chevron supports the use of carbon pricing to respond to climate change, without appearing to back a specific pricing mechanism or policy.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: Between 2020 and 2021, Chevron appears to have disclosed its positions on climate regulations only in broad terms. Regarding emissions regulation, in its 'Climate Change Resilience Report' from March 2021, Chevron stated support for "well-designed" regulation that sets "appropriate methane metrics," without further details on what it entails. Previously, Chevron has opposed the US Renewable Fuel Standards Program in 2019 as well as a number of US methane emission measurement requirements and Australia’s National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Legislation in 2018.

In terms of carbon tax and emissions trading, Chevron stated support for government to introduce a price on carbon in a tweet in April 2021. In its 2020 Sustainability Report, Chevron called for national policies to build a global carbon market. Although the company appears to have lobbied against a bill and related regulations that aim to introduce a cap and trade mechanism in California, as reported by Propublica in November 2019.

Positioning on Energy Transition: In an interview with Washington Post in August 2021, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth stated oil and gas will continue to play a role in the energy mix in the next twenty years as the global demand for energy increases. In the same interview, he also appears to criticize California’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.” 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, as reported by Unearth in July 2021. Additionally, In its 2021 Climate Change Resilience Report, the company seems to criticize subsidies for clean technologies, such as solar and wind, for creating harmful market distortions.

Industry Association Governance: Chevron has disclosed a list of memberships it holds to key industry associations in its 2020 Sustainability Report. However, the report does not disclose a detailed assessment of alignment with its industry associations, nor how it tries to influence their climate policy. Nevertheless, Chevron is represented on the board of directors of the American Petroleum Institute which has lobbied for the rollback of US methane regulation throughout 2017-2018. Chevron’s report also does not disclose the company’s membership to several key industry associations actively and negatively engaging on climate change including APPEA.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
2NSNSNS121
01NANS10-1
-10NANS000
11NSNS1-1-1
0NA-2NANANANA
0-1NSNS-1-1NS
11-2NS00-1
1NS-2NS-1NSNS
0NS-2-2-2-1NS
-1-1NS-1-1-1-1
00-2-2-2-2NS
0NS-2NANANANA
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
24%
 
24%
 
27%
 
27%
 
38%
 
38%
 
52%
 
52%
 
35%
 
35%
 
22%
 
22%
 
51%
 
51%
 
67%
 
67%
 
67%
 
67%
 
41%
 
41%
 
30%
 
30%
 
25%
 
25%
 
34%
 
34%
 
47%
 
47%
 
57%
 
57%
 
27%
 
27%
 
31%
 
31%
 
23%
 
23%
 
36%
 
36%
 
45%
 
45%
 
58%
 
58%
 
53%
 
53%
 
41%
 
41%
 
34%
 
34%
 
65%
 
65%
 
45%
 
45%

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.