InfluenceMap Score
Performance Band
Organisation Score
Relationship Score
Moscow, Russia
Official Web Site:

Climate Lobbying Overview: Gazprom appears to be generally unsupportive of ambitious climate action but shows relatively low engagement on this issue. Gazprom has limited top-line messaging on climate policy, and it is unclear if the company supports the need for drastic cuts in GHG emissions in line with IPCC recommendations. Furthermore, there is limited evidence of support for specific measures designed to tackle climate change and Gazprom does not appear to fully support the transition of the energy mix, instead strongly advocating for a major role for natural gas in the long-term.

Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Gazprom has limited but broadly negative top-line messaging on climate policy. In its 2019 Sustainability Report, Gazprom appears to show support for the Paris Agreement; however, it does not appear to have a clear position on the need to reduce global emissions. However, some evidence suggests lack of support for drastic action; for example, December 2018, the Gazprom Journal stated that the EU’s plan to reach net zero emissions by 2050 was “science fiction”. Notably, in April 2020, Oleg Aksyutin, Gazprom’s deputy Chairman, gave an interview in which he appeared to deny the scientific consensus on climate change, stating “no-one knows the actual reasons behind the global climate change” and “none of the climate models existing today can be considered definitive from a scientific point of view”.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: Gazprom does not appear to communicate a transparent position on most strands of climate regulation, but evidence suggests it has broadly been unsupportive of progressive policy. A statement from Gazprom’s Chairman in May 2018 suggests an unsupportive position towards legislation intended to promote renewable energy. Additionally, Gazprom does not appear to support forms of carbon pricing, such as a carbon tax, stating in January 2018, that such measures would “deal a powerful blow to the Russian economy”. Similarly, Gazprom appears to hold a mixed position towards the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, stating in February 2019, “the European market on the one hand, is turning green, on the other - it is becoming more expensive”. Furthermore, in its 2020 CDP response, Gazprom appeared to oppose a draft Federal law for the state regulation of greenhouse gas emission and absorption that would have established targets for reduced direct emissions in the Russian Federation, instead advocating for emissions intensity targets.

Gazprom shows mixed support for methane regulation in the EU. In its consultation responses in August 2020 and January 2021, it appears to state that while it supports mandatory standards for measurement, reporting and verification of methane emissions, it is “important to avoid measures that may lead to artificial market distortions with respect to natural gas as an energy source” such as quotas or charges.

Positioning on Energy Transition: Gazprom does not appear to fully support the transition of the energy mix and its engagement in this area appears primarily focused on supporting the use of natural gas. It strongly advocates for switching from coal to gas in the energy mix, stating in its 2019 Sustainability Report that this is the “fastest and cheapest way” to meet ambitious climate targets. However, Gazprom appears to support a permanent rather than transitional role for natural gas in the energy mix, without reference to the need for carbon capture and storage (CCS), stating in January 2021 “gas is fully compatible with the most ambitious climate goals”. Gazprom has also advocated for a role for hydrogen produced using natural gas (again without reference to the need for CCS) in submission to the EU hydrogen strategy in June 2020, claiming “hydrogen produced from natural gas via methane pyrolysis… is therefore at least comparable to the renewable (“green”) hydrogen production technologies in terms of carbon intensity” due to the “minimal carbon footprint of Russian gas supplies”. Furthermore, Gazprom appears to strongly support the use of gas as a motor fuel over the electrification of transport, stating support in its 2019 Sustainability Report for measures such as subsidies for the construction of gas refilling facilities and tax incentives for natural gas vehicles.

Industry Association Governance: In its Sustainability Report 2019, Gazprom named a number of industry associations of which it is a member, however the company does not have a clearly identifiable, dedicated disclosure of its indirect climate-related lobbying activities, nor has it disclosed on how it engages with its associations on their climate policy positions. Gazprom has not disclosed a review of its alignment with any industry associations on climate change policy.

Strength of Relationship

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.