Raytheon Technologies Corporation (formerly United Technologies)

InfluenceMap Score
C-
Performance Band
65%
Organisation Score
39%
Relationship Score
Sector:
Industrials
Head​quarters:
Hartford, United States
Brands and Associated Companies:
United Technologies, Raytheon Company, UTC Aerospace Systems, Sikorsky Aircraft
Official Web Site:

Climate Lobbying Overview: Since the merger of United Technologies and Raytheon in 2020, Raytheon Technologies appears to have limited engagement with climate policy. The company offers some top-line support for climate policy, and supports a goal of reaching net zero by 2050 for the aviation industry, but has engaged on a highly limited basis with specific climate policies. As of 2022, the company maintains membership in numerous US industry associations lobbying against climate policy.

Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Raytheon Technologies (Raytheon) has limited top-line messaging on climate policy. The company clearly accepts the science of climate change and appears to support global emissions reductions in line with the recommendations of the IPCC, as expressed in its 2021 ESG report released in April 2022, but in recent years does not appear to have communicated a position on the Paris Agreement. In its quarterly federal lobbying reports between Q2 2021 through Q2 2022, the company discloses engagement on the tax provisions of the Build Back Better Act, but does not offer a position and does not detail any engagement on the bill’s climate provisions.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: Raytheon has highly limited engagement with climate policy from 2019-22 and does not provide a clearly identifiable disclosure of its climate-relevant policy positions and lobbying activities on its website. In its 2021 CDP response, Raytheon Technologies discloses limited information on only a single policy area – global aviation emission reductions – with an unclear position on the International Civil Aviation Organization’s climate aviation policy. In its quarterly federal lobbying reports between Q1 2021 through Q1 2022, the company discloses engagement on US federal legislation related to the phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons, but does not disclose a position. This follows a tweet by the company in December 2019 highlighting its lobbying on the Kigali Amendment without stating a position.

Positioning on Energy Transition: Raytheon Technologies appears to support the transition to sustainable aviation fuel for aircraft, though it is unclear if its position on other areas, such as decarbonizing hydrogen production, is aligned with IPCC recommendations. In an October 2021 blog, Raytheon advocated for governments to support hydrogen-fueled aircraft, though its position on decarbonizing hydrogen production is unclear. In another blog that same month, Raytheon indicated support for a transition to greater use of biofuels to decarbonize transportation. In October 2020, Raytheon Technologies signed a joint letter to ICAO to urge greater efforts to “create conditions under which sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) can be widely deployed” without advocating for specific policies. Previously, as United Technologies, the company signed a joint statement in June 2019 calling on governments to create policies that promote sustainable aviation fuel.

Industry Association Governance: Raytheon Technologies discloses a list of its memberships to industry associations on its website without detailing its role within each group, their climate policy positions, or how its own positions align with those of the groups. The company has not published a review of its alignment with its industry associations as of August 2022. Raytheon provides more detail in its 2021 CDP response, where it lists membership in five trade associations including the Business Roundtable where its CEO serves on the Board, and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), though it does not disclose its membership in the US Chamber of Commerce in its CDP response. The NAM and the Chamber both lobby actively and negatively on US climate policy, while the Business Roundtable demonstrates mixed positions.

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
2NSNANSNS1NS
11NSNS2NSNS
0NS0NSNSNS0
NS2NSNSNSNSNS
-2NA-1NANANANS
NSNSNSNSNSNSNS
NS2NS0NSNSNS
1-112NSNSNS
01NS22NSNS
11NSNS2NSNS
NS10NS0NANS
-1NS0NANANANS
NSNSNSNSNSNSNS
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
52%
 
52%
 
29%
 
29%
 
29%
 
29%

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.