Comments and Questions

InfluenceMap defines “policy engagement” as efforts to inform or influence government policy. This definition follows the 2013 "Guide for Responsible Corporate Engagement in Climate Policy" from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). This report outlines various corporate activities, such as advertising, social media, public relations, research sponsorship, lobbying, campaign funding, and participation in policy advisory committees, aimed at influencing climate policy. These activities are typically managed by a company's regulatory affairs department but may also involve public relations, communications, and marketing teams. InfluenceMap tracks the results of these activities as they relate to climate policy and regulations, when publicly available.

InfluenceMap gathers data on corporate climate policy engagement from publicly available sources, including company disclosures, government disclosures, investor communications, and trusted media. Data sources must be publicly accessible, broadly applicable, and provide reliable insights into corporate behavior. Key sources include government disclosures of policy consultations and/or Freedom of Information requests for meeting minutes with officials, company websites and social media channels, respectable media outlets, and investor communications. Despite transparency challenges inherent with this issue, automated scraping techniques allow InfluenceMap to compile hundreds of evidence items on a company’s climate activities over 2–3 years.

The LobbyMap system considers existing, evolving, and likely future policy measures issued by mandated bodies to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and transitioning the global economy. "Mandated bodies" are defined here as various levels of government or government-authorized bodies that are tasked with developing and delivering a country’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), in which nations outline their implementation plans to meet the UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement’s goals. We do not currently consider government policy related to climate change adaption.

InfluenceMap selects companies based on size and relevance to climate change. The process prioritizes the largest companies, as determined by their average performance on the Forbes Global 2000 rankings over the past three years. This ranking reflects economic size and political influence. Approximately 50% of companies in the database rank within the top 500, and 70% rank within the top 1000. The database focuses on companies relevant to climate change, particularly those in sectors that are critical to the energy transition or that have been flagged for climate policy activity, as well as those active or headquartered in regions that are a particular focus of LobbyMap’s work.

InfluenceMap identifies industry groups, business federations, and similar entities as "influencers." These are chosen based on three criteria. First, the group’s relevance to climate issues and activity on climate change is considered, prioritizing sectors like energy, utilities, transport, heavy industry, and agriculture, along with cross-sector federations and issue-specific alliances. Second, the group’s influence is evaluated by considering its size and the significance of represented sectors. Finally, a "Jurisdiction Weighting" is applied, accounting for the region’s economic size and its role in global greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel exports.

The LobbyMap assessments aim to be global in coverage, due to the global nature of the companies that we asses. In practice, the platform’s assessment of corporate climate policy engagement is deeper in several regions that are important from the perspective of corporate climate policy engagement. These include Canada, the US, Europe, South Korea, Japan, Australia, and Canada. We are currently in the process of strengthening and deepening the analysis in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and Mexico.

Priority companies and industry associations are updated every week, providing near real-time analysis of these entities’ climate policy engagement activities. Priority entities are determined based on their significance to the climate agenda and the intensity of their climate policy engagement activities. The profiles of less engaged entities are updated on an annual basis. The data sources used in the analysis that provide fresh data each week include those related to government consultations, social media use, and media reporting. These data sources are scraped each week, and relevant evidence is assessed and added to the company and industry association profiles.

Evidence is collected up to five years before the date of the assessment, with the most recent evidence carrying the most weight. Evidence that is older than five years is automatically excluded from the overall calculations.

To ensure objectivity, LobbyMap’s scoring process follows strict protocols that compare each example of corporate climate policy engagement to external standards, a method known as "benchmarking." Rather than unilaterally determine what “good” climate policy is, InfluenceMap draws it benchmarks from external and authoritative sources. These benchmarks reflect key processes that underpin the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)’s efforts to deliver the goals of the Paris Agreement. There are two main types of benchmark: science-based policy benchmarks (drawn from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s analysis) and government policy benchmarks (drawn from the proposals of government bodies mandated to deliver a country’s Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement).

The scoring process determines the level of support or opposition a company or industry association has shown on a particular climate policy or policy-related issue in the evidence provided. This relies on a systematized process of analysis that codes each evidence piece as: “Strongly supporting”; “Supporting”; “No position/Mixed position”; “Not supporting”; or “Opposing.” These codes correspond to a numerical five-point scale between +2 and -2. The five-point scale enables a more nuanced analysis of the gray areas within corporate positioning on climate policy. Thus, the LobbyMap analysis can capture the full range of climate policy positioning, from pushing for greater ambition and constructive critique, to highly conditioned or limited support, to outright opposition.

“Science-aligned climate policy engagement” refers to instances in which an entity's positions on and efforts to influence climate-related government policy align with the global scientific consensus on what needs to happen to deliver the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement. To assess whether companies are supporting or opposing science-aligned climate policy, the LobbyMap system uses its science-based and government policy benchmarks.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which synthesizes the latest climate science, serves as the definitive resource for science-aligned climate policy. InfluenceMap’s science-based policy benchmarks are derived from IPCC findings on scenarios that can meet 1.5°C and 2°C warming targets. An entity's stance on a specific climate policy is compared to the relevant IPCC analysis. Strong alignment with the benchmark indicates strong support for science-based climate policy in that area.

Nation-states that have signed the Paris Agreement aim to deliver their National Determined Contributions by proposing and developing climate policy and regulations that consider a range of political, geographical, and economic conditions specific to their country. InfluenceMap’s government policy benchmarks are founded in “policy neutrality.” This means that the system does not evaluate the quality of governmental policy measures, but instead, after confirming that there is no clear inconsistency with International Panel on Climate Change guidance on Paris-aligned policy pathways, rests on the assumption that the policy proposals and ambitions from government bodies mandated to implement the Paris Agreement constitute the most authoritative, real-world set of standards for benchmarking corporate policy engagement.

The LobbyMap platform evaluates the science-alignment of a company’s indirect climate policy engagement through its industry associations, represented by a “Relationship Score.” This score aggregates the LobbyMap assessments of each industry association to which the company is linked, drawing from a database of over 300 industry associations, which are evaluated in an almost identical way as companies for easy comparison.

The platform also analyzes the strength of a company’s links to these associations, based on the company’s membership level or influence within the group. The Relationship Score combines the assessment of the industry associations with the assessment of the strength of these links. It indicates whether, in aggregate, a company’s industry associations are supporting (or opposing) science-aligned climate policy. The constituent parts of this assessment can be explored on each company’s LobbyMap profile.

InfluenceMap has developed a separate methodology for evaluating corporate climate policy engagement disclosures and governance. This methodology utilizes the LobbyMap platform and is benchmarked against the Global Standard on Responsible Corporate Climate Lobbying, a leading framework for best practices in climate policy disclosure.

The assessment examines two key areas. First, it evaluates the accuracy of a company’s reporting on its direct and indirect climate policy engagement activities. Second, it assesses the robustness of the company’s processes for identifying and addressing misalignments between its direct and indirect climate policy engagement and the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement.

The Global Standard on Responsible Corporate Climate Lobbying is an investor-led framework that guides companies to align their lobbying activities with the Paris Agreement. It provides indicators for committing to, establishing governance, and acting and reporting on misalignments between lobbying activities and climate goals.

InfluenceMap has developed a dedicated methodology to assess company disclosures and governance processes related to climate lobbying alignment. These evaluations are separate but complementary to LobbyMap’s analysis of real-world lobbying activities and are benchmarked against the Global Standard.

Yes. InfluenceMap makes all LobbyMap corporate and industry association assessments publicly available on our website

The LobbyMap analysis is focused on an organization's comments on, interactions with, and attempts to influence policy and legislation. We do not consider a company’s internal strategy, activities, or performance on climate change-related issues, such as CO2 emissions, use of various energy forms, orbusiness activities, if these have no direct relevance to policy and legislation forming. There are numerous other research streams that deal with corporate performance on climate, and we do not wish to widen our remit where adequate coverage exists.

This distinction pertains to the entity conducting climate policy engagement. "Direct" denotes engagement undertaken by the company itself, while "indirect" refers to engagement carried out on a company's behalf by third-party entities, such as industry associations, think tanks, or PR agencies.

Our database contains over 200,000 pieces of evidence backed up by respected, publicly available, external sources relevant to our subject matter and the organizations we are ranking. We add to this database daily as new information is available, and our scores change in real time. We welcome input from interested parties should any typographical errors, mistakes, perceived misinterpretation of data, or other issues be noted, and we stand ready to review our information as comments are made available. We further point users to our Terms and Conditions for issues relating to the appearance of external data on our site and reliance on our platform.

The Performance Band (A+ to F) reflects a company’s overall climate policy engagement, considering both direct activities (Organization Score) and industry association links (Relationship Score). For industry associations, the Performance Band is based solely on the Organization Score, as they do not have a Relationship Score. There are 16 bands, from A+ (95–100%) to E- (25–30%), with scores below 25% graded as F. Grades A+ to B (above 75%) signify broad support for science-aligned climate policy, while grades D to F (below 50%) indicate increasingly obstructive engagement. If insufficient evidence is available for a company’s Organization or Relationship Score, the Performance Band is marked as “n/a” (not available).

The Organization Score, ranging from 0 to 100, measures how supportive or oppositional a company’s direct climate policy engagement is toward science-aligned climate policy. A score of 0 reflects complete opposition, while a score of 100 represents full support. Scores below 50 indicate growing misalignment, scores between 50 and 75 suggest mixed engagement, and scores above 75 reflect broad support for Paris-aligned policies. If insufficient evidence is available, the Organization Score is marked as “n/a” (not available).

The Relationship Score (expressed as a percentage from 0 to 100) is a measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s industry associations are towards science-aligned climate policy, with 0 being fully opposed and 100 being fully supportive. This calculation accommodates an assessment of the strength of the relationship between a company and its industry associations: for example, a stronger weighting will be attributed in cases where a company has a representative on the board of an industry association. Scores below 50 suggest increasing opposition, scores between 50 and 74 reflect mixed engagement, and scores above 75 indicate support for science-aligned climate policy. If limited evidence has been collected on a company's industry association links, the Relationship Score is signified with an “n/a” (not available).

The Engagement Intensity is a score ranging from 1 to 100 that measures the intensity of a company’s policy engagement. A score above 12 indicates active engagement, while a score above 25 indicates highly active or strategic engagement. A score below 12 indicates relatively limited engagement. This metric is independent of the Organizational and Relationship Scores and is “policy position agnostic.” However, entities with Engagement Intensity scores below 5 are not attributed an Organization Score. This metric provides a useful measure of the strategic importance an organization places on climate policy within its advocacy program. This metric applies equally to both companies and industry associations.

If a particular query does not apply to a data source (e.g., external data sources do not apply to transparency queries) or the data is unavailable for a particular corporation (e.g., due to our research limitations, or the company does not disclose through a voluntary scheme like CDP), we mark the weighting cell with "NA" (not applicable), and the weighting is set to zero. Its original weighting is redistributed evenly through other data points for this query. If no evidence is available (after a search) for a particular cell, it is marked "NS" (not scored) with the same impact on the weightings as NA. Therefore, each organization has its own specific weighting matrix depending on data availability and relevance. This means that a company’s score will not be impacted by its lack of involvement in policies that do not affect it, and conversely, the company will be more accurately assessed for policies that do affect it.