InfluenceMap

📣 ❗New Research from InfluenceMap : How fossil fuel interests are seeking to influence and benefit from a second Trump administration. This new briefing, from InfluenceMap’s update US platform combines recent evidence with insights from the first Trump administration to identify three key trends in corporate advocacy on climate emerging in the activities of US companies and their industry associations: 1️⃣ Fossil fuel companies shifting from defensive to offensive strategies to reverse ambitious climate policy 2️⃣ Escalating advocacy on permitting infrastructure – particularly gas 3️⃣ The strategic use of narratives, such as “consumer choice” to maintain public support and secure wins As in 2016, the most entrenched fossil fuel interest groups are likely to shift their attention from lawsuits to rollbacks – something InfluenceMap has already found evidence of entities such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) laying the groundwork for. Issues like energy infrastructure and fossil gas, along with automotive regulations, have received more engagement than any other policy area and are likely to remain a focus of corporate advocacy under the new administration. Going into 2025, corporate entities opposed to climate action will no longer need to convince the administration of their aims. Instead, they are likely to turn attention to influencing the public, leveraging specific, nuanced narratives on climate that protect and promote fossil fuels. InfluenceMap has already tracked attempts by companies to position themselves as “good guys” and proponents of climate action once again – as evident in recent statements by ExxonMobil and Cheniere Energy supporting the Paris Agreement. This analysis also directly links the advocacy of five major industry associations—the American Exploration and Production Council (AXPC), US Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute (API), National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) — to the increase in emissions that will result from Trump’s rollbacks. Illustrated by our new graphic which captures the impact of industry associations that, even before the election, actively sought to overturn, weaken, or litigate against federal climate action. 👇 Read the full briefing here: https://lnkd.in/eGYVq2Va Access the updated US Platform here: https://lnkd.in/ed9Tk54U and the state level policy tracker here: https://lnkd.in/eNUmRHN8 Dylan Tanner Kendra Haven Leo Menninger Emilia Piziak Christopher Nelson Caroline Heneghan Katherine Pardoe Mohammed Nasif Méabh Hartney

New from InfluenceMap 🚨 🇯🇵 Key Japanese Climate Policy Commitments at Risk from Industry Influence. In the coming weeks the Japanese government will finalize several critical policies, such as the 2035 GHG target, 7th Strategic Energy Plan and the GX 2040 Vision, which will determine its pathway towards the commitments made under the Paris Agreement. InfluenceMap findings suggest that Japan’s choices are likely to be misaligned with science-based policy recommendations from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and with global market and technology trends around renewable energy, fossil fuels, and the electrification of transport. As draft policies closely mirror the positions of a narrow group of heavy industry companies, whose views are represented by the Japanese Business Federation (Keidanren). 🔺The data shows that over 30% of companies in the Nikkei 225 stock index take a different position from the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren) - which is advocating for NDC and energy policies misaligned with 1.5C. Nevertheless, Keidanren’s significant influence on Japanese policy is evident. 🔺 For example: when it comes to the 2035 GHG emissions reduction target, only three business groups presented explicit recommendations - including the Keidanren and two climate focused corporate advocacy groups: the Japan Corporate Leaders Partnership (JCLP) and the Japan Climate Initiative (JCI). The latter two were established by companies who shared a common concern that their voices are insufficiently reflected in climate policy, despite playing significant roles in Japan’s economy and are endorsed by Prominent companies such as Sony, SoftBank, Takeda Pharmaceutical, and Ricoh. The final emissions reduction target proposed by the Japanese government was 60%, significantly less than the JCI proposed  66% or the JCLP proposed 75%, but the same as that proposed by Keidanren. 🔺 InfluenceMap data indicates that the Keindanren predominantly represents a narrow range of industries that account for less than 15% of Japan's economy.  With the rest of the economy engaging only moderately and holding minimal representation on key Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) subcommittees compared to the heavy industry sectors. Read the full analysis here: https://lnkd.in/eXcvZq8x Monica Nagashima Dylan Tanner Reina T. Karin Kitsuda Ed Collins

💡 💶 New from InfluenceMap → EU Funds: Has Regulation Impacted Climate Performance? This new analysis by InfluenceMap’s FinanceMap program shows that 89% of funds using ESG or climate-related names have portfolios which are misaligned with net zero and many are dependent on fossil fuel investments. The findings of the report suggest that so far the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) has not achieved one of its key aims of limiting greenwashing in this market, with considerable inconsistencies found between funds’ use of climate-related names and their level of disclosure under SFDR.  🔴 60% of funds identified as using climate-related terms in their name do not disclose under SFDR Article 9, the category designated for funds with a primary sustainability objective 🔴 Article 8 funds cumulatively invest more in fossil fuel companies (€44B) than companies identified as green (€39B) 🔴 Equity funds using ‘Sustainability’, ‘Environment’, ‘Transition’, or ‘ESG’ terms in their naming are found to be on average misaligned with the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario. The average ‘ESG’ fund is more misaligned with IEA Net Zero than the average EU fund, climate-related or not. The widespread misalignment identified between the climate performance of funds and their climate branding is particularly relevant given the ongoing review of SFDR and the implementation of the ESMA fund naming guidelines - where fund names will be central to the proposed categorization system. There appears to be a significant amount of work needed if funds are to meet ESMA’s criteria by the time this regulation comes into force in May 2025. Read the full report here: https://lnkd.in/gXgnidMu Read the coverage here: https://lnkd.in/g2YrSGXh Daan Van Acker Tom Alcoran Dylan Tanner Kitty Hatchley

“It is critically important that agencies understand how exposure to obstructive clients calls into question the authenticity of their own climate commitments and how the work done for them ties into harmful lobbying agendas." https://buff.ly/49fOPLQ 📣 Faye Holder, head of special projects, InfluenceMap

🛎️ 🚨 New from InfluenceMap - Untapped Potential: Asset Owners and Climate Policy Influence This new analysis of the world's 30 largest insurers and pension funds (representing over $17 trillion in assets) finds that only a limited number are utilizing their influential position to drive climate policy advocacy in line with science-based pathways to net zero.   This is despite the fact that asset owners’ long-term investment horizons and influential position in the financial system make them potentially powerful advocates for government policy to achieve international climate goals. The levers available to asset owners to affect policy change fall into two categories: their stewardship practices over investee companies’ lobbying and their own direct climate policy advocacy. The research assesses these 15 insurers and 15 pension funds in both areas. Key findings: 💡 There is an overall lack of stewardship on climate policy engagement among asset owners, with 73% scoring a D+ or below according to InfluenceMap’s analysis. Generally, low scores are driven by low levels of transparency on stewardship activities. 💡Asset owners are not achieving their maximum direct policy advocacy potential, and there is room for increased climate advocacy across regions and types of asset owner. 💡No asset owner is fully transparent around its indirect lobbying via industry associations. Seven of the 30 asset owners assessed (23%) maintain links to industry groups whose climate policy advocacy is misaligned with science-based pathways to limit warming to 1.5°C, and who have actively obstructed climate policies for the financial sector and the real economy. The research also finds a core group of asset owners showing leadership on one or more of the areas of influence available to them. These emerging leaders prove it is possible to influence climate policy through multiple avenues and provide best practice examples for other institutions. Cleo Rank, Program Manager at InfluenceMap, said: “Although it is encouraging to see a few asset owners actively stewarding companies and asset managers on climate lobbying, and engaging in robust direct policy advocacy, these companies represent only a fraction of the sector. By failing to engage, many asset owners are ceding their influence to more actively engaged industry associations that are often advocating against meaningful change. The commitments of groups like the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance are at risk of being undermined if their members do not fully buy in to its recommendations.” Download the full report here: https://lnkd.in/etgJsSFW Read the coverage here: https://lnkd.in/e4MVxUfw Dylan Tanner Daan Van Acker Bonnie Steinberg Cleo Rank Rebecca Vaughan Kitty Hatchley

The discussions around COP29 focused a lot on how certain parts of the corporate sector are negatively influencing and delaying climate policy action. But they also revealed how enormous the opportunity is for companies to help drive the positive change on much-needed climate policy and regulations. Opportunities for companies to collaborate transparently to support science-aligned policy, both with each other and with governments. There are now numerous strategies and collaborations underway to achieve this and to reduce the significant and negative influence of the fossil fuel sector. A great take comes this week from Auden Schendler in the Harvard Business Review. Featuring a quote from our Executive Director, Dylan Tanner “One of the reasons we founded InfluenceMap was to arm the growing number of corporate executives who realize systems change is needed, rather than tinkering with Scope 1 and 2 emissions. We are working to identify people in a growing number of companies to help build this movement and trigger collaboration.” Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/e8VqtUTa Read our analysis of Corporate Climate Policy Leaders for 2024: https://lnkd.in/enrTE9-9

Join InfluenceMap for our next webinar 'An Introduction to FinanceMap' on December 5! This webinar will be an opportunity to learn more about the leading data platform for assessing climate and finance. Featuring: ➡ InfluenceMap's Senior Analysts Tom Alcoran and Bonnie Steinberg to introduce the platform and share recent insights into the climate finance landscape ➡ Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), Associate Director, Climate Change & Environmental Justice, Tracey Rembert discussing the role of investors in driving climate policy change Sign up here 👉 https://lnkd.in/e8TKCz_e

As The Global #PlasticsTreaty negotiations are now underway in #Busan - read InfluenceMap's latest briefing on the corporate engagement the Treaty has faced since this process began: ✴️ 93% of negative engagement is from the petrochemical and chemical sector ✴️ These entities tend to favor recycling over caps (against IPCC guidance) ✴️ But engagement from these negative actors only makes up 20% of overall corporate engagement on the treaty Reacting to the findings - U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said: "The plastics/fossil fuel industry is trying hard to kneecap the UN Global Plastics Treaty, which is exactly why we have to mandate lobbying disclosure by industry representatives and implement rules around conflicts of interest. If allowed to work from the shadows, bad faith industry interference will block progress toward saving our oceans and fighting climate change." 🌏 Read the full briefing here: https://lnkd.in/gUXzQ3iD

📣 ⏰ New from InfluenceMap - Petrochemical & Chemical Companies Isolated in Attempts to Derail the UN Global Plastics Treaty Top Lines ⤵ A new briefing released today by InfluenceMap tracks corporate engagement on the #UNGlobalPlasticsTreaty ahead of the final discussions in Busan, Korea, next week. It reveals intense oppositional advocacy from petrochemical and chemical companies and their industry associations - mirroring tactics used for decades by the fossil fuel sector to exert influence over climate policy all around the world. However, this research finds that this negative engagement on plastics regulation is not representative of the engagement of the corporate sector as a whole - making up only 20% of advocacy on the treaty by companies and industry associations. This presents a clear opportunity for positive industries engaged in this process to call out the misinformation and lack of ambition ahead of the decision-making that will go on next week. The Research ⤵ InfluenceMap examined 311 incidents of corporate engagement (across a range of channels including consultation responses, media interventions, company statements, and social media) on the UN Global Plastics Treaty since March 2022 and found that 93% of unsupportive statements came from the chemical and petrochemical sectors. These actors have consistently advocated for a limited scope to the treaty, prioritizing ‘downstream measures,’ such as recycling ♻, over measures that would reduce plastic production 🙅♀️ and the use of harmful plastics. They also repeatedly attempt to frame plastics as environmentally friendly and essential for the energy transition. These arguments are misaligned with IPCC guidance on circular economy policy. 🚩 InfluenceMap also found that 10 chemical and petrochemical companies—BASF, Chevron-Phillips, Covestro, Dow Inc, ExxonMobil, LyondellBasell, SABIC, Shell, Sinopec, and TotalEnergies—are members of the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, an organization that promotes a vision “to end plastic waste entering the environment and to create circular systems that keep materials and products in use for as long as possible.” However, in seeming contradiction to this stated aim, the Alliance to End Plastic Waste did not appear to support an ambitious UN Global Plastics Treaty in 2022–24, and many of its members continued to advocate negatively on the Treaty as well as on national-level circular economy policy. Calling into question companies’ commitment to the stated objective of the alliance and its support for the creation of a circular economy for plastics. Read the full analysis here: https://lnkd.in/gUXzQ3iD Dylan Tanner Ed Collins Ines Urman Venetia Roxburgh Kitty Hatchley