Louise Kjellerup Roper’s Post

📣 🚨 InfluenceMap has launched the COP29 Corporate Climate Advocacy Landscape Assessment as part of its COP29 Corporate Accountability Platform. This new resource identifies the companies represented at COP29 by cross-referencing the UNFCCC-disclosed list of registered attendees against InfluenceMap’s database on corporate lobbying. ⚔ This year’s findings reflect a pitched battle between companies in the fossil fuel value chain that oppose science-aligned policy action, and a growing list of highly positive, strategically engaged companies, or ‘climate policy leaders’ who are increasingly active. Key Findings:  ❌ Only 17% of the companies attending COP29 have science-aligned climate policy advocacy positions (as defined by the IPCC 1.5C pathways).  ❌ These companies are matched by a further 21% of companies in attendance that are actively pushing for policy pathways likely to lock-in warming scenarios well in excess of the internationally agreed targets set out by the 2015 Paris Agreement.   ❌ 1/3 of industry associations attending COP29 covered by the LobbyMap database oppose science-aligned climate policy. The analysis suggests that although the proportion of companies of attending COP that demonstrate science-aligned policy engagement has almost doubled (from below 10% of corporate representatives in 2023 to almost 20% in 2024) a powerful minority of very active and influential companies and industry associations from the fossil fuel value chain are well represented at proceedings again this year. These entities are likely to be using their access to oppose progress on climate from within the confines of the event. 🛑 Oppositional companies with more than 10 COP29 delegates include: ExxonMobil, Gazprom, Petrobras and Lukoil.  🛑 Other negative companies with smaller delegations at COP29 include: Chevron, Eni, BMW, JBS, JFE Steel, Nippon Steel Corporation and Toyota. ❇ Companies that demonstrate science-aligned climate policy engagement and have more than 10 COP29 delegates include: Alphabet, SAP, Schneider Electric and SSE.  ❇ Other positive companies with smaller delegations at COP29 include: Unilever, Trane Technologies, Acciona, Vestas, Microsoft and Iberdrola. 🚩 The list of industry association COP29 attendees includes some of the most influential and negative entities covered by the InfluenceMap database, including The US Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Japan Iron and Steel Federation (JISF), and the Federation of German Industries (BDI). Access the database here: https://lnkd.in/eywgsRjs Read our piece in SDG Action: https://lnkd.in/ehMUA-_z Dylan Tanner Ed Collins Tom Holen Vivek Parekh Mohammed Nasif Rose Harris Tanvi Rahim Kitty Hatchley Georgia Oddie Sofia Shehana Basheer

Key Findings: ❌ Only 17% of the companies attending COP29 have science-aligned climate policy advocacy positions (as defined by the IPCC 1.5C pathways). ❌ These companies are matched by a further 21% of companies in attendance that are actively pushing for policy pathways likely to lock-in warming scenarios well in excess of the internationally agreed targets set out by the 2015 Paris Agreement. ❌ 1/3 of industry associations attending COP29 covered by the LobbyMap database oppose science-aligned climate policy.

The recently launched ‘COP29 Corporate Climate Advocacy Landscape Assessment’ by InfluenceMap paints a revealing picture of the lobbying and advocacy efforts of companies at the conference. InfluenceMap’s report showed a rise of companies advocating for science-aligned climate policies (almost 20% in 2024 compared to under 10% in 2023). However, it also showed a powerful minority continue to push back against progress with 21% of companies in attendance “actively pushing for policy pathways likely to lock-in warming scenarios well in excess of the internationally agreed targets set out by the 2015 Paris Agreement”. Integrity in communications means that companies need to be consistent in all communications, targets and lobbying. InfluenceMap’s work continues to support increased transparency in all communications – including advocacy.   #COP29 #ClimateAction #BusinessEthics

Brilliant analysis by InfluenceMap on corporate interests and climate advocacy at #COP29. While it's positive to note that representation of companies that engage in science-aligned climate policy advocacy has risen this year, a third of trade associations attending COP are actively opposed to science-based policy. Important to note that LobbyMap data isn't always the latest representation of what a trade association is up to re policy engagement - it's very difficult to peel back the curtain on what a trade association publishes on its social media, vs its lobbying record. Jules Peck

I'm not sure whether this characterisation of some of the corporate lobbying at COP29 is entirely fair - to my first impressions it seems harsh to describe them as 'opposing science-aligned policy action' but even if you don't agree with its conclusions, InfluenceMap has done us a valuable service by reporting on this - we should know what lobbying is taking place around this critically important forum, just as we should in all matters of public policy.

COP29 (UN Climate Change) is here! Please stop quoting and giving oil-funded agencies a platform when discussing the fight against global warming. Of the 4 cited in this piece, only one is NOT on Clean Creatives F-List. FINN Partners. The others each receive fees from numerous oil and/or gas companies. For example, per the F-List: "Richard Edelman has been named as one of the Guardian’s top climate villains..." with 10+ oil/gas clients, and in May Edelman re-upped Shell. FTI Consulting has more than a dozen ranging from ExxonMobil to ConocoPhillips; and Weber Shandwick has at least 9 including the American Chemistry Council, BP and ExxonMobil. So many firms are ethical and strive to help our planet while others continue to prioritize profit over planet. Do Better. Valentina Saffioti, Ellen Ormesher, emily porro, Eleanor Hawkins, Kathryn Lundstrom, Amy Westervelt, Robert McFaul, Sarah Finnie, Lucy von Sturmer, Liz Judge, Quinn Daly, Jacob Simon, Francois Rogers, Michael Poland, Trillia Fidei-Bagwell, Dr. Manish Kumar, Gaia Arzilli, Nathália Clark, Carrie Ellen Phillips, Lucy Shea, Solitaire Townsend, Kirsty Leighton, Whitney Dailey, Jamie Inman, Keith Zakheim, Tolmeia Gregory, Christine Arena, Belinda Noble, Costanza Rinaldi, Duncan Meisel, Ingmar Rentzhog, Maria Dahrieh, Laura Ranzato

Lifting the veil on corporate climate lobbying: In 2023, Just Share and amaBhungane filed a series of access to information requests to try to establish the extent of corporate climate lobbying in South Africa. The responses demonstrate that closed-door engagement between government officials and private business on climate policy is common practice. We also discovered a lamentable lack of record-keeping about these engagements. International research has identified corporate climate lobbying in South Africa as a significant threat to effective national climate change policy. “Corporate climate lobbying” refers to efforts by the fossil fuel industry and its industry associations to delay and weaken government efforts to respond to the climate crisis, and to shape policy to suit their own interests instead of those of the broader public.  In 2023, in an effort to discover just how deep this lobbying goes, Just Share and amaBhungane submitted a series of access to information requests, in accordance with the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), asking government and industry stakeholders for details of any closed-door meetings between corporates or their representatives, and policymakers, relating to climate and energy policy. The outcomes of our PAIA requests reveal not only that this lobbying is taking place, but also that there appears to be no attempt to record or preserve the nature or outcomes of these discussions. At best this is evidence of worrying levels of disorganisation. At worst, it represents a disturbing resistance to accountability and transparency on an issue of crucial public importance. The PAIA requests The right of access to information is protected in the Constitution, as is the right to an environment that is not harmful to health or well-being. Transparency about the extent to which industry players are meeting policymakers behind closed doors to stall or weaken climate-related policy, or to shape it to their advantage, is clearly in the public interest.  Our PAIA requests were sent to Sasol, South Africa’s biggest private carbon emitter and a key player in influencing government climate policy; three industry associations active in relation to energy policy: Business Unity SA (BUSA), the Minerals Council of South Africa, and the Energy Council of South Africa (ECSA); and to the departments of mineral resources and energy (DMRE), forestry, fisheries and the environment (DFFE), National Treasury and the Presidency.  The requests sought records relating to any government-industry engagements between 1 January 2021 and the date of response (about three years) on climate matters, including the agendas for and minutes of such meetings, and supporting documents such as follow-up letters, presentations and policy recommendations. Our experience with the practicalities of the requests made it clear that the PAIA process is crying out for review…

With the increasing focus on corporate climate disclosures, a strong CDP score highlights your organization’s commitment to sustainability and transparency. Here’s how to integrate CDP into your climate reporting strategy. #CDPreporting #sustainability #climatereporting

With the increasing focus on corporate climate disclosures, a strong CDP score highlights your organization’s commitment to sustainability and transparency. Here’s how to integrate CDP into your climate reporting strategy. #CDPreporting #sustainability #climatereporting

The Hill, "Hold Azerbaijan accountable before it hosts the next UN Climate Conference,” by Alex Little, 4/22/2024 "Azerbaijan was selected last year as the host country for the upcoming United Nations Climate Conference (known as COP29), which takes place in November. This follows a trend of repressive petrostates facilitating the conference, as Egypt held COP27 and the United Arab Emirates held COP28. The U.N. advocates for an approach to climate change centered around human rights. Yet given Azerbaijan’s questionable commitments to preserving the environment and its repressive approach to governance, activists, journalists and others have voiced their skepticism of the U.N.’s choice to hold COP29 in the capital city of Baku. "Azerbaijan history with the petroleum industry dates back to the 19th century. Azerbaijan developed the world’s first mechanically drilled oil wells in 1846 at Bibiheybat in the Baku region. The Soviet Union accelerated the development of the oil industry in the region, as, in 1951, the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic became the site of the world’s first offshore oil platform. In the 1960s, Azerbaijan discovered several new oil and gas fields that doubled the country’s oil and tripled its natural gas resources. "Since the county’s independence in 1991, Baku has leveraged Azerbaijan’s extensive gas reserves, working with international companies like BP to provide gas to global markets. Following the onset of the Ukraine War, when Europe pivoted away from Russian energy, Azerbaijan stepped up, promising to double its gas exports to Europe by 2027. "Oil and gas exports currently account for about 90 percent of Azerbaijan’s exports and 60 percent of the state budget. According to the International Energy Agency, oil and gas account for more than 98 percent of Azerbaijan’s total energy supply. Moreover, despite its rhetoric about managing environmental impacts, Azerbaijan’s flagship state-owned energy company, SOCAR, holds one of the lowest places in the Oil and Gas Benchmark Ranking of the World Benchmarking Alliance. .. "Accompanying Baku’s reliance on fossil fuels is its abysmal human rights record. In its “Freedom in the World 2024” report, Freedom House categorizes Azerbaijan as “not free,” scoring 7 out of 100... Political rights are practically nonexistent. Issues related to freedom have turned for the worse after Baku’s ethnic cleansing of Armenians from the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region. .. "Azerbaijan’s environmental and anti-corruption activists have been affected by government repression. In the past year, reports have circulated of Azerbaijani police having detained, beaten, threatened or obstructed the work of several journalists reporting on environmental protests. .. "COP29 must not be allowed to be a prestige-building opportunity for a regime that continues to silence the voices of its free thinkers.”