The picture shifted when they were asked about risks over a 10-year horizon; climate change then loomed as the greatest threat. The reality is that the short- and long-term threats identified in the report are all related.  

The worsening climate crisis requires strong policy action by governments that in turn are acting in an environment in which misinformation is clouding clear consensus from the scientific community on climate. Misleading, strategic communications in this sphere are part of a wider program, spearheaded by the fossil fuel value chain – including some of the largest representatives of the gas and oil companies worldwide – to delay government action. Despite this, non-fossil-fuel companies are beginning to raise their voices in recognition that government action is needed to develop greener business models. But, to make more progress,​​ we need to have a clear understanding of the tactics that ​make the fossil fuel sector so successful in holding back action on climate policy.  

Last year, ​InfluenceMap ​​uncovered revealing ​strategy documents that have since been removed from the website of the International Gas Union ​(​IGU), which describe themselves as the spokesperson for the gas industry worldwide, representing 150-plus groups and 90% of the global gas market.  

The documents stated that climate represents an “existential threat to the gas value chain” and went on to describe the IGU’s two-pronged approach. First, to focus their narrative efforts on dispelling concerns about gas as a fossil fuel, separate from coal and oil, while defending and enhancing the role of gas. Second, they would concentrate their considerable lobbying efforts to delay or stop any climate-related government policy that would have a negative impact on the gas business. They made it clear that they intend to achieve these goals by using their considerable resources to tap into a sophisticated communications network that seeks to influence key thought leaders and to exploit social and other media to “promote positive sentiment toward, and broaden the definition of gas.”  

The IGU laid out a list of priority targets, including financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian, African and Islamic development banks; the UN climate summit (COP) process; non-governmental organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Rocky Mountain Institute; and think tanks and data providers such as McKinsey and Boston Consulting Group.  

InfluenceMap data shows how the IGU’s 150-plus members, including oil majors and national-level gas industry associations, have implemented this strategy globally. In Europe, communications strategies appear to focus on the “greening of gas,” in which “fossil gas” is presented as part of a broader category of “gases” that includes “low-carbon” and “decarbonized” gas. In Africa, parts of Asia and South America, communications focus on the issues of energy poverty and air pollution and how gas can solve them.  

The IGU and the wider fossil fuel sector has been successful at delaying climate action using these tactics for three reasons.  

First, they are collaborative. They are willing to sideline the competitive issues they have, and they lobby and communicate collectively, using one strategy and voice.  

Second, the fossil fuel industry sees climate as an existential threat not so much to the planet as to its sector, and therefore, it’s sharply focused on its goal of stopping any government policy that would adversely affect its business.   

Finally, the sector has built considerable institutional infrastructure around climate-policy influencing over the last few decades, targeting the capture of organizations noted in the IGU list and also co-opting cross-sector business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This is in addition to their own powerful industry groups, like the American Petroleum Institute.  

Funding is not necessarily the key to these successes. Clearly, larger fortunes exist elsewhere – in tech, finance and beyond. But this funding is not being deployed collaboratively, or with the razor-sharp focus on influencing policy that is required. In addition, climate-policy advocates are starting from behind, as the fossil fuel’s lobbying infrastructure has been years in the making and is both expensive and difficult to replicate quickly. 

However, things are changing fast. There is reason to believe we are seeing the beginning of the end of fossil fuel dominance over governments’ climate agendas globally. Non-fossil-fuel companies are waking up to the need for governments to act on climate. The rest of the corporate sector, which has made strong climate commitments, has a key ally – that is, the scientific consensus around climate solutions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is getting ever more specific about the role of  renewables and electric vehicles in society, as well as climate solutions like carbon capture.  

The consensus is clear. Fossil fuels need to be phased out and renewables scaled up. The positive corporate climate movement needs to be more collaborative and more strategic, using science-based narratives to its advantage. Armed with the truth, focused and collaborating effectively, the businesses of the future can prevail.  

Dylan Tanner is the executive director of InfluenceMap, an independent climate think tank. 

The post The backroom corporate battle for science-based climate policy appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The window to take action on climate change is closing. The global scientific community now has the official backing of hundreds of government and business leaders who agree that we must transition to a net-zero-carbon economy, and yet getting strong climate regulations in place has proven a challenge.

While binding policy has been proposed by governments globally over the last decades (the European Union’s Emissions Trading System, the United States’ Clean Power Plan, etc.), it has invariably suffered dilution and outright opposition from powerful associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, BusinessEurope and the Japan Business Federation. The result is that 25 years after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, scant climate regulations of the kind now needed are in place anywhere in the world.

This year, Corporate Knights launched the Earth Index, which measures the speed at which countries (by sector) are reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions relative to the speed required to deliver on their commitments. The findings were damning: taking the G20 countries together, emissions actually went up in 2019, where they continue to sit now after a short-lived dip in 2020.

A central reason for this state of affairs is that industry associations have long played a detrimental role in blocking climate policy. This opposition persists, albeit with more nuanced language and tactics. Most recently, the climate elements of the Build Back Better budgetary package were strongly opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the EU’s Fit for 55 remains the target of dilutionary lobbying by European big business.

Perplexingly, the negative climate-policy engagement of many industry associations contrasts sharply with the current top-line messaging from the corporate sector, with more than a quarter of the world’s publicly traded companies (by market capitalization) now signed up to the Business Ambition for 1.5°C campaign. And more than a third have made net-zero commitments in line with climate science. Corporate sector leadership, both in the real economy and the financial sector, is needed to remedy the glaring disconnect between the activities of industry associations with their members’ own public statements and strategies.

Reforming the climate-policy stances of these powerful groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would allow policy-makers the room to act on climate. Without the support of these groups (or at least cessation of opposition), governments will not be able to make progress on the binding policy the scientific community says is necessary. Powerful corporate forces in tech, finance, healthcare and clean energy, among others, need to lead the charge to reform their own associations.

Perplexingly, the negative climate-policy engagement of many industry associations contrasts sharply with the current top-line messaging from the corporate sector.

This is not a minority position limited to activist groups. Investors are also demanding reform of negative climate-policy influencing, and they expect corporations to drive that reform. InfluenceMap’s work tracking this policy-engagement activity (through the LobbyMap platform) informs the largest investor engagement program in history – the Climate Action 100+ process, whose signatories represent over 700 global investors who are responsible for more than US$68 trillion in assets under management across 33 markets. A key demand of this shareholder collective targeting the 160 most climate-important companies is reform of policy engagement. This message also applies to all major corporations outside of the fossil-fuel value chain.

With the right data-driven road map, the corporate sector can collectively lead and act as a matter of urgency to close the gap between industry associations’ climate-negative positioning and the many corporations’ positive support for addressing climate change. The question is: what is the right approach?

The power of industry associations relies on their ability to claim to represent their members. Public disagreements among members are proven to weaken industry association positions. However, efforts by individual companies to influence industry associations or to go it alone on their own climate-related government relations, while pioneering, have not led to the reform needed to advance climate policy at pace.

There are a few different paths for action now. Trailblazing companies could bring attention to the disconnect between their climate ambitions and their industry associations’ contrary positions. Or they might work together to develop and promote shared climate-positive government-relations strategies ahead of key policy decisions to counter industry associations’ blocking positions.

Another route might be to influence the thinking and positioning of industry associations from the inside, something that so far has not been visibly effective, but there are new developments that suggest this approach can have an impact. More collective and concerted effort in this direction could lead to shifts in power that open new opportunities for positive collaboration with industry associations.

At the heart of whatever route is taken is collective action. Our goal is to ensure that robust data is shared and understood, and to help facilitate that first step toward change by bringing corporate leaders together and enabling them to act together. Keep your eye out for forthcoming research from InfluenceMap and Corporate Knights that will help set the table for what comes next.

The post Corporations must change climate obstructionist industry associations from within appeared first on Corporate Knights.