The COP28 Corporate Climate Advocacy Landscape

See coverage in The F.T, Edie

Detailed analysis of the overlap of COP28 attendees with InfluenceMap's database reveals strong bias in favor of fossil fuels, but with increasing visibility of positive lobbying.

• Detailed analysis of the COP28 corporate attendee list shows that less than 10% of companies attending the conference have aligned their climate policy engagement with science-based policy (as defined by the IPCC 1.5°C pathways).¹

• Cross-referencing the UNFCCC-disclosed list of registered attendees against InfluenceMap’s database on corporate lobbying² shows the balance in favor of companies whose policy engagement and communications are pushing for policy pathways likely to lock-in warming scenarios in excess of the internationally agreed targets set out by the 2015 Paris Agreement.

• The future of fossil fuels in the global energy mix has become a key battleground at COP28. More than 80 countries are reported to be pushing for stronger language on phasing out GHG-emitting fossil fuels, while countries led by Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China oppose this move. A similar split can be seen within the corporate world, where a powerful minority of very active and influential companies and industry groups are strategically opposing efforts to take action on fossil fuels.

• The companies with more than 10 COP28 delegates that have the most misaligned climate policy engagement include Gazprom, ExxonMobil, ADNOC (the UAE state-owned oil company), and Toyota. Other companies with fewer disclosed delegates at COP28 but that also oppose science-based climate policy action include Chevron, Saudi Aramco, Nippon Steel Corporation, Lufthansa, Glencorea and BASF.

• European oil and gas majors Shell, Equinor, TotalEnergies, and Eni also have significant COP28 contingents and are advocating against science-based policy but with more nuanced positions. For example, these companies often state support for certain forms of climate policy action but continue to advocate strongly in favor of a continued role for fossil fuels in the energy mix on a longer timescale than IPCC guidance.

• Countering this presence of delegates from climate policy-negative companies, there is a smaller density of highly positive and strategically engaged "climate policy leaders" (see our Sept 2023 InfluenceMap report for definition), including IKEA, Iberdrola, and Unilever. These companies and many others signed a letter calling for the phase-out of fossil fuels by the 2040s in the lead up to COP28.

• However, the majority of the world’s largest corporates attending COP28 (52%) - covering sectors like finance, consumer staples, retail, and tech - are not strategically engaged on real economy climate policy at the governmental level.

• Industry associations are also well represented at COP28 and play a critical role in the national climate policy and regulatory process, often engaging more strategically and effectively than individual companies. They could have significant influence over the direction countries take during the negotiation process. The disproportionate representation at COP28 by strategically negative trade groups mirrors InfluenceMap’s analysis of corporate delegates.

• The list of industry association COP28 attendees includes some of the most influential and negative entities covered by the InfluenceMap database, including the American Petroleum Institute (API), the US Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), the Japan Iron and Steel Federation (JISF), Airlines for America (A4A), the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), the Federation of German Industries (BDI), and the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP).

• On the positive side (but as with the corporate analysis, there is less presence and influencing power), another group of organizations attending COP28 are actively seeking to counter fossil fuel value chain influence over the event and are gaining increasing traction. These groups, which generally represent the growing renewable energy sector, include the American Clean Power Association, SolarPower Europe, Wind Europe, the Australian Clean Energy Council, and South African Wind Energy Association.

• The following graphic maps the climate policy engagement scores (horizontal axis) against the intensity of lobbying (vertical axis) by the companies and industry associations in InfluenceMap’s global database that are attending COP28. Companies with clear and active engagement on climate policy with more than 10 delegates at COP28 are indicated with their logos.

• A clear density of misaligned companies with large delegations can be seen in the left quadrant, promoting policy pathways that rely on an extended role for fossil fuels. However, a growing number of companies are now pushing for higher climate ambition and more renewable energy. Companies in the stronger green shaded area are those assessed by InfluenceMap to be leaders in strategic and science-based climate policy advocacy.

• The current dynamic of dominance by fossil fuel-related sectors on climate policy, with limited strategic policy engagement from the rest of the economy, helps to explain the huge gaps in much needed national climate policy frameworks, as set out in the UNFCCC’s Global Stocktake. It also likely explains the relative lack of ambition on fossil fuel phase-out (as compared to IPCC and IEA warnings) around the UNFCCC process to date.

• However, the nascent but growing trend of positive policy engagement looks set to continue, bolstered by the evolution of the UN Secretary General’s HLEG Integrity Matters process, which calls for all credible transition plans to contain an element showing corporate support for science-based climate policy.

Full details of the profiles of all the companies and trade groups used in this research may be found in InfluenceMap’s COP28 Corporate Accountability Platform.