Despite the CA100+ initiative having clear expectations on Paris-aligned lobbying, only 2 of the 31 CA100+ target companies found to be engaging on the taxonomy appear to be supportive of its science-based guidance with 4 companies advocating mixed or unclear positions, leaving more than 80% pushing the Commission to weaken the criteria that define what can be considered sustainable.
Engagement with companies over their lobbying practices is now firmly on the investor agenda on climate change. Investor expectations, formalized by investor-representatives such as the PRI, IIGCC, and Ceres, require companies to adopt Paris-aligned climate lobbying positions. Company commitments reflecting this are covered by high-level indicators under the CA100+'s Net-Zero Company Benchmark.
The EU's Sustainable Finance Taxonomy (the taxonomy) is a science-based policy to define which economic activities can make a substantial contribution to achieving the bloc's net-zero by 2050 goal. Therefore, support or opposition to this guidance can be seen as a good test of a company's commitment to Paris-aligned lobbying.
Some companies with commitments to conduct their lobbying in line with the Paris Agreement, according to the CA100+ benchmark indicators, have nonetheless lobbied to weaken the taxonomy's science-based criteria. BP and Eni have both advocated for more lenient thresholds for natural gas. BMW and LafargeHolcim, have both advocated for delaying taxonomy-aligned corporate reporting.
The CA100+ companies that appear to be the most highly engaged on the taxonomy are CEZ, EDF, Engie, Fortum, PGE and Repsol. These companies have all been actively lobbying for weaker criteria for their activities.
Iberdrola and Enel appear to be the only CA100+ companies that have broadly advocated in favor of the science-based thresholds. This has included signing open letters supporting the maintenance of the gas and hydrogen criteria against a backdrop of oppositional lobbying.
InfluenceMap is a non-profit think tank providing objective and evidence-based analysis of how companies and financial institutions are impacting the climate and biodiversity crises. Our company profiles and other content are used extensively by a range of actors including investors, the media, NGOs, policymakers, and the corporate sector. InfluenceMap does not advocate or take positions on government policy. All our assessments are made against accepted benchmarks, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Our content is open source and free to view and use (https://influencemap.org/terms).
