InfluenceMap analysis finds that none of the industry associations or companies assessed on its newly released Canada platform are engaging in line with the scientific recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to limit global temperature rise.
Canada’s fuel sector is highly engaged on Canadian climate policy through a combination of detailed policy engagement and nuanced public messaging, likely posing a threat to the progress required for the country to meet its emissions reduction goals.
New and renewed efforts by companies, investors, civil society, and other actors to hold industry associations accountable, increase advocacy from positive corporates, and challenge the strategies of the fossil fuel sector will be critical for tipping the scales of climate policy progress in the region.
Release of the Canada platform corresponds with a critical juncture in Canada’s climate progress. The country remains the fourth largest producer of oil and gas in the world, with a goal of reducing emissions at least 40% below 2005 levels by 2030. The administration is currently setting its sights on finalizing major climate regulations ahead of next year’s election, attracting an influx of corporate advocacy from companies and industry associations across the economy.
InfluenceMap analysis finds that none of the assessed industry associations or companies are engaging in line with the scientific recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to limit global temperature rise.2 In particular, Canada-based industry associations are actively opposed to the country’s climate policy.
Eight of the nine Canada-based associations score a D+ or below on InfluenceMap’s scale of A to E, indicating policy engagement that is misaligned with IPCC recommendations. (See the graph on the industry associations tab of the platform for a comparative visual on how these groups perform).
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce receives a score of D+ for its climate advocacy, boasting “over 400 chambers of commerce and boards of trade and over 200,000 businesses” as its member base. Cross-sector associations can be particularly influential in their climate policy advocacy, as they may claim to represent the entire domestic economy, even when this is not the case. Some members of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, for example – such as Teck Resources, Uber, and the Canadian branches of Technology companies like Google – score higher than the group for their climate policy engagement. Misalignment of this kind is a key concern for investors.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) achieves the lowest score of “E.” CAPP has opposed numerous climate regulations in the country and openly called for “the continued growth of the Canadian oil and natural gas sector.”
In contrast with the highly active associations that represent them, many Canadian companies show low levels of engagement with climate policy, which could indicate a need for reform.
Of the 45 Canada-based companies assessed by InfluenceMap, only six have an “Engagement Intensity” above the 25% threshold that would indicate an active level of advocacy (regardless of positioning). All six are from the oil and gas sector. (See the graph on the companies tab of the platform for a comparative visual on how Canadian companies perform).
While some companies offer high-level climate policy positions that are positive, none of the 45 companies demonstrate policy engagement that is science-aligned. 12 of the 45 are partially aligned, with InfluenceMap Organization Scores between 50 and 74%, and 17 are misaligned with IPCC recommendations.
The remaining 16 companies did not receive an Organization Score due to insufficient levels of transparent engagement with climate policy. Increased positive engagement from companies that offer nominal support for climate ambition, or that have internal climate commitments in need of a supportive policy landscape, is critical to tip the scales in favor of science-aligned climate policy.
Canada’s strategically engaged oil and gas sector likely poses a threat to the policy progress required for the country to meet its emissions reduction goals. Oil and gas entities have advocated to weaken a wide range of federal climate-related policies, such as the Clean Electricity Regulations, methane regulations, and Oil and Gas Emissions Cap.
Oil and gas entities often argue that Canada’s national climate regulations are a case of federal overreach, given 'equivalency agreements' for provincial jurisdiction. CAPP, Cenovus, Enbridge, Pembina Pipeline, and Vermilion all made this argument in relation to the infeasibility of federal methane regulations, as did Enbridge and Capital Power Corporation on other policies such as clean electricity standards.
Corporate advocacy in Canada frequently calls for fiscal incentives to support the energy transition. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, for example, testified to the Standing Committee on International Trade that the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. necessitates similar financial support for “clean” technologies in Canada.
Such seemingly positive requests for “clean” funding generally fail to paint a complete picture of an entity’s advocacy, as they can mask a deeper resistance to climate regulation. For example, CAPP specifically called for an “incentives-based approach” over regulation in September 2022 testimony. Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters (CME) called for investment tax credits for decarbonizing the power sector in February 2024 comments while criticizing the clean electricity regulations aimed at the power three months earlier in November 2023.
In extreme cases, requesting financial support for “low carbon” activities may actually underlie a plan for increased fossil fuel production. As noted in InfluenceMap’s February 2023 report on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), entities such as CAPP often call for expanded CCS financial incentives as a seeming justification to continue or even expand fossil fuel production. (See InfluenceMap’s report for more details on CCS advocacy and relevant IPCC guidance).
Alongside detailed policy advocacy, Canadian oil and gas entities appear to advance strategic public narratives that protect and promote the sector. Following the Russia-Ukraine crisis, CAPP began to argue that Canadian fossil fuels could "help displace foreign and more hostile sources of energy" abroad, a message that has since become common. In November 2023, the Business Council of Canada stated that "responsibly produced" Canadian energy could displace coal abroad, allowing the country to grow its market share. This narrative matches the core message of the Pathways Alliance – that "responsibly produced" Canadian oil allows domestic production to increase and aligns with the energy transition.
Industry advocacy to shape Canada’s energy transition is likely to have global ramifications, with vested interests in other jurisdictions mirroring the tactics and messages of Canada’s fossil fuel sector. Notably, in December 2023, Canada’s Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault described the country’s pivotal emissions reduction proposal – the Oil and Gas Emissions Cap – as “ambitious, but practical.” Perhaps in line with this moderated approach, at the COP28 summit in December 2023, the country was tasked with helping to develop language on the phase down of fossil fuels that is “acceptable to all parties.”
Despite some concerning trends, the analysis contained in this platform offers critical opportunities for action. There is a clear need for companies to push for science-based policies on truly "clean" climate funding with clear, decisive regulations to back up this ambition. Efforts by companies, investors, civil society, and other actors in and outside of Canada to hold industry associations accountable, increase advocacy from positive players, and challenge the strategies of the fossil fuel sector – particularly in its public messaging – could help tip the scales toward climate policy success in the region.
1 Companies and industry associations are prioritized for assessment under InfluenceMap’s global LobbyMap database based on a combination of factors, including size, sector, and external demand such as investor engagement initiatives. In Canada, InfluenceMap assessed all 41 company targets under the Climate Engagement Canada (CEC) investor initiative, and four under the Climate Action 100+ initiative. Please see here for more details on InfluenceMap’s methodology.
2 The LobbyMap methodology assesses the extent to which corporate entities support, or oppose, science-aligned climate policy. Science-aligned climate policy can be understood as the policy pathways highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to deliver the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global temperature rise to well below 2°C, with efforts toward 1.5°C.