This page unpacks the key terms within this concept and overviews how InfluenceMap's LobbyMap platform assess corporate and industry performance on it.
Policy engagement is an umbrella term for activities used to try to inform or influence government policy. A 2013 report issued by a group of UN agencies, The Guide for Responsible Corporate Engagement in Climate Policy, outlines a range of different types of activity used by companies to exert influence over government policymaking on climate change. These includes efforts to influence the wider public and political discourse on climate and the climate policy agenda (e.g. PR, advertising, political donations), as well as the specific details of the how regulations are implemented. (e.g. direct interactions with regulators).
Importantly, climate policy engagement can be 'direct' or 'indirect' via third parties. Third parties may include any individual or organization that is involved in policy engagement activities as an intermediary or on behalf of a company, including industry associations, consultants, government relations firms or PR agencies.
Note this definition is broader than many commonly perceived concepts of the term ‘lobbying’ which often is limited to direct interactions with policy makers/regulators.
The term Science-Aligned Climate Policy defines policy pathways that are aligned with the global scientific consensus on what is required to deliver the Paris Agreement’s target of limiting global temperature rise to as close to 1.5°C as possible.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which synthesizes the latest scientific research and identifies areas of agreement across a range of climate-related policy topics, can be considered the definitive resource for science-aligned climate policy.
The policymaker summary of the IPCC’s 2023 AR6 Synthesis report provides a broad synthesis of recent IPCC reporting, while the summary and sector-by-sector analysis within the IPCC’s 2022 Working Group III report on the Mitigation of Climate Change provides more detail on the developments needed to achieve long-term emission targets. Other resources, like the 2021 IEA’s Net-Zero RoadMap and 2023 update, can provide useful supplementary guidance.
To assess whether companies are supporting or opposing science-aligned climate policy, the LobbyMap system uses Science-Based Benchmarks, drawn directly from the research and analysis of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
An entity's position on a particular climate policy issue is compared to the relevant IPCC benchmark. Strong alignment between the entity's position and the benchmark indicates strong support for Science-aligned climate policy in that area.
Some examples of what constitutes Science-Aligned Climate Policy Engagement are provided below, drawn from the LobbyMap's Science-Based benchmarks.
Strong alignment with the IPCC’s science-based guidance would be achieved by supporting stringent intervention to remove fossil gas from the energy mix and power sector, and emphasizing that remaining fossil gas should be dependent on clear conditions for CCS deployment and stringent methane emissions abatement.
Strong alignment with the IPCC’s science-based guidance on the role of coal in 1.5C pathways is achieved by strong support for policy and governance frameworks to ensure swift removal of unabated coal from the energy mix in line with IPCC guidance for a 90% reduction of coal in the energy mix between 2019-2050.
Strong alignment with the IPCC’s science-based guidance, is achieved by supporting stringent intervention to reduce oil from the energy mix and power sector. Such positions must recognize the rapid reduction of oil (ideally before 2050) and incentives associated with oil production, such as subsidies. It will also strongly oppose any new investment in oil infrastructure such as new exploration, leases, refineries, and pipelines.
Strong alignment with the IPCC’s science-based guidance would be achieved by supporting a rapid transition to renewables across the global energy system in line with IPCC guidance for 2030 (around 25-30% of primary energy) and 2050 (around 60% of primary energy). This includes a particular robust shift to renewables in electricty production (between around 60 and 98% by 2050). Statements can achieve positive scores if they advocate for efforts to increase the share of renewables in the energy mix and transition toward a renewables-dominated power sector by 2030. Expressing support for stringent policy interventions to incentivize the uptake of renewable energy will also score positively.
Strong alignment with the IPCC’s science-based guidance on the decarbonization of the automotive sector is achieved by recognizing the urgent need to accelerate vehicle electrification globally and phase out ICE-powered vehicles (both LDV and HDV). This would include support for high-level goals and targets (e.g. ICE phase-out dates and ZEV mandates), as well as specific policies, measures or investments.
Strong alignment with the IPCC’s science-based guidance on the aviation sector is achieved by entities supporting regulatory measures to promote a transition to synthetic fuels and/or electric and hydrogen-power from bio-based SAFs in the medium to long-term. Positions on hydrogen-power must be aligned with IPCC guidance on the need to transition to green hydrogen.
