BHP
What do our scores mean?
The organizational score represents the degree to which the organization influencing climate policy and legislation. Corporations also have relationship scores reflecting their links with influencers like trade associations. Both are combined to place the corporation in a performance band. Full details can be found here.
Engagement Intensity
The engagement intensity (EI) is a metric of the extent to which the company is engaging on climate change policy matters, whether positively or negatively. It is a number from 0 (no engagement at all) to 100 (full engagement on all queries/data points). Clearly energy companies are more affected by climate regulations and will have a higher EI than, for example retailers. So an organization’s score should be looked at in conjunction with this metric to gauge the amount of evidence we are using in each case as a basis for scoring. On our scale, an EI of more than 35 indicates a relatively large amount of climate policy engagement.
Time weighting of evidence, June 2018
Evidence pieces in the past will be de-emphasized in our system by application of weightings that favour the most recent evidence pieces. This ensures we capture current rather than past behaviour and will allow the measurement of progress over time of companies and trade groups.
- Details of Organization Score
-
What do the 0,1,2 and NSs, NAs mean?
Each cell in the organization's matrix presents a chance for us to assess each data source against our column of climate change policy queries. We score from -2 to 2, with negative scores representing evidence of obstructive influence. "NA" means "not applicable" and "NS" means "not scored" - that is we did not find any evidence either way. In both cases, the cell's weighting is re-distributed over others. Red and blue cells represent highly interesting negative or positive influence respectively. Full details can be found here.
- Details of Relationship Score
-
What is the Relationship Score
A corporation, as well as its organizational score will have a relationship score. It is computed by aggregating the organizational scores of the Influencers (trade bodies etc.) it has relationships with, weighted by both the strength of these relationships and the relative importance of the Influencers towards climate change policy. Full details can be found here.
| QUESTIONS | SOURCES |
Main Web Site
We search the main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents (e.g. the CSR report). |
Social Media
We search other media and sites funded or controlled by the organization, such as social media (Twitter, Facebook) and direct advertising campaigns of the organization. |
CDP Responses
We assess and score responses to two questions from CDP's climate change information request (12.3 a & 12.3c) related to political influence questions (currently these are not numerically scored by the CDP process). |
Legislative Consultations
Legislative Consultation documents from official government sources. As of July 2015, we consider relevant information originating directly from the US Government and the European Commission other key regions e.g. Australia and Japan. |
Media Reports
Here we search in a consistent manner (the organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
CEO Messaging
Here we search in a consistent manner (the CEO/Chairman, organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
Financial Disclosures
We search 10-K and 20-F SEC filings where available, and non US equivalents where not. . |
EU Register
Information provided by to the voluntary EU Transparency Register. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Climate Science Transparency
Is the organisation being transparent about climate change science? |
2
|
1
|
NA |
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
NA | |
|
Climate Science Stance
Is the organization supporting the science of climate change and the response demanded (as per the IPCC) |
1
|
0
|
NA |
2
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
NA | |
|
Need for Climate Regulation
To what extent does the organization express the need for climate policy and regulations in general. |
1
|
NS |
1
|
2
|
NS | NS | NS | NA | |
|
UN Treaty Support
Is the organization supporting a global treaty on climate change and the UN FCCC process? |
1
|
1
|
NS | NS |
1
|
1
|
2
|
NA | |
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation being transparent about their positions on climate change legislation and policy, including CEO statements. |
0
|
NA |
1
|
NA | NA | NA | NS | NA | |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
NS | NA | |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
0
|
NS |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
NA | |
|
Energy Efficiency Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Energy efficiency standards and targets |
NS | NS |
1
|
-1
|
NS | NS | NS | NA | |
|
Renewable Energy Legislation
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy targets, subsidies and legislation. |
NS | NS | NS |
-2
|
-1
|
-2
|
NS | NA | |
|
Energy Policy and Mix
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy policy and the energy mix. We refer to IPCC thinking on renewables, coal, oil and gas. |
0
|
0
|
-1
|
-1
|
0
|
0
|
-1
|
NA | |
|
GHG Emission Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. |
2
|
0
|
NS |
0
|
-1
|
0
|
NS | NA | |
|
Disclosure on Relationships
The Caring for Climate “inventory” of climate change policy influences: Are companies being transparent about their business associations which may impact climate debate and policy |
0
|
NS |
0
|
NA | NA | NA | NS | NA | |
|
Climate Lobbying Governance
Does the company have strong policy to manage its political activities related to climate change? |
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Open PDF file of Data Source
How to Read our Relationship Score Map
In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party. In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.
BHP is actively lobbying climate and energy policy with a mix of supportive and unsupportive positions. BHP has consistently advocated for both limiting global warming to 2°C and the UN Climate Agreement, with BHP’s CEO Andrew Mackenzie personally asking US President Trump to remain in the agreement in 2017. Although BHP was an opponent of the Australian carbon tax in 2014, in 2017-2018 BHP has supported a carbon price in Australia that addresses “competitiveness concerns and achieves lowest cost emission reductions” , with CEO Andrew Mackenzie advocating a carbon tax in February 2018. In 2017, BHP also backed an Australian energy intensity trading scheme. However, whilst supporting a 'technology neutral' approach to emission reductions, BHP has opposed renewable energy policy in Australia, advocating in 2017 for a repeal of state-based Australian renewables targets and not supporting post-2020 national renewables targets. BHP also appears to have conflicting positions on energy subsidies. Despite Andrew Mackenzie stating opposition to subsidies for either renewable energy or coal-fired energy in 2018, in 2017, BHP appears to have defended a number of fossil fuel subsidies in Australia, including the petroleum resources rent tax, the fuel tax credit and “baseload generation” financial incentives, which in practice would likely subsidize coal plants. BHP has publicly disclosed a review of its trade association memberships, which concluded there were material differences between its position on climate and World Coal Association's, resulting in BHP quitting the group in April 2018. However, whilst BHP also found material differences with highly oppositional lobby groups the US Chamber of Commerce and Minerals Council of Australia, it has elected to retain its memberships and directly engage these groups on their climate and energy policy positions.