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.
|
QUERIES
|
DATA SOURCES | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents. |
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
Comments from the entity being scored on governmental regulatory consultation processes, including those obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests. |
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 |
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
NA |
|
Need for Climate Regulation
To what extent does the organization express the need for climate policy and regulations in general. |
0
|
NS | NA |
0
|
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 |
1
|
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 |
Open PDF file of Data Source
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
BHP Mitsubishi Alliance Executive is on QRC’s board (Up to date 20th May 2020)
James Palmer
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A senior executive of a BHP subsidiary is on QRC's board
Rag Udd
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
BHP Mitsubishi Alliance Executive is on QRC’s board (Up to date 20th May 2020)
James Palmer
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A senior executive of a BHP subsidiary is on QRC's board
Rag Udd
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
BHP Executive is the Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chair of the Economic Reform Committee
Mike Henry
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
BHP has reviewed its membership of Minerals Council, identifying material differences. However, BHP has concluded that, following a change in MCA's policy positions, that they are now aligned on climate and energy issues.
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Mike Henry, President Operations, Minerals Australia, sits on the MCA board of directors
Mike Henry
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
BHP Executive is the Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chair of the Economic Reform Committee
Mike Henry
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
BHP has reviewed its membership of Minerals Council, identifying material differences. However, BHP has concluded that, following a change in MCA's policy positions, that they are now aligned on climate and energy issues.
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Mike Henry, President Operations, Minerals Australia, sits on the MCA board of directors
Mike Henry
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Exec is char of Safety Committee
David Jenkins
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
BHP Billiton is a direct member of IOGP
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Exec is char of Safety Committee
David Jenkins
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
BHP Billiton is a direct member of IOGP
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Member of the board of directors
Graham Salmond
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A subsidiary of BHP is a member of APPEA
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A senior executive of a subsidiary of BHP Billiton is on the board of APPEA
Mr Graham Salmond
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Member of the board of directors
Graham Salmond
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A subsidiary of BHP is a member of APPEA
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A senior executive of a subsidiary of BHP Billiton is on the board of APPEA
Mr Graham Salmond
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
BHP Executive is on the Board of Directors
Sara Harrison
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior executive BHP Billiton is on the board of MAC
Christopher Ryder
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
BHP Executive is on the Board of Directors
Sara Harrison
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior executive BHP Billiton is on the board of MAC
Christopher Ryder
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 has consistently communicated top-line support for the Paris Agreement and policy action on climate change between 2017-2020. The company's 2020 disclosures state support for a policy framework that includes a "complementary set of measures," focusing on a price on carbon, support for low-emissions technology, and measures to build resilience. This position has been reaffirmed in messaging from the group's leadership. However, other communications from BHP appear to dilute the level of climate policy ambition supported by the company. For example, in consultations submitted to Australian policymakers on climate-motivated policy in 2018 and 2019, BHP has stressed that "Government intervention should be limited to where required to address demonstrated market failure." Furthermore, in 2019, the Australian Financial Times reported that former BHP CEO Andrew Mackenzie communicated support for the use of Kyoto Carry Credits to achieve Australia's climate goals under the Paris Agreement in a private call with investors, a move that would suppress climate ambition in the country. Although BHP was an opponent of the Australian carbon tax in 2014, in 2017-2020 BHP has communicated support for a carbon price that addresses "competitiveness concerns and achieves lowest-cost emission reductions," with CEO Andrew Mackenzie advocating a carbon tax in February 2018. BHP communicated in favour of a price on carbon, along with energy efficiency measures, during the 2017 independent review into the Future of the Australian National Electricity Market and also backed an energy intensity trading scheme. BHP has stated support for a 'technology neutral' approach to emission reductions and communicated opposition to subsidies for either renewable energy or coal-fired energy in 2018. However, while communicating support for an energy transition, BHP has also communicated positions that remain sympathetic to the role of fossil fuels in the future energy mix, including a prolonged role for coal. BHP has also has not supported legislation to support the growth of renewable energy in Australia, advocating in 2017 for a repeal of state-based Australian renewables targets and not supporting post-2020 national renewables targets. BHP has publicly disclosed two reviews of its industry association memberships in 2017 and 2019. The first of 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, while BHP also found material differences with highly oppositional lobby groups, including 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.