Boeing

InfluenceMap Score
D-
Performance Band
49%
Organisation Score
35%
Relationship Score
Modifications to InfluenceMap Scoring
Sector:
Industrials
Head​quarters:
Chicago, United States
Brands and Associated Companies
McDonnell Douglas, Hawker de Havilland Aerospace, Alteon Training
Official Web Site:
Wikipedia:

Boeing appears to have some engagement with several climate-related policy streams and has communicated a mixed position on measures to reduce emissions from the aviation industry. However, the company retains relationships to a number of powerful industry associations globally actively opposing regulatory intervention on climate, including policy which relates to international aviation.

In its 2020 Environment Report Boeing appears to support the need for emissions reductions, supporting an industry-wide goal of reducing emissions from the sector by 50% by 2050 compared to a 2005 baseline. However, evidence suggests that the company primarily supports voluntary measures at the international (International Civil Aviation Organisation) level to achieve this. These include ICAO fuel efficiency commitments and the market-based offsetting scheme CORSIA. The company has released a number of statements suggesting it’s supporting the introduction of the ICAO’s CORSIA scheme, with a spokesperson for the company stating in 2016 that “We (Boeing) support this market-based carbon-offset system. It’s part of the industry’s strategic plan to reduce carbon emissions — along with technology advances for increasingly more efficient aircraft and operations and sustainable aviation biofuels.”

Aside from these policies, direct disclosure on the company’s climate policy positions is generally poor, with the company indicating in it’s 2019 CDP disclosure that it does not engage with policymakers on matters related to climate change. However, there is evidence that Boeing has taken a position on a number of climate policy streams. For example, evidence suggests that Boeing lobbied against the introduction of a state-level cap and trade system on Oregon in 2019. In the company’s 2020 Environment Report, the company states that it is supporting the development of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs), although this support is primarily in the form of grants and research collaborations and not binding regulation. An exception to this is Boeing’s support for a stronger US Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to encourage the production of sustainable aviation fuels, which is outlined in consultation responses to the US EPA in 2017 and 2018.

Boeing retains board-level membership of the National Association of Manufacturers and is a member of the US Chamber of Commerce, both of which have been highly oppositional to ambitious climate policy in the United States. Similarly, Boeing retains memberships to Keidanren in Japan and the Business Council of Australia, two other powerful cross-sector that have opposed ambitious climate policy in their regions. Boeing is also a strategic partner of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) which has proved highly opposition to ambitious climate policy covering international aviation. Boeing does not have a dedicated disclosure of its membership of trade associations, rather disclosing information regarding its membership of trade associations in a piecemeal fashion through the biographies of company executive officers.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
Main Web Site Social Media CDP Responses Legislative Consultations Media Reports CEO Messaging Financial Disclosures EU Register
Climate Science Transparency
1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NA
Climate Science Stance
0 1 NA NS NS NS NS NA
Need for Climate Regulation
0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NA
UN Treaty Support
NS NS NS NS 1 NS NS NA
Transparency on Legislation
-1 NA -2 NA NA NA NS NA
Carbon Tax
NS NS NA NS NS NS NS NA
Emissions Trading
NS NS NA NS -2 NS NS NA
Energy Efficiency Standards
NS NS NA NS NS NS NS NA
Renewable Energy Legislation
0 0 NA 2 1 NS NS NA
Energy Policy and Mix
NS 1 NA NS 1 NS NS NA
GHG Emission Standards
0 0 NS 0 0 NS NS NA
Disclosure on Relationships
-1 NS -1 NA NA NA NS NA
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
23%
 
23%
 
22%
 
22%
 
48%
 
48%
 
25%
 
25%
 
36%
 
36%
 
45%
 
45%
 
52%
 
52%
 
38%
 
38%

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.