Rio Tinto Group
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
|
NS | NS |
2
|
1
|
NS | NS | NA | |
|
Climate Science Stance
Is the organization supporting the science of climate change and the response demanded (as per the IPCC) |
0
|
0
|
NA |
0
|
1
|
NS | NS | NA | |
|
Need for Climate Regulation
To what extent does the organization express the need for climate policy and regulations in general. |
0
|
NS | NS |
-1
|
1
|
-1
|
NS | NA | |
|
UN Treaty Support
Is the organization supporting a global treaty on climate change and the UN FCCC process? |
1
|
1
|
NA |
1
|
1
|
1
|
NS | 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
|
-2
|
-1
|
-1
|
-2
|
-2
|
NS | NA | |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
0
|
0
|
0
|
-1
|
1
|
1
|
NS | NA | |
|
Energy Efficiency Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Energy efficiency standards and targets |
NS |
0
|
-1
|
-2
|
-2
|
NS | NS | NA | |
|
Renewable Energy Legislation
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy targets, subsidies and legislation. |
-1
|
-1
|
NS |
-2
|
-1
|
-1
|
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
|
NS |
-1
|
0
|
0
|
NS | NA | |
|
GHG Emission Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. |
0
|
NS |
-1
|
-1
|
NS | NS | 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
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior executive of Rio Tinto Group was previously on the Board of IFIEC. Now retains membership of steering committee of IFIEC french member association UNIDEN.
Jean-Paul Aghetti
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior executive of Rio Tinto Group was previously on the Board of IFIEC. Now retains membership of steering committee of IFIEC french member association UNIDEN.
Jean-Paul Aghetti
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.
Rio Tinto is actively engaged on climate and energy policy. Whilst the company has made various top-line statements in support of action on climate, these appear not to be aligned either with the companies’ detailed lobbying positions, or the lobbying of its trade associations. Rio Tinto has supported a 2°C goal as well as the UN Climate Treaty and urged the US President Trump to stay in the agreement in 2017. However, in 2018, Rio Tinto suggested the New Zealand Government remove GHG emission targets from the Zero Carbon Bill on the grounds that is was potentially politically divisive. Additionally, in 2018, Rio Tinto supported weakening the Safeguard Mechanism in Australia. In the past, Rio Tinto has taken oppositional positions on carbon taxes and emissions trading policy. In 2018, the company stated it supported a market-based price on carbon, with the caveat that the carbon price becomes effective only “when global competitiveness is safeguarded.” In 2017, Rio Tinto Head of Environment and Climate Change, Matthew Bateson, publicly stated support for a national Chinese emissions trading scheme and policy to transition away from coal. However, the company appears not to have supported stronger carbon pricing regulation both in British Columbia and New Zealand in 2018. In 2019, Rio Tinto has also disclosed that it has contributed to submissions produced by the Industry Task Team on Climate Change (ITTCC) regarding a proposed carbon tax in South Africa. The ITTCC is strongly opposed to the South African carbon tax. Rio Tinto’s 2018 sustainability report stated support for increased electrification of transport and a shift away from fossil fuels. However, in response to a 2017 consultation response on Australia’s electricity system, the company also advocated that new coal plants be built to improve reliability and reduce the costs. Additionally in 2019, Rio Tinto emphasised the cost of the energy transition to New Zealand’s economy and argued that more stringent carbon measures in NZ “would not benefit the world or reduce global emissions”. Rio Tinto has high level membership to various trade associations globally that have been successful in opposing policy progress on a transition towards a low carbon energy mix, including the Minerals Council of Australia, the Queensland Resources Council, and the Business Council of Australia in Australia and the National Mining Association and US Chamber of Commerce in the US.