US Chamber of Commerce
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.
| 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? |
0 | -1 | NA | NS | 0 | NS | NA | NA | |
|
Climate Science Stance
Is the organization supporting the science of climate change and the response demanded (as per the IPCC) |
0 | -1 | NA | -2 | NS | -1 | NA | NA | |
|
Need for Climate Regulation
To what extent does the organization express the need for climate policy and regulations in general. |
-1 | -1 | NA | -1 | -2 | -2 | NA | NA | |
|
UN Treaty Support
Is the organization supporting a global treaty on climate change and the UN FCCC process? |
-1 | -1 | NA | -2 | -2 | -2 | NA | NA | |
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation being transparent about their positions on climate change legislation and policy, including CEO statements. |
1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NS | |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
NS | -1 | NA | -2 | -2 | NS | NA | NA | |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
-2 | -1 | NA | NS | -2 | NS | NA | NA | |
|
Energy Efficiency Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Energy efficiency standards and targets |
0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 1 | NS | NA | NA | |
|
Renewable Energy Legislation
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy targets, subsidies and legislation. |
0 | -1 | NA | -2 | 0 | NS | NA | 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. |
-1 | -2 | NA | -1 | -1 | -2 | NA | NA | |
|
GHG Emission Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. |
-1 | -1 | NA | -2 | -1 | -2 | NA | 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 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NS | |
|
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 | |
The US Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) is a powerful and active opponent to meaningful regulation on climate change in the US. Despite releasing a new, nominally positive, high-level climate policy position in 2019 that stresses "inaction is not an option" and recognises the "critical role" of governments in tackling climate change, analysis shows the organisation has maintained a campaign against meaningful climate policy action. In June 2017, the Chamber sponsored research that was used by the Trump Administration to justify pulling out of the Paris Agreement. In December 2018, the US Chamber published a report on the economic cost of the ‘Keep it in the Ground’ movement, claiming that it cost the US “$91.9 billion in domestic economic activity and eliminated nearly 730,000 job opportunities”. In 2019, the organisation wrote a letter to US Senators opposing the proposed Green New Deal. At the same time, the Chamber has lobbied to roll back specific US climate regulations whilst promoting alternate regulatory frameworks that would significantly slow a transition away from a GHG emission-intense energy mix. In 2017, the Chamber lobbied for the exclusion climate change cost considerations in energy policymaking processes, which it called "bad regulatory policy that is embedded in agency programs." The organisation actively worked for the repeal of US Clean Power Plan and has promoted the Trump Administration's far weaker "ACE" rule alternative, including leading legal action against the Obama-era climate policy between 2015 and 2019. In February 2019, the US Chamber further supported the repeal of an EPA rule which tied the construction of new coal plants to the use of carbon capture and storage. In 2017, the US Chamber directly called on policymakers to repeal methane emission regulation. At the same time, the organisation has continuously promoted measures to aid increased offshore, Arctic, and non-conventional oil and gas production. For example, in February 2019, the organisation took further legal action to support the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.