AGL Energy
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.
Relationship Score, December 2020
A new batch of industry associations has been uploaded onto the InfluenceMap system and the relationship scores recalculated accordingly.
Updated terminology, February 2021
We adjusted the terminology used to describe the queries running down the left-hand side of our scoring matrix and added additional explanatory text to the info-boxes. This has no impact on the scores and methodology. It has been done following user feedback to improve clarity.
- 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. . |
|
|
Communication of Climate Science
Is the organization transparent and clear about its position on climate change science? |
1
|
NS | NA |
2
|
NS |
2
|
NS |
|
Alignment with IPCC on Climate Action
Is the organization supporting the science-based response to climate change as set out by the IPCC? (the IPCC) |
1
|
NS | NA |
2
|
1
|
1
|
NS |
|
Supporting the Need for Regulations
To what extent does the organization express the need for regulatory intervention to resolve the climate crisis? |
0
|
1
|
NS |
1
|
NS | NS | NS |
|
Support of UN Climate Process
Is the organization supporting the UN FCCC process on climate change? |
1
|
1
|
NS |
-1
|
1
|
1
|
NS |
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation transparent about its positions on climate change legislation/policy and its activities to influence it? |
1
|
NA |
2
|
NA | NA | NA | NS |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
0
|
-1
|
NS |
0
|
0
|
-1
|
NS |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
2
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
NS |
1
|
NS |
|
Energy and Resource Efficiency
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy efficiency policy, standards, and targets |
0
|
NS |
1
|
2
|
NS | NS | NS |
|
Renewable Energy
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy legislation, targets, subsidies, and other policy |
0
|
1
|
1
|
-1
|
-1
|
0
|
NS |
|
Energy Transition & Zero Carbon Technologies
Is the organization supporting an IPCC-aligned transition of the economy away from carbon-emitting technologies, including supporting relevant policy and legislative measures to enable this transition? |
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
NS |
|
GHG Emission Regulation
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Standards, targets, and other regulatory measures directly targeting Greenhouse Gas emissions |
0
|
NS |
1
|
0
|
0
|
NS | NS |
|
Disclosure on Relationships
Is the organization transparent about its involvement with industry associations that are influencing climate policy, including the extent to which it is aligned with these groups on climate? |
1
|
NS |
1
|
NA | NA | NA | NS |
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Brett Redman, Chief Executive of AGL Energy, is Chair of the Board of Directors of the Australian Energy Council
Brett Redman
Open PDF file of Data Source
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Brett Redman, Chief Executive of AGL Energy, is Chair of the Board of Directors of the Australian Energy Council
Brett Redman
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.
Climate Lobbying Overview: AGL Energy appears to be broadly supporting progressive climate policy at state and federal level in Australia, and shows active engagement in this area. However, AGL Energy has shown mixed support for specific policy measures to facilitate the energy transition and its position on the long-term role for fossil fuels in the energy mix appears to not be aligned with IPCC guidelines.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: AGL Energy’s top-line messaging on climate policy appears to be broadly supportive of ambitious climate action in Australia. In April 2018, the company has declared support for Victoria’s state target to reach net zero emissions by 2050, and in May 2020 it accepted that a mixture of government regulations and market-based policies are needed to achieve this. The company has also stated support for Australia’s participation in the Paris Agreement, for example, in August 2019.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: AGL Energy appears to show mostly positive support for specific policies to respond to climate change, with some exceptions. For example, in the first half of 2020, the company appeared to strongly support state-based energy efficiency targets and schemes in Australia, such as those in New South Wales and Victoria. This follows an AGL submission from July 2018 where it advocated for federal policymakers to introduce vehicle efficiency standards. In April 2018, AGL also supported emissions trading, with the caveat that it should not delay the decarbonization of the Australian economy. In May 2020, AGL expressed support for the Emissions Reduction Fund and supported broadening it to facilitate emissions reductions in other sectors.
However, AGL in September 2018 supported reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism that could arguably weaken the ambition of the policy, by allowing annually updated baselines that allowed facilities to emit more whilst remaining under the emissions cap. In the same submission, AGL appeared to oppose extending the requirements of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting legislation to include Scope 3 emissions.
Positioning on Energy Transition: Although AGL Energy has expressed top-line support for the transition of the energy mix, stating in August 2018 that “decarbonization is a fundamental imperative”, it has shown mixed support for specific policy measures intended to aid this transition. For example, in November 2020, the company appeared to oppose the Energy Infrastructure Investment Plan in New South Wales, a major reform plan intended to accelerate the transition to clean energy, with CEO Brett Redman claiming the bill had delayed construction of new energy infrastructure in the state. AGL Energy also appears to support a long-term role for gas in the energy mix, which may not be fully aligned with IPCC guidance.
On the other hand, the company appears to have supported ambitious policies for the electrification of transport, stating support in its 2019 CDP disclosure for a national electric vehicle (EV) target and tax exemptions for EVs.
Industry Association Governance: AGL Energy has disclosed its membership of industry associations actively lobbying on climate policy and published a review of its industry association memberships to assess alignment on climate change policy in May 2020. However, this review lacked detail regarding the climate positions of its industry associations, how alignment was assessed and the framework for addressing potential cases of misalignment. There is evidence that AGL has sought to improve its indirect impact on climate policy: AGL left APPEA and Minerals Council of Australia in 2016 after citing differences in their positioning on climate and energy. It also ended its membership of the Queensland Resources Council in June 2020, again citing differences over views on the energy transition. However, AGL retains membership of the Business Council of Australia which has actively engaged in obstructive lobbying on Australian climate legislation.
A detailed assessment of the company's industry association review can be found on our CA100+ webpage here.