BP

InfluenceMap Score
D
Performance Band
52%
Organisation Score
45%
Relationship Score
Modifications to InfluenceMap Scoring
Sector:
Energy
Head​quarters:
London, United Kingdom
Brands and Associated Companies
Castrol, AMPM, Wild Bean Cafe, Aral
Official Web Site:
Wikipedia:

Climate Lobbying Overview: BP appears actively engaged on climate and energy policy. BP’s top line statements on climate change appear to have improved since 2015, especially in 2020 with the arrival of the new CEO Bernard Looney. However, engagement with detailed climate policy and regulation appears to remain mixed.

Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: In February 2020, BP released its new ambition which included to ‘help the world get to net zero’. In 2020, BP supported the city of Houston’s (U.S) climate plan to reduce the city’s GHG emissions to zero by 2050. In 2020, BP has also called on government to ‘press ahead’ with commitments to tackle climate change in the wake of COVID-19, including the UK government, which BP stated should align its COVID-19 recovery plans with the UK’s legislated target of net zero emissions by 2050. This appears to mark a change from BP’s previous advocacy on net zero emissions reductions. For example, in October 2018, responding to an EU consultation, BP did not appear to support increasing the region’s 2050 GHG emissions reduction contribution.

A similar change in direction can be seen regarding the company’s position on the need for climate change regulation. As part of the company’s 2020 ambitions statement (Feb 2020), BP has stated that it would advocate for policies that support net zero. In contrast, in 2018, former BP CEO Bob Dudley thanked the Trump administration for the “avalanche of regulations” that have been reduced or removed.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: Under the previous CEO, Bob Dudley, BP actively lobbied the US Administration between 2016-2018 for the repeal or rollback of various methane emission requirements. Additionally, BP spent over $13m in 2018 to oppose carbon pricing regulation in the US state of Washington which would have placed a $15 fee on every ton of CO2 produced. This was despite public communications that BP supported either emissions trading or carbon taxes. As part of the company’s 2020 ambitions statement (Feb 2020), released under the current CEO Bernard Looney, BP has stated that it would advocate for policies that support net zero, including carbon pricing. In September 2020, BP formed a business coalition advocating East Coast states to enact the Transportation and Climate Initiative, a carbon pricing initiative targeting emissions from the transport sector. However, BP stated in its current ‘Carbon Pricing Principles’ that a carbon price should then limit future additional climate policies to correcting market failures.

On GHG emissions reduction policies, BP has a mixed engagement. The company has lobbied positively for methane emissions regulation, although with caveats: In 2019, BP advocated the US Environmental Protection Agency to retain federal methane regulations, however, added that methane emissions regulations must not place an unreasonable burden on companies or consumers. It is also worth noting that in 2017-2018, BP lobbied to weaken and repeal methane regulations in the US. Additionally, in May 2020, BP, in conjunction with a number of other companies including Shell and Total, submitted methane policy recommendations to the EU and advocated for government policy to regulate methane emissions. The recommendations suggested an intensity-based standard, rather than an absolute limit on emissions, and for compliance flexibilities.

BP’s lobbying on GHG emissions legislation predominately focuses on methane. However, in 2019, BP lobbied to oppose new GHG emissions reduction requirement added by the Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority to the planning approval process.

Positioning on Energy Transition: BP has publicly offered support for a ‘rapid transition to a lower carbon future’ in 2020 and support for emerging low carbon technologies. In 2020, BP has supported letters written by the Energy Transition Commission and the Corporate Leaders Group to support investment into low carbon innovation in order to aid the “transition of fossil fuel industry”. However, this follows BP’s active lobbying for increased oil and gas development, including measures to facilitate increased development in 2017-2018. Furthermore, in 2019 the company lobbied the Trump Administration to allow oil and gas drilling in two previously protected areas of the Alaskan Artic. In 2020 BP has specified the world must focus on reducing emissions rather than addressing the energy mix specifically, suggesting BP’s preference is to rely on the development of potential future technologies to reduce fossil fuel emissions (e.g. CCS) rather than move away from fossil fuels in the energy mix. BP also continues to promote a long-term role for gas in the energy mix on its corporate website in 2020. BP does state the need for decarbonizing gas and methane regulations alongside, although without clear conditions and timelines attached.

Industry Association Governance: As part of the company’s 2020 ambitions statement (Feb 2020), BP stated it would set new expectations for relationships with trade associations, including being prepared to leave misaligned associations. In 2020, BP left American Fuels and Petroleum Manufacturers and the Western States Petroleum Association. BP also outlined its on-going engagement with five “partially aligned” associations (American Petroleum Institute, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, National Association of Manufacturers, US Chamber of Commerce, and Australian Institute of Petroleum). However still a member of these which continue with obstructive climate lobbying plus others negative groups it has judged to be aligned with including, Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, Business Council of Australia, and FuelsEurope.

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
Main Web Site Social Media CDP Responses Legislative Consultations Media Reports CEO Messaging Financial Disclosures EU Register
Communication of Climate Science
1 1 NS NS NS NS NS NA
Alignment with IPCC on Climate Action
0 1 NA 0 1 0 NS NA
Supporting the Need for Regulations
0 0 NS 0 1 0 NS NA
Support of UN Climate Process
1 1 NS NS 1 1 NS NA
Transparency on Legislation
0 NA -2 NA NA NA NS NA
Carbon Tax
0 0 NS -1 0 0 0 NA
Emissions Trading
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 NA
Energy and Resource Efficiency
0 -1 NS -2 NS 1 NS NA
Renewable Energy
NS 0 NS 0 0 0 NS NA
Energy Transition & Zero Carbon Technologies
0 0 NS 0 0 0 -1 NA
GHG Emission Regulation
0 0 NS 0 0 1 NS NA
Disclosure on Relationships
0 NS -2 NA NA NA NS NA
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
37%
 
37%
 
43%
 
43%
 
44%
 
44%
 
73%
 
73%
 
67%
 
67%
 
22%
 
22%
 
31%
 
31%
 
46%
 
46%
 
37%
 
37%
 
39%
 
39%
 
23%
 
23%
 
52%
 
52%
 
46%
 
46%
 
45%
 
45%
 
23%
 
23%
 
41%
 
41%
 
36%
 
36%
 
50%
 
50%
 
75%
 
75%
 
55%
 
55%
 
45%
 
45%
 
29%
 
29%
 
73%
 
73%
 
44%
 
44%
 
23%
 
23%
 
47%
 
47%
 
81%
 
81%
 
38%
 
38%
 
39%
 
39%

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.