Boeing

InfluenceMap Score
D-
Performance Band
46%
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:

Climate Lobbying Overview: Boeing in 2020 appears to have mixed engagement with climate regulation for the aviation sector. Boeing appears to prioritize global climate regulation for aviation, including a CO2 emissions standard for aircraft, at the expense of more ambitious action at a national and regional level. Boeing retains memberships to several powerful industry associations globally actively opposing regulatory intervention on climate, including policy relating to international aviation.

Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: In its 2020 Environment Report, Boeing endorsed the need for GHG emissions reductions for aviation, supporting an industry-wide goal of reducing emissions from the sector by 50% by 2050 compared to a 2005 baseline. It is of note that, according to the IPCC, global net CO2 emissions should reach net zero around 2050 to limit global warming to 1.5°C, rising to 2070 for a 2°C target. In 2020, Boeing also continues to communicate top-line support for the International Civil Aviation Organization’s CORSIA emissions mitigation scheme, under which airlines must buy offsets for emissions beyond average baseline emissions of 2019, and/or use ‘CORSIA eligible’ fuels (a voluntary scheme until 2027). Boeing does not appear to have stated explicit support for the Paris Agreement in 2018-20.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: In 2019-20 Boeing has had mixed engagement with specific climate regulations in the EU and US. In 2020, Boeing led advocacy for the US to certify ICAO’s global CO2 standard for aircraft into US law. However, this support appears to be qualified by major exceptions, urging the US government in a 2020 consultation response not to introduce a more ambitious CO2 standard than set by ICAO, and to delay the regulatory standard-setting date for certain aircraft.

In the US, Boeing appears to have lobbied against the Oregon cap and trade system in 2019 arguing it would “significantly increase energy costs” to its operations. While Boeing opposed introducing an EU mandate for sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) in an April 2020 consultation response, in November 2020 it appears to have changed position, supporting an EU SAF blending mandate as part of the Clean Skies for Coalition initiative.

Positioning on Energy Transition: In 2019-20 Boeing appeared to communicate support for the decarbonization of aviation by promoting SAFs. In 2020, Boeing, as part of the Clean Skies for Tomorrow initiative, stated support for policies, including a SAF price floor, to promote demand and support for SAFs in the EU. In a joint 2020 letter to ICAO, Boeing advocated for “broad agreement” on measures to encourage the development of SAFs without stating positions on specific policy measures. Similarly, in a joint 2019 press release Boeing called on global governments to promote sustainable aviation fuels.

Industry Association Governance: Boeing publicly discloses a limited list of its memberships to industry associations on its website without disclosing its direct engagement with them on climate change, their climate policy positions, or the company’s role within each association. In 2020 a senior executive from Boeing is on the board of the National Association of Manufacturers and Boeing remains a member of the US Chamber of Commerce, both of which are actively lobbying against US climate policy. Boeing is also a strategic partner of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) which has consistently opposed ambitious climate policy for international aviation. Boeing has not published a review of its alignment with its industry associations.

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 NS NS NS NS NS NS NA
Alignment with IPCC on Climate Action
0 0 NA NS NS NS NS NA
Supporting the Need for Regulations
0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NA
Support of UN Climate Process
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 and Resource Efficiency
NS NS NA NS NS NS NS NA
Renewable Energy
NS 1 NA 0 0 NS NS NA
Energy Transition & Zero Carbon Technologies
NS 1 NA NS 1 NS NS NA
GHG Emission Regulation
1 2 NS -1 2 NS NS NA
Disclosure on Relationships
-1 NS -1 NA NA NA NS NA
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
23%
 
23%
 
22%
 
22%
 
50%
 
50%
 
23%
 
23%
 
40%
 
40%
 
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.