Minerals Council of Australia (MCA)
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.
|
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. . |
EU Register
Information provided by to the voluntary EU Transparency Register. |
|
|
Communication of Climate Science
Is the organization transparent and clear about its position on climate change science? |
1
|
NS | NA |
1
|
NS |
1
|
NA | NA |
|
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
|
0
|
NA |
0
|
-1
|
0
|
NA | NA |
|
Supporting the Need for Regulations
To what extent does the organization express the need for regulatory intervention to resolve the climate crisis? |
0
|
NS | NA |
-1
|
-1
|
-1
|
NA | NA |
|
Support of UN Climate Process
Is the organization supporting the UN FCCC process on climate change? |
0
|
NS | NA |
1
|
0
|
0
|
NA | NA |
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation transparent about its positions on climate change legislation/policy and its activities to influence it? |
1
|
NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
-2
|
NS | NA |
-2
|
-2
|
-2
|
NA | NA |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
NS | NS | NA |
0
|
NS |
1
|
NA | NA |
|
Energy and Resource Efficiency
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy efficiency policy, standards, and targets |
NS | NS | NA | NS | NS | NS | NA | NA |
|
Renewable Energy
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy legislation, targets, subsidies, and other policy |
-1
|
-1
|
NA |
-1
|
-2
|
-1
|
NA | NA |
|
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? |
0
|
-1
|
NA |
-1
|
-1
|
-1
|
NA | NA |
|
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
|
-1
|
NA |
-1
|
0
|
NS | NA | NA |
|
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? |
2
|
NS | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Climate Lobbying Overview: Despite nominally positive top-line messaging on climate change in 2020, the Minerals Council of Australia’s (MCA) engagement on climate policy remains inconsistent with scientific advice from the IPCC on delivering the Paris Agreement’s goals.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: In June 2020, MCA published its Climate Action Plan which included positive top-line messaging on climate action, including support for a national policy framework in Australia to achieve net zero emissions. However, it is unclear whether this offers support for net zero by 2050 in line with IPCC recommendations. Throughout 2019, MCA also consistently advocated in favour of the use of Kyoto carry-over credits to meet Australia’s climate commitments, depressing federal-level climate ambition.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: MCA has consistently lobbied against GHG emissions regulations in Australia. For example, in July 2019, the MCA advocated against the Victorian Government’s adoption of a net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 state-level target, arguing that the implementation of state-based targets threatened the national GHG emissions reduction target. In September 2019, the group appeared to push for weaker emissions baselines under the Safeguard Mechanism to protect the competitiveness of Australian industry. In March 2020, MCA also opposed the inclusion of Scope 3 emissions under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme, which will complicate the setting of targets for Scope 3 emissions in the future.
In recent years, MCA has also increasingly lobbied on climate issues in planning and environmental regulations. In a 2019 submission to the Productivity Commission in Australia on Resources Sector Regulations, MCA described the inclusion of climate considerations in both the NSW’s planning permit process and the Western Australian EPA’s greenhouse gas assessment guidance for new projects as ‘regulatory creep’. In April 2020, MCA opposed the inclusion of a mechanism to reduce GHGs under Australia’s landmark environmental legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
MCA has also opposed renewable energy legislation. In February 2019, the organization stated it did not support renewable targets or subsidies, blaming them for the increase of Australian energy prices. In September 2019, MCA also reaffirmed its opposition to the federal Renewable Energy Target in Australia, emphasizing the cost of technology-specific policies to support renewables.
MCA has also been active in lobbying on the economic recovery from COVID-19. In August 2020, MCA advocated to dilute the renewable energy mandate of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, to open the agencies up to include investing in non-renewables. Additionally, in April 2020 MCA Chair Helen Coonan publicly advocated for a number of measures to support Australia's mining industry in response to COVID-19, including reduced tax rates, faster project approvals for mining projects, and government support for the exploration of minerals in greenfield areas.
Positioning on Energy Transition: Since the start of 2018, MCA has begun framing its lobbying positions on the energy mix around the need for a ‘technology neutral’ energy policy and support for a ‘measured transition’. Despite this, the group's advocacy activities continue to strongly emphasize the role of coal in the energy mix, including supporting the building of new coal-fired power stations. In 2019, MCA argued for the inclusion of HELE coal in the energy mix as a ‘low emission energy source’. Before the Australian Federal elections in 2019, MCA CEO Tania Constable publicly pressured the Federal Labour Party to unequivocally support the coal industry. After the election, she argued that there was now a clear mandate for the expansion of coal projects, including the Adani coal mine, and called for the Queensland government to streamline the regulatory process to allow greater expansion of coal production in the region. MCA has continued to push the coal agenda in 2020; the group supported the expansion of Whitehaven’s Vickery coal mine in August, while CEO Tania Constable stated in October that “the medium-term outlook remains positive” for Australian coal.