This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Air Liquide's disclosures on climate policy engagement. This does not include an assessment of the company's real-world climate policy engagement, which can be found on InfluenceMap's online profile of Air Liquide, accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
The disclosure assessments are directly integrated into the CA100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark as part of InfluenceMap's Climate Policy Engagement Alignment’ assessment, under two distinct indicators:
In 2023, InfluenceMap’s methodology to assess corporate disclosures on climate policy engagement was formally updated in line with the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying and stakeholder input. The detailed methodology - as well as additional resources including best practice guidance and Air Liquide's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Air Liquide's performance under this assessment is shown below, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key. A more detailed breakdown is available below.
| Indicator | Score |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
| Sub-Indicator | Score |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of Direct Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
| Accuracy of Indirect Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
A summary of Air Liquide's performance under this assessment is shown below, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key. A more detailed breakdown is available below.
The Review Score (0-100) assesses corporate performance against seven indicators, using the same traffic-light framework. A ‘Green’ scores 2 points, a ‘Yellow’ scores 1 point, and a ‘Red’ scores 0 points. This total is converted into a percentage from 0 to 100, calculated using the total number of points available (14). As such, only certain scores within the 0 to 100 range are possible under this methodology. A Review Score of 100 would indicate that a company has met all of the assessment criteria related to the review process.
| Date of Review | Score |
|---|---|
| February 2023 | 5/14 (36%) |
| December 2023 | 5/14 (36%) |
| July 2025 | 5/14 (36%) |
This is an assessment of the accuracy of a company's reporting on its direct and indirect (via industry associations) climate policy engagement activities.
InfluenceMap utilizes its proprietary database to assess how corporate disclosures on climate policy positions and engagement activities compare to InfluenceMap's independent assessment of the companies' and industry associations' real-world climate policy engagement. In short, it assesses the extent to which the company has disclosed on all climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
The tables below provide: (1) a breakdown of Air Liquide's performance under each sub-indicator, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key; and (2) examples of leading practice by companies.
Has the company published an accurate account of its corporate climate policy positions and engagement activities (as compared to InfluenceMap’s database)?
Air Liquide has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but provides a misleading account on over 3 cases of material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
Air Liquide has disclosed its engagement with specific climate-related policies, including in: Japan (GX Promotion Act on carbon pricing); the US (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)); and Europe (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and Net-Zero Industry Act). However, Air Liquide does not appear to have disclosed a complete and accurate account of its climate policy engagement.
For example, Air Liquide stated that it supported the strengthening of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), however, InfluenceMap database show that the company supported EU ETS reform with major exceptions in a July 2025 feedback comment on the EU emissions trading system for maritime, aviation and stationary installations, and market stability reserve - review. In a June 2025 meeting with the EU Commission, Air Liquide appeared unsupportive of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.
Additionally, the company omitted from its disclosure that it urged policymakers in the US to include a prominent role for fossil gas as a feedstock for eligible hydrogen production in a February 2025 joint letter to the US Senate and US House of Representatives. The company also engaged on the EU Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator Act and Contrat stratégique de filière 2024-2027 "volet SAF".
Enel has published a complete and accurate account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, and this is aligned with InfluenceMap's assessment of the company using its LobbyMap database. Enel included its climate advocacy activities, positions, and links to the company’s government consultation responses to specific climate-related policies from 2022-2024 in its 2023 Climate Policy Advocacy report, published April 2024. It also covered a range of regions in its disclosure, including Global, Europe, North & South America, Africa, and the Asia Pacific.
BP partially met the assessment criteria under this indicator, as it excluded material evidence of climate policy engagement. However, BP’s ‘Advocacy Activities’ webpage provides a clear and detailed disclosure of the company’s climate policy engagement, with filters for jurisdiction; date; and topic, including links to relevant consultation responses. It also contains sorting options for most recent, and most relevant.
Has the company published an accurate account of the climate policy positions and engagement activities of the industry associations of which it is a member (as compared to InfluenceMap’s database)?
Air Liquide has published a partial account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies. However, Air Liquide has excluded key instances of engagement with specific climate-related policies by its industry associations.
For example, Cefic advocated for a weakening of the EU Hydrogen and Gas Decarbonization Package Delegated Act on the definition of low-carbon hydrogen in an October 2024 public consultation feedback. Air Liquide also excludes 2 industry associations which are actively engaged on climate policy: the Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE), and the National Business Association of Colombia (ANDI).
See Appendix A below for details of the company's industry association memberships.
Unilever has published a complete and accurate account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies. In its March 2024 industry association review, the company attached LobbyMap profile links to each association’s assessment. Iberdrola published a largely complete and accurate of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies.
Iberdrola and its North American subsidiary Avangrid both disclosed the climate policy engagement activities of their industry associations in their respective industry association climate lobbying reviews.
This is an assessment of the quality and robustness of a company's processes to identify, report on, and address specific cases of misalignment between its climate policy engagement activities (direct and indirect) and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
The Review Score is split into seven indicators, which fall within one of three categories:
Review Process: Does the company have clear and robust governance processes to regularly assess alignment against the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and address potential cases of misalignment?
Review Assessment (Direct - Company): Has the company identified and addressed specific cases of misalignment between its direct - i.e. corporate - climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement?
Review Assessment (Indirect – Industry Associations): Has the company identified and addressed specific cases of misalignment between its indirect – i.e. via industry associations - climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement?
The table below provides an overview of Air Liquide's performance under each sub-indicator, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key.
| Review Process | Review Assessment (Direct) | Review Assessment (Indirect) |
|---|---|---|
| Monitor & Review | Identify & Assess | Identify & Assess |
| Alignment Assessment Method | Act | Act |
| Framework for Misalignment |
The tables below provide: (1) a breakdown of Air Liquide's performance under each sub-indicator, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key; and (2) examples of leading practice by companies.
Has the company established an annual monitoring and review process to ensure that all of its direct and indirect climate policy engagement activities across all geographies are consistent with the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels?
Air Liquide has committed to publish a yearly review of its most relevant industry associations in geographies where it interacts the most with public stakeholders. The company published one review in February 2023 and followed up with another in December 2023. Its 2024 review was published in December 2024, and updated in July 2025.
Rio Tinto has published detailed assessments of its climate policy engagement on an annual basis from 2018 to 2024, with detailed updates on misaligned industry associations each year. The company has committed to continue reviewing its memberships on an annual basis. Alternatively, Shell publishes a detailed review of its climate policy engagement every two years, with a detailed update in the interim year.
Has the company disclosed a clear and detailed framework for assessing alignment, including: (1) the criteria it uses to assess whether its climate policy engagement activities (direct or indirect) align with the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels; and (2) a clear and detailed explanation behind each evaluation?
Air Liquide has disclosed a clear methodology for assessing alignment with its industry associations. The company assesses the alignment of its associations against the goals of the Paris Agreement, and its own advocacy positions on climate. These include: hydrogen; electrification; carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS); and carbon pricing. The company disclosed its positions on these topics, its engagements with specific climate-related policies related to each position, and the alignment of its positions with the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Emissions scenario.
Air Liquide also disclosed a breakdown of the criteria for assessing associations as aligned, partially aligned, or misaligned, and disclosed detailed explanations of how the evaluations of each industry association have been made, but only for those it identified as partially aligned and misaligned.
However, InfluenceMap analysis suggests that some of Air Liquide’s own advocacy activities, against which it has assessed alignment, are not aligned with policy pathways for delivering the 1.5ºC goal, as shown in the Identify & Assess (Direct) indicator below. As such, a finding of alignment by the company against its own policy positions may not constitute alignment to science-aligned climate policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Unilever assessed its industry associations’ climate policy engagement against both its own climate policy positions, and against science-based policy, determined by “what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said is needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C”. Unilever states that this assessment does not mean associations should be expected to support every proposed climate law, but that when an association opposes a specific climate policy, it is incumbent on the association to engage constructively with policymakers to help find alternative, viable policy options that would be (at least) equally effective at reducing emissions.
The company also clearly disclosed the criteria for findings of alignment and misalignment with both its own policy positions and science-based policy, and measured the engagement intensity of each association. It also provided clear and detailed explanations behind each evaluation including their detailed policy positions and links to each industry association’s LobbyMap profile.
Has the company established a clear framework to address misalignments between its climate policy engagement activities (direct or indirect) and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, including the escalation strategies it will use and when it will use these escalation strategies?
Air Liquide has disclosed a clear framework to address potential cases of misalignment, with escalation strategies. The company states that in cases of partial alignment or misalignment, Air Liquide will engage with the association’s leadership and request that it explicitly support the Paris Agreement, and will also attempt to influence the association to confirm their climate-related positions. It also states that if the company feels such engagement is unlikely to succeed, the company will consider terminating its membership.
However, the company did not include deadlines for associations that do not amend misaligned practices.
Iberdrola has disclosed a clear and detailed framework to address potential misalignments, including escalation strategies and deadlines for industry associations that do not amend misaligned practices. Iberdrola's escalation strategy includes engagement with the industry association, sending a "notification of dissatisfaction", and formal notification that a termination of membership is being assessed. If the association does not provide a clear and credible action plan to address the misalignment within 12 months, Iberdrola will implement one or more of the following actions: make a clear public statement regarding the misalignment, request the industry association refrains from engaging on misaligned issues, and/or suspension or discontinuation of membership.
Has the company identified and reported on the existence of all misalignments between its direct climate policy engagement activities and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database (including all of its subsidiaries, business areas, and operational jurisdictions)?
Air Liquide has published a review of its direct climate advocacy activities in 2025. It states that its positions and activities are regularly reviewed to be in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the goal to restrict global temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The company used the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Net Zero Scenario (2023) as a reference for its analysis of the alignment of its direct advocacy activities.
Air Liquide assessed the alignment of its positions across four categories: renewable and low carbon hydrogen; carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS); electrification and access to low-carbon electricity; and carbon pricing. This included top-line positions, and the company’s specific advocacy activities on related policies across operating regions. The company appears to have found all of its advocacy activities to be aligned with the IEA’s Net Zero Scenario.
However, InfluenceMap’s analysis suggests that the company has advocated on policies, within these four categories, with positions misaligned with delivering the 1.5ºC goal of the Paris Agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, climate-related provisions under the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). For example, in a March 2024 testimony during a Public Hearing on Proposed Section 45V Credit for Production of Clean Hydrogen under the US IRA, the company opposed the ambition of the main three proposed requirements. Air Liquide urged policymakers to add additional sources of "renewable natural gas" (RNG) as hydrogen feedstocks to the requirements, and requested that the proposed "three pillars" requirements not be extended to RNG. This would potentially weaken the overall climate ambition of the policy.
At time of this assessment, Air Liquide's Organization Score metric was 58%, with an Engagement Intensity of 31%, indicating strategic engagement and partial misalignment between its detailed climate policy engagement and policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement identified by InfluenceMap’s database. Please see Air Liquide’s profile in the LobbyMap database for additional details on the company's real-world climate policy engagement activities.
Danone assessed 12 of its own climate policy positions and engagement activities across Europe, the US, and globally. It found all 12 to be aligned. According to InfluenceMap’s database, Danone does not appear to have any material evidence of negative climate policy engagement during the reporting period. As a result, Danone has assessed its climate policy engagement activities in line with InfluenceMap’s findings. It is the only company to have ‘broadly met’ the criteria for this indicator.
Sasol published a detailed review of its direct climate policy engagement in August 2023. Sasol assessed the alignment of five of its own climate policy positions, including four in South Africa (Climate Change Bill; Carbon Tax; PCC Just Transition Framework; Upstream Oil and Gas Tax Regime Discussion Document) and one in the EU (European Union Delegated Acts). However, Sasol did not identify any cases of misalignment with its own climate policy engagement. As such, the company has not identified any cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement identified by InfluenceMap’s database. The company has not updated its review in 2024.
As a result, no company has shown evidence of identifying cases of misalignment of its direct climate policy engagement and delivering on the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Has the company reported on what action is being (or has been) taken to address misalignments, if and where they exist, between its direct climate policy engagement activities and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database?
In its 2025 review, Air Liquide does not identify any instances of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement activities and science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal, contrary to InfluenceMap’s findings. As such, Air Liquide has shown no evidence of action to address cases of misalignment.
Danone and Unilever are the only companies to have ‘broadly met’ the criteria for this indicator by default. Both companies do not appear to have any material evidence of negative climate policy engagement according to InfluenceMap’s database, and therefore have no cases of misalignment to act upon.
As a result, no company has actively shown evidence of acting to address cases of misalignment between its own direct climate policy engagement activities and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Has the company identified and reported on the existence of all misalignments between the climate policy engagement activities of its actively engaged industry associations, and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database?
Air Liquide assessed 34 industry associations in its 2025 review. It excluded key industry associations actively engaged on climate policy, including the Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE), the French Association of Large Companies (in which Air Liquide’s CEO is a member of the Board), and Asociación Nacional de Empresarios de Colombia (ANDI).
The company found 25 industry associations to be aligned, and 9 to be partially aligned, such as the National Association of Manufacturers; US Chamber of Commerce; German Chemical Industry Association (VCI); and the Federation of German Industries (BDI).
However, InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least 6 memberships to industry associations with climate policy engagement misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked D or below on InfluenceMap’s database), and 12 industry associations with climate policy engagement partially misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+).
As such, Air Liquide has not identified key cases of misalignment and partial misalignment between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement in line with InfluenceMap’s database. See Appendix A for further details on the company’s industry associations.
Unilever assessed 27 industry associations in its review and identified all cases of misalignment and partial misalignment with its industry associations and the 1.5⁰C goal of the Paris Agreement in line with InfluenceMap's database. Unilever has membership to 1 misaligned industry association (Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry), and 10 partially aligned associations.
Has the company reported on what action is being (or has been) taken to address misalignments, if and where they exist, between the climate policy engagement activities of its industry associations, and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database?
Air Liquide has disclosed some evidence of action to address cases of misalignment between its industry associations’ advocacy activities and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. In its 2025 review, the company stated that following finding American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers to be misaligned with the company’s climate policy positions, it discontinued its membership with the association.
It also states that it will continue to engage with the 9 associations that it found partial misalignment with, and will explain its climate-related positions relevant to the associations’ operating region.
However, the company does not appear to have shown evidence of action to address other specific cases of misalignment and partial misalignment with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement identified by InfluenceMap’s database.
Unilever is the only company to have met investor expectations in this area, showing evidence of action to address all cases of misalignment between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5⁰C goal of the Paris Agreement, as identified by InfluenceMap’s database. In its review, the company included a section for each association titled “Actions (to be) taken” in which it outlined the actions taken or to be taken with the industry association as per its assessment. For example, Unilever stated that it would write to the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry stating that their positions do not reflect those of Unilever. It also disclosed it would encourage the European Roundtable for Industry to continue to engage constructively on the EU Green Deal and explore how it can revise its position on the EU Emissions Trading System.
Additionally, Unilever stated that for the 12 associations that were deemed “passively aligned” (minimal to non-existent policy engagement), the company will aim to push the associations to become more actively engaged in promoting outcomes and policies that aid in decarbonization.
In June 2024, Air Liquide published its 'Charter Engagement with Public Stakeholders' document, which included clarifications on its assessment of its industry associations' climate advocacy activities. InfluenceMap assessed the document, and concluded that the information provided will not alter the company's current review score.
Yes, meets criteria
Partial, meets some criteria
No, does not meet criteria
The table below provides a ranking of Air Liquide's industry associations currently covered by InfluenceMap’s database by Performance Band, i.e. a full measure of a company’s climate policy engagement, accounting for both its own engagement and that of its industry associations. Detailed profiles for all industry associations can be explored via the links in the table.
Industry associations are categorized by InfluenceMap as having climate policy engagement that is aligned, partially misaligned or misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement by Performance Band:
The ranking table below is updated automatically on a continual basis as: (1) new evidence is collected for the industry associations; (2) new industry associations are added to the company profile; (3) industry associations are removed from the company profile, e.g. if the company leaves the association.
As such, the industry associations and/or scores in the ranking table below may differ from the findings in Identify & Assess (Indirect) above, which was written on the date of assessment. See the top of this page for the date of assessment.
