This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Anglo American'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 Anglo American, 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 Anglo American's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Anglo American'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 Anglo American'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 |
|---|---|
| April 2023 | 4/14 (29%) |
| April 2025 | 4/14 (29%) |
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 Anglo American'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)?
Anglo American has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but excludes 2 pieces of material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database. Anglo American has disclosed that it takes a cautious approach to policy advocacy, including climate policy.
In its 2024 Sustainability Report (published March 2025), it disclosed its public policy engagement activities, including engaging in discussions on critical minerals for the energy transition, and engaging with South African stakeholders on a renewable energy ecosystem and hydrogen ecosystem. It did not however disclose its December 2023 submission to Australia's Carbon Leakage Review Consultation Paper, or a January 2025 joint letter the company signed on the role of hydrogen in decarbonizing transport.
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)?
Anglo American has published a partial account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies in its 2024 Industry Association Review. It has disclosed membership to all actively engaged associations covered by InfluenceMap's database, and has disclosed some of its associations' detailed climate engagement activities.
However, Anglo American excludes more than 3 material evidence pieces of indirect, misaligned climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database. For example, in a July 2024 consultation response, Queensland Resources Council advocated for new exploration & production of gas, infrastructure, investments or other systems that will lock in unabated fossil gas, emphasizing the importance of the Queensland gas sector for energy security.
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 Anglo American'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 Anglo American'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/or 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?
Anglo American has committed to commission and disclose an independent audit of its industry association alignment every two years, rather than annually. The company has disclosed three reviews to date in 2019, 2021, 2023, and 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?
Anglo American’s alignment assessment method is clearly disclosed in the external audit undertaken by Environmental Resource Management (ERM), including 10 clear assessment categories based on Anglo American’s climate change and human rights positions. The review also provided criteria which were used to categorize the degree of alignment of the positions of its associations with Anglo American’s policy positions on climate change.
The review does appear to have assessed the detailed advocacy of at least some of the associations, including submissions to policy consultations and position papers on specific climate-related regulations. Anglo American’s own positions also appear largely aligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, with relatively detailed positions on carbon pricing, financial and policy-based incentives for low-carbon technologies, the decarbonization of the energy mix, and value chain decarbonization. Anglo American can further align its methodology to assess against policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal by assessing against external, authoritative benchmarks on climate-related issues, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
However, the assessment did not provide a clear and detailed explanation behind the evaluation of each industry association – the review limited its explanations to the associations that were identified to have ‘material differences’ with Anglo American’s climate positions.
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?
Anglo American has disclosed a clear and detailed framework for addressing misalignments, including an escalation strategy. Guidance includes engaging directly with the association and other members to encourage corrective action. Should no changes be made after an unspecified appropriate time, the misalignment is escalated through management up to the Anglo American Group Head of Corporate Affairs. All options for action at each stage will be explored, including formally reviewing, suspending, or terminating membership.
However, the company has not detailed clear deadlines for industry associations which 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)?
Anglo American has not assessed the alignment of its direct climate policy engagement activities with science-aligned pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. Therefore, it has not identified any cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and science-aligned policy to deliver the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
InfluenceMap has identified instances of misalignment between Anglo American’s climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. For example, the company appeared to oppose reforms to Australia’s Safeguard Mechanism, including advocating for additional protections for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries and taking an unsupportive stance on using historical greenhouse gas emissions to calculate emissions reduction baseline rates. This would weaken the climate ambition of the policy.
At the time of this assessment, Anglo American’s LobbyMap Organization Score was 54%, indicating that the company’s direct climate policy engagement has mixed alignment with science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal. Its Organization Score falls just above the threshold for misaligned climate advocacy (49%). Please see Anglo American’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?
Anglo American has not undertaken a review of the alignment of its own climate policy engagement activities. As such, the company has shown no evidence of action to address cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
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?
Anglo American assessed 44 associations in its March 2025 review. It did not include several active industry associations, including the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA), Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India (ASSOCHAM), Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI), International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), and Hydrogen Europe.
ERM, who Anglo American consulted to undertake the review, identified 16 individual cases of ‘material differences’ between Anglo American’s positions and 10 associations, including the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), Queensland Resources Council (QRC), Eurometaux, and Minerals Council South Africa (MinCoSA). Anglo American then assessed whether it agreed with these findings. Some of the conclusions the company came to are unclear, and as such it is not clear what the overall results of the review were for some of its associations. Anglo American disagreed with at least 8 of the 16 ‘material differences’ found by ERM on value chain decarbonization and carbon pricing & market mechanisms. It appeared to broadly agree with ERM’s finding that three associations were materially misaligned in relation to advocacy about fossil fuels, stating that Anglo American “believes there is a legitimate debate to be had regarding the role of fossil fuels in the energy mix in the short / medium term if technologies like CCS are utilised. However, if arguments for the use of fossil fuels on a temporary basis are being made as a pretence for their indefinite use, then clearly that contradicts the spirit of Anglo American’s principles.”
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least 4 memberships to industry associations with active climate policy engagement misaligned with science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked D or below on InfluenceMap’s database), including MCA, QRC, Euromines, and FCHEA. It also has at least 8 industry associations with active climate policy engagement partially misaligned with policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+), including Eurometaux and Minerals Council of South Africa.
The only associations Anglo American successfully identified ‘material differences’ with were Low Emission Technology Australia (LETA), Queensland Resources Council (QRC) and the Coal Industry Advisory Board (CIAB). As such, the company 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.
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?
Anglo American disclosed some broad actions it took with industry associations where ‘material differences’ were identified. It stated that it: 1) informed the relationship owner for each industry association of the highlighted material difference; 2) with the relationship owner, assessed what action, if any, should be taken; 3) engaged with the relevant industry associations. After these actions, the company stated that it concluded that none of the ‘material differences’ highlighted should result in changes in the status of its membership with any of the associations.
It also disclosed some specific actions it plans to take with the associations where potential areas of material differences were identified. For example, it states that it will continue to engage with Low Emission Technology Australia (LETA) and Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) to ensure that their advocacy on Scope 3 emissions is “constructive and supportive of taking a whole value chain approach to reducing emissions.”, and that it will share its updated policy statements and associated expectations with relevant associations.
However, as Anglo American did not identify key cases of misalignment and partial misalignment between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, it has not shown evidence of action to address these in line with 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.
Yes, meets criteria
Partial, meets some criteria
No, does not meet criteria
The table below provides a ranking of Anglo American'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.
