This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of BP'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 BP, 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 BP's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of BP'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 | No, does not meet criteria |
A summary of BP'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 | 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 BP'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)?
BP has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but appears to exclude and, provides a misleading account, on 6 material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
On its corporate advocacy webpage, BP disclosed both its positions on, and engagement with, key legislation, including its comments on the US Clean Hydrogen Tax Credit in February 2024, its comments the EU's Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework in April 2025 and its comments on Building the North Sea’s Energy Future, also in April 2025, amongst others. However, BP does not appear to have disclosed its full and complete engagement with climate policies, including its complete submission on the UK phasing out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 in February 2025.
Additionally, BP has omitted its engagement with 6 climate-related policies, including its June 2025 comments on the National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, its engagement under the UK CCS Task and Finish Group in April 2024, its comments on the EU's Delegated Act on the definition of low-carbon hydrogen in October 2024, it's submission to Inquiry into the WA Domestic Gas Policy in August 2023, and the company's submission on Australia's Future Gas Strategy in November 2023.
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)?
BP has published a full review of its industry associations in May 2022, with the most recent update being published in May 2023, in which it omits several industry associations which are actively engaged on climate-related policy, such as the International Gas Union, Asociación Mexicana de Empresas de Hidrocarburos (AMEXHI), Federation of Indian Petroleum Industry (FIPI), Instituto Brasileiro de Petróleo e Gás (IBP) and WindEurope.
In 2024, BP states that it has reviewed its 36 most significant association memberships, but it does not appear to have publically disclosed this review. As a result, BP's last full disclosure of its industry associations was made in 2022. Therefore, BP has not disclosed material evidence of indirect climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database for more than 3 industry associations.
For example, the Australian Energy Producers engagement on the Future Made in Australia Bill in April 2024, the American Petroleum Institute's comments on the 2024 LNG Export Study in March 2025, Offshore Energy UK's engagement with the Great British Energy Bill in October 2024, or Hydrogen Europe's comments on the Delegated Act on the definition of low-carbon hydrogen in October 2024.
According to InfluenceMap's methodology, a further point is subtracted as more than 1 year has passed since the last disclosure
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 BP'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 BP'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?
BP has published two full reviews in 2020 and 2022, and also published two update reviews in 2021 and 2023 on misaligned industry associations which include details of engagement, changes in position, and next steps. BP has committed to publish another full assessment in 2024.
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?
In its 2022 review, BP disclosed a clear and detailed explanation of its alignment assessment methodology based on its seven high-level policy positions, including what constitutes a finding of alignment, partial alignment and misalignment. However, BP has not assessed alignment against the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. The company reiterated its methodology based on seven high-level policy positions in its 2023 review update.
The company disclosed detailed explanations on how this methodology was applied for the 10 “partially aligned” industry associations, but did not disclose any explanation for the 40+ “aligned” associations.
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?
In its 2022 review, BP disclosed a clear and detailed framework to address misalignment with escalation strategies, under three distinct categories: misaligned, partially aligned, and aligned. These escalation strategies included active engagement to promote and influence closer alignment, public statements of differences of opinion, formal communication of identified misalignments, setting specific expectations for change, and considering leaving the association.
However, there were no timelines attached to this framework for industry associations which do not reform misaligned practices. The company did not provide an update to this framework in its 2023 review update.
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)?
BP has not undertaken a review of the alignment of its own climate policy engagement activities. 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. See the company profile for more details of the company’s climate policy engagement.
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?
BP 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?
BP assessed 51 industry associations in its review, and did not identify any cases of misalignment. However, BP identified 10 cases of partial misalignment: Advanced Biofuels Association, American Petroleum Institute, Business Leadership South Africa, Electric Power Supply Association, Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, National Association of Manufacturers, National Ocean Industries Association, Oil Companies International Marine Forum, Texas Oil and Gas Association, and US Chamber of Commerce.
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least 12 memberships to industry associations with active climate policy engagement misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked D or below on InfluenceMap’s database), and 18 industry associations with active climate policy engagement partially misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+).
However, 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. See Appendix A below for further details on the company’s industry association memberships.
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?
BP has shown evidence of action to address misalignment by terminating its membership to the American Fuel & Petrochemicals Manufacturers, Western Energy Alliance, and Western States Petroleum Association in 2020.
In its 2022 review, BP provided a detailed update on its engagement with the American Petroleum Institute (API), and a case study on how it directly advocated with its industry associations to support the US EPA's methane rule.
In its 2023 update, BP also outlined its ongoing engagement with the 10 industry associations identified as “partially aligned” in 2022, including actions taken within each association. These included, for example, continued work with the API on addressing its opposition to policies to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles, working with the National Association of Manufacturers to advocated for policy stances in line with the US reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions, and gaining an executive committee seat with the Advanced Biofuels Association to support them in developing a broader set of climate policy positions.
However, BP does not appear to have shown evidence of action to address 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.
BP has published one review to date in April 2023. However, company reviews published more than two years prior to the end of InfluenceMap’s data collection period for the Climate Action 100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark 2025 assessments - i.e. August 1st 2025 - will not be included in the updated review assessments. As such, BP's 2023 disclosure is not included in the review assessments.
Yes, meets criteria
Partial, meets some criteria
No, does not meet criteria
The table below provides a ranking of BP'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.
