This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Centrica'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 Centrica, 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 Centrica's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Centrica'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 Centrica'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 |
|---|---|
| 2022 (No Date) | 4/14 (29%) |
| 2024 (No Date) | 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 Centrica'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)?
Centrica has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but appears to exclude 2 cases of material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
On its Advocacy Updates webpage, Centrica disclosed both its positions on, and engagement with key legislation, including links to consultation responses. For example, the company has disclosed its responses to the UK's Hydrogen Blending policy, and Heating Our Homes Inquiry.
However, Centrica does not appear to have disclosed its engagement with the UK government in an October 2024 joint letter, or comments submitted on the EU's Methodology to determine the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings of low-carbon fuels in October 2024.
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)?
Centrica has published a partial account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies. The company has posted a list of industry associations along with top-line climate statements without reference to specific climate policies in its Climate Transition Plan, published in January 2025.
Centrica has also provided more detail of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies in its 2023 Trade Association Review, published in February 2024. However, Centrica excludes material evidence of indirect climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database for more than 3 industry associations.
For example, Centrica excluded negative advocacy from the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) on the EU Methane Regulation in a letter to EU policymakers in September 2023. Centrica also excluded advocacy by Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) for a continued role for oil and fossil gas in oral evidence to the House of Lords in May 2024, a September 2024 open letter to EU policymakers by Hydrogen Europe, and December 2023 comments submitted to the California Air Resources Board on Potential Amendments to the Cap-and-Trade Regulation by the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA).
Additionally, according to InfluenceMap's methodology, a further point is subtracted as the company's detailed industry association review has not been updated in over 1 year.
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 Centrica'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 Centrica'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?
Centrica has published a review of its industry associations in 2022 and 2024. In its 2024 review, Centrica explicitly committed to publish annual reviews of its industry association’s corporate climate advocacy.
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?
Centrica has disclosed a clear methodology to assess the alignment of its industry associations. The company states the assessment is based on three elements. The first is an evaluation of each association’s position on the Paris Agreement. The second is an alignment assessment against Centrica's climate policy positions, which it links in the review, wherein the company identified the policy areas that are relevant for each association and that require strong and public disclosure, and assessed their public advocacy on these policy areas. Finally, the third element included an assessment of the level of influence each association has on the energy transition.
It is unclear whether Centrica’s alignment assessment of its industry associations’ policy positions and activities are benchmarked against the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. In the first element of Centrica’s review, it states that it assesses alignment with the Paris Agreement, however this appears to be limited to assessing whether its associations have expressed top-line support for the Paris Agreement.
Centrica’s assessment of its association’s more detailed policy positions (element two) appears to assess its industry association’s advocacy activities against the company’s own detailed policy positions. However, the company does not appear to have assessed its own positions against the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and therefore it is unclear if its own policy positions represent Paris-aligned advocacy. For example, in its own policy positions linked in the review, Centrica supported a continued role for fossil gas in the energy mix, without placing clear conditions on the need for carbon, capture, and storage (CCS) or methane emission abatement. This position is inconsistent with IPCC guidance on the role of fossil gas in the energy mix. As such, a finding of alignment by the company against its own policy positions may not constitute alignment to science-based climate policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Centrica has however provided information on what constitutes a finding of ‘Strongly Aligned’, ‘Aligned’, and ‘Misaligned’. ‘Strongly Aligned’ associations will have material evidence of alignment with the Paris Agreement and relevant key positions. ‘Aligned’ associations will have a low level of disclosure. ‘Misaligned’ association will have stated opposition to one or more of Centrica’s key climate policies and/or the Paris Agreement.
Centrica does not provide a clear and detailed explanation behind its assessment of individual industry associations. The companies’ explanations are limited to statements such as ‘Given the uncertainty and diversity of views on how Gas can contribute to the net zero goal, we have assessed OEUK as "Aligned" with our climate policies.’ These are only provided for associations which the company has assessed as ‘Aligned’. For its ‘Strongly Aligned’ associations, Centrica only provides a rationale for membership.
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?
Centrica has disclosed a framework for addressing potential cases of misalignment, with escalation strategies under its 'Action Planning' section. The company states that it is committed to taking appropriate action with the industry associations and re-evaluating its relationship. Centrica also provides more detailed steps of actions it may take under each alignment category, including escalation strategies. For strongly aligned associations Centrica will monitor advocacy and review annually; for aligned associations it will actively engage and monitor advocacy, and review annually; and for misaligned associations it will devise a tailored engagement approach to address perceived misalignment. It also states that, for misaligned associations, failure to respond appropriately to a confirmed misalignment will lead to a review of membership, up to and including termination.
However, there are no deadlines attached to this framework for industry associations that do not reform misaligned climate policy engagement 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)?
Centrica states it has a set of climate-relevant policy positions that it considers essential for achieving the Paris Agreement, and that is expects its associations to support. The company provided a link to these positions, which include a detailed disclosure of its own advocacy activities on climate policy. However, the company does not explicitly disclose an assessment of these positions against the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and it is unclear if the company has undertaken a review.
Centrica has not identified key 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. For example, in an inquiry response to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee Inquiry in August 2023, Centrica appeared to advocate for the weakening of renewable energy policy by suggesting that it should be broadened to apply to other "low-carbon" technologies.
At time of this assessment, Centrica's Organization Score metric was 70%, indicating partial misalignment between the Paris Agreement and the company’s detailed climate policy engagement. Please see Centrica’s profile in the LobbyMap databased 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?
Centrica 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?
Centrica assessed 32 associations in its review, finding 28 associations to be “Strongly Aligned” and 4 associations to be “Aligned”. Centrica found no industry associations to be misaligned, and did not exclude any key associations actively engaged on climate policy within the scope of the review.
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has 0 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 5 industry associations with active climate policy engagement partially misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+). These are the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP), Confederation of British Industry (CBI), International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), Hydrogen Europe, and Offshore Energies UK (OEUK).
However, as the company did not identify any cases of misalignment or partial misalignment, it has not identified the 5 above cases of 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?
Centrica has shown no evidence of action to address specific misalignments with its industry associations. As such, Centrica 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.
Yes, meets criteria
Partial, meets some criteria
No, does not meet criteria
The table below provides a ranking of Centrica'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.
| Industry Association | InfluenceMap Performance Band | InfluenceMap Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| WindEurope | B+ | Aligned |
| Confederation of British Industry (CBI) | B- | Partially Aligned |
| Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) (Formerly OGUK) | C+ | Partially Aligned |
| Hydrogen Europe | C | Partially Aligned |
| International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP) | D | Misaligned |
