This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of ConocoPhillips'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 ConocoPhillips, 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 ConocoPhillips's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of ConocoPhillips'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 | No, does not meet criteria |
| Accuracy of Indirect Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
A summary of ConocoPhillips'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) | 2/14 (14%) |
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 ConocoPhillips'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)?
ConocoPhillips' disclosure of its positions and engagement activities on climate policies is limited to top-line climate statements without reference to specific climate-related policies. As a result, the company has excluded disclosure on key engagements with specific climate proposals.
The company advocated for the passage of the 2025 budget reconciliation bill in the US in June 2025, which proposed the repeal or rapid phase out many of the Inflation Reduction Act's (IRA) climate incentives and facilitates the build out of fossil fuel infrastructure in a joint letter to policymakers.
In Canada, the company sent a joint letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney in April 2025 advocating for the expansion of oil and gas production. In October 2023 comments, ConocoPhillips opposed US Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, and opposed IRA's methane fee in March 2024 comments.
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)?
ConocoPhillips has published a partial account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies. For instance, ConocoPhillips disclosed that it had engaged on the federal regulation of methane via its membership with the American Petroleum Institute (API) and Business Round Table.
However, ConocoPhillips excludes more than 3 material evidence of indirect climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database. In addition, ConocoPhillips has not disclosed its membership to more than 3 associations engaged on climate policy such as the Business Council of Canada, International Gas Union, and Eurogas.
InfluenceMap has found that the US Chamber of Commerce advocated to weaken EU Methane Regulation for the energy sector in a March 2025 letter. Texas Oil and Gas Association opposed US Environmental Protection Agency's GHG Emissions Standards for Heavy Duty Vehicles in an October 2024 joint industry brief. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers opposed Canada’s Oil and Gas Emissions Cap in March 2024 letter to policymakers.
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 ConocoPhillips'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 ConocoPhillips'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?
ConocoPhillips has undertaken two reviews in 2020 and 2022. However, the company has not made a commitment to publish reviews on an annual basis.
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?
ConocoPhillips has disclosed an explanation of its alignment assessment methodology, evaluating how industry associations' positions align with those expressed by ConocoPhillips on three criteria: the Paris Agreement, carbon pricing, and addressing methane emissions. However, the company did not explain what would constitute a finding of alignment, partial alignment or misalignment in relation to these three criteria. In addition, ConocoPhillips has not assessed alignment against the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
ConocoPhillips clearly disclosed whether each industry association was aligned with each of the three assessment criteria above. However, the company did not provide a detailed explanation behind these evaluations beyond stating 'Aligned', 'Some misalignments', or 'No position'.
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?
ConocoPhillips has disclosed a limited framework for addressing potential cases of misalignment. The company states that where it is not aligned, it will continue to offer its viewpoint and attempt to work with the industry association to better align their positions. However, ConocoPhillips has not disclosed an escalation strategy or 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)?
ConocoPhillips 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?
ConocoPhillips 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?
ConocoPhillips assessed 8 industry associations in its review. It did not include key industry associations actively engaged on climate policy within the scope of the review, including Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) and the Queensland Resources Council.
ConocoPhillips has not identified any cases of misalignment, but has found "some misalignment" with certain industry associations on specific issues: US Chamber of Commerce, Natural Gas Supply Association, American Exploration and Production Council, Business Roundtable, and National Association of Manufacturers.
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least 10 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 memberships to 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?
ConocoPhillips has shown some evidence of action to address misalignments. The company stated that it has decided not to renew some memberships because of misalignment on a number of policy topics, including climate change, but does not disclose which industry associations or the specific rationale for leaving.
ConocoPhillips has also outlined its ongoing engagement with key industry associations. For example, the company stated that it has worked to influence the American Petroleum Institute (API) and Business Roundtable (BRT) to support the direct federal regulation of methane. ConocoPhillips also stated that its strong engagement with API, BRT and the US Chamber has influenced their climate policy positions to include support for a market-based approach to greenhouse gas emissions.
However, ConocoPhillips 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.
ConocoPhillips has published one review to date in 2022 (no date). 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, ConocoPhillips's 2022 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 ConocoPhillips'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.
