This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Eni'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 Eni, 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 Eni's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Eni'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 Eni'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%) |
| November 2024 | 6/14 (43%) |
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 Eni'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)?
Eni has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but appears to exclude 3 cases of material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
On its corporate advocacy webpage, accessed August 2025, Eni included links to the company’s government consultation responses to specific climate-related policies from 2022-2024, including the revision of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) in 2024, the EU Methane Regulations for the energy sector in 2022, the Industrial Carbon Management Strategy in 2023, and the EU Gas Decarbonization Package Delegated Act on the definition of low-carbon hydrogen in 2024.
However, Eni does not appear to have disclosed at least 3 cases of material evidence of its climate policy engagement: the company's advocacy to weaken the EU Methane regulation in an April 2025 joint letter, Eni's March 2025 testimony in the Mexican Senate advocating to expand fossil fuel production, and when Eni appeared to advocate for the EU to maintain liquified natural gas (LNG) interests in Mozambique in an October 2023 meeting with DG Energy, since accessed by FOI.
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)?
Eni has disclosed a near-complete list of its actively engaged industry association memberships, including the company's position within the associations, but it excludes its membership to the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China and Australian Institute of Petroleum.
Eni's disclosure does not reference any associations' engagement with specific climate-related policies. The company has only disclosed top-line positions on climate policy for 2 misaligned associations (the International Gas Union and Alaska Oil & Gas Association), and has provided no details on the remaining associations' climate policy engagement.
Eni has therefore excluded key instances of engagement with specific climate-related policies by its industry associations. For example, Eurogas advocated to weaken the EU light and heavy-duty vehicle CO2 emission standards in an October 2024 joint statement, and the International Gas Union opposed the Biden Administration's LNG export permit pause in a January 2024 joint letter.
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 Eni'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 Eni'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?
Eni has published reviews of its industry associations in 2020, 2022 and now 2024 (covering calendar year 2023). The company states that it has published a review every two years and aims to execute its assessment on an annual basis. Following its 2024 assessment, the company has committed to publish a progress report on partially aligned associations every 12 months, including an assessment of new potential associations.
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?
Eni has disclosed a clear methodology for assessing alignment with its industry associations against the seven top-line topics considered by the company to be essential to its climate-related advocacy: the Paris Agreement, the role of natural gas, carbon pricing mechanisms, energy efficiency, sustainable mobility, the role of offsets, and climate transparency and disclosure. The company has also disclosed what constitutes a finding of ‘Aligned’, ‘Partial Aligned’, and ‘Not Aligned’.
However, Eni does not appear to have based its assessments on science-aligned policy to deliver the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. Instead, the company has assessed its industry association's alignment against its own top-line positions on climate-related issues, for example its support for the “central” role of fossil gas in the energy transition to complement “intermittent” renewables. This position is not aligned with IPCC science for pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C. In addition, Eni has not provided an explanation behind the assessment of each industry association, with details only provided for the two partially misaligned 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?
Eni has disclosed a clear framework for addressing misalignments with its industry associations, including an escalation strategy and clear deadlines. The company stated that, in the case of misalignment, it will employ a 5-step process. These firstly include formal communication of identified misalignments and a public statement of differences of opinion. The company then states that on a case-by-case basis it will immediately consider continuing membership or potentially leaving the association. In the case of remaining a member, Eni then states it will set specific expectations for change supported by active engagement with Eni representatives to promote and influence closer alignment.
Where an association keeps the status of "Not Aligned” for two consecutive years or a status of “Partially aligned” for three consecutive years, Eni will assess further possible counteractions, which may also include the decision to leave the association. Finally, a review of the progress of the engagement will be implemented after 12 months.
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)?
Eni 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 policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement identified by InfluenceMap’s database.
For example, Eni emphasized the importance of liquified natural gas (LNG) from East Africa as a contribution to Europe's energy security in a meeting with the European Commission in October 2023. Eni’s CEO also advocated for the expansion of unabated fossil gas production in Cyprus for use in European countries in a February 2025 press release and advocated for investment in new production of oil and gas in a November 2024 Reuters article.
At the time of this assessment, Eni’s InfluenceMap organization score was 49%, indicating misalignment between science-aligned policy pathways for limiting warming to 1.5ºC and the company’s detailed climate policy engagement. Please see the Eni’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?
Eni 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 policy pathways for 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?
Eni has assessed 45 industry associations. It did not include key industry associations actively engaged on climate policy within the scope of the review, including European Union Chamber of Commerce in China and Natural & bio Gas Vehicle Association (NGVA Europe).
The company did not identify any cases of misalignment, but did find two cases of partial misalignment with Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) and International Gas Union (IGU). InfluenceMap’s database does not cover the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), but finds IGU’s climate policy engagement to be partially misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least 6 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). These include NGVA Europe, BusinessEurope, and Australian Energy Producers (Formerly APPEA). InfluenceMap analysis also indicates that Eni has a further 9 memberships to 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 Offshore Energies UK (OEUK), European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP), and IGU.
As Eni has only identified partial misalignment with AOGA and IGU, the company has not identified the remaining 14 above cases of misalignment and partial misalignment between its industry associations and science-aligned policy pathways for 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?
Eni has shown some evidence of action to address misalignment by terminating its membership to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) and outlining its engagement with the International Gas Union (IGU) to increase alignment. The company stated it would proactively engage with other members within IGU in order to drive positions towards a closer alignment with Eni’s climate vision. Specifically, the company will try to direct and guide the discussions in accordance with Eni’s positions, and will increase engagement in the areas where there are different views.
However, Eni does not appear to have shown evidence of action to address specific cases of misalignment and partial misalignment with science-aligned policy pathways for 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 Eni'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.
