This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Equinor (formerly Statoil)'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 Equinor (formerly Statoil), 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 Equinor (formerly Statoil)'s company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Equinor (formerly Statoil)'s performance under this assessment is shown below, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key. A more detailed breakdown is available below.
| Indicator | Score |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
| Sub-Indicator | Score |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of Direct Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
| Accuracy of Indirect Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
A summary of Equinor (formerly Statoil)'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 |
|---|---|
| May 2023 | 5/14 (36%) |
| May 2024 | 6/14 (43%) |
| May 2025 | 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 Equinor (formerly Statoil)'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)?
Equinor has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but appears to exclude more than 3 material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database. Equinor has disclosed its position on, and engagement with, two climate-related policies in 2024, including EU Methane regulation and the EU Clean Industrial Deal in its 2025 Industry Association Review, published in May 2025.
However, Equinor does not appear to have disclosed a complete and accurate account of its climate policy engagement. For example, it does not appear to have disclosed its with comments on the EU Energy security architecture fitness check in November 2024, its engagement on the EU Hydrogen and Gas Decarbonization Package Delegated Act on the definition of low-carbon hydrogen in October 2024 or its comments on the Central Atlantic Wind Energy Area Proposed Sale Notice in February 2024 or its submission on the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Expected Wind Energy Development in the New York Bight in March 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)?
Equinor published its 2025 Industry Association Review in May 2025. Equinor discloses a complete list of its industry association memberships within this. However, Equinor excludes material evidence of indirect climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database for more than 3 industry associations.
For example, Equinor did not appear to fully disclose the American Petroleum Institute's engagement on the US EPA's GHG Emissions Standards for Heavy Duty Vehicles in October 2024, Eurogas' engagement with the EU Energy Security Fitness Check in December 2024, FuelsEurope's contribution to the EU Hydrogen and Gas Decarbonization Package Delegated Act in October 2024 or the International Association of Oil and Gas producers contribution to the EU survey on ‘Assessing the interest in a long-term product, cooperation arrangements and decarbonization options under the EU Energy Platform' in May 2024.
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 Equinor (formerly Statoil)'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 Equinor (formerly Statoil)'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?
Equinor has published an annual review of its industry associations since 2020. In its 2025 Industry Association Review, published in May 2025, it states that it will provide an update on any misalignments in its 2026 review.
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 2025 Industry Association Review Equinor published a review methodology, which references InfluenceMap’s LobbyMap methodology. However, the 5 assessment criteria used for its assessments are based on Equinor’s own climate policy positions, rather than external, science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement on a wide range of policies covered by the LobbyMap platform.
In its review, the company states that it has assessed 21 associations that have evidence of misalignments with Equinor’s climate policies. Equinor states that it assesses the Paris-alignment of the high-level positions of these associations, such as supporting the goals of the Paris Agreement and ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions. The company also assessed the associations’ policy alignment with Equinor on 5 policy areas: reporting and disclosure, fossil fuel subsidy phase-out, carbon pricing mechanisms, energy transition investment and material and cost-efficient greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions.
Furthermore, it included criteria for what constitutes a finding of ‘aligned’, ‘partially aligned’, and ‘misaligned’, alongside detailed explanations behind each assessment. Equinor appears to have assessed both the top-line and specific climate policy engagement activities of its industry associations under these criteria. However, the company does not appear to have assessed the alignment of its own climate policy positions, and therefore it is unclear if its own positions represent science-aligned advocacy. Equinor used these positions to assess the alignment of its industry associations, and as such it is unclear if it assessed its industry associations against policy pathways for delivering the 1.5C goal.
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?
Equinor has shown evidence of addressing cases of misalignment and has disclosed a clear framework for doing so, including escalation strategies and timelines for associations that do not amend misaligned practices. The company states that it clarifies the misalignment, assesses the position of the association, and considers how Equinor can influence it. After this, the company will inform the association of the misalignment, propose changes to the policies of the association in line with Equinor’s position, and will review memberships to associations when it does not see improvement within 2 years.
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)?
Despite stating that its “advocacy and policy engagement is conducted in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement”, Equinor does not appear to have undertaken and disclosed a review of the alignment of its own climate policy engagement activities in this document. In its 2025 Industry Association Review, published in May 2025, it disclosed two examples of the company's direct policy advocacy in 2024, but does not assess whether this advocacy is science-aligned. 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, it does not appear to have disclosed its comments on the EU Energy security architecture fitness check in November 2024 where it supported the continued role of fossil gas in the energy mix, or its engagement on the EU Hydrogen and Gas Decarbonization Package Delegated Act on the definition of low-carbon hydrogen in October 2024. In its response to the EU Commission’s call for feedback, Equinor proposed a revision that may enable companies to circumvent stricter production criteria for renewable hydrogen as finalized by the EU Commission in 2023.
At the time of this assessment, Equinor's Organization Score metric was 62%, with an Engagement Intensity of 41%, indicating strategic engagement but partial misalignment between the Paris Agreement and the company’s detailed climate policy engagement. Please see Equinor’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?
Equinor 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?
In its 2025 Industry Association Review, Equinor disclosed a list of 148 industry associations, and assessed the alignment of 21 of these based on the coverage of InfluenceMap’s LobbyMap database. Equinor found none to be misaligned, 2 to be partially misaligned, and 19 to be aligned with the company’s own policy positions. The company appears to have utilized the LobbyMap database when choosing which associations to assess and, as such, does not appear to have excluded any associations that InfluenceMap assesses to be actively engaged on climate-related policy.
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has 7 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), including the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), the 2 associations that Equinor found to be partially misaligned. However, Equinor did not identify misalignment with its 5 other misaligned associations, including BusinessEurope, FuelsEurope and Instituto Brasileiro de Petróleo e Gás (IBP).
InfluenceMap analysis also indicates that Equinor has a further 9 memberships to industry associations with active climate policy engagement, partially misaligned (ranked B- to D+). However, Equinor found all of these associations to be aligned.
As a result, Equinor has not identified 16 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?
Equinor has shown evidence of taking action to address misalignments. In its 2025 Industry Association Review, it set out actions it would take with associations it had found partial misalignment with, including challenging the association in areas where positions differ. For example, it states that it will continue to engage directly with the CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and will continue to exert influence to strengthen CAPP’s positions and advocacy. It also outlines action to be taken for the associations which were found to be partially misaligned, such as continuing to influence policy positions.
Previously, in its 2024 industry Association Review, published in May 2024, it stated that the company left the Nigerian Gas Association following their misaligned assessment, and the company also left the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) in 2023, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) (Now Australian Energy Producers) in 2021 and the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in 2020.
However, Equinor does not appear to have shown evidence of action to address other 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 Equinor (formerly Statoil)'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.
