This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Fortescue'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 Fortescue, 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 Fortescue's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Fortescue'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 Fortescue'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 |
|---|---|
| October 2022 | 6/14 (43%) |
| August 2023 | 6/14 (43%) |
| August 2024 | 7/14 (50%) |
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 Fortescue'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)?
Fortescue has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but excludes over 3 cases of material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
The company has disclosed its engagement with Australia's 2035 emissions reduction target and Hydrogen Headstart Fund, and the USA's Inflation Reduction Act.
However, Fortescue does not appear to have disclosed its engagement with more than 3 climate-related policies in Australia, including its December 2023 submission to the Carbon Leakage Review, its March 2024 and May 2024 submissions to consultations on the Capacity Investment Scheme, and its May 2024 submission to the Electricity and Energy Sector Plan Discussion Paper .
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)?
Fortescue has published a complete list of its industry association memberships. However, the company's disclosure on its industry associations is limited to top-line climate statements without reference to specific climate policies.
Fortescue has therefore excluded key instances of engagement with specific climate-related policies by its industry associations. For example, the Business Council of Australia and Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia both submitted comments on Australia's Future Gas Strategy advocating for government support to facilitate increased investment in fossil gas
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 Fortescue'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 Fortescue'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?
Fortescue has published a review of its industry association memberships on an annual basis since 2022.
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?
Fortescue has disclosed a methodology to assess alignment with its industry associations. The company assesses its industry associations against its own values and commitments in relation to climate and energy, human rights, biodiversity, and innovation and technology. Fortescue also clearly details the conditions for an association to be assessed as “Generally aligned,” “Partially aligned,” and “Misaligned.”
However, it is unclear whether Fortescue assesses its industry associations’ policy positions and engagement activities against the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. In its climate-related assessment criteria, the company states that it expects its associations to “accept the scientific consensus as assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and to reflect our commitment to climate action.” In addition, the Fortescue states that it expects its associations to take steps to realise the goal of the Paris Agreement. However, apart from these top-line expectations, there is insufficient information provided to determine if the company actively assesses its industry associations’ specific climate-related positions and engagement activities against science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Fortescue provided brief status updates on its alignment with 11 associations, including detailed explanations for the reclassification of two associations from general alignment to partial alignment. However, the company does not extend this level of detail to the assessments of its associations in its general reviews, limiting the analysis to one metric indicating if associations are aligned, partially aligned or misaligned with the company’s values and commitments. Further, Fortescue does not separate out the associations’ respective alignment on climate, biodiversity and human rights issues.
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?
Fortescue has disclosed a clear and detailed framework for addressing potential misalignments, including escalation strategies. The company states that where misalignment is identified, it will reassess the membership according to its own values and commitments in relation to climate and energy, human rights, biodiversity, and innovation and technology. In situations where Fortescue has a long-standing relationship with the association, the company will work to influence change rather than terminate membership.
Fortescue also appears to provide deadlines for industry associations which do not amend misaligned practices. The company states that any reassessments of associations found to be misaligned must be approved by the CEO prior to the commencement of the next membership cycle. In instances of significant misalignment where Fortescue is unable to reconcile views, the company states that the CEO or nominated delegate may elect to terminate the membership outside the regular membership cycle.
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)?
Fortescue does not appear to have undertaken a review of the alignment of its own climate policy engagement activities. As such, the company has not identified any cases of potentially misaligned advocacy 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 a February 2023 submission on Australia’s Safeguard Mechanism reforms, Fortescue appeared to emphasize concerns around the proposal for new facilities to adopt best practice baselines, and also stated that “we generally support submissions” by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia and the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, both of which advocated for major provisions that risk undermining the climate ambition of the policy.
Fortescue likewise appeared to advocate for weaker implementation guidelines around the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean hydrogen tax credit in a July 2023 joint industry letter, advocating against stringent additionality, hourly matching, and deliverability requirements.
At the time of this assessment, Fortescue’s Organization Score metric was 76%, just over the threshold for broad alignment between the company’s detailed climate policy engagement and science-aligned pathways for limiting warming to 1.5C. Please see Fortescue’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?
Fortescue 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 partial 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?
Fortescue has assessed 85 industry associations in its review. It did not appear to exclude any key industry associations actively engaged on climate policy within the scope of the review.
The company finds 58 associations to be aligned and 27 to be partially aligned (including the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC), the Australian Pipelines and Gas Association (APGA) and the Chamber of Minerals and Energy Western Australia (CME)).
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least 4 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 South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME), AMEC, APGA and Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA). FCHEA was added to the LobbyMap database in July 2024, after Fortesuce's 2024 review was conducted. This association was therefore not considered in InfuenceMap's assessment of Fortescue's 2024 review.
Fortescue is also a member of 4 industry associations with active climate policy engagement partially misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+), the Business Council of Australia (BCA), CME Australian Hydrogen Council and Hydrogen Europe.
Fortescue identified partial alignment with its three memberships to actively misaligned associations (AMEC, APGA and SACOME). However, due to a lack of explanation behind its evaluations, it is unclear whether it was climate change, biodiversity, or human rights issues that SACOME was found to be partially aligned on. In addition, Fortescue did not identify three cases of partial alignment (BCA, Australian Hydrogen Council, Hydrogen Europe).
Subsequently, the company has not identified all key 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 for further details on the company’s industry associations.
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?
Fortescue has shown some evidence of action to address cases of misalignment between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
In its 2022 review, Fortescue stated that it withdrew its membership to the New South Wales Minerals Council due to the association’s continued backing for coal and coal exports. The company also stated that it withdrew its membership to the DomGas Alliance due to misalignment between their positions on long-term gas development.
In its 2023 review, Fortescue noted that two potential misalignments were identified, with one being resolved and the other being under investigation due to perceived continued advocacy of ill-defined green hydrogen classification. However, the company did not disclose the identity of the two associations.
In its 2024 review, Fortescue explained that it has cancelled its membership to the association showing continued advocacy of ill-defined green hydrogen classification as a result of the company’s investigation.
However, Fortescue does not appear to have shown evidence of action to address all 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 Fortescue'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 |
|---|---|---|
| Clean Energy Council | B+ | Aligned |
| Brazilian Association of Wind Energy and New Technologies (ABEEólica) | B- | Partially Aligned |
| Australian Hydrogen Council | C+ | Partially Aligned |
| Hydrogen Council | C | Partially Aligned |
| Hydrogen Europe | C | Partially Aligned |
| Business Council of Australia | C | Partially Aligned |
| Korea Hydrogen Alliance (Formerly H2KOREA) | C- | Partially Aligned |
| Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia (CME) | C- | Partially Aligned |
| Australian Pipelines and Gas Association | D+ | Partially Aligned |
| South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME) | D | Misaligned |
| Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC) | D | Misaligned |
| Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) | D- | Misaligned |
