This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of GE Vernova'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 GE Vernova, 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 GE Vernova's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of GE Vernova'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 GE Vernova'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 2024 | 2/14 (14%) |
| June 2025 | 3/14 (21%) |
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 GE Vernova'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)?
GE Vernova 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.
In its 2024 Sustainability Report, GE Vernova disclosed its engagement with the clean energy hydrogen tax credit provisions. However, GE Vernova does not appear to have disclosed its engagement with 3 climate-related policies in the US: May 2024 comments to the EPA on reducing GHG emissions from New and Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Combustion Turbines; a joint letter it signed in February 2024, where it emphasized concerns with the Internal Revenue Service on proposed enhancements in the clean hydrogen tax credit, advocating for flexibility.
In the same month, GE Vernova submitted comments where it appeared to support the specific clean hydrogen production measures, but with minor exceptions.
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)?
GE Vernova has disclosed a list of its industry association memberships, but excludes 4 industry associations which are actively engaged on climate policy: the Clean Energy Council, Eurelectric, Hydrogen Europe, and WindEurope.
While GE Vernova states that the US Chamber of Commerce and American Clean Power Association (ACPA) have engaged on the IRA, it does not appear to have disclosed a detailed account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities. GE Vernova has therefore excluded key instances of engagement with specific climate-related policies by its industry associations.
For example, in June 2025 comments to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, GE Vernova advoacted for new federal offshore oil and gas leasing, and in a January 2025 letter to congressional leadership, ACAP advocated for members of Congress to support a tax code that facilitates an "all-of-the-above" energy mix that includes both fossil fuels and renewables, appearing to reference the Inflation Reduction Act's energy-related tax credits.
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 GE Vernova'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 GE Vernova'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?
GE Vernova has published 2 reviews of the alignment of its industry associations’ climate advocacy activities in 2024 and 2025. GE Vernova was spun out from General Electric in April 2024, and General Electric published 2 reviews in 2022 and 2023. Taken together, the company has published 4 annual reviews to date.
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?
GE Vernova has not disclosed a clear and detailed methodology for assessing the alignment of its industry associations’ climate advocacy activities. The company states that it has analyzed whether the associations’ specific positions on climate change are aligned with GE Vernova’s own priorities and the goals of the Paris Agreement. However, the company has not provided a clear framework for how this is applied in practice, and provides no criteria for what constitutes a finding of alignment or misalignment. As such, it is unclear if the company has assessed its industry association’s detailed advocacy positions against science-aligned policy pathways for limiting warming to 1.5°C.
The company did however provide explanations behind each assessment of its industry associations, including their alignment with the goals of the Paris Agreement, and details on some of their engagements and positions on specific climate policies.
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?
GE Vernova does not appear to have disclosed a framework for addressing potential cases of misalignment. The company states that if divergences on position are identified, it will “seek to engage in constructive engagement to find the appropriate balance between differing viewpoints, disclosure, transparency, regulatory burdens, and material information,” but has not detailed escalation strategies it may adopt should misalignment with its industry associations occur.
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)?
In its 2025 review, GE Vernova stated that “we believe our lobbying efforts are aligned to advancing the energy transition and Paris Agreement objectives.” However, the company does not appear to have undertaken a review of the alignment of its direct advocacy activities with policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. As such, the company has not identified any cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal as identified by InfluenceMap’s database.
For example, in May 2024 regulatory comments GE Vernova stated support for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s intent to reduce emissions from the power sector, but also advocated against a stringent regulation of carbon emissions from existing gas power plants. This would potentially weaken the climate ambition of the policy.
At the time of this assessment, GE Vernova's InfluenceMap Organization Score was 64%, indicating partial misalignment between the company’s detailed climate policy engagement and science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal. It has an Engagement Intensity metric of 32%, indicating strategic engagement with a mix of positive and negative positions. Please see the GE Vernova’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?
GE Vernova 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?
GE Vernova assessed 3 associations in its review, but excluded key associations actively engaged on climate policy, including (but not limited to) the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA), and Hydrogen Europe.
The company appears to have found all 3 associations to be aligned (US Chamber of Commerce, American Clean Power Association (ACP), Nuclear Energy Institute).
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least 1 membership 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): the US Chamber.
InfluenceMap analysis also indicates that GE Vernova has a further 3 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+), including CCSA, Eurelectric and Hydrogen Europe. See Appendix A below for further details on the company’s industry association memberships.
As GE Vernova found all 3 associations to be aligned, and has excluded active industry associations, the company has not identified the above 4 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.
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?
GE Vernova did not identify any cases of misalignment with its industry associations. As such, GE Vernova has shown no evidence of action to address misalignment between its industry associations and 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.
GE Vernova was spun-off from General Electric in April 2024. InfluenceMap has assessed the accuracy of the company's direct climate policy engagement activities from April 2024 onwards, not including the reportitng of engagement activities carried out by General Electric prior to the spin-off. This includes General Electric's historical corporate climate lobbying reviews.
Yes, meets criteria
Partial, meets some criteria
No, does not meet criteria
The table below provides a ranking of GE Vernova'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 |
|---|---|---|
| American Clean Power Association (formerly AWEA) | B+ | Aligned |
| Clean Energy Council | B+ | Aligned |
| WindEurope | B+ | Aligned |
| Eurelectric | B- | Partially Aligned |
| Hydrogen Europe | C | Partially Aligned |
| Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) | D+ | Partially Aligned |
| US Chamber of Commerce | E | Misaligned |
