This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of LyondellBasell Industries'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 LyondellBasell Industries, 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 LyondellBasell Industries's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of LyondellBasell Industries'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 | Yes, meets criteria |
A summary of LyondellBasell Industries'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 | 3/14 (21%) |
| May 2025 | 5/14 (36%) |
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 LyondellBasell Industries'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)?
LyondelBasell 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.
LyondellBasell has disclosed its position on, and engagement with, specific climate-related policies, including in: the US (US IRA Hydrogen Tax Credit) and Europe (EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, the EU Strategy for Industrial Carbon Management, and the EU Renewable Energy Directive III). However, LyondellBasell does not appear to have disclosed a complete and accurate account of its climate policy engagement.
For example, the company stated that it “advocated for specific changes to the 45V Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit, to jump start clean hydrogen production and demand”. However, it did not disclose that it opposed specific clean hydrogen production measures in a March 2024 testimony to the US Internal Revenue Service. Additionally, the company has excluded key instances of climate policy engagement in the United States and Europe. For example, the company took an unclear position on the US Accelerating a Circular Economy for Plastics and Recycling Innovation Act of 2024 in an April 2025 US lobbying disclosure. The company also did not support the EU Hydrogen and Gas Decarbonization Package Delegated Act on the definition of low-carbon hydrogen in October 2024 public consultation feedback. Additionally, the company advocated against measures to address hazardous chemicals under the Global Plastics Treaty in an April 2024 meeting with EU commissioner Šefčovič.
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)?
LyondellBasell has published a largely complete and accurate account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, and this is aligned with InfluenceMap's assessment of the company and its industry associations using its LobbyMap database.
LyondellBasell does not appear to have excluded any material evidence of climate policy engagement by its industry associations in its Climate Policy Engagement Review through linking each of the associations' LobbyMap profiles. However, LyondellBasell appears to exclude 1 actively engaged industry association, the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry.
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 LyondellBasell Industries'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 LyondellBasell Industries'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?
LyondellBasell has published two reviews, one in 2023 and now in 2025. The company has committed to provide an updated review every two years. The company does not commit to updating its review process on an annual basis, or providing detailed updates in the interim years.
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?
LyondellBasell has detailed a methodology for assessing the alignment of its industry associations. The company has assessed the alignment of its industry associations against top-line positions on climate policy, and the company’s own climate policy positions. However, its own climate policy positions are limited to top-line statements. As a result, the company has not assessed its associations’ climate policy engagement activities against science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
LyondellBasell states in its 2025 review that it uses publicly available data sources for its review, as well as InfluenceMap’s LobbyMap platform. The company stated that it reviewed each association’s engagement on specific policies in detail to assess for alignment with its own climate policy positions. These positions included six policy priorities: emission reduction and net-zero emissions; hydrogen; carbon capture; utilization and storage (CCUS); emerging technologies; low carbon renewable energy and electrification; and carbon pricing. It also assessed whether a trade association’s public actions and engagement were consistent with its top-line statements.
However, the company’s own policy positions do not appear to be fully aligned with science-aligned policy for achieving the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (example in Identify & Assess (Direct) indicator). As a result, the company does not appear to have fully assessed its associations’ climate policy engagement activities against science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
LyondellBasell provided clear criteria for findings of alignment. The company assigned associations to one of four categories: Constructive (trade association is actively engaged and aligned with our position), Obstructive (trade association is actively engaged but misaligned with our position), Mixed (trade association is actively engaged but with mixed alignment), and Inactive (trade association is not actively engaged on this topic). It also provided details of policy positions or areas of alignment and misalignment with each association, including linking each associations’ LobbyMap profile.
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?
LyondellBasell has provided a detailed framework for addressing misalignment. The company states that for misaligned associations, LyondellBasell will first communicate with the industry association detailing how and why its position is misaligned, determine if its position(s) can change, and if so, what the timeline for change is. The company will then provide recommendations for how the industry association can address misalignment and progress will then be periodically reviewed.
Where an industry association’s position cannot be made consistent with the company or no improvement is being made to reach alignment over a 24-month period, LyondellBasell states it may choose to take action including withdrawal of its membership and making its withdrawal public.
Alternatively, LyondellBasell also stated it may decide that its interests are best served by retaining its membership. The company may make a public statement regarding this misalignment and continue to work with the industry association to encourage alignment with its climate policy positions.
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)?
LyondellBasell has provided details of its own engagement activities and positions on specific climate related policies, including links to its political activity reports and reference to its transparency registers. However, the company does not appear to have assessed the alignment of its own climate policy engagement activities against science-aligned 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 identified by InfluenceMap’s database.
For example, the company has not addressed misaligned advocacy, including a March 2024 testimony where the company advocated for weaker implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act's clean hydrogen tax credit by opposing the ambition of the main three proposed requirements.
At the time of this assessment, LyondellBasell’s InfluenceMap Organization Score was 56%, indicating partial misalignment between its detailed climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. The company also has an Engagement Intensity metric of 26%, indicating highly active climate policy engagement with a mixture of positive and negative positions. Please see the LyondellBasell’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?
LyondellBasell 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. 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?
In its 2025 review, LyondellBasell assessed 14 associations. It excluded 1 association actively engaged on climate policy covered by InfluenceMap’s database (Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry).
LyondellBasell found 11 of the associations reviewed to be fully aligned, including BusinessEurope, the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), and the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The company also found 3 associations to have ‘mixed’ alignment, including the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM). LyondellBasell did not identify any cases of misalignment.
InfluenceMap’s analysis indicates that the company has 4 memberships to industry associations that are misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked D or below on InfluenceMap’s database). These include BusinessEurope, AFPM, NAM, and Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry. InfluenceMap’s analysis also indicates the company has 4 memberships to industry associations that InfluenceMap assesses to be partially aligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+), including Cefic, PlasticsEurope, China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Federation (CPCIF), and ACC.
Of these associations, LyondellBasell identified only 2 cases of partial misalignment with AFPM and NAM As a result, the company did not identify 2 misaligned associations and 4 partially misaligned associations, according to 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?
LyondellBasell has shown some evidence of action to address specific cases of misalignment. The company stated it will remain a member of the three partially misaligned associations and will continue to track alignment as well as engaging on climate policy issues with a goal to develop constructive and pragmatic policies that deliver actual emissions reductions in a manner that minimizes the potential for negative business or competitive impacts. For example, LyondellBasell identified Asociacion de Combustibles Eficientes de Latinoamérica (ACELA) as inactive and stated it would engage in the support for the development of cleaner fuels and additives which reduce emissions with the goal of advancing a pathway of achieving climate neutrality by 2050, while encouraging ACELA to take a more direct and constructive approach on climate policy issues.
However, LyondellBasell does not appear to have shown evidence of action to address all cases of 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 LyondellBasell Industries'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 |
|---|---|---|
| China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Federation | C- | Partially Aligned |
| European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) | C- | Partially Aligned |
| PlasticsEurope | D+ | Partially Aligned |
| American Chemistry Council (ACC) | D | Misaligned |
| BusinessEurope | D- | Misaligned |
| National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) | E | Misaligned |
| Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry | E- | Misaligned |
| American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) | E- | Misaligned |
