This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Rio Tinto Group'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 Rio Tinto Group, 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 Rio Tinto Group's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Rio Tinto Group'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 Rio Tinto Group'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 |
|---|---|
| February 2023 | 6/14 (43%) |
| February 2024 | 6/14 (43%) |
| February 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 Rio Tinto Group'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)?
The Rio Tinto Group has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but appears to exclude 2 cases of material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
On its corporate advocacy webpage, the company disclosed both its positions on, and engagement with, key legislation including: Australia's Safeguard Mechanism reforms, National Hydrogen Strategy, Carbon Leakage Review and Electricity and Energy Sector Plan, amongst others.
However, the Rio Tinto Group does not appear to have disclosed its engagement with policymakers on 2 climate policies in Australia and the EU within the last 2 years: a March 2024 letter to the Prime Minister of Australia regarding the government's proposed Nature Positive Plan, and a September 2023 joint letter to the President of the European Commission regarding a sustainable critical minerals supply in Europe
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)?
The Rio Tinto Group has disclosed a list of its industry association memberships but excludes at least 4 industry associations actively engaged on climate policy, including the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network and American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), as well as the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) and the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber).
The company's disclosure on its industry associations is also limited to top-line climate statements without reference to specific climate policies, with the exception of a more detailed disclosure for the one association Rio Tinto finds misalignment with, the National Mining Association.
Rio Tinto has therefore excluded key instances of engagement with specific climate-related policies by its industry associations. For example, the Business Council of Australia opposed the introduction of a climate trigger in Australia's EPBC Act in a July 2024 submission to Australia's Nature Positive Bill
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 Rio Tinto Group'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 Rio Tinto Group'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?
Rio Tinto has published annual reviews of its industry association memberships since 2018.
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?
Rio Tinto has disclosed a clear and detailed methodology for assessing alignment with its industry associations. The company outlined six principles for industry association advocacy, including: (1.) accept climate science and advance the Paris Agreement’ central aims, (2.) support governments as they raise their NDC ambitions, (3.) support a market-based price on carbon, (4.) support policy tools other than carbon pricing to tackle emissions reductions, (5.) recognize the contribution of renewable energy sources to reducing emissions, (6.) ensure positions and advocacy on coal do not support subsidies and note that it will require advanced technology and are, in the medium to long term, consistent with the Paris Agreement. The company also included a detailed breakdown of the criteria for assessing associations as having clear, partial, or no alignment with each principle.
However, while the company assessed whether its industry associations had expressed support for the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target, the “interpretation” of this principle is that industry associations only need to be on public record as having expressed top-line support for the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, while the company does assess its industry association’s alignment against detailed criteria, it does not appear to have assessed the detailed climate policy engagement activities of its industry associations on specific climate-related regulations. As such, Rio Tinto assessed alignment against top-line positions rather than the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement.
Additionally, an explanation of the application of this methodology has only been provided for one “not aligned” industry association (the US National Mining Association). Rio Tinto has not disclosed details of how the remaining assessments were made.
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?
Rio Tinto has disclosed a clear framework for addressing potential cases of misalignment, with clear escalation strategies and deadlines for associations that do not amend misaligned practices. The company has stated that it will clarify its own positions with the industry association, seek common ground, seek leadership positions to influence policies and perspectives of the industry association, and consider suspending membership if differences are not resolved after 12 months.
Iberdrola has disclosed a clear and detailed framework to address potential misalignments, including escalation strategies and deadlines for industry associations that do not amend misaligned practices. Iberdrola's escalation strategy includes engagement with the industry association, sending a "notification of dissatisfaction", and formal notification that a termination of membership is being assessed. If the association does not provide a clear and credible action plan to address the misalignment within 12 months, Iberdrola will implement one or more of the following actions: make a clear public statement regarding the misalignment, request the industry association refrains from engaging on misaligned issues, and/or suspension or discontinuation of membership.
Has the company identified and reported on the existence of all misalignments between its direct climate policy engagement activities and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database (including all of its subsidiaries, business areas, and operational jurisdictions)?
Rio Tinto has not undertaken a review of the alignment of its own climate policy engagement activities. As such, the company has not identified any cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement identified by InfluenceMap’s database.
For example, the company advocated for the Australian Government to rule out including a climate trigger and other climate change requirements from its reform of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
At the time of this assessment, Rio Tinto’s InfluenceMap organization score was 56%, indicating partial misalignment between science-aligned policy for delivering the goal of the Paris Agreement and the company’s detailed climate policy engagements. Its organization score sits just above the threshold for misaligned climate policy engagement (49%). Please see the Rio Tinto’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?
Rio Tinto has not undertaken a review of the alignment of its own climate policy engagement activities with the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement. Therefore, the company has not demonstrated any action to address cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and achieving the 1.5°C target.
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?
Rio Tinto has assessed 45 industry associations in its review. It did not include 4 key industry associations actively engaged on climate policy within the scope of the review: the American Iron & Steel Institute, Australian Industry Greenhouse Network (AIGN), European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), and the California Chamber of Commerce.
The company finds 44 associations to be aligned, 0 to be partially aligned, and 1 to be misaligned (the US National Mining Association (NMA)).
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least 7memberships to industry associations with active climate policy engagement misaligned with science-aligned policy for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked D or below on InfluenceMap’s database), and 13 industry associations with active climate policy engagement partially misaligned with science-aligned policy to deliver the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+).
Rio Tinto has only identified one of seven misaligned associations on InfluenceMap’s database (the NMA). It did not identify misalignment with any of the 13 partially misaligned associations identified by InfluenceMap. As a result, the company has not identified key cases of misalignment and partial misalignment between its industry associations and science-aligned policy for 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?
Rio Tinto has shown some evidence of action to address cases of misalignment with its industry associations in its annual reviews. In its 2022 review, the company outlined its engagement with two associations, the National Mining Association (NMA) and the US Chamber of Commerce. For example, it stated that it has advocated for the NMA to create an ESG taskforce to guide its positioning on climate-related matters, and that it will continue working towards better alignment of NMA policy. Further, in its 2023 review, Rio Tinto stated that it has escalated its discussions with the NMA and proposed a climate task force is set up to guide the NMA’s future positioning on these matters.
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 Rio Tinto Group'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.
