This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of SSE'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 SSE, 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 SSE's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of SSE'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 SSE'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 |
|---|---|
| 2022 (No Date) | 5/14 (36%) |
| May 2024 | 9/14 (64%) |
| August 2025 | 9/14 (64%) |
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 SSE'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)?
SSE has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but excludes more than 6 cases of material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
SSE has disclosed its position on, and engagement with, specific climate-related policies and officials in the UK including: the UK Green Taxonomy and the Clean Power Action Plan. However, SSE does not appear to have disclosed a complete and accurate account of its climate policy engagement.
For example, the company has not disclosed material engagement in the UK and EU, including: a joint letter to EU policymakers in April 2025, an October 2024 joint letter to UK Government, and a March 2024 consultation response on Scotland's draft Circular Economy and Waste Route Map to 2030.
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)?
SSE has disclosed 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. SSE therefore appears to have excluded key instances of engagement with specific climate-related policies by its industry associations.
For example, the American Clean Power Association submitted comments on the Section 45V Credit for Production of Clean Hydrogen in February 2024, supporting for the Inflation Reduction Act's clean hydrogen tax credit with major exceptions.
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 SSE'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 SSE'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?
SSE has published four reviews of its industry associations to date from 2021-2025. The company has committed to undertaking full reviews on an annual basis.
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?
SSE assessed the alignment of its industry associations with the goals of the Paris Agreement and SSE’s net-zero strategy. SSE has disclosed a methodology for assessing alignment based on five principles which it states are aligned with the Paris Agreement, including: acknowledging the serious threat of climate change; supporting the goals of the Paris Agreement; supporting a strong carbon price; promoting innovation; and seeking a just transition to net-zero. It also disclosed its own detailed positions on these principles, clear criteria for findings of alignment, partial alignment, and misalignment, and provided a broad explanation behind the findings of the review. Furthermore, SSE disclosed its advocacy positions on decarbonizing electricity systems in developed economies by 2035, and its specific advocacy activities in the UK in 2024/25.
Each criteria SSE used to assess its associations’ climate policy positions appears to be aligned with science-aligned policy pathways to achieve the 1.5° C goal. Additionally, SSE’s broader climate advocacy also appears to be aligned. As such, SSE appears to have assessed the alignment of its industry associations’ climate advocacy activities against the company’s own 1.5°C-aligned climate policy positions.
However, SSE only provided detailed explanations behind the assessments for industry associations identified as partially aligned. For the remainder, it provided a broad overview of the company’s findings, but did not reference the industry associations’ detailed climate advocacy activities.
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?
SSE does not appear to have disclosed a framework to address potential misalignments. It states that it regularly reviews membership to ensure that they are still relevant for SSE’s business activities, and that, since SSE works closely with its associations, they are usually well aligned.
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 review, SSE commits to conduct its policy advocacy activity in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement and its own net-zero strategy, both aligned to limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C.” SSE suggests that its climate policy positions are aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement and states that all its advocacy positions are aligned with the Paris Agreement.
InfluenceMap analysis suggests that SSE has no evidence of misaligned or partially misaligned advocacy within the reporting period, and therefore can find no evidence to dispute this claim.
At the time of this assessment, SSE's InfluenceMap organization score was 76%, indicating alignment between the Paris Agreement and the company’s detailed climate policy engagement. Its Engagement Intensity metric was 42%, indicating strategic, positive advocacy, Please see SSE’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?
InfluenceMap’s assessment of SSE indicates that the company’s climate policy engagement is broadly aligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and therefore SSE does not have any cases of misalignment to act upon.
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?
SSE assessed the alignment of 20 industry associations in its 2024/2025 review.
The company identified overall alignment with 19 associations, and overall partial alignment with 1 association (Charge UK). It also identified cases of partial alignment with individual assessment criteria for 5 associations, such as the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) and Wind Energy Ireland.
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has no membership to an industry association that is misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked D or below on InfluenceMap’s database). InfluenceMap analysis also indicates the company has 3 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+): the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA), Confederation of British Industry (CBI), and IETA.
SSE identified some partial misalignment with IETA, but identified full alignment with CCSA and CBI. As such, SSE has missed some cases of partial misalignment between its industry associations’ advocacy and delivering the 1.5C goal of the Paris Agreement.
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?
SSE has shown some evidence of action to address partial misalignments with its industry associations. It stated in its 2024/2025 review that it will seek further engagement with Charge UK, which it found to be partially aligned, to ensure that it is explicitly aligned with SSE’s key principles to reach net zero.
In its 2023/2024 review, the company stated it asked 2 associations to provide assurance that they were aligned to the company’s principles, and asked them to share evidence in the form of internal papers and presentations to back this up. Following this engagement, SSE stated that both associations presented their own assessment of how they were aligned with SSE’s principles and SSE was satisfied by the evidence provided and deemed both associations to be aligned.
However, SSE does not appear to have shown evidence of action to address all the cases of partial misalignment with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement identified by InfluenceMap’s database, such as the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA).
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.
*To fully meet the expectations set out in the Global Standard for Responsible Climate Lobbying, SSE would need to clearly identify and commit to steps to review and remedy any cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and science-aligned policy for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Yes, meets criteria
Partial, meets some criteria
No, does not meet criteria
The table below provides a ranking of SSE'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 |
|---|---|---|
| Corporate Leaders Group (CLG) | A- | Aligned |
| WindEurope | B+ | Aligned |
| Confederation of British Industry (CBI) | B- | Partially Aligned |
| International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) | C | Partially Aligned |
| Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) | D+ | Partially Aligned |
