ClimateVoices Featuring Dylan Tanner

In this issue I’m pleased to be talking to Dylan Tanner , Executive Director and Founder of InfluenceMap , an independent think tank producing data-driven analysis on how business and finance are impacting the climate crisis. InfluenceMap just published a new brief tracking the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ’s negative influence on climate policy.

InfluenceMap was founded in 2015 after the historic Paris Climate Agreement. What trends have you seen in regard to how companies engage with climate policy then and now?

We have been studying in detail the climate policy engagement of the world's leading companies and their trade groups since 2015 (8 years) and have noticed some key trends (see here for scores of corporations and trade groups in the U.S.)

(a) There is far more positive and strategic engagement from parts of the corporate sector whose business models are most impacted by strong government policies & regulations. This is true of both oppositional lobbying from the fossil fuel value chain, but also more positive players on the other side who feel climate change will impact their customers and supply chains. We see this in sectors like utilities (especially the European utilities but also some U.S. ones), to a lesser extent the automotive sector (from players like Tesla , 大众 ), and also consumer goods companies like 联合利华 , 沃尔玛 , 达能 .

(b) Due to investor, media and campaign pressure (no doubt armed with our data) there is less blatant opposition to an ambitious climate policy agenda directly from fossil fuel value chain companies. As an example, 壳牌 's top line climate statements appear somewhat positive and it has decreased its direct opposition to the fine print of climate and energy regulations. However… there are still very strategic tactics at play. Even when companies do not outright oppose policies anymore, or threaten legal challenges, etc., they can work behind the scenes to weaken them, or delay them, lowering ambition. This is really similar to the shift in messaging from pure climate denial to climate delay over the last decade. While outright denial is rare these days, subtler messaging can be just as obstructive.?

(c) Industry groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the API - American Petroleum Institute remain unchanged over the last decade and are steadfastly opposed to any ambitious and binding action by governments on climate. So it appears that negative companies like Shell, 埃克森美孚 and others are increasingly relying more on powerful agents like these two groups and others to undertake their negative (and highly effective) policy engagement. This has resulted in a trend of key concern to climate advocates and positive companies - i.e. a disconnect between powerful cross sector groups like the U.S. Chamber, who claim to represent all of business, and most of their members. To put it another way, an increasingly minority view of the fossil fuel producers appears to have weaponised and taken control of these powerful institutions (U.S. Chamber, BusinessEurope , Japan Business Federation) on climate. This disconnect needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency and could be a key to real action on climate change globally. InfluenceMap is working with our analysis in numerous public and inside-tactic avenues to change this.

InfluenceMap monitors over 350 global companies and tracks many different metrics. In your view, what are the best companies doing compared to the middling or worst corporate actors? Basically, what does corporate climate leadership look like??

(a) Positive Engagement: A company must show direct policy engagement activities that are aligned with science-based policy (as articulated by the IPCC) and the climate ambitions of governments mandated to implement Paris-aligned climate policy.

(b) Strategic Engagement: As well as being positive, the company must strategically engage at various levels. The full spectrum of what constitutes climate policy engagement is contained within the UN Guide for Responsible Corporate Engagement (2013) - advertising, PR, direct consultation with regulators, CEO messaging and in particular ensuring the company's trade groups are in line with its own positive engagement.

(c) Alignment and Disclosure of Industry Groups: InfluenceMap's ongoing research shows significant misalignments of key powerful groups and corporate members on climate. Corporate climate policy leadership entails full auditing and disclosure of industry group networks, along with misalignments on climate, and clear timelines and plans for resolving these.?

InfluenceMap maintains an A-List of corporate climate policy leaders, to be updated in mid 2023 - the 2021 A List is here , providing details of the policy engagement activities of companies like Iberdrola , Edison International , 联合利华 , etc.

Has anything changed in the last couple of years on how much influence the fossil fuel industry and key trade association allies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce exert on climate policy?

The trends noted in question 1 are working together. We see a battle between companies who want real progress on climate policy vs. the fossil fuel producers, who offer fancier top line PR statements but no real change in their staunch opposition to real and binding action from governments. Those companies in the latter category increasingly direct action through sector groups like the API and cross sector groups like the U.S. Chamber whose climate positions, by the way, are nearly identical, per our most recent briefing on the U.S. Chamber .?

The increased positive influence from the companies noted in (1) and (2) has resulted in a weakening somewhat of the fossil fuel industry's control of climate policy globally - e.g. the EU's Fit for 55 package of climate action and the passage of the in the U.S. However, notions of success need to be tempered with the actualities that the Fit for 55 is being heavily lobbied by all parties. It is far from certain all or some of its components will be implemented in their full ambition. We note that the IRA's predecessor, the Build Back Better Act, was scuppered by pressure from the U.S. Chamber, API, and large utilities among others. In fact, the IRA contained some concessions to the fossil fuel industry. InfluenceMap ascertains that the IRA's passage was facilitated by the direct intervention of large U.S. companies like Walmart, despite the U.S. Chamber and other groups' opposition.

So, the battle is underway. An important point to note is that the cross-sector groups like the U.S. Chamber have not shown any real improvement on their climate policy positions and likely remain controlled by the lowest common denominator position of their most regressive members on climate. Our ongoing analysis of other powerful cross sector groups globally finds very similar trends. The disconnect needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency by the companies themselves, who pay dues to these groups and in turn, lend them their credibility and power.?

Keep up with?ClimateVoices?– now an online Q&A penned by leading climate thinkers and doers.?Follow ClimateVoice to be alerted when additional interviews are published monthly.

????

The opinions and views expressed in this interview are solely those of the individual(s) being interviewed. They may not reflect the views, policies, or positions of ClimateVoice, the employer(s) of the individual(s) being interviewed, nor of any other organizations with which the individual(s) being interviewed are affiliated. This interview is intended for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as an endorsement or official statement on behalf of such employer(s) or organization(s).