Net-zero saboteurs

In October 2024, the UN Emissions Gap Report starkly laid out the scale of the challenge that the global community faces if we are to keep planetary warming below the 2°C limit – with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal almost certainly out of reach already. The report calls primarily for a “massive increase in ambition” for countries’ nationally determined contributions (climate commitments) but also for “strong private sector action.” Without making significant changes we risk jeopardizing not only those Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that focus explicitly on protecting the natural environment, but also those that rely on the prospect of secure and stable livelihoods, free from natural disaster, displacement, or unrest.

An important measure of private sector action on the SDGs over the last decade has been the increasing number of companies making net-zero commitments. In fact, by 2023 half of the world’s largest companies had committed to net zero – or so they said. Although this clearly demonstrates the growing acceptance that business cannot reasonably be seen to be doing nothing, the pace of progress has not accelerated with the speed of commitment making.

Corporate disconnect

One explanation for this – exposed by InfluenceMap in its 2023 Net Zero Greenwash report – is the huge disconnect among business leaders between their net-zero commitments and their own policy advocacy work. This is despite the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been clear that meeting our climate commitments will require a huge amount of new and interconnected policy and regulation from national governments. The report found that nearly a quarter of the companies that made net-zero commitments had continued to directly lobby governments to weaken or stall proposed climate policies. An even greater proportion did not engage on policy at all, ignoring the role they could play in positive developments, while industry associations engage – mostly negatively – on their behalf.

We have seen some progress in this area. In 2020, only 2% of companies tracked by InfluenceMap had aligned their lobbying with science-based pathways to net zero, but by 2024, 15% had done so. Additionally, around 50% of the companies assessed had made a significant improvement to their scores over this time. Positive developments in this area are helped by the fact that when negative direct lobbying is exposed, it is clearly and egregiously at odds with any stated existing commitments to reach net zero. 

Shareholders and consumers alike can see the obvious duplicity of making high-level climate commitments with one breath and questioning the urgency of the energy transition with the next. This has driven increasing levels of coordinated action in recent years, with more investors filing shareholder resolutions on corporate lobbying and political activities than any other climate topic in 2024, according to the Ceres shareholder proposal tracker.

Industry associations: in whose interests?

But there is a second, more entrenched and less visible, route by which industry applies pressure on governments and policymakers: indirect lobbying via industry associations.

Industry associations claim to act as a united voice for businesses and exist in all the world’s  largest industries. Their full membership lists are rarely public – nor are their membership fee structures or the mechanisms by which they decide on their policy positions. InfluenceMap research has continually shown that these industry groups are far more engaged with governments on climate policy than any one of their members. 

The weight of their memberships, and decades of accumulated experience, makes them adept at navigating complex policy processes and hugely successful at blocking climate progress. Many of these associations directly contradict commitments made by their more positive members in their lobbying, while providing public distance for obstructive members who are feeling the pressure on their direct action. In this way, these associations are acting as saboteurs at the very moment we need them to help drive dramatic change.

For example, the US Chamber of Commerce is a huge cross-sector industry association whose members range from Apple and Salesforce (both of which appeared in InfluenceMap’s Climate Policy Engagement Leaders in 2024) to Chevron, Toyota, and others shown to consistently advocate against science-aligned policy. As a convener of large companies, the Chamber has the opportunity to mediate between different levels of climate ambition among its members. Instead, it pushes to maintain the status quo and defers to fossil fuel interests in its policy engagement. Recently this has extended as far as opposing the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed climate disclosure rules, which would make it easier to quantify and reduce emissions in the US in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement, and for which members as diverse as Airlines for America, UPS, and BP have expressed support.

InfluenceMap’s assessment of the last 60 years of advocacy by oil and gas industry associations, published in July 2024, shows that it was industry groups that pioneered many of the arguments and tactics used against ambitious climate policy today. This includes expressing skepticism of proposed renewable energy solutions and advocating for “policy neutrality” in regulation. It also reveals the effectiveness of using vast communications budgets to elevate affordability and security concerns over concerns about the future of the planet and its resources.

Industry associations across sectors have adopted these same narratives in their own oppositional work. In the last year alone, InfluenceMap has tracked their use to weaken policy proposals for vehicle emissions in Australia, building regulations in the US, agricultural policy in the EU, and steel policy in Japan. By using these narratives, industry associations legitimize and strengthen support for vested fossil fuel interests, regardless of the extent to which they are supported by their memberships.

Tackling the saboteurs

Some companies are beginning to get the message on this, with at least 90 producing enhanced disclosure reports that included the alignment of their industry associations. Leaders like Unilever and Iberdrola have emerged in the last few years, demonstrating the importance of calling out this misalignment and acknowledging the real risks posed by doing nothing.

But more needs to be done. Disclosures need to be more detailed, and they need to come from all sectors of business, rather than just those at the forefront of the climate transition right now. This would be a step toward acknowledging that the climate crisis will affect the sustainability and longevity of all industries, and that companies that fund these associations –regardless of their climate commitments – are complicit in the work of some of the transition’s biggest saboteurs.

International regulation also needs to be brought to bear to help increase transparency and accountability. Mandatory legislation on disclosures and transition plans should incorporate the role of industry associations, requiring companies to be transparent about their memberships and to take responsibility for the lobbying that is conducted on their behalf. 

This regulation should call on companies to engage with their associations and encourage them to advocate for positive change in line with the Paris Agreements goals. If no progress is made, it should direct them to implement an “escalation strategy,” as per the recommendations of the Integrity Matters report from the UN High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities. This disclosure of climate lobbying and lobbying via industry associations is already part of voluntary, investor-led initiatives like the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying. It can easily be incorporated into emerging legislation to drive this change faster and more widely.

While many of the most powerful actors convene for another UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties, it is the perfect time to codify a commitment to such legislation and to shine a harsh light on one of the most ingrained saboteurs of climate progress operating out of sight.