We have strengthened the algorithm for discounting the impact older evidence on an organization's top-line metrics. Evidence from within the last two years is weighted the strongest and then gradually weighted out of the scoring calculations as it gets older. All evidence that is 5 years or older is completely removed from the scoring calculations. Users will still be able to view older evidence items that are archived the scoring matrix below, but these will not be impacting the organization's current scores.
We have expanded the list of climate policies we assess company engagement with to incorporate land-use related policy, referring to legislative or regulatory measures to enhance and protect ecosystems and land where carbon is being stored. Assessments under this category are currently underweighted in terms of their contribution to the overall company metrics. This weighting will be progressively increased over the next 6 months.
In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party. In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.
Climate Policy Engagement Overview: Chevron demonstrates negative engagement on climate policies across regions. The company actively opposes climate regulations and advocates to maintain fossil fuels in the energy mix. It retains memberships to several industry associations engaged in obstructive climate policy advocacy.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Chevron’s high-level communications appear to support climate action broadly. The company has stated support for the Paris Agreement, as per its website, when accessed in July 2024. In the Methane Report, published in October 2022, Chevron stated support for the Global Methane Pledge that seeks to reduce methane emissions consistent with the 1.5°C goal. However, Chevron’s recent communications have not stated support for limiting global warming to 1.5°C/2°C in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
The company appears unsupportive of climate regulation, as it specifies several conditions and qualifications that could significantly impact the stringency of emissions reduction. For instance, in the 2023 Climate Resiliency Report, released in October 2023, Chevron advocated for economy-wide approaches to regulation over sectoral or geographic approaches. In this report, Chevron also supported a price on carbon that is "applied as widely and broadly as possible", adding that “transparent performance reporting” will enable the market to reward the most carbon-efficient producers.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: Chevron has limited transparent engagement on specific regulations and appears to advance negative positions on most policies. In the US, the company appeared unsupportive of tailpipe GHG emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles in a July 2023 submission to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and instead advocated for a “technology-neutral” lifecycle GHG assessment approach to address emissions from transportation. The company also opposed EPA’s GHG emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles in June 2023 comments. In a January 2024 joint industry letter to policymakers in Canada, Chevron attempted to weaken British Columbia’s carbon tax by advocating for exemptions for "clean" liquid fuels.
Chevron appeared to advocate against EPA’s proposed methane standards for the oil and gas sector in its January 2022 comments. However, in February 2023, the company’s comments supported EPA’s supplemental proposal for methane regulations, such as measures for monitoring and reducing flaring, while appearing unsupportive of the Super-Emitter Reduction Program.
Chevron has not responded to CDP’s climate change survey since 2018.
Positioning on Energy Transition: Chevron advocates for a long-term role for oil and gas in the energy mix. The company’s comments to California’s Maximum Gross Refining Margin and Penalty in May 2024 emphasized the need for investments in the fossil fuel refining sector. As per a June 2024 record in the Colorado Lobbyist Registry, a lobbyist has voted on behalf of Chevron in opposition to SB24-159, a Colorado state-level bill which would require the state to phase out issuing new oil and gas permits by 2030.
In Australia, Chevron’s response to the Future Gas Strategy advocated for new fossil gas exploration in November 2023, with similar advocacy in its comments on the Electricity and Energy Sector Plan Discussion Paper in April 2024. Similarly, the company’s registration at the Canadian federal lobbying registry in June 2023 disclosed that it had advocated for policies to incentivize oil and gas production.
Chevron also appears to demonstrate negative engagement on measures to decarbonize the economy. The company opposed Australia’s Hydrogen Strategy in August 2023 comments in which it did not support hydrogen production mandates and sector specific targets, while advocating for the continued use of fossil fuel infrastructure. In comments submitted to the US EPA in June 2023, Chevron advocated for a long-term role for ICE-powered heavy-duty vehicles powered by biofuels, hybrid technologies, and renewable natural gas over a rapid transition to EVs. While Chevron’s website frequently advocates for measures to aid the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS), it does not clarify the intended applications of CCS or how the technology fits in the transition towards a net-zero energy and industrial system.
Industry Association Governance: Chevron has disclosed a list of its key industry association memberships on the website. The company has also published a report in December 2020 outlining the high-level climate policy positions of its key associations such as the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers. As of June 2024, the company has not provided an update to this report.
Chevron has not disclosed the company’s membership to key industry associations outside the US that negatively engage on climate policy, including Australian Energy Producers (formerly APPEA) and International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP). A Chevron executive is currently the chair of IOGP’s Board of Directors.
A detailed assessment of the company's corporate review on climate policy engagement can be found on InfluenceMap's CA100+ Investor Hub here.
InfluenceMap collects and assesses evidence of corporate climate policy engagement on a weekly basis, depending on the availability of information from each specific data source (for more information, see our methodology). While this analysis flows through to the company’s scores each week, the summary above is updated periodically. This summary was last updated in Q3, 2024.