Appendix: Methodology InfluenceMap’s methodology for this research is based on a four-stage process. Stage One - Defining Scope of Activities: Areas of corporate activity that might be used for climate lobbying or for climate branding are identified. To assist in this process, InfluenceMap refers to a UN protocol from 2014, the Guide for Responsible Engagement in Climate Policy. Areas noted in this include direct interactions with policy makers and comments on specific regulations or policy areas, marketing and advertising, financial contributions to campaigns and the use of external groups like trade associations. The scope of what constitutes “climate-motivated policy” (e.g. global treaties, carbon taxes, renewables, emissions limits etc.) follows InfluenceMap’s recognized platform for measuring climate lobbying and is noted at this FAQ landing page. Stage Two - Estimating Spending: Spending associated with these activities is then estimated. Some of these costs can be assessed from organizational disclosures such as lobbying registers, regulatory financial filings and annual reports. Where these are not available, (e.g. the maintenance of corporate departments involved (Regulatory Affairs, PR/Communications) and external advertising/PR spend) InfluenceMap has made best-attempt efforts to estimate budgets based on industry norms and external sources. Stage Three – Estimating Climate Relevance: InfluenceMap then estimates the proportion of this spending directed at climate change related issues. This is done by assessing the content of the outputs of these activities. For example, if the activity is PR/communications, every press release, publication or social media post over the time period is assessed. Similarly, for advertising, all ads released across all platforms (such as YouTube) are assessed. This provides hundreds of data points for evaluation. Each is then scored for climate relevance (0.0 for no relevance to 1.0 for full relevance). Stage Four – Computing Total Climate Lobbying/Branding Spend: Each spend item is then categorized as lobbying or branding based on whether the activity pertains to a policy agenda (e.g. commentary on the energy mix) or is related purely to corporate activity. Total spending is computed by multiplying the climate relevance for each spending item and aggregating for both branding and lobbying. Where a company is member of a trade association engaged in climate lobbying, InfluenceMap’s methodology incorporates estimation of each companies’ contribution to that trade group’s climate related spend and this is included in the company totals. Lobbying activities are graded using InfluenceMap’s well established process devised in 2015 and updated continuously. These grades are evident on page 10 of the report where the nature of each oil majors’ lobbying is noted. Chevron proves the most oppositional to climate with a “F” grade on the A+ to F scale. Full profiles of each of the oil majors and the main trade groups are provided in the next Appendix. Examples of their lobbying are included throughout the main report. 21 InfluenceMap March 2019