While the five oil majors all display similar strategies and most fund the same advocacy and industry groups, they display individually different traits based on their geographic base, spread of operations, and business portfolios and strategies. The remainder of this section provides deep-dives into: ◼ Direct spending on climate lobbying by the five oil majors; ◼ Direct spending on climate branding by the five oil majors; ◼ The role of trade associations as powerful lobbying vehicles for the entire sector. Full details of the methodology and scoring details can be found in the Appendix. Spending on Climate Lobbying To define what constitutes ‘lobbying’ on climate policy, 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, comments on specific regulations or policy areas, marketing and advertising, financial contributions to campaigns and the use of external groups like trade associations. The research finds that five oil majors are spending around $200M annually on these activities to influence on climate change policy, both directly and via funding of trade associations. The climate lobbying spend for each oil major is quantified in the chart below, accompanied by InfluenceMap grades. These company grades indicate the level of support or opposition to climaterelated policy. Under this scoring system, grades between B- and an A+ can be considered broadly supportive of meaningful climate policy, with a D to an F indicating increasing opposition. Full summaries of each company score can be found in the Appendix. 10 InfluenceMap March 2019