◼ Investor pressure: Certain shareholders, such as faith-based pension funds, have long targeted the oil majors, using their power as owners of the companies. This has now mainstreamed into the largest investor engagement process in history, the Climate Action 100+, in which 300 institutional shareholders representing $33Tn in assets are targeting the 100 or so most climatecritical listed companies. The five oil majors feature prominently in this latter group, and pressure on Royal Dutch Shell resulted in a wide-ranging statement on climate from the company late in 2018, including a pledge to reform its lobbying practices. Rival BP followed suit in early 2019. ◼ Legal pressure: Since the Paris Agreement legal pressure both from individual and government plaintiffs on climate has increased. As well as the high profile and ongoing lawsuits from the New York Attorney General against ExxonMobil and others for past practices on climate change, other US States including Rhode Island have joined the fray with a lawsuit against Exxon, BP and other majors. NGOs have similarly targeted Royal Dutch Shell in European courts. While none of these suits has caused the oil majors any financial stress thus far, this may change should a precedence be set in a future court ruling. ◼ Media scrutiny: The Economist magazine noted in its February 2019 cover “The truth about big oil and climate change. Even as concerns about global warming grow, energy firms are planning to increase fossil-fuel production. None more than ExxonMobil.” This likely marked a turning point in the oil majors’ ability to convince the world’s financial and business media of their commitments to ambitious action on the Paris Agreement and climate change. InfluenceMap works with all of the stakeholder groups identified above to ensure they remain well informed on the climate related activities of the oil majors and are able to interpret their statements in the context of actual behavior and actions. The Corporate Climate Policy Footprint Various criteria are used to measure the impact of individual companies on climate change. Scope 1 and 2 emissions refer to direct operational and supply-chain greenhouse gas emissions respectively, and remain the primary criteria used to assess corporate performance on climate. Increasingly, Scope 3 emissions arising from product use are being assessed. However, Scope 1,2 & 3 measurements fail to account for companies’ impact through holding back policy and distorting the wider narrative of climate change. To address this gap, in 2017 InfluenceMap introduced the concept of the Carbon Policy Footprint for corporations. These footprints are not measured in tons of emissions, but rather rank companies alongside each other according to their support for or opposition to a benchmark of Paris-Aligned regulatory measures around the world. To identify what constitutes influence on climate policy, InfluenceMap refers to a 2013 UN protocol which sets out a range of activities such as advertising, the use of social 5 InfluenceMap March 2019