Sign up to access all our data and the evidence and analysis underlying our overall scores. Once you've created an account, we'll get in touch with further details:
Sign Up
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Comprehensive |
Baker Hughes offers extensive, detailed disclosure of its climate-policy lobbying. It names numerous specific measures it has worked on, including U.S. bills such as the Storing CO₂ And Lowering Emissions (SCALE) Act, the Accelerating Carbon Capture and Extending Secure Storage through 45Q (ACCESS 45Q) Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, proposed U.S. SEC climate-risk disclosure rules, EPA methane-reduction regulations, the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, the EU REPowerEU permitting reforms, and the EU Complementary Delegated Act on natural gas and nuclear, as well as national policies on geothermal incentives and new methane rules in Argentina. The company is equally explicit about how and with whom it lobbies. It reports that it "made written comments and met with policy makers at the federal level to discuss policies to support the production of natural gas," "met with policymakers at the federal and state level" on geothermal tax credits, provided "written input to trade association comments to the SEC in the U.S.," engaged directly with the European Commission’s Clean Energy Industrial Forum, and consulted with bodies such as the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, the Department of Treasury, the EPA, UK government officials and the Argentinian Energy Secretariat. Finally, Baker Hughes spells out the outcomes it seeks: it backs permitting reforms to accelerate clean-energy projects under REPowerEU, advocates amendments that expand or extend carbon-capture and hydrogen tax credits, supports “new methane emissions-reduction regulation” that is technology-neutral and cost-effective, and presses for subsidies and tax credits to scale geothermal energy. By naming the policies, the lobbying channels and targets, and the specific legislative or regulatory changes it wants, Baker Hughes demonstrates a very high level of transparency around its climate-related lobbying activities.
|
4
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Baker Hughes discloses a governance structure that provides some oversight of its advocacy activities, but the detail is limited. The company states that “our participation in the policymaking process is subject to an extensive framework of laws and regulations and Company policies and internal oversight,” and that “on an annual basis, the Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee reviews all corporate political contributions, as well as all nondeductible portions of payments in excess of $50,000 made to trade associations,” indicating a formal committee is charged with monitoring indirect influence spending. Oversight is further underlined by the commitment that “political contributions by Baker Hughes, any company-sponsored PAC, and personal political contributions by certain employees… are carefully reviewed” by “a multifunctional team from Baker Hughes comprising of senior executives and representatives from Government Affairs, Legal, Finance and other relevant functions,” while “US state and local political contributions… require pre-approval of Global Government Affairs,” showing at least one concrete sign-off mechanism. With respect to climate alignment, the company affirms that “our teams work closely internally to develop official policies related to climate change and ensure consistency across external engagements” and publicly commits to conduct engagement “in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” suggesting that lobbying is intended to support its climate strategy. However, Baker Hughes does not disclose a dedicated climate-lobbying review, provide criteria for assessing the climate positions of trade associations, or describe any instances where it has intervened, corrected, or exited an association whose stance conflicted with its own. Likewise, no stand-alone report or third-party audit of climate-lobbying alignment is referenced. The available information therefore indicates a moderate level of governance—with named oversight bodies and some review processes—but lacks the depth, transparency, and climate-specific monitoring needed to demonstrate a stronger framework.
|
2
|