Unilever calls out European lobby group for fossil fuel activities

Firm reports overall improvement at its 26 trade associations when it comes to climate advocacy, as CISL calls for greater fight back

Unilever’s latest lobbying review has concluded that most of its trade associations are becoming more aligned with its positions on climate policy, but some have moved further away. 

The consumer goods giant assessed 26 associations of which it is a member, explaining how each supports or undermines its own climate objectives.    

The European Round Table on Industry (ERT) and the US-based Sustainable Food Policy Alliance were both found to have deviated from Unilever’s positions. 

According to the company, ERT was the only group to have moved in the “opposite direction” on a policy area since last year: whereas it was deemed to be inactive on the phase-out of fossil fuels in 2023, it was found to have “expressed support for new fossil gas infrastructure during 2024”.

“ERT’s position on this issue is not fully consistent with Unilever’s stance on the need for a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels,” Unilever said.  

The roundtable’s members are the CEOs and chairs of around 60 major companies, including Shell, Eni and TotalEnergies.

Unilever revealed it paid between €20,000 and €50,000 to be a member of the body each year. 

Despite the misalignment on fossil fuels, ERT’s position on broader climate policy became “slightly more positive” in 2024, according to the review, including on EU carbon pricing.  

Unilever said it would continue to “encourage ERT to double-down on its pro-climate agenda and increase its engagement intensity on net zero policy” including pushing it to “ensure EU Sustainability reporting rules facilitate better business practice”. 

It said it reserves the right “to deviate on certain ERT positions”, pointing to its recent decision to break ranks with the trade body over a letter calling for wholesale reductions in Europe’s sustainability reporting and due diligence rules.  

The Sustainable Food Policy Alliance (SFPA), which costs Unilever between €100,000 and €300,000 in annual membership, was found to have a misaligned position on renewable energy in the latest review, but was still broadly aligned with the firm’s objectives. 

Overall, the picture had improved across the 26 lobby groups in 2024, Unilever concluded, with 18 having no instances of misalignment with its own positions – up from 13 in 2023.  

Seven shifted from having “obstructive or misaligned stances” on specific policy areas, to having more neutral or inactive ones.  

Based on the figures disclosed in Unilever’s 2024 review, the combined cost of being a member of the 26 associations is between €1m and €2.5m every year, although the values are based on some approximate figures.  

ERT has not responded to a request for comment at the time of writing.

Call to “fight back” against anti-sustainability advocacy

Unilever’s latest review was published the same day the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) called on companies to make more concerted efforts to counter lobbying that undermines sustainability objectives, and to ensure their trade bodies represent their positions adequately. 

“It is now a strategic imperative for companies to align their lobbying activities – and those of the industry bodies who represent them – with support for policy action that will drive sustainable value creation,” wrote the think tank, which is run out of Cambridge University. 

In its latest business briefing, CISL said there was a “well-coordinated opposition actively working to stall progress, protect vested interests and entrench unsustainable market structures”. 

“Those working to drive transition must recognise this reality and be prepared to fight back with equal discipline and strategic intent. Resistance to date has been fragmented and deeply inadequate.”

The paper outlines what it describes as “the opposition’s playbook” with tactics to counter them, and warns that firms that don’t align their advocacy with their public statements face “real risks” from regulators and to their reputation.