Rio Tinto climate hypocrisy: ACCR to disengage following revelation of lobbying the Prime Minister on climate trigger

The Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility​ (ACCR) has disengaged from year-long discussions with Rio Tinto on improving its climate-related lobbying. This follows revelations the company engaged in negative advocacy that undermines a public commitment to an enhanced approach to climate advocacy.

ACCR informed Rio Tinto of its position directly in a Civil Society Roundtable forum on Monday 29 July.

Since July 2023, ACCR has been meeting with Rio Tinto working towards supporting the company’s public commitment to positive climate advocacy and decarbonisation briefing papers. In April 2023, Rio Tinto publicly committed to an “enhanced climate advocacy approach”.

Earlier this year and contrary to its public commitment, Rio Tinto undertook Federal government lobbying where it complained about climate change requirements including greenhouse gas emission estimates and requested the removal of a proposed new object relating to climate change in the EPBC Act.

Naomi Hogan, Company Strategy Lead at the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) said:

“ACCR views Rio Tinto’s heavy-handed advocacy to the Prime Minister to be inconsistent with the company’s own commitments for enhanced climate advocacy and transparency.

“The fact it has provided a public commitment highlighting the need for greater transparency and the critical role of government policy signals in decarbonisation, and has then gone against this commitment behind closed doors, is hypocritical and a breach of trust.

“ACCR is now stepping away from an agreement to support climate and decarbonisation related engagement with Rio Tinto. We will not participate in engagements that could rightly be perceived as greenwashing.

“While Rio Tinto has apologised to ACCR for the way it handled its advocacy and the lack of engagement with ACCR over this matter, the true test for the company will be in its actions going forward.

“Ongoing good faith engagement with Rio Tinto by ACCR would only be possible again once the company clearly and formally updates its advocacy position on the EPBC Act reforms and undertakes Federal climate engagement that better reflects its own commitment to enhancing climate policy in Australia.

“Claiming that a climate trigger is duplicative with the Safeguard Mechanism is willful misinterpretation at its best. Rio Tinto and the Business Council of Australia are well aware that, unlike potential emissions considerations in federal assessments, the Safeguard Mechanism was never designed to assess the lifecycle climate change impacts of proposed coal and gas projects.”

Background

The revelation that Rio Tinto had undertaken lobbying to the Prime Minister seeking to obstruct and prevent climate considerations in the EPBC Act only came to light due to an FOI request from Greenpeace. 

ACCR met with Rio Tinto’s Chief Executive Australia, Kellie Parker, on 26 July to discuss Rio Tinto’s policy advocacy on the Federal Government’s environmental reforms, outlined in the letter co-signed with Hancock Prospecting.

The specific policy positions outlined in the letter to the Prime Minister, particularly in relation to seeking to block further climate considerations in the Act, contradicted Rio's commitments both to the public and ACCR for an enhanced advocacy approach on climate.

The lack of transparency and outreach regarding Federal government climate policy considerations was particularly galling considering Rio Tinto’s own 2023 commitment on enhanced advocacy acknowledged “The discussions have highlighted the need for greater transparency and conversation on the critical role of government policy signals in decarbonisation.”

In the 26 July meeting, Kellie Parker apologised to ACCR for how Rio Tinto managed the engagement with ACCR on the issue and acknowledged the need to rebuild ACCR’s trust.

Rio Tinto could not yet provide assurances that its future planned advocacy on Federal policy regarding climate and emissions assessment would change.