By supporting Woodside the BCA has put its members and the climate at risk
Despite years of rhetoric about its climate commitments, the Business Council of Australia (BCA) recently endorsed Woodside’s proposed 50-year extension of the North West Shelf gas project, publicly criticising the Federal Government for taking time to assess its environmental impact.
The BCA can’t simultaneously claim to support the goals of the Paris Agreement, while also lobbying for fossil fuel expansion that undermines our international climate commitments. By supporting Woodside, the BCA risks the reputations of all its members, and creates the real possibility of legal and reputational backlash for them as well.
This week, Climate Integrity reached out to 20 BCA member companies, urging them to critically assess their affiliation with the BCA following its statements. The targeted companies – including the likes of Telstra, Woolworths, and Origin – have all demonstrated leadership in corporate sustainability. However, their continued association with the BCA, given its stance on fossil fuel expansion, now poses serious risks to their credibility, legal standing, and climate commitments.
Why the BCA’s lobbying is a problem for members
The BCA’s North West Shelf advocacy directly contradicts Australia’s net zero commitments and the goals of the Paris Agreement. If approved, the extension would result in an estimated 4.4 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions – equivalent to over ten times Australia’s annual emissions.
For member companies that have a publicly stated commitment to the goals of the Paris agreement, this presents a contradiction. The BCA’s support for fossil fuel expansion creates reputational and legal risks for companies that are represented under its umbrella.
The massive environmental cost of the North West Shelf extension
The North West Shelf gas project, Australia’s oldest liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility, is a major source of carbon pollution. If the extension is approved, the facility would continue operating until 2070, making it one of the largest sources of emissions in the country.
Key environmental concerns include:
Climate impact: Emissions from the project would make it nearly impossible for Australia to meet its target of a 43% reduction in emissions by 2030, let alone achieve net zero by 2050.
Toxic emissions: The Karratha Gas Plant (KGP) is the largest source of carcinogenic benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) emissions in Australia. It is also the largest emitter of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the Burrup Peninsula, contributing to air pollution and environmental degradation.
Cultural heritage at risk: The Burrup Peninsula, home to the world’s oldest and most extensive rock art petroglyphs, is currently under consideration for UNESCO World Heritage status. Prolonged industrial activity, including emissions from the North West Shelf, threatens this irreplaceable cultural heritage.
What risks do BCA members now face?
Fossil fuel interests have long exerted undue influence over Australian industry bodies, shaping policies that benefit short-term profits while undermining the broader transition to clean energy. The BCA, which claims to support Australia’s climate goals, has once again prioritised fossil fuel expansion over a sustainable future.
Companies that fail to distance themselves from this misalignment face three key risks:
Legal Exposure: A recent legal opinion from the Environmental Defenders Office highlights that corporate lobbying activities contradicting stated climate commitments could lead to legal action under Australian Consumer Law for misleading and deceptive conduct. This risk extends to indirect lobbying through industry associations like the BCA.
Reputational Damage: Stakeholders, investors, and consumers are increasingly scrutinising corporate climate inaction, greenwashing and empty pledges. Companies that claim climate leadership yet maintain membership in groups advocating for fossil fuel expansion risk being accused of greenwashing, eroding trust in their sustainability commitments.
Shareholder Advocacy and Regulatory Scrutiny: Misalignment between public climate pledges and behind-the-scenes lobbying exposes companies to shareholder resolutions and activist scrutiny. Under the Corporations Act, shareholders have the right to challenge misleading sustainability claims, adding further legal and financial pressure.
What BCA members need to do next
Our letter to BCA member companies outlines clear steps they should take to mitigate these risks:
Assess: the positions taken by the BCA and other industry associations on climate and energy policy.
Develop: a framework to evaluate alignment with their own climate commitments.
Engage: with the BCA to address misalignment and push for pro-climate advocacy.
Disclose: publicly any instances where the BCA’s lobbying contradicts their stated sustainability goals.
This is not just about corporate responsibility – it is about the integrity of Australia’s climate commitments. Companies that fail to act risk not only their reputation but also the credibility of their sustainability goals.
We urge all BCA member companies to reconsider their affiliation with an industry body that continues to advocate for fossil fuel expansion over a safe and livable future.