Unilever Calls on Trade Groups to Leverage Their Power and Step Up on Climate Action

In its latest review of climate policy engagement, Unilever has issued a pointed message to the industry groups it works with: alignment, in theory, is not enough—action is what counts.

The company assessed 26 trade and business associations in 2024, analysing whether their climate lobbying efforts aligned with Unilever’s publicly stated goals and science-based climate benchmarks. The results? A mixed bag. Eighteen groups were found to pose no conflict with Unilever’s climate strategy—an improvement from 13 out of 27 in the prior review covering 2022–2023.

But here’s where it gets more nuanced.

Out of the 18 aligned groups, only five were on message and mission—actively lobbying for Unilever’s core climate policy priorities. Another 13 were labelled “passively aligned”: they didn’t obstruct progress, but they weren’t exactly helping push the boulder uphill either.

Unilever didn’t mince words. In its review, it called passive support a “critical shortcoming” and emphasised that sitting on the sidelines is no longer acceptable—not when its Climate Transition Action Plan (CTAP) aims for net-zero emissions by 2039 and full decarbonisation of power in advanced economies by 2035.

Unilever’s chief sustainability and corporate affairs officer, Rebecca Marmot, said, “Unilever is already making progress towards our climate targets, but enabling government policies will help us go further, faster.

“We’ve increased our direct advocacy on climate issues to reflect that. We need trade associations to do the same, bringing their considerable influence to the table and growing climate engagement amongst their members.”

Some policy areas saw encouraging engagement. Others, not so much.

• Renewable Energy: A bright spot—16 associations, including almost every cross-sector group reviewed, voiced clear support for expanding clean power infrastructure.

• Carbon Pricing is disappointingly underrepresented, with only two associations—the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)—advocating for this crucial lever.

• Regenerative Agriculture: Just three groups—FoodDrinkEurope, the Sustainable Food Policy Alliance, and again, WBCSD—pushed policies to encourage this lower-emissions farming model.

• Fossil Fuel Phase-Out: Only WBCSD and the Corporate Leaders Group strongly supported a rapid exit from fossil energy.

• Non-Fossil Chemical Feedstocks: Lone ranger status goes to Cefic, the sole association advocating in this space.

17 of the 26 associations supported at least one of Unilever’s priority areas, while six were engaged on two or more fronts. These numbers remained primarily steady compared to last year.

Perhaps the most troubling trend? Contradictory stances.

Seven associations simultaneously supported the expansion of renewables while also either lobbying against—or simply failing to back—the phase-out of fossil fuels. Unilever flagged this contradiction as incompatible with science-based climate strategies, pointing to the IPCC and the International Energy Agency (IEA) analysis.

According to the IEA, any credible net-zero pathway requires halting new oil and gas projects beyond those approved before 2021 and halting new coal development—including mines, extensions, and unabated coal plants. Unilever’s position is clear: you can’t push the gas and hit the brakes simultaneously.

As a founding member of the Action Declaration on Climate Policy Engagement—a coalition of over 50 global firms with combined annual revenues exceeding $900 billion—Unilever is doubling down on its call for pro-climate advocacy only from its industry associations.