BHP Billiton says it will review its relationship with industry bodies as it faces pressure from shareholders concerned about "obstructive or misleading" policy positions on climate change and energy.
The Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR), a not-for-profit association which looks at corporate responsibility, and a shareholder of BHP, has filed two resolutions on behalf of 120 Australian BHP shareholders that will be voted on at the miner's annual general meeting in London in October.
One resolution calls for the termination of paid annual membership fees to the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), and for the disclosure of payments by BHP for direct or indirect lobbying relating to climate and energy policy.
The ACCR argues BHP stands to suffer reputational damage due to inconsistencies between the company and MCA in policy positions on carbon pricing, adoption of the Finkel Review's recommendations and new coal-fired power generation and fossil fuel subsidies.
BHP has recommended its shareholders vote against both of the ACCR's resolutions, saying it has maintained a consistent position on climate change and energy policy.
The miner said it will complete and publish a review of its industry associations by December 31, and list the material differences between its position on climate and energy policy and that taken by industry associations to which it belongs.
"We believe that by working within associations, we can, with other like-minded members, seek to exert a positive influence on the industry as a whole," BHP said in a statement.
"This does not mean, however, that we will always agree with every position or approach that every industry association to which we belong adopts on every issue."
ACCR executive director Brynn O'Brien said BHP supports policy measures aimed at limiting global warming, while the MCA has obstructed progress in Australia through "vociferous and influential lobbying".
"BHP's positions on several key policy issues are at odds with these lobbying activities," Ms O'Brien said on Tuesday.
Over time, these activities could undermine shareholder value given BHP's exposure to both climate-related risk and domestic energy policy instability, she said.
"Investors are well within their remit to question BHP's willingness to pay multi-million dollar annual membership fees to the MCA," Ms O'Brien said.
The issue of MCA membership was raised by a shareholder at BHP's London AGM in 2016, to which chairman Jac Nasser replied that it was appropriate for one of Australia's largest companies to belong to associations which acknowledged human-induced climate change, but differed over the actions needed to address it.
In 2016, AGL Energy ended its membership of the MCA over differences in regulatory measures such as the renewable energy target.
