The Labor government’s multi-billion-dollar plan to help recover Australian manufacturing by encouraging investment that will help the transition to a zero-carbon economy appears to have won support from corporate Australia according to a new analysis.
InfluenceMap, a UK-based climate thinktank, analysed 185 consultation submissions from 58 companies and their industry associations to gauge how they were responding to the government’s Future Made in Australia Plan.
Under the plan, $22bn of public funding has been made available to support the transition to a net-zero economy with the goal of encouraging investment in clean energy manufacturing.
Tom Holen, Project Manager of Energy Transition Workstream at InfluenceMap, said the results of the group’s analysis was surprising as they challenge a perception that business was universally opposed to climate policy in Australia.
“I’ve been looking at Australia for a very long time,” Holen said. “This is the first climate-related policy where I can pick out a good news story here which is the key shift of these metals and mining sectors that are widely expected to be opposed.
“We’re seeing they’re not. We’re seeing that there’s a shift in climate-related policy in Australia, just before the election.”
The group found that nearly half – 47.5% – of responses were supportive of the Australian government’s climate plan, 28% were mixed or unclear in their response and 25% were unsupportive or opposed.
According to the analysis, the group most opposed to the proposal were companies operating in fossil fuel production or automotive sectors, along with their industry associations. Toyota was the most prominent car maker to express opposition.
Australia’s oldest and longest-running oil and gas industry association, Australian Energy Producers, was the most oppositional entity and made repeated calls for fossil fuels to be brought under the policy.
The companies most supportive were companies considered central to Australia’s economy, including metals and mining, transport and utilities. The AI Group was the most supportive cross-sector industry association, with alternative energy industry associations, Clean Energy Council, Smart Energy Council and Australian Hydrogen Council also supportive.
The most engaged company was iron ore billionaire Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue, which was supportive of the policy, followed by BP and Chevron, who were both unsupportive.
The group also examined corporate Australia’s reaction to a Coalition suggestion that it would create a nuclear industry if elected and found a decidedly cooler response.
Twelve companies monitored by the group made submissions to the Inquiry into Nuclear Power Generation in Australia, with five supportive of considering the creation of a nuclear power industry. These included the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, Minerals Council of Australia, Business Council of Australia, South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy and Rolls-Royce.
Clean Energy Council, Smart Energy Council and Tesla were not in favour, or opposed, and four other entities raised concerns about the economic and technical feasibility of the plan – Australian Aluminium Council, Australian Energy Council, Ai Group and Squadron Energy.
Influence Map also tracked corporate responses to the idea of a nuclear-powered Australia since June 2024 and out of 67 instances where business weighed in on the issue, over half — 53.7% — were opposed, 37.3% were supportive and 9% were unclear.
Holen says the results show fossil fuel producers and their industry associations continue to be “very loud, and very negatively engaged” even as they are becoming more isolated in their opposition to climate policy in Australia.
“It’s quite critical that more supportive sectors signalling support do so more clearly and more significantly to counter that from the fossil fuel industry which is quite influential and not cede the narrative to that loud minority in corporate Australia,” he said.
