A declaration by the head of BHP that tackling the climate crisis will require “the biggest global mobilisation since World War II” has prompted claims the world’s biggest miner is more serious about the problem than the Australian parliament.

But shareholder advocates warned BHP’s pledge to do more on climate change, including setting targets for its customers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and linking executive pay to pollution reduction, should be viewed sceptically while it remained a member of groups that lobbied against significant action.

Speaking in London, the BHP chief executive, Andrew Mackenzie, said global heating was “indisputable” and called for drastic action, including but not limited to carbon pricing. He said the company would spend US$400m to develop technologies to cut emissions from its own operations and from the companies that buy its iron ore, coal, gas and other resources. The “scope 3” emissions released by BHP’s customers are nearly 40 times greater than what it emits itself.

BHP boss announces $US400m plan to combat 'indisputable' climate crisis Read more

Mackenzie indicated the company would not cut its emissions immediately, instead promising to limit its 2022 pollution at 2017 levels, but the company has a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. He said the company would strengthen the link between emissions performance and executive pay from 2021.

The announcement comes as BHP and other resources companies face increased pressure from shareholders to show they are acting in the face of what scientists say is a climate emergency. Market sources said the move was also consistent with the company planning a long-term move away from thermal coal, which is burned in power plants and is worth far less than the coking coal used to make steel.

Dan Gocher, from the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, said the commitment was a landmark shift for corporate Australia. But he said the company also needed to address the pro-coal advocacy of groups, including the Minerals Council of Australia and the Business Council of Australia, of which it was a leading member.

“This is the biggest local block on Australia having ambitious climate and energy policies,” he said. “While it continues to fund these organisations we have a problem.”

Gocher said while BHP’s comments sent a powerful signal, its 2022 target was not ambitious when held up next to the Paris agreement goal of limiting heating to less than 2C and its financial commitment was tiny given the size of the company. He said the company had made climate commitments before that delivered little and most of the detail was still to come. Mackenzie said BHP would set a “medium-term, science-based” target next year for the decarbonisation of its operations.

“BHP plays this game better than anyone,” Gocher said. “The announcement is great, but we will judge what they are actually doing when we see it.”

The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI), which represents funds that manage more than $2.2tn in retirement savings, welcomed BHP’s announcement but said companies needed to provide more information about their climate risk. “ACSI encourages companies to take the lead in transitioning to a low carbon economy by setting forward looking targets,” the chief executive, Louise Davidson, said.

Davidson said links between executive pay and “non-financial measures” such as climate risk needed to be based on objective targets and genuinely put remuneration at risk. “For companies that are exposed to the financial risks of climate change, it makes sense for remuneration to include links to climate risk management performance,” she said.

Fuelling the climate crisis: why LNG is no miracle cure for Australia’s coal addiction Read more

Emma Herd, chief of Australia’s Investor Group on Climate Change, said BHP’s scope 3 emissions pledge was a significant shift. It follows liquefied natural gas producers arguing they deserve credit for lowering global emissions where their gas displaces coal, a case that has won vocal support from the minister for emissions reduction, Angus Taylor.

Herd said BHP’s statement was an important admission that companies could not claim credit for cutting their customers’ emissions if they did not also take responsibility for where they contribute to them. “This actually acknowledges that if you accept the opportunity side you also have to accept the risk side,” she said.

She said Mackenzie’s speech showed what qualified as good corporate behaviour was changing. “The bar continues to move. What was considered leadership in 2018 is not what is considered leadership in 2019. The momentum is all going one way.”

Taylor said MacKenzie had correctly pointed out that a transition to a lower carbon world should look to avoid major increases in the price and unreliability of energy and materials. “The government is taking a sensible and balanced approach to reduce global emissions and meet our international obligations,” he said.

Labor’s climate spokesman, Mark Butler, said Mackenzie’s speech demonstrated the seriousness with which the corporate sector, investors and regulators were taking climate change was growing, while Australia’s emissions continued to rise under Morrison government policies. “The gap between the approach of the corporate sector and the Australian government keeps growing as the urgency of real climate action becomes more apparent,” he said.

Adam Bandt, climate spokesman for the Greens, said it was remarkable that the head of BHP was using similar language as school students striking for action on the climate crisis. He contrasted it with that heard in the Australian parliament.

“I never thought I’d say the words that Liberal and Labor should take a leaf out of BHP’s book, but it sounds like BHP recognises the climate emergency as a clear and present danger, unlike the old parties,” he said.