Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
What do our scores mean?
The organizational score represents the degree to which the organization influencing climate policy and legislation. Corporations also have relationship scores reflecting their links with influencers like trade associations. Both are combined to place the corporation in a performance band. Full details can be found here.
Engagement Intensity
The engagement intensity (EI) is a metric of the extent to which the company is engaging on climate change policy matters, whether positively or negatively. It is a number from 0 (no engagement at all) to 100 (full engagement on all queries/data points). Clearly energy companies are more affected by climate regulations and will have a higher EI than, for example retailers. So an organization’s score should be looked at in conjunction with this metric to gauge the amount of evidence we are using in each case as a basis for scoring. On our scale, an EI of more than 35 indicates a relatively large amount of climate policy engagement.
Relationship Score, December 2020
A new batch of industry associations has been uploaded onto the InfluenceMap system and the relationship scores recalculated accordingly.
- Details of Organization Score
-
What do the 0,1,2 and NSs, NAs mean?
Each cell in the organization's matrix presents a chance for us to assess each data source against our column of climate change policy queries. We score from -2 to 2, with negative scores representing evidence of obstructive influence. "NA" means "not applicable" and "NS" means "not scored" - that is we did not find any evidence either way. In both cases, the cell's weighting is re-distributed over others. Red and blue cells represent highly interesting negative or positive influence respectively. Full details can be found here.
- Details of Relationship Score
-
What is the Relationship Score
A corporation, as well as its organizational score will have a relationship score. It is computed by aggregating the organizational scores of the Influencers (trade bodies etc.) it has relationships with, weighted by both the strength of these relationships and the relative importance of the Influencers towards climate change policy. Full details can be found here.
|
QUERIES
|
DATA SOURCES | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents. |
Social Media
We search other media and sites funded or controlled by the organization, such as social media (Twitter, Facebook) and direct advertising campaigns of the organization. |
CDP Responses
We assess and score responses to two questions from CDP's climate change information request (12.3 a & 12.3c) related to political influence questions (currently these are not numerically scored by the CDP process). |
Legislative Consultations
Comments from the entity being scored on governmental regulatory consultation processes, including those obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests. |
Media Reports
Here we search in a consistent manner (the organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
CEO Messaging
Here we search in a consistent manner (the CEO/Chairman, organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
Financial Disclosures
We search 10-K and 20-F SEC filings where available, and non US equivalents where not. . |
EU Register
Information provided by to the voluntary EU Transparency Register. |
|
|
Climate Science Transparency
Is the organisation being transparent about climate change science? |
1
|
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Climate Science Stance
Is the organization supporting the science of climate change and the response demanded (as per the IPCC) |
0
|
NS | NA | NS | NS |
0
|
NS | NA |
|
Need for Climate Regulation
To what extent does the organization express the need for climate policy and regulations in general. |
NS | NS | NS | NS |
1
|
NS | NS | NA |
|
UN Treaty Support
Is the organization supporting a global treaty on climate change and the UN FCCC process? |
1
|
2
|
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation being transparent about their positions on climate change legislation and policy, including CEO statements. |
-1
|
NA |
-2
|
NA | NA | NA | NS | NA |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
NS | NS | NS | NS |
-2
|
-2
|
NS | NA |
|
Energy Efficiency Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Energy efficiency standards and targets |
NS |
1
|
NS |
-1
|
-1
|
-1
|
-1
|
NA |
|
Renewable Energy Legislation
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy targets, subsidies and legislation. |
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NA |
|
Energy Policy and Mix
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy policy and the energy mix. We refer to IPCC thinking on renewables, coal, oil and gas. |
0
|
1
|
1
|
-1
|
-1
|
0
|
-1
|
NA |
|
GHG Emission Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. |
NS |
2
|
NS |
-1
|
-1
|
-1
|
-1
|
NA |
|
Disclosure on Relationships
The Caring for Climate “inventory” of climate change policy influences: Are companies being transparent about their business associations which may impact climate debate and policy |
-1
|
NS |
1
|
NA | NA | NA | NS | NA |
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Fiat Chrysler is a member of Auto Alliance
Open PDF file of Data Source
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A Fiat Chrysler subsidiary is a Regular Member of Auto Alliance
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Fiat Chrysler is a member of Auto Alliance
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A Fiat Chrysler subsidiary is a Regular Member of Auto Alliance
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Fiat CEO is on the Board of Directors of ACEA
Mike Manley
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Fiat CEO is the President of ACEA
Mike Manley
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Fiat CEO is on the Board of Directors of ACEA
Sergio Marchionne
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Fiat CEO is on the Board of Directors of ACEA
Mike Manley
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Fiat CEO is the President of ACEA
Mike Manley
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Fiat CEO is on the Board of Directors of ACEA
Sergio Marchionne
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler is a member of SIAM
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler is a member of SIAM
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler is a member of SIAM
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler is a member of SIAM
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A number of major Fiat Chrysler subsidiaries (Chrysler UK, Jeep, Dodgee, Abarth, Alfa Romeo, Maserati) are members of the SMMT
n/a
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A number of major Fiat Chrysler subsidiaries (Chrysler UK, Jeep, Dodgee, Abarth, Alfa Romeo, Maserati) are members of the SMMT
n/a
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler is a direct member of VDA
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler is a direct member of VDA
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler is a direct member of VDA
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler is a direct member of VDA
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A major subsidary of Fiat Chrysler is an indirect member of BDI via VDA
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A major subsidary of Fiat Chrysler is an indirect member of BDI via VDA
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A major subsidary of Fiat Chrysler is an indirect member of BDI via VDA
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A major subsidary of Fiat Chrysler is an indirect member of BDI via VDA
How to Read our Relationship Score Map
In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party. In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) appears to have opposed several strands of climate change regulation that impact the automotive sector. While FCA’s 2018 sustainability report, released in April 2019, does not specify whether the company supports action to respond to climate change in line with the limits set by the IPCC nor detail the company’s positioning on specific policy streams, the company has previously stated it supports for the UN Climate Treaty, signing a joint letter advocating for policymakers to support action to meet UN Climate Treaty objectives in May 2016.
Despite this, FCA has been a consistent opponent of ambitious vehicle GHG emissions standards and fuel economy standards in the United States since 2016. In consultation with the US EPA in 2016, the company stressed what it saw as ‘extensive’ technical concerns with the attempt to finalize GHG emission and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for model years (MY) 2022-2025. In 2018, having lobbied President Donald Trump directly, former FCA CEO Serio Marchionne said he was “fully supportive” of the administration’s efforts to roll back US CAFE standards. FCA lobbied in support of the Trump Administration’s proposed ‘SAFE’ rule in a comment to the EPA in October 2018 to freeze GHG emission and CAFE standards at 2022 levels. Current CEO Mike Manley has been less transparent on this issue, saying in August 2019 that FCA would “absolutely....have a look at'' a deal for more stringent standards made between the state of California and a number of major automakers. However in October 2019, FCA filed with the US Court of Appeals in support of President Trump’s attempt to rollback US vehicle standards, including supporting the removal of California’s ability to set its own, more stringent standards.
While FCA’s 2019 CDP disclosure states the company's support for regulations to enable the electrification of transport, FCA appears to have opposed policy mandates to ensure a shift towards zero or low emission vehicles. For example, in a October 2018 comment to the EPA, FCA advocated that US federal agencies might remove US state-level authority to set ZEV mandates, such as California's Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) program. Former FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne also made a number of comments suggesting opposition to the electrification of transport, describing the emission reduction potentials of electric vehicles as “make-believe” in 2017 and stressing commercial concerns around electrification at the 2016 and 2018 Detroit Auto Shows. FCA has instead communicated support for policies that encourage the deployment of natural gas within the transport sector, with senior FCA executives in South America stating in March 2019 that “The future of Argentina’s energy is natural gas.”
FCA CEO Mike Manley was made President of the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) in December 2019. FCA is also a member of the US Automotive Alliance. Both of these groups have actively opposed the development of more stringent climate regulation for the sector between 2017-2020.