General Motors
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? |
0
|
NS | NS | NS |
1
|
1
|
NS | NA |
Climate Science Stance
Is the organization supporting the science of climate change and the response demanded (as per the IPCC) |
0
|
1
|
NA | NS |
1
|
NS | NS | NA |
Need for Climate Regulation
To what extent does the organization express the need for climate policy and regulations in general. |
0
|
1
|
NS | NS |
1
|
1
|
NS | NA |
UN Treaty Support
Is the organization supporting a global treaty on climate change and the UN FCCC process? |
0
|
1
|
NA | NS |
2
|
NS | NS | NA |
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation being transparent about their positions on climate change legislation and policy, including CEO statements. |
0
|
NA |
-1
|
NA | NA | NA | NS | NA |
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
2
|
NS | NS | NS |
1
|
NS | NS | NA |
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
-1
|
NS | NS | NS |
1
|
NS | NS | NA |
Energy Efficiency Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Energy efficiency standards and targets |
0
|
-1
|
NS |
-2
|
0
|
-1
|
NS | 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
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
-1
|
NA |
GHG Emission Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. |
0
|
0
|
NS |
-1
|
-1
|
0
|
NS | 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 |
-2
|
NA | NA | NA | NS | NA |
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.
Climate Lobbying Overview: General Motors (GM) is heavily engaged on US climate legislation with mixed engagement. The company communicates broad support for action on climate and has advocated for a number of broad overarching policies including the Climate Leadership Council’s carbon tax proposal and its own National ZEV programme. However, GM has a history of negative lobbying on regulation within the transport sector, particularly around US CAFE regulations. The company appeared to double down on it’s initial negative position by filing a legal brief to support the Trump Administration in its attempt to remove California’s Clean Air Act waiver. GM retains memberships to regressive trade associations, many of which have been key in opposing climate regulation in the US and EU.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: GM appears to support action to reduce GHG emissions but generally does not place these reductions within a time frame, writing in it’s 2018 Proxy Statement that “GM believes climate change is real and advocates for climate action” and that “aggressive action is required to complete the transition to low-carbon transportation.” The company frames much of it’s sustainability work around it’s “vision of zero emissions, zero crashes and zero congestion.” The company has also signalled it’s support for climate regulation in a July 2020 press release to support this aim, with a focus on “policies that place a price on carbon.”
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: GM is a member of the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) and has supported the CLC’s efforts to advocate for a carbon "tax and dividend" plan, although it should be noted that this plan also advocated for the replacement of other climate regulations where a tax is considered more cost effective. While GM states that it supports ‘modernized’ GHG and CAFE standards for vehicles in it’s 2019 Sustainability report, the company has a history of opposing ambitious standards in the US. GM’s comments to the EPA in October 2018 indicate that the company supported a lower rate of CAFE improvement than under the Obama administration. GM has also opposed California’s ability to set its own standards, repeatedly signalling it’s support for a national standard and entering into legal proceedings against California on the matter. As of November 2020, GM has withdrawn from this legal action.
Positioning on Energy Transition: GM has proposed a National Zero Emissions Vehicle (NZEV) program in the US. However, it is worth noting that concerns have been raised around the ambition of the proposal, which seems to be less ambitious than state level targets. The company has also supported a number of other measures to encourage the uptake of EVs in the United States, including supporting tax credits for EVs, infrastructure investments and regulatory incentives to support battery uptake, all in 2020. However, in a December 2019 letter to the California Air Resources Board the company criticized the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) Regulation, arguing that the regulation was ‘over optimistic.’
Industry Association Governance: GM does not publicly disclose a full list of it’s trade association memberships, providing only an overview of it’s memberships through it’s GRI and political lobbying disclosures. The company has not completed an audit of it’s trade association memberships and has resisted shareholder proposals to provide greater transparency on it’s lobbying activities and trade association memberships. General Motors is a member of a number of regressive trade associations including Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Auto Alliance), Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).