European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA)
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.
Time weighting of evidence, June 2018
Evidence pieces in the past will be de-emphasized in our system by application of weightings that favour the most recent evidence pieces. This ensures we capture current rather than past behaviour and will allow the measurement of progress over time of companies and trade groups.
- 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.
| QUESTIONS | SOURCES |
Main Web Site
We search the main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents (e.g. the CSR report). |
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 three of the 2014 CDP's political influence questions (currently these are not numerically scored by the CDP process). |
Legislative Consultations
Legislative Consultation documents from official government sources. As of July 2015, we consider relevant information originating directly from the US Government and the European Commission other key regions e.g. Australia and Japan. |
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. We search earnings comments via Edgar Online and Fair Disclosure Wire. |
EU Register
Information provided by to the voluntary EU Transparency Register. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Climate Science Transparency
Is the organisation being transparent about climate change science? |
NS | NS | NA | NS | NS | NS | NA | NA | |
|
Climate Science Stance
Is the organization supporting the science of climate change and the response demanded (as per the IPCC) |
0 | NS | NA | -1 | NS | NS | NA | NA | |
|
Need for Climate Regulation
To what extent does the organization express the need for climate policy and regulations in general. |
NA | NS | NA | -1 | NS | NS | NA | NA | |
|
UN Treaty Support
Is the organization supporting a global treaty on climate change and the UN FCCC process? |
NS | NS | NA | NS | -1 | 0 | NA | NA | |
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation being transparent about their positions on climate change legislation and policy, including CEO statements. |
2 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
0 | NS | NA | NS | NS | NS | NA | NA | |
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
NS | -1 | NA | 0 | NS | NS | NA | NA | |
|
Energy Efficiency Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Energy efficiency standards and targets |
NS | NS | NA | -1 | NS | NS | NA | NA | |
|
Renewable Energy Legislation
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy targets, subsidies and legislation. |
NS | -2 | NA | 0 | NS | -2 | NA | 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 | NA | 0 | -1 | 0 | NA | NA | |
|
GHG Emission Standards
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. |
-1 | -1 | NA | -1 | -1 | -1 | NA | 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 |
2 | NS | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
|
Climate Lobbying Governance
Does the company have strong policy to manage its political activities related to climate change? |
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
The European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) is actively and negatively lobbying EU automotive climate policy. ACEA consistently emphasizes economic and competitiveness concerns regarding climate change legislation in the EU and, throughout 2015-17, has continuously opposed ambitious EU GHG emissions standards for the automotive sector. ACEA asked the European Commission in 2015 to postpone a 2025 automotive emissions target until 2030 and, in 2016, also pushed to delay new CO2 targets until 2020. In 2017, ACEA has advocated for a weaker than proposed GHG emission target of 20% for light duty vehicles by 2030, opposed a proposed interim 2025 targets and pushing for a “mid-term review” where the 2030 targets could be renegotiated, depending on market conditions. ACEA has also opposed the introduction of fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for heavy duty vehicles in an EU consultation response in 2016 , having previously played down the impact of their emissions. ACEA has supported a 'technology neutral' approach to emissions reductions for the automotive sector, supporting certain measures to aid some electrification of transportation in 2015-17. However, also between 2016 and 2017, ACEA has vocally opposed a mandate for electric vehicles, stressing concerns around consumer acceptance, whilst reportedly lobbying to weaken conditions for the proposed EU ZEV mandate.