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 on EU automotive climate policy. In response to the European Commission’s request for comments on the EU’s 2050 Climate Strategy in 2018, ACEA does not appear to have supported an ambitious transition towards low-carbon mobility, alternatively stressing that ‘cost-effectiveness’, not overall emission reductions, should be the overriding principle of a future policy response, and urging the Commission to avoid 'burdening the sector'. In 2015-18, ACEA has strongly lobbied against efforts to establish ambitious GHG emissions standards for the automotive sector for 2021-2030 and strongly opposed the level of stringency set by EU regulators in 2018 & 2019 for both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, respectively. In 2019, ACEA secretary general Erik Jonnaert suggested that a review of CO2 targets in 2023 should be used to lower the targets (rather than increase their ambition) if necessary. ACEA has stated support fora 'technology neutral' approach to transitioning the automotive sector towards low-carbon. In response to the establishment of higher CO2 standards by EU regulators in 2018-19, ACEA has repeated its calls to European countries to ramp up certain measures to incentivize LEV and ZEV uptake, including increased construction of infrastructure to accommodate this process. However, in 2017 ACEA opposed binding EV sales mandates and in 2018 continued to advocate against what it sees as a “forced push”. In its response on the EU 2050’s climate strategy, ACEA argued that, whilst electric and hydrogen might be long-term solutions, internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles will remain dominant in the next decade due to the cost of alternatives.