This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of EDF's disclosures on climate policy engagement. This does not include an assessment of the company's real-world climate policy engagement, which can be found on InfluenceMap's online profile of EDF, accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
The disclosure assessments are directly integrated into the CA100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark as part of InfluenceMap's Climate Policy Engagement Alignment’ assessment, under two distinct indicators:
In 2023, InfluenceMap’s methodology to assess corporate disclosures on climate policy engagement was formally updated in line with the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying and stakeholder input. The detailed methodology - as well as additional resources including best practice guidance and EDF's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of EDF's performance under this assessment is shown below, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key. A more detailed breakdown is available below.
| Indicator | Score |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
| Sub-Indicator | Score |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of Direct Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
| Accuracy of Indirect Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
A summary of EDF's performance under this assessment is shown below, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key. A more detailed breakdown is available below.
The Review Score (0-100) assesses corporate performance against seven indicators, using the same traffic-light framework. A ‘Green’ scores 2 points, a ‘Yellow’ scores 1 point, and a ‘Red’ scores 0 points. This total is converted into a percentage from 0 to 100, calculated using the total number of points available (14). As such, only certain scores within the 0 to 100 range are possible under this methodology. A Review Score of 100 would indicate that a company has met all of the assessment criteria related to the review process.
| Date of Review | Score |
|---|---|
| May 2023 | 4/14 (29%) |
| June 2024 | 10/14 (71%) |
| June 2025 | 11/14 (79%) |
This is an assessment of the accuracy of a company's reporting on its direct and indirect (via industry associations) climate policy engagement activities.
InfluenceMap utilizes its proprietary database to assess how corporate disclosures on climate policy positions and engagement activities compare to InfluenceMap's independent assessment of the companies' and industry associations' real-world climate policy engagement. In short, it assesses the extent to which the company has disclosed on all climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
The tables below provide: (1) a breakdown of EDF's performance under each sub-indicator, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key; and (2) examples of leading practice by companies.
Has the company published an accurate account of its corporate climate policy positions and engagement activities (as compared to InfluenceMap’s database)?
EDF has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but appears to exclude 3 cases of material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
EDF European Affairs has published a lobbying activities report which details the company's engagement with policymakers alongside positions held, including on the EU 2040 Climate Target, the EU Emissions Trading System and EU Renewable Energy Directive. The report also references the company's EU Transparency Register page, providing the company's register number.
However, EDF does not appear to disclose its engagement with 3 climate-related policies including: October 2024 comments on the EU's Methodology to determine the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings of low-carbon fuels, a February 2025 joint letter to U.S. Congress, and a February 2025 consultation response on Phasing out sales of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 and supporting the ZEV transition mate Target] and EU CO2 Standards for Heavy-duty Vehicles.
Enel has published a complete and accurate account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, and this is aligned with InfluenceMap's assessment of the company using its LobbyMap database. Enel included its climate advocacy activities, positions, and links to the company’s government consultation responses to specific climate-related policies from 2022-2024 in its 2023 Climate Policy Advocacy report, published April 2024. It also covered a range of regions in its disclosure, including Global, Europe, North & South America, Africa, and the Asia Pacific.
BP partially met the assessment criteria under this indicator, as it excluded material evidence of climate policy engagement. However, BP’s ‘Advocacy Activities’ webpage provides a clear and detailed disclosure of the company’s climate policy engagement, with filters for jurisdiction; date; and topic, including links to relevant consultation responses. It also contains sorting options for most recent, and most relevant.
Has the company published an accurate account of the climate policy positions and engagement activities of the industry associations of which it is a member (as compared to InfluenceMap’s database)?
EDF has published a partial account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies. However, EDF excludes material evidence of indirect climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database for more than 3 industry associations.
For example, EDF has excluded the Brazilian Association of Wind Energy and New Technologies (ABEEólica) from its disclosure. EDF also does not appear to have disclosed positions and engagement activities from Confederation of British Industry, including an October 2024 joint letter to the UK Government, alongside the Confederation of Italian Industry (Confindustria), including October 2024 comments submitted on the methodology to determine the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings of low-carbon fuels
See Appendix A below for details of the company's industry association memberships.
Unilever has published a complete and accurate account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies. In its March 2024 industry association review, the company attached LobbyMap profile links to each association’s assessment. Iberdrola published a largely complete and accurate of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies.
Iberdrola and its North American subsidiary Avangrid both disclosed the climate policy engagement activities of their industry associations in their respective industry association climate lobbying reviews.
This is an assessment of the quality and robustness of a company's processes to identify, report on, and address specific cases of misalignment between its climate policy engagement activities (direct and indirect) and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
The Review Score is split into seven indicators, which fall within one of three categories:
Review Process: Does the company have clear and robust governance processes to regularly assess alignment against the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, and address potential cases of misalignment?
Review Assessment (Direct - Company): Has the company identified and addressed specific cases of misalignment between its direct - i.e. corporate - climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement?
Review Assessment (Indirect – Industry Associations): Has the company identified and addressed specific cases of misalignment between its indirect – i.e. via industry associations - climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement?
The table below provides an overview of EDF's performance under each sub-indicator, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key.
| Review Process | Review Assessment (Direct) | Review Assessment (Indirect) |
|---|---|---|
| Monitor & Review | Identify & Assess | Identify & Assess |
| Alignment Assessment Method | Act | Act |
| Framework for Misalignment |
The tables below provide: (1) a breakdown of EDF's performance under each sub-indicator, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key; and (2) examples of leading practice by companies.
Has the company established an annual monitoring and review process to ensure that all of its direct and/or indirect climate policy engagement activities across all geographies are consistent with the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels?
EDF has published a review of the alignment of its indirect climate policy engagement on an annual basis since 2022.
Rio Tinto has published detailed assessments of its climate policy engagement on an annual basis from 2018 to 2024, with detailed updates on misaligned industry associations each year. The company has committed to continue reviewing its memberships on an annual basis. Alternatively, Shell publishes a detailed review of its climate policy engagement every two years, with a detailed update in the interim year.
Has the company disclosed a clear and detailed framework for assessing alignment, including: (1) the criteria it uses to assess whether its climate policy engagement activities (direct or indirect) align with the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels; and (2) a clear and detailed explanation behind each evaluation?
EDF has detailed a methodology for assessing the alignment of its industry associations. The company has assessed the alignment of its industry associations against the company’s own climate policy positions as well as stating that the “assessment of EDF's advocacy efforts involves a review process that prompts necessary actions. This includes yearly evaluations of partner professional associations to ensure their alignment with EDF's Raison d’Être, the Paris Agreement's objectives of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, and the principles of a just transition.”
EDF states in its 2025 review that it uses a qualitative assessment consisting of analyzing published reports, statements, and policy positions related to climate change as well as actively engaging with associations to gain a deeper understanding of their commitment to addressing climate issues. The company also compared its assessment to external evaluations, including those published by InfluenceMap’s LobbyMap platform.
The company assessed alignment with six ‘dimensions’: climate policy (the Paris Agreement), climate science, carbon pricing climate policies, development of low-carbon energy sources to achieve decarbonization and energy efficiency, EDF’s Raison d’être & Just Transition Principles, and transparency and disclosure. EDF provided clear criteria for findings of alignment. The company assigned associations to one of five categories: High, Medium/High, Medium, Low/Medium, and Low. The company states that a low alignment on dimension I (EDF’s climate policy) automatically implies a full misalignment with the company’s principles. Otherwise, low alignment with one or two of the other principles will result in an overall partially aligned assessment, and low alignment with more than two will result in an overall misaligned assessment.
The company provided a table with a breakdown of alignment against each ‘dimension’ as well as the overall level of alignment. For each association, EDF also provided an overview of the associations’ engagement activities as well as some positions. It also provided links to proof of alignment to the Paris Agreements as well as details of their LobbyMap scores. Each EDF principle used to assess its associations’ climate policy positions appears to be aligned with science-aligned pathways to achieve the 1.5°C goal.
Unilever assessed its industry associations’ climate policy engagement against both its own climate policy positions, and against science-based policy, determined by “what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said is needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C”. Unilever states that this assessment does not mean associations should be expected to support every proposed climate law, but that when an association opposes a specific climate policy, it is incumbent on the association to engage constructively with policymakers to help find alternative, viable policy options that would be (at least) equally effective at reducing emissions.
The company also clearly disclosed the criteria for findings of alignment and misalignment with both its own policy positions and science-based policy, and measured the engagement intensity of each association. It also provided clear and detailed explanations behind each evaluation including their detailed policy positions and links to each industry association’s LobbyMap profile.
Has the company established a clear framework to address misalignments between its climate policy engagement activities (direct or indirect) and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, including the escalation strategies it will use and when it will use these escalation strategies?
EDF has provided a detailed framework for addressing misalignment. The company states that for misaligned associations, EDF will determine the degree to which it can continue to promote its values whilst remaining a member of the association. The company will then initiate a dialogue with the association to clearly articulate the areas where their positions differ, analyze the reasons behind this misalignment, and explore the potential for adjustments in their position with an establishment of timelines for any changes. EDF states it will collaboratively develop specific recommendations and regularly review the progress made.
After this analysis, EDF states that if material misalignments are revealed, the company will encourage the association to adopt a more proactive approach in terms of climate advocacy during a certain period of time. If the assessment of the level of alignment still remains misaligned for 1 consecutive year, then EDF states the issue will be brought to the attention of the top management of relevant entities, who will assess possible counteractions which may also include termination of membership.
Iberdrola has disclosed a clear and detailed framework to address potential misalignments, including escalation strategies and deadlines for industry associations that do not amend misaligned practices. Iberdrola's escalation strategy includes engagement with the industry association, sending a "notification of dissatisfaction", and formal notification that a termination of membership is being assessed. If the association does not provide a clear and credible action plan to address the misalignment within 12 months, Iberdrola will implement one or more of the following actions: make a clear public statement regarding the misalignment, request the industry association refrains from engaging on misaligned issues, and/or suspension or discontinuation of membership.
Has the company identified and reported on the existence of all misalignments between its direct climate policy engagement activities and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database (including all of its subsidiaries, business areas, and operational jurisdictions)?
In its Climate Policy Engagement Review, EDF states that its “climate advocacy positions are well aligned with the Paris Agreement and its objective of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” It also states that the company monitors closely all engagement of its entities with trade associations and think tanks including their alignment with EDF’s raison d’être. However, EDF has not provided further details on how it has assessed the alignment of its direct advocacy.
While the company does not appear to have published the specific workings of this review of its direct climate advocacy activities, EDF does not appear to have any material evidence of negative climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap’s database, and has therefore not missed any cases of misaligned advocacy activities. EDF also provided some details of its climate policy engagement activities in 2023 and 2024 to help deliver a net-zero energy future.
At the time of this assessment, EDF’s LobbyMap Organization Score was 75%, indicating that the company’s direct climate policy engagement is aligned with policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal. The company also has an engagement intensity of 58%, indicating broadly positive, strategic engagement with climate policy. Please see EDF’s profile in the LobbyMap database for additional details on the company’s real-world climate policy engagement activities.
Danone assessed 12 of its own climate policy positions and engagement activities across Europe, the US, and globally. It found all 12 to be aligned. According to InfluenceMap’s database, Danone does not appear to have any material evidence of negative climate policy engagement during the reporting period. As a result, Danone has assessed its climate policy engagement activities in line with InfluenceMap’s findings. It is the only company to have ‘broadly met’ the criteria for this indicator.
Sasol published a detailed review of its direct climate policy engagement in August 2023. Sasol assessed the alignment of five of its own climate policy positions, including four in South Africa (Climate Change Bill; Carbon Tax; PCC Just Transition Framework; Upstream Oil and Gas Tax Regime Discussion Document) and one in the EU (European Union Delegated Acts). However, Sasol did not identify any cases of misalignment with its own climate policy engagement. As such, the company has not identified any cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement identified by InfluenceMap’s database. The company has not updated its review in 2024.
As a result, no company has shown evidence of identifying cases of misalignment of its direct climate policy engagement and delivering on the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Has the company reported on what action is being (or has been) taken to address misalignments, if and where they exist, between its direct climate policy engagement activities and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database?
EDF does not appear to have any material evidence of negative climate policy engagement to act on, according to InfluenceMap’s database.
Danone and Unilever are the only companies to have ‘broadly met’ the criteria for this indicator by default. Both companies do not appear to have any material evidence of negative climate policy engagement according to InfluenceMap’s database, and therefore have no cases of misalignment to act upon.
As a result, no company has actively shown evidence of acting to address cases of misalignment between its own direct climate policy engagement activities and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Has the company identified and reported on the existence of all misalignments between the climate policy engagement activities of its actively engaged industry associations, and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database?
In its 2025 review, EDF assessed 48 associations. It excluded 2 associations actively engaged on climate policy covered by InfluenceMap’s database: the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), and the Confederation of Italian Industry (Confindustria).
EDF found 25 of the associations to be fully aligned, including American Clean Power Association (formerly AWEA), Eurelectric, and Bioenergy Europe. The company also found 23 associations to be partially misaligned, including International Gas Union (IGU), Hydrogen Europe, and Eurogas. EDF did not identify any cases of misalignment.
InfluenceMap’s analysis indicates that the company has 1 membership to an industry association that is misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked D or below on InfluenceMap’s database): Confederation of Italian Industry (Confindustria). InfluenceMap’s analysis also indicates the company has 11 memberships to industry associations that InfluenceMap assesses to be partially aligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+), including Bioenergy Europe, Eurelectric, and International Gas Union.
EDF excluded the Confederation of Italian Industry (Confindustria), and did not identify any partial misalignments with Bioenergy Europe. As a result, EDF missed key cases of misalignment and partial misalignment between 2 of its actively engaged industry associations and the 1.5C goal of the Paris Agreement, according to InfluenceMap’s database.
See Appendix A for further details on the company’s industry associations.
Unilever assessed 27 industry associations in its review and identified all cases of misalignment and partial misalignment with its industry associations and the 1.5⁰C goal of the Paris Agreement in line with InfluenceMap's database. Unilever has membership to 1 misaligned industry association (Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry), and 10 partially aligned associations.
Has the company reported on what action is being (or has been) taken to address misalignments, if and where they exist, between the climate policy engagement activities of its industry associations, and the goal of restricting global temperature rise to 1.5⁰C above pre-industrial levels, in line with InfluenceMap's database?
EDF has shown some evidence of recent action to address misalignments with its industry associations. In its 2025 review, the company states that it has implemented “specific governance measures” to ensure consistency in positions, and references its decision to terminate membership to Business Europe in November 2020 due to misalignment on goals to combat climate change.
The company took some specific actions with misaligned associations. For example, it stated that its subsidiary Edison worked with Eurogas in supporting the decarbonisation of natural gas and promoting the use of renewable gases, and was active in ensuring that the principles of sustainability applied to the management of the methane emission reduction in Eurogas’ advocacy on the Methane Emissions Regulation.
However, the company did not provide evidence of action to address other specific instances of misalignment or partial misalignment with its industry associations within the last two years. As such, the company has not shown evidence of action to address misalignment or partial misalignment with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, as identified by InfluenceMap’s database.
Unilever is the only company to have met investor expectations in this area, showing evidence of action to address all cases of misalignment between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5⁰C goal of the Paris Agreement, as identified by InfluenceMap’s database. In its review, the company included a section for each association titled “Actions (to be) taken” in which it outlined the actions taken or to be taken with the industry association as per its assessment. For example, Unilever stated that it would write to the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry stating that their positions do not reflect those of Unilever. It also disclosed it would encourage the European Roundtable for Industry to continue to engage constructively on the EU Green Deal and explore how it can revise its position on the EU Emissions Trading System.
Additionally, Unilever stated that for the 12 associations that were deemed “passively aligned” (minimal to non-existent policy engagement), the company will aim to push the associations to become more actively engaged in promoting outcomes and policies that aid in decarbonization.
Yes, meets criteria
Partial, meets some criteria
No, does not meet criteria
The table below provides a ranking of EDF's industry associations currently covered by InfluenceMap’s database by Performance Band, i.e. a full measure of a company’s climate policy engagement, accounting for both its own engagement and that of its industry associations. Detailed profiles for all industry associations can be explored via the links in the table.
Industry associations are categorized by InfluenceMap as having climate policy engagement that is aligned, partially misaligned or misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement by Performance Band:
The ranking table below is updated automatically on a continual basis as: (1) new evidence is collected for the industry associations; (2) new industry associations are added to the company profile; (3) industry associations are removed from the company profile, e.g. if the company leaves the association.
As such, the industry associations and/or scores in the ranking table below may differ from the findings in Identify & Assess (Indirect) above, which was written on the date of assessment. See the top of this page for the date of assessment.
