This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Enel'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 Enel, 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 Enel's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Enel'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 Enel'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 |
|---|---|
| April 2023 | 8/14 (57%) |
| April 2024 | 11/14 (79%) |
| April 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 Enel'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)?
Enel 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.
In its 2024 Climate Policy Advocacy Report, Enel disclosed both its positions on, and engagement with, key legislation including in: the US (Inflation Reduction Act) and Europe (EU’s Net Zero Industry Act). The company also referenced its EU Transparency Register.
However, Enel does not appear to have disclosed its engagement with 2 climate-related policies in Australia: the Electricity and Energy Sector Plan and the Capacity Investment Scheme; and 1 in the EU: the Methodology to determine the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings of low-carbon fuels.
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)?
Enel has published a partial account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies. However, Enel does not appear to provide an account for 5 industry associations actively engaged on climate policy including Korea New and Renewable Energy Association (KNREA), Energy Efficiency Council, Renewable Energy Association for Sustainable Power Supply (REASP), European Union Chamber of Commerce in China and Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI).
Enel has therefore excluded key instances of engagement with specific climate-related policies by its industry associations. For example, the Energy Efficiency Council strongly supported the Victorian Government's extension of the Victorian Energy Upgrades program in March 2025 comments. KNREA strongly supported specific renewable energy legislation to expand solar power distribution in National Assembly Policy Data in July 2024.
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 Enel'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 Enel'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?
Enel has published a review of its industry associations annually since 2021. Its April 2025 review can be found in its Climate Policy Advocacy Report 2024.
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?
Enel has detailed a methodology for assessing the alignment of its industry associations, however it lacks clarity in how the methodology was applied in practice, and only includes limited explanations behind each finding. As a result, it is unclear the extent to which Enel has assessed its industry associations’ detailed policy engagement against the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Enel states in its 2025 review that it is committed to “carrying out its direct and indirect public advocacy actions in line with the Paris Agreement and with the target of limiting global warming to within 1.5°C”, with the goal to “promote the Group’s vision on the urgent need for climate action, effective greenhouse gas emission reduction policies and just energy transition pathways.” To ensure this, the company reviewed the level of alignment of its associations with the Paris Agreement.
This was carried out by assessing the associations on six criteria, including: climate science; support for climate policies at global and national levels; support for carbon pricing climate policies; support for non-carbon pricing climate policy; communication on climate issues; and support for energy transition and zero carbon technologies. Enel also disclosed that the final assessment of alignment for each industry association falls into one of five assessment categories; high, medium/high, medium, medium/low or low.
Enel provided a brief overview of advocacy taken by 20 “most relevant” associations of the 105 it assessed (19%), alongside examples of actions taken by Enel within the association. The company then provided an assessment of the level of alignment with the Paris Agreement, according to the 6 criteria, of each association. While Enel does appear to have assessed the alignment of at least some of its industry associations’ detailed advocacy on specific climate policies, the explanations behind each assessment and how they align/do not align with Enel’s assessment criteria lack detail. As such, it is unclear the extent to which this review has assessed against science-aligned policy pathways for delivering 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?
Enel has disclosed a framework for addressing misalignments, with escalation strategies. The company states that in the event of a misalignment, Enel will assess whether the misalignment could compromise the effectiveness of Enel’s advocacy and participation and may decide to withdraw from the association. Enel also states that it believes that remaining in a misaligned association is the most effective approach, in order to exert influence to align the association’s decisions with the Paris Agreement.
However, it does state that for associations assessed as having ‘low’ alignment in its annual review, Enel will raise the issue with the association to commence in-depth discussions to improve alignment. Should the assessment of the association remain ‘low’ for two consecutive years, the issue will be brought to the attention of the CEO who will evaluate countermeasures, including the possible exit of Enel from the association.
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 Advocacy Report, Enel states that it continuously assesses the alignment of its direct advocacy against the goals of the Paris Agreement, and is committed to carrying out its direct advocacy in line with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It also states that its direct advocacy activities are supported by energy transition roadmaps, but the company provides no further details on what this entails. Enel also states its advocacy efforts are defined in alignment with the Group’s Strategy, which aims to promote an accessible, secure, and sustainable energy system through: the development of renewable energy sources and storage systems, the decarbonization and electrification of final energy uses, and the digitalization of distribution networks and the improvement of resilience against increasingly frequent and intense climate events.
While the company does not appear to have published the specific workings of this review of its direct climate advocacy activities, Enel 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. Enel also provided a clear and detailed breakdown of its climate policy engagement activities in each region to deliver net zero 2050.
At the time of this assessment, Enel’s LobbyMap Organization Score was 79%, indicating that the company’s direct climate policy engagement is aligned with science-aligned pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal. The company also has an engagement intensity of 60%, indicating strategic engagement with climate policy in a way that supports the strengthening of policy measures. Please see Enel’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?
Enel 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 review, Enel assessed 107 associations. It excluded 5 associations actively engaged on climate policy, including the Energy Efficiency Council, Korea New and Renewable Energy Association (KNREA), Renewable Energy Association for Sustainable Power Supply (REASP), European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI).
Enel found a ‘High’ degree of alignment with 48 associations and ‘Medium/high’ with 49 associations. The company found ‘Medium’ alignment with 9 associations including South African Wind Energy Association (SAWEA) and Colorado Independent Energy Association (CEIA), and ‘Medium/low’ with 1 association; EnergyTag Association which is not yet covered on the InfluenceMap database.
InfluenceMap’s analysis indicates that the company has 2 memberships to industry associations that are 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) and Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE). The company also has 6 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+). These include the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), National Business Association of Colombia (ANDI), Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI), Eurelectric, Korea New and Renewable Energy Association (KNREA), and European Union Chamber of Commerce in China.
Of the misaligned associations, Enel identified ‘medium/high’ alignment (i.e. partial alignment) with Confindustria and CEOE. The company also identified IETA, and ANDI in this category. Furthermore, Enel identified ‘high’ alignment with Eurelectric, and did not include Korea New and Renewable Energy Association (KNREA), European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, or Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI).
As a result, the company did not identify 3 cases* of partial misalignment, according to InfluenceMap’s database; Eurelectric, European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI).
Eurelectric has an organisation score of 73% indicating partial misalignment, falling just below the threshold 75% that would indicate alignment. The association also has an engagement intensity of 43% indicating strategic engagement. As the association’s organisation score is close to the threshold, InfluenceMap’s analysis considers this a potential misalignment.
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?
Enel has shown some evidence of action to address specific misalignments. Enel states that it has withdrawn from some associations in recent years whose views on climate policies and the energy transition were persistently different from Enel’s, however it does not name these associations. It also disclosed examples of action it has taken for its most relevant associations involved in climate policy advocacy.
For example, at Confindustria, the company promoted a strategic autonomy leveraging on the potential clean electrification powered by renewable sources. It supported the adoption of the technological neutrality approach, by prioritizing the implementation of already mature technologies like electrification, and fostered research and development to find solutions to achieve long term goals, especially in hard to abate sectors (e.g. nuclear). Additionally, at the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), Enel participated in workshops on emissions trading systems where the group contributed to shaping the view on the evolution of the ETS framework post-2030.
However, Enel does not appear to have shown evidence of action to address other key cases of misalignment and partial misalignment with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement 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.
While Enel did not assess the alignment of the Korea New and Renewable Energy Association (KNREA), InfluenceMap analysis suggests that KNREA does not have any evidence of misaligned or partially misaligned advocacy within the last 2 years. Enel therefore did not miss any misaligned advocacy from KNREA.
Yes, meets criteria
Partial, meets some criteria
No, does not meet criteria
The table below provides a ranking of Enel'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.
