This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Engie'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 Engie, 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 Engie's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Engie'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 Engie'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 | 4/14 (29%) |
| June 2025 | 5/14 (36%) |
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 Engie'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)?
Engie exhibits very high levels of engagement with climate policy. Engie's has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies. The company made reference to its consultation responses in the EU, as well as its EU Transparency Register page and mandatory registers in Australia and the U.S.
However, the company has excluded over 6 cases of material evidence. For example, Engie opposed the proposed EU Renewable Energy Directive Delegated Act on RFNBO additionality, temporal and sectoral correlation criteria in October 2024 comments, and appeared unsupportive of the EU’s Methane Regulation for the energy sector in an April 2025 Joint Letter to EU Commissioners.
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)?
Engie has published a partial account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies. However, Engie excludes material evidence of indirect climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database for more than 3 industry associations.
For example, Engie did not appear to fully disclose advocacy from industry associations, including (but not limited to): a March 2025 joint letter from International Gas Union (IGU), November 2024 feedback from Gas Distributors for Sustainable Development (GD4S), and February 2024 letter to President of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council from BusinessEurope.
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 Engie'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 Engie'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?
Engie has published 4 reviews to date from 2021-2025, with the most recent covering calendar year 2024. The company states it is committed to publishing an annual review, and will publish sooner if significant shifts occur.
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?
Engie has detailed a methodology for assessing the alignment of its industry associations, however it lacks clarity on how the methodology was applied in practice. As a result, it is unclear the extent to which Engie has assessed its industry associations’ detailed policy engagement against policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Engie states in its 2025 review that it assesses both direct and indirect (via industry associations) climate policy engagements against external scientific authorities, most notably the IPCC’s well-below 2°C trajectory, rather than relying solely on its own top-line positions. When association positions were unclear, Engie stated that it initiated direct dialogues to clarify alignment with the Paris Agreement and its own climate policy. The company also assessed against seven of its own climate policy positions including: support for the Paris Agreement; climate science; reliable and affordable energy; renewable energy development; energy system integration; distributed energy infrastructure and related energy efficient services; and support for carbon pricing.
Engie provided clear criteria for findings of alignment, partial alignment, and misalignment, and provided clear results for each association for each assessment criteria. The company also provided some details of broad policy positions or areas of alignment and misalignment with each association.
As the company assesses alignment against the IPCC’s well-below 2°C trajectory, it has not assessed the alignment of its direct and indirect climate lobbying against policy pathways for limiting warming to 1.5°C. Furthermore, the company’s own policy positions do not appear to be fully aligned with science-aligned policy for achieving the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (examples in Identify & Assess (Direct) indicator). As a result, the company does not appear to have fully assessed its associations’ climate policy engagement activities against science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Engie also states that, “where Engie is itself not fully aligned on a specific issue, we do not expect associations to take positions we have not yet adopted internally.”, suggesting that when Engie itself is not aligned on a climate-related issue, it does not expect its industry associations to be aligned.
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?
Engie has provided a detailed framework for addressing misalignment. The company states that for aligned associations, Engie will continue to engage with these associations and maintain its membership, and may even wish to reinforce its engagement to further strengthen their impact. For partially aligned associations, Engie states it will continue to engage with these associations and maintain its membership, and may also increase the scale of its involvement to reinforce its position of internal leverage.
In a case where the association does not explicitly or implicitly support the goals of the Paris Agreement, Engie will ask for an explicit commitment, and in a case where the association is aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement but not with all Engie’s climate-related positions, Engie will maintain an open and constructive dialogue to ensure that their actions show greater engagement and collaboration. For associations that are identified as misaligned, Engie states it will terminate its memberships with these associations. However, the company states it will leave the opportunity to renew its collaboration in the future should these associations change their climate-related policy positions.
However, Engie has not attached deadlines to this framework for industry associations that do not reform misaligned climate policy engagement practices.
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)?
Engie states that it will conduct an annual self-assessment of its internal climate policy engagement activities. However, details of any assessment of its climate policy engagement activities are not disclosed, and it is therefore unclear to what extent the company has reviewed its direct engagement activities. 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.
For example, the company has not addressed misaligned advocacy including (but not limited to) October 2024 comments opposing the proposed EU Renewable Energy Directive Delegated Act on Renewable Fuels on Non-Biological Origin (RFNBO) additionality, temporal and sectoral correlation criteria. It also did not address an April 2024 consultation response where the company advocated for a continued role for fossil gas alongside renewable gases and hydrogen, misaligned with IPCC recommendations.
At the time of this assessment, Engie’s InfluenceMap Organization Score was 67%, indicating partial misalignment between its detailed climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement identified by InfluenceMap’s database. Engie also has an Engagement Intensity metric of 50% which indicates highly strategic climate policy engagement with a mixture of positive and negative positions. Please see the Engie’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?
Engie 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. As such, the company has shown no evidence of action to address cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
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, Engie assessed 27 associations. It excluded 1 association actively engaged on climate policy covered by InfluenceMap’s database; Gas Distributors for Sustainability (GD4S).
Engie found 24 of the associations reviewed to be fully aligned including Hydrogen Europe, Eurogas, and BusinessEurope, and 3 associations to be partially aligned, including Malaysian Gas Association, Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA), and International Gas Union (IGU). Engie did not identify any cases of misalignment.
InfluenceMap’s analysis indicates that the company has 4 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). These include Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE), Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA), BusinessEurope, and Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE). 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+), for example Hydrogen Europe, Eurogas, GD4S, and International Gas Union.
Of these associations, Engie identified only 3 cases of partial misalignment and did not include GD4S. As a result, the company did not identify 3 misaligned associations and 10 partially misaligned associations, 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?
Engie has stated specific policy areas where it plans to take action with each industry association. For example, the company states it will continue active engagement with the European Biogas Association (EBA) in working groups to influence implementation of the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) III and the Gas Package. Similarly, Engie states it will maintain its engagement with the Association Françaises Des Entreprises Privées (AFEP) to encourage stronger alignment of the association with several policies such as the EU Emissions Trading System, Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, and greenhouse gas emissions regulations.
The company also discloses associations that it has withdrawn from such as the Australian Hydrogen Council, the Energy Efficiency Council, and the Electric Vehicle Council. However, the withdrawals were not based on climate grounds.
Despite this, Engie does not appear to have addressed all cases of partial misalignment with science-aligned policy pathways for 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.
Yes, meets criteria
Partial, meets some criteria
No, does not meet criteria
The table below provides a ranking of Engie'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.
