This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Holcim'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 Holcim, 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 Holcim's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Holcim'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 | Yes, meets criteria |
| Accuracy of Indirect Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
A summary of Holcim'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 |
|---|---|
| February 2024 | 4/14 (29%) |
| February 2025 | 7/14 (50%) |
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 Holcim'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)?
Holcim 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.
Holcim's 2024 Climate Policy Engagement Report, published in February 2025, explicitly refers to the company’s profile on the EU Transparency Register, and includes disclosures of its positions on specific climate-related legislation in the EU, including the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.
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)?
Holcim has published a partial account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies in its February 2025 Climate Policy Engagement Report. For example, the company has disclosed engagement by CEMBUREAU on the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).
However, it appears to exclude 3 industry associations which are actively engaged on climate policy, the Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE), the Cámara Mexicana de la Industria de la Construcción (CMIC) and the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China. Holcim also excluded material evidence of indirect climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database by CEMBUREAU.
For example, the association supported the EU Hydrogen and Gas Decarbonization Package Delegated Act on the definition of low-carbon hydrogen with major exceptions by advocating for the continued use of CCU to produce low-carbon fuels until at least 2050 in an October 2024 feedback comment.
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 Holcim'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 Holcim'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?
Holcim has published an annual review of its industry associations since 2021, and has committed to continually assess the climate policy positions of its industry associations on an annual basis.
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?
Holcim disclosed a methodology for assessing alignment with its industry associations. The company states that its assessment is based on five top-line climate policy positions held by the company: the Paris Agreement, carbon pricing, an industry roadmap to net-zero by 2050, acknowledgement of the need for technologies to decarbonize, and support for low-carbon products. However, it does not reference what constitutes a finding of alignment or misalignment in relation to these criteria. As such, Holcim appears to have assessed alignment against its own top-line climate positions rather than detailed science-aligned policy pathways for limiting warming to 1.5°C.
Holcim has included a brief explanation of how each industry association is evaluated in a table, outlining their positioning relative to the five top-line climate positions used for assessment. However, aside from a singular high-level mention that “Concrete New Zealand supports New Zealand’s Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act,” no further details are provided on the specific policy positions of Holcim’s industry associations.
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?
Holcim has disclosed a brief framework to address potential misalignments, including one escalation strategy. The company commits to dissociate from industry associations and related activities that are materially misaligned with Holcim’s positions and “cannot be considered to be part of the acceleration to net-zero.” The company also committed to, in extreme cases, renouncing its mandates or membership with a misaligned organization.
However, the company did not include clear timelines for when these actions would occur.
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 2024 Climate Policy Engagement Report, Holcim states that it reviewed the alignment of its own climate policy positions with the objective of delivering the 1.5°C ambition of the Paris Agreement. Holcim reviewed 6 of its own “climate policy categories”, including: enabling carbon capture storage and use (CCUS); create market demand for low-carbon products; implement carbon pricing and carbon border adjustment mechanisms; life cycle assessments for low carbon and circular construction solutions; enabling competitive decarbonized energy; and support and funding for decarbonized industrial competitiveness. While the company disclosed an explanation of the rationale behind each of its policy positions against the review findings, it did not review any of its specific engagements on climate-related regulations under these categories.
Holcim found all 6 of its policy categories and corresponding positions to be aligned with delivering the 1.5°C ambition of the Paris Agreement. While Holcim has assessed the alignment of its position on the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, it hasn’t assessed the alignment of its other detailed policy positions and engagement activities on specific policies, limiting the assessment otherwise to top-line positions.
While Holcim's principles on decarbonizing construction and its value chains seem broadly aligned with pathways to deliver the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, they are high-level and potentially open to interpretation in ways that may not be in full alignment with the IPCC. As the company has not provided a full analysis of its specific policy positions on the issue, it is challenging to determine their alignment. For example, InfluenceMap has identified evidence of Holcim advocating for technology neutral approaches to decarbonization of the construction sector that may not be in full alignment with the IPCC, which Holcim has not reported on or assessed.
For example, as a signatory to the Oslo Declaration in June 2024, Holcim advocated for a “technology-neutral” and “market-based” approach to decarbonizing the energy mix. In the same statement the company also advocated for CCUS to decarbonize the hard-to-abate sectors and the power sector, without specifying the power sector fuel types (coal, gas); and supported “blue” hydrogen produced with fossil gas using CCS, while not clearly supporting a reduction in fossil gas use in line with the IPCC guidance.
At the time of this assessment, Holcim’s LobbyMap Organization Score was 68%, indicating that the company’s direct climate policy engagement is partially aligned with science-aligned policy pathways for limiting warming to 1.5°C. Its Engagement Intensity metric was 40%, indicating highly strategic engagement with both positive and unclear positions. Please see Holcim’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?
In its review, Holcim states that when it joined the UN Global Compact Business Ambition for 1.5°C in 2020, it committed to ensure that its targets and actions are aligned with the 1.5ºC goal. It also states that requirements to align its actions with 1.5C include a “forward-looking and competitive public policy framework”, and that it actively addresses specific climate policy issues via close collaboration with policymakers, partners and stakeholders.
The company appears to have actioned these statements; Holcim stated that at COP29, the company signed multiple calls for action to call on national policy-makers to fully align their climate ambitions with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target. As such, Holcim does appear to have taken some action to align its own policy positions and engagement activities with science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5C goal of the Paris Agreement.
The company could further align with investor asks by showing evidence of action to address cases of misalignment between its specific direct climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, in line with 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?
Holcim has assessed 26 industry associations. However, the company excluded actively engaged industry associations such as the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) and the Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE). Holcim also excluded the American Petroleum Institute (API) from its review on the basis that its membership focuses on safety and quality aspects linked to the use of its products, and is in “no way linked to any climate advocacy activities that API may undertake.”
In its review, Holcim finds all but 1 association (Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines (CEMAP)) to be aligned with its climate policy positions. The misalignment with CEMAP seems to be limited to one of the five assessment criteria - whether the association has a net-zero roadmap - indicating an operational rather than policy-related misalignment.
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least 2 membership to industry associations with active climate policy engagement misaligned with science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked D or below on InfluenceMap’s database), including API and CEOE. Holcim also holds membership to at least 5 industry associations with active climate policy engagement partially misaligned with delivering the 1.5 °C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B-to D+).
The company did not review the alignment of CEOE, and did not identify partial misalignment with the 5 corresponding associations identified by InfluenceMap. As a result, the company has not identified key cases of misalignment and partial misalignment between its industry associations and science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement in line with InfluenceMap’s database.
See Appendix A below for further details on the company’s industry association memberships.
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?
The company has shown some evidence of action to address cases of misalignment between its industry associations and science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. Holcim states that in recent years it has been focusing its efforts on bringing its industry associations in alignment with its policy positions, wherever feasible and applicable. For example, throughout 2024, Holcim participated in shaping the positions of the European Roundtable for Industry (ERT), advocating for a competitive deployment of the EU Green Deal, including a swift implementation of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). At the same time, Holcim renounced its membership to the U.S. Portland Cement Association (PCA), though it remains unclear whether this decision was driven by climate considerations.
Additionally, the company briefly addresses its membership to the American Petroleum Institute (API), stating the company is not involved in any climate advocacy activity undertaken by API or its members.
However, the company does not appear to have shown evidence of action to address other specific cases of misalignment or 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 Holcim'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.
| Industry Association | InfluenceMap Performance Band | InfluenceMap Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| European Union Chamber of Commerce in China | C+ | Partially Aligned |
| Cámara Mexicana de la Industria de la Construcción (CMIC) | C+ | Partially Aligned |
| Manufacturing Australia | C+ | Partially Aligned |
| International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) | C | Partially Aligned |
| Global Cement and Concrete Association | C | Partially Aligned |
| Cámara Nacional del Cemento (CANACEM) | C- | Partially Aligned |
| European Cement Association (CEMBUREAU) | D+ | Partially Aligned |
| Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) | D+ | Partially Aligned |
| Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE) | D | Misaligned |
