This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of IKEA'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 IKEA, 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 IKEA's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of IKEA'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 | No, does not meet criteria |
| Accuracy of Indirect Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Partial, meets some criteria |
A summary of IKEA'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 | 13/14 (93%) |
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 IKEA'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)?
IKEA's disclosure of its positions and engagement activities on climate policies is limited to top-line climate statements without reference to specific climate-related policies.
As a result, the company appears to have excluded key instances of engagement with specific climate proposals. For example, IKEA supported an ambitious EU 2040 emissions target in a June 2023 consultation response and broadly supported the EU's Certification of Carbon Removals Framework in a March 2023 consultation response.
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)?
IKEA has disclosed a list of its industry association memberships, but it excludes its membership to SmartEN and the European Clean Trucking Alliance (ECTA). The company's disclosure has referenced some engagement with specific climate-related policies by its industry associations.
However, it has missed more than 3 material cases of engagement by other associations. For example, the ECTA advocated for higher ambition in the EU's proposed CO2 emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles in a May 2023 consultation response.
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 IKEA'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 IKEA'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?
To date, the Ingka Group has published a single review of its industry associations climate-related advocacy, published in 2024, and states that it will publish a review update in 2025.
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?
The Ingka Group has reviewed the alignment of its industry associations against its own 7 climate policy positions. The company also states that it assessed its industry associations for “explicit and unequivocal” support for the Paris Agreement and its goals and support for net-zero emissions by 2050 at the latest, including commitments to limiting the rise in global temperature to 1.5°C; public support for developing a circular economy, circular business models, and circular principles; and positions on achieving the energy transition by 2030, decarbonising transport by 2040, supporting the introduction of regulated carbon pricing mechanisms, and introducing globally aligned standards for sustainability reporting. The company also included a detailed breakdown of criteria for findings of alignment and misalignment.
The Ingka Group appears to have assessed the alignment of its industry associations’ detailed climate policy engagement activities (see Appendix 3) against the company’s own top-line, 1.5°C-aligned climate policy positions, and further detailed positions on circular economy, carbon pricing, and sustainability reporting. The company also assessed some of its industry association’s positions on specific climate policies. Each principle used to assess its associations’ climate policy positions appears to be aligned with science-aligned pathways to achieve the 1.5° C goal.
The company also included explanations behind the assessment of misaligned associations, and stated that information behind the 115 partially aligned cases is available on request.
The company could further align its review methodology with investor recommendations by clearly referring to external, authoritative benchmarks, such as the IPCC, and also reviewing the detailed lobbying activities for each of its industry associations actively engaged on climate change.
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?
Ingka has disclosed a detailed framework for misalignment including escalation strategies and deadlines for misaligned associations. Ingka states that where it discovers misalignment and are unsuccessful in reconciling divergent positions, it will pursue escalating steps. The company will we will notify the associations of the findings, welcome clarification of any perceived mis-categorization, and clarify the Ingka Group policy positions and expectations for indirect lobbying. Should misalignment remain, the company will proactively engage with the associations’ leadership to review and adapt their position and begin advocating in line with Ingka’s climate policy positions.
Should the gap in position not be resolved in 1 year, the company will move to a remediation process to encourage closer alignment, and will only move to more drastic actions, such as reducing funding or re-evaluating trade association membership, as a last resort.
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)?
Ingka Group states that it is “committed to the Paris Agreement and to contributing to limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels”, and that it seeks to “play a role in accelerating climate action even further by advocating and positively influencing the private sector and governments and inspiring many people to work towards limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C.” It also disclosed in its review that it endorses the Action Declaration on Climate Policy Engagement, a commitment to align the Ingka Group’s climate policy engagement activities with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
At the time of this assessment, Ikea, parent company to the Ingka Group, has a LobbyMap Organization Score of 80%, indicating that the company’s direct climate policy engagement is aligned with science-based pathways for achieving the goal of the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C. Please see company Ikea’s profile in the LobbyMap databased 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?
At the time of publication, InfluenceMap does not have evidence of the Ingka Group engaging with climate policy in a manner that is misaligned with science-based pathways for achieving the goal of the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C.
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?
The Ingka Group assessed 36 associations in its review. The Ingka Group did not include 5 associations actively engaged on climate policy, including SolarPower Europe, SmartEN, Japan Climate Leaders Partnership, European Clean Trucking Alliance, and Corporate Leaders Group. However, all 5 of these associations are aligned with delivering the 1.5⁰C goal of the Paris Agreement according to InfluenceMap’s database.
Overall, the Ingka Group found 17% of its industry associations had fully aligned positions, 41% partially aligned, and 2% misaligned. In 40% of instances, the associations had no public position on the Ingka Group climate policy priorities.
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has no memberships to industry association with active climate policy engagement misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked D or below on InfluenceMap’s database). It does however have 1 membership to 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 Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE).
The Ingka Group found CEOE to be partially aligned. As a result, the Ingka Group has identified all cases of partial misalignment between its actively engaged industry associations and delivering the 1.5⁰C goal of the Paris Agreement, in line with InfluenceMap’s database.
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 Ingka Group has shown some evidence of action to address misalignments between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5⁰C goal of the Paris Agreement. In its review, the company states that it will “1. engage associations responsible for the four instances where we have identified misalignment.; 2. seek clarification for the 26 instances where associations currently hold no public position for our three priority policy areas (Paris Agreement and its goals, support for Net Zero emissions by 2050, support for the development of a circular economy, circular business models, and circular principles); 3. engage on the 48 instances where there is partial alignment with our three priority policy areas.”
For the associations it found to be partially aligned, the Ingka Group states it will clarify its policy positions, ensure it has correctly understood theirs, and, where partial alignment remains, encourage them to strengthen their support or add further detail to their policy positions so that they are in full alignment. For those that lack a clear position, the Group will engage with and invite associations to clarify their advocacy on existing issues, add depth to the available information where it’s currently lacking, or explain why they do not hold a position on these topics.
While the company's reporting suggests Ingka is acting to address a range of misalignments, the company has not provided specific examples of actions for key entities, including the Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE). Therefore, InfluenceMap's assessment of this has been limited to 'partially aligned’.
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 IKEA'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 |
|---|---|---|
| Japan Climate Leaders Partnership (JCLP) | A | Aligned |
| European Clean Trucking Alliance | A- | Aligned |
| Corporate Leaders Group (CLG) | A- | Aligned |
| Electric Vehicle Council | B+ | Aligned |
| SmartEN | B+ | Aligned |
| SolarPower Europe | B+ | Aligned |
| Consumer Goods Forum | B- | Partially Aligned |
| European Union Chamber of Commerce in China | C+ | Partially Aligned |
| EuroCommerce | C | Partially Aligned |
| Dutch Employers' Federation (VNO-NCW) | C- | Partially Aligned |
| Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE) | D | Misaligned |
