This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Mercedes-Benz Group'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 Mercedes-Benz Group, 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 Mercedes-Benz Group's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Mercedes-Benz Group'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 Mercedes-Benz Group'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 |
|---|---|
| March 2024 | 4/14 (29%) |
| April 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 Mercedes-Benz Group'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)?
Mercedes-Benz has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but appears to exclude or provide only a partial account of 2 material evidences of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
In its 2024 Climate Policy Report, Mercedes-Benz disclosed both its positions on, and engagement with, key legislation, including the EU Emissions Trading System and Renewable Energy Directive, amongst others. The company also disclosed an account of its positions on the EU's CO2 emissions standards for light-duty vehicles, however it is limited to a partial account.
For instance, while Mercedes-Benz broadly discloses its position on weakening the 2025 target through an average compliance mechanism, it doesn't disclose a February 2025 meeting with the EU Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism, in which it described flexibility for non-compliance penalties under the 2025 target as “crucial”.
Moreover, in a letter to the President of the European Commission & Parliament in January 2025, Mercedes-Benz' CEO, Ola Kallenius, appeared to advocate for lower penalties for non-compliance. Additionally, the company does not appear to have disclosed its position on the UK zero emissions vehicle mandate, which it stressed concerns over in an October 2024 joint letter.
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)?
Mercedes-Benz has published a partial list and account of its industry association's positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies in its Climate Policy Report 2024.
For instance, the company accurately disclosed an account of European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA)'s advocacy for penalty relief from the of EU's 2025 CO2 emissions reduction target for light-duty vehicles. In addition, Mercedes-Benz provided an accurate account of ACEA's support for the EU's Emission Trading System. However, the company appears to exclude material evidence of indirect climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database for more than 3 industry associations.
For example, the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) opposed the implementation of the Greening Corporate Fleets initiative in a July 2024 consultation response. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) appeared to advocate for an exemption to Australia's new fuel efficiency standards (NVES) for small volume manufacturers in an October 2024 consultation response.
Mercedes-Benz also does not appear to have disclosed the Alliance for Automotive Innovation's advocacy for a weakening of California's Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, and Advanced Clean Cars II policies in a November 2024 letter. In addition, ACEA appeared unsupportive of mandatory measures to decarbonize corporate fleets in response to the EU's Greening Corporate Fleets consultation in July 2024.
Moreover, Mercedes-Benz appears to have excluded 3 industry associations which are actively engaged on climate policy from its disclosure. This includes Business Europe, the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), and the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM).
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 Mercedes-Benz Group'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 Mercedes-Benz Group'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 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?
The company has published a review on an annual basis since 2022 in its 'Climate Policy Report'.
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?
Mercedes-Benz has disclosed a methodology for assessing alignment with its industry associations. The company states that its assessment is based on the company's positions regarding climate-related policies: 1) transformation; 2) renewable energies; 3) carbon pricing; 4) greenhouse gas and fuel economy fleet regulations: 5) Paris Agreement: and 6) carbon neutrality.
The company’s position on renewable energy references specific policies such as the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the EU Emissions Trading Directive and the Renewable Energy Directive (RED). Mercedes-Benz also presents more detailed positions of its industry associations on specific climate policies, including submissions to, for example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
However, the company appears to have assessed against some criteria potentially misaligned with policy pathways for limiting warming to 1.5°C. For example, its own positions on climate policy suggest support for a market-driven approach to the energy transition over policy-led approaches, including in relation to greenhouse gas and fuel economy fleet regulations, where it advocates for greater flexibility and alignment with market developments (p.13 of Mercedes-Benz’s lobbying review).
Additionally, Mercedes-Benz does not provide a reference to what constitutes a finding of alignment or misalignment in relation to these criteria. As a result, the company does not appear to have assessed its associations’ climate policy engagement activities against science-aligned policy to deliver the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Mercedes-Benz has however provided an explanation behind the evaluation of each industry association, describing the associations' positioning with reference to the four top-line climate positions they are assessed against.
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?
Mercedes-Benz has disclosed a framework to address potential misalignments, including one escalation strategy. The company states that it "actively pursues consensus within the association" but if "alignment proves unattainable or divergent from the Group’s targets or climate-related positions, the Group actively asserts its position, separately."
However, the company did not include clear deadlines for industry associations which do not amend misaligned 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)?
In its review, Mercedes-Benz commits to support the Paris Agreement and to act in line with it, stating that the Group “is convinced of the objectives of the agreement and endeavors to implement them in all its divisions.” However, the company has not published a review of the alignment of its own climate policy engagement activities. Therefore, it has not identified any cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and science-aligned policy to deliver the 1.5 °C goal of the Paris Agreement.
InfluenceMap has identified instances of misalignment between Mercedes-Benz’s climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5 °C goal of the Paris Agreement. For example, in a letter to President of European Commission & Parliament from January 2025, the company stressed competitive disadvantage risk of climate action, affirming that the European Green Deal “must be subject to a reality check and a realignment – to make it less rigid, more flexible and to turn the decarbonization of the automotive industry into a green and profitable business model.” Moreover, in a press release from September 2024, its CEO, Ola Kallenius did not support GHG emissions standards in the EU, calling for an easing of emissions rules and emphasizing concerns over market demand and competitiveness. Additionally, in a Reuters report from January 2025, Mercedes-Benz’s CEO advocated to weaken penalties for non-compliance with the EU CO2 2025 targets.
At the time of this assessment, Mercedes-Benz’s LobbyMap Organization Score was 61%, indicating that the company’s direct climate policy engagement is mixed aligned with science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5 °C goal. Please see Mercedes-Benz’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?
Mercedes-Benz has not identified any cases of misalignment between its own climate policy engagement activities and science-aligned policy pathways, and delivering the 1.5 °C goal of the Paris Agreement. As such, the company has shown no 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?
Mercedes-Benz has assessed 4 industry associations in its review. However, the company excluded actively engaged industry associations such as the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM), the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), and BusinessEurope.
In its review, besides The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators), where Mercedes identifies a case of potential misalignment, the company highlights the “high congruence” between its own policy positions and the activities of its industry associations (European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA), and Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM)).
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least 4 memberships to industry associations 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), including BusinessEurope, Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), Auto Innovators, and Federation of German Industries (BDI). Mercedes-Benz also appears to hold memberships to 7 industry associations with active climate policy engagement partially misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+), including ACEA, VDA, and SIAM.
As a result, the company has not identified key cases of misalignment and partial misalignment between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5°C 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 company has shown some evidence of action to address cases of misalignment between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Mercedes-Benz states that it has steered and will further support discussions within The Alliance for Automotive Innovation “towards a stronger commitment to shift to carbon neutrality in the long term and continue support for complementary market programs that advance electrification.” In the case of the Society of Manufactures and Traders, the company reports that “has constantly pushed for a clear commitment on climate protection and ambition towards climate neutrality on all levels of association work”, and that “The Group actively advocated for the prompt finalization and subsequent adoption of the recently introduced VETs (Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes) regulation.”
However, as Mercedes-Benz did not identify key cases of misalignment and partial misalignment between the other 2 industry associations and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, it has not shown evidence of action to address these in line with 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 Mercedes-Benz Group'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 |
|---|---|---|
| Electric Vehicle Council | B+ | Aligned |
| European Round Table for Industry (ERT) | C+ | Partially Aligned |
| Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) | C+ | Partially Aligned |
| Mexican Automotive Industry Association (AMIA) | C | Partially Aligned |
| Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) | C | Partially Aligned |
| AmCham EU | C | Partially Aligned |
| Asociación Nacional de Movilidad Sostenible (ANDEMOS) | C- | Partially Aligned |
| National Association of Automotive Vehicle Manufacturers (ANFAVEA) | C- | Partially Aligned |
| European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) | D+ | Partially Aligned |
| German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) | D+ | Partially Aligned |
| Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) | D | Misaligned |
| Alliance for Automotive Innovation | D- | Misaligned |
| BusinessEurope | D- | Misaligned |
