This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Nestlé'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 Nestlé, 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 Nestlé's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Nestlé'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 | Yes, meets criteria |
| Sub-Indicator | Score |
|---|---|
| Accuracy of Direct Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Yes, meets criteria |
| Accuracy of Indirect Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure | Yes, meets criteria |
A summary of Nestlé'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 | 5/14 (36%) |
| May 2024 | 9/14 (64%) |
| July 2025 | 11/14 (79%) |
This is an assessment of the accuracy of a company's reporting on its direct and indirect (via industry associations) climate policy engagement activities.
InfluenceMap utilizes its proprietary database to assess how corporate disclosures on climate policy positions and engagement activities compare to InfluenceMap's independent assessment of the companies' and industry associations' real-world climate policy engagement. In short, it assesses the extent to which the company has disclosed on all climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
The tables below provide: (1) a breakdown of Nestlé'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)?
Nestlé 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.
Nestlé included a link to InfluenceMap's assessment of its climate policy engagement in its Climate Policy Engagement Review. The company also gave an account of its direct engagement activities, for example support for decarbonizing transportation in an October 2024 joint letter convened by the World Economic Forum on COP29.
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)?
Nestlé has published a complete and accurate account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, and this is aligned with InfluenceMap's assessment of the company and its industry associations using the LobbyMap database.
Nestlé included links to all of its associations' LobbyMap profiles in its 2023-2024 Climate Policy Engagement Report. The company also gave an account of the detailed engagement activities of its associations, for example disclosing Asociación Nacional de Empresarios de Colombia's (ANDI) opposition to the inclusion of fossil gas in Colombia's carbon tax in a December 2024 post from its president.
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 Nestlé'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 Nestlé'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?
Nestlé has published detailed alignment assessments of its direct and indirect climate policy engagement on an annual basis since 2023. The company has committed to continue reviewing its industry association memberships 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?
Nestlé’s 2025 industry association review includes an updated methodology from its last full review in 2024. The alignment assessment method includes assessing its associations against 5 policy areas based on Nestlé’s own global climate and energy transition policy positions, which it states are aligned with policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement: 1) Ambitious climate action; 2) Land use; 3) Renewable energy; 4) Corporate accountability; and 5) Regenerative agriculture.
Nestlé broke down these 5 criteria in detail, and also included a section defining guiding principles for effective climate policy, which included stating that “public policies should be assessed through a climate impact lens to ensure consistency with the Paris Agreement’s goals.” InfluenceMap analysis suggests that these positions/assessment criteria, and Nestle’s own advocacy based on them, are aligned with science-aligned pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
The assessment is applied to both the industry associations’ top-line statements and specific climate policy engagement activities. Nestlé uses InfluenceMap’s database and methodology to analyze each association’s detailed engagement activities across the five policy areas. According to the company, this includes direct policy advocacy, regulatory comments, and public positions, among other actions.
Each association is assigned a rating (Aligned, Partially Aligned, Misaligned, or No Position) for each of the five policy areas. These are then combined with an overall science-alignment summary of either “no misalignment”, “partially aligned” or “misaligned on X issue,” depending on the evidence. The company also evaluates engagement intensity, using four categories based on InfluenceMap’s Engagement Intensity metrics.
Furthermore, Nestlé provides a detailed explanation behind each evaluation. The company breaks down its assessment of every association across the five policy areas, includes the top-line and detailed advocacy positions, and provides links to the relevant LobbyMap profiles. Nestlé also discloses the actions it will take in response to any partial or material misalignment identified.
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?
Nestlé has disclosed a clear framework to address potential cases of misalignment, with clear escalation strategies and deadlines for associations that do not amend misaligned practices. The company states it will seek to ensure industry associations address gaps within a reasonable timeframe (e.g. 12 months).
Additionally, Nestlé declared that, depending on the situation, it will engage to: verbally repeat concerns with the association’s position (e.g. in board meetings); make a clear public statement regarding the misalignment; request the industry association refrains from engaging on misaligned issues; and/or suspend or discontinue the membership.
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)?
Nestlé appears to have reviewed its direct engagement on climate policies in 2022 and 2023, and did not find any cases of misalignment with the goals of the Paris Agreement in its advocacy. This aligns with InfluenceMap’s database, which did not identify any material evidence of negative climate policy engagement by Nestlé over the reporting period.
At the time of this assessment, Nestlé's Organization Score metric was 80%, indicating alignment between the Paris Agreement and the company’s detailed climate policy engagement. Its Engagement Intensity metric is 49%, indicating highly strategic engagements on climate policy. Please see the Nestlé’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?
Nestlé does 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, the company has not 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.
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 2025 review, Nestlé assessed 22 industry associations. Overall, the company found 14 associations with “no areas of material misalignment”; 7 with one or more “area of partial misalignment”; 3 with an “area of material misalignment”; and 4 with “several areas of no engagement.”
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has membership to at least 1 industry association (Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE)) 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), and to 10 industry associations with active climate policy engagement partially misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+).
Nestlé identified misalignment with CEOE, and identified partial misalignment with 6 of the 10 industry actively engaged associations InfluenceMap finds to be partially misaligned. It did not identify any misalignments or partial misalignment with the Brazilian Association of Food Industries (ABIA), Australian Industry Group (Ai Group), and FoodDrinkEurope. It did not assess the alignment of the French Association of Large Companies.
As such, Nestlé has not identified some cases of partial misalignment between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
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?
Nestlé has taken action to address industry associations it identified as having misaligned or partially misaligned climate advocacy activities. For example, in the case of (Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (CEOE), identified as misaligned, the company stated it “will continue to engage with CEOE to address areas of material misalignment, specifically on its position relating to renewable energy.”
For associations identified as partially misaligned, Nestlé stated it will encourage the Association française des entreprises privées (AFEP) to engage more proactively on European climate legislation, and will work with the European Round Table for Industry (ERT) to align its positions with Nestlé’s on the EU Green Deal and the Renewable Energy Directive, emphasizing the business case for sustainability reporting.
Nestlé also disclosed actions for associations where it found no misalignment. For example, it plans to encourage the Associação Brasileira da Indústria de Alimentos (ABIA) to strengthen its commitments on ambitious climate action; explore opportunities to partner with the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) to advance regenerative agriculture as a means of reducing emissions in the sector; and support meaningful policy engagement on its climate priorities with the Clean Energy Buyers Association (CEBA).
However, InfluenceMap’s analysis suggests that Nestlé did not identify key cases of partial alignment between industry associations and policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal. As a result, no action appears to have been taken to address these cases of potential misalignment.
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 Nestlé'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.
