This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Renault'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 Renault, 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 Renault's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Renault'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 Renault'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 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 Renault'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)?
Renault has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but appears to exclude more than 3 material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
In its 2025 Climate Association Report, Renault disclosed its advocacy in the EU for the expansion of charging infrastructure and incentives to support the electrification of light-duty vehicles, a role for hydrogen vehicles, and the development of renewable energy. The company also disclosed its broad support for EU CO2 standards for cars and vans in it's 2024 Climate Report, whilst disclosing that it had advocated for the standards to be balanced with 'industrial realities'.
However, Renault has not disclosed a complete and accurate account of its climate policy engagement. For example, Renault was frequently unsupportive of the EU's CO2 standards for cars and vans in 2024-25. Renault's CEO, Luca De Meo, advocated to delay the EU's 2025 CO2 reduction target by two years in a September 2024 leaked position paper to EU policymakers. Similarly, the company voiced concerns with the 2025 target in a January 2025 meeting with the EU policymakers, and advocated to weaken the 2025 target through an averaging mechanism in a March 2025 meeting.
Renault also advocated against the extension of the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism in a March 2025 meeting with EU policymakers. In addition, Renault supported a mandatory zero-emission trajectory for corporate fleets with numerous exceptions in a July 2024 consultation response on the EU's Greening Corporate Fleets initiative.
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)?
Renault has published a partial account of 16 of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies in its 2025 Climate Association Report.
For example, Renault accurately disclosed the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association's (ACEA's) advocacy for technology-neutral policy in the decarbonization of road transport in Europe. The company also accurately disclosed ACEA's concerns over the impact of the 2025 'intermediary' target under the EU's CO2 emissions reduction standards for light-duty vehicles.
However, Renault appears to exclude material evidence of indirect climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database for more than 3 industry associations which are actively engaged on climate policy. For instance, Renault does not appear to have disclosed ACEA's position on the EU's Greening Corporate Fleets initiative; ACEA was unsupportive of mandates for corporate light-duty fleets in a July 2024 consultation response. In addition, Renault stated that the Korea Automobile & Mobility Association (KAMA) “fully supports increasing the supply of electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) to 4.5 million units.” However, a January 2024 KEF Monthly e-magazine reported that KAMA advocated for a lower zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) target, citing competitiveness concerns and transition challenges, and at the 2035 NDC Conference in December 2024, KAMA reiterated this stance.
The company also does not appear to have disclosed engagement from the National Association of Automotive Vehicle Manufacturers (ANFAVEA) with a selective tax on vehicles in Brazil, which the association strongly opposed in a June 2024 public hearing. Additionally, Renault does not appear to have disclosed its membership to the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries which is actively engaged on climate policy in Australia.
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 Renault'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 Renault'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?
Renault has published it first annual review of its industry associations in 2025 and has committed to continually assess the climate policy positions of its industry associations and 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?
Renault has assessed the alignment of its industry associations against top-line positions on climate policy, and the company’s own top-line, largely operational climate policy positions and commitments. These include: 1) Position on Paris Agreement; 2) Net-zero carbon emissions 2050; 3) Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets; 4) Life cycle assessment methodology; 5) Low carbon mobility; and 6) Renewable energy development.
While the low-carbon mobility criteria includes references to specific policy measures — for example, Renault highlights the need for significant funding to support the electric vehicle (EV) market across Europe and expresses support for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) targets — its overall approach remains largely high-level, missing some details in terms of the pace of EV transition, and the use of hydrogen vehicles, for example.
Furthermore, InfluenceMap analysis suggests that Renault’s own policy positions, against which it has assessed alignment, are not aligned with science-aligned policy-pathways for delivering the 1.5C goal. Renault has pushed back on the ambition of CO2 standards for light duty vehicles, for example in an interview with Renault’s CEO in February 2025.” As such, Renault appears to have assessed, for at least some of its criteria, against positions misaligned with science-aligned policy to deliver the 1.5 °C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Renault has however provided explanations for how it evaluated each industry association, including whether they align with the six individual high-level climate positions, and statements from industry associations that demonstrate alignment with its climate positions, where available. Additionally, Renault offered some evidence of how specific policy positions and documents were used within these evaluations. For example, it cited ACEA’s position on the EU Clean Industry Deal, the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), and the Antwerp Declaration; ADEFA’s advocacy for a Sustainable Mobility Law in Argentina; ACAROM’s collaboration with Romania’s Ministry of Economy to develop a financing scheme for energy efficiency projects; and AMICA’s engagement with Moroccan authorities to improve solar energy access for its members.
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?
Renault has disclosed a brief framework to address potential misalignments, including three escalation strategies: engaging in dialogue with the association to identify divergent positions; promoting change by collaboratively designing a step-by-step strategy to enhance future alignment; and assessing the association’s alignment, evolutions, and progress made. The company also committed to, in extreme cases, renouncing its mandates or membership with an organization should misalignments persist. Renault did not however include timelines for implementing escalation strategies for companies that 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, Renault states its commitment to limiting global warming well below 2 °C, and continue its efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C. It also emphasizes its commitment to the transition toward low-carbon mobility and strives for the deployment of electric and zero-emission mobility solutions at the European level. 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 Renault’s climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5 °C goal of the Paris Agreement. For example, in a meeting with Cabinet of Executive Vice President Stéphane Séjourné in January 2025, the company emphasized concerns with the 2025 emissions standards within the EU's CO2 standards for light-duty vehicles.
At the time of this assessment, Renault’s LobbyMap Organization Score was 54%, with an Engagement Intensity of 31%. This indicatesthat the company’s direct climate policy engagement has mixed alignment with science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal, with some positive positioning but actively oppositional stances in some areas of policymaking. Its Organization Score falls just above the threshold for misaligned climate advocacy (49%). Please see Renault’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?
Renault 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?
Renault has assessed 16 industry associations. However, the company excluded actively engaged industry associations such as the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), Mouvement des Entreprises de France (MEDEF), Asociación Nacional de Empresarios de Colombia (ANDI), and Hydrogen Europe.
Renault finds all 16 industry associations to be aligned with its climate policy positions. As such, the company did not identify any cases of misalignment.
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least 3 membership (FCAI, MEDEF, and KAMA) 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). It also has at least 6 industry associations (ANDI, SIAM, ACEA, ANFAVEA, SMMT, and Hydrogen Europe) with active climate policy engagement partially misaligned with policy pathways for delivering the 1.5 °C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+).
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 states that in a potential case of misalignment it would engage with the association to identify divergent positions, promote change by collaboratively designing a step-by-step strategy to enhance alignment, and later assess the association’s alignment, and progress made. For example, Renault has been actively engaging with the Association of Automotive Makers Association (ADEFA) to promote a clear public stance on the Paris Agreement and the integration of CO₂ reduction targets into its advocacy agenda.
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 Renault'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 |
|---|---|---|
| DigitalEurope | C+ | Partially Aligned |
| Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) | C+ | Partially Aligned |
| Mexican Automotive Industry Association (AMIA) | C | Partially Aligned |
| Hydrogen Europe | C | Partially Aligned |
| Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) | C | Partially Aligned |
| Korea Electric Vehicle Association (KEVA) | C | Partially Aligned |
| National Association of Automotive Vehicle Manufacturers (ANFAVEA) | C- | Partially Aligned |
| French Association of Large Companies (AFEP) | C- | Partially Aligned |
| European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) | D+ | Partially Aligned |
| Asociación Nacional de Empresarios de Colombia (ANDI) | D+ | Partially Aligned |
| Mouvement des Entreprises de France (MEDEF) | D+ | Partially Aligned |
| Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) | D | Misaligned |
| Korea Automobile & Mobility Association (KAMA) (formerly Korea Automobile Manufacturers Association) | D- | Misaligned |
