This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Stellantis'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 Stellantis, 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 Stellantis's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Stellantis'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 Stellantis'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 Stellantis'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)?
Stellantis has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies in its 2024/2025 Climate Policy Report, but appears to exclude and/or provide a misleading account on 3 cases of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
In its report, Stellantis disclosed its support for the EU Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation and support for the EU Commission's proposal to weaken the EU CO2 standards for light-duty vehicles. However, while it has disclosed it advocated for 'tweaks' to the UK Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate, Stellantis has not disclosed its advocacy to weaken the UK ZEV mandate in 2024, as reported in the Financial Times in June 2024, Reuters in November 2024, and the Financial Times in December 2024.
In its report, Stellantis also disclosed its support for the US Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, however in October 2023 regulatory comments, Stellantis advocated to weaken the policy. Stellantis also disclosed its advocacy for the targets under US GHG emissions standards for light and medium duty vehicles to be re-evaluated, but in July 2023 regulatory comments, Stellantis advocated to weaken the standards.
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)?
In its 2023 Corporate Sustainability Report, published in April 2024, Stellantis has disclosed a partial list of its industry association memberships, and in its 2024/2025 Climate Policy Report, published in March 2025, Stellantis disclosed the climate policy engagement of 8 of its industry associations.
This disclosure includes links to the European Automobile Manufacturers Association's position on the EU's 2025 15% CO2 standard, the Society of Motor Manufacturers' position on the UK Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate, and the German Association of the Automotive Industry's position on the review of the EU CO2 standards.
However, Stellantis appears to have excluded material evidence from 5 of its industry associations, including the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), Hydrogen Europe, the National Association of Automotive Vehicle Manufacturers (ANFAVEA) and the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM).
Stellantis has therefore excluded instances of direct engagement by these industry associations, for example, in October 2024 regulatory comments, EMA appeared unsupportive of the adoption of the Advanced Clean Trucks rule in Illinois and FCAI advocated for an extended exemption for NB1 light-duty vehicles from Australia's new vehicle fuel efficiency standard for 4 years in an October 2024 consultation response.
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 Stellantis'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 Stellantis'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?
Stellantis published its first Climate Policy Report in March 2025, committed to undertake an annual disclosure review, and that in future reports it will “endeavor to widen and focus on other areas” of the business.
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?
Stellantis discloses a brief methodology for assessing alignment with its industry associations. The company states that its assessment is based on five top-line climate policy positions held by the company: 1) Paris Agreement; 2) Decarbonization and carbon net-zero; 3) Cutting vehicle CO2 emissions including internal combustion engine (ICE) phase out dates, emission standards, electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure and EV subsidies; 4) Industrial and site carbon footprint reduction; and 5) Supply chain carbon footprint reduction including carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) and EV trade tariffs. However, Stellantis is not clear on its own positions on the assessment criteria, and does not reference what constitutes a finding of alignment or misalignment in relation to these criteria.
While its industry association assessments do refer to specific policy positions and policy papers, such as on the EU CBAM, Stellantis does not provide sufficient information to indicate how its alignment assessments on these policy specific positions are made. As such, it is unclear if Stellantis assessed the alignment of its detailed direct and indirect policy engagement activities against science-aligned policy to deliver the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Furthermore, InfluenceMap analysis suggests that Stellantis’ own policy positions, against which it has assessed alignment, are not aligned with policy-pathways for delivering the 1.5ºC goal. For example, Stellantis endorsed the Transportation Freedom Act in the US in March 2025, which would repeal light-duty emissions standards and “eliminate’ heavy-duty emissions standards. As such, the company 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.
Stellantis did provide explanations behind its evaluation of each industry association, including whether they align with the five individual high-level climate positions, however how these assessments were made remains unclear. The company has included statements from industry associations demonstrating alignment with its climate stance where available.
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?
Stellantis has disclosed a brief framework to address potential misalignments, including one escalation strategy – engaging with the trade association to convey the position of Stellantis to mitigate any inconsistency or misalignment. The company did not commit to dissociate from industry associations and related activities that are materially misaligned with Stellantis’ positions, but stated that depending on the circumstances, it may decide to advocate separately for its own position on the topic.
Stellantis 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)?
Stellantis, aside from stating that its operational ‘Dare Forward 2030’ strategy is aligned with the Paris Agreement, has not published a review of the alignment of its own climate policy engagement activities. The company has therefore 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 climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. For example, in July 2024, Stellantis’ CEO, Carlos Tavares, opposed UK zero-emission vehicle mandate and threatened to scale down Stellantis operations in the country, and in October 2024, advocated for a weaker mandate. Moreover, in the United States, in a press release from March 2025, Stellantis endorsed the Transportation Freedom Act, which, if signed into law, would repeal existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.
At the time of this assessment, Stellantis’ LobbyMap Organization Score was 54%, indicating that the company’s direct climate policy engagement is partially aligned with science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal. Its Organization Score falls just above the threshold for misaligned climate advocacy (50%). Please see Stellantis’ 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?
Stellantis 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?
Stellantis has assessed 8 industry associations. However, the company excluded 6 actively engaged industry associations, including the National Association of Automotive Vehicle Manufacturers (ANFAVEA) from Brazil, Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) from Australia, Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) from the U.S., the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association (CVMA), Hydrogen Europe, and Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM).
Stellantis finds all the 8 industry associations to be aligned with its climate policy positions. As such, the company did not assess any potential case of misalignment.
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least 4 membership (BusinessEurope, FCAI, EMA, Alliance for Automotive Innovation) 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 association (e.g., European Automobile Manufacturers Association, German Association of the Automotive Industry, and National Association of Automotive Vehicle Manufacturers) 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 Stellantis identified no cases of misalignment in its review, it has therefore not identified key cases of misalignment and partial misalignment between its actively engaged industry associations and policy pathways for 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?
The company states that in a potential case of misalignment, it would engage with the trade association to convey the position of Stellantis to mitigate any inconsistency or misalignment. For example, the company expressed commitment to influence the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) position and push for public commitment to the Paris Agreement, by engaging directly.
However, the company has not provided clear evidence of actions to address other cases of misalignment or partial misalignment with science-aligned policy pathways for achieving the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, as identified in 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 Stellantis'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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| National Association of Automotive Vehicle Manufacturers (ANFAVEA) | C | Partially Aligned |
| China Association of Automobile Manufacturers | C | Partially Aligned |
| Asociación Nacional de Movilidad Sostenible (ANDEMOS) | 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 |
| Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association (CVMA) | D | Misaligned |
| Alliance for Automotive Innovation | D- | Misaligned |
| BusinessEurope | D- | Misaligned |
| Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) | E+ | Misaligned |
