This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Toyota Motor'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 Toyota Motor, 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 Toyota Motor's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Toyota Motor'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 Toyota Motor'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 |
|---|---|
| December 2022 | 3/14 (21%) |
| January 2024 | 3/14 (21%) |
| December 2024 | 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 Toyota Motor'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)?
Toyota exhibits very high levels of engagement with climate policy. The company has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies but excludes, or provides a misleading account, on 4 material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
Toyota has disclosed its position on, and engagement with, specific climate-related policies, including in Japan (GX-Related Legislation, GX League, Review of the Strategic Energy Plan); the US (GHG, CAFE, and ZEV Emissions Standards for Passenger Vehicle); and Europe (EU’s 2035 zero emissions CO2 target for cars and vans).
However, Toyota does not appear to have disclosed a complete and accurate account of its climate policy engagement and appears to have excluded key instances of engagement with specific climate-related policies globally, including advocacy for Australia's government to "revisit" its proposed headline fuel efficiency targets for light-duty vehicles and to delay proposed penalties until 2029 in a March 2024 consultation response or advocacy for further exemptions under Australia's New Vehicle Efficiency Standards in an October 2024 consultation response.
Toyota also did not appear to disclose a joint letter signed by Toyota emphasizing concerns with meeting the UK's zero-emission vehicle mandate unless further incentives were introduced in October 2024 or engagement with Australia's low carbon liquid fuel opportunity in June 2024.
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)?
Toyota has published a partial account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies. However, Toyota excludes material evidence of indirect climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database for more than 3 industry associations.
For example, Toyota does not appear to have disclosed advocacy from European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) to delay by two years the EU's 2025 CO2 emissions reduction target in September 2024, advocacy from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) where it emphasized concerns around the UK zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate and pushed for additional electric vehicle incentives to meet the policy in October 2024, and advocacy from the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association in March 2024 to weaken the Australian government's proposed fuel efficiency standards.
In addition, Toyota also excludes numerous other industry associations that are actively engaged on climate policy globally including: Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries in Australia, Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association in the US, and Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) in India.
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 Toyota Motor'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 Toyota Motor'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?
Toyota Motor has published 4 reviews, with 2 published at the start and end of 2024. Toyota Motor has committed to update the contents of its disclosure annually.
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?
Toyota Motor assessed each industry association’s position on six high-level climate positions: the Paris Agreement, climate change science, emissions reduction targets, energy efficiency improvement, technology, and carbon pricing. As such, the company has assessed alignment against top-line policy positions rather than the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Toyota Motor has however provided a clear explanation behind its evaluation of each industry association, including whether industry associations are aligned with the five individual high-level climate positions. It also provided criteria for how associations are assigned findings of aligned, partially aligned, or misaligned.
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?
Toyota Motor has disclosed a clear and detailed framework to address potential cases of misalignment, however without escalation strategies. The company states that, in cases where an association is conducting activities that are inconsistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement, it will encourage the association to review its stance by: sharing Toyota's stance on climate change, clarifying any differences, engage in an exchange of opinions regarding climate policies, and encourage the association to review the stance.
The company also stated that it has set a 12-month period after communication with the association to coordinate improvements on the association’s stance, and if no improvement is seen, communication is conducted again in accordance with the above steps. It will reevaluate the membership of the association annually.
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)?
Toyota Motor has not undertaken a review of the alignment of its own climate policy engagement activities. 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.
For example, Toyota directly advocated to policymakers to weaken Australian fuel efficiency (CO2) standards in a March 2024 consultation response, including pushing for weaker headline CO2 targets, and advocating to delay full penalties until 2029 (with a phase-in approach including no penalties for 2025-26).
At the time of this assessment, Toyota Motor’s Organization Score metric was 45%, indicating misalignment between the Paris Agreement and the company’s detailed climate policy engagement. Please see Toyota Motor'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?
Toyota Motor has not undertaken a review of the alignment of its own climate policy engagement activities. As such, the company has shown no evidence of action to address cases of misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement 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?
Toyota Motor has assessed 15 industry associations in its review. It did not include 14 key industry associations actively engaged on climate policy within the scope of the review, including associations outside Japan, for example: Business Europe (Europe); the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (Australia); and the California Chamber of Commerce (US).
While Toyota disclosed alignment on the 6 criteria it assessed its industry associations against, it did not disclose overall alignment. Therefore, for the purpose of this assessment, associations that have been found to be ‘aligned’ across all 6 criteria (and/or ‘no public position’) are considered fully aligned overall, and associations that have 1 or more criteria identified as ‘partially aligned’ are considered partially aligned overall.
The company found 14 associations to be aligned, and 1 partially aligned (National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)).
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least 11 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), and 9 industry associations with active climate policy engagement partially misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+)
As a result, the company has not identified the majority of 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. See Appendix A for further details on the company’s industry associations.
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?
Toyota has shown some evidence of action on misaligned associations. It stated that it shared its stances on climate change with 4 associations regarding the items that were not “Aligned” in last year's review. These included the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA), Japan Business Federation (Keidanren), Central Japan Economic Federation (Chukeiren), and Japan Hydrogen Association (JH2A).
The company encouraged them to express their stance, and as a result, stated that all associations improved their stances and all items have become “Aligned” in Toyota’s December 2024 review.
However, InfluenceMap analysis finds that JAMA, Keidanren, and Chukeiren continue to actively engage on climate policy counter to science-aligned pathways for limiting warming to 1.5C.
As such, Toyota Motor does not appear to have shown evidence of action to address all cases of misalignment and partial misalignment with 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 Toyota Motor'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.
