This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Unilever'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 Unilever, 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 Unilever's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Unilever'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 | Yes, meets criteria |
A summary of Unilever's performance under this assessment is shown below, using the traffic-light assessment framework shown in the key. A more detailed breakdown is available below.
The Review Score (0-100) assesses corporate performance against seven indicators, using the same traffic-light framework. A ‘Green’ scores 2 points, a ‘Yellow’ scores 1 point, and a ‘Red’ scores 0 points. This total is converted into a percentage from 0 to 100, calculated using the total number of points available (14). As such, only certain scores within the 0 to 100 range are possible under this methodology. A Review Score of 100 would indicate that a company has met all of the assessment criteria related to the review process.
| Date of Review | Score |
|---|---|
| March 2024 | 14/14 (100%) |
| March 2025 | 13/14 (93%) |
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 Unilever'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)?
Unilever has published a partial account of its positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies, but appears to exclude 2 cases of material evidence of direct climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database.
Unilever disclosed a July 2024 joint letter to US policymakers on the US Farm Bill in its March 2025 Climate Policy Engagement Review. However, the company did not disclose on a joint letter to EU policymakers published in December 2024, in which it strongly supporting policy to make agricultural production less resource and land intensive whilst simultaneously supporting the need for transitioning consumer diets. Additionally, the company did not disclose on a joint letter to UK policymakers published in October 2024, that supported a transition to a low-carbon economy.
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)?
Unilever 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 its LobbyMap database.
Unilever does not appear to have excluded any material evidence of climate policy engagement by its industry associations in its Climate Policy Engagement Review through linking each of the associations' LobbyMap profiles.
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 Unilever'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 Unilever'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?
Unilever has published two consecutive reviews of its industry associations in 2024 and 2025, and committed to reviewing its memberships on an annual basis. This will include publishing a list of principal industry associations and their alignment with the Paris Agreement, as well as conducting a full, global review every three years.
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?
Unilever has published a clear and detailed methodology for assessing the alignment of its industry associations. The company assessed alignment in relation to Unilever’s own climate policy positions, which cover: climate ambition and Nationally Determined Contributions; renewables and the energy transition; carbon pricing and markets; regenerative agriculture and dairy; non-fossil chemical feedstocks and ingredient emissions; and deforestation free commodities. Specifically, Unilever assessed its industry associations’ overall climate lobbying 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”.
The company expanded on how this science-based policy assessment was conducted. It explained that the 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. Following this logic, the company breaks down each industry association’s climate policy engagement to determine their relative alignment with science-based policy. As a result, the company has assessed the alignment of its industry associations’ climate policy engagement against the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Unilever has also clearly disclosed the criteria for finding alignment and/or misalignment with both its own policy positions and science-based policy. Each association was assessed against Unilever’s 6 policy position areas, and assigned an alignment rating (Constructive, Obstructive, Inactive, Neutral, Passive). These were combined with the overall rating for each associations’ positions on science-based policy of either ‘no misalignment’ or ‘misaligned on X issue’.
The engagement intensity of each association was also measured and considered, falling into 4 categories including: “High engagement,” “Moderate engagement,” “Low engagement,” and “No meaningful engagement.”
Further, Unilever provided clear and detailed explanations behind each evaluation. The company gave a breakdown of its assessment against each of Unilever’s climate policy positions and gave detailed information on each industry association’s alignment with science-aligned policy. This included their top-line and detailed advocacy positions, overall alignment assessment, engagement intensity, explanations behind the assessment, links to the associations’ LobbyMap profile, and actions to be taken.
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?
Unilever 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 that it will offer guidance and support to reach an aligned conclusion and agree on a way forward with associations for which misalignment is identified. It also states that, in circumstances where an association is advocating for policy change that runs counter to Unilever’s interests or positions, the company will engage to: make clear how their position is misaligned; assess why the position is misaligned; determine if and how their position(s) can change and over what time period; provide and agree on specific recommendations to address misalignment; and review progress on agreed actions.
Unilever states that it believes that an association’s continuous improvement is more constructive than setting deadlines to reach alignment. However, it does state that if an association’s position cannot be made consistent with Unilever’s or no improvements have been made over a 12-month period, the issue will be escalated, and membership termination will be considered.
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 2025 review, the company states that it is “confident that Unilever's climate policy positions are consistent with science-based policy required to meet the Paris Agreement.” The company did not, however, disclose the workings of this review, limiting its disclosure to its direct positions and engagement activities on specific pieces of climate policy.
InfluenceMap’s assessment of Unilever has identified only one piece of evidence of its direct climate policy engagement being potentially misaligned with science-based policy for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement within 2 years prior to publication of the review. In April 2023 comments, the company supported the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation but with major exceptions, wherein it advocated for prioritizing recycling with no reference to the need for measures to reduce or reuse packaging and packaging waste, and appeared to support slower timelines for the policy’s implementation. The IPCC states that important options for mitigation in waste management are waste reduction, followed by re-use, recycling and energy recovery. Furthermore, the EU Commission’s ‘Categorisation system for the circular economy’ states that recycling, which entails material loss, is considered the “least circular” of circular strategies, whereas reduction, reuse or redistribution are considered the “most circular.”
At the time of this assessment, Unilever’s InfluenceMap organization score was 84%, indicating alignment between science-aligned policy pathways for limiting warming to 1.5ºC and the company’s detailed climate policy engagement. Please see the Unilever’s profile in the LobbyMap database for additional details on the company's real-world climate policy engagement activities.
To ensure ongoing alignment with investor expectations set out in the Global Standard for Responsible Climate Lobbying, Unilever could consider further steps to publicly report on the workings and results of its direct climate policy engagement review, including which climate policies were assessed.
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?
In its 2025 review, Unilever states that it is “confident that Unilever's climate policy positions are consistent with science-based policy required to meet the Paris Agreement.” The company did not, however, disclose the results of this review, limiting its disclosure to its direct positions and engagement activities on specific pieces of climate policy.
InfluenceMap’s assessment of Unilever indicates however that the company has 1 case of potential misalignment between its direct climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement during the 2 years prior to the publication of its review. To fully meet investor recommendations, Unilever should identify all cases of misaligned advocacy and show clear action to address and reform them*.
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?
Unilever assessed 26 industry associations in its 2025 review. It did not exclude any key industry associations actively engaged on climate policy.
Overall, the company found 18 associations with “No misalignments”; 7 “Misaligned on rapid fossil fuel phase-out”; and 1 “Misaligned on science-based policy” (Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry (TCCI)).
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has membership to at least 1 industry association (TCCI) 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 12 industry associations with active climate policy engagement partially misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement (ranked B- to D+).
The 7 industry associations assessed by Unilever as ‘misaligned on rapid fossil fuel phase-out’ specifically are all included in the 12 industry associations that InfluenceMap finds to be overall ‘partially misaligned with delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.’
Unilever identified a further 6 associations that had been upgraded to no misalignments in its 2025 review. These include the European Chemical Industry Association (Cefic), EU Chamber of Commerce in China (EUCCC), FoodDrinksEurope, the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KADIN), Brasileira da Indústria de Alimentos (ABIA), and Associated Chamber of Commerce & Industry (ASSOCHAM). In its review, the company stated that “these ratings are based exclusively on evidence from the 12-month review period (Q4 2023 to Q4 2024 - evidence was gathered and assessed during October and November 2024). Historic instances of misalignment prior to this review period have not been taken into account on the basis that these were covered in our previous review.” This assessment is in line with InfluenceMap’s assessments of most of these industry associations, except for Cefic.
InfluenceMap identified two areas of climate policy engagement by Cefic (outlined below) that appear to be misaligned with either the science-based or government policy benchmarks used in our scoring methodology. According to the explanation provided by the review, it appears these advocacy activities did not fall within the scope of what would be considered material to the company.
Cefic coordinated the Antwerp Declaration in February 2024, alongside “73 business leaders spanning 17 sectors.” The Declaration, issued to the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, and Belgian Prime Minister, Alexander De Croo, called for “a European Industrial Deal”. Despite indicating support for the EU Green Deal and the EU’s climate targets, the declaration urged policymakers to “avoid that the Green Deal policy targets are followed by prescriptive and detailed implementing regulations” - at odds with the guidance of the IPCC on the need for stringent regulation alongside investment for delivering the 1.5°C goal. Cefic reiterated this advocacy in 2024, emphasizing the risks of climate policy ambition to competitiveness in several instances, including in March, June, and September.
In October 2024, Cefic advocated to policymakers for a weaker EU Hydrogen and Gas Decarbonization Package Delegated Act. In response to the EU Commission’s call for feedback, Cefic called for existing hydrogen production facilities to be exempt from strict accounting rules for greenhouse gas emissions when producing low-carbon hydrogen. It also proposed a revision that would make it easier for low-carbon hydrogen producers to use pre-existing renewable electricity capacity, circumventing stricter production criteria finalized by the EU Commission in 2023. These criteria ensure that hydrogen is produced from new renewable electricity, which must be sourced locally and be generated close to the time of the renewable hydrogen production to mitigate the risk that the renewable energy (and emission reductions) deployed is displaced from other uses.
As such, Unilever has not identified partial misalignment between Cefic’s advocacy and science-aligned policy for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement, in line with InfluenceMap’s database. See Appendix A below for further details on the company’s industry association memberships.
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?
Unilever has taken action to address industry associations with both misaligned and partially misaligned climate advocacy activities. It has stated that the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry and the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI) do not speak for Unilever on climate policy positions due to their misaligned practices.
It also disclosed actions it would take with the associations it found to be “misaligned on rapid fossil-fuel phase out.” For example, it stated that it would encourage the European Roundtable for Industry (ERT) to double-down on its pro-climate agenda and increase its engagement intensity on net zero policy, and that it will work with the association to ensure EU Sustainability reporting rules facilitate better business practice. It also stated that it would encourage the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI) to make public its positive engagement on renewable energy policy; encourage the EU Chamber of Commerce in China (EUCCC) to increase engagement intensity in the areas where it is aligned with Unilever; and recommended the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) continue supporting a pro-climate agenda and raise its engagement intensity on net-zero policy.
Furthermore, Unilever disclosed actions and engagements with associations where it found no misalignments. For example, Unilever suggested that its engagement with Cefic will focus on encouraging it to “continue to advocate to scale up non-fossil chemical feedstocks.” This builds upon the actions the company has already taken with Cefic, as detailed in its March 2024 review, where it stated that it would continue to encourage Cefic to play a “constructive role in offering solutions that will accelerate the reduction of GHG emissions from the chemical sector” and to “develop policy proposals that will help increase the uptake of renewable and recycled carbon feedstocks.”
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.
*This evidence was not previously flagged by InfluenceMap's assessment of Unilever's 2023-24 review, as InfluenceMap updated its methodology to cover corporate engagement on climate-related circular economy policy in September 2024. It is noted that, while the scope of Unilever’s 2025 review is limited to the time period of October/November 2023–October/November 2024, InfluenceMap's methodology assesses reviews against the company's climate policy engagement activities over the past 2 years.
In this case, Unilever missed 1 case of potentially misaligned advocacy on circular economy. In line with InfluenceMap’s assessment methodology, companies with an Organization Score of 75% or above and have reviewed the alignment of their direct climate policy engagement activities can fall under the ‘green’ assessment criteria if they identified all instance of material evidence of negative climate policy engagement, or if they miss up to 1 piece of negative material evidence.
Yes, meets criteria
Partial, meets some criteria
No, does not meet criteria
The table below provides a ranking of Unilever'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.
