This scorecard provides a detailed breakdown of InfluenceMap's assessment of Volkswagen Group'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 Volkswagen Group, 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 Volkswagen Group's company profile - is accessible via the buttons on the right hand side of the page.
A summary of Volkswagen Group'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 Volkswagen Group'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 |
|---|---|
| April 2023 | 4/14 (29%) |
| May 2025 | 4/14 (29%) |
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 Volkswagen Group'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)?
Volkswagen 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 2024 Association Climate Review, Volkswagen disclosed its positions on carbon pricing, renewable energy and incentives supporting the electrification of automotive fleets. Additionally, in its 2024 Annual Report Volkswagen acknowledged the EU's CO2 standards and electric vehicle quotas in China and California, but without stating a clear position. Similarly, Volkswagen appeared to acknowledge the recent weakening of the EU's 2025 CO2 reduction standards without disclosing a position, in its 2024 Association Climate Review. Therefore, Volkswagen has not disclosed a complete and accurate account of its climate policy engagement.
For example, in the EU, Volkswagen supported European Commission's proposal to weaken the 2025 15% CO2 emissions reductions standard through an average compliance mechanism in May 2025, and advocated for an exemption for e-fuels in February 2025. Additionally, in the US, Volkswagen advocated to significantly weaken NHTSA's CAFE standards in October 2023 regulatory comments.
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)?
Volkswagen has published a partial account of its industry associations' positions and engagement activities on specific climate-related policies. However, Volkswagen appears to exclude material evidence of indirect climate policy engagement identified by InfluenceMap's database for more than 3 industry associations.
For example, Volkswagen discloses that members of the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) are "fully committed to deliver the ambitious 2025 and 2030 CO₂ reduction targets". However, it does not appear to have disclosed ACEA's opposition to a 100% zero-emission CO2 target for heavy-duty vehicles in the EU in a May 2023 consultation response. ACEA's Director General, Sigrid de Vries, also appeared unsupportive of the EU's CO2 standards for light-duty vehicles in January 2024 and April 2024 comments.
Additionally, Volkswagen discloses the German Association of the Automotive Industry's (VDA) support for ambition in the EU's Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation, but does not appear to have disclosed VDA's opposition to the implementation of the Greening Corporate Fleets initiative in a July 2024 consultation response.
Volkswagen also appears to exclude more than 3 other memberships to industry associations actively engaged on climate policy from its disclosure. This includes the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, BusinessEurope, Federation of German Industries (BDI), as well as the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) and Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, through subsidiaries.
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 Volkswagen Group'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 Volkswagen Group'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?
Volkswagen has published 2 reviews of its industry associations in 2023 and 2025. The company states that it intends to continue publishing reviews on a “regular basis”. Its two existing biennial reviews suggest the company will publish every other year, rather than 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?
Volkswagen has disclosed a clear methodology for assessing alignment with its industry associations, including clear and detailed explanations behind each evaluation, and references to its associations’ specific climate advocacy activities. However, it assessed alignment against its own policy positions, rather than explictly against science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5ºC goal of the Paris Agreement.
The company assessed alignment in relation to Volkswagen’s climate policy positions, which cover: 1) the Paris Agreement; 2) transformation to net carbon-neutral vehicles; 3) decarbonization and carbon neutrality; 4) charging infrastructure; 5) renewable energy; and 6) carbon pricing.
Volkswagen also set out detailed criteria for assessing its industry associations as aligned, partially aligned, or misaligned.
However, InfluenceMap analysis suggests that Volkswagen’s own policy positions, against which it has assessed alignment, are not aligned with policy pathways for delivering the 1.5ºC goal, as shown in the Identify & Assess (Direct) indicator below. As such, a finding of alignment by the company against its own policy positions may not constitute alignment to science-aligned climate policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement.
Despite this, Volkswagen did provide clear and detailed explanations behind each evaluation. The company gave a breakdown of its assessment against each of the company’s climate policy positions. This included their top-line and detailed advocacy positions, overall alignment assessment, 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?
Volkswagen has disclosed a framework to address potential misalignments, including one escalation strategy. The company states that “in the case of an identified partial alignment or misalignment, the primary objective is to look at each case individually and seek dialogue with the respective association, viewing termination of membership as a last resort.” It also stresses that “Volkswagen is of the opinion that only those who are present can effect change”, suggesting that it is more well-placed remaining a member of the association and advocating for change within, rather than terminating its membership.
However, the company has not attached deadlines for associations 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, Volkswagen commits to support the Paris Agreement and to act in line with it, declaring that with “strong belief in the need for action, our new Group strategy Mobility for Generations reflects our ambition for emission-free mobility and the achievement of the climate targets uniting technological innovation and the need for decarbonization”. 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 several potential instances of misalignment between Volkswagen’s climate policy engagement and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. For example, in a Bloomberg’s article from September 2024, company Chairman Hans Dieter Pötsch Strongly emphasized the challenges associated with the electrification of light-duty vehicles, such as electric vehicle charging infrastructure, electrical grid, raw materials and financial incentives, and appeared unsupportive of existing EU transport emissions targets.
Additionally, in a report from Autocar, published in May 2024, the company advocated for the use of plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV) as a transitional pathway towards the electrification of light-duty vehicles, but it remained unclear whether it supports a transition to full electrification aligned with IPCC guidelines.
At the time of this assessment, Volkswagen’s LobbyMap Organization Score was 62%, indicating that the company’s direct climate policy engagement is mixed aligned with science-aligned policy pathways for delivering the 1.5°C goal. Its Engagement Intensity metric was 47%, indicating strategic engagement with climate policies. Please see Volkswagen’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?
Volkswagen 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?
Volkswagen has assessed 8 industry associations in its review. However, the company excluded actively engaged industry associations such as the National Association of Automotive Vehicle Manufacturers (ANFAVEA), BusinessEurope, Federation of German Industries (BDI), and the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China.
The company identified 2 cases of partial misalignment with its industry associations (Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators), Associação Automóvel de Portugal (ACAP)). The remaining 6 associations were found to be aligned.
InfluenceMap analysis indicates that the company has at least 7 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), including Auto Innovators. Volkswagen also appears to hold memberships to 13 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 Volkswagen only identified 2 cases of partial misalignment, it has not identified multiple cases of misalignment and partial misalignment between its industry associations’ climate policy engagement activities and delivering the 1.5ºC goal, 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?
Volkswagen has shown some evidence of action to address cases of misalignment between its industry associations and delivering the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. Volkswagen states that it has steered and will further support discussions within the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators) and Associação Automóvel de Portugal (ACAP) to push for full alignment and clear commitment to the Paris Agreement in the future.
Despite this, Volkswagen does not appear to have shown evidence of action to address other specific cases of its industry associations’ 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 Volkswagen Group'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.
