A new analysis of the lobbying activities of 15 major automakers and eight trade organizations has revealed that the car manufacturers producing the smallest share of electric vehicles (EVs) are the most active in opposing progressive policies aimed at reducing emissions from road transport and energy systems.
The report criticizes Japanese automakers for their “active, strategic engagement” against such regulations, with Suzuki, Honda, and Toyota receiving low ratings. In 2023, EVs accounted for no more than 30% of production at each of these brands.
All four companies are members of the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA), which has urged the Japanese government not to impose a zero-emissions vehicle mandate.
This mandate would require automakers to ensure that a growing portion of their production consists of EVs.
JAMA has also advocated for alternative fuels and hydrogen fuel cells as substitutes for EVs, despite these technologies being less developed, and has called for long-term support for hybrid vehicles with petrol and diesel engines.
InfluenceMap also accuses Mazda, Honda, and Toyota of lobbying against the implementation of new emissions standards for light-duty vehicles in the United States.
Tesla is the only automaker identified as supporting these standards in the US. Other companies opposing the measures include Volkswagen, Stellantis, Tata Motors, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai, General Motors, Ford, and BMW.
The standards were approved in March, and InfluenceMap believes that lobbying played a significant role in the dilution of the targets.
Final vehicle emissions standards in the European Union were also adjusted at the last moment to level the playing field between alternative fuels and EVs, while Australia’s newly introduced vehicle efficiency standards now target a 50% reduction in emissions by 2029, compared to the 60% originally proposed.
Also Read: The Role of Solar Energy in Electric Vehicle Charging, How Fast Can You Charge An EV With The Sun
In the UK, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak rolled back the ban on new petrol and diesel car and van sales, extending the deadline from 2030 to 2035.
The UK also revised its zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate targets. InfluenceMap claims that many automakers, through the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), pushed for a one-year delay in penalties under the mandate, though this delay was ultimately not implemented by the government.
“Without an immediate gear change from automakers and their industry associations to reform their climate policy engagement, they will continue to weaken and delay climate rules globally, steering the world to the brink,” said Ben Youriev.
Manufacturing in transition
Transport is the world’s third-largest source of emissions, following the energy sector and the food system.
The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) net-zero by 2050 scenario calls for an end to new petrol and diesel car and van sales in developed nations by 2035. In this scenario, EVs and hybrids would make up two-thirds of global light-duty vehicle sales by 2030.
InfluenceMap discovered that only one in five automakers plans for these vehicles to account for 66% or more of their sales by 2030.
The leaders in this field are Tesla, which already offers a 100% electric lineup, along with Mercedes and BMW. At the other end of the spectrum, Suzuki aims for only a 10% electric portfolio by the end of the decade.
Another concern highlighted in the report is the trend of automakers lobbying policymakers and consumers to push for larger, less efficient petrol and diesel models.
The phenomenon of ‘car bloat’ is particularly problematic in the US and Australia, where SUVs currently make up around 57% of production, and this proportion is expected to rise to 64% by 2030.
Greg Jackson, CEO of Octopus Energy, argued in an interview with Carbon Brief this week that traditional automakers are struggling to compete with newer companies that prioritize EVs.
Consequently, these legacy firms are spreading negative messages about EVs through their industry associations and media channels. He described this lobbying as being driven by fear in response to an “existential threat.”