Stuck in neutral: How

automotive and transportation

manufacturers are failing to
drive essential change
Insights report
December 2024
Table of contents

The 2024 Automotive and Transportation Manufacturers Benchmark 3

Keystone companies in the 2024 Automotive and Transportation
Manufacturers Benchmark .................................................................................. 5
Summary of results ............................................................................................... 8
Five key findings ....................................................................................................13
Key finding 1: Transition of the automotive sector is stalling as companies fail to scale
their electrification commitments globally ............................................................................ 13

Key finding 2: Automotive manufacturers are not financially committed to a low-

carbon future .............................................................................................................................. 15

Key finding 3: Automotive companies must urgently strengthen oversight of battery

suppliers to achieve complete decarbonisation .................................................................... 16

Key finding 4: Without an increased focus on reskilling, the automotive sector remains
unprepared for a low-carbon future and risks leaving at least 1.3 million workers
behind .......................................................................................................................................... 17

Key finding 5: More ambition needed from transportation manufacturers to address the
decarbonisation challenges ahead .......................................................................................... 18
Technical summary .............................................................................................. 20
Targets ......................................................................................................................................... 20

Emissions performance ............................................................................................................. 22

Investments ................................................................................................................................. 24

Climate governance and oversight .......................................................................................... 26

Transition planning and scenario analysis ............................................................................. 26

Supplier and client engagement .............................................................................................. 30

Trade associations and policy engagement ........................................................................... 32

Low-carbon business activities................................................................................................. 34

Appendix: Companies in the 2024 Automotive and Transportation
Manufacturers Benchmark ................................................................................ 38
About the World Benchmarking Alliance .................................................... 40

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 2
The 2024 Automotive and Transportation
Manufacturers Benchmark

The transformation required to decarbonise the transport of people and goods

starts with the technological choices for powering vehicles, vessels, planes and
trains. By 2030, sales of electric vehicles need to outstrip conventional ones (IEA
2024), hydrogen vessels must be made market-ready and the first hybrid-electric
regional aircraft need to take off. Disruption is needed, certainly in a sector
accounting for 21% of global energy emissions and employing millions of
workers. How are keystone manufacturers preparing for such a challenge?
The Automotive Benchmark was the first benchmark released by WBA in 2019, as part of its Climate
and Energy Benchmark series. Since its inception, the benchmark has evaluated 30 key automotive
manufacturers, providing ongoing insights into their performance. This 2024 benchmark iteration
builds on assessments using an updated version of the Accelerate Climate Transition (ACT)
Automotive methodology1. This methodology has been updated mainly to include more ambitious
and up-to-date climate scenarios and related emissions reduction pathways (1.5°C aligned), to better
cover the upstream emissions of automotive manufacturers (associated with purchased materials),
and to reflect some scoring set-up improvements of brought to more recent ACT assessment
methodologies. These deep changes make ACT score comparisons more challenging for assessed
automotive manufacturers. The benchmark has been renamed the Automotive and Transportation
Manufacturers Benchmark in order to highlight the expansion of the assessed scope of activities – see
Keystone companies in the 2024 Automotive and Transportation Manufacturers Benchmark section.

In this benchmark iteration, WBA also assesses keystone manufacturers for other transportation
modes besides automobiles, including aircraft, ships, trains, and trucks and buses. The expansion of
the benchmark scope addresses the growing need to account for the rising share of emissions and
activities associated with both passenger and freight transportation. Air travel is returning to pre-
Covid levels, leading to a corresponding increase in emissions. Additionally, 70% of global freight is
transported by ships, while road freight has surged by 40% since 2010. All companies included in this
benchmark are assessed both against the low-carbon transition to meet the Paris Agreement and the
social challenges for a just transition – see Summary of results section.

In 2022, the transport of people and goods across cities, regions and continents released 8
gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide (CO2), accounting for 21% of global energy-related emissions (IEA
2023). The technological choices powering vehicles, vessels, planes and trains are central to the
sector’s decarbonisation. In the remaining years up to 2030, transportation manufacturers must align
their technology offering with that required to achieve a 25% reduction in CO 2 transport emissions
from 2023 levels. Automotive manufacturers need to scale up proven battery systems, while other
manufacturers need to pursue diverse technological solutions, including new fuels, substantial
efficiency gains and breakthrough innovations.

1
ACT Automotive v2.0 released in June 2024, see Automotive and Transportation Manufacturers Benchmark FAQ

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 3
The automotive industry is on the verge of undergoing a major transition as internal combustion
engine (ICE) vehicles are replaced by electric vehicles (EVs), leading to impacts from the factory floor
to global trade. In early 2024, China surpassed Tesla in EV exports, reshaping market competition
(Sustainalytics 2024). Protectionist trade tariffs risk driving up prices and slowing production (IFW
2024). EV production requires new technologies and skills, creating opportunities for upskilling but
also risking job losses where skills are non-transferable. To meet the 1.5°C target, automotive
manufacturers must commit adequate investments and scale up EV production globally in order to
displace ICE vehicles from their production lines no later than 2035, while ensuring adequate
workforce reskilling and upskilling to minimise social disruption.

Achieving full transport system decarbonisation, however, requires all transportation manufacturers to
actively prepare for the challenging technological advancements needed to make their products low-
carbon. Manufacturers must actively invest to ensure that 45% of heavy trucks sold by 2030 are
battery-electric, while advancing hydrogen fuel cell (HFC) research for powering long-haul transport
(ICCT 2022). Shipbuilders need to adopt ammonia or hydrogen power by 2030 so that low-carbon
fuels meet the 13% target for international shipping (IEA 2023). Plane manufacturers need to engage
with industries and governments on scaling up the capacity of sustainable aviation fuels2 (SAFs), and
with clients on innovative ways to tackle rising demand.

This report presents the five key findings from the 2024 Automotive and Transportation
Manufacturers Benchmark – see Five key findings section – and a Technical summary of the ACT
assessment findings covering key elements of companies’ low-carbon transition plans. The findings
are designed to provide investors, civil society and policymakers – as well as the companies
themselves – with the insights needed to take responsible and effective action.

WBA’s mission is to build a movement to measure and incentivise business impact towards a
sustainable future that works for everyone. Working with over 420 organisations in our Alliance, we
envision a society that values the success of business by what it contributes to the world. To achieve
this, we need all actors in the ecosystem to drive the needed transformations. If you have any
feedback on our findings, please reach out to Vicky Sins, Decarbonisation and Energy Transformation
Lead at WBA: [email protected]

2
Aviation fuel produced from sustainable feedstocks (cooking oil, energy crops or municipal waste) rather than fossil
sources like crude oil.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 4
Keystone companies in the 2024 Automotive
and Transportation Manufacturers Benchmark

The 2024 Automotive and Transportation Manufacturers Benchmark evaluates 44 companies,

including 30 major global automotive manufacturers and 14 influential transportation manufacturers
producing aircraft (three companies), ships (four companies), trains (three companies), and trucks and
buses (four companies). These companies are a dominant force within the respective industries, with a
combined revenue of USD 3.2 trillion in 2023 and directly employing 5.5 million workers.

The selected companies are directly responsible for a significant share of global production in their
respective industries. Automotive manufacturers included in the benchmark accounted for 80% of
global vehicle sales in 2023, manufacturing approximately 81 million vehicles. 3 The truck
manufacturers included in the benchmark made up nearly 54% of global truck production in 2023,
while the plane manufacturers (due to the particular global duopoly characterising this industry)
contributed to almost the entirety of global production of commercial aircraft in the same year.

The automotive manufacturers assessed in this benchmark are representative of the overall regional
patterns of car production in 2023. Production in China, the European Union and the United States in
2023 was 34%, 16% and 10% of global output, respectively (ACEA 2024). A comparable geographical
aggregation of the manufacturers included in the benchmark - see Figure 1 shows shares of 30%, 22%
and 12%, respectively, of the total share of vehicle production assessed.4

FIGURE 1: 2023 SHARES OF AUTOMOTIVE GLOBAL PRODUCTION

3
For more details on how this was calculated, refer to our FAQ document: 2024 Automotive and Transportation
Manufacturers Benchmark: Technical FAQs
4
Country-level distribution between global estimates and in-sample estimates differ due to the fact that in-sample
estimates are based on company reports, meaning that they represent the number of vehicles produced by companies
headquartered in each country instead of vehicles produced in the country.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 5
In terms of delivering solutions, the evaluated manufacturers play an important role in the
electrification of the global vehicle fleet. In 2023, electric vehicles (EVs)5 accounted for 14% of the total
sales of light-duty vehicles (LDVs) by the benchmarked companies, up from 12% in 2022 and 7% in
2021. Global production of EVs exceeded 11 million units in 2023, rising from approximately 9 million
in 2022 and 5.5 million in 2021. Reflecting broader trends in LDV production – and in line with
dedicated literature (EV Outlook 2024) – China dominated EV production in our sample, producing
over half of the EVs globally, followed by the United States with around 2.5 million units - see Figure
2.

FIGURE 2: 2023 EV PRODUCTION BY COUNTRY FOR THE ASSESSED AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS

As a reflection of their dominant position, the emissions associated with the use of products from the
automotive and transportation manufacturers included in this benchmark have a substantial impact
on the planet. In 2023, this accounted for 52% of the global transport sector emissions, which totalled
8.2 Gt CO₂, and 11% of global energy-related emissions, which amounted to 37.7 Gt CO₂ in the same
year. Product emissions from the benchmarked automotive manufacturers in 2023 totalled 2.65 Gt
CO2, representing approximately 7% of global energy-related emissions and 79% of the global
emissions from the use of cars. That is a bit more than the CO2 emissions from the European Union, or
Africa and South America together, in the same year, considering fossil-fuel combustion and
industries (Our World in Data, 2024). Emissions from the other transportation manufacturers included

5
In this report, EVs are defined according to the ACT Automotive methodology as battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) or fuel
cell electric vehicles (FCEVs); hybrid vehicles using combustion engines are excluded.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 6
in this benchmark iteration also represent a significant share of global emissions in their respective
industries - see Figure 3.6

FIGURE 3: PRODUCT-USE FROM THE ASSESSED MANUFACTURERS RESPONSIBLE FOR 52% OF 2023
GLOBAL TRANSPORT EMISSIONS

In terms of geographical coverage, 20 (67%) of the assessed automobile manufacturers are

headquartered in the East Asia and Pacific region, with 11 companies based in China, followed by
Japan with seven and the Republic of Korea with two - see Figure 4. The remaining ten automobile
manufacturers are headquartered across other regions, with five in Europe and Central Asia, three in
North America and two in South Asia. Half of the other transportation manufacturers are
headquartered in Europe and Central Asia, followed by five companies in East Asia and Pacific and two
companies in North America. In terms of ownership, 23 (77%) of the automotive manufacturers are
publicly listed, six (20%) are state-owned and one is privately owned. Similarly, ten (71%) of the other
transportation manufacturers are publicly listed, three (21%) are state-owned and one is privately
owned.

FIGURE 4: REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASSESSED COMPANIES BY HEADQUARTER

The following sections of the report present an overall summary of the benchmark results, detail the
five key findings and provide summaries of technical topics from companies’ ACT assessments.

6
Emissions coverage for trains cannot be properly estimated since two of the three assessed companies do not report
emissions data, while the other one sold products responsible for 41% of sectoral emissions in 2022. It should be noted
that rail-related emissions are far lower than those from other transportation modes.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 7
Summary of results

The average score for the 30 automotive manufacturers evaluated in the 2024 Automotive and
Transportation Manufacturers Benchmark was 23.9 out of 100, with the ACT assessment contributing
17.0 points (out of 60) and the social assessment contributing 6.9 points (out of 40). Transportation
manufacturers’ scores followed the same trend, only performing half a percentage point below the
automotive manufacturers in the overall score. Both sectors showed comparative performance, with
the larger differences noted between regions of companies’ headquarters.

FIGURE 5: AVERAGE SCORES BY REGION – AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS

FIGURE 6: AVERAGE SCORES BY REGION – TRANSPORTATION MANUFACTURERS

The average scores per region were noted to be higher for companies headquartered in Europe and
Central Asia followed by North America, for both automotive and transportation manufacturers - see
Figure 5 and Figure 6. It is interesting to note that automotive manufacturers in both regions
performed similarly in their ACT and social assessments, with an average difference of only 3.2
percentage points. In contrast, the transportation manufacturers in Europe and Central Asia
outperformed those in North America by almost 10 percentage points on their overall scores. The
laggards are concentrated in the East Asia and Pacific and South Asia regions, with the lowest
performing group being transportation manufacturers headquartered in East Asia and Pacific.

FIGURE 7: AVERAGE SCORES BY ECONOMY TYPE

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 8
Similarly, when looking at score distribution by type of economic development - see Figure 7,
companies headquartered in advanced economies outperformed those in developing and emerging
markets, with a wider difference observed for the transportation manufacturers.

Following the pattern observed in other WBA Climate and Energy benchmarks, automotive and
transportation manufacturers that are publicly traded outperform those owned by government - see
Figure 8. For both automotive and transportation manufacturers, there is a wide gap between the ACT
and social performance scores of publicly traded and government-owned companies. This can be
partly explained by the level of disclosure required from publicly traded companies. The performance
of Chinese companies is discussed further in this section, since the government-owned companies in
this benchmark are exclusively headquartered in this country. From the 44 companies assessed in the
2024 Automotive and Transportation Manufacturers Benchmark, only two companies are privately
owned, meaning we cannot draw significant conclusions from their comparative performance.

FIGURE 8: AVERAGE SCORES BY OWNERSHIP TYPE

Country policies and regulations on climate have an impact on how companies position their
transition plans and business models. Europe’s main legislative body has set strong CO2 standards for
LDVs, a 55% reduction target by 2030 and a 100% reduction target by 2035, with exceptions for
carbon-neutral fuel vehicles (EU 2022). Some member states, such as Austria, Denmark and the
Netherlands, plan to phase out ICE vehicles earlier, by 2030.

To some extent, the underlying policy environment in the geographies that car companies operate in
can be observed as exerting an influence on the benchmark scores. Companies headquartered in
Europe have – on the aggregate – better ACT and social scores, which are clearly higher than the
companies from other investigated regions. Presently, the United States lacks a binding federal ICE
phase-out policy. In September 2022, the National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization
(NBTD 2022) set aspirational goals: 100% zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales for heavy-duty vehicles
(HDVs) by 2040 and 50% for LDVs by 2030. Consistent with the less ambitious policy set-up,
companies headquarters in the United States also rank lower than European ones.

Automotive manufacturers exhibit varying levels of performance across both ACT and social
dimensions in the benchmark. Notably, as seen in Figure 9, only seven companies attain more than
50% of the total ACT score (30 points), and none attain more than 50% of the total social score (20
points). Scores are negatively impacted by companies with poor disclosure practices, particularly
those headquartered in East Asia. Key areas for improvement include enhancing disclosure of
emissions, including scope 3, setting emissions reduction targets, increasing transparency in research
and development (R&D) disclosures and developing comprehensive transition plans. The gaps
underscore underperformance in the ACT dimensions compared to leading practices.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 9
 FIGURE 9: CORRELATION BETWEEN SOCIAL AND CLIMATE PERFORMANCE

Although there is a positive correlation between ACT and social scores, certain companies, such as
Tesla, achieve a strong ACT score but have their overall score reduced due to weaker social
performance. Medium and large manufacturers are distributed across the performance spectrum.
Toyota Motor, for instance, ranked as a mid-performer and Volkswagen as a top performer, despite
both being the largest automotive manufacturers with similar vehicle production volumes. The
regional headquarter location also appears to have a significant influence on performance outcomes.

Chinese automotive manufacturers in the context of the current and other global benchmarks

In the 2024 Automotive and Transportation Manufacturers Benchmark, 11 Chinese automotive

manufacturers were evaluated, achieving an average ACT score of 6.7 (out of 60 points) and a social
score of 1.1 (out of 40 points). This is significantly lower than the overall average score of 17.0 for the
ACT and 6.9 for the social dimensions for the 30 automotive manufacturers assessed in total (see
above). Even though a strict comparison of scores between the 2021 and the 2024 assessments of
automotive manufacturers is not entirely accurate, it is worth noting that, on average, Chinese
companies appear to rank lower in the 2024 benchmark iteration.

The lower performance of Chinese companies mostly results from the revised ACT Automotive
methodology, which introduced more stringent data requirements, a comprehensive assessment of
scope 3 emissions, detailed evaluation of management practices and a greater emphasis on policy
engagement. In particular, the following changes were observed with the adaptation of the ACT
methodology and the addition of the social assessment:

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 10
 • Low level of publicly visible required information from the published disclosure:
o ACT score average for Chinese companies was at 39% of the all-company average.
o Three companies scored low due to the lack of English disclosure.
o None reported scope 3 emissions.
o Only two companies could be scored on the reported share of low-carbon vehicles.
o Only one of the five Scope 1 and 2 emission targets had enough detail for scoring.
• Poor performance on social and just transition:
o Social score average for Chinese companies was 16% of the all-company average.
o Seven companies scored zero on social and transition metrics, with the top
performer earning just 10%..

Figure 10 compares the evaluation criteria of WBA’s 2024 Automotive and Transportation
Manufacturers Benchmark with those from 2023 ICCT and 2023 Lead the Charge benchmarks on the
automotive low-carbon transition. Chinese companies scored highest in ICCT, relatively lower in
WBA’s benchmark and lowest in Lead the Charge. 2023 ICCT emphasises zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV)
sales targets, including plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs), class coverage and technical performance –
areas where Chinese manufacturers perform strongly. In contrast, 2023 Lead the Charge focuses on
sustainable supply chains and human rights, highlighting areas for improvement. The 2024
Automotive and Transportation Manufacturers Benchmark combines stringent assessments of scope
1, 2 and 3 emissions, share of low-carbon vehicle (LCV) sales, management practices and policy
engagement, revealing gaps in data transparency and strategic planning.

Despite producing 53% of the world's EVs, Chinese companies face challenges in meeting the
comprehensive standards of the 2024 Automotive and Transportation Manufacturers Benchmark. The
benchmark offers a holistic assessment, integrating companies’ transition planning and accountability
to their workforce, and provides valuable insights for Chinese companies to enhance their overall
performance and align with peers worldwide. To address these gaps, Chinese companies must
prioritise completeness and transparency in their disclosures, with a focus on articulating their
progress in the low-carbon transition and social impacts. This could soon gain urgency as these
companies are building factories in regions such as the European Union, which will make them subject
to enhanced disclosure regulations from local markets.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 11
 FIGURE 10: EVALUATION CRITERIA OF GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE BENCHMARKS

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 12
Five key findings

This section presents the five key benchmark findings, outlining the most significant challenges and
opportunities for achieving a just low-carbon transition in the automotive and transportation
industries. Key findings 1 through 4 address the automotive industry's preparedness for the transition,
covering climate and social aspects. Key finding 5 specifically focuses on transportation
manufacturers. A more detailed analysis of the findings for individual ACT assessment modules is
covered in the technical summary in the next section.

Key finding 1: Transition of the automotive sector is stalling as companies

fail to scale their electrification commitments globally

Driven by supportive policies and growing momentum, electric vehicle (EV)7 sales doubled from 7% in
2021 to 14% in 2023. Yet, on the long-term, the transition is at peril. No automotive manufacturer is
determined to phasing out fossil fuel vehicles from their production lines by 2035. Commitments to
full electric sales are only made for specific markets and by six companies. As a result, only about 40%
of vehicles in 2035 are expected to be fully electric according to company planning, far below the
100% needed to meet the 1.5°C climate target.

EVs are steadily transitioning into mass-market products across an increasing number of countries. EV
sales doubled from 7% in 2021 to 14% in 2023, and this growth is expected to continue. Declining
battery prices which narrow the cost gap with internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, and
heightened competition among automotive manufacturers to offer EVs across a broader range of
vehicle classes, are key drivers of this trend. Additionally, government policies aimed at promoting EV
adoption are gaining momentum. For example, in the European Union, stringent emissions reduction
targets for vehicles are pushing automotive manufacturers to scale up their EV offerings.

Despite these encouraging trends, the anticipated growth in the EV market remains insufficient. The
International Energy Agency's (IEA) 2023 Net Zero Roadmap projects EV share of global light-duty
vehicle (LDV) sales to rise dramatically, from 20% in 2023 to 67% by 2030 – more than a three-fold
increase within seven years – and to reach 100% by 2035. While current EV sales trends are broadly in
line with the roadmap's 2030 projections, automotive manufacturers are at risk of falling significantly
behind by 2035 due to commitments that are limited in scope and geography. Notably, none of the
assessed companies have pledged to fully phase out fossil fuel vehicles from production by 2035.
Furthermore, only six manufacturers have committed to 100% EV sales in specific markets, with five
targeting Europe and one the United States.

Even if all automotive manufacturers fully achieve their publicly disclosed phase-out targets and
Chinese companies meet the national goal of 40% new energy vehicle (NEV) sales, only about 38% of
vehicles globally are projected to be fully electric by 2035 under current company plans - see Figure
11. This estimate is optimistic, as any shortfalls in meeting these targets could leave significantly more

7
The ACT Automotive methodology acknowledges only battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles
(FCEVs) as low-carbon vehicles.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 13
ICE vehicles on the road. Such projections fall drastically short of the 100% EV adoption required to
align with the 1.5°C climate target.

FIGURE 11: ELECTRIC VEHICLE SALES GAP

Moreover, the fragmented nature of the EV market reflects regional disparities. In 2023, EV sales were
predominantly driven by companies headquartered in China (53%), the United States (23%) and
Germany (12%) Together, these three countries accounted for approximately 88% of global EV sales,
underscoring the geographical concentration of EV adoption and the uneven development of EV
industries across countries.

Automobile manufacturers rely on relevant ecosystems to enable an effective transition to the

electrification of their fleets. Clear public policies, such as ICE bans with clear deadlines, subsidies to
stimulate the market demand for EV uptake and deploying extensive charging infrastructure, are
essential. Additionally, companies should engage positively in policy advocacy rather than hindering
the shift to electrification. The change required will not happen without coordinated efforts from
regulators and companies.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 14
Key finding 2: Automotive manufacturers are not financially committed to
a low-carbon future

Despite planning for a low-carbon transition, there is little evidence of companies financially
committing to their goals. Only seven of the benchmarked companies, representing 28% of total
vehicle production, have committed to increasing low-carbon investments by 2025. Of these, only two
have disclosed financial commitments at the level required for a low-carbon transition. Lacking
sufficient low-carbon investments to facilitate change, the market is lagging. In 2023, automotive
manufacturers relied primarily on fossil fuel vehicle sales, with low-carbon vehicle revenue averaging
at only 17% for the nine companies that disclosed this data. Without substantial investments and
strategic financial planning, it is unclear how automotive manufacturers will navigate to a low-carbon
future.

To successfully transition to a low-carbon future, it is essential for companies to have time-bound,

comprehensive action plans backed by clear financial commitment, outlining exactly how the
company aims to shift its business model, assets and operations to align with the latest climate
science recommendations.

Automotive manufacturers were assessed on transition planning based on several best practice
elements. Of the 30 benchmarked companies, 90% have a transition plan in place and 60% have a
moderate to high score (over 55/100) on these best practice elements. This indicates that companies
have mapped pathways towards a low-carbon transition, at least on paper. However, the benchmark
results tell a different story when it comes to practice.

Quantified financial elements are crucial to any transition plan. These include financial projections,
cost estimates, financial viability assessments and financial risks and opportunities. While over half of
the benchmarked companies include quantified financial elements in their transition plans to some
degree, only two companies have clearly integrated these elements into their greater business
strategy. Overall, 44% of the companies included no financial content in their transition plan.

This lack of financial commitment becomes increasingly alarming when looking at low-carbon
investments. Here again, only seven companies, representing 28% of total vehicle production from all
assessed manufacturers, have committed to increasing low-carbon capital expenditure by 2025. Only
two of these companies have disclosed a financial commitment at the level needed for a low-carbon
transition. Considering that the technological pathways towards a low-carbon transition are clear for
the automotive industry, this lack of financial commitment reveals a missed opportunity. Furthermore,
without low-carbon investments to facilitate necessary changes, the market is lagging.

In 2023, automotive manufacturers relied primarily on fossil fuel vehicle sales, with low-carbon vehicle
revenue averaging at only 17% for the nine companies that disclosed this data. Despite adequate
transition planning, companies are financially prioritising business as usual. Without substantial
investments and strategic financial considerations, it is unclear how automotive manufacturers will
take action on their transition planning and navigate to a low-carbon future.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 15
Key finding 3: Automotive companies must urgently strengthen oversight
of battery suppliers to achieve complete decarbonisation

In a 1.5°C world, battery production will dominate upstream emissions from electric-vehicle
production. Only two companies – representing 6% of the EV market – require suppliers to meet
1.5°C-aligned emissions goals, and none have specific targets for battery suppliers. Meanwhile, 12
companies, accounting for 30% of the EV market, are advancing innovation and collaboration with
suppliers to support EV production. 11 companies, covering 60% of the global EV market, are moving
to in-house battery production, potentially boosting low-carbon efforts through tighter control. To
drive full decarbonisation of the sector, in-house production needs to be rationalised, while external
production should include explicit emissions targets.

Effective supplier engagement strategies are essential for decarbonising the automotive sector,
particularly for addressing the high emissions associated with battery production. While EVs have
environmental advantages over traditional ICE vehicles, the production of battery-electric vehicles
(BEVs) faces distinctive challenges in a 1.5°C world. Battery production stands out as the most
significant source of upstream emissions in EV production, accounting for as much as 60% of the
emissions in this category (McKinsey 2023).

Among the automotive manufacturers assessed, 28 (93%) companies have supplier engagement
strategies in place for full decarbonisation of the sector, but they communicate these only in general
terms and lack actionable levers, such as quantified emissions targets or practical action frameworks.
Only two companies, BMW and Kia, have incorporated quantified, science-based emissions reduction
targets into their key procurement templates. Overall, there is an urgent need for companies to align
their supplier engagement efforts with global climate targets, requiring not only more actionable
engagement strategies but also mechanisms to reinforce supplier accountability.

Of the assessed companies, 25 (83%) focus on understanding and changing supplier behaviour for the
low-carbon transition by embedding action levers, such as information collection, and engagement
and incentivisation, into their strategic plans. Meanwhile, 12 (35%) of the companies have committed
to engaging suppliers through innovation and collaboration, a more practical action lever likely to
change the market and support EV production.

Including action levers within the supplier engagement strategy is not only a best practice but also
correlates with better performance in terms of emissions intensity. 12 (40%) companies committed to
include action levers from all engagement types, while only 4 (13%) have not yet incorporated any
types of action levers into their strategy to engage with suppliers - see Figure 12. Companies that are
committed to engaging with suppliers through all engagement types (BMW, Mercedes, and Renault)
and to conducting regular supplier audits were observed to reduce their scope 3 related to category 1
(purchased goods and services) emissions intensity between 2021-2023. Although this evidence
suggests that improving supplier engagement could enhance emissions reduction upstream, poor
data disclosure on scope 3 emissions prevents the establishment of a more definitive relationship and
its consistency across the sample.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 16
 FIGURE 12: ACTION LEVERS EMBEDDED TO ENGAGE SUPPLIERS

In-house battery production is adopted by 11 (37%) of the assessed companies, with an additional
seven (23%) companies in the planning phase of producing batteries within three years. This approach
offers greater control over the emissions footprint of EV manufacturing while achieving cost-
effectiveness in advancing EV production. However, this trend must be balanced with strategies to
engage external suppliers effectively. If companies fail to extend their decarbonisation frameworks
beyond in-house operations, this will leave a substantial portion of the automotive supply chain
outside the scope of emissions reduction initiatives. Integrating external production with explicit
emissions targets will be essential to closing this gap.

Key finding 4: Without an increased focus on reskilling, the automotive

sector remains unprepared for a low-carbon future and risks leaving at
least 1.3 million workers behind

Producing EVs requires different skills than those that have been needed for producing ICE vehicles.
While many companies offer educational programmes for their staff, only four of the assessed
companies are committed to reskilling their existing workforce, and none have shown that they have a
process to understand what skills are lacking to successfully decarbonise. About 1.3 million workers
are currently employed by the 13 companies that scored zero on all fundamentals of reskilling and
upskilling their workforce for a just transition. Overall, automotive manufacturers lack the
commitments, processes and educational programmes to ensure a workforce with the skills needed to
be successful in a decarbonised future.

Failing to prioritise risks to workers could jeopardise the automotive industry’s ability to decarbonise
in a just way. Transitioning to EV manufacturing, requires at least as many workers as ICE vehicles,
when accounting for battery production (Cotterman et al. 2024). However, autoworkers need to be
equipped with a range of new and evolving skills compared to those needed so far to produce ICE

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 17
vehicles. Despite the evolving skills that are required, only four companies are committed to reskilling
their existing workforce in the low-carbon transition. This risks leaving many workers with outdated
skillsets and no suitable job opportunities, more so if the new jobs are created in different places.

While the transition to EVs is well underway, it is still crucial to understand exactly what skills will be
needed, when and in what quantities, to make sure that the low-carbon transition can stay on track.
None of the assessed companies disclosed a process to identify the skill gaps that may arise during
the transition, which shows that all automotive manufacturers may be unprepared for and lack an
understanding of the challenges that lie ahead. The details of how companies plan to decarbonise
their business remains vague, and companies are not financially committed to the low-carbon future.
Without facing the reality of decarbonisation, companies remain unprepared for what it will mean for
their workers.

Many automotive manufacturers offer some sort of educational programmes for their staff to make
sure they have the skills needed to do their current jobs. However, these efforts rarely extend to other
impacted stakeholders and fail to consider equality of opportunity for women and other vulnerable
groups, who are more likely to be left behind at times of transition. Of the assessed automotive
companies, 13 scored zero on all fundamentals of reskilling and upskilling for a just transition as they
have no related commitments or processes in place. This means that the 1.3 million workers they
employ may be at a serious risk of being left behind in the transition. If these gaps persist, companies
risk not only failing to meet the demands of a decarbonised future but also abandoning workers
whose specialised skills may soon become obsolete.

Automotive manufacturers must embrace their responsibility to ensure a just transition. The need to
urgently decarbonise their business should not be used as an excuse to make unjust choices that
exclude the current workforce from the opportunities created in the electrification of the industry.
While the number of jobs in the sector is expected to remain relatively stable, companies need to
understand what the future of work may look like and engage in reskilling initiatives. This should be
paired with efforts to expand EV production in the same locations where ICE manufacturing is being
phased out, ensuring a just transition for the workforce and local communities.

Key finding 5: More ambition needed from transportation manufacturers to

address the decarbonisation challenges ahead

Technological uncertainty and reliance on long-lived assets from transportation manufacturers -

building ships, trucks, trains, and aircraft - result in a more challenging path to decarbonisation.
However, their response is subdued. In 2023, low-carbon R&D across all companies accounted for just
5% of total research spending, despite its critical role for developing the necessary clean technologies.
Only three companies have a client engagement strategy covering more than 90% of scope 3
emissions, missing out on an important lever for achieving sector-wide decarbonisation as the
manufacturer products will be decades in operation. A full transport-system transformation is
therefore dependent on transportation manufacturers increasing their ambition.

The full decarbonisation of the transport system requires strong and ambitious transition plans from
transportation manufacturers beyond the automotive industry. Research on key companies producing
aircraft, ships, trains and trucks shows that despite facing more complex decarbonisation pathways,

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 18
the low-carbon commitments and performance of these companies remain comparable to those of
automotive manufacturers. This lack of extra effort is notable, given differences in technological
readiness and the long lifespan of these transportation assets. While automotive manufacturers focus
on fleet electrification, other transportation manufacturers face the challenge of navigating multiple
fuel options, including ammonia, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and methanol. Limited
infrastructure, regulatory uncertainty, high costs and operational complexity further hinder progress.
In contrast, the automotive sector's simpler electrification approach, supported by mature technology
and robust infrastructure, enables faster carbon reductions. To add to this, other transportation
manufacturers lag even further behind than automotive manufacturers on some key issues. Only 29%
of the assessed transportation manufacturers disclosed upstream emissions, in comparison to 47% of
the automotive manufacturers.

Of the assessed transportation manufacturers, 11 (80%) show significant shortcomings in their climate
engagement strategies, encompassing policy, actions and impact, scoring less than half of the
possible points. This is especially concerning given the long lifespans of planes, ships, and trains, and
the need for robust climate strategies to reduce emissions from their use. In cases where companies
did have client engagement strategies, these often lacked adequate coverage and depth. Only three
(20%) of the companies provided evidence of engagement activities with clients resulting in
measurable impacts, and just one – PACCAR – demonstrated a clear link between its strategies and
potential energy savings or emissions reductions from its sold products.

Furthermore, the assessed transportation manufacturers fail to provide clear disclosures regarding
both their R&D spending and capital expenditure (CapEx) dedicated to advancing low-carbon
technologies. None of the companies outlined plans to increase future CapEx in this critical area, and
current allocations to low-carbon R&D remain alarmingly low, averaging at just 5% of total research
spending. This lack of transparency and commitment underscores a significant gap between the
industry’s needs and actionable progress towards decarbonisation, rendering the outlook for a
successful decarbonisation of the transportation sector bleak.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 19
Technical summary

This section provides an in-depth look into the ACT assessment results of the 2024 Automotive and
Transportation Manufacturers Benchmark. It only discusses the results for the automotive
manufacturers as the profiles and number of automotive companies covered in the benchmark allows
to draw insights at the industry level. The summary is arranged by topic, drawing on analyses from the
individual ACT performance modules and indicators. The table below outlines the modules and
indicators discussed under each topic. For more information about the ACT performance scoring,
please refer to the dedicated ACT Automotive methodology.

The 2024 Automotive and Transportation Manufacturers Benchmark has only utilised public sources
of data, primarily from companies’ disclosure in sustainability, integrated, annual or financial reports.
Complementary data, such as that included in the CDP climate questionnaire or other sources, was
also considered. provided it was publicly available.

TABLE 1: TECHNICAL SUMMARY TOPICS AND THE ACT MODULES AND INDICATORS COVERED

Technical summary topic ACT modules/indicators

Targets Module 1
Emissions performance Modules 2 and 4, specifically Trend in past
emissions and Locked-in emissions indicators
Investments Module 3 and Low-carbon CapEx indicator
Climate oversight and governance Indicators 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4
Transition planning and scenario analysis Indicators 5.3 and 5.5
Supplier and client engagement Modules 6 and 7
Trade associations and policy engagement Module 8
Low-carbon business activities Module 9

Targets
A public-facing decarbonisation target is an indication of corporate commitment to reducing
emissions. Companies without ambitious targets are unlikely to be adequately committed to
decarbonising. Targets provide a direction towards which companies can align their strategy, CapEx
and R&D to deliver the requisite emissions reductions.

The emissions reduction targets set by the automotive manufacturers in the benchmark fall short of
what is needed to drive a low-carbon transition at the required scale and speed. Of the 30 assessed
companies, almost a third are yet to set any target, more than three quarters have not yet set a net-
zero target for their scope 1 and 2 emissions and almost half have not set net-zero targets that
include their scope 3 emissions.

What targets have been set?

Out of the 30 automotive manufacturers assessed in this benchmark, 23 (77%) have publicly disclosed
an emissions reduction target. The seven (23%) companies without any emissions reduction target
contribute to at least a third of the combined scope 1 and 2 emissions of all the companies covered in
the benchmark. This includes BYD, Changan Automobile, Chery Holding Group, Dongfeng Motor
Group, FAW, JAC Motors and SAIC Motor. There is a clear lack of emissions reduction commitment

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 20
from Chinese companies, which is problematic considering that 11 (37%) of the 30 benchmarked
keystone companies are headquartered in China.

Scope 1 and 2 emissions make up a smaller proportion of an automotive manufacturer's total

emissions than scope 3 emissions. However, it is important for organisations to set targets for their
operational emissions, over which they have total control, to demonstrate their intentions to
transition. Out of the 30 automotive manufacturers in the benchmark, 19 (63%) have a target for their
scope 1 and 2 emissions. The majority of companies without such a target are Chinese, namely BYD,
Changan Automobile, Chery Holding Group, Dongfeng Motor Group, FAW, Geely Holding,
Guangzhou Automobile Group, JAC Motors and SAIC Motor, except for Kia and Tesla, both of which
have not set isolated scope 1 and 2 targets. Kia has only set a vague net-zero target for its scope 1, 2
and 3 emissions by 2045.Tesla’s net-zero target for its scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions does not even
include a target year.

Under an ambitious EV adoption scenario, fleet electrification will lead to upstream scope 3 emissions
being predominant in the overall emissions of automotive manufacturers. Therefore, having scope 3
emissions reduction targets in place will only become more important. Yet, only six (20%) of the
companies have set targets to reduce their upstream scope 3 emissions: BMW, Hyundai Motor,
Mercedes-Benz, Renault, Stellantis, Tata Motors. Further, only Hyundai Motor reported both near- and
long-term targets. No Chinese, American or Japanese company has a target to tackle upstream scope
3 emissions.

Currently, downstream scope 3 emissions represent the majority of emissions in an automotive

manufacturer’s value chain. However, half the companies assessed have not set targets to reduce
emissions in the use phase of sold products. Once again, no Chinese company has a target to reduce
these vital emissions.

To align with the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, all car and van sales will need to be zero-
emission by 2035 (IEA, 2024). However, only 18 (60%) companies have set net-zero targets covering
all scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, and no company has net-zero targets aligned with the IEA’s
recommended timeframe. Tata Motors and Mercedes-Benz are the only two companies that target
net zero across all emissions prior to 2040. Two more companies target net zero by 2040, three by
2045 and ten by 2050. Tesla does not even provide an end year for its target. Moreover, only one net-
zero target, set by Stellantis, could be scored for alignment with a 1.5°C pathway. Automotive
manufacturers questionably lack the crucial transparency required around inclusive net-zero targets,
such as disclosure emissions intensities and use of carbon offsets.

Are the targets ambitious enough?

To determine whether a company’s target is aligned with its 1.5°C pathway, and is therefore
sufficiently ambitious, ACT methodologies require a company to disclose sufficient detail on each
target. Only 18 (60%) companies in the 2024 benchmark disclosed enough information surrounding
their targets, such as emissions intensities, activities and use of carbon offsets, which would enable
their targets to be assessed.

In total, 19 (63%) companies were found to have targets for their scope 1 and 2 emissions. Out of
these companies, 15 (50%) disclosed enough information for their targets to be assessed for
alignment with a 1.5°C pathway. Among these companies, Stellantis stands out with its aim to reduce
its scope 1 and 2 emissions by 50% by 2025, 75% by 2030 and 100% by 2050, compared to 2021. It is
the only company in the benchmark that has both a near- and long-term scope 1 and 2 emissions
target aligned with its 1.5°C pathway.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 21
Further, 15 (50%) of the companies were found to have targets for their downstream scope 3
emissions. Out of these companies, only seven (23%) disclosed enough information for their targets to
be assessed for alignment with a 1.5°C pathway. Among these companies, Tata Motors stands out as
the only company with a short-term target aligned with its 1.5°C pathway, but it still lacks a long-term
target.

Hyundai Motor

Hyundai Motor has improved its target setting compared to the assessment in 2021. Hyundai Motor is
one of the few companies in the current benchmark to have set upstream scope 3 emissions
reduction targets. Further, it is the only company to have set both near- and long-term targets for this
scope of emissions. It now also has several downstream scope 3 emissions reduction targets. For its
scope 1 and 2 as well as scope 3 emissions, Hyundai Motor has set targets at gaps no longer than five
years, starting from 2030 until 2050. Yet, as with most companies, it fails to publicly report data on
emissions intensity for its downstream scope 3 emissions targets and on carbon offsets for its net-
zero scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions target.

Another element assessed in the benchmark is the time horizon of emissions targets. The ideal set of
targets should be forward-looking enough to cover the majority of the lifetime of a company’s assets
and should include sufficient interim targets that incentivise action in the present. Of the assessed
companies, 19 (63%) have set emissions targets for 2050. Yet, among these, only four (13%) have also
set interim targets for 2025 and 2030, namely Geely Holding, Renault, Stellantis and Suzuki. Moreover,
none of the companies have set regular interim targets at gaps of no more than five years extending
until the end year of their long-term target.

When assessing targets, the ACT methodology also measures companies’ historic target achievement
and current progress towards active emissions reduction targets. In total, three (10%) of the
companies are on track to achieving all their emissions targets, while 14 (47%) of the companies
scored zero on this indicator.

Emissions performance
The indicators on trend in past emissions intensity compare a company’s rate of emissions reduction
over the previous five years with the rate required by its 1.5°C pathway over the coming five years.
The past emissions trends of automotive manufacturers are assessed for the following sources of
emissions, which remain the main contributors to these companies’ overall emissions: upstream
emissions associated with purchased materials (scope 3 category 1), emissions from manufacturing
operations, and downstream emissions arising from the use of sold products (scope 3 category 11).
Trends in past emissions are assessed using emissions intensities, whatever the scope of emissions.
Additionally, the locked-in emissions from sold products are also compared with companies’ 1.5°C
carbon budget.

Alignment of past emissions intensities: emissions from manufacturing operations

Of the 30 automotive manufacturers, 24 (80%) reported sufficient data to enable an assessment of the
past trend in their scope 1 and 2 emissions. Among these companies, 13 (43%) reported a five-year
time series starting from the reporting year. Three (10%) of the companies, all Chinese, did not report
scope 1 and 2 emissions at all. All companies from Europe and Central Asia, North America and South

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 22
Asia reported their scope 1 and 2 emissions for the last three years, compared to 60% from East Asia
and Pacific.

The average score for the past scope 1 and 2 emissions trend for the 24 companies mentioned above
is 59%. In total, 11 (37%) of the companies scored 100%, showing a trend aligned with their 1.5°C
pathway. This demonstrates the capability of a decent share of automotive manufacturers to
decarbonise their own operations, which is a positive outcome, even though scope 1 and 2 emissions
represent a minor share of their overall emissions. However, many companies scored 0% for their past
scope 1 and 2 emissions trend due to no disclosed data (six companies) or poor performance (five
companies). Further, all companies receiving nil scores are either Chinese or Japanese.

Alignment of past emissions intensities: upstream emissions from purchased materials

Of the 30 automotive manufacturers, 15 (50%) reported their scope 3 category 1 emissions, among
which eight (27%) reported a five-year time series starting from the reporting year. The assessment
considers emissions intensities for the main sources of upstream emissions for automotive
manufacturers: aluminium, batteries (for EVs), glass, plastics and steel. None of the assessed
companies reported data on upstream emissions intensities to allow for a proper estimation of trends,
consequently receiving a score of zero on the related indicator. Companies should more clearly
disclose emissions data related to materials used in the vehicles they manufacture, especially
considering that with fleet electrification, these emissions are expected to become the largest
contributor to companies’ overall emissions.

Alignment of past emissions intensities: downstream emissions from use of sold products

Of the 30 automotive manufacturers, 18 (60%) reported sufficient data to enable an assessment of the
past trend in their scope 3 category 11 emissions. Among these companies, nine (30%) reported a
five-year time series starting from the reporting year. In total, 11 (37%) of the companies, all Chinese,
did not report scope 3 category 11 emissions at all. All companies from Europe and Central Asia,
North America and South Asia reported their scope 3 category 11 emissions for the last three years,
compared to 25% from East Asia and Pacific.

The average score for the trend in past downstream emissions from the use of sold vehicles for the 18
companies mentioned above is 20%. As a result of its full battery-electric fleet sales, only Tesla scored
100%, showing a trend aligned with its 1.5°C pathway. On the other hand, 18 (60%) of the companies
scored 0% for their past trend in these emissions due to no disclosed data (12 companies) or poor
performance (six companies).

What amount of emissions are automotive manufacturers locking in with their sold fleet?

The locked-in emissions indicator compares projections of companies’ cumulative absolute emissions
resulting from the use of their sold vehicles against the cumulative carbon budget allocated based on
their 1.5°C pathways, for the five years following the reporting year. To score this indicator, projections
of sold vehicles (units per year) and projections of average emissions intensity of these vehicles are
required.

Strikingly, none of the 30 assessed automotive manufacturers reported this information.

Consequently, future vehicle sales and emissions intensities were estimated in-house to allow for
scoring companies on the locked-in emissions indicator. The maximum score was obtained by Tesla,
which is the only automotive manufacturer in the benchmark solely selling low-carbon vehicles (with a
100% BEV fleet).

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 23
BMW and Tesla

By selling BEVs only, Tesla is the only company in the benchmark with no emissions arising from the
use of sold products – the main source of emissions for automotive manufacturers. Tesla holds a
unique place in the industry because it does not sell any fossil-fuel powered vehicles, transitioning
away from which is identified as the main lever for the industry to decarbonise. The company has also
significantly reduced its scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity. While the company has not disclosed this
data, it has been calculated to have dropped from 0.63 to 0.37 tonnes of carbon dioxide per vehicle
(tCO2/vehicle) between 2021 and 2023. However, Tesla can improve its disclosure of emissions data
for previous years to allow for a more insightful assessment of its past emissions trend. The company
should also disclose more information about emissions associated with its purchased materials (by far
its largest source of emissions) and its plans and actions to reduce these emissions.

In its 2023 Group Report, BMW disclosed a five-year time series for its scope 1 and 2 emissions
intensity, which decreased from 0.40 to 0.28 tCO2/vehicle between 2019 and 2023 – an average yearly
reduction of 7.5%. This rate exceeds BMW’s 1.5°C pathway. The company also disclosed its average
global fleet-wide carbon emissions (scope 3 category 11 emissions). These emissions have dropped
from 218.5 to 185.4 gCO2/km for BMW’s passenger cars between 2019 and 2023 – an average yearly
reduction of 3.8%. This rate demonstrates BMW’s efforts to decarbonise its sold vehicles, even though
it does not fully align with the company’s 1.5°C pathway. The company should additionally disclose
more information about the emissions associated with its purchased materials (by far its largest
source of emissions) and its plans and actions to reduce these emissions.

Investments
FIGURE 13: DISCLOSURE OF INVESTMENTS AND PATENTS IN LOW-CARBON TECHNOLOGIES

In the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, EV sales need to reach around 65% of total car sales
in 2030 (IEA 2024). To reduce their emissions and help maintain revenues in a low-carbon economy,
automotive manufacturers must ensure that the majority of their capital expenditure (CapEx) and
research and development (R&D) spending goes towards advancing and patenting new low-carbon
technologies, such as batteries and fast-charging infrastructure. Yet, 19 (63%) of the assessed
companies do not disclose their low-carbon CapEx shares, while 20 (67%) do not disclose their low-
carbon R&D investment shares - see Figure 13.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 24
Capital expenditure

Recent studies show that from 2022 to 2023, investment announcements in EV and battery
manufacturing totalled almost USD 500 billion, of which around 40% has been committed (IEA 2024).
Yet, of the 30 automotive manufacturers assessed, only 11 (37%) disclosed the proportion of CapEx
they have invested in low-carbon technologies in 2023. Of the companies that disclosed this
information, eight (73%) spend less than 40% on low-carbon technologies. The three leaders in this
area: Tesla, Ford and Tata Motors, invest 100%, 73% and 71%, respectively. The average low-carbon
CapEx share for the 11 reporting companies is 39%.

All companies headquartered in Germany and India disclosed their low-carbon CapEx. This share falls
to 67% for companies in the United States and 14% for companies in Japan, while no evidence was
found for companies in China disclosing their low-carbon CapEx. Companies based in the United
States allocate 87% of their CapEx to low-carbon technologies on average. In contrast, companies in
India and Germany allocate only 50% and 28%, respectively.

Future investment plans demonstrate a company’s commitments and reflect its internal planning
towards a low-carbon transition. Yet, of the assessed companies, only four (13%) publish information
on their planned low-carbon CapEx share for 2025, signalling significant inaction overall. The average
share of this planned investment constitutes 69% of the four companies’ total planned CapEx. The two
leading companies, Tesla and General Motors, both plan to invest 100%. Companies headquartered in
the United States thus lead in both disclosing more information on their planned low-carbon CapEx
shares and investing the largest proportion of their planned CapEx in low-carbon technologies.

Research and development

Investment in R&D is necessary to reduce the costs and speed up deployment of innovative low-
carbon technologies. Out of the 30 automotive manufacturers assessed, 29 (97%) reported
information on their R&D expenditure; however, only ten (33%) reported information on how much of
this is dedicated to low-carbon technologies. Tesla, Mitsubishi and Mahindra lead in low-carbon R&D
shares, with investments of 100%, 47% and 47%, respectively. The average low-carbon R&D share for
the ten reporting companies is 34%.

About 67% of companies headquartered in Germany and the United States disclosed their low-carbon
R&D. This share falls to 50% for companies in India and 43% for companies in Japan. No evidence was
found for companies in China disclosing their low-carbon R&D. Companies based in the United States
allocate 60% of their R&D to low-carbon technologies on average. In contrast, companies in Japan
and Germany allocate 30% and 28%, respectively.

Non-mature technologies are key to addressing some of the intractable, hard-to-abate emissions
from different sectors. Consequently, the ACT assessment methodology rewards companies for their
investments in these technologies. Around 35% of global CO2 reductions between now and 2050 will
result from low-carbon technologies that are currently in the demonstration or prototype phase (IEA
2021). Yet, none of the companies disclosed the share of their R&D investments in non-mature
technologies.

Low-carbon patenting

Low-carbon patenting activity is an important indicator of a company’s ability to transition and

develop new low-carbon business models. Evidence of low-carbon patenting activity could only be
found for one of the assessed companies, Ford, with 20% of its patents targeting low-carbon
technologies.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 25
Climate governance and oversight
Corporate climate oversight and governance help ensure that companies include the low-carbon
transition in their strategic plans and address other environmental challenges. By having a structured
framework for climate oversight, companies can set and meet emissions reduction targets and
commit to achieving the Paris Agreement goals.

Climate governance

For 24 (80%) of the assessed companies, there was evidence indicating the presence of board-level
oversight of climate-related issues, with responsibility for the organisations’ corporate direction
resting with either the board of directors or the chief executive officer (CEO). Four (13%) of the
companies reported oversight of climate change resting with a level below the board and CEO. Two of
the assessed companies lacked disclosure in English that could indicate the existence of an
established structure dedicated to climate governance.

Despite 93% of the companies in the benchmark having oversight of climate issues from at least the
board or an employee one level below the board, only five (17%) of the companies were found to
have significant expertise in climate change and the low-carbon transition, which informs strategic
investment planning and decision-making. Four out of these five rank at the top in the benchmark
overall: Mercedes-Benz, Ford, BMW and Stellantis.

In the ACT methodology, climate expertise is characterised by five key attributes: possessing academic
or professional qualifications specifically related to climate change and the low-carbon transition
(excluding purely energy-related backgrounds); professional experience in roles or organisations
focused on climate change and low-carbon initiatives; active membership in organisations that drive
corporate knowledge on these issues; and demonstrating technical knowledge through recent
publications/outputs on the impacts, risks and solutions associated with climate change. Having at
least three of these attributes is considered significant expertise.

Climate-related incentives

Out of the 30 assessed companies, only 14 (47%) reported having management incentives linked to
climate change mitigation. For 13 (43%) of the companies, management incentives were set at the
highest level of decision-making authority in the organisation (responsible for guiding its overall
strategy and direction). The remaining 16 (53%) companies did not report any climate-related
incentives. None of the companies headquartered in China had climate-related incentives.

Companies provide different types of monetary rewards for achieving climate-related performance,
including annual bonuses, bonuses as a percentage of salary, salary increases and other forms of
incentives over both the short and long term. Among the companies in this benchmark, the most
popular type of incentive was the inclusion of monetary rewards within the company’s short-term
incentive plan in terms of annual bonuses. This was observed for eight (27%) of the companies. The
remaining companies with climate-related incentives adopted a long-term view by making incentives
part of equity, increasing the likelihood of a successful low-carbon transition.

Transition planning and scenario analysis

Companies should establish a time-bound action plan outlining how they will adapt and prepare for a
low-carbon transition. This action plan should include medium- and long-term targets, quantified

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 26
objectives and financial commitments. The plan should also be informed by climate scenario analysis
to ensure its ambition is sufficient to align with a 1.5°C pathway.

Transition planning

Overall, only three of the 30 automotive companies assessed, BYD, FAW and JAC Motors, appeared to
lack any elements of transition planning. Notably, no English-language disclosures were found for
FAW and JAC Motors, while for BYD, evidence of a transition plan was absent despite available
disclosures.

Among the remaining 27 companies, 16 (59%) demonstrated convincing evidence of a transition plan
that covers all business units and operations as well as upstream and downstream activities related to
the company’s production operations. However, none of these plans were fully aligned with a low-
carbon future. The assessment revealed significant variability in companies’ readiness for the
transition, with the scores indicating differing levels of commitment and detail.

Key elements of robust transition planning include setting clear, measurable objectives that can be
monitored and reported. In 2023, 24 (80%) of the assessed automotive companies disclosed at least
one quantified, time bound measure of success – see Figure 14. Among these, two-thirds provided
two or more objectives with both qualitative and quantitative details aligned with a low-carbon
scenario. Examples of such measures include setting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction
targets, shifting to a 100% electric fleet and committing to phase out fossil-fuel powered vehicles,
expanding the manufacturing facilities of EVs and their components and increasing the capacity for
renewable energy generation.

FIGURE 14: MEASURES OF SUCCESS FOR A LOW-CARBON TRANSITION PLAN

To achieve their decarbonisation goals, companies should develop both short- and long-term actions
for the next five years and beyond. While 26 (86%) of the companies disclosed examples of measures
they expect to implement in the short term, only 50% of these have developed comprehensive plans
that contain detailed descriptions of these actions. Similarly, while 22 (74%) of the companies
disclosed a description of planned long-term actions, detailed descriptions of relevant and achievable
long-term actions were observed for only 47% of them. This eight (26%) companies without long-
term commitment to actions – see Figure 15.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 27
Commitments by companies to establish processes for reviewing and updating their transition plan
were found to be missing across 23% of the assessed companies. Of the 30 companies, only 11 (37%)
disclosed a commitment to review and update their transition plan at least every five years, with a
defined process in place – a process ACT methodologies consider to be fully -low-carbon aligned.
Similarly, evidence of commitments by companies to report their progress against their transition plan
and any material change annually, with a defined stakeholder feedback process, was found to be
missing across 30% of the assessed companies.

FIGURE 15: ALIGNMENT OF KEY TRANSITION PLAN ELEMENTS IN ASSESSED COMPANIES

Another critical aspect of a robust transition plan is the inclusion of financial considerations, such as
financial projections or indicators, and how decarbonisation aligns with the company's long-term
vision and business strategy. Failing to present convincing evidence of financial considerations in the
transition plan weakens the credibility of companies, as it becomes unclear whether they are
embedding carbon reduction efforts in key operational activities. For 15 (50%) of the companies
assessed, no evidence was found of quantified financial content, such as projections, cost estimates or
other estimates of financial viability associated with the transition plan, although these might have
been referred to within the plan – see Figure 15.

At a country level, a pattern can be observed whereby companies located in Europe, Japan and the
Republic of Korea give a strong indication of having more mature transition plans in place. This can be
inferred from the existence of a higher number of key elements of their transition plans attaining ‘low-
carbon aligned’ classification as per the ACT Automotive methodology – see median values in
Figure16.

FIGURE 16: MATURITY GAP IN KEY TRANSITION PLAN ELEMENTS

For companies headquartered in a given country, the gap between the best and worst company
transition plans is the narrowest in the Republic of Korea and the largest in Japan. Admittedly,
European policy towards signalling the end of the ICE has been one of the most progressive and, on
aggregate, companies headquartered in the region have produced compelling transition plans.
Nevertheless, not all companies have interpreted the policy environment in the same way and only

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 28
half of the key elements composing their transition plan are low-carbon aligned. Companies located
in the United States, India and China show evidence of less mature transition plans, revealed by a
significantly lower median number of low-carbon aligned key elements.

BMW and Nissan Motor

Both BMW and Nissan Motor have transition plans in place that encompass all business units and
operations and the rest of the value chain, including both upstream and downstream activities. The
transition plans of both companies consider short- and long-term actions to be implemented to make
the low-carbon transition a reality. Examples of these actions include expanding the product range of
BEVs, expanding the infrastructure for electromobility, increasing renewable energy production and
integrating circularity measures in production methods. Furthermore, both companies commit to
reviewing and updating their transition plans at least every five years for continuous relevancy and
efficacy and have established a process to do so. Both companies also commit to reporting progress
against their transition plans on an annual basis. In terms of financial content, both companies have
addressed key financial aspects of their transition plans and integrate an internal carbon pricing
system in their financial assessment. Climate change scenario testing and analysis has also been
employed to inform the companies’ transition plan development following the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) well-below 2°C pathway.

Scenario testing and carbon pricing

Companies should develop their transition plans based on a 1.5°C scenario to ensure alignment with
global climate goals. However, more than 40% of the 30 automotive companies have not conducted
any scenario analysis. Only 11 (37%) of the companies have conducted an analysis using three or
more scenarios, including a 1.5°C scenario. Furthermore, 18 (60%) of the companies have reported
leveraging scenario testing to inform the development of their transition plans, but only one company
provided comprehensive results expressed in qualitative, quantitative and financial terms translated
into value-at-risk.

Additionally, among the 30 companies assessed, only six (20%) demonstrated the use of a carbon
price embedded in cost calculations as a financial indicator. For the remaining 24 (80%) companies, no
evidence was found of the consideration of a carbon price, either qualitatively or quantitatively.
Notably, only two (7%) of the companies, Nissan Motor and Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, aligned
their carbon pricing with a low-carbon scenario and integrated it into the financial scenario used for
strategic business decisions. This lack of widespread adoption of scenario analysis and financial tools,
such as carbon pricing, highlights a critical gap in the industry’s readiness to navigate to a low-carbon
future.

Overall, when all indicators are considered, the analysis highlights both progress and significant gaps
in transition planning among automotive companies. While most companies have started
incorporating measurable objectives, short- and long-term actions and some level of financial
consideration into their plans, the lack of alignment with low-carbon scenarios and inadequate detail
in critical areas remain major challenges. Companies that fail to address these gaps risk undermining
the credibility of their transition efforts, potentially impacting the decarbonisation of the automotive
industry.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 29
Hyundai Motor

Hyundai Motor's scenario testing encompasses a comprehensive analysis of all its business units and
operations and the rest of its value chain, from upstream procurement and direct operations to
downstream demand for its products and services. This testing spans a medium- to long-term
timeframe, extending up to 2050, and includes evaluations of social, technological, environmental,
economic and political shifts following the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related
Financial Disclosures (TCFD). The company assesses the potential impacts of global temperature
increases under three scenarios: the IEA’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE) with 1.4ºC, the
Announced Pledges Scenario (APS) with 1.7ºC and the Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) with 2.4ºC,
considering assumptions around the following six key aspects: the global energy mix, carbon pricing,
emissions trading systems, low-carbon technology shifts, strengthening of global regulations and
physical risks. Additionally, Hyundai Motor has provided the results of its scenario analysis in
qualitative, quantitative and financial terms, ensuring that the company is prepared for various future
developments.

Supplier and client engagement

The automotive manufacturing industry plays a pivotal role in shaping emissions across its value
chain, relying on suppliers from energy-intensive sectors, such as steel, glass, and, notably, batteries.
Upstream emissions – covering raw material production, component manufacturing (e.g. batteries)
and logistics – represent 60-70% of total life cycle emissions in internal combustion engines (ICE) and
hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). In EV production, battery manufacturing alone can account for up to
60% of GHG emissions in the supply chain (McKinsey 2023). For instance, producing a 40 kilowatt-
hour (kWh) battery for a mid-sized battery-electric vehicle (BEV) results in emissions ranging from 35
to 70 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per kWh, depending on the carbon intensity of the energy used
(IEA 2024). To enable a comprehensive low-carbon transition, it is crucial for automotive
manufacturers to develop robust engagement strategies with both suppliers and clients.

Supplier engagement

Overall, automotive manufacturers demonstrate moderate performance in terms of climate-related

supplier engagement. On average, the companies received 49% of the points available for supplier
engagement strategy and activities.

Despite their position in the supply chain and the importance of indirect emissions for their own
decarbonisation, few companies have implemented comprehensive supplier engagement strategies.
Of the 30 automotive manufacturers assessed, 28 (93%) reported having some form of strategy to
engage with suppliers. However, only 12 (40%) have effectively implemented these strategies by
employing all three action levers: information collection, engagement and incentivisation, and
innovation and collaboration. Among these companies, only two, BMW and Kia, have incorporated
quantified, science-based emissions reduction targets into their key procurement templates.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 30
 FIGURE 17 SCOPE OF CLIENT AND SUPPLIER ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES

In total, 16 (53%) of the companies assessed have a supplier engagement strategy that encompasses
over 90% of their procurement spending or covers more than 90% of supplier-related scope 3
emissions – see Figure 17. The remaining 14 companies failed to explicitly define the scope of their
supplier engagement strategies, indicating room for improvement in disclosure practices.

While 28 (93%) of the companies assessed reported having some form of supplier engagement
strategy, only 23 (77%) of the companies have established emissions reduction requirements for their
suppliers. BMW and Kia are the sole companies to have implemented quantified, science-based
emissions reduction targets directly in their key procurement templates. Furthermore, BMW and Kia
require suppliers to report progress against these targets, reflecting a higher level of accountability
and more effective mechanisms for tracking progress. This disparity underscores the urgent need for
wider adoption of measurable and enforceable supplier engagement practices across the automotive
industry to achieve significant reductions in supply chain emissions.

Only five (17%) of the companies mandate their suppliers to publicly report emissions, which is a key
step in enhancing transparency and driving accountability across the supply chain. While 11 (37%)
companies include GHG reduction or reporting requirements in their supplier selection and contract
renewal processes, only six (20%) exclude suppliers who fail to make significant improvements after
engagement. Through stringent measures, such as exclusion, automotive manufacturers can
effectively push their suppliers towards better sustainability practices. Further, only nine (30%)
companies evaluate the impact of their strategies using quantitative measures, while 17 (57%) either
do not assess or disclose the effectiveness of their strategies.

At a country level, companies based in China, India and the United States lag behind in setting GHG
emissions reduction goals and requiring their suppliers to publicly report emissions. In contrast,
European companies are leading the way in supplier GHG disclosure requirements, while Japanese
companies are increasingly embedding GHG emissions reduction and reporting criteria into supplier
selection and contract renewal processes.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 31
BMW

BMW stands out as the top-performing company under the supplier engagement module. The
company has set a science-based, 1.5°C-aligned emissions reduction target throughout its entire
product life cycle. This target is included in its supplier code of conduct, which requires suppliers to
report on their GHG emissions, implement decarbonisation measures, report progress and participate
in the CDP Supply Chain Program. The company also includes education initiatives in its engagement
strategy and cooperates with suppliers to promote the use of green electricity and other
decarbonisation measures. Moreover, BMW measures and discloses the impact of its strategy in
quantitative terms.

Client engagement

Automotive manufacturers demonstrate poor performance in terms of climate-related client

engagement. On average, the companies received only 23% of the points available for client
engagement strategy and activities.

Among the 30 companies assessed, 12 (40%) lack a client emissions reduction strategy. In total, 22
(73%) of the companies have implemented various measures to encourage their clients to reduce
emissions. Toyota Motor Corporation stands out as the only company with quantified GHG emissions
reduction target(s) included in its client engagement strategy. Additionally, only four (16%) of the
companies disclosed the impact of their client engagement activities in quantitative terms.

Most of the companies assessed disclosed client education and information sharing as the most
common engagement strategies. Financial incentives are largely limited to existing state subsidies. Ford
stands out as the only company to use all action levers suggested in the ACT methodology in its client
engagement strategy, namely education and information sharing, collaboration and innovation,
compensation and customer motivation.

Despite existing efforts, the automotive industry’s approach to client engagement generally lacks clear
objectives, active initiatives to promote low-carbon vehicles over conventional ones and quantitative
measures to assess effectiveness. Moreover, the majority of companies’ client engagement efforts are
concentrated in mature low-carbon vehicle markets, such as Europe, North America and China. To
achieve the low-carbon vehicle sales necessary for meeting the 1.5°C scenario, companies must expand
their client engagement strategies to developing markets, such as India and Japan.

Trade associations and policy engagement

Negative lobbying by the world’s largest automakers was found to increase the risk of a global transition
to electrification (InfluenceMap 2024) The current misaligned policy positions and advocacy of the
leading automotive manufacturers constitutes a significant obstacle to operationalising climate-friendly
policies in the automotive industry. Many of the companies are found to still support policies that favour
long-term ICE vehicles, driving opposition to climate-science based policies aiming at the reduction of
global GHG emissions. This active negative strategic pressure from the major automotive companies
undermines the global climate targets and slows down the unavoidable transition towards fleet
electrification that will lock consumers and society in an ever-rising demand for fossil fuels.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 32
Strength of engagement strategies

Trade alliances, associations, coalitions and think tanks are key means through which companies can
indirectly influence climate-related policy. Yet, 18 (60%) of the assessed automotive manufacturers
have not disclosed how they govern their relationships with these influential parties – see Figure 18.
Furthermore, over 63% of the companies do not have a process in place to monitor and review the
climate policy positions of the alliances, associations, coalitions and think tanks they are members of.
Additionally, 26 out of the 30 automotive manufacturers fail to disclose an action plan for addressing
instances when the associations they support are found to oppose climate policies. Only four
companies mentioned action plans to withdraw funding, suspend or end memberships in alliances,
associations, coalitions or think tanks when they oppose climate policies or engage in climate-
negative activities.

FIGURE 18: HOW COMPANIES ENGAGE WITH CLIMATE POLICIES

Out of the 30 assessed companies, only 12 (40%) are not members of or do not provide funding to
any alliances or associations with climate-negative activities or positions, but significantly, the
remaining majority of the companies do engage with influential parties who are linked to negative
climate actions.

Support for the Paris Agreement and climate initiatives

On a more positive note, 19 (63%) of the assessed companies publicly support significant climate
policies, though 16 of the companies do not explicitly commit to the Paris Agreement. Despite this
stated support, and on the pragmatic side, only 11 (37%) of the companies have implemented a
monitoring and review process to ensure their policy positions align with the Paris Agreement goals.
In terms of collaborations with local authorities, a good number of companies, 21 out of 30, actively
participate in small-scale or pilot projects to implement climate-related partnerships.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 33
Ford

Ford ranks at first place in the policy engagement module, with a score of 93%. The company has
implemented an engagement policy that covers all its subsidiaries and business areas, and all
operational jurisdictions. Moreover, the company publicly discloses all associations, alliances and
coalitions of which it is a member. Ford supports a range of coalitions and associations and its impact
on climate is aligned with the Paris Agreement goals. It has a process, implemented by the board of
directors, to annually review its memberships and the results of this process are shared with
management for action. The action plan includes advocating for Ford’s position independently and
withdrawing or ending memberships where necessary (for example, the company withdrew its
membership from the Engine Manufacturers Association in 2023, after the association opposed the
implementation of California’s clean truck regulation – an action not aligned with Ford’s ambition for
a zero-emissions transportation future).

Further, the company engages in initiatives against climate change and its GHG goals are aligned with
the Paris Agreement and supported by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Ford is committed
to the UN’s Business Ambition for 1.5°C pledge, as well as the New Deal for Europe initiative.
Additionally, the company collaborates with local authorities to reduce emissions in different
countries, including projects to deploy alternative fuel infrastructure, fleet regulation and life cycle
assessment.

Low-carbon business activities

Companies must adapt to stay profitable in a low-carbon economy. They need to transition away from
high-carbon business models to ensure that all revenue stems from low-carbon products and services.
The ACT assessment focuses on two key aspects of companies’ businesses: the share of income from
low-carbon products and services and their actions to embrace new low-carbon business models
while phasing out high-carbon ones.

Revenue from low-carbon products and services

Electric car sales keep rising and could reach around 17 million units in 2024, accounting for more
than one in five cars sold worldwide (IEA 2024). Yet, only nine (30%) of the assessed companies
disclosed their share of revenue from low-carbon products and services. These nine companies
collectively reported an average low-carbon revenue share of 17%. Only Tesla, reported a low-carbon
revenue share of over 30%, with all its revenues originating from low-carbon activities. Changan
Automobile and Mercedes-Benz follow, with 26% and 14%, respectively.

Overall, all three companies in the benchmark headquartered in Germany disclosed information on
their low-carbon revenue shares, while only 67% of the companies in the United States and 18% of
the companies in China did so. No evidence was found of companies in India or Japan reporting their
share of revenues from low-carbon activities. Companies headquartered in the United States earn the
largest proportion of their revenue, specifically 52%, from low-carbon products and services, whereas
companies headquartered in China and in Germany have low-carbon revenue shares of 17% and 13%,
respectively.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 34
Termination/phasing out existing high-carbon business models

Strikingly, none of the benchmarked companies has pledged to fully phase out fossil fuel vehicles
from production by 2035, which is a necessity to align with the 1.5°C climate target. Except for Tesla,
which already only sells zero-emission vehicles. Moreover, only six automotive manufacturers have
committed to 100% EV sales in specific markets, with five targeting Europe and one the United States.
This shows significant inaction on the part of companies, threatening their very survival in a
decarbonised economy.

BYD and Tesla

Since Tesla only sells BEVs, its business model is aligned with a low-carbon economy. Moreover, Tesla
produces its batteries in-house at three of its plants. In 2023, Tesla deployed slightly less than 15 GWh
of energy storage, accounting for USD 1 billion in revenue. Its mature battery manufacturing business
model is scheduled to more than double in size to 40 GWh.

In 2023, BYD was responsible for nearly a quarter of all BEV and PHEV sales worldwide and was the
second-largest battery manufacturer globally (IEA 2024). It plans to grow both of these mature business
models.

Changes to business models

The low-carbon business models identified for the automotive industry were defined in line with the
EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities. These recommendations focus on the actions considered
most critical for achieving a global net-zero transition. To demonstrate they are implementing these
business models, companies were required, at a minimum, to show active exploration through
collaborations, pilot projects or research funding. Future-oriented exploratory actions were not taken
into account.

Creation/expansion of low-carbon business models

This dimension evaluated the extent to which companies are currently producing low-carbon vehicles
and are positioned to scale up their production, alongside the development of essential technologies
and low-carbon transport enablers to support and grow their market share. Automobile
manufacturers were specifically evaluated on their production of battery-electric light-duty vehicles
(LDVs); manufacturing of other non-LDV low-carbon vehicles, such as buses, trains and e-scooters;
development of battery infrastructure (i.e. in-house battery production) and development of EV
charging infrastructure.

The IEA’s Net Zero Roadmap expects EVs to represent 20% of the global LDV fleet in 2023. Currently,
three (10%) of the assessed automotive manufacturers are aligned with this target. Notably, Tesla is
the only company to exclusively produce low-carbon vehicles, followed by BYD, with more than half of
its production comprised of low-carbon vehicles, despite a decline in its low-carbon vehicle share in
comparison to 2021 levels and Changan Automobile. Guangzhou Automobile Company and
Dongfeng Motor Group have also made significant progress, rapidly increasing the share of their low-
carbon vehicles to 20% and 16%, respectively, in just five years. The remaining automotive
manufacturers either have low-carbon vehicles accounting for less than 20% of their fleet or fail to
disclose adequate information regarding their breakdown of EVs (BEVs, PHEVs, FCEVs) or the size of
this business model.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 35
Further, five (17%) of the 30 assessed companies plan to double this in size over the next five years.
While the other 15 (50%) companies also plan to increase their production share of electric LDVs,
there is no evidence of commitments to double this share within the next five years8. The remaining
10 (33%) companies lack specific growth plans for low-carbon vehicles. While some automotive
manufacturers outline intentions to expand the production of PHEVs alongside BEVs, or aim to
increase the number of EV models, the projected growth of their business models cannot be reliably
estimated.

In-house battery production is adopted by 11 (37%) of the assessed companies. BYD and Tesla are the
forerunners. The cumulative in-house battery production capacity of BYD for 2023 is 151 GWh,
positioning the company as one of the biggest battery manufacturers in the world. Tesla, on the other
hand, deployed slightly less than 15 GWh of energy storage, accounting for almost 1.1 billion in
revenue. Changan Automobile has established a joint venture with Contemporary Amperex
Technology (CATL) for a battery production capacity of 30 GWh. This accounts for 4.5% of the
company’s total investments. Further, Ford is investing 6% of its revenue in 2023 to EV production
factory, which includes investments in battery production. The remaining automotive manufacturers
either lack evidence of in-house battery production or are still in the early phases of shifting from
outsourced battery production to in-house capabilities. In relation to the scheduled growth of battery
production capacity, Mercedes-Benz and Honda Motor, in addition to the previously mentioned
companies, have announced plans to expand their capacity. However, none of the companies have
committed to doubling their production capacity within the next five years 9.

None of the assessed automotive manufacturers allocate more than 20% of their efforts towards
developing EV charging infrastructure. However, eight (20%) of the companies have concrete plans to
expand their EV charging networks. Among them, Tata Motors stands out with an ambitious goal to at
least double the size of its charging network within the next five years. As part of this plan, the
company aims to install over 22,000 public chargers across India over the next 12-18 years.

Actions to decarbonise activities within the existing business models

This dimension relates to actions the company is taking to decarbonise the activities making up its
existing business model, to transition to lower carbon overall. The three main activities companies are
assessed on are: vehicle-as-a-service offerings, such as usage-based subscription models; component-
as-a-service offerings, such as battery leasing models; and end-of-life management to increase
recyclability.

Of the 30 assessed companies, 17 (57%) reported having vehicle-as-a-service offerings as an activity

to decarbonise their existing business models. Yet, for all these companies, this remains a non-mature
activity, still in the pilot stages, and is estimated to apply to less than a quarter of the activities being
considered for all companies, except for Geely Holding, which has a more mature model due to its
subsidiary Volvo AG’s ‘Volvo on Demand’ service. Only five (17%) of the companies have scheduled
growth plans for this activity. Renault and Stellantis both plan to double it in size over the next five
years. However, the poor performance of automotive manufacturers overall in relation to vehicle-as-a-
service offerings is alarming given its high importance for the global low-carbon transition. For eight

8
The ACT Automotive methodology scores growth of business models low-carbon aligned if business models are
scheduled to at least double in size over the next five years.
9
The ACT Automotive methodology scores growth of business models low-carbon aligned if business models are
scheduled to at least double in size over the next five years.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 36
(27%) of the companies, this activity impacts the most relevant life cycle phase of the business model
in terms of emissions.

Component-as-a-service and end-of-life management are both activities of medium importance for
the global low-carbon transition. Five (17%) of the companies reported having component-as-a-
service as an activity to decarbonise their existing business models. However, this activity is estimated
to apply to less than a quarter of the activities being considered for all companies, and none of the
companies plan to grow it. Further, 22 (73%) of the companies reported end-of-life management to
increase recyclability. However, this activity only applies to over three-quarters of the activities being
considered in the case of BMW and Hyundai Motor. While four (13%) of the companies have
scheduled growth plans for this activity, only Toyota Motor Corporation plans to double this activity in
size over the next five years.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 37
Appendix: Companies in the 2024 Automotive and
Transportation Manufacturers Benchmark

WBA builds on academic research introducing the concept of ‘keystone actors’, inspired by the
ecological term ‘keystone species’. Just as keystone species have a disproportionate impact on their
ecosystems, the largest companies in an industry significantly shape their sectors and systems. WBA
has adapted this idea to identify ‘keystone companies’ – the SDG2000 – using five guiding principles:

• Dominance in global production revenues or volumes within their sector

• Control of globally significant segments of production or services

• Global connectivity through subsidiaries and supply chains

• Influence on global governance processes and institutions

• A broad global footprint, particularly in developing countries

The Automotive and Transportation Manufacturers Benchmark applies this framework to companies
in the Motor Vehicle & Parts (ISIC 2910) and Construction & Engineering (ISIC 4390) sectors. Metrics
were collected to confirm companies meeting at least one keystone criterion. Subsequently, the
following keystone companies were identified.

N° Company name Country of headquarters

Automotive manufacturers

1 BAIC China

2 BMW Germany

3 BYD China

4 Changan Automobile China

5 Chery Holding Group China

6 Dongfeng Motor Group China

7 FAW China

8 Ford United States of America

9 Geely Holding China

10 General Motors United States of America

11 Great Wall Motor Company China

12 Guangzhou Automobile Group China

13 Honda Motor Japan

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 38
 14 Hyundai Motor Republic of Korea

15 JAC Motors China

16 Kia Republic of Korea

17 Mahindra and Mahindra India

18 Mazda Japan

19 Mercedes-Benz Germany

20 Mitsubishi Motors Corporation Japan

21 Nissan Motor Japan

22 Renault France

23 SAIC Motor China

24 Stellantis Netherlands

25 Subaru Corporation Japan

26 Suzuki Japan

27 Tata Motors India

28 Tesla United States of America

29 Toyota Motor Corporation Japan

30 Volkswagen AG Germany

Transportation manufacturers

31 Airbus France

32 Alstom France

33 Boeing United States of America

34 China State Shipbuilding China

35 Comac China

36 CRRC Corporation China

37 Daimler Truck Germany

38 Fincantieri Italia

39 Hanwha Ocean Republic of Korea

40 Korea Shipbuilding & Offshore Engineering Republic of Korea

41 PACCAR United States of America

42 Scania AB Sweden

43 Stadler Rail Switzerland

44 Volvo AB Sweden

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 39
About the World Benchmarking Alliance

Founded in 2018, the World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA) is a non-profit organisation holding 2,000
of the world’s most influential companies accountable for their part in achieving the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It does this by publishing free and publicly available
benchmarks on their performance.

WBA shows what good corporate practice looks like so that leading companies have an incentive to
keep progressing and laggards feel pressure to catch up. WBA has identified seven systems that, if
transformed, have the greatest potential to put our society, planet and economy on a more
sustainable and resilient path. These are the transformation of our social system, our agriculture and
food system, our decarbonisation and energy system, our nature system, our digital system, our urban
system and our financial system.

By benchmarking companies on each system transformation every second year, WBA reveals where
each company stands in comparison to its peers, where it can improve and where urgent action is
needed. The benchmarks provide companies with a clear roadmap of the commitments and changes
they must make. Over time, they will show whether or not these 2,000 companies are improving their
business impact on people, workers, communities and the environment. The benchmarks equip
everyone – including the community of WBA Allies comprising about 420 organisations – with the
insights that they need to collectively ensure that the private sector delivers on the imperative
transformations.

For more information, visit www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org and follow us on Twitter

@SDGBenchmarks.

If you have any feedback on our findings, please reach out to Vicky Sins, Decarbonisation and Energy
Transformation Lead at WBA: [email protected]

Acknowledgements

This report was written by the Climate and Energy team, consisting of Benedita Santos, Brian Njoroge,
Cynthia Souaid, Dara Karakolis, Emir Erhan, Gustaf Renman, Hang Dang, Ilayda Tenim, Joachim Roth,
Laura Hurtado Verazaín, Luis Costa, Maria Azul Shvartzman, Maria Patricia Gonzalez, Makie Keeling,
Maya Beard, Mingyang Hao, Romain Poivet, Sebastian Carcoana, Vicky Sins, and Yann Rosetti.

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 40
FUNDING PARTNERS
Our work is funded by governments and foundations. For more information, visit:
https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/funding-partners/
COPYRIGHT
This work is the product of the World Benchmarking Alliance. Our work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit:
www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

DISCLAIMER
Information available on our website, visit: www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/disclaimer

WORLD BENCHMARKING ALLIANCE

Prins Hendrikkade 25, 1021 TM Amsterdam, The Netherlands. www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org

Stuck in neutral: How automotive and transportation manufacturers are failing to drive essential change – 2024 Insights Report 41