Mazda

No leading practices were identified for this company.

No leading practices were identified for this company.

No leading practices were identified for this company.

No leading practices were identified for this company.

Mazda has set targets to reach carbon neutrality in its manufacturing operations by 2035 and across its entire value chain by 2050. However, the company could not be scored on these targets as they include the use of unquantified carbon offsets. Mazda’s scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity increased by 13% between 2019 and 2022, and its scope 3 downstream emissions intensity increased by 7.3% over the same period. This is not aligned with the company’s 1.5°C pathway, which requires substantial reductions in emissions intensity. Additionally, the company’s locked-in emissions from sold products are projected to exceed its carbon budget by 39% by 2028. The company should make more dedicated emissions reductions to align with its 1.5°C pathway and set more ambitious short- and long-term targets validated by the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

Mazda discloses evidence of transition planning, such as the use of scenario testing to assess the materiality of climate-related risks and opportunities as well as examples of long-term and short-term actions. However, the company’s transition plan lacks specific financial content to evidence its ambition. The company is developing a process to review and update its transition plan; however, it has not defined a timescale for this, and the process had not been implemented as of the reporting timeframe covered in this benchmark. Mazda does not incentivise low-carbon performance through executive compensation. The company can improve the likelihood of a successful low-carbon transition by aligning its executive incentives with its decarbonisation commitments.

Mazda has not increased its low-carbon vehicle share in alignment with a 1.5°C pathway. The company has committed to having a 25-40% share of electric vehicles (EVs) by 2030, but its 1.5°C pathway requires it to reach a 67% share of low-carbon vehicle sales by 2030. The company needs to set out a more ambitious target for low-carbon vehicle sales, as well as a clear plan and financial commitments to achieve this.

Mazda has established low-carbon procurement guidelines that apply to over 90% of its suppliers. However, while the company requests suppliers to reduce carbon emissions, its supplier guidelines do not specifically include quantified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction requirements. Creating quantified emissions targets will provide clearer direction to the company’s whole supply chain. In contrast to its clear supplier engagement, the company does not detail how it works with its clients to reduce emissions. The company can improve its performance by creating a client engagement strategy, governed by a clear policy and integrated into business decision-making. There is no evidence that the company has a formal policy for engagement with trade or industry associations on the topic of climate change and no evidence that it reviews the policy positions of the associations, alliances, coalitions and think tanks it is a member of.

No evidence was found of the company’s commitment to social dialogue or of the categories of stakeholders the company engages with on a just transition. Furthermore, no evidence was found to demonstrate the company’s ongoing social dialogue and meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders on aspects of a just transition. No evidence was found of the company undertaking low-carbon transition planning to mitigate the social impacts of the transition on workers, affected stakeholders and its business relationships. Additionally, no evidence was found to demonstrate the company’s engagement in social dialogue and with stakeholders in its just transition planning.

No public commitment by the company was found stating its intention to create and support access to green and decent jobs as part of the low-carbon transition. Moreover, no evidence was found of the company’s actions to promote these jobs in a way that ensures gender balance and inclusion of vulnerable groups. Additionally, no relevant disclosure was found of the company’s assessment of employment dislocation risks. No public commitment by the company was found stating its intention to reskill and upskill workers displaced by the transition to a low-carbon economy. Additionally, no evidence was found that the company reskills and upskills workers in a way that ensures gender balance and inclusion of vulnerable groups.  

No relevant disclosure was found to show if the company identifies impacts of the low-carbon transition on social protection for workers and affected stakeholders, nor how it contributes to social protection. Additionally, no evidence was found that the company expects its business relationships to contribute to the social protection of their workers and affected stakeholders.  No relevant disclosure was found to show how the company identifies any misalignment of its lobbying activities with policies and regulations that support the just transition, nor of the measures it takes to address misalignment. Furthermore, no evidence was found that the company lobbies for policies and regulations for green and decent job creation; retention, education and reskilling; and social protection for workers. 

The company commits to respecting human rights and the ILO fundamental rights at work, and it expects its business relationships to respect the ILO fundamental rights at work. However, no evidence was found of the company’s process to identify, assess and mitigate salient human rights risks in its own operations and its supply chain. Moreover, no evidence was found of the company disclosing the stakeholders whose human rights have been affected by its activities. The company does have a grievance mechanism available to workers; however, it is unclear if the mechanism is accessible to all external individuals and communities.

The company commits to ensuring worker health and safety and gender equality, and it discloses some information on collective bargaining and workforce diversity fundamentals. However, the company can strengthen its disclosure on these subjects, as well as on its living wage and working hours practices. 

The company is committed to protecting personal data, but there is no evidence of the company having a policy on the collection, sharing and access to personal data. Although the company discloses its global tax strategy, it does not provide details on the corporate income tax it pays in each jurisdiction. Similarly, while the company has a supplier policy document prohibiting bribery and corruption, it is unclear if it reviews or terminates supplier relationships for policy breaches. The company does not have a lobbying and political engagement policy, but it publicly states that it does not make political contributions. There is no disclosure of the company’s lobbying expenditure.