Mitsubishi Motors Corporation

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.

Mitsubishi has not set sufficient intermediate targets. Setting regularly spaced intermediate targets will help the company incentivise near-term actions on its longer-term decarbonisation goals. Additionally, the company’s downstream scope 3 emissions target could not be assessed as no data was found on the company’s base and reporting year emissions intensity. The company’s target to become net zero across scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions by 2050 could also not be assessed as it is unclear if it plans to use offsets. Reducing emissions related to its operations and products should remain the company’s priority. Furthermore, the company should disclose the proportion of each target that will be met through direct action, rather than including offsets.

Mitsubishi’s low-carbon transition plan is informed by climate scenario analysis that has considered the implications of a 1.5°C scenario. The company has implemented board-level oversight and incentives for managing the low-carbon transition. Yet, its low-carbon transition plan is not supported by financial content. It also aims to reach a 50% electric vehicle (EV) share by 2030 and a 100% share by 2035, but this includes PHEVs and hybrid vehicles. The company can improve its performance by disclosing the financial content of its low-carbon transition plan across the long term and excluding PHEVs and hybrid vehicles from its stated commitments.

Mitsubishi plans to allocate more than 40% of its capital expenditure (CapEx) to low-carbon technologies in 2025. In 2023, it dedicated more than 45% of its research and development (R&D) expenditure to low-carbon technologies. Yet, less than 1% of Mitsubishi’s total vehicle sales comprised low-carbon vehicles in 2023. Reducing emissions aligned with a 1.5°C pathway requires companies to continue increasing their sales of low-carbon vehicles and reducing internal combustion engine (ICE) sales. Mitsubishi needs to step up its ambition to align with its 1.5°C pathway, which requires 67% of sales to consist of low-carbon vehicles in 2030.

Mitsubishi demonstrates contradicting positions on climate policy. The company advocated for the Paris Agreement. However, it has also directly lobbied against climate-aligned policy in the past, such as opposing zero emission vehicle mandates and ICE phase-out dates. Mitsubishi is on the board of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, which has opposed Australian climate policy for light-duty vehicles. The company does not have a policy in place to manage engagement with trade associations on climate change issues. It can increase its credibility by developing and publicly publishing a monitoring and review process to ensure its policy positions, and those of its trade associations, are aligned with the Paris Agreement goals.

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.  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.  The company discloses the actions it takes to provide training and education opportunities for workers and affected stakeholders. For instance, it trained employees on sustainability topics and distributed sustainability-related newsletters. However, no relevant disclosure was found of the company embedding equality of opportunity for women and vulnerable groups in these actions. Furthermore, no evidence was found of the company having a process for identifying skills gaps for workers and affected stakeholders or a public commitment to help workers displaced by the transition to reskill or upskill. 

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, but it does not expect its business relationships to respect the ILO fundamental rights at work. Furthermore, the company does not disclose a human rights due diligence process that includes the identification and assessment of salient human rights risks. The company does not take action to mitigate these risks in its own operations and its supply chain and does not engages with affected stakeholders. Additionally, the company does not have a grievance mechanism available to workers and external stakeholders. 

No evidence of the company’s policies or commitments related to key decent work issues was found in the public domain. These issues include the provision of safe, secure and healthy workplaces, where workers are fairly remunerated and have a meaningful say in decision-making.  

No policies or commitments of the company related to key ethical business topics – personal data protection, tax, bribery and corruption, and lobbying and political engagement – were found in the public domain. This includes ensuring ethical business conduct throughout its operations and in its relationships with business partners.