Suzuki

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.

Suzuki has set targets to reduce its scope 1 and 2 emissions from business activities per sales unit by 25% by 2030 compared to 2016; however, the company is not on track to meet its emissions reduction target. Additionally, the company has not set any targets for upstream scope 3 emissions and there is no disclosure of these emissions. Suzuki’s downstream scope 3 emissions intensity has decreased by 3% over the last four years. This is not aligned with the company’s 1.5°C pathway, which requires it to make substantial decreases in its emissions intensity.

The company lacks transparency on its plans for new low-carbon business models. It shares limited information on its activities to reduce market barriers for low-carbon vehicles, such as developing charging infrastructure. The company has also not set a target to phase out its ICE vehicles sales. Its environmental targets include commercialisation of EVs, but without any indication that these vehicles will replace ICE vehicles.

Suzuki’s share of low-carbon vehicle sales remains negligible, and the company does not report its share of low-carbon revenue. Though the company is planning to increase its EV offering, its focus is still on ICE improvements. Suzuki’s locked-in emissions from current and planned products are projected to exceed the carbon budget calculated from its decarbonisation pathway. The company is undertaking limited efforts to create or expand low-carbon business models or actions to decarbonise existing business models. The company needs to step up its ambition to reach a 67% share of electric vehicle sales by 2030 to be aligned with a 1.5°C pathway.

Suzuki’s supplier code of conduct includes a guideline on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The company also requests its business partners to create emissions reduction targets and roadmaps for 2030. The company can additionally include quantified emissions targets in its supplier engagement strategy. In contrast to its supplier engagement efforts, the company does not detail how it works with its clients to reduce emissions. Suzuki can improve its performance by creating a client engagement strategy, governed by a clear policy and integrated into business decision-making.

Suzuki publicly discloses a commitment to engaging in social dialogue with workers and unions. However, no relevant disclosure was found regarding the categories of stakeholders it engages with on a just transition. Nor was there any evidence to show 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 reskilling and upskilling opportunities for workers and affected stakeholders. For instance, it provides opportunities for training on design thinking to its staff and courses related to automobile manufacturing, maintenance and service through the Japan-India Institute for Manufacturing. 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. 

Suzuki has a publicly available policy statement committing to respect the human rights that the ILO has declared to be 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 has a grievance mechanism available to workers; however, it is unclear if the mechanism is accessible to all external individuals and communities.

Suzuki commits to respecting the health and safety of its workers and expects the same commitment from its business relationships. However, no evidence was found of the company having a time-bound target for paying all workers a living wage. No evidence was found that the company discloses the proportion of its total direct operations workforce covered by collective bargaining agreements or its required working hours. The company discloses some indicators of workforce diversity, including the proportion of its total direct operations workforce for each employee category by gender. However, no relevant disclosure was found of additional indicators of workforce diversity. Nevertheless, the company has set targets related to gender equality and women’s empowerment. 

Suzuki has a publicly available policy statement prohibiting bribery and corruption, though it does not state if it includes anti-bribery and anti-corruption clauses in its contracts with business relationships. The company discloses its global tax strategy, but no relevant disclosure was found of the corporate income tax it pays in each relevant jurisdiction. While the company has a public commitment to protecting personal data, it is unclear if the commitment applies to the same standard across all operations. The company has stated that it will not offer inappropriate benefits to politicians. However, there is no evidence of the company having a comprehensive policy on lobbying and political engagement that is consistently applied across all its locations. The company should strengthen its disclosure on all these topics.