We have expanded the list of climate policies we assess company engagement with to incorporate land-use related policy, referring to legislative or regulatory measures to enhance and protect ecosystems and land where carbon is being stored. Assessments under this category are currently underweighted in terms of their contribution to the overall company metrics. This weighting will be progressively increased over the next 6 months.
We adjusted the terminology used to describe the queries running down the left-hand side of our scoring matrix and added additional explanatory text to the info-boxes. This has no impact on the scores and methodology. It has been done following user feedback to improve clarity.
Climate Lobbying Overview: Central Japan Economic Federation (CJEF) appears to have engaged negatively on a number of climate-related policies in Japan, while holding some mixed positions on energy efficiency and renewable energy policies. It has stated support for high GHG emission energy to secure the stability of energy supply.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: CJEF appears to have mixed top-line messaging on climate change. CJEF appeared to communicate broad support for efforts towards increased GHG emissions reductions in line with the Japanese government’s 2050 net-zero and NDC target in its policy proposal, “Action 2025” published on its website in June 2021. In addition, in its opinion paper on the 2022 tax reform published in September 2021, CJEF advocated for taxation methods aimed at both decarbonization and business growth. However, its joint position statement on the energy mix, published in March 2021, appeared ambiguous on whether it supported near term action to achieve these goals, and emphasized decarbonization pathways that rely heavily on breakthrough technology, especially for GHG-intense energy sources. No evidence was found on CJEF’s position on the Paris Agreement.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: CJEF appears to have active engagement with climate-related regulations. In a joint position statement on the energy mix published in March 2021, CJEF stated opposition for the EU taxonomy to be implemented as investment standard criteria, stating that it could weaken investment required for the transition of certain sectors towards decarbonization, while also suggesting that government regulations and requirements on company disclosures be weakened, emphasizing voluntary input instead. In the same statement, CJEF also appeared to oppose a carbon tax, suggesting that its effects on business competitiveness be carefully considered. In its policy strategy on the energy mix published in March 2021, CJEF appeared to support government regulation only to offer support for decarbonization via tax break for companies. In the proposal CJEF published in January 2022, it emphasized the necessity of energy efficiency and conservation.
Positioning on Energy Transition: CJEF appears to hold negative positions on the energy transition. In its position statement on the tax reform plan published in September 2020, CJEF appeared to 771770 support a tax incentive that promotes energy efficiency and the further expansion and introduction of renewable energy. However, in its joint position statement on the energy mix published in March 2021, CJEF appeared to oppose the levy on renewable energy power generation promotion. In the recommendation paper on future energy policy published in October 2021, CJEF supported a continued role for high GHG energy sources, emphasizing the maintenance of energy supply security. Moreover, in December 2020, at Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry (METI)’s Energy and Global Warming Countermeasures meeting, CJEF supported the continued use of ICE engines to mid-2030 and a residual role for coal in the energy mix based on the deployment of CCS. In January 2021, CJEF published a proposal and stated support towards the introduction of more wind power and nuclear, and stated that a transition to carbon-free energy is necessary.
InfluenceMap collects and assesses evidence of corporate climate policy engagement on a weekly basis, depending on the availability of information from each specific data source (for more information see our methodology). While this analysis flows through to the company’s scores each week, the summary above is updated periodically. This summary was last updated in Q4 2022.