Japan Business Federation (Keidanren)
What do our scores mean?
The organizational score represents the degree to which the organization influencing climate policy and legislation. Corporations also have relationship scores reflecting their links with influencers like trade associations. Both are combined to place the corporation in a performance band. Full details can be found here.
Engagement Intensity
The engagement intensity (EI) is a metric of the extent to which the company is engaging on climate change policy matters, whether positively or negatively. It is a number from 0 (no engagement at all) to 100 (full engagement on all queries/data points). Clearly energy companies are more affected by climate regulations and will have a higher EI than, for example retailers. So an organization’s score should be looked at in conjunction with this metric to gauge the amount of evidence we are using in each case as a basis for scoring. On our scale, an EI of more than 35 indicates a relatively large amount of climate policy engagement.
Relationship Score, December 2020
A new batch of industry associations has been uploaded onto the InfluenceMap system and the relationship scores recalculated accordingly.
Updated terminology, February 2021
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.
- Details of Organization Score
-
What do the 0,1,2 and NSs, NAs mean?
Each cell in the organization's matrix presents a chance for us to assess each data source against our column of climate change policy queries. We score from -2 to 2, with negative scores representing evidence of obstructive influence. "NA" means "not applicable" and "NS" means "not scored" - that is we did not find any evidence either way. In both cases, the cell's weighting is re-distributed over others. Red and blue cells represent highly interesting negative or positive influence respectively. Full details can be found here.
QUERIES
|
DATA SOURCES | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents. |
Social Media
We search other media and sites funded or controlled by the organization, such as social media (Twitter, Facebook) and direct advertising campaigns of the organization. |
CDP Responses
We assess and score responses to two questions from CDP's climate change information request (12.3 a & 12.3c) related to political influence questions (currently these are not numerically scored by the CDP process). |
Legislative Consultations
Comments from the entity being scored on governmental regulatory consultation processes, including those obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests. |
Media Reports
Here we search in a consistent manner (the organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
CEO Messaging
Here we search in a consistent manner (the CEO/Chairman, organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
Financial Disclosures
We search 10-K and 20-F SEC filings where available, and non US equivalents where not. . |
EU Register
Information provided by to the voluntary EU Transparency Register. |
|
Communication of Climate Science
Is the organization transparent and clear about its position on climate change science? |
1
|
NS | NA | NS | NS | NS | NA | NA |
Alignment with IPCC on Climate Action
Is the organization supporting the science-based response to climate change as set out by the IPCC? (the IPCC) |
0
|
0
|
NA |
0
|
0
|
0
|
NA | NA |
Supporting the Need for Regulations
To what extent does the organization express the need for regulatory intervention to resolve the climate crisis? |
0
|
-1
|
NA |
0
|
-2
|
-1
|
NA | NA |
Support of UN Climate Process
Is the organization supporting the UN FCCC process on climate change? |
0
|
0
|
NA |
0
|
0
|
1
|
NA | NA |
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation transparent about its positions on climate change legislation/policy and its activities to influence it? |
1
|
NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NS |
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
-1
|
-1
|
NA |
-1
|
-1
|
0
|
NA | NA |
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
-2
|
-2
|
NA |
-1
|
-1
|
NS | NA | NA |
Energy and Resource Efficiency
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy efficiency policy, standards, and targets |
0
|
0
|
NA |
0
|
NS | NS | NA | NA |
Renewable Energy
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy legislation, targets, subsidies, and other policy |
0
|
-1
|
NA |
0
|
0
|
0
|
NA | NA |
Energy Transition & Zero Carbon Technologies
Is the organization supporting an IPCC-aligned transition of the economy away from carbon-emitting technologies, including supporting relevant policy and legislative measures to enable this transition? |
0
|
0
|
NA |
0
|
-1
|
0
|
NA | NA |
GHG Emission Regulation
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Standards, targets, and other regulatory measures directly targeting Greenhouse Gas emissions |
-1
|
-1
|
NA |
-1
|
-1
|
0
|
NA | NA |
Disclosure on Relationships
Is the organization transparent about its involvement with industry associations that are influencing climate policy, including the extent to which it is aligned with these groups on climate? |
2
|
NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Climate Lobbying Overview: The Japanese Business Federation (Keidanren) has lobbied negatively on most strands of climate change regulation in Japan. This is significant as many Japanese corporations defer their political engagement to trade associations, of which Keidanren is probably the most powerful and influential.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Keidanren has continuously advocated for its voluntary sector action plan with a focus on technological innovation in emission reduction, while appearing to oppose government regulation against climate change. In June 2020, Keidanren also launched its Challenge Zero initiative, emphasizing the role of voluntary, business-led technology innovation in decarbonization. In 2019, Keidanren supported the need for global reduction of greenhouse gases including Japan’s mid-term goal of 26% emission reduction by 2030 compared to 2013. However, it opposed committing to 80% emission reductions target by 2050 through the consultation on Japan’s long-term economic growth strategy under the Paris Agreement. This was re-stated in May 2019 in a further public consultation, warning against the use of a new explicit GHG emission target, pushing instead for a “vision”. Media reports in 2019 suggest the organization was influential in advocating this position to the government, influencing the outcome of the final strategy.
In 2020, Keidanren appears to generally support the Paris agreement goals, including decarbonization, although it does not give a specific timeline, only stating “at the earliest possible date” and through deploying “innovative technologies”. It also stated support for Japan’s NDC targets, however suggesting this should be achieved by voluntary initiatives with government backing and technology innovation. More recently in October 2020, Keidanren’s chairman supported Japan to aim for carbon neutrality by 2050 within a presentation to the cabinet office. However, he suggested this should be led by innovative technology solutions. Despite the "zero" in Keidanren’s Challenge Zero initiative, launched in June 2020 with the aim of encouraging emission reduction innovation, it does not state numerical nor mandatory targets (dates or emissions intensity) for the companies participating.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: Since opposing the inclusion of an emissions trading scheme in the Ministry of the Environment’s (MoEJ) Plan for Global Warming Countermeasures under the Paris Agreement (2016), Keidanren has consistently opposed explicit carbon pricing policy and carbon taxes, including at government subcommittee meetings. In 2018, Keidanren also directly advocated against an explicit carbon tax in the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)’s proposed 5th Basic Energy Plan.
Positioning on Energy Transition: In 2018, Keidanren’s Chairman stated that climate change mitigation policy relates directly to energy policy, which requires balanced consideration, including economic competitiveness of Japan, and that any measures to increase the cost of energy will disrupt this balance thus should not be implemented. Keidanren has remained in favor of a prolonged role for coal in the energy mix, both domestically and across Asia. In 2019, in consultation with policymakers over Japan’s long-term growth strategy under the Paris Agreement, Keidanren explicitly opposed the inclusion of the statement in the strategy for the abolition or ban on the construction of new coal-fired power plants, watering down the statement to "reduced dependence" on coal. It also appears to have opposed the halting of international investment into coal power, but instead to "invest in line with Paris aligned GHG emission goals". Keidanren has traditionally emphasized the financial burden of measures to boost renewable energy. In 2016, the former Chairman Sadayuki Sakakibara had called for an overhaul of Japan’s feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme to reduce energy costs. In 2019, Keidanren appears to shown some degree of support towards promoting renewable energy, but on the condition that this fulfils the requirements of ensuring energy is “low-cost” and “stable.” Keidanren again appears to support renewable energy legislation in its response to a government consultation in January 2020, with the exception that it does not result in an increase in electricity prices, in particular for large-scale industrial users, suggesting any further dissemination of renewable generation capacity and upgrades to the network system must be covered by minimal spending. In 2020, through a position statement on economic recovery post-Covid-19, it appears to support decarbonization of the energy system through measures including mainstreaming of renewable energy, although no specific timescale for the transition is given.