Last year, environmental activist organization Greenpeace released its first Auto Environmental Guide, which provided a comparative analysis of global automakers’ decarbonization efforts. The first edition of the now-annual study identified GM as being the best automaker for environmental protection efforts and the American automaker repeated this performance in the recently published 2022 Auto Environmental Guide.
This study ranks automakers based on three main pillars: internal combustion engine phase-out, supply chain decarbonization and resource reduction and efficiency. GM received a score of 38.5 out of 100 based on these metrics, with researchers praising GM for its efforts to develop and sell more battery-electric vehicles. The organization said there’s still plenty of room for GM to improve, however, as the vast majority of its EV sales occur in China, rather than North America. It had similar criticisms for Mercedes-Benz, which was ranked just behind GM with a score of 37 out of 100.
Even though General Motors and Mercedes-Benz reach the top of the list, their ZEV sales are a long way from what is needed to decarbonize road transport 100 percent by 2030,” researchers said. “Only 1 percent of General Motors’ sales in the US were BEVs and zero BEVs were sold in Europe in 2021. General Motors needs to show more action on a global scale instead of boosting its ZEV sales by marketing low-cost cars in only one market.”
That latter bit about marketing low-cost EVs in a single market refers to China and the hot-selling Wuling Hongguang Mini EV. This electric city car is priced from around $4,100 locally and has proven to be extremely popular since it was released in July of 2020, generating sales of more than one million units.
GM also received praise from Greenpeace for its plan to power one hundred percent of its facilities globally using renewable resources by 2035. The only other companies with similarly aggressive renewable energy strategies are Ford and Mercedes-Benz, both of which will also shift to renewables globally by 2035. VW plans to implement renewables at all of its facilities by 2030, however this does not apply to its facilities in China – a country that still relies heavily on coal-fired plants for power generation.
Japanese brands were ranked low in this study, with Nissan, Honda and Toyota ranked eighth, ninth and tenth in the top 10 ranking and earning lowly sub-15-point scores. Greenpeace says these brands are not doing enough to introduce BEVs in their lineups and have smaller commitments for introducing renewable energy resources at their plants and logistics centers.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more GM-related politics news, GM-related environmental news and ongoing GM news coverage.
Comments
Nothing to be proud of when it’s not what your customers want. Personally, I wouldn’t want to be associated with Greenpeace.
Whoopee. That and $1.00 will buy you a beverage at 7-11 or Micky D’s
That’s the first thing that came to my mind!
This is nothing to be celebrated, coming from the likes of Greenpeace.
A Greenpeace award.. That has as much value as winning a Pulitzer for writing at article on the Russia hoax..
What Russia hoax? Please explain.
Hm interesting.? Is not Tesla a Global Automaker??
It was pointed out by a Chevy Bolt group member that TESLA does not meet one of the three requirements of survey. Tesla does not have internal combustion engines (ICE ) vehicles to meet criteria for study.
Imagine getting disqualified in a green auto survey for not having ICE vehicles.
Quite an accomplishment. Greenpeace is very severe about the environment and wildlife.
LOL! These marketing folks have GOT to get off Twitter and out in the real world more often.
Is anyone really going to change their purchase because Greenpeace gave this award? I can’t imagine it.
The people who listen to Greenpeace will buy Japanese regardless. Particularly Subarus, despite the fact they’re permanently stuck in AWD.
In early 2011 I purchased a 1997 Subaru Legend wagon, standard 5 speed with a little over 190,000 miles. I was the 4th owner. Paid $800 for it. It came with snow tires because it was winter. I had summer tires for it from another car that fit perfectly. I changed the oil and filter and never did again. It had AWD. In 2014 I redid the back brake line with a friend which cost me $7 for the piping and 1 hour of work. Mid 2016 the timing chain went which would have cost $1500. It had 230,000 miles. I donated the car to the kidney foundation and they paid me $300. Today I drive a 2002 Chevy Cavalier which I bought from an old lady who drove very little. Cost $200. All I did was do the front brakes ($250.) and an oil change. I still have the car today and it runs very well.
What is your problem with Greenpeace and for that matter AWD.
Greenpeace is running active campaigns against both their old foes — the nuclear, logging, and whaling industries — and several newer, even more preposterous targets including the fishing industry, GE agriculture, and companies producing “toxic” consumer electronics. Without Greenpeace millions would not know the horrors that are being done to the environment and those that are still going on. Dig deep in research and you will find what the Chinese will eventually do to the Pacific ocean. They don’t really need any help with that, we are already doing it with plastic bottles, garbage and oil spills. But I’m guessing most of you don’t care about any of that. Good luck with your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.
AWD costs you easily 2-4 MPG, and is absolutely not needed by the majority of Subaru drivers (California). Regardless, Subaru has consistently refused to implement axle disconnect to get some of the fuel economy back because they want people to falsely think they have “full time” AWD. (GM and most others have the same or more advanced AWD systems that are switchable)
AWD plus RWD layout plus high ground clearance plus Japanese refusing to do DI/turbo = Subarus consistently have the lowest fuel mileage in their class.
I’m very happy for GM and I hope the new BEV strategy for Europe will be implemented in 2023!
But I am sad!
Where is the BMW Group? Don’t they also have BEV and hybrid vehicles?
Is Greenpeace boycotting the BMW Group?
Who can answer these questions?
This study ranks automakers based on three main pillars: internal combustion engine phase-out, supply chain decarbonization and resource reduction and efficiency. Perhaps BMW just did not cut it in top 10 or maybe one of the three pillars?