OpenLobby.EU
Explore

INEOS AG

INEOS

INEOS Group is a global manufacturer of petrochemicals, speciality chemicals and oil products.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Revision of the CO2 emission standards for cars and vans

9 Oct 2025

INEOS Automotive strongly believes that Europe should adopt a more customer-centric and realistic approach to decarbonisation with a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions and improve efficiencies across all industry sectors in a more structured manner. Genuine technology neutrality means encouraging a broad range of low and zero carbon vehicles that meet the transport needs of consumers and businesses, which the current regulatory regime does not provide for. And there is strong evidence that such genuine flexibility would lower overall CO2 emissions faster than the current attempt to force an unwilling market to accept battery electric vehicles (BEVs) which are not suitable for a large proportion of customers. It is not an exaggeration to state that the impossibility of the current targets threatens the existence of the entire European motor industry and has the potential to massively impact personal mobility in the Union. It penalises drivers and OEMs alike without a realistic chance of the targets being achieved within the timescale as set out. It has been a fundamental policy of successive EU Commissions and national governments to favour BEVs over all other possible powertrain technologies. We see this as largely based on the fact that it is easy for policy makers to argue that zero tailpipe emissions make BEVs the ideal green solution. The current policy also makes it easy for Governments to shift the vast majority of the economic burden onto OEMs and customers while claiming credit for decarbonising the transport sector; this is simply driving European car manufacturers out of business. In recent years, shrinking volumes have shown how new standards, technology requirements and regulatory burdens have made European vehicles comparatively more expensive than foreign competitors. New regulations from the European Commission have put more and more pressure on the European automotive industry while foreign competitors are not shackled by these obligations. We welcome the fact that the Commission has seized the opportunity to gather the industrys feedback to review its regulatory plans that are driving the industry into the ground: a deep reflection and a change of course are needed. While the industry is struggling to keep up with foreign competitors and being strangled by an ever-growing list of requirements & standards set by the European authorities, we are seeing a substantial simplification of regulatory requirements happening in the United States. This comes at a time when the EU Commission is considering doing the opposite, with even more and stricter rules for car makers and supply chains to cope with. Please see attached position paper
Read full response

Meeting with Vilija Sysaite (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné)

21 Aug 2025 · Follow up chemical industry action plan

Meeting with Stéphane Séjourné (Executive Vice-President) and

2 Jul 2025 · EU Clean Industrial Dialogue on Circularity

Meeting with Sophia Kircher (Member of the European Parliament)

2 Dec 2024 · Vehicle emission targets

Meeting with Sophia Kircher (Member of the European Parliament)

30 Oct 2024 · Vehicle emission targets

Meeting with Sophie Wilmès (Member of the European Parliament)

26 Sept 2024 · Inauguration d'HELIOS

Response to Carbon footprint methodology for electric vehicle batteries

20 May 2024

INEOS Automotive welcomes the publication of a methodology to evaluate the carbon footprint of batteries which can enable customers and businesses to compare different products in an effective way. After detailed review, we would like to highlight three main areas of concern in the proposed methodology: (1) Its applicability to different vehicle technologies, (2) that this proposed model favours vehicles with larger batteries that are not the most sustainable solution, and (3) that this methodology limits innovation and flexibility in terms of batteries second life and recycling. (1) The proposed methodology is indicated to be applied for electric vehicle batteries only we would like to highlight that battery electric is not the only powertrain technology that uses large high voltage batteries, and we would like to stress the importance for customers and policy makers to be able to compare different technologies effectively. On the market today there are battery electric vehicles with range extenders, hydrogen fuel cell and plug-in hybrid vehicles that should be evaluated with the same methodology and assigned different FEqC per year parameters according to the battery capacity [see point (2)]. Today small urban electric vehicles often have a smaller high voltage battery than large plug-in hybrid SUVs or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles why would we not apply the same methodology to these types of powertrains? (2) We believe that differentiating the FEqC per year only by vehicle category leads to misleading results: under this regulation more efficient vehicles with smaller batteries are penalized. For example, a person who drives 30,000 km/year can do so by having a vehicle with a large battery (~600km range), and charging it only once a week or having a lighter and more efficient vehicle with a smaller battery (~100km range) that is charged daily; the second option saves significant amounts of critical raw materials and CO2 emissions while manufacturing and transporting the battery, but under the proposed system it is penalized, as the FEqC per year parameter is the same for all M1 vehicles from a small city car with 150km of range to a large SUV with 800km of range. The FEqC per year parameter should be differentiated not only by the vehicle category, but also by battery capacity. This would give a more realistic evaluation of different powertrain solutions and encourage the adoption of efficient vehicles with smaller batteries that cover the daily driving needs of most people and could be, for example, paired with a range extender that still allows the occasional longer trip and to venture in the vast areas not yet served by charging infrastructure. (3) The proposed methodology rightfully evaluates the disposal of high voltage batteries, but we believe it fails to provide the flexibility needed for this new (and greatly uncertain) market. First, today there are many second life applications for vehicles high voltage batteries that can greatly extend their lifespan and utilization this is not at all included in the proposed methodology. Second, the recycling of automotive battery packs is a market still at its infancy and there are many companies investing significant resources to innovate and find more effective solutions than pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical processes; having a regulation that only considers the current two processes will discourage innovation and research in this area. In summary, INEOS Automotive recommends the introduction of different parameters to effectively evaluate not only battery electric vehicles with significantly different battery sizes, but also range extenders, fuel cell hydrogen vehicles and plug-in hybrids. Moreover, significantly more flexibility should be introduced to consider second life applications and innovative disposal methodologies.
Read full response

Meeting with Bergur Løkke Rasmussen (Member of the European Parliament) and Danish Shipping

5 Mar 2024 · Carbon Capture and Storage

Meeting with Christian Ehler (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

16 Nov 2023 · NZIA

Meeting with Morten Petersen (Member of the European Parliament)

27 Apr 2023 · Carbon capture, utilisation and storage

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Plastics Europe and

13 Oct 2021 · European Green Deal and chemical recycling