It explicitly lists this as a point when providing examples of incorrect reasons "why industry is going green on the quiet."

> It refused, not because the innovations were trade secrets, or because it risked losing a cost-saving competitive edge (due to cheap electricity prices, the cost saving amounted to less than 1%)

> the cost saving amounted to less than 1%

The figure is doubly misleading:

* In a low margin business, 1% cost savings could easily be hugely increased profits. Toyota's profit is about 6% at the moment: changing to 7% would be significant. Many businesses have lower margins.

* "Less than 1%" is anywhere between 0% and 1%.

I would guess similar savings are being made by other manufacturers.

Perhaps - nonetheless, it isn't absent from the article