Sign up to access all our data and the evidence and analysis underlying our overall scores. Once you've created an account, we'll get in touch with further details:
Sign Up
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Innolux Corp shows a fair degree of openness about the climate-policy files it engages on, explicitly naming the Climate Change Response Act (which amends the Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Management Act) and the Renewable Energy Sources Act, and confirming active involvement in rule-making linked to these laws. It also explains how it engages, noting that it “attend[s] climate-change-relevant meetings” organised by the Department of Environmental Protection in various city governments, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the national Environmental Protection Administration, which indicates direct dialogue with identified public bodies. However, the disclosure refers to only this single engagement channel and does not describe other methods such as written submissions, coalition work or formal consultation responses. On the purpose of its lobbying the company gives only broad themes—such as interest in “carbon tax”, “climate-related targets” and “emissions trading schemes” and a self-described “neutral” stance—without spelling out the specific policy changes, numerical targets or amendments it is advocating for. This limits stakeholders’ ability to understand the concrete outcomes Innolux seeks from its interactions with policymakers.
|
2
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Innolux discloses a basic governance structure for ensuring that its external engagement aligns with its climate objectives: it states that “Carbon Risk Management Committee and Sustainable Development Management Committee… ultimately report to the Chairman/Board of directors” and that “through the central management committee, all climate change issues are discussed to ensure engagement activities are consist[ent] with overall climate change strategy.” The company also indicates it monitors the positions of the industry bodies to which it belongs, explaining that it “carry out regular evaluations of organizations in regard to their stance on major topics (e.g., the Paris Agreement). Participation in these organizations is reevaluated in case of a divergence in views,” which implies an alignment check for indirect advocacy. In addition, it publicly commits to conduct engagement “in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” However, the disclosure is sparse on procedural details: it does not specify how frequently the association reviews occur, what criteria or escalation steps are used, or whether the committees review any direct advocacy (the company asserts it “does not engage in lobbying activities,” leaving the governance of any future direct lobbying unclear). No standalone lobbying-alignment report or third-party audit is referenced, and there is no evidence of corrective actions beyond the option to reconsider participation, so transparency and accountability mechanisms remain limited.
|
2
|