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 |
Fortive provides a focused but partial picture of its climate-policy lobbying. It specifies that it engaged on the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission’s March 2022 draft climate-risk disclosure rule and it lodged a public comment letter with the SEC, giving a clear example of both the mechanism used and the policymaking target. However, this is the only policy and the only mechanism it discloses, and it does not state whether this engagement represents the full extent of its climate lobbying. Where the company is most transparent is in describing what it wants from the rule: it “support[s] with major exceptions” and asks for adjustments on four concrete points—the inclusion of Scope 3 emissions, the 1 % financial-materiality threshold, scenario-analysis requirements and the timeline for disclosures—showing a detailed articulation of desired outcomes and the reasons for its position. Taken together, the disclosure demonstrates moderate transparency, with strong clarity on outcomes but limited breadth on the range of policies and methods reported.
|
2
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Fortive discloses some mechanisms for governing how it engages on public policy, indicating that its “engagement is led and informed by our publicly-stated goals and Sustainability strategy, which includes climate change,” and that it will “engage when/if there is a public policy or proposed regulations that either support our goals and strategy… or to raise opposition with public policy or proposed regulations that may negatively impact our strategy.” This shows a stated process of aligning direct lobbying positions with the company’s wider climate-related objectives, an approach illustrated by the example that “Fortive submitted comments to the Securities & Exchange Commission in response to the draft Climate-related Disclosure Ruling.” In addition, political engagement has an identified oversight body: “We have adopted a Political Contribution Policy overseen by the Nominating and Governance Committee,” which is responsible for “Administrating the Company’s Political Contribution Policy.” Together these disclosures signal that some governance structures and alignment checks exist for both political spending and policy engagement, indicating moderate governance. However, the company does not disclose how the committee or any other body reviews climate-lobbying alignment specifically, provides no detail on monitoring or corrective actions for trade-association advocacy, and explicitly states that it has no plan to adopt “a public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” The absence of a formal climate-lobbying audit, indirect-lobbying oversight, or a named executive accountable for climate advocacy limits transparency and comprehensiveness.
|
2
|