JB Financial Group Co Ltd

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

Direct Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Comment	Score
Strong	JB Financial Group provides a high level of transparency around its climate-policy lobbying. It identifies two concrete policy frameworks it is working to shape – the Korea Green Taxonomy (K-Taxonomy) and the creation of a national TCFD-based climate disclosure and supervision system – and also references its engagement with parliamentary ESG discussions on responsible investment. The company is equally clear on how it conducts that engagement, describing its direct participation in the National Assembly ESG Forum, signing an MOU with the Financial Supervisory Service, joining a Ministry of Environment pilot project, and working through the Korea TCFD Alliance, while naming specific legislators and agencies as its targets. It also spells out the outcomes it seeks: successful establishment of the K-Taxonomy so that capital is channelled into green sectors, development of a K-Taxonomy Supporting System to guide investment decisions, integration of climate risk into financial supervision, and stronger capability for scenario analysis under a TCFD regime, noting its full support of these measures. Together, these details demonstrate a strong degree of openness about the policies addressed, the mechanisms used and the concrete objectives pursued.	3

Lobbying Governance

Overall Assessment	Comment	Score
Moderate	JB Financial Group discloses a defined process for keeping its policy engagement aligned with its climate strategy, noting that "Internal ESG experts, ESG committees, and personnel related to internal green finance continue to check whether NZBA's strategy is consistent with JB Financial Group's climate change-related strategy"; this indicates an ongoing internal review mechanism and identifies specific oversight bodies. The group also states that it has "a public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement," showing that its lobbying intentions are explicitly tied to climate objectives. While these statements demonstrate that oversight responsibilities are assigned and a climate-aligned engagement policy exists, the disclosure does not provide detail on how the reviews are conducted, how frequently they occur, or whether the process covers indirect lobbying through trade associations, nor does it mention any corrective actions taken when misalignments are found. As a result, the governance appears moderately developed but lacks the depth and transparency seen in more comprehensive frameworks.	2