Empresas CMPC SA – Lobbying Governance & Transparency

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:

Lobbying Governance

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Strong	Empresas CMPC sets out a clear structure for keeping its public-policy advocacy in step with its climate strategy. It states that “engagements with trade associations and donations associated with policy influence are supervised by the Corporate Affairs Area,” while “all the most important associations … are evaluated and analyzed … by CMPC’s Corporate Director of Sustainability,” illustrating a defined procedure that covers indirect lobbying. Direct advocacy is also channelled through the same governance path: “any activities pertaining to representation, company’s stance, working groups, and technical and/or strategic aspects related to climate change are directed to the Sustainability Management department,” suggesting the company monitors both its own lobbying and that undertaken on its behalf. Oversight ultimately rests with a board-level body: “The Sustainability Manager plays a pivotal role in bringing forward key issues to the Sustainability and Regulation Committee, which convenes on a quarterly basis; the committee is composed by the Chairman of the Board, three Directors, the CEO …,” demonstrating that senior leadership regularly reviews alignment. The firm reinforces intent with a public pledge that it “fully supports the objectives outlined in the Paris Agreement and actively promotes the development and implementation of policies and regulations that align with this commitment,” confirming an explicit climate-alignment criterion. However, while the disclosure describes evaluation and supervision, it does not publish a standalone lobbying-alignment report or mention third-party audits, and we found no evidence of concrete actions such as amending or exiting associations that prove the alignment review leads to corrective measures. Overall, the presence of dedicated processes, coverage of both direct and indirect lobbying, and board-level scrutiny indicate strong governance, although transparency on outcomes and external assurance could be strengthened. View Sources	B

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Strong

Empresas CMPC sets out a clear structure for keeping its public-policy advocacy in step with its climate strategy. It states that “engagements with trade associations and donations associated with policy influence are supervised by the Corporate Affairs Area,” while “all the most important associations … are evaluated and analyzed … by CMPC’s Corporate Director of Sustainability,” illustrating a defined procedure that covers indirect lobbying. Direct advocacy is also channelled through the same governance path: “any activities pertaining to representation, company’s stance, working groups, and technical and/or strategic aspects related to climate change are directed to the Sustainability Management department,” suggesting the company monitors both its own lobbying and that undertaken on its behalf. Oversight ultimately rests with a board-level body: “The Sustainability Manager plays a pivotal role in bringing forward key issues to the Sustainability and Regulation Committee, which convenes on a quarterly basis; the committee is composed by the Chairman of the Board, three Directors, the CEO …,” demonstrating that senior leadership regularly reviews alignment. The firm reinforces intent with a public pledge that it “fully supports the objectives outlined in the Paris Agreement and actively promotes the development and implementation of policies and regulations that align with this commitment,” confirming an explicit climate-alignment criterion. However, while the disclosure describes evaluation and supervision, it does not publish a standalone lobbying-alignment report or mention third-party audits, and we found no evidence of concrete actions such as amending or exiting associations that prove the alignment review leads to corrective measures. Overall, the presence of dedicated processes, coverage of both direct and indirect lobbying, and board-level scrutiny indicate strong governance, although transparency on outcomes and external assurance could be strengthened.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Comprehensive	Empresas CMPC provides a very detailed picture of its climate-related lobbying. It identifies three concrete Chilean policy processes it has engaged on—the “green tax reform,” the “Framework Law on Climate Change,” and the “Long-Term Climate Strategy” that flows from that law—each described with enough context (carbon-price design, sectoral mitigation plans, national GHG budgets) to leave no doubt about the exact legislation or regulation involved. The company also explains how it lobbies: its Sustainability Director and other staff “participate in meetings and workshops,” it files “comments to public consultations that contemplate the legislative processes,” and it works indirectly “through CLG-Chile, CORMA and Acción Empresas” in public-private working groups with the Environment, Energy and other Chilean ministries. Finally, CMPC is explicit about what it wants from these engagements, stating that it supports every one of the named policies “without exceptions,” endorses a higher carbon price and efficiency thresholds under the green-tax reform, and backs the nationally legislated goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 together with the associated mitigation and adaptation requirements, all because they “align with the Paris Agreement” and advance emission reductions, water security and public-health benefits. By naming the policies, the mechanisms and partners it uses, and the specific outcomes it seeks, the company demonstrates a comprehensive level of transparency on its climate-policy lobbying.	A