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 |
Nikon discloses its climate-related lobbying through two defined actions: in March 2021, it joined other RE100 member companies in sending a letter to the Japanese government “calling for expanded adoption of renewable energy,” and in July 2024 it endorsed a Japan Climate Initiative message urging the government “to set an ambitious 2035 target that is consistent with the 1.5-degree goal.” These descriptions make clear both the mechanism—direct letters and public endorsement—and the target entity, the Japanese government. However, Nikon does not name the specific statutes, regulations, or official policy instruments it sought to influence, limiting identification of the precise policies lobbied. It clearly states two outcomes it pursued—greater renewable energy uptake and a 1.5-degree-aligned country target—but stops short of detailing further objectives or quantitative amendments.
|
2
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Strong |
Nikon appears to have a defined governance process for aligning its policy engagement with its climate strategy, stating that “At Nikon, we engage with industry groups and government agencies in each country and business” and that its “Sustainability Department is disseminating and educating the entire group on environmental strategies, including climate change,” while “contact persons from each organization have inquired about the content of engagement to the sustainability department,” ensuring those engagements are aligned. The company also affirms a public commitment to “conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” This approach indicates strong governance of both direct and indirect advocacy channels. However, Nikon does not disclose any comprehensive audit or external review of its climate lobbying alignment, nor does it identify a board-level committee or named executive beyond the Sustainability Department to oversee these efforts, suggesting that independent oversight and formal review mechanisms are not publicly documented.
|
3
|