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 |
Analysis |
Score |
|
None
|
Mirvac articulates a robust structure for overseeing climate-related risk and sustainability strategy, noting that “Our Board of Directors is responsible for setting Mirvac’s strategic direction in relation to the management of climate change risks and opportunities, and oversees the implementation of the Group’s sustainability strategy by the Executive Leadership Team (ELT),” and detailing that “The Health, Safety, Environment & Sustainability (HSE&S) Committee oversees relevant strategies, systems, policies and practices, including those relating to climate change.” However, we found no evidence of any governance process specifically for lobbying activities—direct or indirect—or any description of mechanisms to align its lobbying with its climate policy or a designated individual or body responsible for reviewing lobbying alignment.
View Sources
|
E
|
| Overall Assessment |
Analysis |
Score |
|
Limited
|
Mirvac provides only limited insight into its climate-related lobbying. It signals that it is active—stating that it engages on “planning reform, zero-carbon buildings” and works through “industry groups, as well as climate advocacy bodies, to participate in, and influence, the development of robust reporting practices”—but it never names the specific pieces of legislation or regulations it has tried to shape. The company outlines some channels it uses, such as participation in government advisory boards, roundtables and unspecified “targeted engagement with government bodies,” yet it does not identify which ministries, parliamentary committees or individual officials it approaches. Likewise, beyond a broad intention to foster “robust reporting practices” and reach its own net-positive-carbon goal by 2030, Mirvac does not spell out the concrete policy changes it is seeking. As a result, stakeholders are given only a high-level picture of the company’s advocacy activities without sufficient detail on the policies, the decision-makers, or the outcomes being pursued.
|
D
|