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 |
| Limited |
Star Bulk Carriers offers only limited visibility into its climate-policy lobbying. It does name one concrete policy engagement—the prospective “EU ETS extension to shipping”—but provides no indication that it has lobbied on any other climate measures. The company identifies a single lobbying channel, stating that it “participated in a detailed survey organized by the EU authorities,” thereby disclosing both the mechanism (survey response) and the target (EU authorities), yet it describes no further direct or indirect advocacy activities. On objectives, Star Bulk sets out a reasonably clear position: it supports “the use of emission trading systems and more generally market-based measures (MBMs) to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in the shipping industry” but prefers that such MBMs be implemented globally, “by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) rather than a regional body like the EU.” Beyond this endorsement of a global market-based approach, however, the company does not articulate additional specific legislative changes or quantitative targets it seeks, leaving most of its lobbying footprint undocumented.
|
1
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Strong |
Star Bulk Carriers Corp appears to have a structured governance process to ensure that its policy engagements align with its climate change strategy, with clear responsibilities allocated to senior executives and iterative reviews. The company explains that “The team of managers at Star Bulk responsible for climate related activities closely coordinate and discuss any policy engagements (direct or indirect),” while the Chief Strategy Officer (CSO) “engages with policy makers and alliances and ensures that the team is abreast of the latest policy discussions and the positions of stakeholders.” These inputs are then “conveyed to the CSO and the Executive Vice President (EVP) for Green Energy and Technology who collaborate in shaping the company’s decarbonization strategy,” which is further discussed with the climate team and the CEO to reach a “common position.” The process explicitly covers both direct advocacy and indirect channels, noting that “as specific policy issues emerge in policy for industry associations and broader partnerships and alliances, the CSO and EVP are responsible for formulating an initial position to ensure that it is aligned with the company's climate change strategy.” While this governance framework clearly names individual oversight and covers multiple lobbying pathways, the company does not disclose a formal board-level sign-off or any external audit of its lobbying activities, nor does it specify regular monitoring checkpoints beyond using its annual ESG and CDP reports as milestones.
|
3
|