Daiwa Securities Group Inc

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 Daiwa Securities Group has established a formal governance process to align its climate-related engagement, with both direct and indirect activities reviewed by its SDGs Promotion Committee. Under this framework, "Direct and indirect activities that affect the Group's policies are first consulted, proposed, and reported to the SDGs Promotion Office by each Group company," after which the office "proposes and reports to the SDGs Promotion Committee possible topics for discussion." The Committee, "chaired by the CEO and consists of Board members, the Head of SDGs, and three external climate change experts," debates whether proposals are "in-line with our overall climate change strategy and how they should be handled," and these discussions are "regularly reported to the Board of Directors and the Executive Management Committee." The group also notes that "We ensure that the policy outreach of these initiatives is aligned with our climate-related strategies to maintain consistency of our climate-related activities with outside parties," and the company affirms its commitment to conduct engagement activities "in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement." We found no evidence of a standalone climate-lobbying audit or external review or detailed criteria for managing participation in associations whose stances may conflict with its climate policy.

View Sources

B
Lobbying Transparency
Overall Assessment Analysis Score
None Daiwa Securities Group offers high-level descriptions of its work on sustainable finance—such as advising on Climate Transition Bonds and participating in a Green Bond Review Committee—but it does not disclose any climate-related lobbying activity. The disclosures neither identify specific climate policies, legislation or regulations the company has tried to influence, nor do they explain the mechanisms it uses to approach policymakers or the institutions it targets. Likewise, the company does not articulate any concrete policy changes, regulatory amendments or measurable objectives it hopes to achieve through its engagements. As a result, the company provides no meaningful transparency about whether, how, or why it seeks to shape climate policy.

E