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 |
| Strong |
Scandic Hotels Group provides a solid picture of its climate-related lobbying. It names two identifiable policy initiatives it tries to influence – Stockholm’s household-waste handling rules and the sustainability criteria embedded in the Nordic Swan Ecolabel tender processes – making it clear where its efforts are focused. The company also explains in detail how it lobbies: it “has been working with the Nordic Swan Ecolabel to include more strict and clear Sustainability requirements,” collaborates with Visita and other hotel chains, and engages directly with “Stockholm community policymakers” alongside the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, thereby revealing several direct and coalition-based mechanisms as well as the specific institutional targets of those actions. Finally, Scandic is explicit about what it wants to achieve, seeking to “allow more entrepreneurs in waste handling,” “enable the weighing of all waste” so that unsorted volumes can be tracked, and make “sustainability criteria as mandatory in tender processes.” By coupling these concrete end-goals with the rationale that better data and stricter criteria will cut carbon emissions, the company demonstrates a high level of transparency across the spectrum of policy focus, lobbying methods, and desired outcomes.
|
3
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Limited |
Scandic Hotels Group AB gives only a brief assurance that its external engagement is aligned with its climate strategy, stating that “Since our Sustainability strategy is integral part our business strategy and business planning process, everyone concerned is well aware of Scandic's strategy on climate change and our position.” The company also repeats this wording when asked specifically about ensuring “your external engagement activities are consistent with your climate commitments and/or climate transition plan,” indicating an intention to keep engagement in line with its climate goals. However, beyond this high-level statement there is no disclosure of a concrete governance framework: the evidence does not identify any formal oversight body or named individual, does not describe monitoring or review mechanisms, and does not mention how the company manages or evaluates the lobbying positions of trade associations or its own direct advocacy. Moreover, the company confirms that it has “No” public commitment “to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” underscoring the limited nature of its disclosed governance. Overall, while Scandic acknowledges the need for alignment between engagement and climate strategy, the absence of documented structures, processes, or accountability measures means its disclosed lobbying governance appears minimal and largely informal.
|
1
|