Lobbying Governance
| Overall Assessment | Analysis | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate |
Georgia Capital PLC provides some insight into how it governs its engagement with policymakers, indicating that climate-related advocacy is handled within its wider risk-management and compliance systems. It explains that "in line with our integrated control framework, we carefully evaluate the impact of legislative and regulatory framework … and, to the extent possible, proactively participate in the drafting of relevant legislation," and that after engagement "we then develop appropriate policies, procedures and controls as required to fulfil our compliance obligations." The company further states that "our compliance framework, at all levels, is subject to regular review by Internal Audit and external assurance providers. This process may include climate-change-related matters," demonstrating both a defined process for assessing lobbying activity and a mechanism for ongoing internal and external oversight. Governance bodies named elsewhere in the same framework – notably "the Board … aided by the Audit and Valuation Committee" – have overall responsibility for climate-related risks, although the disclosure does not explicitly assign them a formal role in reviewing lobbying alignment. While this indicates moderate governance of direct engagement, the company "does not disclose" any systematic review of its indirect lobbying through trade associations, nor has it published a stand-alone lobbying-alignment review or identified a senior executive specifically accountable for ensuring that all advocacy supports its climate strategy. Consequently, the disclosure shows a developing but still incomplete structure for managing climate-related lobbying.
View Sources
|
C |