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 |
Greif Inc. provides only a limited window into its climate-related lobbying. The company identifies an indirect mechanism—working through trade associations such as the International Confederation of Plastic Packaging Manufacturers and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, where Greif executives hold leadership roles—but offers no information on direct meetings, submissions, or the specific government bodies it approaches. It discloses no identifiable climate laws, regulations, or policy proposals that it has tried to influence. The objectives it cites remain broad aspirations such as lowering greenhouse-gas emissions, improving transport regulations, and advancing sustainability, without spelling out the concrete legislative changes or regulatory thresholds it is pursuing. As a result, while the company confirms some involvement in policy networks, the substance, targets and desired outcomes of its climate-policy lobbying remain largely undisclosed.
|
1
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Greif Inc. outlines a defined internal mechanism to keep its policy engagement consistent with its climate goals, stating that "Greif’s Sustainability Steering Committee (SSC) is informed by and oversees engagement on climate-related matters," and that this body is "led partially by the Executive Leadership Team (ELT), Chief Sustainability Officer, Vice President of Sustainability, product managers, legal department, and the EHS department." This disclosure identifies a multi-disciplinary committee and named senior leaders who “guide interactions on climate issues,” indicating that oversight responsibility has been assigned and that engagement activities are expected to align with the company’s climate targets. The company also notes that the SSC “is responsible for compliance with climate targets and climate risk assessment,” suggesting a process linking its climate strategy to external engagement. However, Greif does not disclose how this committee evaluates specific lobbying positions, nor does it describe any systematic review of indirect lobbying through trade associations or the steps it might take when misalignment is found. No public audit or detailed monitoring procedure is mentioned. Overall, the evidence shows a governance framework with clear ownership and stated intent to align engagement with climate commitments, but the scope and rigor of monitoring—particularly for trade-association lobbying—are not detailed.
|
2
|