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 |
Analysis |
Score |
|
None
|
We found no evidence of any governance processes specifically addressing lobbying activities or aligning policy advocacy with its climate objectives. The disclosures focus on compliance and sustainability oversight—“The Audit/Compliance Committee also oversees our Ethics and Compliance Program” and the Board’s role to “manage sustainability and ESG-related risks, including those posed by climate change”—but do not reference any mechanism to govern direct or indirect lobbying. There is no mention of a policy to review or sign off on lobbying positions, no process for evaluating trade associations’ advocacy against the company’s climate stance, and no individual or committee formally tasked with overseeing lobbying alignment.
View Sources
|
E
|
| Overall Assessment |
Analysis |
Score |
|
Limited
|
Granite Construction offers only limited insight into its climate-related lobbying. It identifies one concrete initiative it has supported—California Assembly Bill 2953 on the use of recycled materials in roadways—and more broadly references advocacy for “sustainable infrastructure funding,” but it does not list any additional specific bills, regulations, or jurisdictions it has tried to influence. The company states that it pursues this advocacy through membership in industry bodies such as the American Road & Transportation Builders Association and the National Asphalt Pavement Association and through direct contact with agency representatives and elected officials, yet it does not detail what form those contacts take or name the specific public offices or individuals approached. Finally, the disclosure outlines only high-level objectives—greater funding for sustainable infrastructure and increased use of recycled roadway materials—without quantifying the changes sought or explaining the particular policy outcomes it hopes to secure. Together, these gaps leave an incomplete picture of the company’s lobbying positions, methods, and goals.
|
D
|