Sealed Air Corp – 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	Sealed Air discloses a structured process to keep its climate-related advocacy aligned with corporate strategy, stating that it "annually reviews our membership in these organizations and actively participate to lead or influence policy positions" and "verify that the organizations objectives and goals align with ours and that they are effective in influencing policy decisions," which demonstrates an active mechanism for governing indirect lobbying through trade associations. For direct engagement the company explains that it "engages directly with policy makers on the state and federal level… to influence them to make sound, science-based policies to support activities and solutions to reduce our environmental impact," indicating that its own lobbying efforts are intended to reinforce its climate objectives. Oversight is clearly assigned: "Membership and our activities fall under the purview of the VP of Sustainability and Executive Committee" while "the board of directors in late 2020 designated the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee as having responsibility to oversee our sustainability strategies and other matters concerning environmental, social, governance and public policy issues affecting Sealed Air." The company also confirms a "public commitment… to conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement." This indicates strong governance covering both direct and indirect lobbying, though the firm does not disclose the detailed outcomes of its annual reviews or publish a standalone lobbying-alignment report, leaving limited transparency into how any misalignments are remedied. View Sources	B

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Strong

Sealed Air discloses a structured process to keep its climate-related advocacy aligned with corporate strategy, stating that it "annually reviews our membership in these organizations and actively participate to lead or influence policy positions" and "verify that the organizations objectives and goals align with ours and that they are effective in influencing policy decisions," which demonstrates an active mechanism for governing indirect lobbying through trade associations. For direct engagement the company explains that it "engages directly with policy makers on the state and federal level… to influence them to make sound, science-based policies to support activities and solutions to reduce our environmental impact," indicating that its own lobbying efforts are intended to reinforce its climate objectives. Oversight is clearly assigned: "Membership and our activities fall under the purview of the VP of Sustainability and Executive Committee" while "the board of directors in late 2020 designated the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee as having responsibility to oversee our sustainability strategies and other matters concerning environmental, social, governance and public policy issues affecting Sealed Air." The company also confirms a "public commitment… to conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement." This indicates strong governance covering both direct and indirect lobbying, though the firm does not disclose the detailed outcomes of its annual reviews or publish a standalone lobbying-alignment report, leaving limited transparency into how any misalignments are remedied.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Comprehensive	Sealed Air provides a very detailed picture of its climate-related advocacy. It names multiple specific measures it has worked on, including California’s “AB2026 – Ban on plastic film used in e-commerce,” the federal “HR5845 Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act,” the “S.3743/HR8059 Recycling and Composting Accountability Act,” the “S.3742/HR8183 Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act,” and the EU’s “Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR),” clearly situating each engagement in its jurisdiction. The company also explains how it influences those files, citing direct meetings with “state legislators to provide them information concerning recycling, product protection and GHG emissions,” arranging tours of its engineering test laboratories, holding conversations “with legislators in Washington, DC,” and working indirectly through trade bodies such as AMERIPEN and EUROPEN—thereby identifying both the mechanisms and the policymaking targets of its efforts. Finally, it spells out the concrete outcomes it seeks: opposing AB2026 because it believes a blanket film ban would raise emissions through product damage, proposing an extended-producer-responsibility alternative, supporting classification of advanced recycling facilities as manufacturing sites under HR5845, and backing the Recycling and Composting Accountability Act to expand access for rural and underserved communities while urging the PPWR to factor in the carbon impacts of food waste. Taken together, these disclosures show a high level of transparency on the policies the company lobbies, how it lobbies, and the specific changes it is seeking.	A