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 |
Topre Corp provides only limited transparency around its climate-policy lobbying. It does name two specific Japanese statutes—the Act on Promotion of Global Warming Countermeasures and the Act on Rational Use of Energy—indicating that these are the principal pieces of legislation it supports, but it offers no description of how it interacts with those laws or whether any other climate policies are addressed. The company gives virtually no insight into the channels it uses to exert influence, merely alluding to participation in study sessions and sub-committees of an industry association without identifying the government bodies, officials or consultation processes it seeks to reach. Likewise, it does not set out the concrete policy changes or measurable objectives it hopes to achieve, instead expressing only broad backing for climate and energy regulations. This lack of detail on mechanisms and desired outcomes means stakeholders receive very little information about the nature, depth or direction of the company’s lobbying efforts.
|
1
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Topre Group provides a targeted governance process for its indirect climate lobbying but offers little detail on oversight or direct lobbying alignment, and it does not commit to Paris-aligned engagement. It declares that it “also has clear policies to ensure that its own policies on climate change are consistent with the position of the Japan Auto-Body Industries Association, of which it is a member, and to respond appropriately if necessary if any differences arise,” and that “we carefully examine whether these activities are consistent with Topre Group’s policies on climate change and whether they are significantly inconsistent with Topre Group’s thinking and direction, and if there are any significant discrepancies, we will consider how to respond.” However, it explicitly states “No, and we do not plan to have one in the next two years” in response to whether it would align its engagement with the Paris Agreement, and we found no evidence of a named individual or formal body overseeing lobbying alignment or a process for its own direct lobbying. While this indicates a clear mechanism for reviewing and potentially responding to trade association positions, the absence of broader accountability or direct lobbying safeguards limits the governance framework.
|
2
|