Essity AB – 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	Essity discloses a defined governance structure that seeks to keep both its own advocacy and its involvement in trade associations aligned with its climate strategy. It states that “For Essity's external positions we have a governance process to secure alignment and proper decision making” and that decisions on positions are taken “by the Executive Management team or parts of the team,” signalling a clear internal sign-off step. Climate issues are channelled through a “Group Public Affairs Committee reporting to the Executive Management Team,” which is “led by the VP for Public Affairs,” thereby naming the individuals and bodies that oversee lobbying alignment. The company explains that this committee “links to the work in the different trade associations, both on national and international level, and engagement with policy makers, to secure consistency and alignment with Essity´s climate and energy agenda,” demonstrating that the process covers both direct engagement with policymakers and indirect advocacy via associations. Essity also notes that it “carefully monitor[s] various public policy processes on international, regional and national level,” and that its public policy positions are “used in dialogue with our trade/industry associations, policy makers and other external actors… in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” indicating an active effort to align lobbying with its climate commitments. However, the company does not disclose any periodic public review or audit of lobbying alignment, nor does it describe criteria or escalation steps (such as correcting or exiting an association) if misalignment is identified, so the depth of monitoring and corrective action remains unclear. Overall, the disclosures indicate strong governance of climate-related lobbying activities, with defined oversight and alignment processes, but they fall short of a publicly reported, systematic audit of alignment outcomes. View Sources	B

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Strong

Essity discloses a defined governance structure that seeks to keep both its own advocacy and its involvement in trade associations aligned with its climate strategy. It states that “For Essity's external positions we have a governance process to secure alignment and proper decision making” and that decisions on positions are taken “by the Executive Management team or parts of the team,” signalling a clear internal sign-off step. Climate issues are channelled through a “Group Public Affairs Committee reporting to the Executive Management Team,” which is “led by the VP for Public Affairs,” thereby naming the individuals and bodies that oversee lobbying alignment. The company explains that this committee “links to the work in the different trade associations, both on national and international level, and engagement with policy makers, to secure consistency and alignment with Essity´s climate and energy agenda,” demonstrating that the process covers both direct engagement with policymakers and indirect advocacy via associations. Essity also notes that it “carefully monitor[s] various public policy processes on international, regional and national level,” and that its public policy positions are “used in dialogue with our trade/industry associations, policy makers and other external actors… in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” indicating an active effort to align lobbying with its climate commitments. However, the company does not disclose any periodic public review or audit of lobbying alignment, nor does it describe criteria or escalation steps (such as correcting or exiting an association) if misalignment is identified, so the depth of monitoring and corrective action remains unclear. Overall, the disclosures indicate strong governance of climate-related lobbying activities, with defined oversight and alignment processes, but they fall short of a publicly reported, systematic audit of alignment outcomes.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Comprehensive	Essity provides an unusually detailed picture of its climate-related advocacy. It names multiple concrete files it has worked on, including the “EU Circular Economy Action Plan,” the “Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation,” the “EU Emissions Trading System,” the “Renewable Energy Directive 3,” and the “Directive on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (SUP-directive),” showing exactly which legislative proposals it seeks to influence. The company is equally explicit about how and where it lobbies: it describes “contributing in the consultation phase and attending meetings with representatives from EU-institutions in our trade associations CEPI, AIM and Edana,” notes direct participation “as individual company and through EDANA,” and even records attendance at a CEPI breakfast meeting with Sarah Nelen of the European Commission’s Executive Vice-President Timmermans’ cabinet. Finally, Essity sets out the policy changes it wants to see. It “welcomes the ambition of the European Green Deal and the Circular Economy Action Plan,” but asks that legislation be “proportionate and support innovation of sustainable solutions,” endorses the waste-hierarchy principles, and proposes that the scope of bio-based, degradable and compostable plastics (BDCP) legislation be “kept under regular review to include other products in the future.” This combination of clearly named policies, specified engagement channels and targets, and well-articulated desired outcomes demonstrates a comprehensive level of transparency around the company’s climate-policy lobbying.	A