E-MART Inc

Lobbying Transparency and Governance

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:

Direct Lobbying Transparency
Overall Assessment Comment Score
Moderate E-Mart provides a moderate level of detail about its climate-policy lobbying. It identifies the specific government initiatives it has tried to influence, most notably the “Paper Receipt-Free Store” programme agreed with the Ministry of Environment and the creation of “Korea’s first carbon-neutral point system,” showing it has disclosed more than one clearly identifiable policy focus. The company also explains how it engaged: it “submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Environment” and later “signed agreements with 13 retailers, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and the Ministry of Science and ICT,” naming both the mechanisms (proposals and formal agreements) and the precise governmental targets of those efforts. Finally, E-Mart outlines the concrete results it is seeking, such as establishing the point system and cutting paper receipts, quantifying the latter as “the cumulative amount of paper receipts reduction from 2017 to May 2023 is estimated to 280 million pieces, which is equivalent to reducing about 476 tCO2e,” and confirming that these goals are “aligned” with the Paris Agreement. While the disclosure stops short of listing a broader range of policies or engagement tools, it nevertheless gives clear examples of the policies addressed, the way the company lobbies, and the outcomes it aims to achieve. 2
Lobbying Governance
Overall Assessment Comment Score
Limited E-Mart Inc. signals a foundational climate lobbying stance by answering “Yes” to having a “public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” but it does not disclose any formal process for monitoring or reviewing those engagement activities, nor does it identify the individuals or governance bodies responsible for oversight, and we found no evidence of any mechanisms addressing direct or indirect lobbying alignment beyond this high-level statement. 1