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 |
| Moderate |
Savills PLC offers a moderate window into its climate-policy lobbying. The company names one concrete policy focus—“Footnote 54 of the National Planning Policy Framework,” which it argues has restricted onshore wind development—and explains that it is working on “unlocking the potential of onshore wind as a renewable source.” It also discloses several clear methods and targets for this engagement, including making “submissions to the UK Government” and having “presented our research to a Parliamentary Committee regarding this topic,” alongside participation in industry interviews and Task and Finish Groups that involve government representatives. In terms of desired outcomes, Savills is explicit that it seeks to “revis[e] footnote 54 to an approach closer to that in Scotland,” and it backs broader funding measures such as VAT reductions, government guarantees and grants to accelerate building-sector decarbonisation. Together, these details show transparent disclosure of the company’s lobbying channels and objectives, although the range of specific policies it discusses remains limited.
|
2
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Limited |
Savills PLC discloses only preliminary indications that it intends to govern the alignment of its policy engagement with its climate objectives, stating that "as part of our Net Zero Transition plan due spring 2023 we will look to develop processes to ensure that our direct and indirect engagement are aligned with our Net Zero strategy" and repeating that it "will look to develop processes to ensure that our direct and indirect engagement are aligned with our Net Zero strategy." This forward-looking commitment signals an intention to create oversight mechanisms for both direct and indirect engagement, which indicates some awareness of climate-lobbying governance. However, the company provides no description of what those processes will entail, how frequently they will be carried out, or any criteria for assessing trade-association alignment; furthermore, we found no disclosure of a named individual or committee responsible for reviewing lobbying alignment, and the broader governance narrative—describing that "The Board is responsible overall for managing climate related risks" and outlining the roles of the GEB, ESG Committee and TCFD Working Group—relates to climate-risk management rather than the governance of lobbying activities. Without details of an existing review procedure, monitoring steps, or responsible oversight body specifically for lobbying, the disclosure remains limited and largely aspirational.
|
1
|