Direct Lobbying Transparency
| Overall Assessment | Comment | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate | Interface discloses a number of avenues through which it seeks to influence climate policy, demonstrating a moderate level of transparency. It explains that it "sent a representative to UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26)", that it "joined fellow business leaders in an advertisement in The New York Times… expressing support for U.S. government investment in climate solutions", and that it "joined other businesses as a signatory to letters to U.S. President Joe Biden on the need to set aggressive climate targets for the United States." These examples reveal at least three distinct lobbying mechanisms—participation in international negotiations, paid media advocacy, and direct correspondence—and they clearly identify the policymaking targets (the UN process and the U.S. President/Government). However, the company is less specific about the policies themselves; apart from urging “aggressive climate targets” and referring generally to carbon pricing and embodied-carbon standards in the building sector, it does not name particular bills, regulations, or rulemakings it has engaged on. Likewise, its descriptions of desired outcomes remain broad, focused on encouraging science-based targets and incentive structures for carbon pricing rather than spelling out concrete legislative or regulatory changes it seeks. As a result, while Interface is open about how and with whom it lobbies, it provides only limited detail on the exact policies and measurable outcomes it is pursuing. | 2 |