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 |
| Comprehensive |
Procter & Gamble offers extensive and precise insight into its climate-related lobbying. It names the specific measures it works on, including the proposal to raise U.S. truck gross vehicle weight limits to 91,000 lbs, provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to bolster “electric vehicle and truck charging stations along key corridors of the US Federal Highway System,” and national carbon-pricing legislation under the Carbon Dividends Program. The company explains how it pursues these goals, citing direct advocacy campaigns, coordination by its Global Government Relations team, and indirect efforts through trade bodies such as the Climate Leadership Council and Americans for Carbon Dividends; it even notes that “CLC helped coordinate member company executives to meet with US Congressional Staff.” Targets are clearly identified as U.S. federal policymakers and Congressional staff. P&G is equally explicit about the outcomes it seeks: full support for “national increase of GVW weight limits to 91,000 lbs from 80,000 lbs,” expanded EV-charging infrastructure to enable an eventual electric fleet transition, and endorsement of a carbon-dividend policy it believes “would provide the greatest transparency and certainty for business” while delivering significant GHG reductions. Together, these elements demonstrate a high level of transparency across the policies lobbied, the mechanisms employed, and the concrete results the company is pursuing.
|
4
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Strong |
Procter & Gamble discloses a clearly defined governance framework to keep its climate-related advocacy in line with its overall climate strategy. Board-level responsibility is indicated, as the Governance & Public Responsibility Committee oversees the Companys community and government relations, while operational control sits with the Global Government Relations organization, which ensure[s] consistency and transparency in all policy related activities and participates in a cross-functional P&G Corporate Climate Council that is a key part of our Climate Governance Process. The company states that all policy advocacy is coordinated through our Global Government Relations organization ensuring a common approach to climate change engagement activities across business divisions and geographies, and that its positions are intended to be aligned with a 1.5 Scenario. For indirect lobbying, P&G asserts that The trade associations of which we are members are aware of our policy positions If an associations policy position is different than ours, we will engage the association in dialogue to discuss relevant discrepancies and encourage changes which would better align with our views, signalling a mechanism to address misalignment. This is apparant in its 2014 disclosure to CDP where P&G signalled misalignment with the US based National Association of Manufacturers. P&G stated it attempted to influence NAM who did not change their position, stating it encouraged "NAM to advocate for science-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets, as well as place an economy-wide price on carbon." While this framework clearly names responsible bodies and outlines processes for aligning both direct and indirect lobbying with the companys commitment to a 1.5C scenario, we found no evidence of a publicly available climate-lobbying alignment report or third-party audit to independently validate these efforts.
|
3
|