Lobbying Governance
| Overall Assessment | Analysis | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate |
Abbott discloses a formal structure for supervising its public-policy engagement, noting that “the Public Policy Committee of the Abbott Board of Directors is responsible for oversight of Abbott's Government Affairs function and public policy issues … including advocacy priorities, political contributions, lobbying activities, and trade association memberships,” and that “Abbott’s Government Affairs function reviews and approves all U.S. political contributions and advocacy activities.” These statements identify both a board-level body and an internal function that must sign-off on lobbying activity, indicating a clear line of accountability. The company also states that this oversight is intended to keep external engagement “consistent with your climate commitments and/or climate transition plan,” suggesting a policy intent to align lobbying with climate strategy. However, Abbott does not publish any dedicated climate-lobbying alignment review, provides no detail on how the Committee or Government Affairs team tests positions taken by trade associations, and explicitly acknowledges “No” public commitment “to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” We found no evidence of processes such as periodic audits, criteria for assessing or escalating misalignment, or examples of correcting or exiting associations. Consequently, while named oversight bodies and a stated review mechanism demonstrate moderate governance, the absence of detailed monitoring procedures, public alignment reporting, or evidence of active management of indirect lobbying limits the strength and transparency of Abbott’s lobbying governance.
View Sources
|
C |