Lyft Inc

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

Direct Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Comment	Score
Strong	Lyft discloses a moderate level of detail on the specific climate policies lobbied, explicitly naming only California’s Proposition 30—aimed at zero-emission vehicle rebates, charging infrastructure and wildfire prevention—while broader EV mandates for Massachusetts and California are discussed without identifying legislation by name. In contrast, the company offers a high level of transparency regarding its lobbying mechanisms, describing a comprehensive strategy that includes advocacy, public and community relations, as well as both independent and coalition-based lobbying to influence legislators and policymakers in California, Washington, and Colorado, including work with Governor Polis, environmental coalitions and organizations like NRDC. Lyft is also explicit about the outcomes it seeks: making EVs more affordable, expanding charging infrastructure in underserved communities and boosting wildfire prevention resources, as well as securing minimum earnings, expense compensation and new healthcare benefits for app drivers through Proposition 22 and Washington’s House Bill 2076.	3

Lobbying Governance

Overall Assessment	Comment	Score
Limited	Lyft discloses only a high-level statement that the "Board of Directors regularly evaluates our environmental, social, and corporate governance policies" and notes that it has "adopted a Political Activities Policy to promote compliance with laws and alignment with our overarching mission." This indicates some top-level oversight and an intention to keep political engagement aligned with company values, suggesting a basic governance approach. However, the company provides no detail on how lobbying or political activity is reviewed in practice, makes no reference to climate-specific lobbying alignment, and offers no description of mechanisms for monitoring, auditing, or managing either its direct advocacy or its participation in trade associations. The evidence therefore shows only limited governance transparency, with the process, responsible individuals, and climate-related criteria for lobbying alignment not disclosed.	1