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 |
LG Uplus Corp demonstrates a moderate degree of transparency around its climate lobbying activities. The company clearly identifies its engagement with the Republic of Korea’s national Emission Trading System, describing its participation in "public hearings and seminars organized by the government" directed at the Korean government. It explicitly names the Emission Trading System as the policy it has lobbied and details its greenhouse gas reduction mandate within that framework. Furthermore, LG Uplus expresses full support for the scheme, aiming to contribute to its smooth operation, and aligns its own net-zero by 2050 goal with standards that are stricter than those set by the ETS. This disclosure provides clarity on the specific policy focus, the mechanisms used, the lobbying target, and the outcomes sought.
|
2
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Limited |
LG Uplus discloses only limited information about how it governs lobbying or policy-related engagement. It states that the ESG Team "monitors all matters related to climate change… and when issues or opportunities arise, the CEO and the ESG Committee make decisions and implement responses," and confirms that "CRO's KPIs also reflect climate change-related goals," indicating that senior executives have some oversight of climate-related engagement. The company also answers "Yes" when asked whether it has "a public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement," suggesting an intention to align external advocacy with Paris goals. However, the disclosure focuses on operational emissions management and supplier initiatives rather than describing any concrete mechanisms—such as periodic reviews, alignment criteria, or actions taken with trade associations—to ensure that direct or indirect lobbying is consistent with its climate strategy. We found no evidence of a formal process to evaluate the climate positions of industry groups or to adjust the company’s own advocacy if misalignment is detected, and no named individual or committee is expressly charged with reviewing lobbying alignment beyond the broad climate-risk monitoring described. This indicates only a rudimentary governance approach, centred on high-level commitments and executive attention, without the detailed structures expected of a more robust lobbying governance framework.
|
1
|