Novatek Microelectronics Corp

Lobbying Transparency and Governance

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:

Lobbying Governance
Overall Assessment Analysis Score
Limited Novatek Microelectronics discloses only limited information about how it governs policy engagement: it states that “the committee regularly reviews climate-related issues on a quarterly basis” and, when asked to describe processes “to ensure that your engagement activities are consistent with your overall climate change strategy,” adds that “We review climate change by TCFD.” The company also confirms that it has “a public commitment… to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” While this shows the existence of an internal committee with some review responsibility and a stated intention to align engagement with climate goals, the disclosure does not explain what specific mechanisms the committee uses to monitor or manage lobbying, whether the oversight extends to trade-association positions, or who on the board or in management is accountable; nor does it provide evidence of actively checking or correcting direct or indirect lobbying activities. As a result, the governance approach appears rudimentary and largely declarative, with no publicly described procedures, audits, or alignment tests for lobbying activities.

View Sources

1
Lobbying Transparency
Overall Assessment Analysis Score
Limited Novatek Microelectronics provides only limited insight into its climate-related lobbying. It discloses that it supports "Green electricity tariffs/renewable energy PPAs" in Taiwan, explicitly describing its stance as "Support with no exceptions," which confirms at least one concrete area of policy engagement. Beyond noting that it "aims to reduce total amount of greenhouse gas emission and achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emission in 2050," the company does not articulate the specific legislative changes or regulatory amendments it is advocating, leaving the actual outcomes it seeks largely undefined. The disclosure is also silent on the methods or channels used to influence policymakers and does not name the governmental bodies or officials it contacts. As a result, while the company identifies a relevant policy area and states a high-level objective, it offers little transparency on how it lobbies or the precise results it hopes to achieve.

1