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 |
Analysis |
Score |
Limited
|
Lawson Inc indicates it has a “public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” which suggests an intention to align its policy engagement with climate objectives. However, the company does not disclose any oversight structure, review process or accountability measures for its lobbying activities, provides no detail on how such alignment is monitored or managed, and names no individual or formal body responsible for overseeing its lobbying alignment. The absence of any description of how direct or indirect lobbying is governed indicates limited transparency and governance of its lobbying processes.
View Sources
|
1
|
Overall Assessment |
Analysis |
Score |
Limited
|
Lawson Inc offers only limited visibility into its climate-policy lobbying. It does identify one concrete area of engagement—participation in the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry’s “GX League,” where it has taken part in discussions on “排出量取引制度や炭素価格の設定” (emissions-trading systems and carbon pricing)—so readers can see the general policy focus and the government ministry involved. The company explains that its involvement occurs through membership in the GX League, but it does not clarify how it seeks to influence the process (for example, whether it submits written comments, meets officials, or provides technical analysis), nor does it describe any other channels it might use. Finally, Lawson states only broad aspirations, such as helping “transform the economic and social system” and promoting the development of emissions trading and carbon-credit markets, without spelling out concrete positions, specific amendments, or quantitative targets it wants regulators to adopt. Because the disclosure names just one policy arena, gives only a headline description of the engagement mechanism, and articulates outcomes in general terms, the overall transparency of its climate-lobbying activity remains limited.
|
1
|