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 |
| Limited |
Cadence Design Systems provides only limited insight into its climate-related lobbying. It indicates that it is "indirectly involved in policy engagement, specifically around the use of a long-term energy contract, via the Sustainability Roundtable’s Net-Zero Consortium for Buyers (NZCB)," which identifies an indirect mechanism but does not name the specific government bodies or decision-makers it seeks to influence. Likewise, the company refers generally to policy work on long-term energy contracts without citing any identifiable legislation, regulation, or jurisdiction. Finally, the disclosure does not articulate what changes or outcomes it hopes to achieve through this activity, leaving its policy objectives unclear. Overall, the information offered is high-level and lacks the detail needed to demonstrate robust transparency on climate lobbying.
|
1
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Cadence discloses a basic framework for keeping its policy engagement in step with its climate targets, noting that “the cross-functional ESG Team at Cadence takes into account a variety of stakeholder perspectives on climate-related issues… to ensure that our engagement activities are consistent with our climate commitments.” This team functions as an identified oversight body for advocacy alignment, demonstrating that lobbying decisions are not made in isolation. The company also reports a concrete example of indirect lobbying alignment, stating that “Cadence indirectly engages around climate policy… via the Sustainability Roundtable’s Net-Zero Consortium for Buyers (NZCB)… Cadence’s position is consistent with that of the Net-Zero Consortium for Buyers,” indicating at least some review of whether external associations reflect its climate stance. However, Cadence does not disclose any formal, recurring monitoring mechanism such as a lobbying audit, does not describe how it assesses or manages misalignment with trade associations beyond this single consortium reference, and “does not have a public commitment or position statement to conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” suggesting the governance is ad-hoc rather than systematic. There is no mention of board-level oversight, escalation procedures, or criteria for continuing or ending memberships, so the disclosure stops short of a detailed, company-wide climate-lobbying governance process.
|
2
|