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 |
|
None
|
Swire Properties Ltd provides extensive detail on its sustainable development governance, noting that “Our ESG Steering Committee is chaired by our Chief Executive” and that the Board “provides oversight of our risk management framework and SD risks, including climate-related risks.” However, this disclosure focuses exclusively on climate strategy, risk management, and internal carbon pricing and includes no reference to governance structures, policies, or processes for overseeing direct or indirect lobbying activities on climate or other issues. We found no evidence of any policy, review mechanism, named individual, or formal committee tasked with ensuring its lobbying aligns with its climate policy goals. Consequently, there is no disclosed framework for managing or monitoring the company’s lobbying efforts.
View Sources
|
E
|
| Overall Assessment |
Analysis |
Score |
|
Limited
|
Swire Properties provides only limited insight into its climate-policy advocacy. It references broad areas of engagement—such as signing the Business Environment Council’s Low Carbon Charter and “Power Up Pledge” in Hong Kong and taking part in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Miami Back Bay Resiliency Study—but it does not clearly name any specific pieces of legislation or regulations it sought to influence, leaving readers unsure which formal policies were the focus of its efforts. The company identifies a few policymaking targets, notably Miami-Dade County and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, yet it offers almost no detail on how it interacted with those bodies beyond commissioning technical studies and “sharing knowledge and best practices,” so the mechanisms of influence remain opaque. With respect to objectives, Swire Properties expresses a general wish for decarbonisation and, in Miami, advocates for a locally preferred, nature-based alternative to flood-wall proposals, but it stops short of spelling out concrete legislative or regulatory changes it wants enacted. Overall, the disclosures reveal some engagement on climate resilience and decarbonisation but do not provide the specificity needed to demonstrate strong transparency around climate-related lobbying activities.
|
D
|