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 |
Dexco offers only limited insight into its climate-related lobbying. The company notes that it signed the Carta em Favor da Amazônia, urging Brazil’s federal government to combat deforestation, and refers generally to engagement with public policy on sustainability, but it does not identify any specific laws, regulations or legislative proposals it has sought to influence. It also fails to explain how it engages policymakers: there is no information on whether it holds meetings, submits letters, participates in consultations or works through trade associations, nor are any target institutions or officials named. Finally, while Dexco reiterates broad objectives such as maintaining a positive carbon balance and supporting action against deforestation, it does not link these aspirations to concrete legislative outcomes it aims to secure. Together, these gaps mean stakeholders receive only a high-level picture of the company’s intentions, with little clarity on the actual policies, methods or results it pursues in climate lobbying.
|
1
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Limited |
Dexco SA provides only limited insight into how it governs lobbying and other external engagement in relation to its climate strategy. The company states that “Describe the process(es) your organization has in place to ensure that your engagement activities are consistent with your overall climate change strategy […] Through involvement with associations and trade organizations, we anticipate trends and progress in the market” and adds that “Our participation in associations and committees focused on specific topics, such as Climate Change, ensures that we are aligned with global sustainability trends.” This indicates an intention to keep external engagement aligned with its climate ambitions, thereby acknowledging alignment of indirect lobbying activities with climate objectives. However, we found no evidence of a formal governance structure: the disclosures do not identify any board committee, senior executive, or dedicated function responsible for reviewing or approving lobbying positions; there is no description of a monitoring or audit process, criteria for assessing trade-association positions, or any mechanism for addressing misalignment, and direct lobbying governance is not mentioned. Consequently, while the company references aligning participation in associations with climate goals, the disclosure lacks detail on oversight, accountability, and operational processes that would demonstrate stronger governance of climate-related lobbying.
|
1
|