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 |
|
Moderate
|
Kuehne + Nagel discloses a basic process for keeping its policy-engagement activities in step with its climate targets, stating that it "promotes engagement with climate change platforms that are in line with our Science Based Targets and our carbon reduction path towards 2030" and that, when considering other forums, it "do[es] not engage or carefully assess the principles and reduction strategy of other non-SBTi platforms to ensure alignment." This shows the company has established a screening mechanism aimed at aligning indirect lobbying (through external platforms or associations) with its science-based climate goals and the Paris Agreement, reinforced by its public commitment that "Yes" it will "conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement." However, the disclosure does not identify who within the organisation reviews or approves these decisions, nor does it describe how the assessment is carried out, how frequently it is repeated, or whether the same discipline is applied to the company’s own direct lobbying; thus, the governance framework remains limited in scope and detail. We found no evidence of board-level or named executive oversight, no reference to a formal lobbying-alignment report, and no indication that the company monitors or acts on misalignments beyond the initial engagement decision.
View Sources
|
C
|
| Overall Assessment |
Analysis |
Score |
|
Strong
|
The evidence shows a generally strong level of transparency on climate-policy lobbying. Maersk identifies the concrete policy arena it is working in—the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee—and discusses the specific proposals under debate, namely a carbon levy and a greenhouse-gas fuel standard. By contrast, Kuehne + Nagel only notes that it is "actively engaged with UK Government and sector partners" on the United Kingdom’s 2050 net-zero objective, without naming a particular bill or regulation; nevertheless, the IMO measures referenced by Maersk give at least two clearly identifiable policies overall. The mechanisms used are well described for Maersk: its head of regulatory affairs delivered a public speech at the naming of a dual-fuel methanol vessel, the company has "engaged in discussions with industry stakeholders," and it has submitted "detailed critiques of alternative proposals"—all directed explicitly at the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee. Desired outcomes are also articulated: Maersk presses for a carbon price of "no less than $600 per tonne" to "avoid a pay-to-pollute scenario" and openly opposes emissions-trading schemes it believes would fail to fund the green transition, arguing that a lower price would "fail to force a switch to green fuels." Kuehne + Nagel, however, does not specify the legislative changes it seeks. Collectively, these disclosures provide clear insight into lobbying mechanisms and objectives, though precision varies between the two companies.
|
B
|