Assurant Inc – Lobbying Governance & Transparency

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:

Lobbying Governance

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Moderate	Assurant discloses a formal policy that “is reviewed by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of Assurant, Inc.’s Board of Directors” and “sets forth the basic principles and oversight of Assurant’s lobbying activities, political contributions, political action committee (“PAC”), and trade association participation,” indicating that lobbying, broadly defined, is governed at Board-committee level. The company states that “The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors exercises oversight over Assurant’s political activities…[and] receives an annual report on Assurant’s political activities,” while day-to-day activities are run through the “Government Affairs & Regulatory Legal group…[which] reports to Assurant’s Chief Legal Officer.” This identifies both the responsible management function and the formal body that reviews lobbying alignment. For climate-specific engagement, Assurant describes a process to keep advocacy consistent with its climate-risk strategy, explaining that it “works with state and federal regulators…to address climate-related risks” and “our approach to regulatory engagement advocates for policies that help to mitigate climate-related risk,” and it references collaboration with trade bodies such as the “American Property Casualty Industry Association (APCIA)… and IBHS” to influence resilience standards. However, while these statements show that Assurant’s direct policy engagement seeks climate-resilience outcomes, the company does not disclose any systematic review of whether trade associations’ positions align with its climate objectives, nor does it publish an external climate-lobbying audit or commit to Paris-aligned advocacy (“No, and we do not plan to have one in the next two years”). Overall, the presence of a Board-level oversight structure and a described process for climate-oriented engagement indicates moderate governance, but the absence of detailed monitoring mechanisms for indirect lobbying and lack of a public alignment report suggest that governance remains partial rather than comprehensive. View Sources	C

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Moderate

Assurant discloses a formal policy that “is reviewed by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of Assurant, Inc.’s Board of Directors” and “sets forth the basic principles and oversight of Assurant’s lobbying activities, political contributions, political action committee (“PAC”), and trade association participation,” indicating that lobbying, broadly defined, is governed at Board-committee level. The company states that “The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors exercises oversight over Assurant’s political activities…[and] receives an annual report on Assurant’s political activities,” while day-to-day activities are run through the “Government Affairs & Regulatory Legal group…[which] reports to Assurant’s Chief Legal Officer.” This identifies both the responsible management function and the formal body that reviews lobbying alignment. For climate-specific engagement, Assurant describes a process to keep advocacy consistent with its climate-risk strategy, explaining that it “works with state and federal regulators…to address climate-related risks” and “our approach to regulatory engagement advocates for policies that help to mitigate climate-related risk,” and it references collaboration with trade bodies such as the “American Property Casualty Industry Association (APCIA)… and IBHS” to influence resilience standards. However, while these statements show that Assurant’s direct policy engagement seeks climate-resilience outcomes, the company does not disclose any systematic review of whether trade associations’ positions align with its climate objectives, nor does it publish an external climate-lobbying audit or commit to Paris-aligned advocacy (“No, and we do not plan to have one in the next two years”). Overall, the presence of a Board-level oversight structure and a described process for climate-oriented engagement indicates moderate governance, but the absence of detailed monitoring mechanisms for indirect lobbying and lack of a public alignment report suggest that governance remains partial rather than comprehensive.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Comprehensive	Assurant Inc provides a very detailed picture of its climate-related public policy advocacy. It names the exact measures it works on, including FEMA’s Risk Rating 2.0, reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, and changes to Federal Housing Administration rules so that private flood insurance can satisfy lending requirements, as well as support for new federal grant programmes aimed at flood-risk mitigation. The company also describes how it tries to influence these measures, citing direct engagement with Congress, FEMA and the FHA, collaboration with state and local insurance departments, and participation in trade bodies such as the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. Finally, it spells out the concrete results it is seeking: an actuarially sound NFIP, adoption of flood-mitigation solutions and resilient construction standards, permission for private flood coverage in Special Flood Hazard Areas, and federal funding to reduce repetitive-loss risks. Together these disclosures demonstrate a comprehensive level of transparency across the policies lobbied, the channels used and the outcomes pursued.	A