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 |
Sino Land offers a basic but incomplete picture of its climate-related lobbying. It identifies one specific initiative—the move toward an “enhanced mandatory climate disclosure requirement” in Hong Kong SAR—and says it “supports [it] with no exceptions,” noting the proposal is “aligned” with the Paris Agreement. The company explains the main channels it used, stating that it “participates actively in the public consultation … through dialogues and seminars” and that it also fulfils the related disclosure obligations with Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited. While this reveals at least one concrete mechanism and a clear policy outcome it wishes to see implemented, it does not name the individual government bodies or officials it engaged, nor does it indicate whether it lobbied on any other climate policies. As a result, the overall transparency of its climate-policy lobbying remains limited.
|
1
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Sino Land discloses a moderate governance approach for aligning its policy engagement with its climate objectives: it states that "our Climate Change Policy provides guidelines for addressing climate risk across our operations" and confirms a "public commitment … to conduct engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement." Oversight is assigned to a defined body, as "the ESG Steering Committee oversees the implementation of climate-related initiatives and programmes" and "will be updated with overall performance and progress," indicating that this committee is responsible for reviewing the policy in light of "public policy engagement, collaboration with industry associations, advocacy, position, pledges and memberships on climate change issues." These disclosures point to an internal mechanism for periodic review and an identifiable governance owner, which indicates stronger governance than a mere policy statement. However, the company does not disclose a detailed monitoring procedure for its lobbying activities, provides no concrete examples of assessing or correcting the climate-policy positions of its own lobbying or those of its trade associations, and there is no published lobbying-alignment audit or report. Consequently, while there is evidence of oversight and a stated intention to align external engagement with Paris goals, the absence of specific monitoring steps, transparency on direct versus indirect lobbying, and escalation or disengagement mechanisms limits the demonstrated robustness of the governance framework.
|
2
|