Hanwha Solutions Corp

Lobbying Transparency and Governance

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:

Direct Lobbying Transparency
Overall Assessment Comment Score
Moderate Hanwha Solutions provides a moderate level of transparency about its climate-related lobbying. It names one concrete policy focus—the Korean Emissions Trading Scheme—describing the cap-and-trade structure and noting that it has “actively participated in public hearings, meetings and discussions” on that system. The company is clear on how it engages: it refers to public hearings, bilateral meetings, broader discussions and the submission of formal suggestions, and it identifies the principal policymaking target as the Korean Ministry of Environment and officials responsible for refining the benchmark-based allocation method. However, beyond a broad endorsement of expanding renewable energy and supporting the K-ETS, the disclosures stop short of detailing the specific legislative or regulatory outcomes the company seeks, such as precise allocation benchmarks or emissions caps. No other distinct climate policies are listed. The result is detailed information on mechanisms and targets, but only high-level insight into the policy objectives being pursued. 2
Lobbying Governance
Overall Assessment Comment Score
Limited Hanwha Solutions responded "Yes" when asked "Does your organization have a public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement?", reflecting a declarative alignment. However, we found no evidence of any internal mechanisms such as a policy describing oversight of its lobbying activities, no named individual or committee overseeing lobbying alignment, no process for monitoring or reviewing its direct or indirect policy engagement, and no reference to using trade association vetting or exit strategies to address misalignment. The company's disclosures instead focus on operational climate management—reporting greenhouse gas emissions monthly to management including the CEO—but make no link to governing its lobbying practices. 1