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 |
Lion Corp provides only limited insight into its climate-related lobbying. It indicates that it collaborates with "national governments, municipalities, companies, and organizations" on environmental initiatives such as "CO2 reduction through water conservation," "recycling used toothbrushes," and "horizontal recycling of refill pouches," showing that some form of engagement mechanism exists, but it does not name the government departments, legislative bodies or industry fora it contacts, nor does it describe whether the engagement is through meetings, written submissions, or trade associations. The company likewise refers broadly to promoting "low-carbon products and services" and supporting a Japanese national movement to create "new, rich lifestyles that lead to decarbonization," yet it does not identify any specific statute, regulation or policy proposal it seeks to influence. Finally, while it expresses a general intention to aid decarbonisation and recycling, it does not articulate concrete policy changes, targets or amendments it is pursuing. Taken together, the disclosures acknowledge some climate-policy engagement but fall short of clearly identifying the policies addressed, the precise lobbying channels used, or the outcomes sought.
|
1
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Strong |
Lion Corp discloses a well-defined internal mechanism to keep both its direct and indirect policy advocacy in line with its climate strategy. The company explains that “経営層が業界団体（日本石鹸洗剤工業会、プラスチック推進協議会等）の役員となっており…政策策定に直接的/間接的に関与している,” confirming that senior executives engage through trade associations while also influencing policy directly. Before any such engagement that falls outside these core associations, “本社サステナビリティ部門…に事前報告するルール” requires advance notification to the headquarters Sustainability Department, which then “Ｅ分科会責任者と協議の上、最高サステナビリティ責任者、またはサステナビリティ推進協議会に報告” so that the Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) or the Sustainability Promotion Council can “当該エンゲージメントと当社グループの気候関連戦略が整合しているかを検討・確認する.” If misalignment is found, “整合していない場合はエンゲージメント方針・内容の調整を行う,” demonstrating an active mechanism for correcting positions. Outcomes are again escalated, as “当該エンゲージメントの結果は、最高サステナビリティ責任者、またはサステナビリティ推進協議会に報告され、…一致を再確認する.” This chain of pre-approval, alignment review, and post-engagement reporting, overseen by the CSO and a dedicated sustainability committee, indicates strong governance over both direct lobbying and participation in industry bodies. The disclosures, however, do not reference a publicly available alignment audit or third-party review, nor do they detail the frequency or scope of formal reviews, so transparency is solid but not comprehensive.
|
3
|