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 |
| Strong |
Hyosung TNC offers a solid level of transparency on its climate-policy lobbying. It identifies the specific framework it engages with—the Korean “Act on the Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse-gas Emission Permits” that underpins the K-ETS—although this is the only policy it names in detail. The company explains how it seeks to influence that scheme, describing multiple engagement channels such as attending “government briefing sessions and public hearings,” supplying data to regulators, submitting proposals on allocation rules, and voicing its position “through the Korea Chemical Fiber Association,” whose chief executive relays views to the Carbon Neutrality Green Growth Commission. It also makes the objectives of these efforts clear: it has “recommended changing industrial criteria for free allocation of the fiber industry,” called for “facility-specific measurement instrument support and consulting for product-specific carbon emissions calculation,” and aims to help smaller textile firms establish product-level carbon-management systems. By setting out the mechanisms it uses, the government bodies it addresses, and several concrete policy changes it is seeking, the company demonstrates a strong degree of openness about its climate-related lobbying activities, though it stops short of cataloguing engagement with a broader range of climate policies.
|
3
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Hyosung TNC discloses a governance structure that links climate-related engagement decisions to senior oversight, noting that “Hyosung Corporation has established the ESG Management Committee within the board of directors (BoD)” and that the operating companies, including Hyosung TNC, “submit or report major agenda items from the committees to the BoD.” Day-to-day coordination sits with the “ESG Management Team [which] collects information on climate change,” while final go-/no-go decisions on policy participation are taken when “the ESG Management Committee deals the related issues and made decisions about whether activities proceed or not.” The company explicitly recognises both governmental and trade-association channels, describing engagement across “supply chain, customers, government and industrial association,” and it states a “public commitment…to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” This indicates that a defined committee, reporting up to the Board, is charged with reviewing and approving climate-related advocacy, showing moderate governance. However, the disclosures stop short of describing how the committee monitors ongoing lobbying activities, provides no evidence of systematic alignment checks for either direct advocacy or trade-association positions, and offers no public audit or detailed report of climate-lobbying alignment; therefore, the governance framework appears limited to internal decision-making processes without transparent monitoring or corrective mechanisms.
|
2
|