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 |
Qatar National Bank provides only limited visibility into its climate-policy lobbying. It names a single, identifiable policy focus—the Qatar National Environment and Climate Change Strategy—and explains that its engagement took place through an industry working group convened by, and in partnership with, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. The disclosure clarifies two concrete channels—participation in the ministry-led working group and collaboration to launch a Sustainable Environment Portal and sector standards—and explicitly identifies the MOECC as the target of these efforts, demonstrating some clarity on how and where the bank seeks to influence policy. However, it does not go beyond this single policy reference and it describes its objective only in broad terms, stating that the purpose was to “support the evolution of ESG practices in the domestic market to in turn support the delivery of QNE,” without detailing any specific legislative amendments, targets, or regulatory changes it seeks. As a result, while the mechanisms and target are partially transparent, the scope of policies covered and the concrete outcomes sought remain vague.
|
1
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Qatar National Bank QPSC has embedded sustainability oversight in its corporate governance, stating that “The QNB Group sustainability programme … is approved by the Board” and that “the Group Sustainability team engages with external stakeholders and drives all ESG-related reporting, disclosures, and interactions.” In describing its climate-related policy engagement, QNB clarifies that “Any participation is pre-aligned and approved by senior management, with our approach and response consistent with our climate and sustainability approach and commitments,” and assigns this to a “designated point of contact (e.g. Head of Sustainability).” However, while these steps provide a process and identify responsible individuals for aligning direct engagements with the bank’s climate strategy, we found no evidence of structured oversight for indirect lobbying through trade associations, no requirement to review or exit associations whose positions conflict with its climate policy, and no publication of an audit or independent report specifically evaluating its lobbying alignment. This indicates moderate governance of direct climate-related engagement but a lack of transparency around broader lobbying oversight.
|
2
|