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 |
Samsung C&T provides some insight into its climate-policy lobbying, but the detail is limited. It identifies one specific measure—the Republic of Korea’s “Act on the Allocation and Trading of Greenhouse-Gas Emission Permits”—and states that it “supports [it] with no exceptions,” showing at least one concrete policy focus. The company explains that it engaged in “continuous consultations with policy makers” to shape the emissions trading scheme, indicating a direct dialogue mechanism, yet it does not name the ministries, agencies, or individual officials involved, leaving the lobbying target only broadly described as “policy makers.” Finally, Samsung C&T discloses the main objective of this engagement—to have the scheme “reflect the characteristics of the construction industry,” especially the shifting boundaries of construction sites—but it outlines just this single desired change and no other specific legislative outcomes. Together, these elements demonstrate partial transparency on what the company lobbies for, how it does so, and why, but the disclosure does not extend beyond one policy, one generalized mechanism, and one stated outcome.
|
1
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Samsung C&T Corp’s disclosures indicate a structured oversight process for its climate-related engagement activities. “Direct external engagement of SAMSUNG C&T is carried out primarily by Environmental team,” which “develops engagement plans and reports them to the top management, ESG Committee and the Board of Directors,” ensuring that approved agendas are implemented. It further states that “Engagement activities that directly or indirectly affect the company’s climate change-related policies, laws and regulations are …conducted by the Partner Relations Team of the Corporate Strategy Office,” and that its “Net-zero plan approved at the ESG Committee” was “publicly disclosed through a resolution by the board of directors,” demonstrating board-level oversight and approval. The company also affirms a “public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” However, while these processes show active management and monitoring of direct policy engagement, we found no evidence of mechanisms for aligning indirect lobbying through trade or industry associations or of detailed criteria for assessing participation in such associations, indicating that the governance framework is not fully comprehensive.
|
2
|