Lobbying Governance
| Overall Assessment | Analysis | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate |
Spectris discloses a governance structure that links climate commitments to external engagement decisions, indicating a moderate level of control over climate-related lobbying and funding activities. It states that “our Governance procedures enable us to capture the appropriateness of external engagement activities within the commitments made in our Net Zero roadmap at both a Business and Group level,” and that “all funding of third-party organisations will require final approval by the Board,” demonstrating a formal sign-off process for indirect engagement. Responsibility is clearly assigned: the external-engagement review at business level is “co-ordinated by the Sustainability Steering Group, an Executive sub-Committee led by the Head of Sustainability,” while, at group level, “climate-related issues are reviewed and discussed at regular scheduled Board meetings throughout the year.” This shows that both a named individual (Head of Sustainability) and the Board oversee alignment. However, the company does not disclose a detailed methodology for assessing the policy positions of trade associations or lobbyists, nor does it report on any audits, corrective actions, or withdrawals from misaligned bodies, and there is no explicit reference to how its own direct lobbying positions are reviewed for consistency with its climate strategy. Consequently, while oversight roles and a high-level alignment process are described, the absence of publicly available alignment reviews, monitoring criteria, or evidence of active management of trade-association positions limits the strength of the governance framework.
View Sources
|
C |