Givaudan SA – Lobbying Governance & Transparency

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:

Lobbying Governance

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Moderate	Givaudan has implemented a lobbying policy and internal alignment processes to support its climate engagement, but the governance framework does not clearly identify an oversight body or monitoring routine specifically for lobbying activities. Its “Global Charitable Donations, Philanthropy, Sponsorship, and Lobbying Policy” “prohibits donations to any political party and excludes as causes for charitable donations organisations that advocate or support policies or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, skin colour, age, gender, disability, national origin or sexual orientation,” and the policy states that “as a rule, Givaudan does not engage in direct lobbying. We work with interest groups, NGOs and other groups to help our advocacy efforts and we are active participants in industry associations worldwide,” indicating a formal stance on political contributions and advocacy channels. To ensure consistency with its climate strategy, the company reports that “we continuously align the activities of the two divisions and of the corporate functions around the agreed commitments and targets and we widely share within the organisation through KPIs and scorecards,” noting that “eco-efficiency CAPEX investments are frequently discussed by several leadership teams, including the executive committee” to support a unified voice in external platforms. For indirect lobbying, Givaudan engages with industry associations such as IFRA and IOFI and commits that “in case there is an inconsistency we would escalate the matter to the board of directors of the association before anything is officially translated into policies” and “use all established means described in the association governance (from proposing alternatives up to vetoing)” to align association positions with the company’s climate goals. However, we found no evidence of a specific individual or formal body tasked with overseeing or reviewing the alignment of lobbying activities, nor a regular audit or published report dedicated to climate-related lobbying efforts. View Sources	C

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Moderate

Givaudan has implemented a lobbying policy and internal alignment processes to support its climate engagement, but the governance framework does not clearly identify an oversight body or monitoring routine specifically for lobbying activities. Its “Global Charitable Donations, Philanthropy, Sponsorship, and Lobbying Policy” “prohibits donations to any political party and excludes as causes for charitable donations organisations that advocate or support policies or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, skin colour, age, gender, disability, national origin or sexual orientation,” and the policy states that “as a rule, Givaudan does not engage in direct lobbying. We work with interest groups, NGOs and other groups to help our advocacy efforts and we are active participants in industry associations worldwide,” indicating a formal stance on political contributions and advocacy channels. To ensure consistency with its climate strategy, the company reports that “we continuously align the activities of the two divisions and of the corporate functions around the agreed commitments and targets and we widely share within the organisation through KPIs and scorecards,” noting that “eco-efficiency CAPEX investments are frequently discussed by several leadership teams, including the executive committee” to support a unified voice in external platforms. For indirect lobbying, Givaudan engages with industry associations such as IFRA and IOFI and commits that “in case there is an inconsistency we would escalate the matter to the board of directors of the association before anything is officially translated into policies” and “use all established means described in the association governance (from proposing alternatives up to vetoing)” to align association positions with the company’s climate goals. However, we found no evidence of a specific individual or formal body tasked with overseeing or reviewing the alignment of lobbying activities, nor a regular audit or published report dedicated to climate-related lobbying efforts.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Limited	Givaudan provides only a basic level of insight into its climate-policy advocacy. It alludes to participating in industry bodies such as IFRA and IOFI, “commenting on emerging legislation/regulation,” signing collective letters, and sitting on association boards, but it does not spell out the specific forms of engagement (for example, individual meetings, submissions or consultations) or identify the public authorities that receive these inputs. The company names just one discernible climate measure it has sought to influence—its signature on an open letter urging the EU to raise its 2030 greenhouse-gas reduction target to 55 percent—while most other references remain generic, such as supporting “responsible and proportionate European chemical regulations” or Business for Nature’s campaigns. Likewise, the desired outcomes are framed in broad terms like stronger “science-based safety regulations” or a “nature-positive economy,” with only the call for a 55 percent EU target offering a concrete objective. Because the disclosures lack detail on additional policies, the precise lobbying channels used, and the specific changes the company is advocating, the overall transparency of Givaudan’s climate lobbying remains limited.	D