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 |
| Moderate |
Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance provides a base level of transparency around its climate-related policy engagement. It identifies its work on financial frameworks for assessing climate risk—specifically, developing financial policies for evaluating climate risk through stress tests aligned with the Korean government’s carbon neutrality policy. The company explains that this effort takes place within a collaborative team that conducts climate stress tests and develops climate scenarios, targeting the Korean government and an international consultative organization. It also clearly outlines its objectives: establishing a measurement and management system for climate risk, formulating financial evaluation policies, supporting national carbon neutrality goals, and addressing natural disaster impacts on the Korean Peninsula. While the policy outcomes and interlocutors are well defined, Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance discloses only a single, broadly described policy area and one principal engagement mechanism, indicating room for more granular disclosure.
|
2
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance discloses a high-level commitment "to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement" and indicates board-level oversight by stating that its ESG Committee "serves as the highest decision-making body that develops ESG strategies and discusses and resolves matters related to ESG activities," which implies that this committee could review the company’s policy engagement. This combination of a stated alignment policy and identification of a governing body suggests some structure for overseeing climate-related advocacy. However, the company does not disclose a specific procedure for monitoring or auditing either its direct lobbying or its membership in trade associations, nor does it describe how it identifies, corrects, or exits misaligned external positions. We found no evidence of a dedicated lobbying review, public alignment report, or concrete mechanisms (e.g., escalation steps, annual assessments) that would demonstrate active management of lobbying alignment. Consequently, while the presence of a Paris-aligned engagement commitment and board-level ESG governance indicates moderate disclosure, the absence of detailed processes, monitoring, and corrective actions limits the strength of its lobbying governance framework.
|
2
|