Svenska Cellulosa AB SCA – 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
Limited	SCA discloses a limited governance framework for its lobbying activities that includes named oversight and transparency but lacks a defined process for aligning its lobbying efforts with climate-specific objectives. The company states that "SCA’s Senior Vice President Sustainability and Communications is responsible for political advocacy and lobbying activities," and notes that "the Board of Directors and the CEO hold overall responsibility for governing SCA’s sustainability efforts," indicating clear assignment of accountability. SCA also reports it "works continuously to monitor and evaluate policy proposals and regulatory changes that affect the competitiveness of the forest industry and the industry’s opportunities to contribute to the green transition," and participates in the "EU Transparency Register" which "contains information about our contact with EU institutions, including meetings with EU officials, participation in public consultations and participation in events." However, we found no evidence of a formal policy or process to ensure that direct lobbying is aligned with its climate positions or to manage indirect lobbying through industry associations, nor any documented review or sign-off procedure for climate lobbying, which suggests its governance falls short of providing mechanisms to enforce alignment and accountability for climate-related advocacy. View Sources	D

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Limited

SCA discloses a limited governance framework for its lobbying activities that includes named oversight and transparency but lacks a defined process for aligning its lobbying efforts with climate-specific objectives. The company states that "SCA’s Senior Vice President Sustainability and Communications is responsible for political advocacy and lobbying activities," and notes that "the Board of Directors and the CEO hold overall responsibility for governing SCA’s sustainability efforts," indicating clear assignment of accountability. SCA also reports it "works continuously to monitor and evaluate policy proposals and regulatory changes that affect the competitiveness of the forest industry and the industry’s opportunities to contribute to the green transition," and participates in the "EU Transparency Register" which "contains information about our contact with EU institutions, including meetings with EU officials, participation in public consultations and participation in events." However, we found no evidence of a formal policy or process to ensure that direct lobbying is aligned with its climate positions or to manage indirect lobbying through industry associations, nor any documented review or sign-off procedure for climate lobbying, which suggests its governance falls short of providing mechanisms to enforce alignment and accountability for climate-related advocacy.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Moderate	SCA provides a moderate level of transparency on its climate-related lobbying. It names several identifiable policy files it engages on, including the EU Deforestation Regulation, the EU “Fit for 55” package and proposed revisions to the FSC forest-management standard, showing that its activity is linked to concrete pieces of regulation rather than only broad themes. The company is most explicit about how it lobbies: it records participation in “public consultations, public inquiries and public consultations on legislation and policy initiatives”, notes “meetings with EU officials, participation in public consultations and participation in events”, and confirms it is listed in the EU Transparency Register, thereby identifying both the mechanisms used and the institutional targets of those efforts. In contrast, the outcomes it is seeking are expressed largely as overarching aspirations such as ensuring “that policymakers consider the climate benefits of forests as a whole” or, in the FSC context, that “climate benefits and biodiversity are considered in parallel”, without translating these ambitions into specific legislative amendments, quantified targets or timetables. As a result, while the company is clear about where and how it engages, it offers only limited detail on the precise policy changes it wishes to secure.	C