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 |
Aroundtown SA offers only a limited window into its climate-related lobbying. It names a single EU measure—the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive—and notes that its ESG strategy is “aligned” with the revised directive, but it does not describe any direct attempts to influence that legislation or identify additional climate policies it follows. The company states that it does not conduct direct lobbying and instead channels its views through trade bodies such as the German Property Federation (ZIA), the European Public Real Estate Association (EPRA) and the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB). Beyond citing these memberships, it provides no explanation of how those associations engage with policymakers, which government institutions they approach, or what positions they advance on Aroundtown’s behalf. Similarly, the company limits itself to broad aspirations—reducing emissions and improving energy efficiency—without specifying the concrete regulatory outcomes or policy changes it hopes to achieve through its association work. Together, these disclosures leave only a partial picture of the company’s climate-policy engagement mechanisms, the policies involved, and the results it seeks.
|
1
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Aroundtown SA demonstrates a moderate governance process for climate-related lobbying by focusing on indirect engagement through trade associations rather than direct lobbying. The company explains that “in selecting and renewing our memberships, we consider the extent to which an organizations’ values and commitments resonate with our own sustainability ambitions,” and it conducts “internal review of the climate positions of these associations” to ensure alignment. It sets out a clear mechanism that “if misalignments are identified in the future the Group would first engage the relevant organization to address the misalignment, and in the case of irreconcilable differences, terminate its membership.” However, the company does not disclose a specific individual or formal body responsible for overseeing these reviews, and because it “does not directly engage in lobbying activities,” there is no framework described for any direct lobbying oversight or alignment. We found no evidence of named oversight roles or processes beyond this trade-association review, and the absence of any direct-lobbying governance reduces the overall comprehensiveness of the governance framework.
|
2
|