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 |
Sumitomo Rubber Industries provides a moderate level of detail about its climate-policy lobbying. It identifies one area of direct engagement – recommendations on Japan’s “Government Institutional Design to expand the use of hydrogen and the budget” – and explains that this work is undertaken in partnership with the national and prefectural governments, showing some specificity but covering only a single policy area. The company is clearer about how it lobbies, noting both indirect action “through the Japan Hydrogen Association” and direct “collaboration with the Japanese government and prefectural government” to address technical challenges and build a hydrogen network, thereby naming the mechanisms used and the policymaking targets. It also explains the results it wants to secure, namely “expanding the use of hydrogen as a next-generation energy source,” enlarging the public “budget” for hydrogen, and using this to reach “carbon neutrality in its production processes by 2050,” which together outline the policy changes it is supporting and the reason for them. While these disclosures give insight into its hydrogen-focused advocacy, the company does not detail multiple distinct climate policies, leaving its overall transparency at a moderate level.
|
2
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Limited |
Sumitomo Rubber Industries provides only limited insight into how it governs its climate-related advocacy. It states that it has “declared that it will achieve carbon neutrality by 2050” and that it is “involved in climate change countermeasures by encouraging and making recommendations to the Hydrogen Value Chain Promotion Council,” signalling that the company does engage in policy advocacy, yet the accompanying governance description focuses mainly on broad sustainability oversight rather than a lobbying-specific framework. The disclosure explains that “the president, as the person responsible for all matters pertaining to climate change…participates in discussions and deliberations at meetings of our Sustainability Promotion Committee,” and that the Sustainability Promotion Committee and its “Carbon Neutral Subcommittee…lead efforts related to climate change…planning activities, setting goals, approving action plans, and managing progress.” These passages show that named senior executives and committees review climate activities and thus offer a degree of oversight over engagement, but there is no explanation of any dedicated procedure for monitoring direct or trade-association lobbying, no mention of alignment checks or corrective actions, and no reference to publishing any lobbying-alignment review. Consequently, while the company does acknowledge responsibility for ensuring its “engagement activities are consistent with [its] overall climate change strategy,” the disclosure stops short of detailing a structured lobbying governance process, leaving gaps around how lobbying positions are assessed, who signs them off, and how misalignments would be addressed. This indicates only a basic level of governance for lobbying alignment.
|
1
|