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 |
DGB Financial Group Inc. discloses clear details on how it engages with climate-related policy, demonstrating moderate transparency. It specifies that it has engaged the Financial Services Commission and the Ministry of Environment by “participating in the system development project” and “providing opinions to ensure that the system is developed in the way necessary for financial hands-on works,” making both its methods and targets explicit. The company names the development and application of “K-Taxonomy,” the Korean green classification system for sustainable finance aligned with the Republic of Korea’s 2050 net-zero vision, but does not identify any additional policies. It also states two specific outcomes it seeks: the “effective application of K-Taxonomy to the financial industry” and integration of the taxonomy into the group’s financial products and services delivery system. While these disclosures provide a clear picture of its lobbying mechanisms, target, and intended impacts within a single policy, they do not cover multiple policies or a wider range of desired legislative outcomes.
|
2
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
DGB Financial Group discloses that its climate-related external engagement is overseen by a tiered governance structure, stating that “DGB Financial Group manages ESG issues, including climate change, through a working-level and executive-level councils and the highest ESG decision-making body under its board, the ESG Committee.” The company explains that “the ESG working-level council and ESG management council frequently consult on ESG issues and response strategies, and report to the ESG committee,” and that this committee “reviews the group’s ESG strategies and directions, deliberates on agendas, and manages implementation status and performance.” By describing how engagement activities are channelled through these bodies to ensure they are “consistent with your climate commitments and/or climate transition plan,” the disclosure provides a concrete process and a named oversight body, indicating moderate governance of lobbying alignment. However, the evidence does not detail how the company distinguishes between its own direct advocacy and membership-based or trade-association lobbying, nor does it outline any mechanisms for assessing or correcting misaligned positions in those forums. We found no reference to publishing a lobbying-alignment review, setting criteria for association participation, or taking action such as engagement or withdrawal where misalignment occurs. Consequently, while the presence of an ESG Committee that reviews external engagement indicates meaningful oversight, the absence of disclosure on monitoring indirect lobbying or producing a public alignment assessment leaves important elements of a robust climate-lobbying governance framework undisclosed.
|
2
|