Duskin Co Ltd

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

Direct Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Comment	Score
Limited	Duskin Co. Ltd. provides only limited insight into its climate-related lobbying. It notes participation in the Kansai SDGs Platform and a collaborative agreement with Osaka Prefecture to advance climate-change mitigation and broader SDG initiatives, indicating some engagement with a governmental body, but it does not name any specific climate law, regulation, or legislative proposal it has tried to influence. The description of its activities cites general collaboration and event-hosting rather than detailing concrete lobbying tools such as formal submissions, meetings, or letters, and no other policymaking targets are identified beyond the broad reference to Osaka Prefecture. Finally, the company simply states an intention to contribute to regional revitalisation and alignment with the Paris Agreement without spelling out the precise regulatory changes or quantitative outcomes it seeks. This lack of specificity on the policies addressed, the methods used, and the objectives pursued means its disclosure remains cursory.	1

Lobbying Governance

Overall Assessment	Comment	Score
Moderate	Duskin Co Ltd has put in place defined processes to align both its direct engagement with policymakers and its indirect engagement through industry associations with its climate commitments. In direct engagement, the company “支持・表明” support for mitigation activities that align with its “ダスキン環境目標2030,” and in its indirect engagement it becomes an association board member and “積極的に気候関連の会合に参画し団体の気候変動に対する立場を主導” to steer the association’s climate stance, ensuring that its advocacy is consistent with its overall climate strategy. This indicates active alignment of direct and indirect lobbying activities, yet the company does not disclose a specific individual or formal body responsible for oversight of these processes, nor does it describe any formal monitoring or review mechanisms for its engagement activities.	2