Lamb Weston Holdings Inc

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
Moderate	Lamb Weston provides a reasonable level of detail on its climate-policy lobbying. It explicitly lists three state-level measures it has engaged on—“Washington State: Cap & Invest,” “Oregon State: Cap & Trade,” and “WA & OR: Packaging/recycle content ERP”—clearly identifying the policies in question. The company also outlines how it engages, noting that “the majority of engagement occurs through trade association: Food Northwest” and that it undertakes “direct engagement in Oregon” through “Lamb Weston leadership, ESG and Government affairs and policymakers,” thereby describing both indirect and direct mechanisms and pointing to specific state-government targets. However, its disclosure of the purpose of these activities is more general; it states only that the aim is to “help educate lawmakers on impacts of these policies on the rural areas where we operate,” without detailing the concrete legislative changes or quantitative goals it seeks. Overall, the company is moderately transparent, clearly naming the policies and lobbying channels but offering only broad statements about the outcomes it hopes to achieve.	2

Lobbying Governance

Overall Assessment	Comment	Score
Moderate	Lamb Weston has taken steps to align its indirect lobbying with its climate strategy by responding to a request to “describe the process(es) your organization has in place to ensure that your engagement activities are consistent with your overall climate change strategy,” noting that “Lamb Weston’s Sr. Director ESG Administration sits on the association’s Sustainability Committee and is part of its Carbon Task Force.” It also affirms through a “public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement” that its policy positions will reflect those targets. However, we found no evidence of a structured internal review or monitoring process for its direct lobbying activities, no periodic audits or board sign-off on its advocacy plans, and no broader formal oversight body dedicated to ensuring that all lobbying remains consistent with its climate objectives, indicating a moderate level of governance over its climate-related lobbying.	2