Texas Instruments Inc – Lobbying Governance & Transparency

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:

Lobbying Governance

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Strong	Texas Instruments discloses a structured framework that links its policy engagement to company objectives and climate strategy, indicating strong governance of both direct and indirect lobbying. It explains that “company objectives are discussed and agreed upon by leaders…[and] shared with TI consortia participants,” and when “new or different positions are being pursued by the consortia, those are reviewed with TI leaders for alignment consideration,” demonstrating an explicit mechanism to monitor the positions taken by trade associations. For direct advocacy, TI states that “we advocate for government policies that help us attract talent, drive innovation, and promote competitiveness” and that it “conduct[s] public policy activities transparently, ethically and in compliance with relevant laws,” while “the Governance and Shareholder Relations committee of TI’s board of directors reviews these actions annually to confirm their consistency with company policies,” showing regular oversight of its own lobbying. The company adds that “stakeholders can contact our vice president of Worldwide Government Relations or the TI Ethics Office” if concerns arise, naming both a board-level committee and a senior executive accountable for alignment. Although TI currently answers “No” to having “a public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” the disclosed annual board review, due-diligence procedures, and the explicit alignment check for consortia participants indicate a well-defined governance process; however, it does not publish a stand-alone climate-lobbying audit or commit to Paris-aligned advocacy, which would further strengthen transparency. View Sources	B

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Strong

Texas Instruments discloses a structured framework that links its policy engagement to company objectives and climate strategy, indicating strong governance of both direct and indirect lobbying. It explains that “company objectives are discussed and agreed upon by leaders…[and] shared with TI consortia participants,” and when “new or different positions are being pursued by the consortia, those are reviewed with TI leaders for alignment consideration,” demonstrating an explicit mechanism to monitor the positions taken by trade associations. For direct advocacy, TI states that “we advocate for government policies that help us attract talent, drive innovation, and promote competitiveness” and that it “conduct[s] public policy activities transparently, ethically and in compliance with relevant laws,” while “the Governance and Shareholder Relations committee of TI’s board of directors reviews these actions annually to confirm their consistency with company policies,” showing regular oversight of its own lobbying. The company adds that “stakeholders can contact our vice president of Worldwide Government Relations or the TI Ethics Office” if concerns arise, naming both a board-level committee and a senior executive accountable for alignment. Although TI currently answers “No” to having “a public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” the disclosed annual board review, due-diligence procedures, and the explicit alignment check for consortia participants indicate a well-defined governance process; however, it does not publish a stand-alone climate-lobbying audit or commit to Paris-aligned advocacy, which would further strengthen transparency.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
None	Texas Instruments provides virtually no transparent information about any climate-related lobbying. Although the company notes, "Across the globe, we engage with policymakers, government authorities, industry organizations and peers to discuss and identify solutions to shared challenges," it never names a single climate policy, law or regulation it has tried to influence, offers no details on the specific governmental bodies or decision-makers it targets, and gives no insight into the concrete outcomes it seeks. The only statement of intent—“to protect our ability to engineer progress, we advocate for government policies that help us attract talent, drive innovation, and promote competitiveness”—remains broad and unrelated to identifiable climate measures. Because the disclosures omit identifiable policies, mechanisms, or desired policy changes connected to climate action, the company’s transparency on climate lobbying is effectively absent.	E