Lobbying Governance
| Overall Assessment | Analysis | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate |
Brunswick discloses a modest but structured approach to governing its climate-related public-policy engagement: it explains that it has “two team members who dedicate a portion of their time to government affairs, including maintaining responsibility for government relations activities and monitoring key policy positions of our trade associations,” and adds that “members of our legal team and/or environmental affairs team are responsible for monitoring emerging regulations or policy and advising appropriate subject matter experts and senior leaders on such emerging regulations or policies so that a Brunswick position and response (if necessary) can be formulated.” These statements indicate the existence of both a process for reviewing external advocacy against climate objectives and designated personnel who oversee it. The company also notes that charitable contributions are subject to review—“Such donations and the receiving organizations are reviewed by senior leaders of the organization to ensure alignment with Brunswick's focus, ethical commitments, brand, and reputation”—demonstrating an additional sign-off step. However, Brunswick does not disclose any board-level or named executive oversight, does not describe how frequently these reviews occur, and provides no evidence that it evaluates, engages, or exits trade associations whose lobbying contradicts its climate strategy. There is likewise no mention of a public lobbying-alignment report, independent audit, or clear criteria for assessing either direct or indirect lobbying activities. Overall, the disclosure shows a defined policy and some oversight mechanisms, but details on monitoring rigor, corrective actions, and board involvement remain absent, indicating a moderate level of lobbying governance transparency.
View Sources
|
C |