Nagase & Co Ltd

Lobbying Transparency and Governance

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:

Direct Lobbying Transparency
Overall Assessment Comment Score
Strong Nagase & Co. Ltd. provides a high level of transparency about its climate-policy lobbying. It identifies concrete Japanese legislation it engages with, including the Act on Promotion of Global Warming Countermeasures and the Act on the Rationalization of Energy Use, and aligns its activity with the government’s 46 % greenhouse-gas reduction target for 2030. The company also explains how it engages: it takes part in the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry’s Zero Emission Challenge, collaborates directly with policymakers under the two acts, and advocates legislative solutions such as mandatory carbon-reporting rules, naming the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry as a primary target. Finally, Nagase is explicit about what it wants to achieve—supporting the national 46 % reduction goal, endorsing carbon neutrality by 2050, and backing compulsory carbon-disclosure requirements—demonstrating clear policy positions and desired outcomes. While the narrative does not give granular detail on individual meetings or submissions, it still offers solid evidence of the policies addressed, the engagement channels used, and the specific climate outcomes sought, reflecting strong overall disclosure of its climate lobbying activities. 3
Lobbying Governance
Overall Assessment Comment Score
Moderate Nagase & Co Ltd has implemented a clear review process for its indirect climate lobbying: "当社の代表取締役社長執行役員が日本貿易協会の常任理事を務め、当社の社員が日本貿易協会の地球環境委員会の委員として協会の活動に参加し、気候変動関連政策制定に向けた業界団体の立場および当社気候変動戦略に沿った政策を提言しています", and all "政策提言及び反映結果" are reported to "グループ戦略会議及び取締役会等" and subjected to a "レビューを受ける仕組み" to ensure consistency with its climate commitments. The company also affirms it will "conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement." However, while it names executives and a formal board review, we found no evidence of a similar governance process for its direct policymaker engagement—beyond general support for emissions-reduction laws—and no published audit or criteria for managing or exiting potentially misaligned trade-association positions. 2