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
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Strong |
Cathay Pacific is generally transparent about its climate-policy lobbying. It identifies the main policies it works on, most notably the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) and the global Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) being developed under the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The airline explains that it participates in ICAO Working Group 4, IATA’s Climate Change Task Force, the Aviation Global Deal initiative and similar forums, thereby revealing both direct and indirect mechanisms it uses to reach decision-makers at ICAO and within the EU. It also sets out the concrete outcomes it seeks: it “supports emissions trading as one of the interim solutions” but “does not support the imposition of the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) to international flights,” arguing that “a regional instead of global approach would cause market distortion,” and instead advocates for aviation emissions to be governed by “a global sectoral scheme under ICAO” that delivers airlines’ commitment to “carbon-neutral growth from 2020.” These disclosures give clear insight into the company’s policy priorities, the channels through which it pursues them, and the specific regulatory changes it wants to see, although the descriptions of its engagement methods and the government bodies it targets remain at a high level rather than naming the individual agencies or officials it contacts.
|
3
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Strong |
Cathay Pacific discloses a clear governance structure for managing its climate-related policy engagement that covers both its own advocacy and its participation in external industry bodies. The company states that “Climate change has been a major focus of Cathay Pacific where the Board is ultimately accountable for our climate-related strategy and performance” and that engagement activities are overseen by two specialist committees: “both the Sustainable Development Committee (SDC) and the Climate Actions Steering Group (CASG) are dedicated to … climate engagement activities across business divisions and geographies to ensure they are consistent with our climate strategy.” The SDC, “chaired by the Chief Executive Officer,” and the CASG, “chaired by the Chief Financial Officer,” “discuss, review and approve” the company’s “positions and direction” before any engagement takes place, demonstrating an internal review mechanism for direct lobbying. For indirect lobbying, the company notes that “We take appropriate action when the industry association position is notably weaker, or conflicts with our own stance on climate change,” indicating that trade-association positions are assessed and, where necessary, challenged or corrected. These disclosures identify named senior leaders and formal bodies with responsibility for oversight, describe how alignment is checked before advocacy occurs, and reference corrective action with industry groups, all of which indicate strong governance of both direct and indirect climate lobbying. However, the company does not disclose a standalone, publicly available lobbying-alignment report or an external audit of its climate lobbying, nor does it provide detailed criteria or timelines for its association reviews, so the depth and transparency of monitoring are not yet comprehensive.
|
3
|