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 |
Analysis |
Score |
|
Moderate
|
SK Hynix explains that it has embedded governance for climate-related engagement within senior decision-making bodies, stating that “climate strategy and engagement decision-making systems are integrated into the Continuing Management Committee and ESG Management Committee, and engagement is aligned with this,” and that the ESG Management Committee is “comprised of key executives including the CEO” who “share in-depth discussions on mid-to-long-term ESG strategy direction and specific action plans.” It also affirms a “public commitment…to conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement” and notes that a unit “dedicated to ESG Strategy” sits “directly under the CEO,” signalling clear oversight for ensuring external activities are consistent with climate objectives. These disclosures indicate a formal process and named governance bodies that oversee alignment of external engagement with climate strategy, which suggests moderate governance strength. However, the company does not disclose how these committees specifically review or monitor lobbying positions, offers no detail on procedures for assessing or influencing trade-association advocacy, and provides no publicly available lobbying-alignment report; accordingly, evidence of active management of direct and indirect lobbying remains limited.
View Sources
|
C
|
| Overall Assessment |
Analysis |
Score |
|
Moderate
|
SK Hynix provides a moderate level of transparency around its climate-policy lobbying. It identifies a single, clearly defined policy focus – the Republic of Korea’s national emissions-trading scheme and the associated “guidelines for allocation, adjustment and cancellation of GHG emission rights” – but does not indicate whether it engages on any other climate measures. The company explains how it lobbies, noting that it “offered our opinions and/or proposals at the industry round-table conference with government officials,” thereby revealing at least one concrete mechanism and naming the government officials in charge of the scheme as its target. Most detailed is the description of what it is trying to achieve: it seeks to “change the way of additional assignment for [the] semiconductor industry,” to have regulators “separat[e] the existing facility and the new facility for mitigation of an application requirements of the additional allocation for new fab,” to adopt specific emission coefficients for semiconductor processes, and to revise the Tier-3 destruction-removal-efficiency calculation for scrubbers and other GHG-control devices. While these disclosures outline several specific policy outcomes, the limited range of policies named and the single lobbying channel described mean that the overall picture, though reasonably clear, is not yet comprehensive.
|
C
|