Verisk Analytics 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
Limited	Verisk discloses only limited information that relates to the governance of its climate-related lobbying or public-policy engagement. The company states that it has “a public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement” and notes that its Board-adopted “Statement on Climate Change… provides a high-level governance framework for Verisk’s internal and external climate-related activities,” indicating an intention that any external engagement be consistent with its climate commitments. Oversight of general climate matters is assigned to multiple bodies, as the Board and its Governance, Corporate Sustainability and Nominating Committee “evaluate the Company’s key ESG risks and opportunities, including its climate strategy,” and the CEO is “ultimately responsible for assessing and managing climate-related activities on behalf of the organization.” However, the disclosures do not describe any specific process for reviewing or approving lobbying positions, monitoring trade-association advocacy, or correcting misalignment; nor do they identify a mechanism dedicated to tracking direct or indirect lobbying activities. We found no evidence of a lobbying audit, trade-association alignment review, or procedures that link the detailed Board oversight structure to the company’s policy advocacy. Consequently, while the public commitment to align external engagement with the Paris Agreement and high-level governance roles indicate some attention to climate engagement, Verisk does not disclose a defined governance process for managing or assuring alignment of its lobbying activities. View Sources	D

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Limited

Verisk discloses only limited information that relates to the governance of its climate-related lobbying or public-policy engagement. The company states that it has “a public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement” and notes that its Board-adopted “Statement on Climate Change… provides a high-level governance framework for Verisk’s internal and external climate-related activities,” indicating an intention that any external engagement be consistent with its climate commitments. Oversight of general climate matters is assigned to multiple bodies, as the Board and its Governance, Corporate Sustainability and Nominating Committee “evaluate the Company’s key ESG risks and opportunities, including its climate strategy,” and the CEO is “ultimately responsible for assessing and managing climate-related activities on behalf of the organization.” However, the disclosures do not describe any specific process for reviewing or approving lobbying positions, monitoring trade-association advocacy, or correcting misalignment; nor do they identify a mechanism dedicated to tracking direct or indirect lobbying activities. We found no evidence of a lobbying audit, trade-association alignment review, or procedures that link the detailed Board oversight structure to the company’s policy advocacy. Consequently, while the public commitment to align external engagement with the Paris Agreement and high-level governance roles indicate some attention to climate engagement, Verisk does not disclose a defined governance process for managing or assuring alignment of its lobbying activities.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Strong	Verisk Analytics provides a solid level of transparency around its climate-policy lobbying. It identifies several concrete policy files it has engaged on, including the California wildfire insurance bill "SB 292," the "proposed California regulations related to wildfire risk rating and mitigation," and Canada’s legislated net-zero framework, while also noting instances where it engaged on climate matters but “none” of the discussions related to a specific policy. The company is especially clear about how it lobbies and whom it targets: disclosures describe presentations, public comments, advisory-committee participation, and one-to-one discussions, and name the counterparties involved, such as the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, the U.S. Federal Insurance Office, Natural Resources Canada, the California Senate Insurance Committee, and state insurance regulators in New York, Louisiana, Maryland, Washington and Florida. In several cases Verisk also states the outcomes it is pursuing, for example advising Natural Resources Canada to support “investments that may help achieve a net zero emissions pathway” and providing “feedback on proposed regulations related to wildfire risk rating and mitigation in wildfire risk models” to the California Department of Insurance. Although not every engagement is tied to an explicit policy ask, the combination of named policies, detailed mechanisms and at least two clearly articulated objectives demonstrates a strong degree of disclosure about the company’s climate-related lobbying activities.	B