Sinyi Realty 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	Sinyi Realty provides only limited insight into how it governs climate-related lobbying. The company states that “The Board is the highest supervisory level of risk management and is responsible for ensuring the effective implementation of the risk management system,” and notes that “One of our Directors on Board is the representative of the China Urban Realty Association (CURA) and other associations,” bringing external climate issues back to the Board “to ensure that the global trend of climate change is consistent with the implementation of our policies through the Board management mechanism.” It also explains that a “cross-department sub-unit, the ‘Environment Group’ under TEM committee is responsible for implementing the environmental and climate-related projects,” with the Vice General Manager participating in BCSD-Taiwan meetings. These disclosures identify the Board, the Total Ethical Management Committee, and named individuals as having some oversight of external engagement, which indicates initial governance attention. However, we found no evidence of a formal policy or procedure that systematically reviews or monitors the company’s direct lobbying positions or the climate-policy stances of the trade associations it belongs to, no description of criteria or escalation steps for addressing misalignment, and no published lobbying-alignment review or audit. Overall, the company discloses who is involved in climate engagement oversight but does not outline a structured governance process for ensuring that its lobbying activities—either direct or through associations—remain aligned with its climate commitments. View Sources	D

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Limited

Sinyi Realty provides only limited insight into how it governs climate-related lobbying. The company states that “The Board is the highest supervisory level of risk management and is responsible for ensuring the effective implementation of the risk management system,” and notes that “One of our Directors on Board is the representative of the China Urban Realty Association (CURA) and other associations,” bringing external climate issues back to the Board “to ensure that the global trend of climate change is consistent with the implementation of our policies through the Board management mechanism.” It also explains that a “cross-department sub-unit, the ‘Environment Group’ under TEM committee is responsible for implementing the environmental and climate-related projects,” with the Vice General Manager participating in BCSD-Taiwan meetings. These disclosures identify the Board, the Total Ethical Management Committee, and named individuals as having some oversight of external engagement, which indicates initial governance attention. However, we found no evidence of a formal policy or procedure that systematically reviews or monitors the company’s direct lobbying positions or the climate-policy stances of the trade associations it belongs to, no description of criteria or escalation steps for addressing misalignment, and no published lobbying-alignment review or audit. Overall, the company discloses who is involved in climate engagement oversight but does not outline a structured governance process for ensuring that its lobbying activities—either direct or through associations—remain aligned with its climate commitments.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Limited	Sinyi Realty provides some specific insight into its climate-related policy engagement, but the coverage is narrow. It identifies one concrete policy initiative—the Environmental Protection Administration’s “Guidelines for Carbon Footprint PCR Drafting, Citation, and Amendment,” describing its role in shaping the first product-category rules for real-estate business services. The company explains the method it used, namely convening meetings with real-estate agents, brokers, associations and other stakeholders to gather input that was then shared with Taiwan’s Environmental Protection Administration, making the government body it sought to influence explicit. It also makes clear the objective of this engagement: to secure approval of the draft PCRs so that a global model for calculating the carbon footprint of real-estate services could be established. Beyond this single example, however, the disclosures do not name any other climate policies, offer additional lobbying channels, or set out multiple positions or goals, limiting the overall transparency of the company’s lobbying activity.	D