Direct Lobbying Transparency
Overall Assessment | Comment | Score |
---|---|---|
Comprehensive | Microsoft provides an extensive and specific picture of its climate-policy advocacy. It names a wide range of concrete measures it has engaged on, including the European Commission’s Carbon Removals Certification Framework, the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act and FERC transmission rules, Virginia bills SB1027/HB981 to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the Clean Futures Act, Singapore’s Long-Term Low Emissions Strategy consultation, the EU Game Console Voluntary Agreement, revisions to the Non-Financial Reporting Directive, and many other identifiable initiatives across the EU, United States and Asia. The company is equally explicit about how it lobbies: it files formal submissions and comment letters (e.g., to the U.S. SEC, the EU public consultation on sustainable corporate governance, the U.S. House Energy & Commerce Committee), participates in advocacy days such as “Lawmaker Education & Advocacy Day on Carbon Pricing,” signs joint letters to policymakers (for example to MEP Pascal Canfin on a Green Recovery and to the Trump Administration on the Paris Agreement), and holds regular meetings with officials such as the European Commission Directorate-General for Energy and the Singapore National Climate Change Secretariat. Desired outcomes are clearly spelled out—for instance, Microsoft seeks “clear definitions and high-quality standards” in the EU CRCF, supports “a price on carbon and a green recovery package,” pushes for grid-decarbonization rules and expanded transmission capacity in the United States, advocates for renewable energy crediting and easier grid access in Singapore, and calls for Virginia to adopt cap-and-trade through RGGI. By disclosing specific policies, the methods and targets of its engagement, and the concrete legislative or regulatory changes it wants to see, Microsoft demonstrates a comprehensive level of transparency around its climate-related lobbying activities. | 4 |