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 |
| Comprehensive |
GE Vernova discloses a comprehensive picture of its climate-policy lobbying. It identifies a wide range of concrete measures it has engaged on, including the United States’ Inflation Reduction Act, the European Union’s RePowerEU package, the UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s £20 billion CCUS funding programme, the international “London Protocol” governing trans-boundary CO₂ transport, and the EU Wind Package, among others. The company also spells out how it lobbies and whom it targets: it describes “more than 120 meetings” with the Biden Administration and members of Congress, direct advocacy campaigns urging the U.S. Congress and White House to enact clean-energy tax credits, detailed outreach to the U.S. Treasury Department, Department of Energy and Internal Revenue Service on implementation rules, and engagements with foreign “Ministers of Energy and Climate.” Indirect channels are outlined as well, through trade associations such as the American Clean Power Association and the Carbon Capture Coalition, and participation in global fora like COP27 and the Atlantic Council Global Energy Forum. Finally, GE Vernova is explicit about the results it seeks: securing the clean-energy tax incentives embedded in the IRA, achieving “full ratification of the London Protocol,” unlocking UK and EU funding to deploy carbon capture so that the Teesside Power Project can “capture 95 % of the plant’s CO₂ emissions,” and advancing policies that will allow CCS, hydrogen-capable gas turbines and small modular reactors to scale. By naming specific policies, detailing the methods and targets of its engagement, and articulating clear legislative and regulatory outcomes, the company demonstrates a high level of transparency around its climate lobbying activities.
|
4
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Strong |
GE Vernova discloses a well-structured governance system that links climate strategy to its political advocacy, indicating strong oversight of both direct and indirect lobbying. The company states that the Board’s Governance Committee "oversees the Company’s public policy and government relations activities, including policies and guidelines regarding political contributions and lobbying activities, and external reporting on such activities," and that this committee conducts "a yearly review of GE’s political spending policies and lobbying practices" and receives "semi-annual updates on political spending," demonstrating a recurring review mechanism. Responsibility is further embedded in management as "GE’s Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) has day-to-day responsibility for climate change and sustainability matters and works closely with the Head of Government Affairs and Policy…allowing for even greater synergies and alignment of our lobbying activities with our climate strategy," which names specific individuals accountable for alignment. The company describes a concrete process to monitor and influence its trade groups: "Annually, we meet with our major U.S. trade associations to review our policy priorities, including stressing the importance of each to align with the Paris Climate Agreement goals," and when misalignment is found "we begin by reaching out to the trade association to assert influence toward alignment," showing active management of indirect lobbying. GE Vernova also provides public disclosure, noting that "GE currently discloses the names of all trade associations receiving more than $50,000 from the company, including the portion of the company’s payment used for lobbying or political expenditures," and that its Sustainability Report includes "a description of how GE’s climate lobbying activities align" with its climate goals, indicating transparency about direct lobbying positions. However, the company does not disclose commissioning an external or detailed climate-lobbying audit, nor does it set out specific criteria for terminating memberships when influence fails, so the depth of assurance and enforcement remains limited. Overall, the combination of board-level oversight, named executive responsibility, and defined review processes for both direct policy engagement and trade-association activities signifies strong governance, while the absence of an independently verified alignment report suggests room for further robustness.
|
3
|