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 |
Indorama Ventures provides a high level of transparency on its climate-policy advocacy. It names a range of identifiable policies it seeks to influence, including Thailand’s draft “Cap-and-Trade scheme,” the negotiations for a “legally binding instrument on plastic pollution” under UNEP’s INC process, and national or regional measures such as “Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes” and “Design for Recycling” regulations, all tied to the Paris Agreement and Thailand’s NDC. The company also describes in detail how it lobbies: it holds “regular meetings with Members of Congress representing states where the Company has a significant presence,” “interacts with federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Commerce,” “engaged with legislators directly and through trade associations” such as the Committee of PET Manufacturers Europe and EUROPEN, and provides “insightful comments” to the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization. Finally, it is explicit about the outcomes it seeks, aiming to secure rules that “require products to be designed for ease of recycling,” achieve “high return rates and public participation” through EPR, build “efficient collection systems for plastic packaging waste,” and promote recycled PET to deliver “lower carbon footprint, lower Global Warming Potential, lower resource depletion, [and] lower water depletion.” By detailing the specific policies, the channels of engagement, the government bodies targeted, and the concrete legislative changes it supports, the company demonstrates comprehensive disclosure of its climate-related lobbying activities.
|
4
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Strong |
Indorama Ventures discloses a well-defined governance structure that reaches from Board level to an operational Advocacy Team, indicating that climate-related lobbying is monitored and overseen at senior levels. The company explains that the Sustainability and Risk Management Committee (SRMC) and the Indorama Management Council (IMC) receive quarterly updates in which the Global Head of Advocacy will provide the key updates on legislative changes, global climate trends, and relevant activities in the public and private sectors that may impact our business, while the Deputy Group CEO supervises the overall direction of the department and approves its budget. Clear internal rules exist for trade-association participation: the company states that the organizations public positions on global climate issues must align with our own position and the goals outlined in the Paris Agreement and, if misalignment is found, an escalation process can lead to withdrawal after formal notification to the trade association of our intention to withdraw membership. Direct lobbying is governed by detailed Principles for Responsible Advocacy, which include annual public disclosure: Advocacy activities will be presented in our advocacy transparency report annually, with clear disclosure. The 2023 Advocacy Transparency Report is cited as demonstrating the companys efforts to promote plastics recycling, circularity, and support the transition to a low-carbon economy in alignment with the Paris Agreement, showing that the monitoring process covers both direct engagement and industry-association work. Together, these elements illustrate strong oversight, regular monitoring, and explicit alignment procedures. It has detailed the climate lobbying positions of and stated its alignment with three trade associations- American Chemistry Council, Responsible Care, and WEF CEO Alliance Member. However, the available disclosures do not yet show a comprehensive, published audit of each associations climate-policy alignment or any independent third-party review, and no specific examples are given of associations the company has corrected or exited, leaving some transparency gaps in how the escalation measures have been applied in practice.
|
3
|