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 |
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson provides extensive, policy-specific detail on every element of its climate lobbying. It names a wide range of concrete measures it has engaged on, including the “EU Net Zero Industry Act,” the “EU Digitalization of Energy Action Plan,” the “EU proposal for Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and EU Ecodesign Work Plan,” the “EU Taxonomy on sustainable activities,” the broader “proposed EU Green Deal strategy,” and national “Swedish climate policy.” The company is equally explicit about how and where it lobbies, describing activities such as “dispersion of research studies on global ICT emissions,” “meetings and presentations for the Swedish Energy Agency,” direct engagement with the “EU Commission,” work “through Digital Europe and Teknikföretagen,” dialogues with “members of Swedish parliament,” and participation in government-organised consultations—clearly identifying the Swedish Energy Agency, EU institutions, Swedish political parties and parliamentarians, and the UN body ITU as targets. Finally, Ericsson sets out the outcomes it is seeking: for the Net Zero Industry Act it presses for digital technologies to be recognised as essential enablers; on the Digital Product Passport it wants “efficient and meaningful legislation” that leverages existing databases; on the Ecodesign Work Plan it argues for rules that avoid higher energy consumption in radio base stations; it urges that more ICT activities be deemed “significantly contributing to climate change mitigation” under the EU Taxonomy; and domestically it calls for Sweden to “take a front runner position in climate adaptation and mitigation” by exploiting digital solutions. This level of specificity across policies, mechanisms, targets and desired results demonstrates a comprehensive degree of transparency in its climate-related lobbying.
|
4
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Strong |
Ericsson discloses a structured system for keeping its policy advocacy in line with its climate positions. It reports that it has “a group-wide unit called Industry and Government Relations (GIR) coordinating all our engagement activities with policy makers and organizations influencing public policy,” and that GIR “is responsible for ensuring that all Ericsson engagements on public policy…are consistent with the Company’s official positions and policies and that no single engagement or public policy influence initiative contrasts with our official standpoint(s).” Direct lobbying is controlled through an ex-ante sign-off process because “Local policy engagements must receive pre-clearance from GIR before they are enacted.” For climate matters specifically, Ericsson cites a “specialist Position and Standards working group” which “is responsible for formulating and aligning all internal and external positions related to environmental sustainability, including climate change,” and whose decisions “feed into the GIR organization which is then responsible for communicating and aligning the positions in policy engagements globally.” The company also describes how indirect lobbying is handled, noting that “Individual members of the Positions and Standards working group also serve as representatives of sub-groups or sub-committees of industry associations…to ensure Ericsson’s official position is reflected in such forums.” In addition, Ericsson confirms that it has “a public commitment or position statement to conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” These disclosures demonstrate named oversight units, a clear pre-clearance and alignment process, and attention to both direct and trade-association lobbying, indicating strong governance; nonetheless, the company does not disclose board-level oversight, periodic public reporting of alignment results, or escalation measures such as suspending membership in misaligned associations, so transparency and accountability could be further strengthened.
|
3
|