HL Mando Co Ltd – 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
Moderate	HL Mando discloses a basic framework for keeping its climate-related public-policy engagement in line with corporate climate goals. It states that “Mando is operating Environmental Council under the COO in charge of the overall climate change response. All issues related to climate change, internal and external risk factors and major risks for each business site are reviewed through the Environmental Council,” and that matters with major impact are “reported on the agenda of the BOD if necessary,” indicating a named oversight structure that escalates to the Board. The company also confirms a formal commitment by answering “Yes” when asked whether it has “a public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” and adds that the Environmental Council “regularly reports climate change agendas and implementation status” to support national policies such as the Korean ETS and 2050 carbon-neutral target. These disclosures show a policy intention and a review mechanism overseen by the COO and Board, suggesting moderate governance of climate-related engagement. However, the company “does not disclose any procedure for assessing or correcting the positions of trade associations,” nor does it describe how it monitors specific lobbying activities, publishes an alignment audit, or details actions taken when misalignment is found, leaving significant gaps in transparency and accountability. View Sources	2

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Moderate

HL Mando discloses a basic framework for keeping its climate-related public-policy engagement in line with corporate climate goals. It states that “Mando is operating Environmental Council under the COO in charge of the overall climate change response. All issues related to climate change, internal and external risk factors and major risks for each business site are reviewed through the Environmental Council,” and that matters with major impact are “reported on the agenda of the BOD if necessary,” indicating a named oversight structure that escalates to the Board. The company also confirms a formal commitment by answering “Yes” when asked whether it has “a public commitment or position statement to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” and adds that the Environmental Council “regularly reports climate change agendas and implementation status” to support national policies such as the Korean ETS and 2050 carbon-neutral target. These disclosures show a policy intention and a review mechanism overseen by the COO and Board, suggesting moderate governance of climate-related engagement. However, the company “does not disclose any procedure for assessing or correcting the positions of trade associations,” nor does it describe how it monitors specific lobbying activities, publishes an alignment audit, or details actions taken when misalignment is found, leaving significant gaps in transparency and accountability.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Strong	HL Mando provides a clear picture of its climate-policy lobbying. It names the specific measures it engages on – the “Low Carbon, Green Growth Basic Act,” Korea’s “Emissions Trading System (K-ETS),” and the “Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)” – and links them to the national goal of cutting emissions 40 % by 2030. The company also explains how it seeks to influence these measures, describing participation in public hearings, formal meetings and councils connected to the K-ETS, along with information-sharing and research activities directed at the relevant Korean government bodies. Finally, it sets out what it hopes to achieve: stabilising and improving domestic carbon-management rules under the K-ETS and backing the mandatory renewable-energy supply requirements in the RPS, positions it states are consistent with support for the Paris Agreement. Together, these disclosures demonstrate a strong level of transparency across the main dimensions of its climate-related lobbying activities.	3