Greencore Group PLC – 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
Limited	Greencore Group PLC provides only limited insight into how it governs its climate-related engagement activities. The company states that it has “process(es)… to ensure that your engagement activities are consistent with your overall climate change strategy” and that it has “engaged with food industry bodies on climate impact, including consultation and public support for the National Food Strategy,” indicating an intention to align external advocacy with internal climate goals. Oversight of sustainability more broadly sits with newly created board structures: “This year we have enhanced Board focus on the agenda by introducing a Sustainability Committee of the Board (SusCo)… Non-Executive Director, Helen Rose chairs this meeting with our CEO and COO leading the agenda,” and the committee “meets twice a year to review programme performance and ensure the agenda has the right support required.” Although these statements identify named individuals and a formal body that review sustainability performance, the company does not disclose a dedicated mechanism, schedule, or set of criteria for monitoring the alignment of either direct lobbying or trade-association lobbying with its climate strategy, nor does it publish any lobbying review or report, and it notes that it has “No” public commitment “to conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” Consequently, the evidence points to some acknowledgment of alignment and board-level oversight, but overall lobbying governance, especially around climate, remains sparsely detailed and largely undefined. View Sources	D

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Limited

Greencore Group PLC provides only limited insight into how it governs its climate-related engagement activities. The company states that it has “process(es)… to ensure that your engagement activities are consistent with your overall climate change strategy” and that it has “engaged with food industry bodies on climate impact, including consultation and public support for the National Food Strategy,” indicating an intention to align external advocacy with internal climate goals. Oversight of sustainability more broadly sits with newly created board structures: “This year we have enhanced Board focus on the agenda by introducing a Sustainability Committee of the Board (SusCo)… Non-Executive Director, Helen Rose chairs this meeting with our CEO and COO leading the agenda,” and the committee “meets twice a year to review programme performance and ensure the agenda has the right support required.” Although these statements identify named individuals and a formal body that review sustainability performance, the company does not disclose a dedicated mechanism, schedule, or set of criteria for monitoring the alignment of either direct lobbying or trade-association lobbying with its climate strategy, nor does it publish any lobbying review or report, and it notes that it has “No” public commitment “to conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” Consequently, the evidence points to some acknowledgment of alignment and board-level oversight, but overall lobbying governance, especially around climate, remains sparsely detailed and largely undefined.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Limited	Greencore Group PLC offers only limited insight into its climate-related lobbying. The company points to its contribution to the UK “National Food Strategy,” noting it played “an influential role in shaping the recommendations of the National Food Strategy” and that “these recommendations centre around the key policy areas of public health and climate.” This identifies a single policy arena but no other specific bills or regulations. It gives no information on how the engagement occurred—there is no mention of meetings, correspondence, industry association activity, or the government departments or officials it approached—so the mechanisms and targets of its lobbying remain opaque. The objectives it cites are broad corporate commitments such as “encouraging healthier, more sustainable eating” and reducing “the average meat content across its product portfolio by 30% by 2030,” rather than explicit legislative or regulatory changes it seeks. As a result, readers are left with only a general indication that the company supports the National Food Strategy’s climate-related themes, without clarity on the lobbying methods used or the concrete policy outcomes it pursues.	D