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 |
Intel provides extensive, concrete information about its climate-related advocacy. It explicitly names multiple laws and policy frameworks it has worked to influence, including the Paris Accord, the US “Build Back Better” and “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs” packages, climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, the EU Emissions Trading System and wider EU Climate and Energy Framework, the EU Green Deal, China’s national emissions-trading regime, and the US CHIPS and Science Act. The company also discloses a range of lobbying channels and the government bodies they are aimed at. Examples include signing the “We Are Still In” letter and a C2ES letter directed to the Trump Administration and to the U.S. Congress, collaborating with the U.S. Department of Commerce on CHIPS Act implementation, and working “with the Commission, Parliament and Council to develop EU level policies and projects.” Finally, Intel is clear about the outcomes it seeks: it pressed the Trump Administration to remain in the Paris Accord, supports “enhanced tax credits for various clean energy technologies,” calls for “funding for U.S. Postal Service procurement of electric vehicles,” advocates linking the EU ETS with other compatible schemes, and backs market-based mechanisms such as cap-and-trade systems and expanded renewable-energy supply. By detailing the specific measures, the methods of engagement, the targeted institutions, and the concrete policy changes it wants to see, Intel demonstrates a high level of transparency in its climate policy lobbying.
|
4
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Strong |
Intel discloses a well-defined framework that links its climate positions to both direct advocacy and its work through trade associations, backed by named oversight bodies and recurring monitoring, which indicates strong governance. The company states that “Intel employs a variety of mechanisms that, collectively, are designed to ensure consistency among our climate policy influencing activities and our internal operations,” and explains that the Intel Political Accountability Guidelines include “senior management and Board-level review processes and our commitment to transparency.” Oversight is clearly assigned: “The Intel Board of Directors has ultimate oversight with respect to ESG matters… the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee supports the Board,” while an “Executive-led sustainability committee… holds regular review meetings to ensure that operational and influencing activities are in line with… science-based climate policy and positions.” Monitoring covers both channels of influence: for political giving, Intel “regularly evaluate[s] our political spending for effectiveness and alignment… adding reviews of public statements to better assess alignment,” and for associations it has “communicated our positions directly with key trade associations whose positions did not appear to be aligned with science-based climate policy” with a promise that “in cases of significant mis-alignment… we will take action to realign future funding decisions.” The company also publishes “reports on our corporate contributions and trade association membership dues and payments, including the reported portion of dues used for political purposes,” providing transparency into indirect lobbying. However, we found no evidence of a stand-alone climate-lobbying alignment audit or a public account of specific outcomes from the trade-association review, so the disclosure, while strong, is not yet comprehensive. Overall, Intel demonstrates a structured, board-supported process to monitor and correct both direct and indirect climate lobbying, but it does not disclose a detailed alignment report that would evidence a fully comprehensive approach.
|
3
|