Lobbying Governance
Overall Assessment | Analysis | Score |
---|---|---|
Moderate |
AstraZeneca discloses a set of internal expectations that link its public-policy engagement to its climate strategy, indicating a moderate level of governance over climate-related lobbying. The company states that “Any engagement is consistent with our Global Code of Ethics” and that “Any interactions with policy makers (direct and indirect) must be in line with our stated climate commitments,” showing a clear procedural requirement to align both direct and trade-association lobbying with its climate goals. It further explains that such engagement “will either be in open forum or via our trade associations… and [is] conducted by individuals that either own our climate policy (i.e. subject matter experts; SMEs) or more senior executives who have been adequately briefed,” which identifies responsible roles and implies an internal sign-off mechanism. In addition, AstraZeneca emphasises evidence-based advocacy, noting “We do not lobby policy makers on climate related issues without scientific data to support the need for regulatory review,” reinforcing an integrity check on lobbying content. However, the disclosure does not specify a formal oversight body such as the Board or a dedicated committee, nor does it describe a recurring review or audit of trade-association positions, so the extent of monitoring and accountability remains unclear. The company also “has a public commitment… to conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” but it does not publish a detailed lobbying-alignment report or outline procedures for addressing misalignment. Overall, the information evidences a policy and some mechanisms for alignment, yet lacks the deeper oversight structures and transparency that would indicate a stronger governance framework.
View Sources
|
2 |