Canvest Environmental Protection Group 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	Canvest Environmental Protection Group Co Ltd provides some insight into how it governs climate-related engagement by stating that its "Strategy and Sustainability Committee and Strategy and Sustainability Working Team work hand-in-hand to constantly monitor and evaluate the consistency of our engagement activities against our climate change strategy with strict policies and guiding manuals in place, then subsequently devising necessary strategic solutions to continually enhance such consistency." This passage indicates there is a formal process, supported by written policies and manuals, and overseen by clearly named bodies that review whether engagement activities (which would include lobbying) align with the company’s climate strategy, which reflects a meaningful internal governance mechanism. However, beyond this high-level description, the company does not disclose how it differentiates between direct and indirect lobbying, provide any criteria or timetable for those reviews, or explain what actions are taken if misalignment is found, and it also confirms that it lacks a public commitment “to conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” The disclosure therefore demonstrates a moderate level of governance—there is a stated process and oversight structure, but limited detail on implementation, scope, and climate-specific alignment measures for lobbying activities. View Sources	C

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Moderate

Canvest Environmental Protection Group Co Ltd provides some insight into how it governs climate-related engagement by stating that its "Strategy and Sustainability Committee and Strategy and Sustainability Working Team work hand-in-hand to constantly monitor and evaluate the consistency of our engagement activities against our climate change strategy with strict policies and guiding manuals in place, then subsequently devising necessary strategic solutions to continually enhance such consistency." This passage indicates there is a formal process, supported by written policies and manuals, and overseen by clearly named bodies that review whether engagement activities (which would include lobbying) align with the company’s climate strategy, which reflects a meaningful internal governance mechanism. However, beyond this high-level description, the company does not disclose how it differentiates between direct and indirect lobbying, provide any criteria or timetable for those reviews, or explain what actions are taken if misalignment is found, and it also confirms that it lacks a public commitment “to conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” The disclosure therefore demonstrates a moderate level of governance—there is a stated process and oversight structure, but limited detail on implementation, scope, and climate-specific alignment measures for lobbying activities.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Limited	Canvest provides only limited transparency on its climate-policy lobbying. It does identify one concrete measure it has engaged on, stating its involvement with “Rule 13.91 and Appendix 27 the ESG Reporting Guide under the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (SEHK) Listing Rules,” but it gives no indication of lobbying on any other climate-related legislation. On methods, the company notes that “Canvest engaged policymakers to clarify and express the serious financial burden for SMEs like Canvest” and that it “was invited to participate in the HKEX forum … to express their opinions on mandatory climate-related disclosures.” These references confirm direct engagement and participation in a public forum, yet they do not specify which officials or regulatory departments were approached, leaving the targets of its lobbying largely undefined. Regarding objectives, Canvest says it “Support[s] with minor exceptions” and proposes “adding company size and sector specific requirements as appendices to the new reporting requirement,” showing one clear amendment it is seeking but offering no additional, detailed policy positions. Overall, the disclosure touches on each of the key elements—policy, mechanism, and desired outcome—but only at a basic level and without the breadth or specificity that would constitute robust transparency.	D