Edwards Lifesciences Corp – 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	Edwards Lifesciences has established a structured but narrowly focused governance approach for its climate-related lobbying, centering primarily on indirect engagement through industry associations and standard political oversight rather than a dedicated climate lobbying framework. The company explains that "Edwards has designated representatives that actively participate on topic-specific working teams within the association to ensure that the Corporation's positions, including those around climate, are represented," and these representatives are drawn from "Environment, Health and Safety (EHS), Corporate Impact, Product Stewardship, Government Affairs, and Legal teams." Oversight of all political activities resides with the Government Affairs function, where "the Head of Global Government Affairs, Dirksen Lehman, is responsible for reviewing and certifying that Edwards’ activities are compliant with our political disclosure policy," and the Global Internal Audit function "reviews on a periodic basis compliance of Edwards activities with its policies," reporting to the Board’s Audit Committee and the Compensation and Governance Committee, which "has reviewed Edwards' political activities to ensure compliance with its policies for political transparency." Despite these measures, the company does not disclose any process to ensure its direct lobbying aligns with its climate commitments, we found no evidence of a specific climate-lobbying review or audit, and it has explicitly stated that it will not adopt a public commitment or position statement to align its engagement with the goals of the Paris Agreement, noting "No, and we do not plan to have one in the next two years." View Sources	C

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Moderate

Edwards Lifesciences has established a structured but narrowly focused governance approach for its climate-related lobbying, centering primarily on indirect engagement through industry associations and standard political oversight rather than a dedicated climate lobbying framework. The company explains that "Edwards has designated representatives that actively participate on topic-specific working teams within the association to ensure that the Corporation's positions, including those around climate, are represented," and these representatives are drawn from "Environment, Health and Safety (EHS), Corporate Impact, Product Stewardship, Government Affairs, and Legal teams." Oversight of all political activities resides with the Government Affairs function, where "the Head of Global Government Affairs, Dirksen Lehman, is responsible for reviewing and certifying that Edwards’ activities are compliant with our political disclosure policy," and the Global Internal Audit function "reviews on a periodic basis compliance of Edwards activities with its policies," reporting to the Board’s Audit Committee and the Compensation and Governance Committee, which "has reviewed Edwards' political activities to ensure compliance with its policies for political transparency." Despite these measures, the company does not disclose any process to ensure its direct lobbying aligns with its climate commitments, we found no evidence of a specific climate-lobbying review or audit, and it has explicitly stated that it will not adopt a public commitment or position statement to align its engagement with the goals of the Paris Agreement, noting "No, and we do not plan to have one in the next two years."

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Limited	Edwards Lifesciences provides only limited insight into any climate-related lobbying. It notes that it engages in “regular and constructive engagement with government officials, policymakers, and stakeholder groups” and that it works through trade bodies such as AdvaMed and MDMA, but it does not name the specific governments, agencies or individual officials it approaches, nor does it describe concrete lobbying actions such as letters, testimony or consultation submissions. The company also fails to identify any particular climate policy, regulation or bill it has tried to influence; instead it speaks in very general terms about how “the public policies of the countries in which we operate impact our ability to help patients.” Likewise, its description of objectives—“to advance sound public policy in areas related to patient-focused medical innovations”—remains broad and does not spell out any measurable climate-policy outcomes it seeks to achieve or oppose. Together, this leaves readers with only a high-level acknowledgement that some lobbying occurs, without meaningful detail on the climate policies addressed, the channels used, or the specific results the company is pursuing.	D