Lobbying Governance
Overall Assessment | Analysis | Score |
---|---|---|
Moderate |
Foschini Group (TFG) provides some insight into how its policy engagement is governed, indicating a moderate level of structure but limited explicit focus on climate-lobbying alignment. The company states that "TFG submits comments and lobbies on proposed changes to regulations" and that it "maintains constructive relationships with key government departments, closely monitors policy developments and where applicable submits comments on new legislation through industry representative bodies," outlining at least a basic process for managing engagement activities. Oversight is assigned to board-level structures: the Social and Ethics Committee is described as "responsible for assisting the Supervisory Board with the monitoring and reporting of social, ethical, transformational and sustainability practices" and its charter includes "reviewing, monitoring and reporting on TFG’s activities with regard to any relevant legislation," while "feedback on issues is reported as per TFG’s Enterprise Risk Management framework." This signals that lobbying activities, including climate-related ones, are escalated through formal governance channels. However, the disclosures do not describe a systematic mechanism for testing whether direct or trade-association lobbying positions are aligned with the company’s climate strategy, and TFG acknowledges that it has "No" public commitment "to conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement." There is also no evidence of trade-association reviews, escalation procedures for misalignment, or a dedicated climate-lobbying audit. Consequently, while the presence of a named committee and reporting pathway indicates governance, the absence of detailed monitoring criteria, alignment checks, or public reporting on outcomes limits transparency and robustness.
View Sources
|
C |