Arvida Group 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	Arvida Group Ltd discloses a defined internal process for keeping climate-related advocacy aligned with its climate strategy: “Any climate related engagement activities are drafted by the Head of Sustainability and Compliance and reviewed by the General Manager of Strategy and the CEO… Potential inconsistencies between engagement activities and our overall climate change strategy are discussed and resolved at these meetings.” This shows a concrete review mechanism and names specific senior individuals who sign-off on, and can correct, external engagement. The company also notes that “all other engagement activities are reviewed by the General Manager of Strategy and CEO and are discussed at the Senior Leadership Team meetings as relevant,” indicating that oversight extends beyond pure climate topics and is embedded in management routines. Board-level structures exist to oversee climate matters generally—“Sustainability is a standing agenda item for Board meetings” and the Audit & Risk Committee “is responsible for reviewing… Arvida’s risks, risk management processes, and internal controls”—but the disclosures do not clarify whether the Board formally reviews lobbying positions. We found no evidence of a systematic review of the company’s indirect lobbying through trade or industry associations, nor any public audit or report comparing association positions with the company’s climate goals. Therefore, while the company demonstrates a monitoring process and named accountability for its own climate-related engagement, the scope and transparency of its lobbying governance remain limited to internal direct activities and do not extend to indirect lobbying channels. View Sources	C

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Moderate

Arvida Group Ltd discloses a defined internal process for keeping climate-related advocacy aligned with its climate strategy: “Any climate related engagement activities are drafted by the Head of Sustainability and Compliance and reviewed by the General Manager of Strategy and the CEO… Potential inconsistencies between engagement activities and our overall climate change strategy are discussed and resolved at these meetings.” This shows a concrete review mechanism and names specific senior individuals who sign-off on, and can correct, external engagement. The company also notes that “all other engagement activities are reviewed by the General Manager of Strategy and CEO and are discussed at the Senior Leadership Team meetings as relevant,” indicating that oversight extends beyond pure climate topics and is embedded in management routines. Board-level structures exist to oversee climate matters generally—“Sustainability is a standing agenda item for Board meetings” and the Audit & Risk Committee “is responsible for reviewing… Arvida’s risks, risk management processes, and internal controls”—but the disclosures do not clarify whether the Board formally reviews lobbying positions. We found no evidence of a systematic review of the company’s indirect lobbying through trade or industry associations, nor any public audit or report comparing association positions with the company’s climate goals. Therefore, while the company demonstrates a monitoring process and named accountability for its own climate-related engagement, the scope and transparency of its lobbying governance remain limited to internal direct activities and do not extend to indirect lobbying channels.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Limited	Arvida Group Ltd provides a limited but discernible picture of its climate-related lobbying. It states that it engaged on New Zealand’s climate-related disclosure requirements, submitting consultation responses and offering feedback through both the Retirement Village Association and direct contact with the External Reporting Board and the Financial Markets Authority. By describing written submissions and guidance as its mechanisms and naming the XRB and FMA as the targets, the company gives some insight into how and where it seeks to influence policy. Nevertheless, it cites only this single policy area and does not confirm that no other climate policies are lobbied, and the objectives it sets out—supporting the regime, resolving “challenges and ambiguities,” and aligning with the Paris Agreement—remain general rather than identifying concrete legislative changes or quantitative goals. As a result, the overall transparency of its climate-policy lobbying remains limited.	D