Danieli & C Officine Meccaniche SpA – 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
Limited	Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche discloses that its climate-related external engagement is reviewed through an internal governance cadence, stating that “Once in a monthly basis a Managing Board is organized with all the Business Line Executives to share strategies, vision and Business modelling” and that “On a quarterly basis, all Product Line Executives report to the Board of Directors with a structured summary of the performed activities and revised budget for the activity still to be performed.” The company adds that the “Business Line Directors (Environment, Recycling) set strategies considering the environmental sustainability (including climate change issue),” indicating that climate considerations are built into the oversight discussions. This shows a recurring sign-off mechanism and identifies the Board of Directors and a Managing Board as the bodies that receive information on, and therefore oversee, climate-related engagement activities, which suggests some governance of lobbying alignment. However, the disclosure does not provide detail on how the company assesses the consistency of specific lobbying positions or trade-association memberships with its climate goals, and we found no evidence of a formal monitoring procedure, public alignment review, or actions taken to address misalignments. Overall, the company describes high-level internal oversight but offers limited transparency about the specific processes used to govern direct or indirect climate lobbying activities. View Sources	D

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Limited

Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche discloses that its climate-related external engagement is reviewed through an internal governance cadence, stating that “Once in a monthly basis a Managing Board is organized with all the Business Line Executives to share strategies, vision and Business modelling” and that “On a quarterly basis, all Product Line Executives report to the Board of Directors with a structured summary of the performed activities and revised budget for the activity still to be performed.” The company adds that the “Business Line Directors (Environment, Recycling) set strategies considering the environmental sustainability (including climate change issue),” indicating that climate considerations are built into the oversight discussions. This shows a recurring sign-off mechanism and identifies the Board of Directors and a Managing Board as the bodies that receive information on, and therefore oversee, climate-related engagement activities, which suggests some governance of lobbying alignment. However, the disclosure does not provide detail on how the company assesses the consistency of specific lobbying positions or trade-association memberships with its climate goals, and we found no evidence of a formal monitoring procedure, public alignment review, or actions taken to address misalignments. Overall, the company describes high-level internal oversight but offers limited transparency about the specific processes used to govern direct or indirect climate lobbying activities.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Moderate	Danieli & C Officine Meccaniche SpA provides a moderate level of transparency on its climate-policy lobbying. The company identifies its engagement with the Italian Ministry of Economic Development (MISE) and the parliamentary Productive Activities Commission to discuss ways to reduce CO₂ emissions and energy use in steel-making, but it does not cite any specific piece of legislation or regulatory proposal, limiting the precision of its policy disclosure. It is clearer on how it lobbies: senior executives took part in a ministerial round-table in Rome and held direct meetings with the targeted ministries, showing both the mechanisms employed and the specific governmental bodies addressed. The firm is most explicit about the outcomes it seeks, outlining several concrete objectives for policy action—lower CO₂ emissions in steel production, elimination of carbon in the process through hydrogen alternatives, reduced power consumption, and incentives for heat-recovery projects—demonstrating a clear statement of desired policy changes. Taken together, these disclosures offer solid insight into the company’s goals and methods, but the absence of references to identifiable laws or regulations keeps the overall transparency at a moderate level.	C