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:
Sign Up
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Comprehensive |
Global Power Synergy PCL discloses an unusually detailed picture of its climate-policy advocacy. It identifies multiple concrete laws and strategies it seeks to influence, including Thailand’s draft Climate Change Act that would introduce a carbon tax and an emissions-trading scheme, the Nationally Determined Contribution commitments, and the Power Development Plan and Alternative Energy Development Plan that govern the country’s energy mix, as well as participation in the T-VER voluntary carbon market. The company also explains how it lobbies: it holds quarterly meetings with the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization and the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, “to present and exchange useful information,” follows legislative drafts, and works indirectly through associations such as the Thailand Carbon Neutral Network, RE100, the Carbon Market Club and TBCSD. Finally, it spells out the outcomes it is pursuing—supporting the passage and enforcement of the Climate Change Act, expanding the domestic voluntary carbon market, raising renewable electricity to at least 50 % of generation, removing regulatory barriers to corporate renewable sourcing, and helping Thailand reach carbon neutrality by 2050 and net-zero GHG emissions by 2065. This level of specificity about the policies addressed, the channels used and the concrete policy changes sought demonstrates comprehensive transparency in the company’s climate-related lobbying.
|
4
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Strong |
Global Power Synergy PCL discloses a structured process to keep its policy engagement in line with its climate strategy, indicating strong governance of both direct and indirect lobbying. The company explains that the “Transformation and Sustainability Management (STS) Department is responsible to communicate and ensure that company’s activities are consistent with company’s climate change strategy and national policy,” while the GPSC Group Climate Change Strategy Committee “is responsible to oversee implementations, progress and drive on climate change action,” demonstrating an internal mechanism that monitors the lobbying carried out directly by employees. For indirect lobbying, GPSC provides a detailed “governance framework for Public Policy Engagement,” assigning roles from the “President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO)… to engage and support the direction of trade associations” down to “Members from Sustainability and Climate Change Policy division… [who] monitor and track progress and status of both internal & external climate-related programs.” The company outlines a formal “reviewing, monitoring, and framework for addressing misalignments,” stating that it “reviews the trade associations, the climate-related lobbying activities, and commitments,” conducts monthly monitoring, and will “decide whether GPSC have to distancing the company from the misalignment, engage to negotiate direction, or leave the trade association.” This shows an active process to align indirect advocacy and remediate conflicts. Oversight is clearly assigned: “the committee which is the executive level of GPSC” makes participation decisions, and the CEO is explicitly named as the top representative for external engagement. However, while these disclosures indicate robust structures, the company does not publish a standalone lobbying-alignment audit or third-party review, and there is no evidence of public reporting of the outcomes of its association reviews; therefore transparency on results remains limited.
|
3
|