We have expanded the list of climate policies we assess company engagement with to incorporate land-use related policy, referring to legislative or regulatory measures to enhance and protect ecosystems and land where carbon is being stored. Assessments under this category are currently underweighted in terms of their contribution to the overall company metrics. This weighting will be progressively increased over the next 6 months.
We adjusted the terminology used to describe the queries running down the left-hand side of our scoring matrix and added additional explanatory text to the info-boxes. This has no impact on the scores and methodology. It has been done following user feedback to improve clarity.
In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party. In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.
Climate Lobbying Overview: Lego’s lobbying on climate change appears to be positive, albeit limited. The company’s top-line statements appear to be positive on climate change, however engagement on specific-related policy and the energy transition is very limited.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Lego’s engagement on climate change through its top-line communications appears to be positive. The organization appears to support the EU’s Climate Law, which aims to reach climate neutrality by 2050, as stated in a 2020 World Economic Forum CEO Action Group joint statement on the EU Green Deal, and a 2021 joint letter on the US’s climate ambition, both signed by Lego’s CEO Niels B. Christiansen respectively. The 2021 joint letter also suggested support for the re-entry of the US into the Paris Agreement as well as the need for ambitious government policy and carbon pricing in response to climate change. Lego’s 2018 Climate Impact Report offers a clear and detailed stance accepting the science of climate change.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: Lego has not described clear positions on climate-related legislation and does not have a dedicated, clearly identifiable disclosure of its climate-relevant policy positions and direct lobbying activities. Evidence suggests that Lego’s relatively low engagement with climate-related regulations seems to be positive. In the 2021 joint letter on the US’s climate ambition, the company appeared to support a carbon border adjustment mechanism in the EU as well as the EU’s 2030 GHG emissions reduction target. In the same letter, it advocated for a 2030 50% GHG emissions reduction target for the US.
Positioning on Energy Transition: Lego appears to have very limited engagement on the energy transition. In 2021, the company signed up to a European Commission initiative for green consumption, in which it supported a transition to a low carbon economy. Furthermore, the organization seems to be supportive of the deployment of zero-emission vehicles, as stated in the 2021 joint letter on the US’s climate ambition.
Industry Association Governance: Lego does disclose some of its industry association memberships, it has not published a full audit of its industry links and its current disclosure lacks details on indirect climate-related lobbying activities.