1

A live navigator of standards and methodology for assessing corporate political engagement.
Since 2023 The Good Lobby Tracker provides the first systematic assessment of virtually all major corporate political responsibility reporting and assessment initiatives, from sustainability frameworks to ESG ratings, with the aim of enhancing their transparency, accountability and usefulness.
Being updated annually, it serves as a live guide for all stakeholders interested in corporate political responsibility and more transparent and sustainable economic systems. The Good Lobby Tracker is designed to be used by investors and other capital providers, standard-setting bodies, ESG data providers, individual companies, trade and industry associations, civil society organisations, and lobbying watch dogs.
The Tracker assesses a wide range of existing corporate political responsibility initiatives, from ESG data provider methodologies to sustainability reporting frameworks and voluntary standards against an evolving set of high ambition criteria. The Tracker analysis categories reflect the latest thinking by scholars and practitioners on what consistent and comprehensive assessment of and reporting on a company’s political activities should look like.
Background
There is growing momentum worldwide to ensure that businesses are responsible for the ways they impact the planet, workers and the communities they rely upon. In spite of this interest, the corporate “political footprint” is not well understood. A company’s political footprint includes corporate lobbying, political spending and other influence channels and processes aimed at shaping, and sometimes undermining, public policies designed to benefit society.
Many stakeholders acknowledge that how a company behaves politically is as important as its operational practices. The focus and rigour currently applied to reporting on climate risk, greenhouse gas emissions, financial statements or human capital planning is largely absent on issues of political engagement and influence. Institutional investors are aware of these gaps [1]. Demanding more transparency on corporate political activities and the corporate governance of these activities is now among the most frequent requests in shareholder meetings [2].
In response to this demand, a growing universe of corporate political accountability standards and initiatives is emerging and evolving. Most of these initiatives, from ESG data provider methodologies (e.g. Sustainalytics, S&P, Moody’s, MSCI),
sustainability reporting standards (e.g. GRI 415, SASB, and IFRS S1) to third-party standards on corporate political engagement (e.g. OECD, UN-PRI, WBA), encourage companies to share information beyond the narrow legally mandated disclosures imposed by national lobbying regulations. These standards and methodologies are neither uniform nor consistent
All of these methodologies are designed to evolve over time and respond to and create new market expectations. In this process, the Tracker is an important tool for market participants to follow progress across different methodologies and to support standards publishers to address shortcomings.
A number of the methodologies assessed in the Tracker are principles-based while others require more granular information on corporate political spending, corporate governance aspects of who has oversight of influence campaigns, as well as details on the specific issues being lobbied on. The expectations around more detailed reporting focus on disclosure of corporate climate policy activity, where investors have led a push for greater scrutiny and transparency via Influence Map’s work and the CDP disclosure questionnaire [3].
Updated expectations from investors and society means that in order to maintain their license to operate, companies will increasingly have to be clear in explaining the full extent of their political footprint. Ultimately, no company can declare itself sustainable, or expect to access public funds, investor and bank capital on that basis, unless it fully internalizes its environmental and social footprint, as well as its political footprint.
About The Good Lobby Tracker
The Good Lobby Tracker is the first initiative aimed at providing regular analysis across the major corporate political responsibility methodologies, initiatives, and sustainability reporting frameworks that touch on corporate political activities and other forms of lobbying. The purpose of the project is to enhance the transparency, accountability and consistency of each of the methodologies assessed. It is designed to help business practitioners, investors, civil society advocates, regulators and other stakeholders select the best data providers and standards when assessing the corporate political footprint of companies. For publishers of the assessed methodologies and frameworks, the Tracker provides an opportunity to
improve the consistency and completeness of their approach. After screening all existing initiatives in an attempt to identify best practices, the Tracker scores each initiative against an idealized set of corporate political responsibility criteria across 8 assessment categories. The Tracker criteria are inspired by the combined strengths and key indicators of each of the frameworks reviewed, and enriched by additional criteria developed by The Good Lobby that seek to raise the standards for corporate political engagement and improve the quality of the policy development process. The Tracker aspires to list all the qualities that a robust regulation on corporate political transparency and accountability should have.
ESG RATINGS & DATA PROVIDERS
Bloomberg ESG & Climate Indices | ![]() |
EcoVadis | ![]() |
Fitch Solutions ESG Ratings Methodology | ![]() |
FTSE4Good | ![]() |
ISS Quality Score | ![]() |
Moody’s | ![]() |
MSCI ESG Ratings | ![]() |
Refinitiv ESG Scores | ![]() |
RepRisk ESG Issues Definition | ![]() |
S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment | ![]() |
Sustainalytics ESG Risk Rating Indicators | ![]() |
Other Initiatives
AccountAbility Lobbying Health Check | ![]() |
B-Lab Impact Assessment Methodology | ![]() |
CDP Climate Change Scoring Methodology | ![]() |
Erb Principles for Corporate Responsibility | ![]() |
ICGN Guidance on Political Lobbying and Donations | ![]() |
OECD Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying | ![]() |
Positive Compass | ![]() |
Responsible Lobbying Framework | ![]() |
UN-PRI Investor Expectations on Corporate Climate Lobbying | ![]() |
WEF Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism | ![]() |
WBA Social Transformation Framework | ![]() |
2
Methodology
The Good Lobby Tracker has screened the methodologies used by each standard or initiative in an attempt to collate emerging best practices in the corporate accountability space. The resulting list of 30 diagnostic questions across 8 Tracker assessment categories has been enriched by additional criteria developed by The Good Lobby that further contribute to raise the standards for corporate political engagement and improve the quality of the policy process.
However, the analysis of existing corporate political responsibility initiatives, in particular those led by ESG data providers, is made more challenging by the fragmented and proprietary nature of the methodologies used.
To address this, The Good Lobby research team approached each provider and requested access to their methodologies for public research purposes, in order to be able to assess and score them. As part of the 2025 Tracker edition, The Good Lobby has offered each provider a number of opportunities to review their score and to provide additional information and context.
This has led to some scoring adjustments before publication. Criteria are clustered across 8 categories, each with their own relative weight. Each initiative can receive a maximum score of up to 200 points. Details of the questions and scoring categories can be accessed in The Good Lobby Tracker Methodology document below.
Tracker assessment criteria
The 8 colour-coded assessment categories cover disclosure requirements alongside additional, conduct-related information. The Tracker is updated periodically to reflect changes in the methodology and approaches used by ESG data providers and voluntary standards publishers.
F. Commitment to sustainable lobbying practices
The questions here cover how a standard addresses proactive efforts by companies to embrace sustainable lobbying practices as inferred from adherence to self-imposed codes of conduct and positive impact goals – such as requiring a commitment to support democratic process, respect for planetary boundaries, and efforts to equalise access to power.
G. Reporting on employees and internal policy
The questions in this category focus on disclosure of any employee-related policies, ranging from the disclosure of past professional experience in the public sector (‘revolving door’ appointments) to dedicated internal lobbying standards training activities for employees.
It also unveils a number of structural trends in the nature, role and impact the existing standards and initiatives on corporate political activities have been playing over time. Across the 8 categories covered in the scoring matrix, the following trends are identified:
The majority of sustainability ratings agencies largely ignore one of the most important data dimensions when assessing corporate sustainability, the role of corporate political activities in shaping regulation and public policy. Given their limited scope, little methodological sophistication and low granularity, none of the examined standards and initiatives appears capable of contributing to their declared aim of enhancing the transparency and accountability of corporate political activities. This is true for a variety of reasons, ranging from largely proprietary assessment methodologies to their varying approaches to assessing and investigating corporate conduct. In addition, corporate political activities continue to be considered as ancillary issues, rather than as key variables in determining corporate impact on environmental, social and governance themes.
Second, corporate political activities are not defined consistently across ESG ratings that are applied to publicly listed companies, with only a few initiatives striving to capture subtler forms of influence such as indirect lobbying, be it by trade associations or other third party actors including think tanks, philanthropies or academic stakeholders. Given the scale of corporate political activities across markets, one may reasonably expect the adoption of shared definitions on corporate political activities to enable the production of more comparable, transparent information. This will be required for all stakeholders to be able to properly assess risks and opportunities linked to different forms of corporate lobbying and political influence. More consistent definitions would enable standard setters, and the users of these standards and associated data, to communicate clear expectations to companies and other stakeholders.
Outside of regulatory reporting requirements, the full scale of political contributions are seldom disclosed. When companies do not engage in political finance this is not acknowledged.
Standards for corporate political contributions are not systematically assessing direct or indirect financial and in-kind contributions to political parties and elected representatives. A number of the aspirational voluntary standards do address the need for more consistent disclosure of this information, with a focus on minimising revolving door activity.
In addition, none of the existing initiatives enable companies to declare a corporate policy that prohibits any form of political donation, potentially encouraging the continuation of problematic corporate contributions as a norm in many countries.
When it comes to the standards applied to corporate lobbying and other advocacy activities, there is great variation in how the Tracker assesses these activities. Standards and initiatives covered by the Tracker often fail to assess the impact of company membership in trade associations, think tanks and other powerful influence channels.
Yet, given the impact of lobbying by third party groups on core business issues, ranging from tax treatment to listing regulations, one might expect more consistent assessment of these indirect influence channels. As the influence of think tanks, trade associations and in-kind sponsorship of academic research ramps up, more consistent and granular scrutiny within this area is essential.
Influence via third-parties is largely unaddressed despite its major negative influence due to misalignment with corporate sustainability commitments.
Business associations are a primary vehicle for corporate lobbying. They feature among the top lobbying spenders or in so called corporatist political systems such as Germany they are by far the main conduit for business influence in the first place. As standards improve coverage of third-party lobbying and influence, it is key for firms to explain coherently how third party partners and their positions are aligned with the member firm’s stated lobbying principles and practices.
Yet only a few of the initiatives in the Tracker strive to capture the full scope of third-party influence to consider membership and use of charities, foundations, PACs, and other arm’s-length political fundraising organisations. Moreover, at present none of the assessed standards consider escalation mechanisms for companies to re-evaluate and terminate relationships with third party lobbying partners that may engage in misconduct.
Standards assessed in the Tracker do not currently have a consistent approach to assessing corporate policies on lobbying and advocacy conduct. Beyond assessing company policies and procedures linked to political activities and influence strategy, there is a need to consider how companies
assess their impact on public policy outcomes. This includes the assessment of financial and in-kind political contributions on policy outcomes that impact on company operations and financial health.
Commitments to sustainable lobbying practices are emerging as a new frontier of corporate disclosure but remain undefined.
Of the 24 standards assessed in the Tracker, only one addresses proactive efforts by companies to embrace sustainable lobbying practices as inferred from adherence to self-imposed codes of conduct and positive impact goals – such as requiring a commitment to support democratic process, respect for planetary boundaries, and efforts to equalize access to power. More of the standards should
consistently consider negative lobbying alongside companies’ actions to support more resilient democratic processes, and take other voluntary actions that support economic resilience within planetary boundaries. More of the standards could address the role of positive lobbying and company action to create or participate in coalitions that have the specific purpose of lobbying in support of public interest goals.
Employee conduct and internal policy appear as emerging best practices but still amount to a tick-box exercise.
Beyond third party influence, standards need to improve the assessment of employee participation in corporate political activities. This would mean standards should consider revolving door indicators at different levels of a business, and clear communication on which corporate employees run the political influence and lobbying strategy and associated
spending controls, and how these matters are considered at the board-level. Related to more transparent and effective assessment of employee participation in political influence and lobbying activities, the standards should also consider internal reporting on lobbying activities, and if there are consistent policies on this.
Governance of the standards and initiatives is suboptimal due to limited access to the underlying methodologies.
Despite acting as the arbiters of corporate political transparency, none of the relevant initiatives shares appears as transparent and as accountable in their own internal governance. The proprietary nature of their underlying methodology render them particularly difficult to assess, giving rise to concerns over potential gaps in methodological rigour and the independence of the ratings and assessments provided. Moreover, while all initiatives have mechanisms in
place for receiving feedback on gaps in their methodology, the process for updating the standards is not always clear or consistent. Virtually all initiatives rely on self-reported data and none of the standards currently scans for adverse incidents – lobbying scandals – in a systematic manner in their assessment of corporate conduct. A number of the standards assessed are principles based, meaning that there is no tracking of conduct or detailed reporting expectations.
Sustainability standards miss the full extent of corporate lobbying and political activity.
More consistent standards would support alignment of capital allocation with more sustainable enterprise. This appears especially true for reporting on corporate political activities. Addressing corporate political activities is also essential to ensure that democratic systems remain resilient, transparent and effective. Regulatory and voluntary standards for assessing corporate political activities based on principles of
legitimacy, independence, transparency, public accountability, independent oversight and thorough due process are essential to obtain buy-in and trust from all stakeholders. The Good Lobby Tracker seeks to enable progress towards this goal by identifying gaps and areas for improvement in existing approaches.
5
FAQ
The Good Lobby Tracker is the first project that maps, evaluate and rank the major corporate political responsibility initiatives, from ESG ratings and data providers to sustainability frameworks. The Tracker assesses the underlying methodologies used in each of these standards against a model set of expectations that reflect the latest thinking by companies, investors and academic researchers
on what consistent, comprehensive, and actionable reporting of a company’s political activities should include. The purpose of the project is to enhance the consistency, comparability and decision usefulness of corporate disclosure on all forms of lobbying, and to improve the conduct of all companies on this important issue.
No, it is not. The Tracker does not assess the conduct of individual companies. Rather than assessing company-level political activities and lobbying conduct, the Tracker looks at
27 existing standards used to assess and report on corporate political activities and assesses these existing standards.
The standards assessed in the Tracker cover a global universe of initiatives, in both private and public markets. A number of the standards assessed provide high-level principles applicable to all companies, while the ESG ratings methodologies are generally used for listed or unlisted firms of a certain size.
The Tracker is designed to have a cross-cutting focus on all types of company conduct related to influence. It does not focus on one specific sector or theme, such as other successful initiatives including the climate lobbying focused work at InfluenceMap.
The Good Lobby Tracker serves as a real-time navigator designed to provide practical insight and support for all interested stakeholders in plotting the path towards greater corporate political responsibility and sustainability. Intended users of the Tracker include:
- investors and other capital providers
- standard-setting bodies (e.g. EFRAG, ISSB, etc)
- ESG data providers and rating agencies
- individual companies
- trade associations
- civil society organisations and lobbying watchdogs
- policymakers
The Tracker is reviewed each year and re-launched on a biannual basis to respond to changes in assessed standards and market norms. Individual standard scores are reviewed quarterly in response to standards updates.
Beyond reviewing the results of the Tracker, companies can look at the individual standards and the respective methodologies to consider how their own practices can be improved.
Guidance provided across the standards extends from high-level principles to granular reporting guidance, depending on the needs of the user.
The goal of the Tracker is to help inform the process for enhancing expectations from companies, investors, civil society, and policymakers for higher standards in the disclosure of corporate political activities and lobbying.
Greater consistency and transparency in disclosure should support improvements in corporate conduct, and the ability to regulate with higher standards.
Yes, the methodology is public and accessible on the project page. We welcome feedback on the methodology.
The Good Lobby Tracker project is generously funded by the Porticus Foundation Purposeful Business Programme.
The Tracker results are used to engage with standards providers on addressing areas for improvement, and as a tool for users of the standard outputs (investors, lenders, and governments) to understand what best practice should look like in the assessment of corporate political activities and other lobbying and influence efforts.
Civil society and NGOs also use the Tracker to inform their dialogue with companies and standard setters on enhanced disclosures on corporate political activities. Finally, the Tracker supports policymakers to overcome inertia and other blockers in enacting or updating lobbying regulations to reflect current practices across industries.
6
Advisory Board
The Tracker has been designed by Professor Alberto Alemanno with the support of Hamish Stewart as a project lead and Dieter Zinnbauer serving as a senior consultant. The Good Lobby Tracker is grateful to its dedicated Advisory Board which has regularly been providing input into areas for improvement and linking our analysis to regional and thematic issues related to corporate political engagement. This is made of:
- Carlota de Paula Coelho, Policy Lead, B-Lab Europe and Member of the Technical Expert Group on EU Sustainability Reporting Standards (EFRAG TEG)
- Jeremy Moon, Professor and Chair of Sustainability Governance, Copenhagen Business School
- John Keenan, Corporate Governance Analyst, Capital Strategies, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
- Jorge Valladares, Political Integrity Lead, Transparency International
- Rachel Crossley, Head of Stewardship Europe, BNP Paribas
- Richard Roberts, Inquiry Lead, Volans
- Robin Hodess, Strategy Lead, B-Team
- Tom Lorber, Head of Private Finance, CIFF
- Yukihiko Hamada, Programme Manager, IDEA
Feedback
Do you have comments on one of the Tracker scores? Are you a data user or company interested to learn more about the Tracker methodology and the analysis that we do? Do you think we missed something? Please get in touch: [email protected]
In case you would like to review the review edition of the Tracker report, it is accessible here as an archived version.