HCL Technologies Ltd

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

Direct Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Comment	Score
Moderate	HCL Technologies provides a moderate level of transparency about its climate-policy lobbying. It identifies the exact regulations it has tried to influence, citing the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission’s notification “UPERC/Secy./Regulation/639, Lucknow dated 10 December 2019” and the earlier “UPERC/Secy/Regulations/Supply Code/2016/066 dated 27 May 2016,” both of which govern electricity-grid access for renewable energy in Uttar Pradesh. The company also explains how it seeks to shape those rules, stating that it "engaged [a] consultant and requested the state government to consider the recommendation for removal of ceiling of drawl as specified under the supply code," thereby disclosing two concrete lobbying mechanisms—using an external consultant (indirect) and making a formal request to the state government (direct)—and naming the specific target, the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Finally, the desired outcome is clearly articulated: the “removal of ceiling of drawl” to allow private entities open access to renewable power so they can “meet their sustainability goals” and support broader decarbonisation. While the disclosure centres on a single jurisdiction and policy area, the company nevertheless links its methods, the policy instruments concerned and the precise regulatory change it seeks, giving readers a coherent picture of its lobbying activity.	2

Lobbying Governance

Overall Assessment	Comment	Score
None	HCL Technologies Ltd does not disclose any governance process for climate-related lobbying despite detailing membership in numerous industry bodies. The evidence notes that “The Company is a member of various Industry Associations / Chambers and bodies, such as: World Economic Forum (WEF), NASSCOM, Confederation of Indian Industry (CII),” but provides no description of how these affiliations are managed or aligned with its climate commitments. Its statement that it has “Regular engagement with all stakeholders to discuss our progress/ efforts in relation to climate change” merely describes stakeholder dialogue without specifying any review, monitoring or alignment mechanism for lobbying activities. Similarly, directing readers to “Refer BRSR section for affiliations with trade and industry chambers / associations” does not explain how the company ensures its indirect lobbying through these associations supports its climate strategy. We found no evidence of any formal policy, oversight structure, named individual or committee responsible for overseeing lobbying, or any process for monitoring or managing climate-related lobbying efforts.	0