Lobbying Governance
| Overall Assessment | Analysis | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate |
Proximus discloses a basic structure for governing how it engages with policymakers, indicating that lobbying activities must be filtered through internal policies and sustainability criteria, but it provides limited detail on how those mechanisms operate in practice or how they cover indirect lobbying. The company states that it "issued a Public Affairs policy (internal document) defining how to engage with public authorities" and explains that "Exco governance guidelines includes 3 questions relative to sustainability. All new initiatives or activities are assessed against these criterias before starting," which shows a procedural check intended to align engagement with its climate-change strategy. Oversight responsibility is attributed to a formal body: "The Audit and Compliance Committee assists and advises the Board of Directors in its oversight of the efficiency of the systems for internal control and risk management … [and] compliance with policies," and the same passage notes that "Sustainability related risks, including but not limited to climate-change risks, are part of the Audit & Compliance Committee’s oversight," suggesting that this committee would also monitor adherence to the Public Affairs policy. The disclosure also includes a public commitment that engagement will be "in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement." However, the company does not disclose how it evaluates or manages the climate-policy positions of trade associations, nor does it publish any review or audit of lobbying alignment, and we found no evidence of remedial actions (e.g., engaging, correcting, or exiting associations) when misalignment occurs. Therefore, while the presence of a policy, sustainability screening, and committee-level oversight indicates moderate governance, transparency regarding implementation, monitoring outcomes, and coverage of indirect lobbying remains limited.
View Sources
|
C |