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 |
| Limited |
TPG Telecom provides only limited insight into its climate-policy lobbying. It does name one specific policy it has engaged with—the Commonwealth Government’s “Strengthening Telecommunications Against Natural Disasters (STAND) program”—making clear that its activities relate to national climate-adaptation measures. Beyond this single reference, however, the company gives no detail on how it seeks to influence the program: it does not describe any meetings, submissions, or other direct or indirect lobbying activities, nor does it identify the government departments, officials or parliamentary processes it targets. The company’s stated purpose is broadly framed around “improv[ing] the resilience of our network” and “rapidly deploying temporary portable coverage and power solutions to sites impacted by natural disasters,” but it does not translate these aspirations into specific legislative or regulatory outcomes it wishes policymakers to adopt. Consequently, while one policy is identified, the absence of information on lobbying mechanisms and concrete outcomes limits the overall transparency of TPG Telecom’s climate-related lobbying disclosures.
|
1
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
TPG Telecom discloses that its climate-related engagement is managed through an established governance hierarchy, stating that "the TPG Telecom Board… has oversight of strategy, business performance and risk management, including in relation to sustainability" and that "our Head of Sustainability reports directly into the Group Executive Legal and External Affairs, who oversees our Regulatory team and has oversight of our interactions with key policy makers and industry groups." This identifies named bodies and individuals with responsibility for supervising both direct contact with policymakers and participation in industry groups, indicating a formal oversight channel. The company also confirms a high-level policy commitment, answering "Yes" when asked whether it has "a public commitment… to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement," and explains that "We promote the climate change related aspects of our Sustainability Strategy throughout our existing sustainability governance structure to make our positions clear," which suggests an internal process intended to keep external advocacy consistent with climate objectives. However, the disclosures do not describe any concrete mechanisms such as regular lobbying alignment reviews, criteria for assessing trade-association positions, or actions taken to address misalignment, and there is no published lobbying audit or detailed reporting on outcomes. Overall, the presence of oversight roles and a stated alignment commitment indicates moderate governance, but the absence of disclosed monitoring procedures and alignment actions limits the strength and transparency of the framework.
|
2
|