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 |
| Strong |
Tata Communications discloses a high level of detail about its climate-related advocacy. It names two identifiable policies and regulations it has worked on – the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission’s “Renewable Energy Circular no.3 CE/RE/Green Power Tariff/06977 dt.23.03.2022” and the “directions given by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to implement green technology in [the] telecom sector and submission of carbon footprint report” – providing the jurisdiction, issuing body and key provisions of each. The company is equally explicit about how it engages: it “engages in stakeholder consultations with the Department of Telecommunications (DoT)… [and] TRAI,” submits consultation responses, holds half-yearly meetings with TRAI, and sent a formal letter of interest to MERC when opting into the green power tariff, while also working through industry groups such as “Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI).” Finally, Tata Communications sets out the concrete outcomes it is pursuing, stating that it “support[s] the proposed regulation” to introduce the green power tariff so it can source 100 % renewable electricity for its Mumbai sites, backs TRAI’s emission-reduction targets, and seeks to “allow open access in states such as Delhi… Mumbai… [and] Hyderabad… to meet the power at affordable rate and reduction of CO2 emissions.” By linking these advocacy goals to its wider commitment to become carbon-neutral by FY 2030 and net-zero by FY 2035, the company makes clear the policy changes it wants and why it wants them.
|
3
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
Tata Communications describes a structured process to keep its policy engagement consistent with climate objectives, noting that "Chief Sustainability Officer assesses the risks and opportunities of the company related to climate change for all business units and accordingly charts out the plan of engagement," and that this plan is shared with "top management and committees such as Sustainable Development Committee, GMC etc. for their input," which indicates an internal mechanism for aligning advocacy with the firm’s climate strategy. Oversight escalates to the board, as the renamed "CSR, Safety and Sustainability Committee…reviews and monitors the business risks and opportunities with reference to sustainability and oversees the progress of business sustainability," signalling that a formal board-level body supervises climate-related engagement. Operationally, a dedicated "Regulatory team maintains a tracker to monitor and ensure timely responses to all consultation papers relevant to us," and the company also "engage[s] external legal counsel and consultants who liaise with regulators on our behalf," demonstrating day-to-day controls over direct lobbying. The company further states it has "a public commitment…to conduct…engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement," reinforcing alignment intent. However, the disclosure does not spell out how the firm evaluates or manages the climate-policy positions of the “numerous industry segments” and forums in which it participates, nor does it publish any lobbying-alignment audit or describe criteria for correcting or exiting misaligned associations, so the transparency around indirect lobbying governance remains limited.
|
2
|