Sonata Software Ltd – Lobbying Governance & Transparency

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:

Lobbying Governance

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Moderate	Sonata Software discloses some structured oversight and review mechanisms that touch on its public-policy engagement, but the detail remains limited and largely generic. The company states that “Board level Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Committee is responsible for implementation and oversight of the Business Responsibility policy,” and confirms that this committee “meets at least 4 times in a financial year to discuss on CSR/ Sustainability related matters,” indicating a named body with recurring oversight of Principle 7, which governs policy influence. It further explains that performance against each NGRBC principle, including P7, is formally reviewed, with the table showing the committee conducts an “A” (annual) review of “Performance against above policies and follow up action” and compliance matters, and that “The Policies are reviewed by external consultants, as and when required,” suggesting an external check on the policy framework. On climate-specific alignment, the company provides only a brief procedure: “Sonata Software’s Sustainability team ensures that during any associations with Trade organizations, when climate change is an agenda, Sonata Software places its point of view firmly,” and it answers “Yes” when asked if it has a commitment to conduct engagement in line with the Paris Agreement. These statements show the existence of an internal team that seeks to align indirect lobbying with its climate stance but do not outline how direct lobbying is monitored, how misalignment is addressed, or whether outcomes are reported publicly. No dedicated climate-lobbying audit, trade-association alignment methodology, or board-level sign-off of lobbying positions is disclosed. Overall, the company provides a basic policy framework, identified oversight bodies, and a minimal process for trade-association engagement, but it does not publish detailed mechanisms, monitoring criteria, or results, nor does it explicitly cover direct lobbying activities; this indicates a moderate but still incomplete governance approach. View Sources	C

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Moderate

Sonata Software discloses some structured oversight and review mechanisms that touch on its public-policy engagement, but the detail remains limited and largely generic. The company states that “Board level Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Committee is responsible for implementation and oversight of the Business Responsibility policy,” and confirms that this committee “meets at least 4 times in a financial year to discuss on CSR/ Sustainability related matters,” indicating a named body with recurring oversight of Principle 7, which governs policy influence. It further explains that performance against each NGRBC principle, including P7, is formally reviewed, with the table showing the committee conducts an “A” (annual) review of “Performance against above policies and follow up action” and compliance matters, and that “The Policies are reviewed by external consultants, as and when required,” suggesting an external check on the policy framework. On climate-specific alignment, the company provides only a brief procedure: “Sonata Software’s Sustainability team ensures that during any associations with Trade organizations, when climate change is an agenda, Sonata Software places its point of view firmly,” and it answers “Yes” when asked if it has a commitment to conduct engagement in line with the Paris Agreement. These statements show the existence of an internal team that seeks to align indirect lobbying with its climate stance but do not outline how direct lobbying is monitored, how misalignment is addressed, or whether outcomes are reported publicly. No dedicated climate-lobbying audit, trade-association alignment methodology, or board-level sign-off of lobbying positions is disclosed. Overall, the company provides a basic policy framework, identified oversight bodies, and a minimal process for trade-association engagement, but it does not publish detailed mechanisms, monitoring criteria, or results, nor does it explicitly cover direct lobbying activities; this indicates a moderate but still incomplete governance approach.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Limited	Sonata Software offers only limited insight into its climate-related lobbying. The company confirms that it voices its position on climate matters through the Confederation of Indian Industries, noting that "Sonata Software's Sustainability team ensures that during any associations with Trade organizations, when climate change is an agenda, Sonata Software places its point of view firmly," but it does not name any specific laws, regulations, or policy proposals it has tried to influence. The sole mechanism disclosed is indirect engagement via the trade association, with no details on letters, meetings, consultations, or the government bodies addressed. Likewise, while it says it "aligns and supports CII's stance on climate change" and generally endorses climate-neutral and net-zero goals, it does not spell out the concrete legislative or regulatory outcomes it is seeking. As a result, its disclosures reveal only a broad intention to engage on climate topics, without the specificity needed to understand what policies it lobbies on, how it does so, or the changes it hopes to achieve.	D