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 |
| Comprehensive |
News Corp provides a highly detailed and transparent picture of its climate-policy lobbying. It names multiple specific measures it has engaged on, including Australia’s National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Act, the U.S. SEC’s proposed climate-change disclosure rules, the U.K. Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS), the Climate Change Agreements (CCA) consultation, the U.K. Climate Change Levy, proposed Australian carbon-tax legislation and energy-efficiency programmes run by NYSERDA. The company also explains how it seeks to influence these policies, describing direct meetings and written submissions to the Australian Government, comments sent through the News Media Alliance to the SEC, consultation responses compiled with the British Printing Industry Federation for the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, engagement with the Environment Agency via ESOS-certified consultancies, and ongoing discussions with NYSERDA; it supplements this direct work with indirect activity through trade groups such as the Australian Sustainable Business Group. Finally, News Corp sets out the outcomes it is pursuing: it “supports mandatory carbon reporting” while urging that any rules “minimize the administrative burden on businesses” and reward energy-saving action; it views ESOS as a tool to “improve visibility of energy management issues at Board level” and backs proposed phase-3 changes requiring proof of implementation; it advocates retention of the CCA scheme to keep the focus on energy-saving initiatives; and it favours “sensible, market-based solutions” such as carbon taxes in Australia. By clearly identifying the policies, the methods and targets of engagement, and the specific changes it wants to see, the company demonstrates comprehensive transparency around its climate lobbying activities.
|
4
|
| Overall Assessment |
Comment |
Score |
| Moderate |
News Corp discloses that “climate-related issues have been recently elevated to the Board of Directors, with oversight by the Nominating and Corporate Governance (NCG) Committee,” and that the Committee “reviews Environmental, Social, & Governance (ESG) issues as a standard agenda item during their scheduled meetings,” indicating board-level responsibility for supervising advocacy connected to climate. The company further states that “a process is in place to ensure policy-related activities align to and support News Corp’s corporate internal position on climate change” and that “potential conflicts with the GEI’s position are addressed on a case-by-case basis,” suggesting an internal mechanism for checking whether external policy engagement is consistent with its climate stance. Oversight at the executive level is also described: “the Global Head of ESG periodically reports to the CHRO and CEO on the status of our GEI program and our strategies to continuously improve,” which shows identified senior actors responsible for monitoring the programme. In addition, News Corp confirms that it has “a public commitment or position statement to conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.” However, the company does not disclose any detailed methodology for reviewing or auditing the alignment of its lobbying, provides no information on how direct lobbying positions are approved, and offers no discussion of how it assesses or manages the climate-policy positions of trade associations, making it unclear whether indirect lobbying is governed. There is also no publicly available lobbying-alignment report or evidence of corrective actions such as engaging or exiting misaligned associations. Overall, while the presence of a board committee, executive reporting lines and a stated alignment process indicates moderate governance, the absence of detailed monitoring procedures, coverage of indirect lobbying, or a published climate-lobbying review limits the strength and transparency of the framework.
|
2
|