Lobbying Governance
| Overall Assessment | Analysis | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Moderate |
Prosus discloses a defined, although still high-level, process for keeping its policy engagement consistent with its climate strategy and identifies the bodies that oversee this work, but it does not provide evidence of systematic monitoring of trade-association positions or of publishing a dedicated lobbying-alignment review. In response to the question on engagement governance the company explains that “we have identified the gaps where policy/regulatory structures could accelerate pace of green transitions” and notes that it has “commissioned Ubuntoo… to conduct a comprehensive landscape analysis of the regulations linked to plastics that in the future we are able to support our portfolio companies in the jurisdictions where they are operating,” indicating an internal mechanism for reviewing policy engagement needs. It also states that it is “engaging with prominent agencies to further drive a more granular and nuanced guidance” on target-setting standards, and cites participation in forums such as “a roundtable on standardization of ESG reporting, organized by BCG and WEF” and an “EFRAG Use Test Focus Group,” showing direct involvement in external policy dialogues. The company makes “a public commitment… to conduct your engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement,” providing an explicit alignment pledge. Oversight is anchored at board level: climate matters are “considered at the highest organisational level via the social, ethics and sustainability committee and the risk committee,” and “our board retains overall responsibility for the oversight of our environmental impact management,” with KPIs for the “group chief executive and chief financial officer” linked to environmental performance, which indicates clear accountability for climate-related engagement. However, we found no evidence that Prosus systematically evaluates or discloses the alignment of its own lobbying positions or those of its trade associations with its climate strategy, no mention of criteria for escalating or exiting misaligned associations, and no standalone report or third-party audit of climate-lobbying alignment. This indicates a governance framework that goes beyond basic commitments but remains partial and largely qualitative rather than fully comprehensive and transparent.
View Sources
|
2 |