Paramount Global – 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	Paramount Global explains that “to make sure that our public policy engagements around environmental and sustainability matters match our climate strategy, we ensure open channels of communication between the relevant teams within the business and our public policy team consults across the business regularly on new regulatory developments, with the aim of making sure that our climate strategy is reflected in any positions we take,” demonstrating a defined, cross-functional process intended to align lobbying with its climate objectives. The company further notes that it maintains “a public commitment … to conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement” and that its Global Public Policy and Government Relations team engages “directly, or through industry associations such as the Motion Picture Association of America, NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, and the National Association of Broadcasters,” showing it recognises both direct and indirect lobbying channels. Nevertheless, the disclosure does not specify which individual or board committee is accountable for reviewing lobbying alignment, nor does it describe any formal monitoring tools, trade-association assessments, or corrective actions, and there is no publicly available lobbying-alignment report. This indicates a moderate level of governance: the company outlines a policy and some procedural steps, but the oversight structure and depth of monitoring remain largely undeveloped in the public domain. View Sources	C

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Moderate

Paramount Global explains that “to make sure that our public policy engagements around environmental and sustainability matters match our climate strategy, we ensure open channels of communication between the relevant teams within the business and our public policy team consults across the business regularly on new regulatory developments, with the aim of making sure that our climate strategy is reflected in any positions we take,” demonstrating a defined, cross-functional process intended to align lobbying with its climate objectives. The company further notes that it maintains “a public commitment … to conduct [its] engagement activities in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement” and that its Global Public Policy and Government Relations team engages “directly, or through industry associations such as the Motion Picture Association of America, NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, and the National Association of Broadcasters,” showing it recognises both direct and indirect lobbying channels. Nevertheless, the disclosure does not specify which individual or board committee is accountable for reviewing lobbying alignment, nor does it describe any formal monitoring tools, trade-association assessments, or corrective actions, and there is no publicly available lobbying-alignment report. This indicates a moderate level of governance: the company outlines a policy and some procedural steps, but the oversight structure and depth of monitoring remain largely undeveloped in the public domain.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Limited	Paramount Global offers only limited insight into its climate-related lobbying. It indicates that it may engage on environmental issues, noting it will act "if any type of legislation with environmental undertones is introduced which may have an effect on our business," but it does not identify any concrete climate laws, regulations or bills it has actually sought to influence. Its description of how it lobbies is similarly general: the company says it "regularly engages policymakers and influencers" and maintains "a dedicated office for government affairs and lobbying in Washington DC," and it references interaction with the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission as well as participation in industry bodies, yet it does not spell out whether this takes the form of letters, meetings, testimony, or other specific mechanisms, nor does it name individual decision-makers. Finally, beyond a broad intention to advocate for “responsible and feasible legislation,” the disclosure gives no clear statement of the policy changes or outcomes it is pursuing on climate matters. Taken together, the company acknowledges that it lobbies and might intervene on environmental policy, but provides scant detail on the precise policies, methods, or objectives involved.	D