Uber Technologies Inc – 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	Uber has established a structured governance framework for its political and lobbying activities with clear oversight bodies and processes, though it does not disclose specific mechanisms for aligning its direct lobbying with its climate objectives. For its indirect lobbying, Uber explains that “occasionally, an association or organization that we are members of and/or support will take a position that differs from ours, and, in those cases, we may engage with the organization to express our views,” and that “if a significant misalignment of priorities were identified, the company could consider pausing membership or terminating the relationship.” It further states that “we monitor the use of dues or payments to trade associations and other organizations to ensure consistency with the company’s values and long-term interests,” including “annual reviews of payments to such associations and organizations.” Governance is overseen by a formal internal body, with “all US political contributions [requiring] approval by Uber’s Government Affairs Committee,” and at the board level, the Nominating and Governance Committee “periodically receiving and reviewing from management reports regarding corporate political activities … and lobbying activities.” The Senior Vice President, Marketing and Public Affairs, is named as the executive responsible for political and lobbying oversight, and the Ethics & Compliance team is “responsible for overseeing the above obligations [to meet ethical and transparency requirements] are respected at all times by every Uber team member.” We found no evidence of a published audit or dedicated report evaluating climate-specific lobbying alignment or a detailed policy for direct lobbying review against the company’s climate commitments. View Sources	C

Overall Assessment

Analysis

Score

Moderate

Uber has established a structured governance framework for its political and lobbying activities with clear oversight bodies and processes, though it does not disclose specific mechanisms for aligning its direct lobbying with its climate objectives. For its indirect lobbying, Uber explains that “occasionally, an association or organization that we are members of and/or support will take a position that differs from ours, and, in those cases, we may engage with the organization to express our views,” and that “if a significant misalignment of priorities were identified, the company could consider pausing membership or terminating the relationship.” It further states that “we monitor the use of dues or payments to trade associations and other organizations to ensure consistency with the company’s values and long-term interests,” including “annual reviews of payments to such associations and organizations.” Governance is overseen by a formal internal body, with “all US political contributions [requiring] approval by Uber’s Government Affairs Committee,” and at the board level, the Nominating and Governance Committee “periodically receiving and reviewing from management reports regarding corporate political activities … and lobbying activities.” The Senior Vice President, Marketing and Public Affairs, is named as the executive responsible for political and lobbying oversight, and the Ethics & Compliance team is “responsible for overseeing the above obligations [to meet ethical and transparency requirements] are respected at all times by every Uber team member.” We found no evidence of a published audit or dedicated report evaluating climate-specific lobbying alignment or a detailed policy for direct lobbying review against the company’s climate commitments.

View Sources

Lobbying Transparency

Overall Assessment	Analysis	Score
Moderate	Uber provides a moderate level of transparency around its climate-policy lobbying. On the substance of what it lobbies, the company names one clearly identifiable measure—congestion pricing in New York, noting that “We’ve already been advocating for this in New York. For years, we’ve been calling on the state legislature to pass a comprehensive congestion pricing plan where everyone pays their fair share to use crowded streets.” Beyond that, it lists broader policy categories such as “urban access privileges for ZEVs and shared modes,” “road, emissions, and congestion charges, excluding ZEVs,” and “low carbon fuels standards,” but it does not tie these to specific bills or regulatory dockets, limiting the precision of its disclosure. Uber is more forthcoming on how it lobbies: it describes several distinct mechanisms—committing US$1 million to a public campaign for congestion pricing, employing contract lobbyists in “46 states plus the District of Columbia,” partnering with public entities like the Sacramento Regional Transit District, and mobilising riders and drivers through in-app alerts—while also identifying targets such as the New York State Legislature and local transit agencies. Finally, the company articulates concrete outcomes it seeks, including using congestion pricing revenues to “directly support mass transit,” advancing “binding ZEV mandates and internal combustion engine phaseouts,” and promoting policies that “increase the supply of EV charging” and create “carbon-based fuel-consumption schemes that reward drivers who use more-sustainable modes.” Although these statements reveal clear policy preferences, they remain largely category-level rather than linked to named legislative proposals, so the overall picture is informative but not exhaustive.	C