KING III & GRI +13
2012 Review of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa
as per the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines
| About the Author
| Acknowledgements
An exercise of this nature could not be possible without the assistance of
a number of key role players. In alphabetical order, we would like to thank
the following people:
Computershare, Sarie Oosthuizen and Amanda Nkosi The collection
of Annual and Sustainability Reports would have been a near-impossible job
without the exceptional assistance of Sarie, and her colleague Nomsa at Link.
JSE Limited, Corli le Roux and Makhiba Mollo Our initial point of
research departure began with receipt of a comprehensive database of
JSE-listed companies, without which the scope of research may not have
been as well-defined.
With 13 years’ of living in South Africa, it might seem
inappropriate to state that Michael H. Rea is “a Canadian”,
but as Joburg winters continue to prove, the thick and
insulating blood of the Canadian never diminishes, regardless
of how much one’s eternal love of South Africa proves the
adage that “Africa gets into your blood”. As the Managing
Partner at Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services
(‘IRAS’, formerly SustainabilityServices.co.za), Michael has
developed a 15-year track record in sustainability-related
services, of which the past 13 include sustainability reporting
and assurance in more than 25 countries. Having worked
for both PwC (SA and Canada) and KPMG (SA), and having
partnered with EY and Deloitte on projects, Michael has
developed a boutique/niche assurance consultancy over the
past six years that not only supports his own sustainability,
but helps inform the space around reporting and assurance.
With a unique perspective on ‘Big 4’ versus ‘boutique’
approaches to sustainability advisory, authorship and
assurance services, Michael respects the role the ‘Big 4’
accountancy firms play in sustainability-related services, yet
offers a suite of custom services that provide competitively
value-adding alternatives that are uniquely positioned to
offer greater flexibility when meeting client expectations.
With degrees in Biology, Psychology and an MBA in
Corporate Social Responsibility, Michael is quick to point
out that while he is passionate about sustainability
reporting – as a mechanism for improved risk management,
transparency and accountability – his work is merely a means
to a more important end. His role at IRAS is one of
business developer, principal consultant and assurer,
and educator: sharing his experience with the next
generation of sustainability consultants and clients.
Michael offers SA’s only Certified Sustainability Assurance
Practitioner (CSAP) course – twice annually – to budding
practitioners, as well as to companies seeking to ensure
that their reporting is ‘assurance ready’. Moreover,
Michael’s fee-generating activities are the means to support
his real passions: supporting the Soweto Marimba Youth
League (SMYLe) Trust, of which Michael is the Founding
Trustee and Programme Director, as well as other
local charities.
IRAS is a small, specialised, ‘boutique’ consultancy that
thrives on its relationships with a network of ‘Other
Sustainability Reporting Practitioners’ (or ‘other SRPs’)
to deliver value-adding advisory, sustainability data
systems development, report authorship, and assurance
services to clients in a wide array of industries. From
pro bono clients in the NGO sector (Little Eden, Cotlands
and the Orlando Children’s Home), to SMMEs in the
garment manufacturing industry (Impahla Clothing, a Cape
Town based PUMA supplier, and Vimal Clothing, a Durban
based supplier to the likes of Adidas and Nike), to large
listed corporations (African Bank, Altron, ARM, Illovo
Sugar, Merafe Resources, Metair Holdings, PSV Holdings,
Sun International, Tongaat Hulett, Wilderness Safaris and
Xstrata South Africa), IRAS is not only ‘the #1 assurance
provider in South Africa’, but is well poised to provide
excellent services to a range of highly respected clients.
For more information about our services, please go to
www.iras.co.za.
Link Market Services, Nomsa Phosa As mentioned above, gathering
the reports was primarily facilitated by Nomsa, Sarie and Amanda, and our
sincerest “Thanks” continue to go out to them for their unwavering support.
Studio 5 is not only a fellow-skills partner in the development of the
SMYLe and Little Eden GRI-based NGO Annual Reports, but also the brand
intelligence behind both SMYLe and IRAS, and thus it was a pleasure to
share the development of this report with their highly skilled and motivated
team. Their ingenious ability to convert words into stories, coupled with
phenomenal attention to detail, has helped develop what is likely to be
regarded as the best yet report in our annual series of research documents.
The IRAS Team: Julia Wakeling, Lauren Stirling, Matt Cameron,
Tahereh Kharestani and Thembi Ndlovu Our research team comprised
of one South African – Lauren – who joined IRAS in January 2011 after
returning from teaching high school Sciences in the UK for 10 years, two
Zimbabweans – Julia and Thembi – who joined IRAS earlier this year,
an Iranian – Tahereh – who is currently completing her Masters in
Sustainability and Responsibility at Ashridge Business School in the UK
and another Canadian – Matt – who is just entering the work world after
completing an undergraduate degree in finance. To assume that this project
isn’t an insane endeavour would be tantamount to ignoring the number of
times the team wanted to lynch their “leader” (mostly because of unclear
instructions). Nonetheless, the research team successfully waded through
more than 400 annual and/or sustainability reports to complete the
4th annual review of GRI-based reporting in South Africa, and their excellent
attention to detail has been sincerely appreciated.
We would also like to thank the first 24 ‘Other
SRPs’ (sustainability reporting practitioners)
listed in Appendix IV: our colleagues, peers and
competitors who have helped pay for this
research report (and the launch event) by
purchasing ad space.
Thembi Ndlovu
| Our Reporting Theme
| Content
Be the CHANGE
you want to see.
IFC | About the Author
IFC | Acknowledgements
Mahatma Ghandi
01
| Our Reporting Theme
03
| Research Scope, Objectives and Approach
09
| King III and the GRI Guidelines:
The Why and How of Reporting
13
With the exception of scanned images from
publicly available annual and/or sustainability
reports, or other research documents, all of the
photos used in this report are from the private
collection of Michael H. Rea, and have been used
to help contextualise the reporting paradigm in
South Africa. The majority of the photos are from
the Orlando Children’s Home (Soweto), which
was selected as this year’s beneficiary of our ‘Making Reporting Matter’ initiative.
Over the past three years, IRAS has used the launch of our research
reports as a mechanism for inviting our reporting colleagues, peers,
competitors and clients to participate in a mechanism for ‘giving
back’ to those less fortunate. In 2010, we collected clothing for
HIV-affected families in the Hlabisa area of northern KZN, while
in 2011 we collected blankets for people living in the Zandspruit
Informal Settlement, situated just north of Johannesburg. In
preparation for this year’s report launch, the IRAS team travelled
to the Orlando Children’s Home to identify a need that we believed
our network of stakeholders could help us meet. Without much
debate, we identified a desperate need to fix toilets in the home
as an urgent priority. Thus, we decided to host a unique volunteerism
project we like to call “Extreme Makeover: Bathrooms Edition”,
or “Pimp My Crapper!” Thus, the photos contained within this
report are used to remind you, the reader, of the way in which this
research project makes a difference.
Within IRAS, we believe that “to whom much is given,
much is expected”, and we trust that our network of
‘reporting friends’ equally share in this belief.
As South African businesses, it’s important for all of us to
understand the socioeconomic, political and environmental
conundrum our fellow citizens frequently find themselves in.
With the highest income disparity in the world – measured
by the Gini coefficient – as well as intolerable levels of
unemployment and/or under-employment, South Africa’s
frightening level of disparity is frequently blamed for much of
the crime, murder and corruption that could potentially undo
the near-flawless transformation to democracy that the world
has respected South Africa for.
While those of us deemed ‘the haves’ enjoy the privileges
of relative wealth and opportunity, insulated by the confines
of suburbia, the masses around us struggle to exist in a world
that leads many to believe that the apartheid of old is not
dead, but rather reincarnated. It’s no longer a racial divide that
polarises society, but a socioeconomic chasm that appears to have
evolved out of equal parts greed, selfishness, fear and uncertainty.
For those blessed with access to a meaningful education, as well
as the social structures required to develop ambition, determination
and self-belief, escaping poverty is almost a forgone conclusion,
while millions of others are virtually trapped in an endless cycle
of inopportunity. At the same time, those with the means to afford
suburbia unwittingly exacerbate the poverty of the masses
through behaviour-based ecological destruction.
1
| GRI Reporters in South Africa:
Our Research Findings
25
| Independent Third Party Assurance
31
| 10 Tips to Achieve Excellence in Integrated
Sustainability Reporting
37
| Our Personal Favourites
43
| Why Report According to GRI?
49
| The JSE’s Role in Encouraging
Effective Reporting
53
| Benefits of GRI-based Reporting
in the NGO Sector: A Call to Action!
57
| Getting the Data Right
61
| The Push Towards More Effective
Carbon Disclosure
67
| Appendices
IBC | Moving Forward
| Our Reporting Theme continued
As a hobby pilot, the full might of apartheid became much clearer
the first time I flew from Grand Central Airport, just north of
Johannesburg (in Midrand), south over Alexandra, then Sandton
and the “northern suburbs”, over the Johannesburg CBD, and
then southwest to Soweto (the “south west township”). At about
5 000 feet, one can clearly see how little the divide is between
the wealth of Sandton and the poverty of Alex, and can easily
identify just how comprehensively the world’s largest man-made
urban forest shields the ‘rich few’ from the devastatingly ‘poor
many’. Moreover, the extent to which the governments of the
past punished non-whites, for no fault of their own, becomes
abundantly obvious when winds can be observed sweeping
arsenic and cyanide-laden dust from the tops of mine dumps,
straight into the near tree-less communities that make up Soweto.
Chronic Obstructive Airways Diseases, ‘COADs’ such as silicosis
and pneumoconiosis are to Soweto what oxygen-emitting tree-lined
streets are to those living in the north. Acid mine drainage from
the long-closed gold mines pollute water ways, and man-made
non-biodegradable waste pollutes what open spaces might exist,
while a lack of public services – more readily available in wealthier
parts of the city – exponentially exacerbate the plight of the masses.
Foreign shop owners are attacked in fits of xenophobic rage, by
communities that errantly assume that the success of one must
occur at the expense of others. Petty criminals are lynched and,
in many cases, publicly executed by otherwise law-abiding citizens
who have exceeded their ability to tolerate lawlessness, yet in doing
so becoming more the problem than the solution. The homes of
councillors in parts of Soweto are attacked, and in some cases
completely destroyed, by angry mobs seemingly protected from
prosecution merely because of government’s inability to cap
discontent, coupled with what appears to be a lack of political will
to either fix the underlying problems, or punish those who turn
protests into criminal acts.
What trees do still exist are harvested – unsustainably – to provide
a fuel source even in peri-urban areas. Water sources are polluted
by poorly maintained bulk sewage infrastructure, while over-crowding,
poor sanitation and a lack of waste management systems ensure
that previously eradicated diseases such as cholera become
annual crises.
Sadly, the average life expectancy of a black male is roughly 48 years,
while that of a white male is nearer to 72, and one need only spend
time in what could be deemed a “black community” to understand
why black males are so chronologically disadvantaged. Smoking,
alcohol and a wide array of ‘cheap drugs’ are effective coping
mechanisms that make “life” more bearable, while ultimately
stripping the consumer of both quantity and quality of life.
By working with people such as Johnny Hlaba, an immensely
talented musician who supports a family of five in Soweto on less
than R3 000 per month, and Albertina Khumalo, a hard working
grandmother of AIDS-orphaned grandchildren, who supports a family
of 23 also on less than R3 000 per month. In the Hlabisa area of
northern KZN, the need for meaningful corporate social responsibility,
and effective sustainability reporting has become obvious to me.
By no means have I become a communist, but it’s safe to assert
that I’ve become somewhat of a free-market socialist.
While the business of business will always be business – as
Friedman effectively postulated – the world around us seems to
be becoming abundantly aware of the need to earn equitably,
spend responsibly, and consume sustainably. We are being alerted
to the way in which social media is strengthening community
activism, even in poorer communities that are often underestimated with respect to their level of sophistication. Legal
licences to operate are beginning to take a back seat to the social
2
licences society – rather than government – informally issue to
companies, and executives are beginning to accept that the income
and/or value-added statements taught in school are no longer
relevant in the context of a world seeking socioeconomic fairness.
As this research report demonstrates, South Africa has become
somewhat of a laboratory in which the global corporate world has set
about to test the value inherent in effective reporting. With fewer than
400 companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and 128
GRI-based reporting entities (including 121 listed companies, 3 NGOs,
one SMME, two parastatals and one municipal water board), the
uptake of the GRI Guidelines is higher here than in any other country.
Driven partly by the size of the high social and environmental impact
resource extractive industries (e.g., metals and mining), the path of
South Africa’s post-apartheid transformation agenda has exacerbated
the need to collect, collate and report meaningful answers to critical
questions such as “How responsibly do you generate the wealth
you distribute to the shareholders who remain the minority
(i.e., the wealthy few… regardless of race)?”
South African companies’ reports have significantly improved:
at least in our observation over the four-year history of this annual
research process. They have incorporated a number of compliancerelated reporting expectations such as industry charters (e.g., the
Mining Charter), the Workplace Skills Development Act, the
Employment Equity Act, the JSE’s Socially Responsible Investment
(SRI) Index, the dti Codes of Good Practice and a variety of other
company and/or industry-specific reporting requirements. They
have not only become a message to shareholders and potential
investors, but – much more importantly – an internal management
tool tantamount to the tail that wags the dog. They have become
tools used to help market goods and services to government, and
communication tools used to attract scarce skills from within highly
mobile professional career categories (e.g., engineers and CAs).
Thus, it is my hope that this document will serve as a tool for
the 65% of ‘other South African companies’ (235) still needing
to identify how applying the GRI Guidelines can help manage
social, environmental and governance risks.
“In the land of the blind,
the one-eyed man is king!”
While our research does not attempt to identify whether one
or more companies has reached some form of ethical utopia, it
is the collective hope among the IRAS team – including our highly
committed interns – that the examples of reporting leadership
identified in this document will help those yet to embark on
a similar journey towards transparency and accountability.
As a reader, we implore you to avoid trying to find ‘the perfect
example’ and rather focus on learning from those who have
at least one eye on the ball!
| Research Scope, Objectives and Approach
Research Scope, Objectives and Approach
Over the past four years, our incredibly small business has
invested heavily in researching the effectiveness of corporate
sustainability reporting in South Africa. We have done so primarily
to identify scope for our services, but by no means did we end
there. Granted, it would have been far easier for us to access
global databases of sustainability reports to figure out who might
be interested in our services, but this presupposes that global
databases are complete and/or accurate.
To the best of our knowledge, there are two places interested
parties can go to figure out which companies produce sustainability
(or integrated annual, inclusive of sustainability) reports. These are:
u
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
The GRI maintains a global database of reports that at least
mention the GRI’s guidelines. (www.globalreporting.org)
Unfortunately, the GRI’s database has been historically flawed,
in that it only contained reports that had been sent – by reporting
entities – to the GRI for uploading into their ‘known reports database’.
Typically, this has meant that their database fell short by roughly
50%, given that our annual research has identified twice as many
GRI-compliant reports than were found in their database.
To help rectify this problem, IRAS has volunteered to become the
GRI’s local “GRI Data Partner”, sending all of our research findings
– on behalf of every SA reporting entity – to the GRI for uploading
onto their database.
u
CorporateRegister.com
CorporateRegister.com (CR) maintains a well-populated global
database of all annual, integrated annual and sustainability reports
(in all forms). (www.corporateregister.com)
Unfortunately, CR is apparently at loggerheads with the GRI over
their respective databases, and has taken the brutally self-minded
decision to deny anyone who helps the GRI access to the
CR website (it’s actually written into the terms of agreement
for anyone using their database). Because IRAS shares all of
its research findings with everyone – including the GRI – we
can no longer access their database.
Thus, you – as a reader of this research report – can make use
of CR’s very useful online database. We – at IRAS – can’t!
So much for playing nicely in the same sandbox!
Unfortunately, neither of these databases serves the interests
of IRAS – or our peers within the South African reporting and
assurance market – without our efforts to first assist them.
Hence, our research.
Within a small company such as IRAS, we believe that we
have the potential to service 20 clients – with our current team
complement – at a level to which we are not compromising our
value proposition. However, we also believe that because we
research opportunities for improvement within companies – to
define potential work for us – we may as well share our findings
with every single company we review, as a means of helping
everyone understand where we – as a collective, and as individual
reporters – stand relative to reasonable expectations for
sustainability reporting.
In short, King III – the King Code of Corporate Governance
(version 3, or “King III”) – has established a heads up for
companies attempting to identify the future of their business
in the context of an ever-changing social, economic and
environmental landscape. Among many other governance
recommendations, King III encourages companies to produce
meaningful integrated annual reports using the guidance set out
by the GRI (i.e., the GRI G3 Guidelines). In doing so, King III has
effectively set new benchmarks for a level of transparency that
has long eluded conscious consumers and investors. Although
the goal is courageous, there remains an inadequate amount of
information available to stakeholders wishing to understand how
to benchmark corporate performance on ‘non-financial matters’
and/or companies that wish to understand where they continue to
fall short of the mark. This is why the team at IRAS has yet again
embarked on our annual quest to establish a useful database of
GRI-based sustainability reports.
As mentioned above, the inherent flaw in the GRI’s database
is the fact that the GRI does not actually search for reports,
but rather waits for companies to send their reports to the GRI’s
database team. While it might be reasonable to assume that
anyone using the GRI Guidelines would want to let the GRI know,
and thus be included in the GRI’s database, this is not the case.
At last check (31 May 2011), the GRI’s database only recorded
88 GRI-based reports in South Africa for the 2011 period, which
is 40 fewer than our research has found. Hence, our decision to
volunteer to become the GRI’s “data partner” for South Africa.
To identify our list of 128 GRI-based South African reports, IRAS
assembled a team with extensive research and analysis skills,
but little to no experience in sustainability reporting matters.
4
The rationale behind using non-sustainability experts is predicated
on the assumption that an experienced sustainability advisor, author
or assurance provider would most probably bring a hyper-critical
set of expectations to the process. By using inexperienced reviewers,
the test of GRI-compliance could assess whether companies make
their reports simple enough for a wide array of stakeholders to
use effectively.
For this year’s review, our research team consisted of one existing
team member (Lauren), one new recruit to the IRAS team (Julia),
and two fixed-term international interns: Matt (Canada), and Tahereh
(Iran). The team was supported by Thembi, our Research & Admin
Assistant, who was given the unenviable task of collecting all of
the reports we reviewed.
Over the course of a five-month period, the team reviewed the most
recently published hard copy and/or electronic annual and/or
sustainability reports for the more than 420 companies recorded on
a list of companies supplied by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange
(JSE), as well as reports from non-listed entities which have been
known to produce a sustainability report (i.e., ‘known reporters’).
NOTE
To be considered a “South African Report”, the company
must not only be listed on the JSE, but must have as its
primary residence, an office in South Africa. In many
cases, where it wasn’t obvious, our ‘Proudly SA’ test
was conducted by searching for where the auditors
reside. Although a company might appear to be South
African, or assert that it’s South African, it might have
been deemed ‘un-South African’ on the basis of not
being administratively based in South Africa.
In order for a report to be deemed “GRI-Compliant”,
the report had to meet the following requirements:
• Clearly state that the report was “compiled in accordance
with the GRI Guidelines” (or something to that effect).
• Either declare a GRI Application Level (C/C+, B/B+ or
A/A+, where the ‘+’ indicates that the report had been
assured by a third party), or clearly indicate that an
Application Level has not been declared. Exceptions
are made if/when a company has not declared a level,
but has included a GRI Content Index, thus being
“GRI Compliant” by default.
Some reports were immediately disqualified due to a comprehensive
lack of information, leaving a total population sample of 363 reports,
of which the vast majority were produced for the 2011 financial
year, while some were for the 2012 financial period.
To establish a GRI-compliance score, each report was compared
against all 127 GRI G3 Guideline indicators (see Appendix IV for
a full list of the indicators). Testing was conducted to determine
whether or not the reports provided responses to each of the
G3 reporting requirements:
• 42 ‘Strategy & Profile’ indicators – those that essentially
provide an overview of the entity, its sustainability paradigm,
and the systems and processes for stakeholder engagement
and reporting;
• six ‘Disclosures on Management Approach’ for Economic,
Environmental, Labour, Human Rights, Social and Product
Responsibility – those that define how the entity manages
its performance in each of these areas;
• 49 ‘Core Performance Indicators’, of which seven are Economic,
17 Environmental, nine Labour, seven Human Rights, six Society
and four Product Responsibility – those that define how the
entity manages its performance for common areas; and
• 30 ‘Additional Performance Indicators’, of which two are
Economic, 13 Environmental, five Labour, two Human Rights,
two Society and five Product Responsibility – for more technical
and/or less common performance areas.
• Our team conducted page-by-page reviews of the 363 company
reports – inclusive of any/all documents or web pages that were
clearly referenced in the primary document – providing a basic
assessment of whether or not responses to the indicators could
be found. Each report review required an average of more than
3 hours of researcher effort, plus an additional hour of quality
assurance (QA) and/or analysis.
• It is important to note that the scope of our research did not
extend to giving a subjective assessment of whether or not the
information provided was accurate, complete or reliable. Rather,
our assessment was limited to determining whether or not our
team could identify a ‘reasonable’ or ‘partial’ response to each
indicator. As such, our ‘scoring’ was based on a 3-grade scale,
as follows:
–– A ‘reasonable response’ – a rating score of ‘2 of 2’ – for
a response that provides enough information to establish
a reasonable understanding of the reporting entity’s
management of the indicator.
NOTE
Just because a company said they offered a response –
partial or complete – doesn’t mean our team agreed with
the company’s assertion. In many cases, responses were
‘implicit’ (at best) and not ‘explicit’, or it was assumed that
the reader of the report had memorised the content of the
company’s prior reports. In many other cases, responses
were buried in a web of online information, without clear
guidance regarding where the response could be
uncovered (thus, not really “available”).
o address this issue, our research includes “Non-Compliant”
T
as a separate application level in our analysis. A company
was deemed “Non-Compliant” regardless of whether or
not the report had been “GRI-Checked” (by the GRI), or
assured by a third party, and only assessed as such if they
did not meet the GRI’s Application Level requirements.
ach GRI-based reporting company was given an
E
opportunity to review our assessment, and argue our
findings. Thus, our findings in this report should be
deemed ‘fair’ (or ‘as fair as possible’).
–– A ‘partial response’ – a rating score of ‘1 of 2’ – for a
response that offers some information regarding the
indicator’s expectations, but not enough to fully understand
the entity’s management of the indicator.
–– A ‘non-response’ – a rating of ‘0 of 2’ – for any indicator
where no response could be identified.
Upon completion, each ‘Gap Analysis’ was subjected to a high
level peer Quality Assurance (QA) review to ensure that the
assessment was comprehensively completed, and then a test for
anomalies and/or obvious errors to be corrected. For the first time,
our team went one very important step further, and issued each
company-specific analysis to the reporting entity – if they had
produced a “GRI-based Report”.
We firmly believe that the quality of our scoring system, and thus
the resultant compliance score, is directly linked to the quality
of≈the reports reviewed. In many cases, reports were extremely
difficult to navigate, particularly lengthy reports that included
incorrect GRI indicator tables, thus making it difficult to find
indicator specific data. Ultimately, a report should be produced in
a manner that would allow someone new to the company and/or
to sustainability reporting to find meaningful data in a timely
and efficient manner.
Although we respect that we may yet be corrected on one or
more company-specific reviews, we believe that the scores
5
BBBEE
CDP
KING III
On top of your game?
| Research Scope, Objectives and Approach continued
TIPS
he GRI Content Index table is not a ‘nice to have’, but
T
rather a required element of GRI compliance, regardless
of the application level being sought (C, B or A). The GRI is
explicit about this on their website:
Reports based on the GRI Guidelines without a GRI
“
Content Index are included as “GRI-referenced”, but
are not considered to be GRI reports.”
Companies that absurdly choose to produce an index
table that guides the reader to a section of the report
– and not a specific page(s) – should stop wasting
everyone’s time and, more importantly, their money!
Producing an indicator table that tells the reader to go
to the “Environmental Section” to find a response to
environmental indicators is useless. This is particularly
pertinent to companies who foolishly avoid producing
printed copies, or at least downloadable .pdf versions,
of their report. With rare exceptions (e.g., Sasol,), few
web-based sustainability reports are easily navigated.
When populating the GRI index table with page numbers,
ensure that the page numbers refer to the final editor’s
proof of the report, not to the Word document that was
sent to the design team. The two reports are almost
always completely inconsistent in page numbering.
To get this right, it is advisable that companies avoid
including the GRI Content Index in the actual printed
report, but rather make the table available online, or
via a ‘request via email’ mechanism. This allows for
the report to be ‘done and dusted’ before the table is
completed, thereby maximising the potential for page
number accuracy (and reducing heaps of last minute
stress at the printers).
presented in Appendix III are as accurate as could be established
within the limits of the time invested in this research (more than
2 000 hours over a five-month period). All companies included in
our research are invited to request a copy of our gap analysis
assessment for their report – free of charge!
Unlike the reporting databases supplied by CorporateRegister.com
and/or the GRI, our research not only leads to THE most
comprehensive list of GRI-based reports in South Africa, but it also
leads to an understanding of how many companies are producing
reports that are ‘nearly there’. By evaluating all company reports,
regardless of whether they cite the GRI Guidelines or declare an
application level, our research provides a tool that all companies
can use to help inform their future reporting processes.
6
This document also includes an assessment of how well each
of the GRI’s indicators are responded to, offering a table
(Appendix IV) that breaks down responses for GRI and non-GRI
reports. This table is based on requests from researchers,
and is designed to help establish areas of specific concern that
may require additional support for companies (e.g., reporting
expectations for Human Rights).
Our Apologies
To those companies who were unfairly evaluated and/or reported
upon in last year’s research report – particularly Barloworld – we
hereby sincerely apologise for getting the information wrong.
We do our best to be ‘as accurate as possible’, but accept that
we too are human… thus fallible… and thus likely to make
mistakes.
To those companies who believe they have been unfairly excluded
this year, or unfairly assessed, please email us at info@iras.co.za
and we’ll do our best to sort out the problem, and – where
necessary – make it up to you.
To those companies who believe that we shouldn’t be allowed
to include our assessment of your report, our apology is simple,
“Either accept it, or get over it!” Your report is public, and
we don’t need your permission to review it, or to try to help you
improve your reporting (particularly when we do it for mahala)!
SUSTAINABILITY
MATTERS
As a long-standing Organisational Stakeholder of the GRI
we can help you to:
Russell & Associates brings fresh ideas to the incorporation of sustainability
• Identifythemostsignificantmaterialissuestoreport;
matters into your quarterly, half-year and annual reporting to stakeholders,
• Developyoursustainabilityreportingstrategy;
building essential environmental, social and governance information into an
• Implementappropriatereportingandcommunicationsystems;and
integrated reporting format, in both print and an on-line environment.
• Developyourreports,fromconcepttofinishedproduct.
Contact us:
Tel: +27 11 880 3924 / Fax: +27 11 880 3788 / E-mail: charmane@rair.co.za
For more information please visit our online portfolio at www.russellandassociates.co.za
2012
With a strategic approach to the broad spectrum of reporting requirements,
For listed companies, sustainability reporting is no longer a nice-to-have.
rest assured...
King III and the GRI Guidelines:
The WHY and HOW of Reporting
Unlike most countries, sustainability reporting in
South Africa is less of a ‘nice to have’ than a
‘need to have’, particularly for listed companies.
Whereas consumer, shareholder and/or other
stakeholder requests for additional information
drive reporting trends in the more developed
economies of Europe and North America, the
key motivation for integrated sustainability
reporting in our context is centred around
the listing requirements of the Johannesburg
Stock Exchange (JSE).
are in place to help manage an array of company, industry and/or
societal challenges.
In many respects, the JSE’s requirements appear to be a
measured attempt at responding to a combination of societal
trends and the concerns of an unsettled international investor
community. However, the corporate sector has repeatedly been
able to prove that South Africa is not only a regional economic
powerhouse, but also an internationally recognised innovation hub.
Leading companies such as Bidvest, SAB, Sasol, Sappi, and many
others, are able to demonstrate how success can be both borne
and nurtured in a highly advanced business environment in South
Africa, and then taken further afield into the rest of the world. As
such, sustainability reporting, as part of a broader world-class
corporate governance code (i.e., King III), is a mechanism that is
often cited as a response to the growing international concern
over the security of investments in South Africa, and a means of
demonstrating how our companies are able to compete in
international markets, with equal if not better governance
standards.
1. Ethical leadership and corporate citizenship
At the same time, sustainability reporting has become a useful
mechanism for communicating with local stakeholders who
challenge businesses on matters pertaining to the fair distribution
of wealth, black economic empowerment, climate change, a
scarcity of potable water and other environmental issues. By
reporting to stakeholders on an annual basis, companies are able
to reduce conflict – as much as reasonably expected – while
demonstrating that policies, procedures and management systems
rest assured...
Launched by the Institute of Directors (SA) in 2009, the King
Report on Corporate Governance in SA, 2009 (King III, or ‘the
Code’) became effective as of 2010, thereby requiring companies
to ‘apply or explain’ 75 different recommendations (or ‘principles’)
outlined within the Code. As a list of ‘recommendations’, the Code
does not explicitly ‘demand’ compliance, but rather recommends
that companies apply each of the 75 principles, or explain the
reasons for not doing so. Broken down into nine separate
chapters, the Code requires companies to address the following
elements (Source: King III, www.iodsa.co.za):
2. Boards and directors
3. Audit committees
4. The governance of risk
5. The governance of information technology
6. Compliance with laws, rules, codes and standards
7. Internal audit
8. Governing stakeholder relationships
9. Integrated reporting and disclosure
Although integrated reporting falls at the end of the list, one
shouldn’t confuse its positioning with some form of relegation
to insignificance. Rather, the concept of integrated reporting is,
to reapply the term, integrated throughout the Code, and is woven
throughout all recent guidance on governance as a means of
heightening the role of reporting as a means of informing business
strategy. In fact, of the 75 governance principles cited within the
Code (noting that ‘good governance’ is in essence all about
ensuring ‘sustainability’), 20 of the principles deal directly with
sustainability and/or integrated reporting matters, including
(Source: King III, www.iodsa.co.za):
aassurance . advisory . strategy
www.earthinc.co.za
9
| King III and the GRI Guidelines continued
1.1The board should provide effective leadership based
on an ethical foundation
Ethical leaders should:
1.1.1direct the strategy and operations to build a
sustainable business;
1.1.2 consider the short- and long-term impacts of
the strategy on the economy, society and
the environment;
6.4The board should delegate to management the
implementation of an effective compliance framework
and processes
6.4.5The integrated report should include details of
material or often repeated instances of noncompliance by either the company or its directors
in their capacity as such
1.1.3do business ethically;
7.3Internal audit should provide a written assessment of
the effectiveness of the company’s system of internal
controls and risk management
1.1.4do not compromise the natural environment; and
1.1.5take account of the company’s impact on internal
and external stakeholders.
7.3.1Internal audit should form an integral part of the
combined assurance model as internal assurance
provider
The board should:
1.1.9promote the stakeholder-inclusive approach
of governance.
7.3.2Internal controls should be established not only over
financial matters, but also operational, compliance
and sustainability issues
1.2The board should ensure that the company is and
is seen to be a responsible corporate citizen
2.2The board should appreciate that strategy, risk,
performance and sustainability are inseparable
8.1The board should appreciate that stakeholders’
perceptions affect a company’s reputation
8.2The board should delegate to management to
proactively deal with stakeholder relationships
2.11The board should appreciate that stakeholders’
perceptions affect the company’s reputation
8.3The board should strive to achieve the appropriate
balance between its various stakeholder groupings,
in the best interests of the company
2.12The board should ensure the integrity of the company’s
integrated report
8.4Companies should ensure the equitable treatment
of shareholders
3.4The audit committee should oversee integrated
reporting
8.5Transparent and effective communication with
stakeholders is essential for building and maintaining
their trust and confidence
3.10The audit committee should report to the board
and shareholders on how it has discharged its duties
3.10.4The audit committee should recommend the
integrated report for approval by the board
4.5The board should ensure that risk assessments are
performed on a continual basis
4.10The board should ensure that there are processes in
place enabling complete, timely, relevant, accurate
and accessible risk disclosure to stakeholders
8.6The board should ensure that disputes are resolved
as effectively, efficiently and expeditiously as possible
9.1The board should ensure the integrity of the company’s
integrated report
9.2Sustainability reporting and disclosure should be
integrated with the company’s financial reporting
9.3Sustainability reporting and disclosure should be
independently assured
10
Although not explicitly mentioned within the principles found
within the ‘Final’ version of King III, as they had been in Chapter 6
of the February 2009 Draft Code, the Global Reporting Initiative
(GRI) Guidelines remain a key recommended source of guidance
for sustainability reporting. The Guidelines are cited not only as an
emerging transparency trend throughout the world, but also as a
mechanism for identifying subject matter that might be of material
benefit for companies to manage and report upon to stakeholders.
All organisations (private, public, or non-profit) are encouraged to
report against the Guidelines, whether they are beginners or more
experienced reporters and regardless of their size, sector or location.
The Guidelines are the most widely used in the sustainability
reports of global companies, and are widely regarded as the ‘dé
facto’ standard for sustainability reporting. In South Africa, the
Guidelines are frequently viewed as a useful roadmap for companies
embarking upon a journey towards effective reporting. Established
to make the Guidelines relevant to all users, the reporting requirements
are structured in a way that organisations can ease into reporting
by attempting to comply with the GRI’s least tedious ‘Application
Level’ (i.e., Level C), ultimately building up to more meaningful
Level B or A reports.
Interestingly, King III has evolved from Kings I and II in a manner
consistent with the GRI Guidelines, attempting to ensure that
the Code is applicable to all entities regardless of the manner
and form of their incorporation or establishment, and regardless
of whether they exist in the public, private or non-profit sectors.
Whereas King (I, II and III) was developed primarily through the
efforts of the South African Institute of Directors (IoDSA), the GRI
is an Amsterdam-based non-governmental organisation (NGO) that
works within an international multi-stakeholder process in order to
develop what has become a seminal framework for transparency
and accountability through sustainability reporting.
First released in 1999 and now in their third edition, the Guidelines
have been adopted by a diverse range of organisations as the
basis for their sustainability reporting. According to the database
of reports provided by the GRI, there were 2 202 reports published
by companies in 73 different countries in 2011, compared to only
10 reports published in 1999, demonstrating how the Guidelines
are meeting the sustainability communication needs of a broader
set of reporting entities.
Although initially developed and released for use in 1999, the
Guidelines continue to undergo further development through
a process of consensus-seeking dialogue with an international
network of stakeholder groups including business, civil society,
academia, unions and other professional institutions. According
to the GRI, the process is “open, inclusive and takes a global
PE INTERNATIONAL
E X P E RT S I N S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
CDP & GRI
certified
Software Solutions
CDP & GRI
Software
Solutions
PEcertified
INTERNATIONAL
provides
long-term support for
South
African clients provides
with CDPlong-term
& GRI accredited
PE INTERNATIONAL
support
software
solutions
and
consultancy
for South African clients with CDPservices
& GRI in
the complete
field of sustainability:
accredited software
solutions and consultancy
(Source: www.globalreporting.org)
perspective on the growing understanding of good reporting
on key sustainability issues.”
Having been enhanced as knowledge and awareness of key
sustainability matters have evolved, and as the needs of reporters
and users have changed, the Guidelines have recently been updated
to version 3.1 and are currently in the process of undergoing a
complete renovation process that will ultimately lead to the fourth
generation of Guidelines, or “G4”. The G4 version is currently
doing the rounds in draft format, and is expected to be launched
at the GRI’s next global sustainability reporting conference in
Amsterdam in May 2013.
The GRI G3 Guidelines are presented according to the following
categories of indicators, whereby anyone wishing to produce a
report that meets the Application Level A requirements, all of
the profile and boundary indicators (sections 1 to 4, listed below)
are required, as well as all of the ‘core performance indicators’:
Section 1: Strategy and Analysis (two indicators)
Section 2:Organisational Profile (10 indicators)
Section 3:Report Profile (four indicators)
Report Scope and Boundary (seven indicators)
GRI Content Index (one indicator)
Assurance over the report (one indicator)
Section 4: Governance (10 indicators)
Commitment to External Initiatives (three indicators)
Stakeholder Engagement (four indicators)
Section 5:Disclosures on Management Approach (one each
for Economic, Environmental, Labour, Human Rights,
Society and Product Responsibility)
Section 6:Economic Performance, including Market Presence
and Indirect Economic Aspects (nine indicators, of
which seven are ‘core’)
Section 7:Environmental Performance, including Materials,
Energy, Water, Biodiversity, Emissions, Effluent
& Waste, Compliance and Transport (30 indicators,
of which 17 are ‘core’)
Section 8:Labour Performance, including Employment, Labour/
Management Relations, Occupational Health &
Safety, Training & Education and Diversity & Equal
Opportunity (14 indicators, of which nine are ‘core’)
Section 9:Human Rights Performance, including Strategy
& Management, Non-discrimination, Freedom
of Association, Child Labour and Forced Labour
(nine indicators, of which six are ‘core’)
Section 10:Society Performance, including Community,
Corruption, Public Policy and Compliance
(eight indicators, of which six are ‘core’)
Section 11:Product Responsibility, including Customer Health
& Safety, Products & Services, Marketing &
Communication and Customer Privacy (nine
indicators, of which four are ‘core’)
inProduct
the complete
field of sustainability:
services• & Corporate
Carbon
Footprinting
Corporate
Carbon
• Product
• Life&Cycle
Assessment
(LCA)
Footprinting
• Energy Efficiency Assessment
• Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA)
& Management
• Energy
• Sustainability
Reporting &
Efficiency Assessment
Management
• Greenhouse Gas Reduction
RoadmapsReporting
• Sustainability
With
20 years experience
PE INTERNATIONAL
• Greenhouse
Gas Reduction
Roadmaps
has a satisfied client community in over 70
With 20 years
INTERNATIONAL
countries.
And experience
more thanPE
1 000
multinationals,
has
a
satisfied
client
community
over
including 9 JSE listed companies,in
use
our
70
countries.
And
more
than
1.000
multinationals,
services and software solutions.
including 9 JSE listed companies, use our
services and software solutions.
PE INTERNATIONAL (South Africa).
Call us 082 373 4055
m.reichardt@pe-international.com
PE INTERNATIONAL (South Africa)
Call us 082 373 4055
m.reichardt@pe-international.com
www.pe-international.com
11
| King III and the GRI Guidelines continued
NOTE
full set of GRI G3 Indicators, including basic
A
definitions, can be downloaded from the GRI’s website
(www.globalreporting.org), or from our website
(www.iras.co.za), or can be viewed in the format
we have included in Appendix IV of this report.
As the most comprehensive and wide-ranging of sustainability
reporting recommendations, it is generally accepted that the
Guidelines can be used as the basis for producing integrated annual
and/or sustainability reports that can be deemed ‘comparable’
within industries and/or countries, or between them. However,
the Guidelines, even in their G3 format, remain somewhat limited
in their ability to establish a ‘one size fits all’ reporting methodology.
As such, the GRI has established a number of ‘Sector Supplements’
that help adapt the Guidelines to the unique characteristics of specific
industries, or sectors (e.g., Metals & Mining, NGOs, Airport Operators,
Electric Utilities, etc.). These supplements complement rather than
replace the standard Guidelines by allowing reporters an opportunity
to respond to an industry-specific set of sustainability issues,
including the following sectors:
• Airport Operations
• Apparel and Footwear (in pilot version)
• Automotive (in pilot version)
• Construction and Real Estate
and manageable. It should be noted that some indicators require
little more than a basic statement of disclosure to meet the
reporting requirements, including such basic requirements as
stating the reporting entity’s name, or including a G3 Indicator
Table (a list of references to the indicators, including whether or
not a disclosure has been included in the report). More information
on compliance to the GRI’s G3 Guidelines can be sourced from
the GRI’s website. However, one must also note that the question
still remains,
Is there such a thing as a ‘good sustainability report’ that is not
necessarily a ‘good GRI report’?
Once again, the answer is an emphatic “Yes!”
Several of the non-GRI sustainability reports that were reviewed
by our team were ultimately regarded as excellent reports (see
table below). Not only did they score well in terms of the GRI
G3 content assessment we measured each report by – despite
not explicitly mentioning use of the GRI Guidelines – but they also
managed to provide meaningful discussions about the overall
sustainability performance of the reporting entity. However, the
question isn’t “Should we report according to the GRI or not”,
but rather, “Why wouldn’t you report according to the GRI?”
The GRI Guidelines are either required or recommended by:
• King III, for all JSE-listed companies. Moreover, the GRI G3
Guidelines provide an internationally recognised comprehensive
framework for reporting that allows for immediate comparability
and benchmarking. Thus, if one is to set out on a path to
enlightened sustainability reporting, the question of whether
or not to adhere to the GRI G3 Guidelines is rhetorical. Why
wouldn’t you?
• The Public Investment Corporation (PIC, the government’s
principle investment arm, assuming one ignores the stories
about Chancellor House), for all entities in which the PIC has
an interest.
• The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM),
the industry body to which many South African mining
companies belong.
• The JSE’s Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Index, which
annually reviews the sustainability performance of South Africa’s
largest companies (by market cap).
• A growing number of ‘responsible investment’ mechanisms
among the more proactive asset managers and/or pension
funds (more to come on this in the coming months).
Moreover, the GRI G3 Guidelines provide an internationally
recognised comprehensive framework for reporting that allows for
immediate comparability and benchmarking. Thus, if one is to set
out on a path to enlightened sustainability reporting, the question
of whether or not to adhere to the GRI G3 Guidelines is rhetorical.
Why wouldn’t you?
For more answers to the “Why wouldn’t you?” debate, refer
to our conversation with leading reporters, in the “Why Bother”
section of this report.
• Electric Utilities
• Event Organisers
• Financial Services
• Food Processing
• Logistics and Transportation (in pilot version)
• Media
NOTE
o ensure that this research project maintained a
T
maximum level of comparability, the 363 reports were
assessed against the main set of indicators and did not
consider any of the industry-specific sector supplements.
• Mining and Metals
• NGO
• Oil and Gas (in pilot version)
• Public Agency (in pilot version)
• Telecommunications (in pilot version)
Although some might argue that the GRI G3 Guidelines are too
far-reaching and/or complicated to follow, the collective experience
of a wide array of companies, institutions and non-governmental
organisations in more than 70 countries suggests otherwise.
Based solely on the experience of South African reporting entities,
including Impahla Clothing, an SMME supplier to PUMA as well
as Cotlands, Little Eden and SMYLe (all NGOs), and the 124 other
identified ‘G3 reporters’, the G3 Guidelines are both meaningful
Our Personal Favourites
Company
Level
Sector
Score
Rank
Sasol
A+
Energy & Natural Resources
99.6%
1
Lonmin plc
NC(A+)
Metals & Mining
94.1%
5
Sappi
A
Energy & Natural Resources
93.3%
6
Anglo American plc
A+
Metals & Mining
88.5%
11
Grindrod Ltd
B+
Transportation
73.9%
30
Illovo Sugar
B+
Food & Beverages
73.5%
31
Woolworths
NC(B+)
Retail
72.3%
34
Astrapak
Not GRI
General Industry
31.6%
154
12
| GRI Reporters in South Africa – Our Research Findings
GRI Reporters in South Africa – Our Research Findings
• The research team reviewed annual and/or sustainability reports
from more than 400 reporting entities, based on an initial list
supplied by the JSE (supplemented by reports from other
‘known reporters’).
• Several JSE-listed companies were excluded from the
population sample due to a lack of adequate reporting
(e.g., some companies were new to the JSE and thus had yet
to produce an Annual Report, while others were in the process
of de-listing), while others were excluded for being deemed
‘un-South African’ by virtue of their primary administrative
offices no longer being in South Africa.
• The final population sample of reviewed reports was settled at
363, down significantly from the 392 in our last report (383 in
our 2010 report).
• 128 reporting entities (35.3%) were found to produce
GRI G3-based reports, up from 100 (25.5%) last year,
and 86 (22.5%) in our 2010 report.
• 10 companies declared a GRI application level of A+, two
declared A, 24 declared B+, 11 declared B, 10 declared C+,
and 42 declared C. While 29 companies did not declare an
application level, and were therefore classified as ‘ND’, a further
32 companies declared a level that was determined to be
inaccurate (i.e., the report was ‘not compliant’ based on missing
information), including three that had been assured. As such,
these companies were rated as ‘Not Compliant’, or ‘NC’.
• 66 reporting entities (18.2%) were found to produce reports
that nearly met the GRI G3 requirements… based on a GRI
compliance score equal or greater than the minimum score
for GRI compliance (25.3%).
• 52 reports were found to have been assured, of which 29
(55.8%) were assured by one or more of the Big 4 accounting
firms, and 12 (23.1%) were assured ourselves at IRAS (formerly
SustainabilityServices.co.za).
• 16 reports (30.8%) assured in South Africa were assured using
AccountAbility’s AA1000AS Assurance Standard, demonstrating
continued significant growth in the application of the standard
by various assurance providers.
• The average GRI compliance score for non-assured reports was
51.1%, whereas the average for assured reports was 71.9%.
The lowest score for an assured report was 29.6%, barely
above the minimum score required for GRI compliance (25.3%).
The lowest score for a non-assured GRI-based report was
22.9% (thus ‘non-compliant’).
• The average response rate for all 127 GRI indicators was
33.8%, of which GRI-based reporters provided responses with
an average response rate of 61.8%, compared to 24.4% for
non-GRI-based reports.
• Profile and strategy indicators (1.1 to 4.17) had an average
response rate of 89.1% among GRI-based reports and 55.5%
among non-GRI-based reports.
• Disclosure on Management Approach indicators had an average
response rate of 53.5% among GRI-based reports and only
10.8% among non-GRI-based reports.
• Amongst the performance indicators for GRI-based reports, the
Economic indicators had the highest levels of responses, with an average response rate of 62.8%, followed by Labour Practices
(51.1%), Society (48.7%), Product Responsibility (42.5%),
Human Rights (36.9%) and then Environmental (36.8%).
• The research team invested more than 1 600 hours in the
primary review portion of this project, plus no fewer than 1 000
hours in the Quality Assurance (QA), writing and editing phase.
• This report is provided to ALL reporting entities without cost, as
part of our commitment to helping companies improve their
progress towards effective integrated sustainability reporting in
South Africa. This report is also shared with the more than 60
known ‘other sustainability reporting practitioners’ (i.e., our peers,
colleagues and competitors), based on our belief that while
‘knowledge is power’, public domain information should be
shared for common benefit.
• 30 of our peers, colleagues and competitors have advertised in
this report…helping to cover the cost of our launch event, in
exchange for the opportunity to assist the IRAS team in our
own pursuit of sustainability!
In reviewing the 363 reports we settled on as our ‘comprehensive
reports database’, the goal was not simply to focus on companies
that explicitly referred to the GRI’s G3 Guidelines, but rather to
assess compliance to the Guidelines regardless of whether or not
the reporting entities appear to be aware of them. In doing so,
‘compliance’, for the purposes of this exercise, was extended to
whether or not reports offered at least a ‘basic response’ to each
of the G3 indicators, including the full list of the 127 indicators and
management approach disclosure requirements. Our goal was not
necessarily to assess the accuracy of any of the responses, but
rather to determine if ‘reasonable’ or ‘partial’ responses could
be found.
Ultimately, our research team identified 128 GRI G3-based reports
and 66 ‘near-reporters’ (i.e., companies that scored above the
minimum C-level compliance score of 25.3%), and hereby offer up
a ranking of reports relative to GRI G3 compliance.
Scoring was based on a simple 0, 1 or 2 scale, where 0 was
scored for ‘no response’, 1 was scored for a ‘basic response’ and
2 was scored for a ‘reasonable response’. As such, it is important
to note that a company could be GRI G3 C-level (i.e., ‘entry level’)
14
NOTE
Each
report was reviewed in great detail, whereby
the average review time per report exceeded 4 hours. Thus, it should be noted that where a report was
deemed difficult to review, the research team may have
recorded a ‘no response’ rating (i.e., a score of ‘0’ for
a specific indicator) based on their inability to find
a response, even though the reporting entity may
ultimately be able to help find one.
compliant with a minimum score of only 25.3%, while A-level
compliance can occur with a minimum score of 56.7%.
Of principal interest to the research team, it was determined that
of the 2 202 GRI-based sustainability reports identified via the
GRI’s own database of reports (updated using data from our
research), 128 (5.8%) are from South African companies. In fact,
and although the number of listed ‘reporting countries’ rose from
53 in 2008 to 64 in 2010 and 73 in 2011, it was interesting to note
that the top 10 reporting countries, by number of reports,
accounted for 1 216 of the 2 202 reports, or 55.2%, while the top
15 countries accounted for 1 503 of the listed reports (68.3%).
The continued growth in the number of GRI-based reports, and
reporting countries, is further evidence that the influence of the
GRI G3 Guidelines is continuing to spread. Whereas there were
only 41 countries represented on the GRI’s list of reporting entities
seven years ago, there are now 73, with the list being relatively
NOTE
Perhaps it’s not my place to speculate about subterfuge,
but I find it rather interesting that in the year when
China suddenly emerges as one of the “top 10 reporting
countries” (#6 with 118 reports), the historical record
of Taiwan’s share of the GRI’s reporting database has
disappeared. Not only does Taiwan no longer appear in
this year’s record of GRI-based reports, but the reference
to Taiwanese companies’ reports prior to 2011 – still
residing in my backed-up records from each of the past
three years – is nowhere to be found. Given that China
does not allow its trade partners to recognise Taiwan
as “a country”, maybe it’s safe to assume that the
GRI has been pushed in a more ‘China-friendly’
direction. Hmmm…
diverse and, including such surprises as the United Arab Emirates
(UAE), Nigeria, Mongolia and Palestine.
Of course, one must remember that the information supplied
by the GRI is not completely accurate. The mere fact that the
GRI only records 68 SA companies in their database when their
attention was drawn to the 100 companies we identified in our
2011 research report (reviewing reports published for 2010)
suggests that a 47.1% margin of error may be possible across
the entire global database. As such, our assertion that SA is
the 3rd largest sustainability reporting entity for 2011 must be
taken with a proverbial pinch of salt.
At present, the database supplied by CorporateRegister.com is
the best possible comparative tool available to assess the uptake
of the GRI G3 Guidelines across the full 13-year span of GRI
reporting, although the GRI’s own database can be useful in
cross-checking for lapses. However, because CorporateRegister.
com has opted to ban IRAS from using its database on the basis
of our willingness to share our research results with everyone –
including the GRI – we can only draw your attention to their
excellent database: we can’t use it, and thus can’t offer you any
research findings based on their data. Nonetheless, based on the
available data, South Africa has made the following moves in
terms of our dominance in GRI-based reporting over the past few
years: from tied for 7th position in our review of 2007 reports, to
3rd for 2008 reports, to 5th for 2009 and 2010 reports, to 3rd for
2011 reports.
successfully implementing the GRI G3 Guidelines as a means for
demonstrating maximum transparency and accountability. More
specifically, the Metals & Mining, Banking & Financial Services,
Retail, Health, Energy & Natural Resources and Construction &
Materials sectors, within the South African economy, represent
local leaders in sustainability reporting. Thus, it should come as
little surprise that the GRI has identified South Africa as the next
“GRI Focal Point”, following the establishment of FPs in Australia,
Brazil, China, India and the US (as well as their global offices in
the Netherlands). Apparently, it is their intention to ensure that
the leadership position of South Africa is used as a platform
for rolling out the Guidelines into the rest of Africa.
Regardless of the accuracy of these figures, the results clearly
suggest that South Africa is among a rare breed of countries
Reports by Industry/Sector
GRI+13
Metals & Mining
GRI+12
Reports
GRI
Avg Score
Non-GRI
Avg Score
% GRI
Reports
GRI
Avg Score
Non-GRI
Avg Score
% GRI
56
24
69.7%
32
22.3%
42.9%
67
24
68.3%
43
18.1%
35.8%
Banking & Financial Services
55
14
60.8%
41
20.3%
25.5%
63
17
55.7%
46
18.2%
27.0%
Construction & Materials
36
10
51.1%
26
23.2%
27.8%
37
5
51.3%
32
20.9%
15.6%
Real Estate
26
2
41.3%
24
19.5%
7.7%
27
0
Services & Other
23
4
46.9%
19
21.2%
17.4%
9
5
67.6%
27
16.3%
0.0%
4
14.5%
42.9%
Retail
21
8
55.6%
13
22.7%
38.1%
21
7
60.6%
14
21.0%
33.3%
Food & Beverages
21
8
54.9%
13
24.3%
38.1%
20
5
48.7%
15
23.5%
25.0%
Electronics & Electrical Equipment
17
6
53.8%
11
21.3%
35.3%
17
3
60.8%
14
18.8%
17.6%
Engineering & Support Services
14
8
39.9%
6
15.9%
57.1%
28
4
37.9%
24
17.2%
14.3%
35.7%
General Industry
13
7
64.9%
6
25.0%
53.8%
14
5
63.6%
9
20.2%
Software & Computers
12
3
31.8%
9
20.9%
25.0%
16
1
50.4%
15
20.8%
6.3%
ICT – Info, Comms & Telecoms
10
4
56.4%
6
16.6%
40.0%
8
3
55.5%
5
14.9%
37.5%
Transportation
10
6
55.7%
4
20.6%
60.0%
7
3
55.0%
4
16.7%
42.9%
9
3
85.2%
6
18.8%
33.3%
14
3
43.8%
11
19.7%
21.4%
Hotels & Leisure
Energy & Natural Resources
7
4
85.2%
3
14.9%
57.1%
9
3
83.3%
6
16.7%
33.3%
Media & Communications
7
4
55.3%
3
20.8%
57.1%
9
3
34.5%
6
18.2%
33.3%
Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology
6
2
53.0%
4
21.9%
33.3%
5
1
64.2%
4
22.9%
20.0%
Health
5
4
57.1%
1
24.1%
80.0%
5
2
54.5%
3
30.6%
40.0%
43.1%
Chemicals
5
3
Household & Leisure Goods
4
0
NGO
Automotive & Parts
3
3
62.3%
3
363
1
128
45.5%
Average GRI-compliance score:
Increase in GRI-based reports:
58.3%
2
26.5%
60.0%
6
4
49.0%
2
17.3%
66.7%
4
33.1%
0.0%
7
1
54.7%
6
22.5%
14.3%
62.3%
100.0%
2
235
23.9%
33.3%
25.1%
3
392
1
100
70.5%
2
292
16.3%
33.3%
25.1%
19.0%
28.0%
58.3%
20.5%
15
19.0%
| GRI G3 Reporters in South Africa – Our Research Findings continued
Who’s Reporting? (www.globalreporting.org)
Country
Reports
Country
Reports
1
USA
231
38
Thailand
11
2
Spain
164
39
United Arab Emirates
10
3
South Africa
128
40
Malaysia
8
4
Sweden
122
41
Ecuador
7
5
Brazil
119
42
Sri Lanka
7
6
China
118
43
Bolivia
4
7
Netherlands
93
44
Jordan
4
8
Germany
89
45
Saudi Arabia
4
9
Australia
83
46
Uruguay
3
10
UK
69
47
Costa Rica
3
11
Switzerland
69
48
Croatia
3
12
Canada
63
49
Czech Republic
3
13
Italy
58
50
Indonesia
3
14
Republic of Korea
53
51
Ireland
3
15
Russian Federation
44
52
Luxembourg
3
16
Austria
43
53
Bulgaria
2
17
Argentina
39
54
Honduras
2
18
India
39
55
Pakistan
2
19
Japan
37
56
Romania
2
20
Finland
36
57
Kuwait
1
21
Chile
36
58
Albania
1
22
Greece
35
59
Andorra
1
23
Portugal
35
60
Bangladesh
1
24
Mexico
34
61
Egypt
1
25
Peru
33
62
Estonia
1
26
Colombia
31
63
Georgia
1
27
Hungary
30
64
Kenya
1
28
France
29
65
Latvia
1
29
Belgium
24
66
Mongolia
1
30
Denmark
19
67
Nigeria
1
31
Norway
17
68
Papua New Guinea
1
32
Turkey
17
69
Qatar
1
33
Israel
15
70
Serbia
1
34
Philippines
13
71
Slovakia
1
35
New Zealand
12
72
Slovenia
1
36
Singapore
12
73
Ukraine
1
37
Poland
12
NOTE
he above table has been extracted from the GRI’s
T
database for reporting purposes even though the data is
known to be incorrect. The information for South Africa
has been updated using our own results.
16
CLIVE
Of the 363 companies reviewed, 111 (30.6%) are from the Metals
& Mining and Banking & Financial Services sectors, with 38 of
the 128 GRI-based reports coming from these two sectors alone.
Meanwhile, three of the nine companies in the Hotels & Leisure,
and four of the seven companies in the Energy & Natural Resources
sectors produced excellent GRI-based reports, with an average
GRI-compliance score of 85.2%: the highest for any industry
sector. However, not a single GRI based report was found for any
of the four companies in the Household & Leisure Goods sector,
and only two of the 26 in the Real Estate sector.
Overall, more than 35% of the 363 (mostly JSE-listed) South
African reporting entities reviewed, were found to produce annual
and/or sustainability reports that adhere to the GRI G3 Guidelines.
u
lotter
Interesting notes
The principle of ‘do as I say, not as I do’ continues to hold true at
the JSE, and to a lesser extent at Brait (now that King is no longer
at the Chairman’s helm).
Opting NOT to produce a GRI-based report, in line with their
own King III recommendations, the JSE’s report ranked 170th
with a GRI compliance score of 29.2%, which is not only an
improvement on last year’s 24.4% (albeit ranked 151st), but also
a score in excess of the GRI compliance minimum of 25.3%,
which would classify the JSE as a ‘near GRI reporter’.
Brait, at which Mervyn King was the Chairman while heading
the King Commissions on corporate governance in South Africa,
did manage to declare that they had produced a GRI-based report
in 2010, yet our team could not find adequate evidence to support
this claim, and did not appear to make a similar assertion this
year. Their current report scored 26.9% – thus, another ‘near
GRI reporter’ – and ranked 181st out of 363 reports.
Once again, it should be noted that none of the research team
understood who the JSE Limited and/or Brait were, particularly
in the context of sustainability reporting in South Africa, prior to
the completion of the scoring process. Thus, no research bias
was applied to these entities, and thus I calmly assert that I’m
not trying to pick on them!
For the third consecutive year Sasol rose to the top of our ranking
of GRI compliance scores for South African sustainability reports,
with an impressive 99.6% compliance score, while Gold Fields
scored 96.0% and Wilderness Safaris scored 94.9%. Granted,
many of the 363 reports reviewed were regarded by the research
team as ‘equally impressive’ from a qualitative perspective, but
the primary purpose of this exercise was to determine the extent
to which companies have been applying the GRI G3 Guidelines.
Not unexpectedly, eight of the top 20 reporting entities are from
within the Metals & Mining sector, and another three are from the
Energy & Natural Resources sector, thus 11 (55%) are from high
environmental impact sectors. However, it may come as somewhat
of a surprise that Little Eden, an NGO that provides care to persons
with severe mental disabilities, opted to rigorously apply the GRI
Guidelines to its first integrated annual report, rounding out the
top 20 with a GRI compliance score of 79.1%. The rationale behind
such a move, was to use the GRI Guidelines, following in the
footsteps of Cotlands, in an attempt to not only assert that they
had the necessary financial and governance controls in place to merit
the contributions they receive from donors, but also to assess where
process improvement might be possible. For anyone setting out
on a brand new reporting journey, Little Eden’s first GRI-based
report is well worth reviewing, as it offers up countless examples
of how the Guidelines can be applied effectively.
17
Corporate
reporting
specialist
Clive Lotter
consultant
since
Wordsmith
1996
A veteran writer, editor and architect of company
reports and business bids, Clive Lotter routinely
consults to listed companies and design agencies.
As a pathfinder in King III and GRI3.1 compliance,
Clive is adept at structuring and preparing reports
to meet current requirements.
Skills checklist
Structuring integrated annual and
sustainability reports
Report writing/editing
Preparing and interviewing key persons
Services offered with
proven associates
Gap and peer group analyses of reports
Design, layout, proofreading
Independent assurance
A team leader or team player, depending
on your brief, Clive Lotter is your first choice
for compliant and tailored corporate reporting.
Contact: Clive Lotter
082 920 3731
clive.lotter@gmail.com
Cell: +27
Tel: +27
Email:
clive.l
Top 20 GRI Reports
Collaborate
Create
1
2
3
4
Company
Sasol
Gold Fields
Wilderness
Barloworld
Sector
Energy & Natural Resources
Metals & Mining
Hotels & Leisure
General Industry
Score
99.6%
96.0%
94.9%
94.1%
GRI AL
A+
A+
B+
A+
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Lonmin
Sappi
African Rainbow Minerals
Impahla Clothing
Xstrata South Africa
Anglo American Platinum
Anglo American plc
Kumba Iron Ore
African Bank
Phumelela Gaming & Leisure
Sanlam
Altron
Distribution & Warehousing Network
Mondi
Northam Platinum
Little Eden
Metals & Mining
Energy & Natural Resources
Metals & Mining
General Industry
Metals & Mining
Metals & Mining
Metals & Mining
Metals & Mining
Banking & Financial Services
Hotels & Leisure
Banking & Financial Services
Electronics & Electrical Equipment
Construction & Materials
Energy & Natural Resources
Metals & Mining
NGO
94.1%
93.3%
90.9%
89.3%
88.9%
88.5%
88.5%
87.7%
84.6%
84.6%
82.6%
81.8%
81.8%
81.0%
79.8%
79.1%
NC(A+)
A
A+
ND
B+
A+
A+
NC(A+)
B+
C
B+
B+
A
B+
B+
B+
Equally unsurprising is the fact that 24 of the 128 GRI-based reports
are from the Metals & Mining sector. This is undoubtedly due to
the nature of mining, both in terms of the high energy consumption
and other environmental impacts, as well as the direct link to high
occupational health & safety risks. However, an interesting anomaly
has arisen with respect to companies in the Banking & Financial
Services sector. Although 55 of the 363 companies reviewed,
and 14 of the 128 GRI-based reports, are from this sector, none
of the reports for this sector scored within the Top 10 and only
two – African Bank and Sanlam – scored within in the Top 20
(13th and 15th, respectively), yet six scored within the bottom 20
reports. The tables on the next page show the sector analyses
for each of 18 common industry sectors, plus ‘Miscellaneous’,
which is an amalgamation of all sectors represented by fewer
than three different reporting entities. It’s interesting to note
that the average scores – per sector – ranged from 85.2% for
the Energy & Natural Resources and Hotel & Leisure sectors
(tied), to 31.8% for the Software & Computers sector.
Communicate
We are a multi-disciplinary creative consultancy
offering a complete range of communication
services. Partnering with you, we produce
content and design of uncompromising quality.
011 783 3187
info@itbmedia.co.za
www.itbmedia.co.za
18
on the
same
page
every page
page by page
delivering excellence in integrated reports
with integrated process analysis
specialist writing and
relevant information design
www.envisagesa.co.za
+27 11 325 5944
Salome Brown
communications
19
| GRI G3 Reporters in South Africa – Our Research Findings continued
(GRI +11) 2010 GRI
Compliance Score %
(GRI +12) 2011 GRI
Compliance Score %
Altron
B+
16
81.8
68.9
54.3
Barloworld
A+
4
94.1
61.0
82.7
Sanlam
B+
15
82.6
60.6
57.9
Altech
B+
27
75.9
68.1
43.3
Impahla Clothing
ND
8
89.3
90.6
67.7
Electronics & Electrical Equipment
(GRI +13) 2012 GRI
Compliance Score %
(GRI +11) 2010 GRI
Compliance Score %
47.2
(GRI +13) 2012 Rank
(GRI +12) 2011 GRI
Compliance Score %
61.8
(GRI +13) 2012
Application Level
(GRI +13) 2012 GRI
Compliance Score %
84.6
(GRI +13) 2012 Rank
(GRI +11) 2010 GRI
Compliance Score %
13
Banking & Financial Services
(GRI +13) 2012
Application Level
(GRI +12) 2011 GRI
Compliance Score %
B+
(GRI +13) 2012 Rank
African Bank
(GRI +13) 2012
Application Level
(GRI +13) 2012 GRI
Compliance Score %
GRI Reports by Industry Sector
General Industry
Standard Bank
B+
22
79.1
76.4
79.1
Reunert
ND
85
48.2
45.3
33.5
Bidvest
ND
48
65.6
61.0
59.8
Nedbank
A+
23
78.7
67.3
69.3
Digicore
C+
95
44.7
22.0
32.7
Nampak
C
58
58.5
57.5
59.1
ND
118
39.1
19.3
16.9
57.9
Absa Group
B+
33
72.3
60.2
59.4
Delta EMD
Liberty
B+
35
71.9
76.8
70.5
Consolidated Infrastructure
Group
NC(C)
Average
Energy & Natural Resources
Brimstone
ND
47
66.4
58.7
24.8
Santam
B
52
62.1
52.8
39.4
MMI Holdings
C
79
49.4
15.0
Investec
NC(B)
100
42.7
55.5
59.1
Sasfin
C
103
41.9
21.7
25.2
144
33.2
53.8
17.3
40.2
36.1
Denel
ND
77
49.8
Mpact
C
83
48.6
Eqstra
Average
Health
ND
84
48.2
64.9
Sasol
A+
1
99.6
99.6
94.9
Netcare
B
25
76.7
41.7
50.4
A
6
93.3
87.4
79.5
Mediclinic
NC(C)
51
62.1
52.8
52.4
Mondi
B+
18
81.0
Discovery
B
45
66.8
85.2
63.0
83.3
60.2
78.2
Life Healthcare
Average
Hotels & Leisure
ND
FirstRand
ND
106
41.1
40.6
46.9
C+
115
39.5
17.7
20.5
Finbond
Average
Chemicals
C
116
39.5
60.8
16.9
48.7
19.7
47.6
Eskom
B+
Average
Engineering & Support Services
PSV
C+
55
59.7
18.5
21.7
Wilderness
B+
AECI
ND
86
47.0
43.3
44.9
Primeserv
ND
90
46.2
22.4
33.1
Phumelela Gaming
& Leisure
C
Omnia
NC(C)
ND
Distribution & Warehousing
Network
A
96
44.7
49.2
44.5
126
37.5
43.1
61.4
51.3
73.2
54.2
17
81.8
37.8
52.8
Group Five
ND
41
69.2
61.0
60.2
Pretoria Portland Cement
C+
65
54.9
57.1
65.7
49.6
63.8
Sappi
Efficient Group
African Oxygen
Average
Construction & Materials
48.0
62.7
OneLogix
C
105
41.5
38.6
23.6
Howden Africa
C
111
40.3
42.1
22.0
Austro Group
C+
121
38.3
15.7
24.8
Iliad Africa
NC(C)
143
33.6
43.7
33.1
Sun International
B+
Average
ICT – Info, Comms & Telecoms
70
52.6
56.3
55.9
128
37.2
57.1
37.0
47.0
52.9
94.9
24.0
3
14
84.6
52.0
23.6
26
76.3
85.2
43.7
39.9
42.9
33.3
Hudaco Industries
NC(C)
159
30.0
27.2
33.9
MTN
NC(B)
44
67.6
81.9
31.9
Top Fix Holdings
Average
Food & Beverages
NC(C)
164
29.6
39.9
14.6
27.9
23.6
27.0
Vodacom
NC(B)
59
58.5
49.2
43.7
Murray & Roberts
B+
71
52.6
55.9
58.3
Illovo Sugar
B+
31
73.5
53.5
32.3
Esorfranki
C
74
50.6
24.4
28.7
Afgri
C
40
69.2
50.0
39.0
Telkom
C+
68
53.4
35.4
42.9
Morvest
Average
Media & Communications
C+
89
46.2
56.4
55.5
39.5
Basil Read
NC(C)
81
49.0
41.3
32.7
Tongaat Hulett
B+
42
68.8
57.5
43.7
Avusa
NC(C)
46
66.4
30.3
31.1
Wilson Bayly Homes-Ovcon
C
91
46.2
31.5
37.8
Astral Foods
ND
66
54.2
37.4
39.4
Media24
NC(C)
64
54.9
27.2
38.2
Buildmax
C
113
39.5
18.5
27.2
Distell
NC(C)
67
53.8
33.9
37.4
Naspers
NC(C)
75
50.6
37.0
37.0
Stefanutti Stocks
C
125
37.9
29.1
31.1
Rainbow Chicken
ND
73
51.8
55.5
50.8
NC(C)
80
KayDav
Average
C+
163
29.6
51.1
11.0
36.8
16.1
41.1
MultiChoice
Average
49.4
55.3
39.4
33.5
29.9
34.1
AVI
ND
135
36.4
18.9
35.4
Country Bird
Average
ND
153
31.6
54.9
18.1
40.6
24.4
37.8
20
(GRI +11) 2010 GRI
Compliance Score %
(GRI +12) 2011 GRI
Compliance Score %
(GRI +11) 2010 GRI
Compliance Score %
(GRI +13) 2012 GRI
Compliance Score %
(GRI +12) 2011 GRI
Compliance Score %
96.0
94.9
64.6
Massmart
ND
21
79.1
82.7
73.6
Lonmin
NC(A+)
5
94.1
93.3
85.4
Woolworths
NC(B+)
34
72.3
58.7
54.3
65.0
(GRI +13) 2012
Application Level
(GRI +13) 2012 Rank
(GRI +13) 2012 GRI
Compliance Score %
2
(GRI +13) 2012 Rank
A+
(GRI +13) 2012
Application Level
Gold Fields
Metals & Mining
Retail
African Rainbow Minerals
A+
7
90.9
82.3
Xstrata South Africa
B+
9
88.9
68.1
Foschini
ND
37
70.4
83.5
40.9
JD Group
ND
38
70.4
70.9
37.8
Anglo American Platinum
A+
10
88.5
83.5
89.4
Clicks
ND
114
39.5
36.2
48.4
Anglo American plc
A+
11
88.5
86.6
83.1
Verimark
ND
120
39.1
12.2
18.5
Truworths
ND
129
37.2
42.5
46.1
64.2
Holdsport
Average
Services & Other
ND
133
36.8
55.6
55.2
45.7
Kumba Iron Ore
NC(A+)
12
87.7
57.5
Northam Platinum
B+
19
79.8
81.9
Anglo Gold Ashanti
A+
24
77.5
85.0
85.8
Harmony Gold
B+
28
75.1
81.9
83.5
Merafe Resources
B+
29
74.7
61.4
84.6
Exxarro
B+
32
72.7
70.1
72.0
Impala Platinum
B+
36
70.8
61.4
76.4
74.8
Evraz Highveld Steel
& Vanadium
NC(C)
39
69.6
74.4
Royal Bafokeng Platinum
B+
43
68.0
57.1
Umgeni Water
NC(B)
53
62.1
52.0
50.4
Adcorp
ND
94
44.7
24.4
31.1
Blue Label Telecoms
C+
Workforce
Average
Software & Computers
NC(C)
98
43.9
54.3
48.0
130
37.2
46.9
19.3
37.5
24.8
38.6
Arcelor Mittal
ND
49
64.4
54.3
44.9
Gijima
NC(B)
124
37.9
50.4
26.0
DRD Gold
NC(C)
54
60.5
65.0
59.1
Business Connexion
NC(C)
141
34.4
33.5
38.6
Aquarius Platinum
NC(C)
57
58.5
56.3
48.8
Silverbridge
Average
Transportation
NC(C)
210
22.9
31.8
18.9
34.3
21.3
28.6
Witwatersrand
Consolidated Gold
C
69
53.0
22.0
22.4
Wesizwe Platinum
NC(C)
82
49.0
28.3
33.9
Grindrod
B+
30
73.9
68.9
68.9
Assore
C
87
46.6
42.9
36.6
Transnet
C
60
58.1
37.0
54.3
Eastern Platinum
NC(B)
92
45.5
33.1
Comair
C
61
56.9
29.5
32.3
Imperial
C
62
56.5
59.1
55.9
Value Group
C
88
46.6
C
101
42.3
55.7
15.4
42.0
22.4
43.4
Keaton Energy
NC(C)
119
39.1
39.8
29.9
Richards Bay Minerals
Average
NGO
NC(C)
134
36.8
69.8
64.4
63.4
26.4
Little Eden
B+
20
79.1
Cargo Carriers
Average
Miscellaneous
Soweto Marimba
Youth League
Aspen Pharmacare
NC(B)
50
62.5
64.2
53.5
C
63
55.7
Metair Investments
C+
93
45.5
20.1
21.3
Cotlands
ND
72
52.2
55.5
54.3
37.8
62.3
55.5
54.3
Average
Adcock Ingram
NC(B)
99
43.5
31.1
Redefine Properties
ND
102
42.3
22.4
Hyprop Investments
Average
ND
112
40.3
46.8
21.7
31.9
21
28.0
35.2
| GRI G3 Reporters in South Africa – Our Research Findings continued
Upon further scrutiny, it was interesting to note that the average
GRI compliance score per sector rose significantly for all but two
sectors since last year. While the Chemicals sector – AECI, Omnia
Holdings and African Oxygen – dropped from 51.3% to 43.1%.
the Software & Computers sector – Gijima, Business Connexion
and Silverbridge – dropped from 34.3% to 31.8%. In all other
cases, the average score rose, but none as much as the Hotel
& Leisure sector – Wilderness, Phumelela Gaming & Leisure and
Sun International – which skyrocketed from 39.9% to 85.2%, with
all three companies making enormous strides in their reporting.
Overall, the uptake rate of the GRI Guidelines for the 2011
reporting period was just over 35%, with only the Household &
Leisure Goods sector (4 companies) completely opting out of
compliance. The fact that the NGO sector has achieved an opt-in
compliance rating of 100% is a bit of a fallacy, in that NGOs are
not required to opt in, and thus our population sample is strictly
limited to the three NGOs we were aware of. However, it’s worth
noting that the Health sector – four of five listed entities within the
sector – has adopted the Guidelines en masse.
In the end, 194 South African companies were identified as being
either ‘GRI reporters’ (128) or ‘near reporters’ (i.e., the 66
companies that are non-GRI but scored above the 25.3%
threshold required for GRI compliance, if they’d only paid attention
to the Guidelines when drafting their report). What excites me –
the über-GRI-Geek – is that if each of these companies were to
make the minimal effort required. South Africa would escalate its
status as a confirmed leader in terms of transparency and
accountability through sustainability reporting (194 would catapult
South Africa ahead of Spain, and second only to the USA (with its
many thousands of listed companies, compared to South Africa’s
400-ish).
Rates of Response to the GRI Indicators
As from last year’s research report – based on queries raised as a
result of our first two research reports – we now provide detailed
indictor-by-indicator response rates for each of the 127 GRI indicators.
Appendix IV provides the indicator-specific responses, but it should
be noted that some areas within the Guidelines continue to be
more of a challenge for reporters than others. While GRI reporters
appear to have mastered the Profile Disclosures, Organisational
Profile, Report Parameter and Governance Indicators, the same
cannot be said for the Human Rights, Product Responsibility and
Environmental indicators, which appear to trouble reporters.
Average Response Rate per G3 Category of Indicators
GRI Reports
GRI+13
Score
GRI+12
Score
Non-GRI Reports
GRI+13
Score
GRI+12
Score
Profile Disclosures
89.1%
90.3%
55.5%
53.0%
Organisational Profile
95.9%
92.9%
77.4%
73.0%
Report Parameters
84.3%
72.5%
31.5%
25.6%
Governance. Commitments.
and Engagement
77.8%
76.2%
48.0%
37.5%
Disclosures on Management
Approach (DMAs)
53.5%
42.0%
10.8%
2.8%
Economic
62.8%
66.8%
20.0%
23.7%
Environmental
36.8%
42.7%
4.0%
3.3%
13.1%
Labour Practices and
Decent Work
51.1%
58.8%
10.6%
Human Rights
36.9%
35.1%
2.2%
3.2%
Society
48.7%
48.8%
6.9%
5.9%
Product Responsibility
ALL INDICATORS
All INDICATORS/ALL REPORTS
42.5%
57.9%
34.1%
39.7%
58.0%
29.0%
1.9%
21.2%
2.8%
19.0%
While experienced reporters such as Sasol, Eskom and Anglo
American Platinum may not struggle with these indicators, it’s
reasonable to expect that anyone starting to produce their first
report may find the indicators somewhat of a challenge to adapt
to their own organisational scenario. As such, and given that
the support afforded by the GRI is not always deemed useful,
the best advice one could give is to recommend that new
reporters interrogate the work of those companies that are
oft-respected for the quality of their reports.
Perhaps the best place to start is the ACCA’s annual awards for
sustainability reporting. By identifying which reports are deemed
‘best in class’, new authors can short-cut their journey to effective
reporting by reading what leaders have done.
Rates of Response to the GRI’s Energy,
Emissions and Water Consumption Indicators
Not unlike many other countries around the world, South Africa
finds itself in a precarious balance between the economy and
the environment. Water scarcity threatens not only agricultural
output, but also the basic survival of communities throughout the
country, while the supply of electricity to meet an ever-expanding
demand is having significant impacts on our national carbon
emissions tally. With carbon taxes looming on the horizon,
22
as well as the rapidly inflating cost of energy – both electricity
and oil (i.e., petrol and diesel) – one might expect companies
to be freely reporting to shareholders (set aside all other interested
and affected stakeholders) about how well these costs are being
managed in both the short and long-term. Given that these
environmental concerns are heaped upon the numerous social
challenges privy to a country with one of the highest Gini
coefficients in the world (i.e., extremely high levels of income
disparity, and the resultant social justice challenges), one might
reasonably argue that the GRI Guidelines are precisely the
blueprint South African companies need to ascertain how well
they are managing their ability to confront energy consumption,
carbon emissions and water consumption challenges. Unfortunately,
this is not necessarily the case: at least not yet.
What may be of significant interest to researchers and
practitioners alike is the fact that our research determined that
South Africa has become somewhat of a leader in terms of
reasonable expectations for carbon footprint and/or greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions disclosure. Not only have 83 of the JSE’s
top 100 companies participated in the Carbon Disclosure Projects’
voluntary reporting protocols. As discussed later in this report, of
the 363 companies reviewed, a total of 114 companies (31.4%)
offered any responses to EN16 (direct & indirect GHG emissions),
while 55 companies provided responses to all five of the GRI’s
energy consumption and carbon emissions indicators (EN3,
EN4, EN16, EN17 and EN18). What’s of particular interest is
the significant difference in reporting of energy and emissions
for companies that have not yet adopted the GRI G3 Guidelines.
Among the 235 non-GRI reporters, the average response rate
for these five indicators was roughly 6.9%: far below reasonable
expectations for companies that MUST report on how they are
managing their impacts on climate change and a growing scarcity
of energy supplies.
Response Rates for Key GRI G3 Indicators: Energy Consumption and Emissions
2011 Response Rate
2010 Response Rate
GRI
Non-GRI
GRI
Non-GRI
EN3
Direct energy consumption by primary energy source.
58.6%
6.6%
58.5%
5.7%
EN4
Indirect energy consumption by primary source.
62.9%
8.3%
56.5%
2.2%
EN16
Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight.
61.7%
10.9%
67.0%
3.3%
EN17
Other relevant indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight.
34.8%
3.2%
43.0%
1.5%
EN18
Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reductions achieved.
41.4%
5.5%
61.0%
8.9%
What’s even more worrying is that in a country deemed to be a
“water scarce environment”, the quality of information being
presented by companies is shockingly low. Even though the
concept of reporting a “water footprint” is still a relatively new
phenomenon, one would reasonably assume that companies
would be far further ahead in reporting their water consumption
patterns, and efforts to reduce consumption and/or recycle water.
However, only 30 GRI-reporting companies (8.3%) provided
reasonable responses to the GRI’s three water indicators – EN8,
EN9 and EN10 – while a further 15 (4.2%) provided partial
responses. Among the 235 non-GRI reporters, the average
response rate for these three indicators was roughly 3.7%: again,
far below reasonable expectations for companies in South Africa.
Response Rates for Key GRI G3 Indicators: Water Consumption and Impacts
2011 Response Rate
GRI
2010 Response Rate
Non-GRI
GRI
Non-GRI
EN8
Total water withdrawal by source.
53.5%
6.6%
61.0%
3.3%
EN9
Water sources significantly affected by withdrawal of water.
33.2%
1.3%
32.0%
0.7%
EN10
Percentage and total volume of water recycled and reused.
29.7%
3.2%
32.0%
3.3%
In summary, one must remember that the GRI Guidelines are not
merely a tool for reporting, but rather a tool that can be used to
identify gaps and/or weaknesses in systems and controls that
should be in place to manage risks and/or opportunities. If nothing
else, the paltry uptake on the above environmental indicators
should serve to prove that companies have not adopted the GRI
Guidelines. In order enhance their ability to prove that they are
prepared to mitigate the shifting environmental world around us,
companies should adopt the Guidelines as a means for adhering
to the adage, “that which is not measured is not managed”.
23
g
From
From The Millennium Edition
by Mike Fitzpatrick
Top: # 9891 West Coast Panoramic
Right: # 9884 Wild Lips
© Mike Fitzpatrick
The Reproduced
Millennium
with Edition
permission
by Mike Fitzpatrick
Top: # 9891 West Coast Panoramic
Right: # 9884 Wild Lips
© Mike Fitzpatrick
Reproduced with permission
4 Repens Street, Heriotdale
Telephone (011) 621 3300
Telefax (011) 626 3578
E-mail info@ultra-litho.co.za
www.ultra-litho.co.za
Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, And
Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Ann
Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thom
Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Rom
Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George
Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan
Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Re
Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, He
Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jousl
Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela,
Wendy, Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takala
Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andr
Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernest,
Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary
Hlengani,
Jack, Freddie,
W
From
TheMalesela,
Millennium
Editio
Zandile, Robert, Michael, Thokozile,
Mike
Fitzpatric
Ethel, Phindile, by
Sipho,
Goodwill,
Nko
Top: # 9891
West
Coast
Panoram
Sidwell,
Portia,
Abram,
Mirriam,
Dav
Angelinah, Dichakge,
Jose, Wild
Kesival,
Right: # 9884
Li
Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron,
©
Mike
Fitzpatric
Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakama
Reproduced
permissio
Myendran,
Sushilan,with
James,
Neledz
Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile, Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, T
Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel, Ayantra, Manual, Lydia, Marco, Tebo
Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsumi, Skhumbuzo, Clement, Joh
Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanus, Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, J
Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, Peter, Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Vi
Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, Roman, Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, Ge
Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason, Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llew
Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon, Japie, Maphuli, Buti, Sabela, Hans, Wendy
Shy-Ann, Les, Shawn, Takalani, Carol, Dean, Hugo, Sylvia, Marthinus, Andriette, Natalie, Macdonald, Sunday, Ernes
Mandla, Altaff, Farhana, Alwyn, Mary-Ann, Hlengani, Malesela, Jack, Freddie, William, Zandile, Robert, Michael, Th
Bedwell, Ethel, Phindile, Sipho, Goodwill, Nkosiyezwe, Sidwell, Portia, Abram, Mirriam, David, Onica, Angelinah, D
Jose, Kesival, Roland, Nigel, Oupa, Bernard, Edson, Aaron, Linon, Zodwa, Themba, Timoteo, Phakamani, Myendran
Sushilan, James, Neledzani, Grammer, Richard, Izak, Mandla, Mannie, David, Jacob, Martin, Sithembiso, Fikile,
Sibonginkosi, Mark, Poobalan, Tony, Mark, Sybil, Thelma, Eric, Neville, Mathlodi, André, Marie, André, Abiot, Ethel,
Manual, Lydia, Marco, Teboho, Claude, Sheldon, Phumzile, Ivor, Simphiwe, Harry, Shanton, Garth, Vic, Morwamotsu
Skhumbuzo, Clement, John, Shaun, Henry, Thembisile, Michael, Patience, Benjamin, Cornelius, Henning, Hermanu
Jacobus, Maxwell, Janine, Clive, Jacob, Andrew, Ruby, Pesafny, Joseph, Lucrecia, Rebecca, Jerry, Garth, Andrew, P
Rudo, Millicent, Ajit, Mary-Anne, Victor, Pieter, Vernando, Israel, Cheryl, Thomas, Lettie, Mark, Mark, Stella, Peter, R
Mark, Thylile, Rudolph, Fred, George, Conrad, Wanda, Glen, Lucy, Colin, Eric, Johan, Anand, Thavarani, Peter, Jason
Norman, Reagan, Karen, Lainy, Llewellyn, Graham, Herman, Ann, Brandon, Levina, Sorina, Jouslen, Robin, Simon
understanding
the art of
printing
drew,
ne, Victor,
mas,
man,
e, Conrad,
n, Anand,
eagan,
erman,
len, Robin,
, Hans,
ani, Carol,
riette,
, Rory,
y-Ann,
William,
on
Bedwell,
ck
osiyezwe,
mic
vid, Onica,
Roland,
ips
, Linon,
ck
ani,
on
zani,
Tony,
oho,
hn, Shaun,
Jacob,
ictor,
eorge,
wellyn,
y,
st, Rory,
hokozile,
Dichakge,
n,
, Ayantra,
umi,
us,
Peter,
Roman,
n,
n, Japie,
From The Millennium Edition
by Mike Fitzpatrick
Top: # 9891 West Coast Panoramic
Right: # 9884 Wild Lips
© Mike Fitzpatrick
Reproduced with permission
|
Independent Third Party Assurance
4 Repens Street, Heriotdale
Telephone (011) 621 3300
Telefax (011) 626 3578
E-mail info@ultra-litho.co.za
www.ultra-litho.co.za
Independent Third Party Assurance
856 reports (38.9%) of the 2 202 GRI-based reports recorded within
the GRI’s online database* were assured by third parties, of which
the vast majority (460, or 53.7% were Application Level A+ reports).
436 reports (34.1%) of the 1 279 reports recorded for the countries
representing the ‘Top 10 reporting countries’ within the GRI’s
database* were assured by third parties, of which 200 (45.9%,
down from 56.7% last year) were assured by one or more of the
Big 4 accounting firms, and 108 (24.8%, up from 14.3% last year)
were assured according to AccountAbility’s AA1000AS standard.
PwC is the dominant player in the global assurance field, with
16% of the market in the top 10 countries (66 reports assured),
with KPMG in second place at 12.7% (52 reports assured).
EY and Deloitte fall far behind, with 8.3% (34 reports) and
5.1% (21 reports), respectively.
363 South African reports were reviewed by IRAS for this research
report, of which 52 reports were found to have been assured.
29 (55.8%, down from 63.9% last year) were assured by one
or more of the Big 4 accounting firms.
Having assured reports for 12 different clients (23.1% of all assured
reports) IRAS retains its position as the number one assurance
provider in South Africa. PwC is in second place with 11 engagements
(21.1%), KPMG and PKF are in third place (eight reports or
15.4%), Deloitte is in fifth (seven reports or 13.5%) and EY has
dropped to the bottom of the class, with only four reports (7.7%).
The assurance market has been set upon ferociously with PKF
coming from nowhere to offer assurance to eight clients in the past
reporting period, while the likes of ERM (two reports) and Nkonki
(one report) have already assured reports. There are now 11
different ‘known assurers’ in the South African market (see our
database of ‘Other Sustainability Reporting Practitioners’ for details).
16 of the assured reports (30.8%) in South Africa (24.8% of
the assured reports in the top 10 reporting countries) were
assured using AccountAbility’s AA1000AS Assurance Standard,
demonstrating a significant rise in awareness and application
of the standard. Even the Big 4 accountancies have adopted
the standard, apparently in response to criticism over their own
‘accountancy focused’ ISAE 3000 standard.
The average GRI compliance score for assured reports was 71.9%
whereas the average for non-assured reports was 51.1%. The
lowest score for an assured report was 29.6%, barely above the
minimum score required for GRI compliance (25.3%). The lowest
score for a non-assured GRI-based report was 22.9% (thus,
‘Non-Compliant’).
Assurance has not necessarily guaranteed GRI compliance, although
it would seem an obvious thing for the assurance provider to check.
Two companies reported an A+ and but were deemed ‘NonCompliant’, while another one errantly reported a B+. One company
even reported a GRI-checked application level, but was found to
be ‘Non-Compliant’, where non-compliance is defined as a report
that has not adequately met the application level requirements.
Independent Third Party Assurance
Given that stakeholders generally don’t trust what companies
disclose in their annual reports, and given that stakeholders more
specifically interested in matters of social and/or environmental
responsibility are even more skeptical of companies’ public
assertions, the merits of Independent Third Party Assurance (ITPA)
have been on the rise over the past few years. Not only has there
been a rise of companies seeking assurance of their own accord,
but governments and legislators have started to demand assurance
for non-financial disclosures in annual reports. France has recently
legislated that ITPA over sustainability information is a requirement,
while in South Africa, ITPA is a recommendation within King III.
Chapter 9 of King III (Integrated Reporting and Disclosure) clearly
states that all companies ought to ensure that their sustainability
reports are assured, particularly within the following two principles:
9.1The board should ensure the integrity of the company’s
integrated report (also cited as 2.12 in Chapter 2 on Boards
and Directors); and,
9.3Sustainability reporting and disclosure should be
independently assured.
Although it is widely accepted that the ultimate indicator of
sustainability-related transparency and accountability is whether
or not a report has been afforded independent third party assurance
(ITPA), the problem remains that there is a lack of clarity around
what ‘independently assured’ means, who is best placed to offer
such assurance, where adequate skills and experience might reside,
and what form an assurance engagement can take (i.e., under what
relevant standards). This is becoming even more problematic
as new entrants into the space are adopting their own concepts
regarding what assurance ought to look like, with some going
so far as to rubber stamp reports for as little as R20 000, as a
“value-added service” linked to the financial audit. Yeah right,
“value-added”?
Over the past few years, the uptake of ITPA has grown in
prominence, both in terms of who is offering assurance, and the
forms in which it is offered, and attention is starting to be paid to
26
whether or not the assurance actually adds value to the reporting
process and/or to the final outcomes shared with stakeholders.
While earlier reports were typically rewarded based on whether or
not an assurance opinion has been sought, and therefore a
statement is included, the trend has been rapidly moving towards
whether or not the statement of assurance is meaningful. Even
with reporters fighting to minimise the total page length of their
reports (including PwC’s now notorious one-pagers), the length
of the assurance statement seems to have settled at two pages,
with the content of the statement typically offering an opinion
over whether the content of the report adequately reflects the
materiality, accuracy, consistency, completeness and/or reliability
expectations of the reporting entity’s key stakeholders. Granted,
little to no criticism has been leveled at assurance providers, or
questions raised about the quality and/or extent of the assurance
provided, but more knowledgeable sustainability report reviewers
and/or committed stakeholders are beginning to change that.
Overview of the main types of assurance
ISAE 3000 The accounting profession’s mandatory standard
for “engagements other than financial audits”.
Although useful in ensuring consistency within
both the approach to the assurance engagement,
and the form of the assurance statement, ISAE
3000 has been frequently criticised for creating
barriers to offering an assurance opinion that an
average stakeholder can comprehend.
AA1000ASThe assurance standard developed by
AccountAbility (UK) to offer reporters not only
a meaningful alternative to the accounting
profession’s ISAE 3000, but also to offer
stakeholders a more comprehensive assurance
engagement. Increasingly, the accounting firms
are coupling AA1000AS to ISAE 3000 in order to
meet growing stakeholder demand for
meaningful assurance.
‘Non-Aligned’All other assurance engagements, which
currently makes up for more than 40% of all
assurance engagements, which are not assured
relative to a local and/or internationally
recognised standard (noting that an in-house
methodology is not necessarily a “standard”).
*The GRI’s stats have been updated using the information found during
our research.
Historically, the “Big 4” accountancy firms – Deloitte, EY, KPMG
and PwC – have dominated the assurance space, and have been
restricted in terms of their assurance scope, methodologies and
assurance statements by their industry regulated assurance standard:
ISAE 3000. Deemed by many to offer little to no “value-add”,
the assurance statements typically generated by the accountancies
have appeared to be more focused on protecting the accountants
than offering meaningful insight into the validity of the reports
they purport to assure. Most often, they have been widely
criticised for their use of “the double negative”:
“Nothing has come to our attention to lead us to believe that
the information contained herein is not correct.”
Perhaps this is how News of the World managed their internal
controls over information gathering, but it’s not of particular use to
readers of reports.
Readers need some form of verification, confirmation, or comfort
that somebody has checked the report and can comment about
whether or not the company is being fair and factual in the assertions
they make. They want to know that the data is reasonably collected,
collated and reported without error or omission. They also want to
know that the company is giving a fair account of the issues that
are deemed ‘most material’, based not only on what the company
believes to be ‘most material’, but on what the company’s key
stakeholders believe. Ultimately, they want to know:
• On what basis was the assurance provider deemed competent
and/or independent?
Brilliant!
This is the equivalent of saying,
• What within the report was checked, by whom, and where?
“At huge expense to the reporting company, we sat in lawn
chairs outside their building for two weeks, and because
nobody came to tell us that something was wrong, we must
assume that everything is OK.”
• What did the assurance provider uncover during the assurance
process (i.e., the “findings”)?
• What recommendations for improvement did the assurance
provider identify?
• What conclusions did the assurance provider come to with
respect to the believability of the report?
Unfortunately, ISAE 3000 does not – at least not adequately –
address all of these requirements in an effective manner. Most
importantly, ISAE 3000 does not require the assurance provider to
assess how well the company has defined its most material issues,
and/or how well the report reflects reasonable feedback on these
“MMIs”. As a result, there have been two processes occurring, in
parallel, in the world of assurance:
1.The International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) released an
exposure draft of a revised version of ISAE 3000, and is planning
to not only revise the standard, but to potentially open it up to
non-accountants.
2.The accountancies have identified a need to change faster
than IFAC can allow, and have adopted a policy of applying
AccountAbility’s AA1000AS assurance standard over and
above ISAE 3000 (on the same engagement). Although this
hasn’t yet changed the frequency of ‘double negatives’, it has
at least offered commentary on the principles of inclusivity,
materiality and responsiveness.
Assurance Uptake per Country
Country
USA
# of GRI
Reports
# Assured
% Assured
# Assured
by Big 4
% Assured
by Big 4
# Assured via
ISAE 3000
% Assured via
ISAE 3000
# Assured via
AA1000AS
% Assured via
AA1000AS
231
27
10.4
5
18.5
6
22.2
6
22.2
Largest assurance provider
Deloitte/Two Tomorrows
Spain
166
94
56.6
33
35.1
38
40.4
24
25.5
PwC
China
161
27
16.8
2
7.4
2
7.4
11
40.7
SGS
South Africa
128
52
40.6
29
55.8
38
73.1
16
30.8
Sweden
125
63
50.4
41
65.1
43
68.3
4
6.3
Brazil
119
38
31.9
17
44.7
15
39.5
10
26.3
92
37
40.2
24
64.9
24
64.9
3
8.1
Germany
Australia
91
37
40.7
13
35.1
15
40.5
19
51.4
Netherlands
97
33
34.0
24
72.7
24
72.7
1
3.0
69
1 279
28
436
40.6
34.1
12
200
42.9
45.9
8
213
28.6
48.9
14
108
50.0
24.8
UK
Top 10 Total
Within the top 10 reporting countries, the presence of AA1000AS
assured reports, and ISAE 3000 & AA1000AS assured reports, has
been on the rise. For example, all three of the EY assured reports
in the UK have cited both standards, while five of the Big 4
assured reports in South Africa have adopted this approach.
At 40.6% (up from 36.0% last year), the rate of assurance uptake
in South Africa has jumped well ahead of the 34.1% rate among
the top 10 reporting countries identified in the GRI’s database
(down significantly from 41.4% last year, but likely a function of
incomplete and/or inadequate data within the GRI’s database).
Although a step in the right direction, SA’s assurance uptake rate
is still lagging well behind the rates identified for both Spain
(56.6%), and Sweden (50.4%).
However, it’s the hell draggers in the USA that are still trying to
figure who can, or who can’t, provide assurance. Not only is there an
assurance uptake rate of only 10.4% (27 of 231 reports) in the US,
and the Big 4 only account for five (18.5%) of those engagements.
Perhaps not all that surprising is the fact that China has a comparably
low assurance uptake rate, 16.8% of ‘known reports’, with the Big 4
providing assurance over only two reports (7.4%).
27
IRAS (SustainabilityServices.co.za)
KPMG
BSD Consulting
PwC
Net Balance
KPMG
PwC
As identified in our previous research reports, the most intriguing
trend in assurance is not necessarily related to ‘who’s getting
assurance’, but rather ‘who’s giving it’. As mentioned above, the
Big 4 accounting firms continue to play a dominant role in the
provision of ITPA over sustainability reports, but their grip on the
market appears to be slipping. Not only have we – at IRAS – taken
the number one position in terms of assurance clients, but the
‘Tier 2’ accountancies such as PKF, BDO and Grant Thornton have
entered the fray. Others to enter include ERM, Assuredex, Nkonki
and Inyebo (the latter two being unknown entities at this stage).
| Independent Third Party Assurance continued
to either the company or their stakeholders. Both Anglo American
Platinum and Sasol regularly put their assurance out to tender,
with change occurring every three to five years.
Assurance Providers in SA
Assurance Provider
Number of
engagements
IRAS*
12
ISAE 3000
AA 1000
Type I
4
PwC
10
9
PKF
8
8
KPMG
7
5
Deloitte
6
6
EY
3
3
ERM
2
1
Nkonki
1
1
AA 1000
Type II
ISAE 3000
& AA1000
3
1
1
1
1
PwC/EY
1
1
KPMG/Deloitte
1
1
Maplecroft/KPMG
Total
1
52
33
Non-Aligned
5
4
7
1
5
3
* IRAS, or ‘Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services’, was formerly known as ‘SustainabilityServices.co.za’
Although there has been a significant jump in the number of
assurance providers over the past couple of years – to where
reporters now sit with the option of choosing from a pool of 11
different companies – there is still an ongoing lack of assurance
skills available in South Africa. Part of the issue appears to be a
desire to shift away from the Big 4, for reasons either of cost or a
shallow experience base, with too little demonstrated capacity to
add value through the process. Even within the Big 4 there appears
to be an inability to attract and retain people with sufficient real
world experience, and who can therefore understand what reporters
must go through to produce their reports. Several companies have
complained that the assurance teams they are sent are “too
young… too inexperienced… and too focused on the numbers,
and not on what is really material”. One need only look at the
‘shared engagements’, where companies have had to employ
assurance teams from two different assurance providers (i.e.,
PwC + EY, KPMG + Deloitte and KPMG + Maplecroft) to note that
companies are not able to get the value they’re looking for from
one supplier. This is either a capacity issue, an independence issue,
or an approach issue (i.e., companies want the audit rigor of the
Big 4, but the value-adding opinion of someone like Maplecroft).
The current challenge is therefore for companies to effectively
discern who is best placed to provide assurance services that
meet their needs, as well as those of their stakeholders.
2.Because they already seek an audit opinion over their
financials from the Big 4;
3.Because the Big 4 firms come with automatic brand
recognition locally and internationally; and,
4.Because the Big 4 firms have resources placed all over the
world, thereby reducing the need to emit carbon via flights
in order to measure carbon from operations.
The default answer for many of the larger listed companies will
continue to be the Big 4 for the following reasons:
However, recent criticism over the role the Big 4 was perceived
to have played in the economic meltdown has spilled over into
the debate over who ought to provide sustainability assurance.
There is a general assumption that the Big 4 are too intrinsically
connected to their clients to be deemed “independent”, and
therefore are not – Chinese walls or not – in a position to offer a
meaningful assurance opinion. As was noted in last year’s research
report, the fact that the Big 4 firms manage over 90% of the audits
of the large listed companies, is a concern second only to the fact
that the average large company rotates their auditors once in every
48 years (the US’s Fortune 500 companies), which smacks of a
lack of independence. By being the auditor of a company for any
period longer than six years, the service provider’s independence
tends to give way to familiarity, if not collegiality, which does little
to offer anything close to ‘meaningful assurance’ to external
stakeholders. The auditor is, in most respects, checking their
friend’s homework, which is far from an impartial opinion.
1.Because of the relationship between the accounting firms
and the audit committees who are tasked with appointing
them (i.e., most audit committee members within larger
companies are ex-Big 4 accountants);
Although no formal rules exist and/or apply at this stage, it is
our own opinion at IRAS that companies ought to rotate their
assurance provider after no longer than three to four years, or risk
diminishing the value-add supplied by the assurance provider
28
Taking a major step back, it should be clearly stated that ITPA
refers to the practice of reviewing a company’s Sustainability
Report, or sustainability section within an Integrated Annual
Report, and training in this field, aside from project-based
experiential learning, has been scarce. While the practice of ITPA
has become increasingly more formalised over the past 13 years,
the lack of appropriate training has only recently been developed.
In partnership with AccountAbility, a UK-based not-for-profit network
that has established standards for stakeholder engagement and
assurance (AA1000SES and AA1000AS), IRAS established the first
training course for budding Certified Sustainability Assurance
Practitioners (CSAP) in 2009, and has run 5-day courses biannually
since then. Although a course has already been offered in March
of this year, a second course is being offered in October due to
demand (email info@iras.co.za for more information).
In developing the standards and CSAP accreditation process,
AccountAbility (www.accountability.org) has attempted to create
formal structures around what has been a relatively diverse set
of provider-specific approaches to assurance. However, the past
13 years of GRI-based reporting has allowed for the filtration of
three standard types of assurance: Content-Based Assurance;
Assertion-Based Assurance; and, Indicator-Based Assurance.
Content-Based Assurance (CBA)
CBA refers to one of the simplest forms of assurance, whereby
an assurance provider is expected to review the content of a
sustainability report and provide an opinion over whether or not
the report reasonably reflects the information expectations of
the reporting entity’s key stakeholders.
Assertion-Based Assurance (ABA)
ABA refers to a rather complex and time-consuming form of
assurance, whereby an assurance provider is expected to dissect
the content of a sustainability report into specific assertions
(e.g., “We respect all human rights”) and to provide an opinion
over whether or not each report assertion can be reasonably
proved, either by evidence supplied within the report, or through
additional information supplied by the reporting entity.
Indicator-Based Assurance (IBA)
IBA refers to the most common form of assurance sought by mining
companies and others with high social and/or environmental risk
levels. IBA requires an assurance provider to identify and select
a set of high priority sustainability indicators, and to research
the accuracy, consistency, completeness and reliability of the data
reported relative to each of these indicators. The assurance provider
is expected to review the chain of evidence (i.e., systems and
processes employed to collect, collate and report data) for each
key indicator and provide an opinion over whether or not the
indicator-specific data contained within the report is reliable.
AccountAbility, in attempting to address concerns about the
usefulness and quality of assurance engagements, launched its
updated Assurance Standard (AA1000AS) in 2009, offering specific
guidance regarding four specific types of assurance: Type 1 Moderate;
Type 1 Reasonable; Type 2 Moderate; and, Type 2 Reasonable.
Type 1 Assurance (T1A)
T1A refers to a form of assurance similar to that of CBA, whereby
an assurance provider is expected to review the content of a
sustainability report and provide an opinion over whether or not
the report reasonably reflects the information expectations of
the reporting entity’s key stakeholders. The assurance provider
is expected to assess the degree to which the reporting entity
has adhered to AccountAbility’s principles of ‘Inclusivity’ (whether
all of the reporting entity’s key stakeholders have been engaged),
‘Materiality’ (whether the reporting entity has identified and
prioritised its more significant sustainability risks and/or opportunities)
and ‘Responsiveness’ (whether the reporting entity has adequately
considered the material concerns of its key stakeholders and offered
a reasonable discussion to meet their information expectations).
The difference between ‘Moderate’ and ‘Reasonable’ assurance
is the extent to which the assurance provider has tested the
sustainability reporting systems and processes to provide an
opinion. Most notably, ‘Reasonable’ assurance would require that
stakeholders be actively engaged as part of the assurance process
to test the validity of the reporting entity’s claims around the three
reporting principles: inclusivity, materiality and responsiveness.
Type 2 Assurance (T2A)
T2A refers to a much more comprehensive form of assurance,
similar to that of IBA, whereby an assurance provider is expected
to meet the assurance expectations of T1A, and to test the accuracy,
consistency, completeness and reliability of data reported relative
to a selection of significant sustainability indicators. As with IBA,
the assurance provider is expected to review the chain of evidence
(i.e., systems and processes employed to collect, collate and
report data) for each key indicator and provide an opinion over
whether or not the indicator specific data contained within
the report is reliable.
The difference between ‘Moderate’ and ‘Reasonable’ T2A is the
extent to which data is tested. Rather than testing a small sample
of data for ‘Moderate’ assurance, the assurance provider must
test enough of the available data in order to provide an opinion
over whether or not the reported data is accurate, consistent,
complete and reliable.
Uptake of AA1000AS in South Africa
Although its uptake has been relatively slow in South Africa, the
application of AccountAbility’s AA1000AS assurance standard has
started to grow in the last few years. Whereas only six reports
were found to have been assured in accordance with AA1000AS
in 2009, of which four reports were assured by our own team, this
last year’s research identified 12 separate reports that had been
assured using either AA1000AS (seven reports), or AA1000AS
in combination with ISAE 3000 (five reports). We counted 16
AA1000AS assured reports this year, of which five were assured
by the Big 4 using a combination of AA1000AS and ISAE 3000.
In short, the key differences between AA1000S and ISAE 3000
are as follows:
1.Whereas ISAE 3000 restricts the assurance statement
to ‘negative language’, including the oft-ridiculed double
negative, AA1000AS expects the assurance provider
to provide a clear discourse on the assurance provider’s
findings, conclusions and recommendations. Rather than
the statement being structured to protect the assurer, as
in the case of ISAE 3000, the AA1000AS statement is
structured to clearly explain what was done, what was found,
and what the company ought to do in the future. In order for
the assurance statement to be accepted by AccountAbility
as having met their standards, the statement must undergo
a 15-point compliance check, for such things as clear findings,
recommendations and conclusions.
2.Whereas ISAE 3000 focuses on the quality of sampled data
– accuracy, completeness, consistency and reliability – AA1000AS
focuses on the processes behind reporting, including whether
or not the company has clear inclusivity processes for defining
who their most important stakeholders are (and engaging them),
for defining materiality (and managing the most material issues),
and responsiveness processes for communicating what the
most significant stakeholders want to know about the most
significant/material issues. In an AA1000AS Type II assurance
engagement, the review of principles is coupled with the same
sort of data testing as one would expect from an ISAE 3000
engagement, with the exception that the resultant statement
must be phrased using ‘positive language’.
In closing, it should be noted that any company seeking ITPA should
consider investigating the merits of applying AA1000AS in their
assurance engagement, regardless of who their assurance provider
might be. Without AA1000AS it’s virtually impossible for stakeholders
to understand whether or not the content of the report is appropriate
relative to the reporting entity’s most material issues, including
the most material societal issues that may have a significant
impact on the company’s activities.
29
GREEN TALENT
SUSTAINABILITY CAREERS FOR ALTERNATIVE FUTURES
It’s ab
o
the peo ut
ple!
HUMAN CAPITAL NEEDED
The reality of creating sustainable futures is
becoming a main stream focus and as a result the
green economy is gaining traction.
Human or social capital is fast becoming the
foundation of sustainable businesses.
Green Talent was established in 2011 to respond
to the growing need for sustainability professionals
in the green economy.
Our role is to facilitate the development of a
skilled workforce that is ready to meet the
demands of the emerging green/low carbon
economy in Africa. We do this through our
Sustainability Career Centre that provides a voice
for industry leaders, professionals and course
providers to communicate sustainability skills,
vacancy offerings, education and training
opportunities.
CONTACT US
Cell +27 (0)72 797 1299 elize@greentalent.co.za
www.greentalent.co.za
Drive sustainability
performance forward
in your business
credit360 is a specialist provider of sustainability software. That means you can rely on us to manage your sustainability data and
help take your company where you want to be. It’s no wonder our customers consistently win awards for their sustainability reporting
– and we continue to win awards as a supplier in our industry.
Whatever sustainability means to your organisation, from carbon reporting to donations tracking, our system provides an efficient,
integrated and transparent way to gather and manage data. We help you collect information, analyse and interpret it, and then
communicate it to all your different stakeholders.
Over 100 leading companies like Bidvest, Barclays, Philips and Staples use our solutions to manage their
sustainability data. Find out more about what we do, how we do it and who we’re already doing it for, visit
www.credit360.com
mid blue
teal
grey blue
compliance
supply chain
1 0 Tips to Achieve Excellence in
energy
Integrated
Sustainability Reporting
csr
10 Tips to Achieve Excellence in Integrated
Sustainability Reporting
NOTE
This
section has been updated from last year’s research
report. Some 10 tips have been labelled “NEW”,
while others have been labelled “UPDATED”… for
obvious reasons.
Having played in the sustainability reporting and assurance space,
in one way or another, for the better part of the past 13 years,
I – Michael H. Rea, the primary author of this report – have come
to believe that I might know a thing or two about what should be
reasonably expected from a sustainability report (or the sustainability
content within an Integrated Annual Report). However, the closer
I feel I’m getting to having “the answers”, the closer I may only
be to having “some of the questions”. Nonetheless, I have revisited
the list of “10 tips” included in the past two versions of this research
report, and have updated them to reflect discussions I’ve had with
my team and our clients over the past year.
Some of my preferred ‘tips’ are predicated on historical and/or
current ‘reporting principles’, particularly as set out by the GRI
and AccountAbility, but others stem from the discussions and
debates I’ve been privy to over the past few years. Others have
come from the frustration that arises having to endure the painful
challenge of evaluating reports that should never have been
published. In fact, I often sum up my advice to companies with
the following ten suggestions:
1. Introduce yourself!
2. Explain your “materiality process”!
3. “Integrate” does not necessarily mean “combine”!
4. Let the data tell the story!
5. Ask and answer the ‘So what?’ question!
6. Tick the boxes later!
7. An ‘A’ is not necessarily better than a ‘C’!
8. Neutrality works!
9. Seek meaningful assurance!
10.If you’re gonna link it, do it right!
Perhaps it’s important to first offer a simplistic overview of
the main differences between “Annual Reports” and “Integrated
Annual Reports”. These include:
• While an “Annual Report” almost exclusively focuses on
financial performance, with little more than a set of statutory
annual financial statements, and an introduction to the company
and its governance, an “Integrated Annual Report” seeks to
provide a summary of the company’s “non-financial
performance” (remembering that there’s no such thing as
“non-financial” in business).
• Whereas an “Annual Report” is a review of the company’s
historical performance, an “Integrated Annual Report” is
expected to give an indication of where the company is headed,
and how it plans to get there (i.e., forward looking versus the
rear view mirror approach).
• Whereas an “Annual Report” avoids – almost at all costs –
making predictions about future performance and/or the setting
of targets, target-setting is a fundamental expectation of an
“Integrated Annual Report”, as is the need to report back on
previously stated targets (i.e., setting the bar and reporting upon
commitments).
Ultimately, an effective report is the one that clearly defines a
company’s ‘Most Material Issues’ (MMIs), explains how those
MMIs were identified (i.e., the materiality process), provides a
simple, meaningful and comparable discussion about the company’s
ability to manage these issues, and then offers an equally
meaningful discussion about how the company plans to manage
the issues moving forward. A report should not take the form of
what we all came to expect from an Annual Report, which is all
but irrelevant by the time the report is produced. Rather, an
effective integrated annual report should offer a comprehensive
discourse around what a company does, what it plans to do, and
how it plans to do what it intends to do: including how it intends
to monitor and manage its MMIs.
One should not assume that MMIs must be limited to risks,
but rather all issues that might have a significant impact on the
company’s short and long-term success. These could be risks,
but almost always include opportunities. They will most certainly
be things that have an impact on the company, be it positive or
negative, and they may very well be ways in which the company
has an impact on others (e.g., the communities in which it
operates, the physical/natural environment, etc.).
In writing a sustainability report, one must remember what may
very well be the cardinal rule of integrated sustainability reporting:
32
The value is in the process… not the report!
The Integrated Annual Report should not be the objective, but
rather a document that seeks to explain performance against
objectives. It should be a milestone within a cyclical process
of introspection and process improvement, and should be a
well-scribed summary of the company’s ability to meet its
objectives during the reporting period. It should be somewhat of
a regurgitation of outcomes of key discussions the company has
had with its most significant stakeholders over the reporting
period, including a free and frank discourse about how engaging
stakeholders has led to policy, procedures and/or strategic change.
It should be an effective summary of the direction the company
is taking in the future, and how it plans to get there.
In developing an effective sustainability report, one should at least
consider the following unsolicited advice…
1 Introduce yourself! *NEW
Until such time as the GRI publishes the next version of its
Guidelines – the “G4”, expected to be launched at next year’s
GRI Conference (May 2013) – I will continue to point out that
the single-most useless GRI indicator is:
2.1 Name of the Organisation
Granted, it is understood that this is required – in the context
of idiot-proofing the Guidelines – for those companies that are
registered under one name, yet trading under another, but it’s
safe to assume that a company would find it difficult to produce
a report without at least once mentioning its name. Nonetheless,
it is not safe to assume that companies will remember to explain
who they are and/or what they do.
Far too often, companies waffle on about what great work they
are doing, why everyone else is to blame for its shortcomings, and
how they intend to be the next Apple in the post-Jobsian era, but
fail to explain what they actually do in a clear and concise manner.
In many cases, its difficult to understand what industry sector they
actually fall under and/or whether they ‘make anything’, or simply
invest in companies that do so. As a result, it can be extremely
difficult to assess whether or not a company is a “going concern”
as a result of mere dumb luck, or if there is a clear strategy that
is being managed in an effective and controlled manner.
For a report to be truly effective, the introduction to the report
should offer a clear understanding of what they do, where they
do it, as well as what their core products and services are.
2 Explain your materiality process! *NEW
As per the GRI’s Guidelines, a “reasonable response” to any of
the 127 indicators can be as simple as stating – usually within a
comprehensive GRI Index Table – the following:
Here’s the challenge of materiality: talk to everyone…listen to
those who have a valid point…and determine what’s material not
only on what the Board talks about, but also on what the world in
which the company operates in talks about. Do not assume that
the Board understands the risks and/or opportunities linked to a
global shift to a low carbon economy. Rather, use the reporting
process – inclusive of effective stakeholder engagement – as a
mechanism for informing the Board about what ought to be
considered ‘material’.
“Based on our materiality assessment, this indicator has been
deemed ‘not material’ and therefore we do not report on it.”
(or something to that effect).
3 “Integrate” does not necessarily mean
“combine”! *UPDATED
(For those companies errantly seeking to generate an Integrated
Annual Report that scores a high near-useless ‘GRI Compliance
Score’ such as those we disclose within this research report,
here’s the only piece of advice you’re likely interested in…)
The trick here is that you must first define your materiality process,
which requires explaining how the company arrives at a series of
indicators and/or issues that are important for the company to
discuss within its reports. In most cases, this tends to occur as
a function of the Risk and/or Audit Committee’s establishment
of a ‘Risk Register’, but this does not necessarily mean that this
is adequate. Rather, for the company to come up with a truly
comprehensive list of ‘most material issues’, there must be some
mechanism for stakeholder commentary and/or concern to
influence the company’s understanding of what is…or is not…
“material”, and thus what should be discussed within its reports.
In a recent JSE gathering of what was called the “Big 4 ½” (i.e.,
Deloitte, EY, KPMG, PwC and Grant Thornton…the ½), a member
of the audience asked the oft-posed question of “How does one
know what is material?”, to which the representative of Deloitte
asserted (albeit paraphrased), “If it’s not something the Board is
talking about, then it’s not material.”
Interesting!
This presupposes that the Board is made up of people who
actually pay attention to the world around them and/or that
anyone actually listens to the Board. It assumes that the Board
understands that business has changed and/or that the world
of business isn’t as insulated from social unrest as it might
once have been. It also assumes that the Board has joined
the information age, let alone a world quickly becoming
dominated by the rapid fire impacts of social media.
Consider Brait, the investment company that was chaired by
Mervyn King – affectionately referred to (at least by me) as “the
King of King” (not to be confused with “the King of Kings”) – and
the company that not only failed to get onto the first King-based
JSE SRI Index for failure to interpret King effectively, but that also
continues to produce an Annual Report that is not aligned to the
GRI Guidelines and/or King III. How is it that Brait could have been
chaired by King – who recently stepped down from his
chairmanship of the GRI, and who now chairs the International
Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC) – without listening to the
advice he sells to everyone else willing to attend an over-priced
SAICA event?
As was discussed in greater detail in last year’s version of this
research report, there is a fundamental difference between
‘integrated reporting’ and ‘the integrated report’. The former
is the process by which companies ensure that sustainability
is woven into the fabric of the business, from vision, mission
and values all the way through to strategy and operational tactics.
The latter is the document that is produced at the end of the
financial period to update stakeholders on not only the historical
performance of the organisation, but also the outlook and
performance targets for the near, mid and long-term future
of the company.
SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FOR
SUSTAINABLE COMPANIES
An integrated report is to be written in a manner that will be able to
clearly demonstrate how environmental, social and governance
matters are managed within the organisation, including, for example:
Audit • Advisory • Tax
• What information is managed under the watchful eye of the
Board and/or its committees?
Sustainable development creates value for customers,
investors and the environment.
• What formalised policies, procedures and systems are deployed
to monitor and measure progress against key performance
indicators?
Our clients respect us for our specialist sustainability skills.
Skills that help them build credibility and establish trust with
stakeholders. Through our dedicated sustainability services
team, we provide independent, third party assurance on the
performance of a company’s sustainability strategy. We assess
business processes systems and controls in place relating to
sustainability objectives, stakeholder engagement, information
gathering and reporting, and best practice benchmarking.
We then recommend areas for improvement. Independent
third party assurance of your sustainability report provides the
added comfort your stakeholders, investors and members of
the public need to make up their minds about your business
practices and commitment to not only the communities within
which you work, but the world as a whole.
• What assurance procedures are in place to test controls over
the company’s most material issues…how often, by whom (i.e.,
internal or external assurance providers), and under the watchful
eye of what Board/Committee/Executive function?
• What stakeholders are engaged, for what reason, how frequently,
in what format, and what has resulted from that engagement
(i.e., has stakeholder engagement had an impact on the strategies
and/or tactics of the business)?
An integrated report does not, however, need to be weighed
down by reams of statutory financial statements that many
stakeholders cannot interpret, nor does it need to include an
endless photo-laden rant about the self-proclaimed effectiveness
of community development projects (i.e., the poverty pornography
I love to talk about).
Thus, the authors of an ‘integrated report’ should not attempt to
produce a 400-page report that combines the statutory financial
statements and the comprehensive sustainability report, but
should shoot for a 60 to 80 page summary report. Sasol’s most
recent report, as well as those of the likes of Altron, Vodacom
and Massmart are strong examples of reports that have been
whittled down from the door stops of old, to become much more
Sustainable communities need sustainable businesses.
Contact Ursula van Eck on +27 10 060 5068 today
to see how we can help you.
www.bdo.co.za
33
| 10 Tips to Achieve Excellence in Integrated Sustainability Reporting continued
manageable summary reports, with comprehensive supporting
documentation available in other reports and/or on the web.
A well-written and effectively designed report offers stakeholders
a meaningful interpretation of the company’s financial performance
in the context of how well environmental, social and governance
matters are managed in concert.
4 Let the data tell the story! *UPDATED
If you’re attempting to write an Integrated Annual Report and are
not a numbers geek, you have three choices: become one, find
one in your company, or rent one!
Truth is, an excellent author can twist words to tell any story, but
not always the right story, whereas a numbers geek may not be
as eloquent, but their numbers will always tell the truth!
For years, I have witnessed numerous reports getting to the final
stages of a misguided production process, when the data tables
are finally ready to be plotted within an otherwise “complete”
report. Graphs are generated and inserted, yet no link is made
between the data and the text, often resulting in paragraphs that
tell a wonderful story about how the company has – for example
– invested heavily in improving the overall health and safety of
workers, while an accompanying graph shows a sharp increase
in work-related injuries.
As much as I might argue that accountants are not necessarily
the best people to measure sustainability, I have to admit that
my own training was largely influenced by seven years of earning
and learning at PwC and KPMG. Thus, it would be disingenuous
of me not to publicly assert that accountants taught me that ‘numbers
tell stories’, and that effective data management is critical to business
success. Unfortunately, this has only recently extended beyond
financial data, and into the realm of social and environmental
performance reporting (for all but the handful of South African
companies that have been measuring “non-financial performance”
for several years…such as Anglo American Platinum and Sasol).
Typically, sustainability report authors begin the reporting process
long before they have usable performance data to work with. They
make assumptions about performance, and then hope to weave
year-end data into the stories they have attempted to tell. In many
cases this results in either a complete absence of data, or
an unmistakable disconnect between the data reported and
the discourse around the issue.
Ultimately, a report should provide a combination of ‘current data’
(i.e., performance data from the reporting period), historical or
‘trend data’ (e.g., 3 to 5-year history of performance data for
the specific indicator), benchmark or ‘comparable data’ (i.e., data
from other companies, preferably industry or sector peers), and
a meaningful projection of future trends. Once the data has been
presented, the author should then offer a clear, concise and
intelligent analysis of the data, interpreting trends and anomalies,
and explaining the following:
• Sources of data;
• Weaknesses in the data collection, collation and/or reporting
processes (where applicable);
• Re-statements of previously reported data, where errors might
have been identified;
• Identification of trends and anomalies within the data, as well
as their root causes; and,
• Any future changes to data systems or processes.
Reasonability testing of data should support graphs, wherever
possible, and include an explanation of why a specific anomaly
might have occurred. For example, a spike in water consumption
ought to be contextualised relative to production figures, in that it
might make sense for a significant spike in water consumption IF
there was a significant spike in total production (assuming that
production is directly correlated to water consumption). If this
anomaly cannot be deemed ‘reasonable’, an explanation of what
led to the spike should be offered and/or a commitment to
rectifying whatever latent problems may yet exist.
5 Ask and answer the ‘So what?’ question! *UPDATED
A common weakness in sustainability reports – or the
sustainability sections within integrated annual reports – is that
authors do not appear to apply their minds to predicting the
reader’s ability to interpret information, or to predicting how a
reader’s interpretation might lead to different conclusions than
intended. As such, one must consider that it is the role of the
author to predict, and then answer, any possible questions raised
by information presented within the report. Assume nothing…
explain everything!
In some cases, readers are left hanging on data that is neither
explained, nor contextualised. It is assumed that the reader can
interpret the data and come to a reasonable conclusion about the
point the author intends to make, or to assume what has led to a
specific trend or anomaly within data. On the one hand, this may
suggest that the author does not necessarily understand the data,
but the bigger concern is that readers are left to define their own
errant conclusions.
Thus, it is critically important for any assertion, be it a set of data or a
worded statement, to be fully explained in the context of ‘So what?’
For example, when providing water consumption data (i.e., the
total volume of water consumed), it’s important to ensure that
year-on-year trend data is supplied, preferably a three-year
minimum, that trends and/or anomalies are explained, and that
the consumption is contextualised in terms of either a unit of
production or head count. A volume in and of itself does not
indicate whether the company is an efficient consumer of water.
Until the volume is compared against a unit of production
(e.g., litres per unit of production), and a year-on-year trend can
be displayed, the indicator does little to explain the company’s
sustainability performance. Moreover, the consumption should
be explained by asking and answering the ‘So what?’ question.
34
A statement that water consumption per unit of production should
always be explained in terms of whether the company has
invested in water recycling systems, implemented less waterdependent production methods, or identified a prior leak that was
NOTE
This
is not necessarily a concern that is limited to
quantitative data and/or assertions. In many cases, the
report is written almost exclusively for a well-informed
shareholder (or worse, the Board), which can leave
the reader guessing about what the strategy and/or
business objectives of the company are… thus failing to
offer any contextualisation for performance assertions.
wasting massive volumes of water for an unknown period of time.
Furthermore, the reduction in water consumption should be taken
to its logical end, ultimately stating how this might impact on the
current and/or future financial performance of the company, such
as whether an investment in low-flow technologies will protect
the company against forecasted hikes in the cost of water.
6 Tick the boxes later! *UPDATED
Although some might argue that there have been many, the first
problem that GRI Guidelines created was the fact that companies
have frequently fallen into a compliance trap. They believe that in
order to apply the GRI Guidelines, the company must be able to
tick as many of the boxes as possible, and if not, they must avoid
producing a report that mentions adoption and/or application of
the Guidelines. What they have overlooked is the principle of
“materiality”.
One must remember that the GRI has not produced a prescriptive
text that is applicable in its entirety to ALL reporting entities.
Rather, the Guidelines are a reasonable set of indicators that
can be applied in part, or in whole, to companies, NGOs, public
institutions and anyone else seeking to produce a comparable
sustainability report. Within the guidance around the Guidelines,
the GRI has provided clear instructions about ensuring that the
reporting entity determines the subject matter that is most material
to the organisation, and to produce a report that focuses almost
exclusively on only those issues. In fact, the GRI’s guidance
indicates that when companies attempt to produce a sustainability
report that meets their Application Level A requirements, the
reporter should be mindful of the need to adhere to the materiality
principle. Thus, a response of ‘not material to our company’ is a
reasonable response to an indicator (as long as the reporting entity
can clearly define their processes for determining materiality, and
therefore justify the ‘not material’ assertion).
NOTE
I am well aware of the fact that this research report, now
in its 4th edition, has led to the misguided assumption
that a high GRI compliance score is indicative of a
“good report”. This is not true! As I’ve tried to state in
each year’s research report, there is no guaranteed
positive correlation between a high GRI compliance
score and effective reporting. Rather, it is a complete red
herring!
An effective report is measured not by the number of
indicator boxes ticked, but rather by how well the GRI
Guidelines are applied, in accordance with the principles
of materiality and neutrality.
In some cases, companies have taken the notion of GRI-based
reporting far too literally, and have merely produced a report that
offers a response to as many of the GRI’s G3 indicators, without
an attempt to either contextualise the information, or to make the
report ‘readable’. These reports do little to provide an understanding
of the company’s sustainability performance and/or outlook, and
almost always suggest that the company is not serious about
sustainability matters.
Although some might (and many do) argue that the GRI G3
guidelines are not entirely applicable and/or appropriate, the GRI is
nonetheless THE benchmark standard for reporting. Thus, a report
should contain clear and detailed Disclosures on Management
Approach, and responses to all G3 indicators, even if only to
indicate that they are ‘not material’ to the company. Where
deemed ‘not material’ it’s critical to explain why not.
For those companies that have not yet produced a GRI-based
report, I wonder out loud: “Why not?”
The GRI Guidelines have – as reported by the interviewees in
the ‘Why Bother?’ section of this report – become the benchmark
standard for sustainability reporting, and offer opportunities for
meaningful comparability. They are recommended – albeit not
necessarily applied – by King, and while they may not yet be nearing
perfection, do offer a useful framework for effective reporting.
7 An ‘A’ is not necessarily better than a ‘C’! *UPDATED
The second most commonly criticised problem that the GRI
Guidelines created is the race to an ‘A’, under the assumption
that an ‘A’ is fundamentally better than a ‘C’.
NOTE
Our research – this year more than in the past – has
noted that many companies have shot up the rankings
in our GRI Compliance Score table merely as a result
of producing a comprehensive GRI Content Index Table,
inclusive of a number of meaningless attempts at offer ‘a
response’, rather than ‘a meaningful response’. In some
cases this is as blatant as a supplemental sustainability
report that is little more than the blanking out of the GRI
Gap Analysis template we gave them last year, now
populated with poorly crafted responses to numerous
indicators. Brilliant!
of the Guidelines appear to be set to tackle the oft-misguided
assumption that companies should all seek to “get an A”.
As ex-students, we’ve all been habituated into believing that in
the presence of a ‘C’, ‘B’ and an ‘A’, the best of the three must
be the ‘A’. Thus, companies far too frequently race towards an ‘A’
with little regard for ensuring that a meaningful discourse can be
provided on each of the performance indicators. In the context of
NOTE
In order to be “GRI compliant”, a report MUST be
supported by a GRI Content Index (as per Indicator
3.12). The GRI differentiates between reports that “apply
the Guidelines” and those that are “GRI compliant”.
Thus, the indicator table MUST be supplied, either
within the report, or as a downloadable appendix on the
company’s website (or available upon request by email).
sustainability reporting, an ‘A’ only means that the report has
answered more of the GRI’s indicators than C-level or B-level reports.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I reminded everyone that under
the watchful eye of our current government, a Malema-inspired
interpretation of basic math has somehow resulted in “a pass”
occurring at the paltry sum of 30%, thus suggesting that anyone
who can get to 50% is somewhat of a genius! In that context,
it may be useful to point out that in the context of the GRI
Guidelines, a company can be “GRI-complaint” if they have a GRI
Compliance Score of only 25.3%. Thus, there should be no reason
for any company not to be GRI-compliant (not even Brait).
Good news…
The GRI appears to be getting rid of the A, B or C system of
classifying reports. Although they’re not yet finalised, the G4 version
35
| 10 Tips to Achieve Excellence in Integrated Sustainability Reporting continued
8 Neutrality works! *UPDATED
The principle of neutrality was first floated by the GRI in its
pre-G3 reporting principles, and was a cornerstone element of
successful sustainability reporting in the early years. In essence,
‘neutrality’ is all about ‘balance’. It’s about ensuring that a report
is not produced in a manner that attempts to ‘green wash’
environmental performance, or avoids occupational health and
safety matters that paint the company as unsafe. It is about telling
the whole story: ‘warts and all’.
Most companies still tend to follow a PR approach to reporting;
failing to recognise the importance of explaining what might have
gone wrong during the reporting period, and what is being done to
rectify it. However, companies with more mature reporting
processes now understand that while it is important to explain
what you do right, this should not be the full extent of an effective
report. Rather, it is far more important to inform stakeholders of
the on-going challenges the company faces, as well as the
company’s ability to address those challenges.
Neutrality requires companies to be truly ‘open’ and ‘transparent’,
and to offer stakeholders an opportunity to effectively gauge their
performance: not just to applaud the company for what it’s doing
well, or right. However, this often presents a risk in and of itself,
particularly at senior levels within companies. While report authors
are often quick to adhere to the principle, senior executives tend
to be quick to wield the red pen, ultimately erasing most
discussions that offer balance. Thus, the challenge is for authors
to write the ‘good news’ in a manner that does not appear overly
self-congratulatory, while offering the ‘bad news’ in a manner that
protects the company’s reputation and/or brand image.
Companies must not be afraid to say “We don’t know!” and
should never make statements to the effect that ‘We are perfect!”
9 Seek meaningful assurance! *UPDATED
As this year’s evidence shows, assurance is quickly becoming a
‘must have’ rather than a ‘nice to have’. It’s a recommendation
within King III, and has been adopted not only by 52 of the 128
GRI-based reporting entities reviewed in our research, but has
become the playing field for a rapidly expanding number of
assurance providers. In the past year, the market has been
penetrated by a few of the “Tier 2” auditing firms (BDO, Grant
Thornton and PKF), as well as by a number of smaller, more
niche-based entities (e.g., IRAS). Even Theo Botha, South Africa’s
all-but-sole shareholder activist, has started up an assurance
practice (CA-G Assurance), as has Empowerdex, SA’s leading BEE
verification company (Assuredex). However, with 11 assurance
providers now offering services to reporters – with the likes of
some of the “Big 4” accountancies losing ground to new market
entrants – the question of standards and quality assurance is
becoming far more poignant.
The challenge is for companies to seek not only assurance – or an
‘audit-like’ opinion – over their sustainability report, but valueadding assurance. Companies should gain an understanding of
what an assurance provider ought to be doing as part of the
assurance process, and should be questioning whether or not the
assurance adds value to the reporting process, or adds a level of
comfort – for stakeholders reading the report – about whether or
not the content of the report is fair, factual, reasonably complete,
neutral, and comparable.
At present, there are only a handful of reasonably experienced
assurance providers in South Africa, of which the vast majority will
not necessarily have adequate industry and/or assurance-related
experience to conduct Type II assurance engagements, as per
AccountAbility’s AA1000AS recommendations. Thus, any company
seeking assurance will need to understand the differences between
the primary assurance standards – ISAE 3000 and AA1000AS – and
what assurance options should be available to them.
Companies are fallible. They make mistakes, and they are unlikely
to be able to police all people at all times without some lapses
occurring. The question is not “why aren’t you perfect?”, but
rather “what are you doing to try to be perfect?” No right-minded
stakeholder would expect a company to operate in the absence of
error. Thus, companies must be willing to make over-arching policy
statements, but then conclude that either performance data is not
yet available, or that policies do not always root out human error.
The alternative is to create an expectation of perfection, only to
fall flat on one’s face when a stakeholder identifies a problem.
I sincerely hope that the rise of new assurance providers
encourages companies to take the time to understand that they
do not need to hire expensive consultants to offer assurance, but
rather could seek an independent opinion from as diverse a set of
stakeholders as academics, activist groups (e.g., the Northwest
Eco Forum, or the World Wildlife Fund), or to put assurance
engagements out to public tender to gain a better understanding
of what value assurance might actually offer. Of course, this is
only possible if both parties know what they are seeking from
an assurance engagement, and if both parties are sufficiently
schooled in assurance methodologies.
I truly believe that transparency and accountability are not to be
hauled out only when it suits the picture a company attempts to
paint. They are principles that ought to be applied consistently and
without exception. They do not negate the probability of
imperfection and error, but rather support the quest for goodwill
among stakeholders.
For assurance to be truly meaningful, companies ought to avoid a
process that simply attempts to tick a series of ‘Did you do this?’
boxes. Rather, the assurance should test for compliance to
principles such as AccountAbility’s Inclusivity, Materiality and
Responsiveness, to assess reporting systems and outcomes, and
ultimately test for data accuracy, consistency, completeness and
36
reliability. Ask any company that has sought a Type II assurance
opinion over their report, and I’m confident they would assert that
the process added value to much more than merely the report,
but to the overall success of the business.
10 If you’re gonna link it, do it right! *NEW
Perhaps this is the first time my research report has fallen into
your hands (or the first time you’ve actually opted to read it), so I’ll
once again repeat my dissatisfaction with inane statements such
as “We opted to be environmentally responsible”. What a load of
bio digestible crap! Not printing a report – at least not a few hundred
copies that can be highly targeted in their distribution – is little
more than a cheap excuse for getting someone else to pay the
cost of printing,
Granted, the iPad, Kindle and other e-readers are taking over some
of the publication market, but e-readers are not great for report
review (at least not yet), and have not yet pushed the printed
word off the shelves. Not unlike many others in my generation,
I prefer to read reports that I can hold in my hands. I want to
scribble notes on the pages, and to dog-ear pages that offer
important bits of info. Thus, I continue to encourage all companies
that can’t afford to print a hard copy report to accept that if your
business is going to collapse because of a few printed reports,
you ought to start seeking new employment without delay!
Nonetheless, I’m not a complete Australopithecine, and I can walk
upright without scraping my knuckles…at least to the point of being
able to navigate my way around a website or two. However, I might
be more willing to read online reports if companies were getting
it right.
During a review of GRI-based reports for UK companies, I was
stunned by how easy some companies have made it for readers
to navigate through their online reports. GRI Content Index tables
are hyper-linked to precisely the spot the reader wants to go (for
any given indicator). Assurance statements are hyperlinked not
only from the body of the main report to the statement, but also
from an assertion within the statement back to the relevant
section within the report (e.g., if diesel consumption was assured,
the mention of diesel in the assurance statement was hyper-linked
back to the diesel stats page in the online report).
At present, and with some notable exceptions (yet again, Sasol)
the online versions of South African reports are little more than
the .pdf version of a printable report being uploaded, page-bypage, onto the company’s website (rather than a meaningful
and user-friendly HTML version). Altron has cleverly adapted
their report for iPad use (downloadable as an app), and have
created a comprehensive multi-media report linking videos to
relevant sections.
Inasmuch as I’d still appreciate getting a hard copy of a report,
I might be encouraged to spare a tree or two if companies could
use the services of design houses who know how to create reports
that can be printed, or viewed in a searchable online format.
However, this would require companies ensuring that links work!
Purple Frog Communications specialise
in design and production for print,
web design and all areas of creative
consultancy and development.
Our Personal Favourites
Combing through – quite literally – hundreds of
annual, integrated annual, sustainability and/or
sustainable development reports is a daunting
task, made all the more mundane by the
countless reports representing the ‘have nots’ in
our reporting society. Despite the 13 year history
of GRI-based reporting (12 years in South Africa),
the vast majority of companies (65%) still haven’t
awoken to the possibilities entrenched in the
adoption of a set of reporting guidelines geared
to improving overall sustainability performance
(i.e., not just the reporting side of things).
Thus, it’s always a pleasure to identify the
handful of reports that stand out amongst
the crowd, ultimately setting benchmarks
for others to follow.
Inasmuch as the following pages are NOT “an award”, it is a
pleasure to read company reports that identify our research as a
form of “recognition”. However, one must be careful to note that
inclusion in our ranking is not – by any means – intended as said
“recognition”. In fact, we have been clear in our repeated
assertion that our ranking system is a complete red herring, in that
a report can be “excellent” regardless of whether or not its
authors have ticked the vast majority of the GRI’s boxes.
Should anyone wish to cite this research report as another form of
‘Reporting Award’ – vis-à-vis the awards issued by Ernst & Young
and/or the ACCA – then it must be noted that only the following
eight reports can be perceived as indicators of ‘excellence in
reporting’.
Over the past three years we’ve been clear that a GRI compliance
score approaching 100% should NEVER be viewed as a
demonstration of excellence in reporting, but rather a
demonstration of the perceived relevance of the GRI Guidelines by
a specific reporting entity. In fact, one must be cautious in noting
that both Impahla Clothing and Little Eden rank within the top 20,
based on GRI compliance.
Some of the reports that score high in our monitoring scale are
ultimately rubbish, in that they do little to provide a meaningful
discussion of their ability to monitor and/or manage their most
material risks, opportunities and/or impacts. Similarly, some
companies that are yet to apply the GRI Guidelines, or that opt
not to apply the guidelines, produce reports that provide excellent
coverage of their “Most Material Issues”, and generally offer an
excellent overview of their sustainability performance and outlook.
Granted, Sasol’s 2011 report, complete with its online supporting
documentation, is by far one of the most useful examples of
reporting excellence, but their near 100% compliance score is not
‘proof’ that the GRI Guidelines lead to excellence in reporting. As
we noted last year, Sasol’s adoption of the Guidelines – as with
other leading companies – should be viewed as evidence that the
Guidelines ought to be considered relevant and useful to reporting
entities of all shapes and sizes, and therefore should not be
overlooked by anyone seeking to produce a meaningful
sustainability (or integrated annual) report.
That having been said, our team of dedicated researchers are in
a unique position to offer a form of recognition that is uncommon
within any of the awards process we’re aware of. The team
reviewed through more than 400 integrated annual, annual and/or
sustainability reports – often embarking on seemingly endless
quests to find “referenced” online supporting information – to
assess the levels of GRI compliance of each and every reporting
entity in South Africa. In doing so, the team has identified the
reports they believe to be THE most useful examples of successful
reporting procedures, inasmuch as they’ve been able to identify
pitfalls that all reporters should ultimately seek to avoid. As such,
the team has selected the reports that they believe represent
‘excellence’, and have offered their own comments regarding
the strengths and weaknesses of their “personal favourites”.
We provide a full service, taking your
project from initial concept right through
to completion.
Our core offering includes:
integrated annual reports,
sustainability reports,
financial advertising,
web design, corporate identity and
branding, corporate brochures,
magazine adverts, newsletters, signage,
billboards, banners, exhibition stands
and corporate gifts.
Email: info@purplefrog.co.za
Telephone: (011) 462 7242
www.purplefrog.co.za
The following is our research team’s explanation of why they
chose each of their top reports.
Author’s Note:
As always, I’ve recused myself from the “our personal favourites” process,
opting not to pick my own favourites, due to my level of engagement with a
number of reporters. Of course, readers are encouraged to go to our
website (www.iras.co.za) to download copies of the latest versions of the
reports I have written or assured.
37
conceptualise
actualise
realise
| Our Personal Favourites continued
Anglo American Plc
Lonmin Plc
Anglo American Plc has a vast number of operations reaching to all
corners of the globe. This could make reporting very difficult, yet
their Sustainable Development Report is so eloquent that a huge
volume of information has been made completely digestible. Right
at the start the reader gets a full summary of the operations (mine
locations, use of the minerals mined, number of people involved
and profit generated), a fantastic base to anchor the rest of the
report. Throughout the report the sections are clear and organised
and data is usefully summarised at the end. Despite the size of
operations, the report manages to remain concise; an important
trait in a world where people have less time to do more work.
Lonmin are clear leaders in reporting, having produced
sustainability reports for the last 13 years. This is evidenced by
their very thorough and well laid out Sustainable Development
Report for 2011. The report is clear, simple and easy to read as
well as being so thorough that very little is left unanswered.
Having said this, the report does not solely (and soullessly) follow
the GRI guidelines. There are more initiatives that the group
engages with than just those required by the GRI. This shows the
group is both fully involved with, and openly reporting on, matters
that are material to themselves rather than just ticking the
required boxes.
Julia’s #1
Julia’s #2
ü
Sustainability issues are addressed throughout the report and both the Chairman and the Chief Executive
discuss material sustainability issues.
ü
The operations of the group including locations and subsidiaries involved are all described succinctly right at
the start.
ü
The graphs and data summaries on the outside edges of pages ensure that data facts stand out and make
the report more immediately interesting.
ü
The report is well designed with good clear headings, useful summaries in bullet points at the start of sections,
all making for an easily digestible report.
ü
The summary of data at the end of the report is a very useful reference for when a reader is quickly looking
for figures.
Major headings are repeated at the top of pages so the reader knows where in the report they are.
ü
The lifecycle of a mine is described upfront, making readers aware of the processes and impacts involved with
mining and how the group approaches these.
ü
That the report is printed on environmentally conscious paper shows that sustainability is important to
the group at many levels.
ü
ü
ü
ü
ü
The maps present locations clearly. All too often maps are either absent, or are not clearly presented.
ü
The photographs give a good visual description of what operations involve and add a personal touch.
The captions usefully highlight their relevance to the group.
It is a pleasure to know the activities and locations of the group and its subsidiaries within the first two pages.
This sets the scene for the rest of the report. It is surprising how often companies do not describe their
business upfront.
ü
ü
The report is clearly laid out with good spacing and headings and is therefore attractive and accessible
to readers.
The photographs give the reader a good sense of what the operations involve and add a personal touch.
Importantly, they have captions, which adds significantly to their relevance and interest.
ü
ü
ü
ü
The report is clearly written with good simple English, so it is easily understandable.
Contact details for someone specifically involved with the report, including an email address and phone
number, are given on the very first page.
O
O
Referencing in the GRI table is not always correct.
O
The stakeholder section could be more thorough and include the topics raised by each stakeholder and how
the group has responded to each of these.
O
Operations are large and it is sometimes difficult to collate data from such dispersed subsidiaries. Although
efforts have been started to collect and bring data together, care should be taken that all data is presented for
all operations in all countries.
O
The most senior decision maker in the organisation is the Chairman. GRI
indicator 1.1 commonly references a review done by someone other than the
Chairman, which is incorrect according to the guidelines.
O
O
O
The habitats surrounding operations and how they are impacted should be more fully described.
O
Even though the Sustainable Development Report (SDR) should be read in
conjunction with the Annual Report and Accounts, a summarised Chairman’s
letter could be included in the SDR.
O
A map would add significantly to the first two pages where the operations
are outlined.
O
URLs should be written out underneath links (this was a web-based report)
for readers who have printed versions.
The definitions of indicators at the end of the report describe explicitly how calculations were done.
The numerous footnotes to graphs and tables clarify points so the report can be completely understood.
Data on employees and employee turnover should be clearly divided by type, diversity, gender and region.
There were some cases where attaching values to graphs would add to their usefulness. For example the
water, energy and emissions graphs could either have the 2011 values included, or a reference to where the
actual values are stated at the back of the report.
38
The graphs are simple; axes and legends are labelled and headings explain what the graph is about.
The GRI indicators that are discussed in a section are listed at the end of that section, making for easy
referencing.
The scope and boundary of the report (“Our Approach to Sustainability
Reporting”) could be closer to the start of the report, perhaps before the CEO’s
statement, rather than on page 11.
Illovo Sugar
Grindrod
Having to plough through hundreds of reports annually it is always
refreshing to come across a report that is easy to read, tells a
story and leaves me feeling more educated about an aspect of
business or production in South Africa. The Illovo report was one
such report. I now have a thorough understanding of the South
African sugar industry, the macroeconomic forces that influence
it, the agricultural practices involved, the vulnerability to climate
change and the opportunities for expansion into renewable fuels.
The report is both visually stimulating and factually informative.
The layout makes it easily navigable and appealing to all
potential readers.
As a transportation company with various divisions operating
across the globe, Grindrod has compiled a clear and cohesive
report, which successfully integrates all aspects of economic,
social and environmental performance and aligns these to their
strategy. From the very start of the report the reader is informed
of who the company is, what they do and what they stand for
thus making it accessible to any stakeholder or interested party.
I believe that a well-structured report implies that the organisation
is also well run and thus is a powerful tool for communicating
the brand and ethos of an organisation to external stakeholders.
Grindrod is one of my favorite reports as it is excellently compiled,
clearly separates different divisions (whilst including consistent
data for each) and tells the story of who the company is.
Lauren’s #1
Lauren’s #2
ü
The Illovo report is a comprehensive report that is easily read and understandable by stakeholders; from both a
design and content perspective it is excellent.
ü
Right from the start of the report the reader knows exactly who the company is and what they can expect
the report to contain.
ü
A clear “Scope of report” section on the inside front cover immediately lets readers know what to expect in
the report and why certain aspects have or have not been included.
ü
For visually stimulated readers the provision of a map that clearly depicts the geographic spread of operations
and customers not only shows the extent of the operations, but also makes it more interesting to read.
ü
Key features such as cane production, sugar production and revenue are provided on page one immediately
giving the reader an overview of the successes and drawbacks of the reporting period. These are presented
with up and down arrows and percentages, which makes performance obvious.
ü
ü
A double page spread on strategic and operational accountability clearly summarises the business profile of
each country of operation and outlines aspects such as their objectives and performance providing the reader
with a clear overview of operations.
The inclusion of a one-page company history – “Grindrod history” – provides a context to where the company
has come from and how it has grown, and adds an element of interest to the standard report format.
Highlights are blocked according to different aspects of the business (environmental, economic, non-financial,
financial etc.) and are provided upfront giving the reader an overview of the successes of the year in an
integrated manner.
ü
Illovo’s diagrammatic cane sugar sustainability model makes the operations understandable to all readers of
the report, and thus makes the report more meaningful.
ü
Sustainability reviews and highlights are included for each of the divisions (Divisional Reviews), reflecting that
sustainability is integrated into reporting and not just discussed as a side line issue. This reinforces Grindrod’s
assertion that sustainability is a core element of their business.
ü
The group risk management committee is accountable for sustainability and there is a clear description of how
this is managed at a board level, thus reinforcing their assertion that sustainability and integrated reporting is
a core element of their business.
ü
The language used in the report makes it more ‘readable’, thereby making the report easily understandable
to anyone unfamiliar with the specific activities of the company.
ü
The key risk matrix provides a transparent account of the risks to the business and links to material issues.
Clearly presented and informative.
ü
Detailed quantitative environmental data is provided and clearly presented in a well-mapped table making
it easy to compare assessments of environmental indicators.
ü
ü
ü
Reporting on climate change risks and opportunities is presented in a way that is both relevant and informative.
The group highlights are colorfully presented at the start of the report with a good balance of financial
and non-financial achievements, again reflecting the integrated nature of the report.
ü
A fold-out index on the inside front cover is a good design element as it is useful as a page marker and makes
the report easily navigable.
ü
A fold-out index on the inside front cover is a good design element as it is useful as a page marker and makes
the report immediately easily navigable.
O
As a practical tip, if using abbreviations in the GRI table please include a key of
what these mean. For example, is NR = Not Reported, or NR = Not Required?
O
The report has two scopes, which is unnecessary and creates repetition throughout the report. It conveys the
impression that sustainability is not fully integrated. Remember that “integrated” does not mean combined.
O
References to documents found online should have a direct URL as opposed
to simply www.grindrod.co.za.
O
As the report is built upon over the years, one could hope to see an improvement in comparability of data.
A suggestion for companies starting reporting with little year on year comparable data is to include external
comparability by linking your stats to those of other companies within your industry locally and/or internationally
(i.e., who’s the best in the world in the agricultural sector, per indicator, and where does Illovo sit relative to
their benchmark?).
O
Environmental performance data would be complemented with graphs to
show trends.
O
Although the sustainability section has a scope, there would be merit in
including a scope / boundary section at the start of the whole Integrated
Annual Report.
O
Disclosures on management approach need to be more explicit for solid
level B compliance. Management approaches should leave the reader feeling
that the company has defined policies, measurement processes and has
shown that controls or audits are in place.
The discussion surrounding the value added statement is clear and explains the content of the statement in a
useful manner, however CSI should be included.
O
Reporting on stakeholder engagement can be improved by including more detail on the frequency of
interactions and the issues raised by stakeholders.
O
Sweeping generalisations are included throughout the report without substantiating the assertions made.
39
| Our Personal Favourites continued
Sasol
Sappi
Over the course of this project I reviewed over 100 reports and
Sasol’s certainly stood out as my top report. The overall
impression I got from reading this report was the overwhelming
investment that Sasol has placed on being a leader in the realm of
sustainability.
Sappi’s report probably did the best job of any in reporting on
quantitative data that is related specifically to the requirements
of the GRI. Their report was broken down into main components
and addressed every indicator that was material to them.
One thing I really liked about Sappi’s report was how they clearly
explained the significance of certain sustainability issues and how
that significance changed across the globe. Sappi has an extensive
global footprint and did a great job of explaining where certain
sustainability issues may be more relevant in different regions.
What I found most impressive was the ease in which I was able
to understand the content. For someone like myself, lacking a
background in this field, the report is written in such a way that
makes it understandable and meaningful to someone less familiar
with the nature of their operations.
A true sign of a well-written report is the degree to which
information is understandable and meaningful. Sappi does an
excellent job at presenting complex sustainability initiatives in a
way that someone less familiar with the nature of their operations
can understand.
The report is second to none in its ability to cover most (99.6%) of
GRI guidelines while covering the material in a way that still tells
their story without simply “box-ticking” the various indicators.
Overall this report shows that Sasol doesn’t simply report on
sustainability, but that it is indeed embedded in their everyday
operations.
Matt’s #1
Matt’s #2
ü
The online case studies serve as reminders and proof of what Sasol is actually doing to address all of the
sustainability measures that they mention in the report.
ü
Sappi does a great job at displaying relevant quantitative data in a way that makes it meaningful and
comparable to data from different reporting periods.
ü
The GRI index is very useful ast whenever information is not immediately available via the hard copies of the
two reports, a direct URL to the supplemental online information is provided.
ü
The online sustainability report provides excellent disclosure on management’s various approaches to reporting
on all GRI indicators.
ü
The report provides a comprehensive overview of the company’s operations and how sustainability is
integrated in every aspect from top to bottom in their “integrated business model.”
The report is very well laid out with each main sustainability category having its own section.
ü
ü
Sasol does a very good job of explaining why certain GRI indicators are not material to their business.
ü
ü
Pictures in the report provide a contextual view into the working environment of the company as well as being
relevant to the information being discussed in each section.
ü
The extent of the sustainability report shows that significant time and energy is invested into reporting on all
types of relevant information for stakeholders.
ü
Graphs and charts are used in both reports to help make quantitative information more meaningful and
understandable.
ü
The report uses charts in both the integrated and sustainability report that compliment the information
and makes the data more meaningful.
ü
The content in this report is easy to understand for someone that might be less familiar with the operations of
the company.
ü
When it’s relevant, the sustainability report clarifies how certain performance indicators differ on a
regional level.
ü
This report does an incredible job in its ability to substantiate qualitative assertions with quantitative data.
ü
O
O
The PDF version of the report should provide hyper-links to the online content.
Sappi’s stakeholder engagement section “Our impact on the world around us”
is very well put together and contains a significant amount of quantitative data
that relates to each group of stakeholders.
O
O
The stakeholder engagement section could include some specific topics rather than just referencing other
locations of the report.
Without a hard copy of the sustainability report, it is a very tedious process
cross referencing between the GRI index and the sustainability report online
which is broken into a number of PDF files. These should be consolidated into
one single file.
O
The chairman’s statement in both the integrated report and the sustainable development report are the same,
a different statement with more emphasis on sustainability would be appropriate in the sustainable
development report.
O
Some graphs in the sustainability report are very tough to read because of the
large amount of information in a small space.
O
O
There is scope for a chairman’s/CEO’s letter in the sustainability report.
While money spent on social investment and donations is addressed, the value added statement should have
this information as well.
40
The chairman’s report is very well written and goes into significant detail towards the company’s views
on sustainability.
Some explanations (such as the health and safety topics covered in labour
agreements) could be beefed up as to why they are not reported on.
Woolworths
Astrapak
This report demonstrates how a company may move forward on a
sustainability journey. It’s the best example of “walking the talk”,
and how a company’s efforts in its “Good Business Journey” can
evolve into a learning process in which innovation, commitment
and continuous improvement are essential pillars. Also, the report
effectively describes how high-level commitment to sustainability
can translate into company strategies and day-to-day activities.
Reading the report had such an impact on me that after reading it,
I have started to look for Woolworth’s initiatives in my daily life.
This report is one of the best examples of acquiring an integrated
and strategic approach towards sustainability at the beginning
stages of a sustainability journey. The report was written in such
a way that it clearly explains the business case for sustainability
in the organisation. It makes the reader believe that Astrapak is
committed to its slogan of “Seeing Beyond”. One of the most
important factors that kept this report at the top of my favourites
is the inclusion of a meaningful sustainability discussion in the
Chief Financial Officer’s report. It suggests that there is an
agreement about the meaning of sustainability from different
points of view within the company, and that investing in the
sustainability of the environment and society is considered as
an essential element for the sustainability of the business.
Tahereh’s #1
Tahereh’s #2
ü
Integration of sustainability throughout the organisation from high-level decision making to day-to-day activities
is well demonstrated in the report. It makes the reader believe that sustainability is the way that the
organisation does its business.
ü
Statements from the highest governance bodies of the organisation reflect leadership support for integration of
sustainability throughout the business.
ü
The report explains the company’s sustainability journey very well. It provides good information about what has
been achieved, what its current position is, and what its plan for the future is.
ü
The importance of sustainability to the company is well explained in the report. It helps the reader understand
their business case for sustainability.
ü
Engagement with stakeholders and how the company is trying to build a win-win interaction with its
stakeholders based on common understanding of current and future situations is well described.
ü
The Chief Financial Officer’s report discusses material sustainability issues. It reflects the fact that sustainability
discussions are not restricted to specific departments in the organisation and allocation of time, budget and
human capital to move forward on this journey is supported as essential to the business.
ü
Very good use of tables in various sections of the report. The tables are easy to understand without
overloading the reader with useless information.
ü
The report provides the reader with a comprehensive market review around all material issues, helping the
reader gain an understanding of the external context in which the organisation is operating.
ü
The depiction of the CSI strategy is well-structured and suggests that it is based on both international goals
and national needs.
ü
Very good use of tables in the stakeholder and risk review sections. The tables are both meaningful and easy
to understand.
ü
Effective case studies are included in various sections. These help the reader learn more about the company’s
challenges and achievements.
ü
ü
In general the report is very well written and laid out. It is easy to find what you are looking for, as the report
provides information in a gentle and rational flow.
It’s obvious that Astrapak considered the GRI guidelines in preparing the report (although it’s not a GRI report),
which appears to have led to a well-structured report. Topics progress from one to the next in a logical and
integrated manner.
ü
The multi-dimensional nature of environmental aspects with which the company is dealing, is explained well in
specific sections.
O
The strategic approach of the company towards sustainability might be supported by reporting explicitly about
the sustainability implementation plan and the relevant KPIs Astrapak has developed.
O
Although stakeholder engagement is discussed well in the report, the basis of stakeholder identification is not
mentioned. This point should not be undermined since it reflects the reason behind such engagement and the
values and rationale on which interactions are based.
O
Since employees and their well-being and development are clearly stated in
various sections of the report as one pillar of the organisation’s sustainability
agenda, the reader expects to find more facts and figures (i.e., data trends)
supporting specific assertions in this regard.
O
The GRI index includes good cross referencing to different reports. It might be improved by providing page
numbers which helps the reader to find desired information more easily.
O
O
Woolworths’ approach towards Human Rights issues needs to be explained more explicitly and supported by
factual data and information. Related indicators are only addressed in the GRI index in the report.
The role of the company’s products in achieving its sustainability agenda
is explained in the “Our role in sustainability” section, but the reader may
expect to find more comprehensive and supporting discussions and facts
in subsequent sections about plans, procedures and projects in place for
the company to have more sustainable products: including environmental
and product responsibility related topics.
O
Contact details for questions regarding the report or its contents need
to be explicitly stated. A person to contact and either a phone number
or e-mail address should be included.
41
Engage strategically!
AA1000SES
Report effectively!
AA1000APS
Assure with meaning!
AA1000AS
Since 1995, AccountAbility has been a global
provider of innovative solutions to critical
challenges in corporate responsibility and
sustainable development.
With offices in London, Washington, New York,
São Paulo, Zurich, Dubai and Riyadh,
AccountAbility is the benchmark standard for
stakeholder engagement and reporting.
Abertina Khumalo and her family of 23 orphaned grandchildren and great grandchildren,
were among the recipients of IRAS’s 2010 ‘Making Reporting Matter’ clothing drive.
Attendees of our report launch participated in our ‘bring a shirt take a shirt’ campaign,
ultimately helping us take a trailer filled with clothes to Hlabisa in northern KZN.
Hlabisa is home to one of Cotlands’ most important community-based HIV-AIDS projects,
due to an HIV-infection rate that is well above 60%.
To inquire about our standards, or
our Certified Sustainability Assurance Practitioner
qualification, email us at:
info@accountability.org • www.accountability.org
42
| Why Report According to GRI?
Why Report According to GRI?
Lessons Learned from Leading Reporters,
on “Why GRI?”
For three years, the annual publication of the “King III & GRI+”
series of annual reviews of sustainability reporting in South Africa
have been dominated by one opinion – that of Michael H. Rea –
although last year’s report included an extremely useful opinion
piece written in partnership with Jonathon Hanks and Nicola
Robbins from Incite Sustainability. Those ‘casual’ discussions
written to offer an opinion regarding what is happening, and what
ought to happen, but excluded a wider set of opinions. Granted,
my ego asserts that ‘the one opinion’ should suffice, but reason
may dictate a need for more input from others.
The following pages summarise a set of interviews with persons
responsible for the sustainability reports of some of South Africa’s
leading reporters, with the sole intention of attempting to help
‘new reporters’ seek guidance from the gurus of reporting (i.e., those who have been producing reports for their companies
year after year).
CAUTION
The views expressed within the following pages must
be understood to be the opinions of the individuals
commenting: not necessarily the companies they work
for. In some cases, the individual has worked – and thus
reported – for more than one company, thereby bringing
to the discussion a set of experiences that exceed the
confines of their current employer.
Andrew Johnston
(Altron)
About eight years ago, the wheel was turning to the extent where
there was an identified need for integrated reporting in a corporate
context, but particularly with respect to what is relevant, or ‘material’,
within Altron. As we started to look around at how others were
reporting, there was really only one place to go: the GRI. In fact,
it’s not as if we had a choice, but rather where else could one look
to find a credible database to compare your reports to others.
However, it should be noted that it’s difficult to measure yourself
against a consistent/credible database, due to the way in which
sustainability reporting needs to be interpreted, or ‘de-coded’,
for each company.
“What the Da Vinci Code is to Christianity, so is the
GRI to sustainability.”
For better or worse, the GRI has created a framework, or protocol,
that can be decrypted for the masses, so that people can understand
what is or is not material, and thus what must be measured and
reported by an organisation of any shape or size. However, one must
consider that it’s the responsibility of the author to educate the
readership. Readers of the report must be informed about how it is
meant to be read, how the GRI is being applied, and where to find
supplemental information not contained within the report.
A challenge for reporting is really to find ways to quantify and assess
a company’s reputation relative to an array of key stakeholders,
such as employees, suppliers and customers. Adhering to the
GRI Guidelines doesn’t create a mechanism for reporting – or
testing – the degree to which the company is viewed as meeting
stakeholder expectations and/or acting in a responsible manner.
However, there must be some way to avoid reports being written
in the absence of some sense of neutrality, or ‘balance’ between
the good, bad and/or ugly during the reporting period.
As an outsider – albeit a reasonably well-informed author of our
own report – reading the reports of several of the Top 20
Companies makes you question how a company that is deemed
to over-remunerate its directors, and to perpetually flout
governance and competition law, can be scoring over 80% in
terms of the GRI indicators.
NOTE
ne must remember that this document (i.e., our annual
O
review of GRI-based sustainability reporting in South
Africa) is an assessment of a report’s compliance with the
guidelines. It is not ‘assurance’, but simply an evaluation
of whether or not reasonable responses to the GRI
indicators have been provided by the reporting entity. We
do not attempt to offer some sort of normative evaluation
of whether the company is doing the right things.
With respect to assurance, I’ve got a fundamental problem with
external auditors getting involved, for the following reasons:
• Their indemnity insurance policies rule out an effective opinion,
ultimately resulting in meaningless assurance statements that
seem to do little more than protect the auditors from any form
of recourse;
44
• They tend not to be qualified to do the work required to assess
social, environmental and/or governance performance; and,
• They are inherently trained to look backwards… not forward,
which is what’s needed in sustainability reporting.
To date, I can only recall one fund manager who has ever called
and asked for clarification about something contained within the
report. Thus, the big question will be whether or not the investors
take ESG issues and/or the Principles for Responsible Investing
(PRI) more seriously. However, the Code for Responsible Investing
in South Africa came into effect late last year, requiring investors
to report back on how they are applying ESG considerations when
making investment decisions.
Perhaps the GRI’s day in the sun is yet to come.
Many of the current reporting awards have become meaningless,
simply because what is deemed ‘excellence’ in one process can be
deemed only ‘OK’ in another. Rather what is required is identifying
real leadership in corporate accountability and transparency.
Nerine Botes-Schoeman
(African Rainbow Minerals)
African Rainbow Minerals (ARM) first started applying the GRI
Guidelines as from their 2010 Sustainable Development Report
(SDR), primarily because it was the standard of the day for reporting
compliance. Not only was the GRI recommended by the King Code
of Corporate Governance, but it was also the de facto standard
recognised by the ICMM. At the time, we were considering
joining the International Council on Metals and Mining (ICMM)
– which we have since done – which requires that we produce a
report that meets the GRI’s Application Level A+ requirements.
In fairness, we were coming at this cold, and in the absence of
a framework, it was useful to apply the GRI as a framework for
reporting, and we continue to apply the guidelines because they
give us structure for year-on-year comparisons.
It’s that whole thing about what you don’t measure, you cannot
manage. By applying the guidelines, we were able to identify gaps
in our own systems which allowed us to determine if the gaps
were reasonable, or if there were specific areas where we needed
to implement change.
Once you have a document, it’s much easier for you to determine
the ‘where to next’. By preparing and publishing the reports,
we’ve been able to move beyond reporting for compliance,
to reporting as part of the overall management of our
SD performance. It’s all about continuous improvement.
Steve Bullock
Applicability is perhaps the biggest challenge. You’re sitting with
having to align materiality at the framework level. Ultimately,
you find yourself running around, chasing numbers, trying to give
answers to indicators that have been deemed ‘material’ by others,
but are not necessarily pertinent to our organisation. Ultimately,
each organisation needs to apply the principal of materiality
relative to themselves, and determine what information ought
to be collated and reported upon. Otherwise, this tends to
become yet another tick-box exercise.
Internally, we don’t over-emphasise the GRI Guidelines. Rather,
we focus on materiality. The GRI only comes in at the end of
our overall reporting process, just as the report starts to come
together, and the guidelines are simply a reference point, not
a driving force, for our reporting. In truth, there are many, many
people involved in our annual reporting, in a process that spans
roughly six months of every year, and while the core team pulling
the report together uses the GRI as a framework, the vast majority
of the contributors to the report don’t even consider the guidelines.
They simply provide data and information against a set of criteria
provided to them, albeit defined by the GRI definitions.
This year, we’ve seen an increase in the number of queries,
from institutional investors – primarily from overseas – about
information contained within our SDR, specifically our policies and
procedures to manage specific issues. There is clearly an increase
in requests for SD information, and it is unlikely that the demand
for this information will wane.
At the end of the day, the value of assurance is in the checking
of the integrity of our own reporting, and adherence to our own
standards and definitions. Assurance also helps to educate people
within the organisation about how data collection, collation and
reporting systems could be improved, but more importantly about
how the reporting is relevant in the bigger picture of ARM and its
key stakeholders. By going through the assurance process on-site,
the management team at a mine becomes much more aware of
why ARM reports, and why their information must be accurate
and auditable.
Prior to their big incident in the Gulf of Mexico, BP was a GRI A+
assured company, yet the question then gets raised about whether
they were reporting in the true spirit of ‘materiality’. Ultimately,
it would be useful for the process of applying the Guidelines to
become ‘simpler’ – for lack of a better term – and to make it much
easier to apply the principal of materiality in a way that adds value
not only to companies such as ARM, but to the widest possible
array of stakeholders.
(Anglo American Platinum)
Ultimately, the GRI Guidelines are the only real option, for
the following reasons:
• They have managed to build ‘critical mass’ in terms of the
number of companies that have applied them to their reports;
• The Guidelines provide useful definitions to ensure that
everyone knows what is reasonably expected;
• The Guidelines provide the guidance people need to not only
produce a comparable report, but to establish a reporting
process, from determining the scope and boundaries of the
report, to applying the principle of materiality to determining
what should be reported upon; and,
• The Guidelines give you the structure required so that you
can go into an HR Director – or anyone else within the business
– and explain exactly what they should be reporting upon,
and how.
When you look at what we do within Anglo American Platinum,
with respect to the checking of numbers and assertions within
the report, you see how reporting has become an excellent
indicator of the extent to which our Board and Executives take
reporting seriously. The report isn’t written in their absence,
rather with their active involvement throughout a highly
structured process.
When one looks at the various standards out there – GRI, Global
Compact, ICMM, King III, Mining Charter, JSE SRI Index, etc. –
the challenge is in creating a report that complies with the GRI,
but also provides one set of information that satisfies all of the
standards in one go. This can be rather cumbersome when also
trying to produce a report that is ‘readable’.
Our reporting process starts with a scoping meeting in July,
establishing the framework of the next report based on guidance
that comes from Anglo American plc. Our data management
systems perpetually collect and collate the data we need, and
the assurance process begins towards the end of our third quarter.
However, the real work – the under pressure work – happens in
the period between our year end (31 December) and when our
report is signed off a mere 28 working days later.
Perhaps, the JSE could work with the GRI to provide an ‘SRIspecific GRI Sector Supplement’ that would help simplify things
into one framework for reporting in South Africa.
It may seem absurd to try to publish annual and sustainable
development reports only four weeks after the year end, but in
our experience we’ve noted that the pressure of such a tight
45
ENVIRONMENTAL &
SUSTAINABILITY SOLUTIONS
Internationally certified by the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI) (sustainability reporting training) and
licensed by AccountAbility (assurance)
Training courses
• GRI certified course on Sustainability Reporting
• GRI Performance Indicators
• GRI certified advanced courses on Materiality
and Stakeholder Engagement
• Managing the assurance process of your
sustainability report
• Introduction to climate change
Sustainability/Integrated Reporting
• Consulting on and writing of sustainability/
integrated reports
• Review and level check of sustainability/
integrated reports
• Assurance of sustainability/integrated reports
Consulting services
• Environmental management accounting
• Material flow cost accounting
• Environmental cost assessment and modelling
• Resource efficiency and cleaner production
• Carbon footprinting
Contact details
www.envsustsol.co.za | envsustsol@mweb.co.za
or 082 395 7582 (Seakle) | 082 882 7700 (Maryna)
ESS is a GRI Certified Training
Partner in South Africa
LEADERS IN SUSTAINABILITY ACCOUNTING
| Why report according to GRI continued
deadline increases the collective attention to detail within our
reports. It means that we must be well-prepared to tell the stories
that need to occur, and that our data management policies and
procedures continue to support our reporting objectives.
Ultimately, any organisation can formulate what it believes is
material, but an effective reporting process must include
engagement with stakeholders to ensure that their assessment
is consistent with the company’s. Over the past couple of years,
Anglo American Platinum has begun to engage more proactively
– up front – in the reporting process, to determine if what we
believe is material is what our key stakeholders would expect to
see within our reports.
When one tracks the hits we get on our website, there’s definitely
been an increase on the number of page impressions for specific
elements/data contained within our sustainability reports. The
Scandinavian states’ pension funds are requiring that ESG
considerations are applied to investment decisions, which has
resulted in an uptake in reviewing sustainability reports, but a wider
array of stakeholders are now looking at data, and are obviously
much more aware of what we do. However, we have noted that
while industry bodies are looking for specific data such as carbon
emissions, the biggest number of requests for our sustainability
report is from academics conducting research, essentially using
Anglo American Platinum as a benchmark for comparisons.
Perhaps it’s interesting to note that there were only a handful
of shareholders who attended the last Anglo American Platinum
AGM, and while we might question why there are so few, the
conclusion is that there are so many channels for engagement
throughout the year, that they don’t actually need to attend the
AGM. However, it should be noted that we’ve been at this for
many years, and sustainability reporting is now well entrenched
within business strategy. It’s not that we believe that this is a
‘good thing to do’, but rather that one can no longer separate
what we do from what people expect of us.
Stiaan Wandrag
(Sasol)
In 2000, Sasol became one of the first three ‘early adopters’ to
publish a report aligned to the GRI Guidelines (alongside Eskom
and SAB). It’s not that we weren’t always reporting, but rather that
we were reporting (from the mid-90s) as per what we determined
to be relevant and important. The Guidelines therefore helped us
establish a better framework for reporting, as well as a structure
for data capture and management systems, and has offered
process improvement with every new version of the Guidelines.
By reporting against a common framework, our GRI-based reports
allow for the best possibility for true comparability: against
ourselves (year-on-year), our South African peers and colleagues,
as well as our global competitors.
However, in order to make the Guidelines reasonably relevant to
all of our business units, across all of the countries in which we
operate, we’ve had to ‘Sasolise’ them. In doing so, we’ve
attempted to write them in our own ‘Sasol language’, and to
clarify them in terms of what must be included, or excluded, when provided with data and/or explanations.
When one assesses the GRI Compliance Score reported within
this report by the IRAS team, it must be understood that Sasol is
not in the business of ticking boxes. Yes, we have scored 99.6%
in terms of “compliance” to the Guidelines, but this was not a
quick process, and not a ‘stunt’ pulled to impress researchers and analysts. Rather, it was a multi-year evolution of our data
management systems and controls, perpetually seeking to ensure
that each indicator has been adapted to our reporting needs.
An emerging trend is the fact that analysts are telling us that they
are using the data that we provide in our reports, even though it’s
not always as comparable is it could be. The degree to which the
current version of the GRI Guidelines allows for interpretation
amongst reporters is something that creates problems. For example,
when we report our safety trends in terms of ‘Total Recordable
Frequency Rate’, there is no guarantee that other companies are
interpreting ‘recordable’ and/or ‘injury’ in the same way we do.
Thus, neither we nor the analysts are yet in a position to place much
stock in comparisons of safety rates across all companies: only
the ones we know to be truly comparable. This is something the
GRI and its stakeholders are trying to fix with the forthcoming G4.
With respect to assurance, it should be noted that the value of
assurance does not come from the statement we include in our
report. Although a statement is important to include, the real value
comes from the management report we get from our assurance
provider. In fairness, analysts are not yet asking about assurance.
Rather, there has only been one question – from an analyst in the
Netherlands – about our assurance processes, but that’s not why
we undertake assurance. Through the ‘third eye’ view, our assurers
identify process improvement opportunities that ultimately enable
us to strengthen our data management policies, procedures and
systems, including our internal controls, which ultimately improves
the quality of the data we present to our stakeholder.
46
NOTE
The following question and answer section has been
compiled using responses offered by other leading
reporters:
HB(AA)
Hermien Botes (Anglo American)
KI(SB)
Karin Ireton (Standard Bank)
NM(AGA) Nilesh Moodley (AngloGold Ashanti)
Why did you/your company decide to adopt the GRI
Guidelines for your reporting (compliance, only game
in town, globally respected guidelines, etc.)?
HB(AA):
ll ICMM companies have committed to GRI A+
A
reporting. We would probably follow them anyway.
They’re not perfect, but they represent the most
credible and widely used option.
KI(SB):
ecause it is a universal framework that has
B
credibility. We all need to focus on systematic,
credible data. Leading companies may go beyond
GRI, but the core and essence must remain GRI,
as otherwise the approach is too much like BS and
too little like systematic management data. Even
as we move into the integrated reporting phase
the core of the sustainability piece will remain GRI
(even as it evolves), because the absence of a
universal framework is not better reporting, but
a resurgence of PR.
NM(AGA): A
ngloGold Ashanti has adopted sustainability
reporting practices since 2003. The Guidelines:
• Ensure that informed sustainability considerations
are factored into every business decision made
within the company;
• Secure and maintain our legal and social licence to
operate;
• Manage the organisation’s reputation and develop
trust with all stakeholders;
• Identify key trends in the industry, anticipate
the impacts on AGA’s business and proactively
manage our response to the benefit of our
employees, shareholders, social partners and
stakeholders, positioning the company as a
preferred operator;
• Implement a sustainable model for mining, which
addresses past activities both positive and negative,
as well as current and future trends;
• Translate sustainability risks and opportunities into
financial benefits for the company.
History shows that sustainable development
programmes resulting from collaboration between
industry and government are generally preferable,
from a share price perspective, to programmes
developed through isolated efforts. An example of
this is how the International Council for Mining and
Metals (ICMM) requires mining companies to report at
a GRI A+ level.
What benefits do you/your company get from reporting
in a manner aligned to the GRI Guidelines?
HB(AA):
omparability between companies and within same
C
company over years.
he GRI forces transparency (principle of
T
completeness).
elps make the case for what to report internally.
H
Otherwise, the choice would be too open to
manipulation.
eporting according to GRI gives a practical
R
perspective on the application of the guidelines and
therefore the ability to influence future iterations.
KI(SB):
he benefits of a disciplined and widely agreed
T
framework that enables one to improve the
management of issues by elevating key data
for management purposes and then report them
succinctly and clearly for the wider group of
stakeholders to share your thinking.
he biggest value for companies comes from the
T
systematic application of disciplined thinking and
approaches to eliciting and documenting management
information that is essential for making key decisions
(whether those be strategic/directional or about
prioritisation of effort and capacity and the allocation
of financial resources) and then acting on it. Any
company that had good GRI reporting and treated it
properly in this context has extracted significant value
from it. That is why we bother. It is not about an
externally facing report that needs to look pretty to
be read. It’s about treating sustainability issues with
the same maturity that one treats other issues (such
as financial management). Only when one has gone
through several cycles of effective sustainability
reporting is there any depth to the indicators and
the supporting data is one truly able to understand
the strategic implications of what underpins the data.
NM(AGA): Industry self-regulation: GRI provides a standard
platform for reporting which allows the industry to
make comparisons within mining and sustainability
reporting. Also, when industry and government/
regulatory bodies share expertise regarding
the application of sustainable development best
practices, practical and cost-effective self-regulatory
programmes and/or legislation will often result.
Increasing awareness and knowledge of
sustainable practices: There are a predefined set of reporting indicators which allows for understanding
of sustainability issues through the reporting process,
especially if these indicators were previously never
thought of as being ‘sustainability’ indicators.
hat, if any, challenges do you/your company
W
face when reporting in a manner aligned to the
GRI Guidelines?
HB(AA):
ome of the indicators are not meaningful from a
S
management perspective and require adjustment.
The GRI’s core principle materiality, but external
pressures are such that sometimes “more is more”.
The risk is chasing indicators without any actual
management value.
KI(SB):
one but we would get challenges if we didn’t align
N
to GRI which at this moment presents the best
available set of universal sustainability reporting
guidelines.
NM(AGA): In instances the data reported is not available at the
correct level of granularity required for GRI reporting.
This necessitates a cross-functional link along many
different departments/regions/countries and
sites. While this does have the benefit of focusing
sustainability as a linkage, rather than as a
separate function of the business, there are
systematic challenges at an operational level that
are encountered when managing this change.
hat, if any, new trends are you experiencing with
W
respect to your sustainability/integrated reporting
(e.g., are analysts starting to pay attention to data
within your reports… if so, who)?
HB(AA):
here is broader mainstream interest in these reports
T
– both from within companies (SD and SD reporting is no longer a greeny fringe department; it is either
taken seriously or at least seen to be topical).
47
| Why report according to GRI continued
senior focus than a report writer. Thus, less use of 3rd party PR consultants to write reports, and greater
internal control, or “ownership”, of the words, data
and strategic implications.
This means that other departments are also getting
more involved.
KI(SB):
Next Generation Consultants is specialist
management consultancy that has extensive
experience in sustainable management,
development and reporting.
We work with organisations to develop,
implement and report on their value-creating
strategies and business models to ensure the
future sustainability of their businesses.
NM(AGA): D
ue to the nature of mining and its interleaved
connection with our natural resources and
communities, there is always a high amount
of scrutiny from NGOs, analysts, students,
etc., regarding our sustainability practices.
Communication with regard to these practices
internally and externally has increased year-on-year.
What, if any, value do you and/or your company gain
from seeking independent third party assurance?
HB(AA):
hey help identify data reporting gaps, and add
T
a degree of integrity to the process. We use the
ICMM Assurance Protocol in which our materiality
process is assured – that forces us to take quite
a robust approach.
KI(SB):
The typical value of a 3rd party giving you a grilling
on anything. It makes you question some of your own
assumptions, assertions and “truths”, and does have
credibility with audit committees.
Our services include:
Strategy Development, benchmarking, and
•
performance review
Operational Implementation and integration
•
Stakeholder Engagement and management
•
Human Rights Impact Assessments and due
•
diligence
• Supply Chain Development, review and reporting
• Life cycle analysis and value chain assessments
• Sustainability and Integrated Reporting
Training in Reporting, Strategy Setting, Materiality,
•
Indicator Development, Stakeholder Engagement
and Management
Review of reports and stakeholder panels for
•
reporting insight and feedback
Contact Reana Rossouw on +27 11 258 8616
Email: rrossouw@nextgeneration.co.za
Web: www.nextgeneration.co.za
e continue to get management value and the
W
quality of the SD reporting has made the concept
of integrated reporting easier.
NM(AGA): O
verall, there are many great benefits from the GRI
style of reporting that has penetrated through to many
company strategies and serves as drivers for more
sustainable practices, by highlighting the gaps in current
unsustainable practices. However, ideally, I would like
to see companies taking more cognisance of the fact
that the GRI, while useful, is only one possible option
for reporting, and that the company starts developing
more focused reporting mechanisms to be useful and
unique to their own company.
I would like to see more focus on getting the actual
ambit of sustainability reporting right within a company,
before the implementation of ‘newer’ and ‘better’
frameworks. For example, the ‘Integrated report’
provides much value in the evolution of sustainability
reporting, by encouraging the company to think and
to address issues with consideration of both financial
and sustainability information in an ‘integrated’
way. The problem however, is that if one takes into
consideration that historically, reporting on sustainability
issues should have provided that catalyst towards
‘integrated’ reporting anyway, then the move to an
integrated report as a separate report is a little like
viewing ‘the emperor’s new clothes’ and heralding
the new innovation that should have been in
existence anyway.
ustainability reporting was first touted as being
S
both ‘forward and backward looking’, taking into
consideration ‘the needs of the present and future’,
addressing ‘stakeholder needs’ and taking into
consideration ‘economic, environmental and social
concerns.’ Why then is there such a disconnect
between the financial report and sustainability that
a ‘new set of clothes’ (i.e., the integrated report)
is needed? If a report was already addressing
‘economic’ concerns adequately the integration
of this would be tacitly implied. My question in
essence would be “Why is sustainability reporting
not already integrated reporting?” and the answer
to that will provide, hopefully, a way of addressing
the guiding steps to true sustainable reporting
integration within a company.
NM(AGA): G
etting an assurance statement from a credible
source does leave investors with a higher level
of confidence in the reports that are produced.
What, if anything, would you like to see happen within
the reporting space?
HB(AA):
ormalisation of environmental accounting and other
F
metrics to aid comparability.
ore honest reporting. The same mindset as in
M
financial reporting, whereby withholding relevant
(good or bad) information from decision makers would
be considered wholly unacceptable and unethical.
reater links being made between SD and business
G
impacts.
reater links being made between SD and
G
community/environmental impact (not just CSI spend,
for e.g., but the impact of that spend).
KI(SB):
ess PR, more reporting, more maturity in use of
L
the “materiality focus”, and the “so what piece”
being used better by companies. This requires more
48
| The JSE’s Role in Encouraging Effective Reporting
The JSE’s Role in Encouraging Effective Reporting
NOTE
he following pages are the result of an interview with
T
Corli le Roux, the JSE’s Head of SRI Index and
Sustainability (Strategy and Public Policy Division).
Launched in 2004, the JSE Socially Responsible Investment (SRI)
Index – the first emerging market “non-financial” index– has
become somewhat of a talking point for many within the integrated
reporting space. Initially established in response to debate about
the overall “sustainability” of business, in its current context, the
aim of the Index was to measure leading JSE-listed companies
against a series of reasonable social, environmental and governance
metrics. However, it appears that the Index has grown to become
a driving force behind a compliance tail wagging a progressive dog.
Recently, the questions were posed regarding not only the
effectiveness of the Index, but also the possibility that it may
be perceived as having limited – at best – impact on investment
decisions. For some, the question is less about the role of
the Index, and possibly more about whether it is required. It is
less about whether companies are capable of meeting the JSE’s
expectations, and more about whether or not investors and analysts
really care. However, a deeper understanding of South Africa’s
reporting climate, including the emergence of a compliance-driven
trend towards performance improvement, suggests that our
collective interpretation of the Index has been misguided.
Over the past few years, there has been measured improvement
in not only the number of GRI-based reports, but also in the overall
quality of reports being produced. Reports – at first unnecessarily
lengthy (e.g., the >400 page tomes produced by the likes of Absa
and Gold Fields) – have become more ‘reader friendly’, much lighter
to carry, and frequently more robust in terms of the data that
stakeholders might deem ‘useful’ and/or ‘relevant’. The reports have
become the outputs of an annual process, rather than an end-of-year
exercise, and ultimately have become management tools for change
within the organisations they are meant to represent.
Although there are a number of reasons for driving this change,
one would be remiss to ignore the significant role the JSE’s SRI
Index has played. Year after year, companies have submitted
information to EIRIS – the JSE’s research partner in the Index –
and argue vociferously if there is any misinterpretation of the
information provided, particularly as a result of EIRIS’s almost
exclusive reliance on publicly available information: policies,
procedures and reports to stakeholders. Because the Index
parallels the GRI Guidelines in many respects, the quality of
companies’ reports have improved. The evolution of the Index
towards measuring ‘actual performance’, rather than mere
policy statements written in ‘PR-speak’ replete with hollow
and unsubstantiated assertion, has essentially forced companies
to fear being ignored by the Index. As a result, we have borne
witness to the way in which compliance can not only change
what companies say about the way they do business: but
the actual way in which they do it.
By forcing companies to report more effectively, and to make
more of their policies and procedure documents public, the
Index has re-shaped the corporate hand of compliance into a fist
for effective change. By seemingly punching above their moral
weight, companies have begun to identify not only the areas in
which improvement is required, but also the potential benefits
of doing so. They have stepped up to new challenges, and have
benefitted from training their systems to create at least the
mechanisms for attempting to act more responsibly and thus
‘more sustainably’. Their reports have become better targeted,
and as a result, better written, ensuring that they no longer focus
solely on the shareholder. They now speak to employees, customers,
government, unions, and even management: the people who stand
the most to gain from reading, interpreting and using annual
reports to effect positive change within the business.
While the JSE may not necessarily have intended for enhanced
sustainability reporting to be a significant spin-off benefit from
the Index, transparency and accountability were always among
the desired benefits. However, the Index continues to be a
misunderstood arrow within the quiver of responsible business.
Far too frequently, companies interpret the SRI Index as an end
rather than a means. It’s viewed as a goal post, if not the scoring
mechanism against which companies measure their “responsibility”.
Errantly, it’s seen as the objective, rather than the guide.
In a recent interview with Corli, I was reminded that the JSE’s
intention was never to create some irrelevant pseudo-award
process, but rather to inform discussion, debate and progress.
“Our role isn’t to make a judgment call about whether or not
a company is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or ‘responsible’ or ‘irresponsible’,
but to help create an environment where investors… or potential
investors… are able to make well-informed decisions about whether
an investment will be able to generate a sustainable return.”
50
The JSE’s role is thus to put the sustainability agenda on the table,
and to help identify key issues that need to be addressed, but
the SRI Index should not be where companies should stop.
The SRI index, through the approach that has been taken – hybrid
legislation + an index recognising leadership in socially responsible
business practices – has been able to inform the extent to which
companies are willing to share information and engage society.
To effect change, the JSE has opted for a thought leadership
role rather than a regulatory/enforcement one, noting that South
African companies are taking sustainability issues seriously,
and that they want to understand how they can enhance their
value proposition. As Corli noted,
“The JSE holds the enviable position of being able to facilitate
engagements that might not otherwise take place, and that
convening power is what we‘d like to leverage in the future, and
we were aware of the fact that detailed requirements about GRI
reporting and/or King compliance would not achieve any measure
of sustainability. It’s the JSE’s position that companies must undergo
their own process of determining what is material to them, what
they ought to report, and thus what will help create a sustained
and responsible return for their shareholders. Regulation isn’t
the right way to affect sustainability. Facilitating the discussion
and making recommendations is what will affect positive change,
and the Index is but one mechanism for informing discussion.”
Thus, the real value is not necessarily in the index itself, but rather
in the conversations that have resulted from, and around, the
index – between the JSE and companies, as much as between
the JSE and investors – and this is the key point that must be
taken up as the index continues to evolve. However, one mustn’t
neglect noting that the JSE’s own annual reports have yet to meet
their own recommendations.
For the fourth consecutive year, our research has noted that
the JSE has not yet responded to their own – by way of King III
– recommendations for integrated reporting in accordance with
the GRI Guidelines. Measured amongst the 363 companies
reviewed, the JSE’s most recent report ranks 170th, but – noting
that our “GRI Compliance Score” is almost meaningless – is
shockingly close to being GRI-compliant, if only they’d bothered
to look. With a score of 29.2%, the JSE – at least quantitatively
– has exceeded the minimum benchmark for GRI compliance,
yet has repeatedly claimed that there has been no need to apply
the Guidelines as of yet.
With respect, Corli has clearly stated the following,
“The JSE’s revised sustainability strategy is still being developed.
We need to define what sustainability forces/issues will impact
our business, our clients’ businesses and what the JSE needs to
do in order to adapt and to facilitate the ability of others to adapt.
Our approach has been to take a step back and consider what
our impacts and risks are before actually settling on a process
for reporting. We haven’t reported according to the GRI
because we haven’t felt that we’ve done enough to actually
apply the guidelines.”
Apparently, the challenge resides in the unique position of the
JSE as a potent intermediary. In order to report effectively, the JSE
must first find the correct balance between the inward and outward
focus, looking not only at how the JSE remains sustainable, but
how it can influence the sustainability of others.
Ultimately, the sustainability of the JSE is inextricably linked to the
sustainability of its constituent companies, and thus of the markets.
Although still somewhat disappointing for someone such as myself,
someone who was first introduced to the JSE when I managed
KPMG’s assurance process of the first SRI Index, the logic in
the JSE’s argument is neither flawed, nor entirely their own.
The likes of Sasol and Anglo American Platinum have invested
years to establish meaningful sustainability policies, procedures
and systems, while operating in industries that are much more
at the forefront of sustainability leadership (for obvious reasons).
Moreover, neither company has yet been quoted saying anything
other than they are still learning, changing and enhancing their
reporting systems. Thus, it is perhaps the more prudent view that
the JSE could be given at least one more chance to start walking
its own talk.
member living next to a mine. Thus, reporting must continue
to evolve in a manner that can help redefine ‘wealth’, measure
‘progress’, and manage ‘risk’.
The journey should not be pushed towards a framework that
ultimately constrains business, or establishes a ‘one-size-fits-all’
template for reporting, but rather encourages processes for the
natural evolution of reporting. Ultimately, IR should help companies
report less, but provide better detail around what is actually material.
It should not become a compliance-based approach, or a tick-box
exercise. The risk is whether or not investors will ultimately have
access to the information required to fully understand how value
is created and/or protected. In this regard, the JSE remains
committed to ensuring that the engagement occurs.
In her own words, this is what Corli believes
companies can expect from the JSE in the next while:
“The JSE will be rolling out a number of strategic initiatives that
will demonstrate its commitment to advancing the sustainability
agenda, both in terms of the JSE’s own position on sustainability
and how the JSE wishes to inform the space. We’re not yet ready
to disclose the detail, but there will definitely be more discussion
and engagement with people throughout the investment value
chain, ultimately to inform how the JSE repositions itself as
a mechanism for effective change.
The SRI index is set to undergo significant change over the next
five years, starting with a publication expected later in this year,
and the JSE is looking at other product lines – including the carbon
off-set project, in partnership with BUSA (set for outcomes to start
in the next couple of months) – that the JSE is preparing to roll out
to meet the needs identified by its many stakeholders.”
Nonetheless, the JSE will continue to inform reporting.
The fact that the discussion about integrated reporting is occurring
on the global scale that it has, is not without the obvious links to
the way in which the world has become – in many respects – one
inter-connected market. The travails of Europe impede progress
in China, just as unemployment in the US has deleterious impacts
on the strength of the Rand. Investors, regardless of where they
reside, have become much better connected to their investments,
and are instantaneously connected to matters that could potentially
affect how companies manage intrinsic and/or explicit wealth.
Technology is connecting not only the institutional investor and
the CEO, but also the small-scale investor and the community
51
TED
COM PANY
LIMI TED
INTE GRAT
UAL
ED ANN
REPO RT
integrated annual and sustainability reporting
CEME NT
Est. 1982
INTE GRA
PORT LAND
Graphics
‘blue chip’ partner of choice for
D
FOCUSEANN UAL REPO RT 201 1
PRET ORIA
Bastion
2011
Inte grat
ed annu
al repo
rt
2011
Au
The Bidvest
ANNUAL
Group Limited
ATED REpoRT
2011
INTEGR
The Bidvest
Group Limited
AnnuAL
winning formula
Shift perfo
rmance, grow
for the year
s SOC Limited
resourceful innovation
Eskom Holding
sustainably
Integrated
Report
ended 31
March 2012
Integrated
service expertise
Report for
the year ended
31 March 2012
integrated reporting formula
2011
report
annual
review
Integrated 1: Integrated
Volume
Barloworld
bility
Sustaina ugh
thro
sibility
Respon
rated annu
d integ
Limite
Integrated
annual
report
2011
Bastion Graphics – specialists in corporate reporting since 1982
t 2011
al repor
For 30 years Bastion Graphics has consistently set the service standard in corporate reporting, as testified by the
numerous awards our clients win. Our integrated / investor suitcase consists of gap analysis, peer group assessments,
report structuring for GRI and King, writing skills, design, financial adverts, analyst presentations and web design.
.beyond
Welcome
Contact: adele@bastion.bz Tel: +27 11 7785800
OF MANY
2011
great team
-
+
Ted reporT
inTeGrA
+
DISCLOSURE
THE POWER
ility
to possib
ber 2011
ber 2011
31 Decem
31 Decem
Limited
year ended
ted Report
MTN Group y Report – for the MTN Group Integra
g
Sustainabilit complementin
report
Detailed
B enefits of GRI-Based Reporting
in the NGO Sector: A Call to Action!
Benefits of GRI-Based Reporting in the NGO sector: A Call to Action!
n
atio
educ
Annual Financial Statements
for the year ended 31 March 2012
integrated annual report 2011
Written by IRAS
Designed by Studio 5
Not assured
1st Report
For those still struggling to come to grips with integrated reporting,
there may be little solace emanating from the fact that three
charities produce GRI-based integrated reports, summarily proving
that reporting is not the assumed playground of the big and
wealthy companies. Granted, all three report are – in one way
or another – linked to the experience statement of Integrated
Reporting & Assurance Services (IRAS), but each has –
independent of each other – adopted the principles associated
with transparency and accountability to a whole new level.
Of the above, Cotlands is the longest-serving NGO representative
(the other two are 1st time reporters), but the lessons of each
organisation are equally important, as are the experiences of the
specialist consultants donating their time to assist worthy causes.
In the words of Alinda (designer) at Studio 5,
Little Eden is a heart-warming organisation. To think of what
they do, the unimaginable challenges they face, the things we
don’t even know exist. The people who need 24 hour care from
teeth to toes: not just physical but also mental/emotional care!
The wonderful people working at Little Eden need to be
cherished and appreciated!
Written by Little Eden
Designed by Studio 5
Assured by IRAS
1st Report
Donating one’s time, skills and experience to an organisation
such as Little Eden is both a challenge and a gift. On the one
hand, it’s very difficult to put together a report for an organisation
that is doing such amazing work for people who offer help to
people who desperately need good care. It’s difficult to work
with some of the pictures, and to read some of the stories
about how hard it is for Little Eden to get the funding they need
to offer the care they do. But on the other hand, such a project
is a welcome relief from corporate tedium.
Big companies are very strict about what can or cannot be done
with their reports. They have strict style guidelines, and don’t
allow designers to be as creative as they would like, whereas
a Little Eden is much more open to style recommendations that
take ‘their words’ and turn them into ‘their story’.
Working with an organisation such as Little Eden is great for
me, as a designer, but also for a company like Studio 5, because
it makes us all feel as if we’re not just working a job, but making
a difference. In a way, we hope that by giving of ourselves, or
our abilities, those within Little Eden will know that we respect
and value them.
54
Written by Cotlands
Designed by HKLM
Assured by KPMG
8th Report
In the words of Jackie (CEO) at Cotlands,
Producing GRI-based integrated reports has been a very good
learning process about what stakeholders – primarily donors – are
interested in, and thus what we need to monitor, measure and
report on. The reports have helped us move from collecting
meaningless data to focus our attention on what is important to us,
and have helped us improve the quality of the services we provide.
In order to produce meaningful reports, Cotlands has had to
improve our monitoring and evaluation (M&E) processes, and that’s
the reason why you report. It’s not about giving meaningless data,
but rather about focusing on what you need to do throughout the
year in order to be able to report back to stakeholders at the end
of the year about what you have achieved.
Reporting is about creating systems and controls that allow you
to manage many things within the organisation, including some
things that may not seem as obvious as others. Last year we
had an undiagnosed water leak that cost us, and thus our donors,
thousands of Rands, and it might have continued to go unnoticed
if we weren’t measuring and monitoring our environmental
performance (even if the environmental issues are not
necessarily ‘material’ to Cotlands).
NGOs need to consider ethical fundraising, and to disclose who
the top donors are, which ensures that fundraising occurs in a
manner consistent with societal expectations. Cotlands doesn’t
have a particular problem if the likes of British American Tobacco
(BAT) wants to donate money, but it is a reasonable expectation
that Cotlands would disclose where its money is coming from,
simply because other donors may have concerns about
a BAT-like company.
In the words of Lucy (CEO) at Little Eden,
Little Eden adopted the GRI Guidelines almost exclusively
because they offer an internationally recognised system of
reporting. They encompass a wide range of reporting parameters
and encourage NGOs to take a fresh look at what they need to
be reporting on. Often what we see as ordinary, or not
necessary, is very relevant to the reader and needs to be
highlighted. It encourages openness and transparency: absolute
essentials in the NGO arena. Being internationally accepted,
an Annual Report based on such guidelines assists NGOs with
fundraising in both local and international arenas. It provides
assurance to funders, backed by a body of verifiable data.
Little Eden wants to be best in class, and a role model for
other NGOs, encouraging them to be open and accountable
to funders and the public for their activities. Ultimately, all NGOs
should adopt an open reporting structure based on the GRI
Guidelines, while corporate and/or large individual funders
should place more emphasis on the notion of “sustainability
of the NGO” before committing resources to what often
appear to be “lost causes”.
We most certainly intend to use our report as part and parcel of
our fund raising activities. We envisage that it will be of significant
importance, especially in individual funding applications to
corporates and larger individual donors. A ‘hidden’ benefit is that
we have become much more aware of previous shortcomings
(e.g., not monitoring service activities and utilities). These were
merely taken for granted. We are now aware and monitor such
data, which we believe will give management a better handle
on what is actually happening. Moreover, we believe that now
people have seen our report – external stakeholders and the
management team within Little Eden – there will be no fear about
how the next report will be produced. Rather, the team is excited
about being able to produce an even better report next year.
With respect to SMYLe (the Soweto Marimba Youth League),
I can assure you that even with 13 years’ experience in
sustainability reporting and assurance, there were a number
of ‘lessons learned’ from the process of developing SMYLe’s
first report.
These included:
• Identifying additional monitoring and evaluation data
management systems required to generate the information
required to produce a meaningful report;
• Gaining a clearer picture of the challenges SMYLe has faced in
overcoming objections to providing funding (e.g., that a music
programme is a ‘nice to have’, even if SMYLe is more of an
education project than an arts and culture one);
• Identifying additional financial control procedures required to
maximise the auditability of our financial records (e.g., forcing all
of our community-based suppliers to receive electronic banking
payments, rather than cash);
• Recognising the need to employ full-time support staff –
regardless of the cost – to manage fundraising and
administrative support; and,
• Accepting that the sustainability of SMYLe cannot be indefinitely,
and inextricably, linked to the sustainability of IRAS.
Although not an appropriate venue to discuss the merits of IRAS’s
role in SMYLe, it cannot go unsaid that SMYLe is at the heart of
IRAS, and thus our commitment to offering management – and
thus reporting – support to SMYLe is foregone conclusion. SMYLe
provides IRAS with a meaningful platform for our team to learn
how to write integrated annual reports: a prerequisite skill for
anyone wishing to assure reports (i.e., you can’t meaningfully
assure a report unless you’ve actually written one). SMYLe allows
us to test theories about the applicability of the GRI Guidelines,
and offers a low-risk case study in which reporting boundaries
can be pushed.
In the words of Cyril (designer) at Studio 5,
“But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in
need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love
abide in him?”
(1 John 3:17)
For me to give and expect nothing back, to sow into the lives of
children who may never get the same opportunities I have, and
to positively influence generations to come, there is no greater
reward. I believe that all who are in a position to receive should
freely give in love.
In the future…
It is the collective hope of all three current “NGO reporters” that
more charities will produce meaningful integrated annual reports.
However, we’re all aware of the inherent limitations of charities –
time, access to non-core skills and available cash – that will restrict
further growth in this sector, unless others come to the party.
Please help!
For all those recognised as ‘Other Sustainability Reporting
Practitioners’ – whether included in IRAS’s database of “Other
SRPs” or not – this is your opportunity to make a meaningful
difference in the lives of those much less fortunate than we are. As an author, you could write a report. As a designer, you
could turn words into effective stories. As an assurance provider,
you could provide credibility to the information contained
within the report.
The truth is, time is the greatest gift we’re all offered, and thus
the greatest gift we can share with others. Our time is limited –
ultimately to an extent that we’ll only come to appreciate when
it’s up – and its value is embodied within the skills and talents
we’ve accumulated thus far. Sure, you could donate a Rand or
two, but the value of your time will always be greater than the
cash you might be able to give. Moreover, the offering of time is
not a zero sum game. Rather, the giving of time will benefit YOU
– the donor – as much, if not more, than those you might assume
to be helping. As Alinda – of Studio 5 – so poignantly stated, “…it makes us all feel as if we’re not just working a job, but
making a difference.”
I’ve often wondered how my God-given skills and abilities as
a graphic designer can make a difference in society, and touch
the lives of people who are less fortunate than I am, particularly
given that ‘design’ is an intangible gift that one often forgets
can be donated. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that the SMYLe
annual report and CD design project landed on my desk, as this
was the perfect opportunity for me to give.
Pick a charity!
In most cases, a pro bono job can have lesser creative restrictions
than a paying one. As with many of these assignments, the
SMYLe report was a designer’s dream job, as I was able to
freely express myself creatively through layout, typography,
concept development and building a relationship with my client
– and enjoy it!
Assure it!
55
Write their next annual report!
Design it in the most effective way!
There are ways for all of us – as reporting practitioners – to put
our talents to good work, and I trust that the 5th edition to this
annual review of GRI-based reports (next year) will include far
more reports from within the NGO sector.
| Getting the Data Right
Community members in the Zandspruijt Informal Settlement (ZIS)
were the recipients of IRAS’s 2011 ‘Making Reporting Matter’
blanket drive. Attendees of our report launch brought warm blankets
that were distributed to community leaders in ZIS, a community
rocked by service delivery protests and xenophobic attacks.
Getting the Data Right
If reporters repeatedly state that one of the primary benefits of
the GRI Guidelines is “comparability”, then one might assume
that companies – at least those that have been applying the
Guidelines for a few years now – would have figured out how
to collect, collate and report key sustainability data in a consistent
and comparable manner. However, the current evidence suggests
that very few companies (even those obtaining independent third
party assurance over core indicators) are paying close enough
attention to their reports to ensure that the data is accurate,
consistent, complete and reliable (the fundamental quartet of
assurance tests).
Perhaps the best example can be drawn from safety statistics
(specifically, Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate).
In order for data to be truly comparable, companies must choose
to use a similar calculation methodology. In doing so, the reporting
entity must determine the following:
• What constitutes “an injury”, and will injury rates include such
things as workplace associated illnesses (e.g., does the company
report all injuries/illnesses, or merely those injuries that require
significant medical attention and/or result in lost time)?
• Will safety be reported in terms of a ‘Lost Time Injury Frequency
Rate’, or ‘LTIFR’, ‘Recordable Case Rate’, or a ‘Total Recordable
Case Rate’?
• Will the frequency rate be calculated relative to 1 000 000 person
hours worked, or 200 000 hours, noting that 200 000 is roughly
equal to 100 ‘person years’ (i.e., 100 employees working a
standard 40-hour week for 50 weeks of the year)?
In short, it must be remembered that in order to report effectively,
one must a) have data; b) ensure that the data is accurate; and,
c) ensure that the data is comparable.
Unfortunately, our review of the data contained within the most
recent reports for companies in the ‘Energy & Natural Resources’,
‘Metals & Mining’ and ‘Banking & Financial Services’ sectors has
essentially confirmed one of Sasol’s concerns about the current
state of reporting in South Africa: the data isn’t comparable.
One quick glance at the graph using available LTIFR data begs
obvious questions, such as “How the heck has FirstRand,
Standard Bank and Absa become more dangerous than
10 companies most of us would deem “high risk”, including
Sasol, Anglo American plc and Eskom? In fairness, the answer
is imbedded in the following tables, populated using the
information contained within the reports we reviewed.
Firstly, it should be noted that very few of the “non-mining”
companies provided adequate data to make a comparison (i.e., an actual LTIFR). While 21 of the 24 ‘Metals & Mining’
companies provided rates (and/or the data to generate frequency
rates), only Sasol within the ‘Energy & Natural Resources’ sector
(1 of 4 companies) provided adequate information, as did only 7 of the 14 ‘Banking & Financial Services’ companies. Granted, it might make sense – given the nature of mining as a
“dangerous” activity – but perhaps the available data hints
that the Chamber of Mines needs to redirect at least some of the negative criticism on to other industries.
NOTES
Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate is calculated by
dividing the number of “lost time injuries” (i.e., “LTIs”,
those that result in the loss of at least one shift…
starting with the day following the day the injury
occurred) by the total number of person hours worked,
divided by 200 000, in accordance with our primary
school math rules about BEDMAS (brackets before
exponents, division, multiplication, addition and
subtraction). Thus…
LTIFR = # of LTIs ÷ (# of Hours Worked ÷ 200 000)
NOTE: A
ll of the Lost Time Injury Frequency Rates in the graph have been
‘normalised’ to a standard of “injuries per 200 000 person hours
worked”.
58
Reporting Entity (Company Name)
Energy and Natural Resources
Sasol Ltd
Sappi Ltd
Europe
North America
Southern Africa
Mondi Ltd
Eskom Holdings
Banking & Financial Services
African Bank Investments
Sanlam Ltd
Standard Bank Group Ltd
Nedbank Group Ltd
Absa Group Ltd
Liberty Holdings Ltd
Brimstone Investment Corp
Santam Ltd
MMI Holdings Ltd
Investec
Sasfin Holdings Ltd
FirstRand Ltd
Efficient Group
Finbond Group Ltd
Metals & Mining
Gold Fields Ltd
Lonmin
African Rainbow Minerals (ARM)
Xstrata South Africa
Anglo American plc
Anglo American Platinum Ltd
Kumba Iron Ore Ltd
Northam Platinum Ltd
Harmony Gold
Merafe Resources Ltd
AngloGold Ashanti Ltd
Exxaro Resources Ltd
Impala Platinum
Evraz Highveld Steel & Vanadium
Royal Bafokeng Platinum Ltd
ArcelorMittal South Africa Ltd
DRD Gold Ltd
Aquarius Platinum Ltd
Witwatersrand Consolidated Gold
Wesizwe Platinum Ltd
Assore Ltd
Eastern Platinum Ltd
Keaton Energy Holdings Ltd
Richards Bay Minerals
Total number
of employees
LA1
32 735
14 862
6 025
2 224
6 378
41 400
41 778
LA1
15 281
11 643
52 127
28 494
39 659
8 523
3 350
Not Reported
15 644
Not Reported
583
34 612
81
459
LA1
46 378
37 360
28 704
13 777
146 303
58 541
11 898
10 096
39 440
12 955
61 242
10 513
36 119
2 386
7 942
9 430
6 875
10 024
18
42
17 430
3 220
257
2 400
Hours worked
(reported)
Hours worked
(calculated)
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
59 708 640
27 108 288
10 989 600
4 056 576
11 633 472
75 513 600
76 203 072
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
27 872 544
21 236 832
95 079 648
51 973 056
72 338 016
15 545 952
6 110 400
Not Possible
28 534 656
Not Possible
1 063 392
63 132 288
147 744
837 216
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
54 485 152
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
862,705
Not Reported
84 593 472
68 144,640
52 356 096
25 129 248
266 856 672
106 778 784
21 701 952
18 415 104
71 938 560
23 629 920
111 705 408
19 175 712
65 881 056
4 352 064
14 486 208
17 200 320
12 540 000
18 283 776
32 832
76 608
33 472 224
5 873 280
468 768
4 377 600
Number of
lost time injures
LA7
379
Not Reported
Not clearly reported
25
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
LA7
20
Not Reported
289
77
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
30
Not Reported
Not Reported
216
0
Not Reported
LA7
Not Reported
419
109
84
Not Reported
12
17
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
20
Not Reported
56
Not Reported
Not Reported
0
0
71
Not Reported
Not Reported
12
59
LTIFR/
DTIFR/TRIR
(reported)
LA7
0.37
0.87
70.00
0.96
0.55
0.92
0.47
LA7
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
0.55
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
0.00
Not Reported
LA7
0.94
0.94
0.43
0.31
0.64
1.27
0.08
0.65
0.33
0.25
0.25
0.20
0.99
1.57
0.90
1.24
3.27
0.50
Not Reported
0.00
Not Reported
0.66
Not Reported
0.28
LTIFR/
DTIFR/TRIR
(calculated)
Which rate?
1.27
Not Possible
1.27
1.23
Not Possible
Not Possible
Not Possible
RCR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
TRCR
LTIFR
0.14
Not Possible
0.61
0.30
Not Possible
Not Possible
Not Possible
Not Possible
0.21
Not Possible
Not Possible
0.68
0.00
Not Possible
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
DFIR
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Possible
1.23
0.42
0.67
Not Possible
0.02
0.16
Not Possible
Not Possible
Not Possible
Not Possible
Not Possible
Not Possible
0.92
Not Possible
0.65
Not Possible
Not Possible
0.00
0.00
0.44
Not Possible
Not Possible
0.55
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
DIFR
Not Reported
LTIFR
LTIFR
LTIFR
Not Reported
LTIFR
Per 200 000 or
1 000 000
person hours?
LA7
200 000
200 000
200 000
200 000
200 000
200 000
200 000
LA7
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
LA7
1 000 000
1 000 000
200 000
1 000 000
200 000
200 000
200 000
200 000
1 000 000
1 000 000
1 000 000
200 000
1 000 000
1 000 000
200 000
1 000 000
1 000 000
200 000
Not Reported
Not Reported
200 000
1 000 000
Not Reported
Not Reported
| Getting the data right continued
Enlightened Energy
Enlightened Energy provides clean and sustainable
energy solutions throughout Africa.
To facilitate a new – ‘enlightened’ – renewable energy
paradigm, shaped by a green economy which combines
sound economics with respect for the earth and its people.
Our services are driven by solutions conceived using the
knowledge and expertise of local people, applied to local
conditions.
Finance and Investment
• Clean energy project development & finance
The over-arching problem with the data we extracted from the
reports is that it’s neither complete nor consistent and certainly
not comparable!
In the case of Sappi, comparability even within the company is
impossible due to the lack of consistency in the way data is
reported within the ‘Safety Performance’ section of their online
sustainability report (http://www.sappi.com/group/Sustainability/
SDR11_People.pdf p.13). While the LTIFR is presented in a
consistent manner for Europe and North America (setting aside an
obvious typographical error suggesting an LTIFR of 70.00) – with
the number of employees and the number of LTIs given – the
information for Southern Africa is inexplicably split for employees
and contractors, rather than a combined LTIFR, which one is led to
assume is the corporate standard for the other territories. Further
complicating matters is the fact that a user of their report isn’t
given enough information to do Sappi’s work for them, and use the
base data to calculate the LTIFR. In their ‘Our Diverse Workforce’
section (p.5), the numbers of employees are given relative to the
three main geographical areas, but there is no breakdown of staff
in terms of those that are ‘permanent’ and those that are
‘contractors’, thus eliminating the possibility of calculating the rate
on their behalf (as was done for their European operations).
• International climate finance
So what?
• Mitigation and adaptation finance
Perhaps this tirade appears misguided and/or superfluous, but it
wouldn’t be if investors and analysts were actually using
integrated annual reports (or sustainability reports in conjunction
with annual reports). The fact is that in an environment where the
safety of workers is a significant bone of contention between
companies and their unions – and government, particularly in the
case of mining companies – safety is not a ‘nice to report’, but
clear indicator of potential impacts on financial performance.
Energy and Carbon Management
•Energy/GHG assessment & GHG monitoring, reporting an verification (MRV)
•GHG-emissions reduction action plan design & implementation
• Carbon tax value at risk
• Mitigation and adaptation program design & evaluation
Trade and Market Analysis
• Clean energy product imports & integration
• Market/trade analysis on the effects of low carbon regulation on cross border trade
Contact us:
Kimberly van Niekerk
+27 (0) 82 853 6533
kvanniekerk@enlenergy.com
www.enlenergy.com
In the mining sector, government – particularly the Department of
Mineral Resources (DMR) – has escalated the frequency at which
they are issuing ‘Section 54 notices’ that shut down mines in the
event of a safety incident (injury or significant near miss). In doing
so, they burden the affected company with paying wages without
the ability to generate income through mining activities, and
therefore expose the mine to a significant component of the ‘true
cost of safety’. Thus, any analyst worth their salt would undertake
to understand the “Bird Pyramid” (see image at right).
In overly simplistic terms, Frank Bird argued in 1969 that fatal
accidents are far less frequent than serious and non-serious
injuries, and much less frequent than incidents we might refer to
as “near misses” (i.e., those that could have… but didn’t… result
60
in an injury). Thus, to reduce the potential for a fatality
to occur, companies must manage the factors that can lead
to “incidents” and/or accidents.
1
10
30
600
Fatal
Accidents
Serious
Accidents
Accidents
Incidents
Although Susan Shabangu – Minister of Mineral Resources
– has been quoted as saying that “we should not attribute
a value to safety”, the fact is that in business, all impacts
and affects are calculated in terms of cost, and ultimately
in terms of shareholder wealth. Thus, it should be a
reasonable reporting expectation that companies place
greater attention on not only “reporting data”, but
“reporting the right data”. However, it appears as if too
few companies value the role effective sustainability data
management systems play within reporting, inasmuch as
they have not accepted that assurance is not about obtaining
a “GRI +”, or a poorly worded assurance statement to fill
two more pages of the report, but about using the reporting
process as a mechanism for continuous improvement.
In the future, one would hope to see significant
improvement in the reporting of meaningful data by all
companies, adhering to one of our most important “golden
rules of effective reporting”: Let the data tell the story!
Rather than write a report using ill-informed assumptions
about performance, adding in data as/when it becomes
available at the end of the reporting period, companies
must start to monitor key sustainability indicator data
throughout the year, and use it as the foundation for telling
relevant stories. Trends and anomalies in data must be
identified and explained, and – where possible – conduct
meaningful benchmarking exercises to confirm or refute
management assertions of performance excellence
(vis-à-vis the effective example Sasol continues to set).
| The Push Towards More Effective Carbon Disclosure
The Push Towards More Effective Carbon Disclosure
NOTE
his section has been written in partnership with
T
Juanique Pretorius of Global Carbon Exchange (GCX).
GCX is an end-to-end sustainability consultancy and
training provider, with services spanning strategy +
policy; measuring + monitoring; process optimisation;
reporting + communication; and sustainability software.
www.globalcarbonexchange.com
For those recently relocated from a Sterkfontein cave, “carbon
disclosure” is the practice by which companies measure their
impact on “global warming” – or the deleterious impacts associated
with increases in the Earth’s atmospheric temperature – through
the calculation of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. The practice
of disclosing carbon emissions is effectively ‘managed’ by the
“Carbon Disclosure Project”, or “CDP”, and is a voluntary set
of principles by which companies are encouraged to measure,
monitor and report the total volume of carbon they emit into the
atmosphere as a direct, or indirect, result of their activities. Nobody
‘demands’ that we measure such things – at least not yet – but
experience is dictating that carbon disclosure, particularly in an
economy befuddled with rapidly expanding energy prices, is less
about appearing to do “a good thing” and more about making a
business more cost effective, and thus more “sustainable”, while
at least pretending to care about the future of our planet.
“Given that this is a journey within a context of many competing
socioeconomic challenges, there is no doubt that an 83% response rate
by leading South African companies
must be applauded.”
Water and Environmental Affairs Minister Edna Molewa
To anyone following trends in sustainability reporting in South Africa,
there’s no surprise in the statement that there has been a rapid
rise of carbon disclosure in South Africa over the past few years.
However, there’s an abundance of speculation around what’s driving
the reporting of energy consumption and its resulting emissions. Be it corporate conscience, pending carbon taxation, energy
efficiency and cost reduction or simple box ticking, there’s no one
answer for all companies. However, the process has been set in
motion and South Africa’s participation in the Carbon Disclosure
Project (CDP) is to be applauded. Of 3 700 of the world’s largest
corporations surveyed in 60 countries by the CDP, South Africa
boasts the second highest response rate. In 2011, 83 out of 100
top JSE companies responded to the Carbon Disclosure Project.
According to their website, the CDP is “an independent not-forprofit organisation working to drive greenhouse gas emissions
reduction and sustainable water use by business and cities.” The
CDP has challenged global corporations to measure and report their
carbon emissions. The initiative aims to encourage an integration of
climate change related aspects into their business strategy.
Background
A recent publication by Ceres, Oxfam and Calvert Investments
offers guidance for companies and investors on the disclosure and
management of climate impacts. The report states that “virtually
every sector of the economy faces risks from the short- and longterm physical effects of climate change – impacts across the entire
business value chain, from raw materials through to the end users.”
In terms of auditing, materiality has become part of the fabric of
sustainable business. The financial team has invited non-financial
data into its camp, to prove equity in regards to the role it plays
in the integrated overview of the company’s performance.
Sources suggest that “information is material if its omission or
misstatement could influence the economic decision of users
taken on the basis of the financial statements.”
Materiality is dependent on the size of the item or error judged
in the particular circumstances of its omission or misstatement.
Therefore, materiality draws a boundary or threshold as opposed
to being primarily indicative of the qualitative characteristic
information is said to require, if it is to provide value.
Stellenbosch University’s Corporate School of Governance, UNEP
and Deloitte recently teamed up to explore The Future of Corporate
Reporting. In the report, UNEP Director Sylvie Lemmet introduces
the importance of extra-financial measurement and accountability.
62
CO2e Emissions per company
Company
Eskom
Tonnes CO2e
230 300 000
Sasol
74 836 000
Anglo American plc
18 800 000
ArcelorMittal
15 450 000
Xstrata South Africa
9 300 000
Merafe Resources
7 380 840
Gold Fields
6 600 000
Anglo American Platinum
6 022 000
AngloGold Ashanti
4 445 000
Impala Platinum
4 023 000
Richards Bay Minerals
3 850 000
Harmony Gold
3 715 000
Exxaro Resources
2 484 000
Assore
2 020 999
Lonmin
1 648 343
Kumba Iron Ore
910 000
DRD Gold
691 138
Northam Platinum
635 468
Aquarius Platinum
399 044
Royal Bafokeng Platinum
295 801
Absa Group
359 038
FirstRand
280 665
Nedbank Group
163 518
Standard Bank Group
160 190
Eastern Platinum
151 532
African Bank Investments
98 783
Sanlam
50 281
Liberty
47 422
MMI
36 295
20 companies from the combined Metals & Mining and Energy &
Natural Resources sectors, nine companies in the Banking & Financial
Services sector provided comparable data for carbon emissions.
According to Sylvie, the UN Conference on Sustainable
Development (Rio+20) provided an unparalleled opportunity to
globally transform the current economic paradigm into a model
focused on enhancing human well-being, while valuing planetary
boundaries and environmental confines. She explained that “in
order to facilitate this transformation, we need to measure what
matters, so that we are able to understand whether we are
making progress.”
In essence, the challenge lies in shifting the way progress is
perceived, business is done, and financial decisions are made in
order to prioritise social and environmental considerations. Clearly,
carbon meets the materiality test, and is becoming another factor
within a more holistic calculation of the true cost of doing business,
and reporting in accordance with the CDP is an important aspect
of the accounting of tomorrow.
For those that have already embarked on a journey towards
effective carbon disclosure, reporting in accordance with
the CDP’s requirements leads to a number of benefits, not least of which are:
• Increased awareness of greenhouse gas emissions hot spots
so that they can begin to reduce them;
• Gaining an understanding of the risks from climate change
and water scarcity;
• Creating opportunities to generate revenue from sustainable
products and services;
• Identifying ways to future-proof business from climate change
and water scarcity impacts; and,
• Identifying ways to cut energy consumption costs through
improved efficiencies.
The Investor’s Perspective: Risk and Reputation
A Carbon Disclosure Project report – Climate Resilient Stock
Exchanges: Beyond the Disclosure Tipping Point – explains that
after a decade of experience, “the CDP and its partners offer to
partner with exchanges to improve the transparency of systemic
risk for investors, and to reduce exchanges’ vulnerability in a
changing landscape of risk.“
This is where King III becomes relevant, in the context of its code
application on an “apply or explain” basis, requiring management
to explain how its principles were applied, or if not, why not.
The 2011 CDP Report was published on behalf of 551 investors
with assets of US$71 trillion. Paul Simpson, CEO of the CDP
explains that corporations, investors and governments are faced
with either having to aggressively compete for finite resources,
or to advance toward an enabling economy where sustainable,
profitable growth can be achieved whilst reducing reliance on
‘increasingly scarce materials’. Paul explains that “Managing
carbon emissions and protecting the business from climate
change impacts is fundamental to achieving sustainable
and strong shareholder returns.”
Investment consultancy Mercer for example, reported that in order
for institutional investors to manage climate related portfolio risk,
a shift of 40% in their portfolios is required into climate-sensitive
assets (with added emphasis placed on those able to adapt to
a low-carbon environment). Meanwhile, the CDP has launched
Carbon Action, driven by a group of leading investors aimed at
encouraging their portfolio companies to invest in emissions
reduction activities with an agreeable payback period.
Accountancy SA points out that “Climate change issues appear
to be increasingly integrated in companies’ governance activities.”
Recently, many South African companies have set voluntary
GHG-emissions reduction targets. In 2011, 31 companies set
performance targets relating to GHG-emissions reduction while
22 others committed to developing such targets. There’s also a
notable trend towards integration of climate change practices into
governance strategies with a Board Committee or executive body
elected to be responsible. In addition, twenty per cent of companies
incentivise management if climate change goals are achieved.
Reporting
st@rts here!
• Configure
• Implement
• Support
• REPORT
SA’s Supportive Policies
In terms of legislation, South Africa’s National Climate Change
Response Policy embodies government’s commitment to
addressing climate change, while serving as a roadmap for
effective response and transition. Government has stated that
it cannot win the battle without the support of business and
as a result, welcomes the commitment shown by South African
corporate participants who understand the need to manage
reputational risk, especially with regard to investors and consumers,
as well as with regard to their goods and services.
It also reaffirms that South Africa is capable of playing a leading
role on the continent and among emerging economies in contributing
to and benefitting from opportunities to mitigate and adapt to
climate change.
Minister Edna Molewa, MP for Water and Environmental Affairs
commented on last year’s fifth Carbon Disclosure Report, saying it
“illuminates business’ commitment to achieving disclosure of their
carbon footprint and pro-actively working towards its reduction.”
She explained that as the quality and scope of data improves, so
do their rankings of strategic importance in context to being able
to identify risks and opportunities, all signs of the progressive
significance that companies are attaching to the impacts of
climate change.
The setting of targets and implementation of actions to progress
against these targets, as well as the further premium that needs
63
Sustainability Data Toolkit
Reporting st@rts here!
SD Toolkit strives to make the sustainability
reporting process practical, educational, as simple
as possible and cost effective.
REasy and accurate information collation
R
Automatic BBBEE scorecard production
R
Full CSI project management
R
Unlimited users @ no extra cost
R
Full audit trail and audit history
R
Reports at the touch of a button
Web: www.sdtoolkit.com
Email: info@sdtoolkit.com
Tel: 011 679 5597
| The push towards more effective carbon disclosure continued
SOUTH AFRICA’S NATIONAL FINANCIAL DAILY
Acknowledging that communication has
become critical to connecting people and doing
business today, BusinessReport, with its
readers, is
daily readership of
the most appropriate business and financial
title, reaching by far the widest audience of
shareholders and stakeholders, for whom your
statement will be most relevant.
935 000
BusinessReport circulates daily within
4 leading newspaper titles, The Star,
Pretoria News, Cape Times and The Mercury,
and makes business news and reviews more
relevant to more people in the South African
economy. It is the best read (and most read
business and financial daily newspaper in
South Africa).
By publishing your results in BusinessReport,
of the almost
you will reach more than readers of daily financial
publications. Can your company afford not to be
seen in he biggest daily financial publication
in South Africa?
1.65 million
56%
For your one stop communication solution,
please contact Rudolph le Roux:
(011) 639-7100 or rudolph.leroux@inl.co.za
to be placed on measurement and verification, are areas in which
companies can apply greater effort to entrench their capability in
leading the way while at the same time sustaining their
businesses.
Based on the evolution of the process, the 2011 CDP report
highlights that the next step in the journey is to encourage
companies to move beyond identifying risks to risk mitigation.
This includes strategic priorities and plans of implementation
to incorporate identified opportunities.
How Much Carbon are we Emitting?
Although the information is far from comprehensive, due to
the number of companies yet to disclose their carbon, this
year’s review of GRI-based Annual, Integrated Annual and/or
Sustainability reports identified a significant shift towards much
more effective disclosure. Firstly, it should be noted that as a
result of activities of the GRI-based reporters we reviewed in
the Metals & Mining, Energy & Natural Resources and Banking
& Financial Services sectors, a total of 395 154 357 tonnes of
CO2e had been pumped into the atmosphere (see the table
above). However, Eskom is responsible for a mind-numbing
58.3% of this carbon, while Sasol is responsible for 18.9%.
Sadly, the available data does not yet include Sasol’s key
competitors – BP, Engen, Shell and Total (amongst others) – and it
is highly probable that the vast majority of Eskom’s carbon has
been double counted (in that all of the other 28 companies would
report their carbon emissions resulting from their use of Eskom’s
electricity), but the data offers us an important baseline for future
comparability, particularly in terms of who cares, or who’s thinking
strategically enough to prepare for a move towards a utopian
model of a low carbon economy.
In fairness, ’29’ is not actually the number of companies who
reported their carbon, not even within the three sectors we
specifically focused on. Rather, this is the number of companies
within those sectors that provided ‘comparable data’.
In some instances, like in the case of Sappi, meaningful carbon
emission data is reported, but in a format that is only really
relevant to a specific industry (i.e., Pulp & Paper). In other cases,
companies opted to normalise their emissions by offering a
‘tonnes per employee’ figure (or ‘tonnes per employee hour
worked’), but then didn’t provide the number of employees,
thus making it impossible to determine the total carbon emitted.
Nonetheless we were able to calculate surprising ‘uptake rates’
for the set of GRI indicators pertaining to emissions (EN16 to
64
EN20), with a remarkably high degree of uptake among the
129 GRI-based reporters.
Indicator Uptake Rate
GRI G3 Indicator
GRI
Non-GRI
All
EN16: Total direct and indirect
greenhouse gas emissions by weight.
61.7%
10.9%
28.8%
EN17: Other relevant indirect
greenhouse gas emissions
by weight.
34.8%
3.2%
14.3%
EN18: Initiatives to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
and reductions achieved.
41.4%
5.5%
18.2%
EN19: Emissions of ozone-depleting
substances by weight.
21.9%
0.9%
8.3%
EN20: NOx, SOx and other
significant air emissions
by type and weight.
27.0%
0.9%
10.1%
Of the five ‘emissions indicators’, EN16 is the most pertinent, due
to its general coverage in terms of CDP. Thus, it should be of little
surprise that 85 of the 128 GRI-based reporting entities (66.4%)
offered at least a guess at their total carbon emissions, while a
further 29 companies reported a total CO2e figure, despite not
applying the GRI Guidelines. The ‘indicator uptake rate’ for EN16
amongst all reports was relatively high, at 28.8%, the 14th most
widely reported ‘performance indicator’, and the second only to
EN28 amongst the 30 environmental performance indicators.
NOTE
EN28: Monetary value of significant fines and total
number of non-monetary sanctions for non-compliance
with environmental laws and regulations.
The only other performance indicators with higher
uptake rates were EC1, EC3, EC8, LA8, LA11, EC6, LA1,
LA13, EC7, LA7, LA4 and SO8. (Please refer to Appendix
IV for an explanation of each indicator.)
At the risk of choosing sides, it may be worth noting that a few
companies have set the bar for others to follow in terms of their
carbon disclosures. For anyone starting out on the same path, or
looking to improve their measurement and/or reporting, it might
be worthwhile looking at the following companies’ reports:
Altron
Clicks lthough a relatively new entrant in the CDP space A
(1st full submission), Altron has implemented a
comprehensive carbon measurement toolkit, and has
had their submission verified and assured. They have
not yet set targets, but have stated commitments
to do so.
hey have been reporting on CDP for five years
T
and somehow manage to continuously improve
their disclosure scores. They have implemented
considerable reduction activities and are committed
to their targets.
Massmart Reporting on CDP for four years and verifying their
reports. Perhaps more so than any other company,
Massmart is achieving real reductions, especially
in logistics, and are very humble (i.e., not riding
the greenwash bandwagon).
Oceana
Group
hey have been reporting voluntarily for three years,
T
and verifying their reports annually. They have set
targets and have aligned their strategies to meet their targets.
The Basics of Carbon Disclosure
To date, there has been no documented case of a company
attempting to measure yet unable to report its carbon emissions,
and the only possible scenario under which a company might fail
to do so is if they’ve got one foot firmly entrenched in a liquidation
grave. Even in the absence of effective environmental monitoring
systems, or a dedicated environmental department, the information
needed to produce a carbon footprint is almost always available
via the GL (the General Ledger… found in the Accountant’s office).
Failing to produce a carbon footprint would be tantamount to
determining how much money is currently spent on energy –
electricity, fuels, etc. – and would signal a far gloomier forecast
than the company’s inability to reduce its carbon footprint: it
would suggest that the company is on the brink of not having
ANY footprint.
For those that have yet to join the throngs of companies “doing
the right thing”, the following is a set of basic steps required to
disclose one’s carbon footprint, and thus to embark on creating
carbon efficiencies.
• Sign up to the CDP, if for no other reason than to set an annual
monitoring target for reporting against efficiency improvements.
• Establish systems for collecting Scope 1 and 2 emissions data,
particularly fuels (e.g., diesel, petrol, coal, LPG, etc.) and electricity
consumption data, as well as flight data for Scope 3 emissions.
• Establish a system to convert energy consumption data to tonnes
of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), using widely available
carbon conversion factors for each type of energy used (or
flight route flown).
• Ensure that data is verified, either by an internal resource
(e.g., Internal Audit) or by a third party.
• Complete a submission to the CDP for review and publication,
noting that an errant submission is far better than ‘no submission’,
as any identified errors would merely allow for continuous
learning and process improvement.
If all else fails… hire a consultant!
As with most things in the realm of sustainability reporting, the
tasks – in and of themselves – are not overly complicated and/or
impossible to learn. Rather, the challenge within companies tends
to be ‘finding the time’. Thus, there is an array of highly efficient
carbon management specialists who can quickly, accurately and
effectively complete a carbon footprint for any company (although
the scope of the exercise would obviously differ with the size,
complexity and/or nature of various businesses). For a list of
experienced CDP practitioners in your area, refer to the IRAS’
database of ‘Other Reporting Practitioners’ located at the back
of this report, or on their website: www.iras.co.za.
65
Cre
Integrated
reporting
l
eria
Mat ues
s
s
i
Commentary on
performance
P
ffic ent
Tra gem
na
ling
n
tio
sla
DT
Sty
t
jec ent
Pro gem
na
ma
ling
din
ea
ofr
g
t
men
age h
Manpproac
a
pr Ana
es ly
en st
tat
ion
s
Sty
Governance
aspects
assurance
prep
no Res
un ult
ce s
me
nts
Pho
t
direograp
ctio hic
n
ma
e
anc
form rs
Per dicato
in
an
An
n
sta ual fi
tem na
en ncia
ts l
n
Tra
se
pon
Res ategy
str
Con
c
des eptua
ign l
F
typ inan
es cia
ett l
ing
t
gi
llin er
Pu geth
to
Performance
on indicators
Pro
one report,
one palette
ity
abil g
n
i
a
t
n
Sus onsulti
c
ati
desvity a
ign nd
Our team offers leading companies the complete integrated annual report – from cover to cover, from analyst presentation to
detailed website. Our clients are among the best and our track record is solid – this is what we do.
The way it used to be ...
Our business and sustainability expertise ...
Annual reports have always been tough to produce on time. The company’s copy, investor relations
input, agency management and design have to come together. But at least the formula used to be
clear. The Company’s Act, JSE requirements and GAAP were established protocols offering a clear
formula. Besides, financial issues, being the bread and butter of your business, are the bread and
butter of your report.
If you want an integrated annual report, you need an integrated annual reporting team – a palette
of skills and experience found especially in Trialogue and GroundPepper. Our core expertise is
sustainability reporting against King III and the GRI, and we do this with a strong background in
business and management accounting. We talk the language of the CEO, not the activist.
... has changed
Ingredients: ops reviews, accounts, stakeholder concerns, legal and regulatory risks
Basic mix: material issues, folding in management, performance and commentary
Underlined by: GRI tables, application of King III, preparation for assurance
Delivered: print and web reports, results and analyst presentations
Framed: winner of the 2011 Ernst & Young Excellence in Sustainability Reporting Awards*
With King III, the annual reporting world just became a lot more complex. Now, non-financial issues
need to be integrated into company strategy and reporting. Corporate risks, legal demands and
international standards pile on pressure. More complex, yes. And readers of your report can take
in only so much. They still want to read a clear message that shows confidence in your company’s
long-term future.
CAPE TOWN OFFICE
Block M, Greenford Office Park
Punters Way
Kenilworth, 7708
Tel: 021 671 1640
JOHANNESBURG OFFICE
26 Baker Street
Rosebank, 2196
Tel: 011 026 1308
info@trialogue.co.za
www.trialogue.co.za
... delivers cover to cover
* Reporting for Bidvest
| Appendices
ND
ND
59.4
33
40
33
37.8
99
116
96
136
(+11) 2010 GRI Compliance Rank
60.2
31.1
(+12) 2011 GRI Compliance Rank
72.3
43.5
(+13) 2012 GRI Compliance Rank
(+11) 2010 GRI Compliance Score (%)
Web supported
B+
(+12) 2011 GRI Compliance Score (%)
NC(B)
X
(+13) 2012 GRI Compliance Score (%)
X
(+11) 2010 Application Level
X
2011
Adcock Ingram
(+13) 2012 Application Level
2011
Other
Year
ISAE 3000 + AA1000
(+12) 2011 Application Level
CGR – Corporate Governance Report
CFS – Consolidated Financial Statements
Type of assurance
PwC/EY
SR – Sustainability Report
Assured by
Absa Group
AR – Annual Report
Company
IAR – Integrated Annual Report
SDR – Sustainable Development Report
Appendix I: Inventory of South African GRI Reports
Adcorp
Deloitte
ISAE 3000
2012
X
ND
44.7
24.4
31.1
94
148
AECI
KPMG
ISAE 3000
2011
X
ND
NC
47.0
43.3
44.9
86
81
71
2011
X
C
ND
69.2
50.0
39.0
40
67
90
2011
X
Afgri
African Bank
SustainabilityServices.co.za
AA1000 Type I
African Oxygen
2011
X
X
B+
ND
ND
84.6
61.8
47.2
13
32
65
ND
ND
ND
37.5
61.4
73.2
126
33
19
African Rainbow Minerals
SustainabilityServices.co.za
AA1000 Type II
2011
X
X
A+
B+
ND
90.9
82.3
65.0
7
13
27
Altech – Allied Technologies
PKF
ISAE 3000
2012
X
X
B+
B
ND
75.9
68.1
43.3
27
26
76
Altron – Allied Electronics
SustainabilityServices.co.za
AA1000 Type II
2012
X
X
B+
B+
C
81.8
68.9
54.3
16
24
44
Anglo American plc
PwC
ISAE 3000
2011
X
A+
A+
A+
88.5
86.6
83.1
11
7
10
Anglo Gold Ashanti
EY
ISAE 3000
2011
X
X
A+
A+
A+
77.5
85.0
85.8
24
8
5
Anglo American Platinum
PwC
ISAE 3000
2011
X
X
A+
A+
A+
88.5
83.5
89.4
10
9
3
NC(C)
C
ND
58.5
56.3
48.8
57
50
62
ND
72
Aquarius Platinum
X
2011
Arcelor Mittal
2011
2011
Assore
2011
X
2011
X
2011
X
Austro Group
PKF
ISAE 3000
2011
2011
X
2011
X
2011
X
ISAE 3000
Basil Read
X
X
X
X
X
Avusa
Deloitte
X
X
AVI
Barloworld
X
X
Aspen Pharmacare
Astral Foods
X
X
ND
NC(B)
64.4
54.3
44.9
49
57
NC(B)
C
62.5
64.2
53.5
50
30
50
C
ND
46.6
42.9
36.6
87
83
102
ND
NC
54.2
37.4
39.4
66
99
87
X
C+
38.3
15.7
24.8
121
282
208
X
ND
36.4
18.9
35.4
135
224
105
NC(C)
66.4
30.3
31.1
46
118
137
X
ND
A+
B+
ND
94.1
61.0
82.7
4
36
11
NC(C)
NC
ND
49.0
41.3
32.7
81
88
121
32
Bidvest
Deloitte
ISAE 3000
2011
X
X
ND
B+
B+
65.6
61.0
59.8
48
37
Blue Label Telecoms
PwC
ISAE 3000
2011
X
X
C+
C+
C+
43.9
54.3
48.0
98
58
64
Brimstone
2011
X
ND
NC
66.4
58.7
24.8
47
42
205
Buildmax
2011
X
C
39.5
18.5
27.2
113
229
180
Business Connexion
2011
X
NC(C)
34.4
33.5
38.6
141
110
92
Cargo Carriers
2012
X
C
42.3
15.4
22.4
101
286
255
Clicks Group
2011
X
39.5
36.2
48.4
114
103
63
X
68
ND
ND
ND
NC(C+)
33.2
17.3
Cotlands
KPMG
ISAE 3000
Country Bird
2011
X
2011
X
Delta EMD
2011
X
Denel
2011
Digicore
PKF
ISAE 3000
2011
X
2011
X
Distell
2011
X
2011
DRD Gold
2011
Eastern Platinum
Efficient Group
ISAE 3000
B+
B+
Web supported
ND
ND
X
X
X
X
C+
X
B
X
NC(C)
X
C
B
C
A
X
2010
PKF
ND
ND
X
Discovery Health
Distribution & Warehousing Network
X
X
NC(C)
C
X
NC(B)
C
C
(+11) 2010 GRI Compliance Rank
32.3
X
(+12) 2011 GRI Compliance Rank
(+11) 2010 GRI Compliance Score (%)
29.5
2011
(+13) 2012 GRI Compliance Rank
(+12) 2011 GRI Compliance Score (%)
56.9
ISAE 3000
(+11) 2010 Application Level
C+
PKF
(+12) 2011 Application Level
X
Consolidated Infrastructure Group
(+13) 2012 Application Level
2011
Other
ISAE 3000
CGR – Corporate Governance Report
(+13) 2012 GRI Compliance Score (%)
CFS – Consolidated Financial Statements
Year
IAR – Integrated Annual Report
SDR – Sustainable Development Report
Type of assurance
PKF
SR – Sustainability Report
Assured by
Comair
AR – Annual Report
Company
61
121
128
144
254
52.2
55.5
54.3
72
53
45
31.6
18.1
24.4
153
239
216
16.9
118
220
343
77
44
39.1
19.3
49.8
57.9
44.7
22.0
32.7
95
179
52.6
56.3
55.9
70
51
41
53.8
33.9
37.4
67
109
98
123
81.8
37.8
52.8
17
98
51
60.5
65.0
59.1
54
29
37
45.5
33.1
92
111
39.5
17.7
20.5
115
2011
X
C+
247
280
2011
X
ND
NC
ND
48.2
48.0
49.6
84
72
61
2012
X
B+
B+
B+
66.8
63.0
60.2
45
31
31
2012
X
C
50.6
24.4
28.7
74
149
164
2011
X
69.6
74.4
74.8
39
19
17
2011
X
72.7
70.1
72.0
32
22
20
Finbond
2012
X
39.5
16.9
19.7
116
266
293
FirstRand Group
2011
X
X
X
ND
ND
ND
41.1
40.6
46.9
106
90
67
Foschini
2011
X
X
X
ND
ND
ND
70.4
83.5
40.9
37
10
83
Gijima
2011
X
NC(B)
C
37.9
50.4
26.0
124
65
194
X
A+
A+
B+
96.0
94.9
64.6
2
2
28
X
B+
ND
ND
73.9
68.9
68.9
30
25
24
ND
ND
ND
69.2
61.0
60.2
41
38
30
B+
B+
B+
75.1
81.9
83.5
28
14
9
Eqstra
Eskom
KPMG
ISAE 3000 + AA1000
Esorfranki
Evraz Highveld Steel & Vanadium
Exxarro
PwC
ISAE 3000
X
NC(C)
C
B+
B+
C
Gold Fields
Maplecroft/KPMG
ISAE 3000 + AA1000
2011
X
Grindrod
Deloitte
ISAE 3000
2011
X
Group Five
PwC
ISAE 3000
2011
X
Harmony Gold
PwC
ISAE 3000
2011
X
2012
X
ND
Holdsport
B+
X
X
X
X
X
36.8
133
Howden Africa
2011
X
C
NC
40.3
42.1
22.0
111
86
260
Hudaco Industries
2011
X
NC(C)
NC
30.0
27.2
33.9
159
129
111
Hyprop Investments
2011
X
ND
Iliad Africa
2011
X
NC(C)
Illovo Sugar
SustainabilityServices.co.za
AA1000 Type I
Impahla Clothing
Impala Platinum
KPMG
ISAE 3000
2012
X
2012
X
2011
X
NC
69
X
21.7
28.0
112
187
173
33.6
43.7
33.1
143
79
118
73.5
53.5
32.3
31
59
126
ND
A+
B+
89.3
90.6
67.7
8
5
25
B+
B+
B+
70.8
61.4
76.4
36
34
15
B+
X
40.3
ISAE 3000
2011
PwC
ISAE 3000
2011
X
Liberty Group*
PwC
ISAE 3000 + AA1000
2011
X
2011
X
X
Little Eden
SustainabilityServices.co.za
Non-aligned
2012
Lonmin
KPMG
ISAE 3000
2011
Massmart
2011
62
41
59.1
100
54
34
ND
C
70.4
70.9
37.8
38
20
97
C+
NC(C)
X
X
X
X
C
ND
NC(A+) C+
B+
B+
B+
ND
B+
X
X
X
(+11) 2010 GRI Compliance Rank
55.9
55.5
(+12) 2011 GRI Compliance Rank
(+11) 2010 GRI Compliance Score (%)
59.1
42.7
(+13) 2012 GRI Compliance Rank
(+12) 2011 GRI Compliance Score (%)
56.5
B
X
Kumba Iron Ore
Life Healthcare
(+13) 2012 GRI Compliance Score (%)
X
PKF
Keaton Energy
C
B
(+11) 2010 Application Level
2011
KayDav
NC
NC(B)
(+12) 2011 Application Level
X
C
X
(+13) 2012 Application Level
2011
X
Web supported
JD Group
X
Other
X
CGR – Corporate Governance Report
2011
CFS – Consolidated Financial Statements
X
Investec
Type of assurance
SDR – Sustainable Development Report
2011
Assured by
SR – Sustainability Report
Imperial
Company
AR – Annual Report
Year
IAR – Integrated Annual Report
| Appendix I: Inventory of South African GRI Reports continued
42
29.6
11.0
16.1
163
375
352
39.1
39.8
29.9
119
93
152
87.7
57.5
12
45
71.9
76.8
37.2
37.0
70.5
79.1
35
17
128
102
21
20
X
NC(A+) A+
B+
94.1
93.3
85.4
5
3
6
X
ND
ND
79.1
82.7
73.6
21
11
18
ND
Medi-Clinic
2011
X
NC(C)
ND
ND
62.1
52.8
52.4
51
60
53
Media24
2011
X
NC(C)
ND
C
54.9
27.2
38.2
64
130
93
B+
B+
Merafe Resources
SustainabilityServices.co.za
AA1000 Type II
2011
X
B+
74.7
61.4
84.6
29
35
8
Metair Investments
SustainabilityServices.co.za
AA1000 Type I
2011
X
C+
45.5
20.1
21.3
93
211
270
2011
X
X
C
49.4
15.0
79
300
Mondi
ERM
ISAE 3000
2011
X
X
B+
81.0
18
Morvest
PKF
ISAE 3000
89
MMI Holdings
X
X
2011
X
C+
46.2
Mpact
2011
X
C
48.6
MTN
2011
X
MultiChoice
2011
X
2011
Murray & Roberts
Deloitte
ISAE 3000
Nampak
Naspers
Nedbank
KPMG / Deloitte
ISAE 3000 + AA1000
Netcare
Northam Platinum
ERM
AA1000 Type II
NC(B)
ND
NC(C)
NC
X
B+
2011
X
2011
X
2011
X
X
2011
X
X
B
2011
X
Omnia
2011
Onelogix
2011
Phumelela Gaming & Leisure
2011
Pretoria Portland Cement
Deloitte
ISAE 3000
Primeserv
PSV
SustainabilityServices.co.za
Non-aligned
X
X
X
X
X
X
2011
X
2011
X
2011
X
2011
X
Redefine Properties
2011
X
81.9
31.9
44
15
131
C
49.4
39.4
29.9
80
94
151
ND
ND
52.6
55.9
58.3
71
52
38
C
C
C
58.5
57.5
59.1
58
46
36
NC(C)
NC
C
50.6
37.0
37.0
75
100
100
A+
A+
A+
78.7
67.3
69.3
23
28
23
76.7
41.7
50.4
25
87
58
B+
B+
C+
79.8
81.9
64.2
19
16
29
NC(C)
NC
ND
44.7
49.2
44.5
96
69
73
C
ND
41.5
38.6
23.6
105
95
231
C
NC
84.6
52.0
23.6
14
63
233
C+
C+
54.9
57.1
65.7
65
48
26
46.2
22.4
33.1
90
173
119
59.7
18.5
21.7
55
233
263
51.8
55.5
50.8
73
55
55
42.3
22.4
102
175
C
ND
X
Rainbow Chicken
C+
X
X
ND
ND
70
83
67.6
NC
ND
PwC
ISAE 3000
2011
Sanlam
EY
ISAE 3000
2011
X
X
2011
X
X
X
Sappi
2011
X
2011
X
2011
X
2011
X
2011
X
2011
X
PwC
ISAE 3000
Silverbridge
Soweto Marimba Youth League
Standard Bank
KPMG
AA1000 Type II
Stefanutti Stocks
2011
SustainabilityServices.co.za
AA1000 Type II
2011
X
Telkom
Nkonki
ISAE 3000
2011
X
Tongaat Hulett
SustainabilityServices.co.za
AA1000 Type I
2012
X
X
X
(+11) 2010 GRI Compliance Rank
(+12) 2011 GRI Compliance Rank
(+13) 2012 GRI Compliance Rank
(+11) 2010 GRI Compliance Score (%)
77
115
68.0
57.1
B+
B
82.6
60.6
57.9
15
39
39
B
B
ND
62.1
52.8
39.4
52
61
86
A
A
A
A+
A+
B+
A+
43
B+
B+
C+
X
C+
ND
B+
C+
ND
93.3
87.4
79.5
6
6
13
21.7
25.2
103
190
201
99.6
99.6
94.9
1
1
1
22.9
18.9
21.3
210
228
276
79.1
76.4
79.1
22
18
14
37.9
29.1
31.1
125
124
135
76.3
43.7
42.9
26
80
77
53.4
35.4
42.9
68
107
78
68.8
57.5
43.7
42
47
74
29.6
14.6
23.6
164
307
229
47
63
Top Fix Holdings
2011
Transnet
2011
X
Truworths
2011
X
Umgeni Water
2011
Value Group
2011
X
C
46.6
26.4
88
Verimark
2011
X
ND
39.1
12.2
18.5
120
352
Vodacom
2011
X
58.5
49.2
43.7
59
70
75
Wesizwe Platinum
2011
X
NC(C)
49.0
28.3
33.9
82
125
112
B+
94.9
24.0
3
159
C
46.2
31.5
37.8
91
115
95
C
53.0
22.0
22.4
69
184
250
Wilderness
2011
X
2011
X
Witwatersrand Consolidated Gold
2011
EY
Non-aligned
ISAE 3000
Workforce
Xstrata South Africa
2011
2011
SustainabilityServices.co.za
AA1000 Type II
2010
X
X
X
C
ND
ND
58.1
37.0
54.3
60
101
X
ND
ND
ND
37.2
42.5
46.1
129
84
69
NC(B)
NC
C
62.1
52.0
50.4
53
64
57
X
Wilson Bayly Homes-Ovcon
Woolworths
SustainabilityServices.co.za
NC(C)
49
41.9
55.7
B+
X
X
85
134
B+
C
X
33.5
B+
C
X
45.3
B+
NC(C)
X
48.2
36.8
C
X
(+12) 2011 GRI Compliance Score (%)
ND
(+13) 2012 GRI Compliance Score (%)
(+11) 2010 Application Level
(+12) 2011 Application Level
(+13) 2012 Application Level
Web supported
Other
X
X
X
Sun International
ND
NC(C)
X
Sasfin
Sasol
CGR – Corporate Governance Report
X
X
Royal Bafokeng Platinum
Santam
CFS – Consolidated Financial Statements
2011
SDR – Sustainable Development Report
X
Richards Bay Minerals
Type of assurance
SR – Sustainability Report
IAR – Integrated Annual Report
2011
Assured by
AR – Annual Report
Year
Reunert
Company
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NC(B)
C
NC(B+) ND
NC(C)
X
71
B+
B+
C
A
190
325
72.3
58.7
54.3
34
43
46
37.2
19.3
24.8
130
222
206
88.9
68.1
9
27
Appendix II: Index of Non-GRI-Based Reporting Companies
Company
Rank
Company
Rank
Company
Rank
1Time Holdings Ltd
333
Capitec Bank Holdings Ltd
122
Goliath Gold Mining Ltd
297
Accentuate Ltd
233
Cashbuild Ltd
306
Gooderson Leisure Corporation
309
Acucap Properties Ltd
261
Caxton CTP Ltd
211
Grand Parade Investments Ltd
212
Adapt IT Holdings Ltd
107
Central Rand Gold Ltd
217
Growthpoint Properties Ltd
139
Adrenna Property Group Limited
245
Ceramic Industries Ltd
137
Hardware Warehouse Ltd
318
ADvTECH
205
Chamber of Mines
355
Hosken Consolidated Investments Ltd
157
Africa Cellular Towers
251
Chemical Specialities Ltd
145
Hospitality Property Fund
123
African and Overseas Enterprises
239
Chrometco Ltd
334
Huge Group Ltd
280
African Brick Centre Ltd
323
City Lodge Hotels Ltd
167
Hulamin Ltd
110
African Dawn Capital Ltd
288
Clientele Ltd
237
Hwange Colliery Ltd
254
African Media Entertainment
324
Clover Industries Ltd
146
Ideco Group Ltd
361
Afrimat Ltd
151
Coal of Africa Ltd
222
IFA Hotels and Resorts
223
Afrocentric
199
Combined Motor Holdings Ltd
249
Imuniti
311
AH-Vest Ltd
257
Compu Clearing Outsourcing Ltd
269
Independent Power Southern Africa (IPSA Group)
319
Alert Steel Holdings Ltd
273
Conduit Capital Ltd
263
Indequity Group Ltd
320
Alexander Forbes
165
Control Instruments Group
147
Industrial Development Corporation (IDC)
201
Amalgamated Appliance Holdings Ltd
169
ConvergeNet Holdings Ltd
301
Infrasors Holdings Ltd
275
Amalgamated Electronic Corporation Ltd
227
Coronation Fund Managers Ltd
234
Ingenuity Property Investments Ltd
335
Andulela Investment Holdings Ltd
252
Crookes Brothers Ltd
264
Insimbi Refractory and Alloys Supplies Ltd
187
Ansys Ltd
228
Cullinan Holdings
218
Intertrading Ltd
344
ARB Holdings Ltd
166
Curro Holdings Ltd
178
Interwaste Holdings Ltd
282
Argent Industrial Ltd
258
Datacentrix Holdings Ltd
240
Invicta Holdings Ltd
224
Astrapak Ltd
154
Datatec Ltd
182
Iquad Group Ltd
302
Aveng Ltd
108
Diamondcorp
296
ISA Holdings Ltd
310
Awethu Breweries Ltd
359
Dipula Income Fund Ltd
279
Italtile Ltd
207
B&W Instrumentation & Electrical Ltd
131
Don Group Ltd
343
Jasco Electronics Holdings
202
Bauba Platinum Ltd
206
Dorbyl Ltd
307
John Daniel Holdings Ltd
329
Beige Holdings Ltd
160
ELB Group Ltd
292
JSE Ltd
170
Bell Equipment Ltd
186
Ellies Holdings Ltd
308
Jubilee Platinum
259
Bioscience Brands Ltd
229
Emira Property Fund
235
Kagiso Media Ltd
184
BK one
262
EOH Holdings Ltd
173
Kelly Group Ltd
174
Blue Financial Services
253
Erbacon Investment Holdings Ltd
219
Kibo Mining
350
Bowler Metcalf Ltd
215
Excellerate Holdings Ltd
325
KWV Holdings Ltd
265
Brait S.A.
181
Fairvest Property Holdings
293
Labat Africa Ltd
321
Brikor Ltd
230
Famous Brands Ltd
250
Lewis Group Ltd
127
BSI Steel Ltd
195
Firestone Energy Ltd
360
Litha Healthcare Group Ltd
176
Cadiz Holdings Ltd
231
First Uranium Corporation
241
London Finance & Investment Group
347
Cafca Ltd
278
Foneworx Holdings Ltd
220
Masonite Africa Ltd
152
Calgro M3 Holdings Ltd
172
Foord Compass Ltd
362
Mazor Group Ltd
185
Capevin Investments Ltd
342
Fortress Income Fund Ltd
328
Mercantile Bank Holdings Ltd
198
Capital & Counties Properties
216
Fountainhead Property Trust
200
Metmar Ltd
246
Capital Property Fund
291
Gold One International Ltd
274
Metrofile Holdings Ltd
283
72
Company
Rank
Company
Rank
Company
Rank
Micromega Holdings Ltd
158
Raubex Group Ltd
189
Sycom Property Fund
314
Mine Waste Solutions Ltd
363
RBA Holdings Ltd
225
Taste Holdings Ltd
193
Miranda Mineral Holdings
330
Real Africa Holdings Ltd
339
Telemasters Holdings Ltd
322
Mix Telematics Ltd
213
Rebosis Property Fund Ltd
255
Thabex Ltd
316
Money Web Holdings Ltd
348
RECM & Calibre Ltd
352
Tiger Brands Ltd
117
Mr Price Group Ltd
140
Reinet Investments
313
Total Client Services Ltd
287
Mustek Ltd
214
Remgro Ltd
Tradehold Ltd
327
Mvelaphanda Group Ltd
303
Resilient Property Income Fund Ltd
284
Trans Hex Group Ltd
150
Mvelaserve Ltd
191
Resource Generation Ltd
331
Transpaco Ltd
149
Net 1 UEPS Technologies Inc
326
Rex Trueform Clothing Company Ltd
247
Trematon Capital Investments Ltd
354
New Africa Investments Ltd
336
RGT SMART Market Intelligence Ltd
267
Trencor Ltd
248
New Corpcapital Ltd
357
Richards Bay Coal Terminals
148
Trustco Group Holdings Ltd
298
Nictus Beperk
345
RMB Holdings Ltd
180
Ububele Holdings Ltd
299
Nutritional Holdings
203
Rockwell Diamonds Incorporated
353
Village Main Reef Gold Mining Company
197
Nu-World Holdings Ltd
208
Rolfes Technology Holdings Ltd
142
Vividend Income Fund Ltd
226
Oasis Crescent Property Fund
349
SA Corporate Real Estate Fund
168
Vukile Property Fund Ltd
209
SA French Ltd
340
Vunani Property Investment Fund Ltd
317
Oceana Group Ltd
97
76
Octodec Investments Ltd
192
Sable Holdings Ltd
351
W G Wearne Ltd
290
O-Line Holdings Ltd
136
Sabvest Ltd
285
Wescoal Holdings Ltd
272
Sacoil Holdings Ltd
341
William Tell Holdings Ltd
300
Optimum Coal Holdings Ltd
56
Orion Real Estate Ltd
337
Santova Logistics Ltd
256
Winhold Ltd
171
Palabora Mining Company
109
Sanyati Holdings Ltd
243
York Timber Holdings Ltd
194
Pallinghurst Resources Ltd
312
Sea Kay Holdings Ltd
356
ZCI Ltd
236
Pan African Resource
155
Seardel Investment Corporation Ltd
332
Zeder Investments Ltd
277
PBT Group Ltd
315
Securedata Holdings Ltd
346
Zurich Insurance Company SA
244
Peregrine Holdings Ltd
138
Sekunjalo Investments Ltd
190
Petmin Ltd
221
Sentula Mining Ltd
104
Pick n Pay
132
Senwes
177
Pinnacle Technology Holdings Ltd
242
Sephaku Holdings Ltd
196
Pioneer Foods Group Ltd
179
Shoprite Holdings Ltd
294
Platfields Ltd
238
Simmer & Jack Mines Ltd
286
Poynting Holdings Ltd
289
Skinwell Holdings Ltd
295
Premium Properties Ltd
338
South Ocean Holdings Ltd
161
Protech Khuthele Holdings Ltd
183
Southern Electricity Company (SELCo)
268
PSG Group Limited
281
Sovereign Food Investments Ltd
175
Purple Capital Ltd
276
Spanjaard Ltd
260
Putprop Ltd
266
Spar Group Ltd
162
Quantum Property Group Ltd
304
Spur Corporation Ltd
232
Racec Group Ltd
270
Steinhoff International Holdings
Rand Merchant Insurance Holdings Limited
188
Stella Vista Technologies Ltd
358
Randgold & Exploration Company Ltd
271
Stratcorp Ltd
204
Rare Holdings Ltd
305
Super Group Ltd
156
78
73
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Customer Privacy (1 Indicator)
Marketing & Communications (2 Indicators)
Product & Service Labelling (3 Indicators)
Customer Health & Safety (2 Indicators)
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Product Responsibility
Anti-Competitive Behaviour (1 Indicator)
Public Policy (2 Indicators)
Corruption (3 Indicators)
Community (1 Indicator)
Indigenous Rights (1 Indicator)
Social
Security Practices (1 Indicator)
Forced Labour (1 Indicator)
Child Labour (1 Indicator)
Freedom of Association (1 Indicator)
Non-discrimination (1 Indicator)
Investment & Procurement Practices (3 Indicators)
Human Rights
Diversity & Equal Opportunity (2 Indicators)
Training & Education (3 Indicators)
Occupational Health & Safety (4 Indicators)
Labour/Management Relations (2 Indicators)
Employment (3 Indicators)
Overall (1 Indicator)
Transport (1 Indicator)
Labour
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Products & Services (2 Indicators)
Emissions, Effluent & Waste (10 Indicators)
Biodiversity (5 Indicators)
Water (3 Indicators)
Energy (5 Indicators)
Environment
Materials (2 Indicators)
Indirect Economic Aspects (2 Indicators)
Market Presence (3 Indicators)
Management Approach Disclosures (6 Indicators)
Stakeholder Engagement (4 Indicators)
Economic
Commitment to External Initiatives (3 Indicators)
Governance, Commitments & Engagement (10 Indicators)
Assurance (1 Indicator)
GRI Content Index (1 Indicator)
Scope & Boundary (7 Indicators)
Report Profile (4 Indicators)
Organisational Profile (10 Indicators)
Strategy & Analysis (2 Indicators)
GRI +11 Compliance Score (%)
■ A reasonable response = 2 of 2
■ A partial response = 1 of 2
■ No response = 0 of 2
GRI +12 Compliance Score (%)
GRI application level
*With apologies, our assessment of
Barloworld’s report in 2011 did not
include web-based information.
GRI +13 Compliance Score (%)
Profile Disclosures
Economic Performance (4 Indicators)
Appendix III:
Our Ranking of
GRI Compliance
1
Sasol
A+
99.6 99.6 94.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
2
Gold Fields
A+
96.0 94.9 64.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
3
Wilderness
B+
94.9 24.0
4
Barloworld*
A+
94.1 61.0 82.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
5
Lonmin
NC(A+) 94.1 93.3 85.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
6
Sappi
A
93.3 87.4 79.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
7
African Rainbow Minerals
A+
90.9 82.3 65.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
8
Impahla Clothing
ND
89.3 90.6 67.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
9
Xstrata South Africa
B+
88.9 68.1
10
Anglo American Platinum
A+
88.5 83.5 89.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
11
Anglo American plc
A+
88.5 86.6 83.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
12
Kumba Iron Ore
NC(A+) 87.7 57.5
13
African Bank
B+
84.6 61.8 47.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
14
Phumelela Gaming & Leisure
C
84.6 52.0 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
15
Sanlam
B+
82.6 60.6 57.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
16
Altron
B+
81.8 68.9 54.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
17
Distribution & Warehousing Network
A
81.8 37.8 52.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
18
Mondi
B+
81.0
19
Northam Platinum
B+
79.8 81.9 64.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
20
Little Eden
B+
79.1
21
Massmart
ND
79.1 82.7 73.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
22
Standard Bank
B+
79.1 76.4 79.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
23
Nedbank
A+
78.7 67.3 69.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
24
Anglo Gold Ashanti
A+
77.5 85.0 85.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
25
Netcare
B
76.7 41.7 50.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
26
Sun International
B+
76.3 43.7 42.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
27
Altech
B+
75.9 68.1 43.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
28
Harmony Gold
B+
75.1 81.9 83.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
29
Merafe Resources
B+
74.7 61.4 84.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
30
Grindrod
B+
73.9 68.9 68.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
74
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Customer Privacy (1 Indicator)
Marketing & Communications (2 Indicators)
Product & Service Labelling (3 Indicators)
Customer Health & Safety (2 Indicators)
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Product Responsibility
Anti-Competitive Behaviour (1 Indicator)
Public Policy (2 Indicators)
Corruption (3 Indicators)
Community (1 Indicator)
Indigenous Rights (1 Indicator)
Social
Security Practices (1 Indicator)
Forced Labour (1 Indicator)
Child Labour (1 Indicator)
Freedom of Association (1 Indicator)
Non-discrimination (1 Indicator)
Investment & Procurement Practices (3 Indicators)
Human Rights
Diversity & Equal Opportunity (2 Indicators)
Training & Education (3 Indicators)
Occupational Health & Safety (4 Indicators)
Labour/Management Relations (2 Indicators)
Employment (3 Indicators)
Overall (1 Indicator)
Transport (1 Indicator)
Labour
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Products & Services (2 Indicators)
Emissions, Effluent & Waste (10 Indicators)
Biodiversity (5 Indicators)
Water (3 Indicators)
Energy (5 Indicators)
Materials (2 Indicators)
Environment
Indirect Economic Aspects (2 Indicators)
Market Presence (3 Indicators)
Economic Performance (4 Indicators)
Management Approach Disclosures (6 Indicators)
Stakeholder Engagement (4 Indicators)
Economic
Commitment to External Initiatives (3 Indicators)
Governance, Commitments & Engagement (10 Indicators)
Assurance (1 Indicator)
GRI Content Index (1 Indicator)
Scope & Boundary (7 Indicators)
Report Profile (4 Indicators)
Organisational Profile (10 Indicators)
Strategy & Analysis (2 Indicators)
GRI +11 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +12 Compliance Score (%)
■ A reasonable response = 2 of 2
■ A partial response = 1 of 2
■ No response = 0 of 2
GRI +13 Compliance Score (%)
GRI application level
Profile Disclosures
31
Illovo Sugar
B+
73.5 53.5 32.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
32
Exxarro
B+
72.7 70.1 72.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
33
Absa Group
B+
72.3 60.2 59.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
34
Woolworths
NC(B+) 72.3 58.7 54.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
35
Liberty
B+
71.9 76.8 70.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
36
Impala Platinum
B+
70.8 61.4 76.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
37
Foschini
ND
70.4 83.5 40.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
38
JD Group
ND
70.4 70.9 37.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
39
Evraz Highveld Steel & Vanadium
NC(C)
69.6 74.4 74.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
40
Afgri
C
69.2 50.0 39.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
41
Group Five
ND
69.2 61.0 60.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
42
Tongaat Hulett
B+
68.8 57.5 43.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
43
Royal Bafokeng Platinum
B+
68.0 57.1
44
MTN
NC(B)
67.6 81.9 31.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
45
Eskom
B+
66.8 63.0 60.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
46
Avusa
NC(C)
66.4 30.3 31.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
47
Brimstone
ND
66.4 58.7 24.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
48
Bidvest
ND
65.6 61.0 59.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
49
Arcelor Mittal
ND
64.4 54.3 44.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
50
Aspen Pharmacare
NC(B)
62.5 64.2 53.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
51
Mediclinic
NC(C)
62.1 52.8 52.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
52
Santam
B
62.1 52.8 39.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
53
Umgeni Water
NC(B)
62.1 52.0 50.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
54
DRD Gold
NC(C)
60.5 65.0 59.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
55
PSV Holdings
C+
59.7 18.5 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
56
Optimum Coal
57
Aquarius Platinum
NC(C)
58.5 56.3 48.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
58
Nampak
C
58.5 57.5 59.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
59
Vodacom
NC(B)
58.5 49.2 43.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
60
Transnet
C
58.1 37.0 54.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
59.3 22.8
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
75
| Appendix III: Our Ranking of GRI Compliance continued
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Customer Privacy (1 Indicator)
Marketing & Communications (2 Indicators)
Product & Service Labelling (3 Indicators)
Customer Health & Safety (2 Indicators)
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Product Responsibility
Anti-Competitive Behaviour (1 Indicator)
Public Policy (2 Indicators)
Corruption (3 Indicators)
Community (1 Indicator)
Indigenous Rights (1 Indicator)
Social
Security Practices (1 Indicator)
Forced Labour (1 Indicator)
Child Labour (1 Indicator)
Freedom of Association (1 Indicator)
Non-discrimination (1 Indicator)
Investment & Procurement Practices (3 Indicators)
Human Rights
Diversity & Equal Opportunity (2 Indicators)
Training & Education (3 Indicators)
Occupational Health & Safety (4 Indicators)
Labour/Management Relations (2 Indicators)
Employment (3 Indicators)
Overall (1 Indicator)
Transport (1 Indicator)
Labour
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Products & Services (2 Indicators)
Emissions, Effluent & Waste (10 Indicators)
Biodiversity (5 Indicators)
Water (3 Indicators)
Energy (5 Indicators)
Environment
Materials (2 Indicators)
Indirect Economic Aspects (2 Indicators)
Market Presence (3 Indicators)
Economic Performance (4 Indicators)
Management Approach Disclosures (6 Indicators)
Stakeholder Engagement (4 Indicators)
Economic
Commitment to External Initiatives (3 Indicators)
Governance, Commitments & Engagement (10 Indicators)
Assurance (1 Indicator)
GRI Content Index (1 Indicator)
Scope & Boundary (7 Indicators)
Report Profile (4 Indicators)
Organisational Profile (10 Indicators)
Strategy & Analysis (2 Indicators)
GRI +11 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +12 Compliance Score (%)
■ A reasonable response = 2 of 2
■ A partial response = 1 of 2
■ No response = 0 of 2
GRI +13 Compliance Score (%)
GRI application level
Profile Disclosures
61
Comair
C+
56.9 29.5 32.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
62
Imperial
C
56.5 59.1 55.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
63
Soweto Marimba Youth League
C
55.7
64
Media24
NC(C)
54.9 27.2 38.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
65
Pretoria Portland Cement
C+
54.9 57.1 65.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
66
Astral Foods
ND
54.2 37.4 39.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
67
Distell
NC(C)
53.8 33.9 37.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
68
Telkom
C+
53.4 35.4 42.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
69
Witwatersrand Consolidated Gold
C
53.0 22.0 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
70
Discovery
B
52.6 56.3 55.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
71
Murray & Roberts
B+
52.6 55.9 58.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
72
Cotlands
ND
52.2 55.5 54.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
73
Rainbow Chicken
ND
51.8 55.5 50.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
74
Esorfranki
C
50.6 24.4 28.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
75
Naspers
NC(C)
50.6 37.0 37.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
76
Remgro
77
Denel
78
Steinhoff International
79
MMI
C
49.4 15.0
80
MultiChoice
NC(C)
49.4 39.4 29.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
81
Basil Read
NC(C)
49.0 41.3 32.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
82
Wesizwe Platinum
NC(C)
49.0 28.3 33.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
83
Mpact
C
48.6
84
Eqstra
ND
48.2 48.0 49.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
85
Reunert
ND
48.2 45.3 33.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
86
AECI
ND
47.0 43.3 44.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
87
Assore
C
46.6 42.9 36.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
88
Value Group
C
46.6
26.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
89
Morvest
C+
46.2
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
90
Primeserv
ND
46.2 22.4 33.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
50.2 22.0 32.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
ND
49.8 57.9
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
49.8 38.6 47.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
76
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Customer Privacy (1 Indicator)
Marketing & Communications (2 Indicators)
Product & Service Labelling (3 Indicators)
Customer Health & Safety (2 Indicators)
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Product Responsibility
Anti-Competitive Behaviour (1 Indicator)
Public Policy (2 Indicators)
Corruption (3 Indicators)
Community (1 Indicator)
Indigenous Rights (1 Indicator)
Social
Security Practices (1 Indicator)
Forced Labour (1 Indicator)
Child Labour (1 Indicator)
Freedom of Association (1 Indicator)
Non-discrimination (1 Indicator)
Investment & Procurement Practices (3 Indicators)
Human Rights
Diversity & Equal Opportunity (2 Indicators)
Training & Education (3 Indicators)
Occupational Health & Safety (4 Indicators)
Labour/Management Relations (2 Indicators)
Employment (3 Indicators)
Overall (1 Indicator)
Transport (1 Indicator)
Labour
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Products & Services (2 Indicators)
Emissions, Effluent & Waste (10 Indicators)
Biodiversity (5 Indicators)
Water (3 Indicators)
Energy (5 Indicators)
Materials (2 Indicators)
Environment
Indirect Economic Aspects (2 Indicators)
Market Presence (3 Indicators)
Economic Performance (4 Indicators)
Management Approach Disclosures (6 Indicators)
Stakeholder Engagement (4 Indicators)
Economic
Commitment to External Initiatives (3 Indicators)
Governance, Commitments & Engagement (10 Indicators)
Assurance (1 Indicator)
GRI Content Index (1 Indicator)
Scope & Boundary (7 Indicators)
Report Profile (4 Indicators)
Organisational Profile (10 Indicators)
Strategy & Analysis (2 Indicators)
GRI +11 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +12 Compliance Score (%)
■ A reasonable response = 2 of 2
■ A partial response = 1 of 2
■ No response = 0 of 2
GRI +13 Compliance Score (%)
GRI application level
Profile Disclosures
91
Wilson Bayly Homes-Ovcon
C
46.2 31.5 37.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
92
Eastern Platinum
NC(B)
45.5 33.1
93
Metair Investments
C+
45.5 20.1 21.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
94
Adcorp
ND
44.7 24.4 31.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
95
Digicore
C+
44.7 22.0 32.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
96
Omnia
NC(C)
44.7 49.2 44.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
97
Oceana Group
98
Blue Label Telecoms
C+
43.9 54.3 48.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
99
Adcock Ingram
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
44.3 52.4 54.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
NC(B)
43.5 31.1 37.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
100 Investec
NC(B)
42.7 55.5 59.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
101 Cargo Carriers
C
42.3 15.4 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
102 Redefine Properties
ND
42.3 22.4
103 Sasfin
C
41.9 21.7 25.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
105 OneLogix
C
41.5 38.6 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
106 FirstRand Group
ND
41.1 40.6 46.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
41.9 40.6 28.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
104 Sentula Mining
107 Adapt IT
41.1 26.0 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
108 Aveng
41.1 40.9 42.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
109 Palabora Mining Company
41.1 35.8 42.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
40.7 46.5 39.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
110 Hulamin
111 Howden Africa
C
40.3 42.1 22.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
112 Hyprop Investments
ND
40.3 21.7 28.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
113 Buildmax
C
39.5 18.5 27.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
114 Clicks Group
ND
39.5 36.2 48.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
115 Efficient Group
C+
39.5 17.7 20.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
116 Finbond
C
39.5 16.9 19.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
39.5 21.7 31.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
117 Tiger Brands
118 Delta EMD
ND
39.1 19.3 16.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
119 Keaton Energy
NC(C)
39.1 39.8 29.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
120 Verimark
ND
39.1 12.2 18.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
77
| Appendix III: Our Ranking of GRI Compliance continued
121 Austro Group
C+
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Customer Privacy (1 Indicator)
Marketing & Communications (2 Indicators)
Product & Service Labelling (3 Indicators)
Customer Health & Safety (2 Indicators)
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Product Responsibility
Anti-Competitive Behaviour (1 Indicator)
Public Policy (2 Indicators)
Corruption (3 Indicators)
Community (1 Indicator)
Indigenous Rights (1 Indicator)
Social
Security Practices (1 Indicator)
Forced Labour (1 Indicator)
Child Labour (1 Indicator)
Freedom of Association (1 Indicator)
Non-discrimination (1 Indicator)
Investment & Procurement Practices (3 Indicators)
Human Rights
Diversity & Equal Opportunity (2 Indicators)
Training & Education (3 Indicators)
Occupational Health & Safety (4 Indicators)
Labour/Management Relations (2 Indicators)
Employment (3 Indicators)
Overall (1 Indicator)
Transport (1 Indicator)
Labour
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Products & Services (2 Indicators)
Emissions, Effluent & Waste (10 Indicators)
Biodiversity (5 Indicators)
Water (3 Indicators)
Energy (5 Indicators)
Environment
Materials (2 Indicators)
Indirect Economic Aspects (2 Indicators)
Market Presence (3 Indicators)
Economic Performance (4 Indicators)
Management Approach Disclosures (6 Indicators)
Stakeholder Engagement (4 Indicators)
Economic
Commitment to External Initiatives (3 Indicators)
Governance, Commitments & Engagement (10 Indicators)
Assurance (1 Indicator)
GRI Content Index (1 Indicator)
Scope & Boundary (7 Indicators)
Report Profile (4 Indicators)
Organisational Profile (10 Indicators)
Strategy & Analysis (2 Indicators)
GRI +11 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +12 Compliance Score (%)
■ A reasonable response = 2 of 2
■ A partial response = 1 of 2
■ No response = 0 of 2
GRI +13 Compliance Score (%)
GRI application level
Profile Disclosures
38.3 15.7 24.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
122 Capitec Bank
38.3 35.4 28.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
123 Hospitality Property Fund
38.3 24.4 28.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
124 Gijima
NC(B)
37.9 50.4 26.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
125 Stefanutti Stocks
C
37.9 29.1 31.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
126 African Oxygen
ND
37.5 61.4 73.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
128 Life Healthcare
ND
37.2 37.0
129 Truworths
ND
37.2 42.5 46.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
130 Workforce
NC(C)
37.2 19.3 24.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
37.5 26.8 27.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
127 Lewis Group
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
131 B&W Instrumentation & Electrical
37.2 25.2 32.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
132 Pick n Pay
37.2 30.3 40.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
133 Holdsport
ND
36.8
134 Richards Bay Minerals
NC(C)
36.8
135 AVI
ND
36.4 18.9 35.4
136 O-Line
36.4 27.2 28.0
137 Ceramic Industries
36.0 26.0 33.9
138 Peregrine
35.6 12.2 26.4
139 Growthpoint Properties
35.2 38.2 30.3
140 Mr Price Group
141 Business Connexion
34.8 26.8 33.1
NC(C)
34.4 33.5 38.6
143 Iliad Africa
NC(C)
33.6 43.7 33.1
144 Consolidated Infrastructure Group
NC(C+) 33.2 17.3
142 Rolfes Technology
145 Chemical Specialities
34.4 24.0 28.0
33.2 21.3 22.0
146 Clover Industries
33.2 29.1 30.7
147 Control Instruments Group
33.2 20.1 17.7
148 Richards Bay Coal Terminals
32.8 44.5
149 Transpaco
32.8 17.3 28.0
150 Trans Hex Group
32.4 29.9 25.2
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
78
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Customer Privacy (1 Indicator)
Marketing & Communications (2 Indicators)
Product & Service Labelling (3 Indicators)
Customer Health & Safety (2 Indicators)
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Product Responsibility
Anti-Competitive Behaviour (1 Indicator)
Public Policy (2 Indicators)
Corruption (3 Indicators)
Community (1 Indicator)
Indigenous Rights (1 Indicator)
Social
Security Practices (1 Indicator)
Forced Labour (1 Indicator)
Child Labour (1 Indicator)
Freedom of Association (1 Indicator)
Non-discrimination (1 Indicator)
Investment & Procurement Practices (3 Indicators)
Human Rights
Diversity & Equal Opportunity (2 Indicators)
Training & Education (3 Indicators)
Occupational Health & Safety (4 Indicators)
Labour/Management Relations (2 Indicators)
Employment (3 Indicators)
Overall (1 Indicator)
Transport (1 Indicator)
Labour
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Products & Services (2 Indicators)
Emissions, Effluent & Waste (10 Indicators)
Biodiversity (5 Indicators)
Water (3 Indicators)
Energy (5 Indicators)
Materials (2 Indicators)
Environment
Indirect Economic Aspects (2 Indicators)
Market Presence (3 Indicators)
Economic Performance (4 Indicators)
Management Approach Disclosures (6 Indicators)
Stakeholder Engagement (4 Indicators)
Commitment to External Initiatives (3 Indicators)
Governance, Commitments & Engagement (10 Indicators)
Assurance (1 Indicator)
GRI Content Index (1 Indicator)
Scope & Boundary (7 Indicators)
Report Profile (4 Indicators)
Organisational Profile (10 Indicators)
Strategy & Analysis (2 Indicators)
GRI +11 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +12 Compliance Score (%)
Economic
32.0 28.0 29.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
151 Afrimat
32.0 16.1 22.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
152 Masonite Africa
153 Country Bird
GRI +13 Compliance Score (%)
■ A reasonable response = 2 of 2
■ A partial response = 1 of 2
■ No response = 0 of 2
GRI application level
Profile Disclosures
ND
31.6 18.1 24.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
154 Astrapak
31.6 31.9 28.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
155 Pan African Resource
30.8 23.2 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
156 Super Group
30.8 17.3 29.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
157 Hosken Consolidated Investments
30.4 18.9 18.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
30.4 17.3 26.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
158 Micromega
159 Hudaco Industries
NC(C)
30.0 27.2 33.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
30.0 17.7 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
160 Beige
161 South Ocean
30.0 24.8 30.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
162 Spar Group
30.0 31.5 36.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
163 KayDav
C+
29.6 11.0 16.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
164 Top Fix Holdings
NC(C)
29.6 14.6 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
165 Alexander Forbes
29.6 26.0 33.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
166 ARB
29.6 28.0 29.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
167 City Lodge Hotels
29.6 22.0 33.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
168 SA Corporate Real Estate Fund
29.6 22.4 28.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
169 Amalgamated Appliance Holdings
29.2 20.9 27.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
170 JSE
29.2 24.4 37.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
171 Winhold
28.5 19.7 18.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
172 Calgro M3
28.1 17.3 20.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
173 EOH
28.1 18.5 22.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
174 Kelly Group
28.1 29.1 32.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
175 Sovereign Food Investments
28.1 24.0 21.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
176 Litha Healthcare Group
■
■
■
27.3
27.3 27.6 24.0 ■
27.3 20.1 51.2 ■
177 Senwes
178 Curro Holdings
179 Pioneer Foods Group
180 RMB
27.7 13.0
27.7 35.8
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
79
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
| Appendix III: Our Ranking of GRI Compliance continued
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Customer Privacy (1 Indicator)
Marketing & Communications (2 Indicators)
Product & Service Labelling (3 Indicators)
Customer Health & Safety (2 Indicators)
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Product Responsibility
Anti-Competitive Behaviour (1 Indicator)
Public Policy (2 Indicators)
Corruption (3 Indicators)
Community (1 Indicator)
Indigenous Rights (1 Indicator)
Social
Security Practices (1 Indicator)
Forced Labour (1 Indicator)
Child Labour (1 Indicator)
Freedom of Association (1 Indicator)
Non-discrimination (1 Indicator)
Investment & Procurement Practices (3 Indicators)
Human Rights
Diversity & Equal Opportunity (2 Indicators)
Training & Education (3 Indicators)
Occupational Health & Safety (4 Indicators)
Labour/Management Relations (2 Indicators)
Employment (3 Indicators)
Overall (1 Indicator)
Transport (1 Indicator)
Labour
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Products & Services (2 Indicators)
Emissions, Effluent & Waste (10 Indicators)
Biodiversity (5 Indicators)
Water (3 Indicators)
Energy (5 Indicators)
Environment
Materials (2 Indicators)
Indirect Economic Aspects (2 Indicators)
Market Presence (3 Indicators)
Economic Performance (4 Indicators)
Management Approach Disclosures (6 Indicators)
Stakeholder Engagement (4 Indicators)
Economic
Commitment to External Initiatives (3 Indicators)
Governance, Commitments & Engagement (10 Indicators)
Assurance (1 Indicator)
GRI Content Index (1 Indicator)
Scope & Boundary (7 Indicators)
Report Profile (4 Indicators)
Organisational Profile (10 Indicators)
Strategy & Analysis (2 Indicators)
GRI +11 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +12 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +13 Compliance Score (%)
■ A reasonable response = 2 of 2
■ A partial response = 1 of 2
■ No response = 0 of 2
GRI application level
Profile Disclosures
26.9 25.2 40.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
181 Brait SA
182 Datatec
26.9 21.7 29.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
183 Protech Khuthele
26.9 22.4 30.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
184 Kagiso Media
26.5 20.1 23.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
185 Mazor Group
26.1 18.1 25.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
186 Bell Equipment
25.7 16.9 30.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
187 Insimbi Refractory and Alloys Supplies
25.7 11.0 20.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
188 Rand Merchant Insurance
25.7
189 Raubex Group
25.7 17.3 24.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
190 Sekunjalo Investments
25.7 25.2 24.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
191 Mvelaserve
25.3
192 Octodec Investments
25.3 14.6 16.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
193 Taste
25.3 25.6 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
194 York Timber
25.3 23.2 36.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
195 BSI Steel
24.9 20.9 21.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
196 Sephaku
24.9 16.1 11.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
197 Village Main Reef Gold Mining Company
24.9 13.8 19.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
198 Mercantile Bank
24.5 24.4 31.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
18.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
199 Afrocentric
24.1
200 Fountainhead Property Trust
24.1 24.8 32.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
201 Industrial Development Corporation (IDC)
24.1
202 Jasco Electronics
24.1 24.0 29.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
203 Nutritional Holdings
24.1
204 Stratcorp
23.7 14.6 18.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
40.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
205 ADvTECH
23.3 22.4 30.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
206 Bauba Platinum
23.3 13.0
207 Italtile
23.3 24.8 26.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
208 Nu-World
23.3 18.1 20.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
23.3 17.3 15.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
209 Vukile Property Fund
210 Silverbridge
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
NC(C)
22.9 18.9 21.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
80
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Customer Privacy (1 Indicator)
Marketing & Communications (2 Indicators)
Product & Service Labelling (3 Indicators)
Customer Health & Safety (2 Indicators)
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Product Responsibility
Anti-Competitive Behaviour (1 Indicator)
Public Policy (2 Indicators)
Corruption (3 Indicators)
Community (1 Indicator)
Indigenous Rights (1 Indicator)
Social
Security Practices (1 Indicator)
Forced Labour (1 Indicator)
Child Labour (1 Indicator)
Freedom of Association (1 Indicator)
Non-discrimination (1 Indicator)
Investment & Procurement Practices (3 Indicators)
Human Rights
Diversity & Equal Opportunity (2 Indicators)
Training & Education (3 Indicators)
Occupational Health & Safety (4 Indicators)
Labour/Management Relations (2 Indicators)
Employment (3 Indicators)
Overall (1 Indicator)
Transport (1 Indicator)
Labour
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Products & Services (2 Indicators)
Emissions, Effluent & Waste (10 Indicators)
Biodiversity (5 Indicators)
Water (3 Indicators)
Energy (5 Indicators)
Materials (2 Indicators)
Environment
Indirect Economic Aspects (2 Indicators)
Market Presence (3 Indicators)
Economic Performance (4 Indicators)
Management Approach Disclosures (6 Indicators)
Stakeholder Engagement (4 Indicators)
Economic
Commitment to External Initiatives (3 Indicators)
Governance, Commitments & Engagement (10 Indicators)
Assurance (1 Indicator)
GRI Content Index (1 Indicator)
Scope & Boundary (7 Indicators)
Report Profile (4 Indicators)
Organisational Profile (10 Indicators)
Strategy & Analysis (2 Indicators)
GRI +11 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +12 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +13 Compliance Score (%)
■ A reasonable response = 2 of 2
■ A partial response = 1 of 2
■ No response = 0 of 2
GRI application level
Profile Disclosures
211 Caxton CTP
22.5 18.1 34.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
212 Grand Parade Investments
22.5 20.1 22.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
213 Mix Telematics
22.5 19.3 21.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
214 Mustek
22.5 24.0 27.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
215 Bowler Metcalf
22.1
9.8 19.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
216 Capital & Counties Properties
22.1
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
217 Central Rand Gold
22.1 26.4 27.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
218 Cullinan
22.1 17.3 20.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
219 Erbacon Investment
22.1 20.9 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
220 Foneworx
22.1 19.7 20.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
221 Petmin
22.1 26.0 27.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
222 Coal of Africa
21.7 22.4 25.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
223 IFA Hotels and Resorts
21.7 11.4 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
224 Invicta
21.7 16.5 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
225 RBA
21.7 20.1 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
226 Vividend Income Fund
21.7
227 Amalgamated Electronic Corporation
21.3 17.3 21.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
228 Ansys
21.3 21.7 30.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
229 Bioscience Brands
21.3 15.0 17.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
230 Brikor
21.3 23.2 25.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
231 Cadiz Holdings
21.3 22.8 30.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
232 Spur Corporation
21.3 16.5 24.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
233 Accentuate
20.9 18.1 22.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
234 Coronation Fund Managers
20.9 20.9 29.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
235 Emira Property Fund
20.9 22.0 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
236 ZCI
20.9
237 Clientele
20.6 20.1 29.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
238 Platfields
20.6
239 African and Overseas Enterprises
20.2 20.1 26.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
240 Datacentrix
20.2 17.3 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
81
| Appendix III: Our Ranking of GRI Compliance continued
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Customer Privacy (1 Indicator)
Marketing & Communications (2 Indicators)
Product & Service Labelling (3 Indicators)
Customer Health & Safety (2 Indicators)
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Product Responsibility
Anti-Competitive Behaviour (1 Indicator)
Public Policy (2 Indicators)
Corruption (3 Indicators)
Community (1 Indicator)
Indigenous Rights (1 Indicator)
Social
Security Practices (1 Indicator)
Forced Labour (1 Indicator)
Child Labour (1 Indicator)
Freedom of Association (1 Indicator)
Non-discrimination (1 Indicator)
Investment & Procurement Practices (3 Indicators)
Human Rights
Diversity & Equal Opportunity (2 Indicators)
Training & Education (3 Indicators)
Occupational Health & Safety (4 Indicators)
Labour/Management Relations (2 Indicators)
Employment (3 Indicators)
Overall (1 Indicator)
Transport (1 Indicator)
Labour
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Products & Services (2 Indicators)
Emissions, Effluent & Waste (10 Indicators)
Biodiversity (5 Indicators)
Water (3 Indicators)
Energy (5 Indicators)
Environment
Materials (2 Indicators)
Indirect Economic Aspects (2 Indicators)
Market Presence (3 Indicators)
Economic Performance (4 Indicators)
Management Approach Disclosures (6 Indicators)
Stakeholder Engagement (4 Indicators)
Economic
Commitment to External Initiatives (3 Indicators)
Governance, Commitments & Engagement (10 Indicators)
Assurance (1 Indicator)
GRI Content Index (1 Indicator)
Scope & Boundary (7 Indicators)
Report Profile (4 Indicators)
Organisational Profile (10 Indicators)
Strategy & Analysis (2 Indicators)
GRI +11 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +12 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +13 Compliance Score (%)
■ A reasonable response = 2 of 2
■ A partial response = 1 of 2
■ No response = 0 of 2
GRI application level
Profile Disclosures
241 First Uranium Corporation
20.2 18.1 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
242 Pinnacle Technology
20.2 20.7 17.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
243 Sanyati
20.2 20.5 26.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
244 Zurich Insurance Company SA
20.2 20.9 23.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
245 Adrenna Property Group
19.8 14.2 18.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
246 Metmar
19.8 22.0 18.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
247 Rex Trueform Clothing Company
19.8 24.0 30.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
248 Trencor
19.8 16.9 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
249 Combined Motor Holdings
19.4 16.1 25.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
250 Famous Brands
19.4 17.3 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
251 Africa Cellular Towers
19.0 18.1 19.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
252 Andulela Investment
19.0
253 Blue Financial Services
19.0 15.0 33.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
254 Hwange Colliery
19.0 13.0
255 Rebosis Property Fund
19.0
256 Santova Logistics
19.0 17.3 23.2
9.8 11.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
257 AH-Vest
18.6 27.2 19.3
258 Argent Industrial
18.6 14.6 23.6
259 Jubilee Platinum
18.6 16.5
260 Spanjaard
18.6 10.6 20.1
261 Acucap Properties
18.2 13.4 22.0
262 BK one
18.2
263 Conduit Capital
18.2 13.0 15.4
264 Crookes Brothers
18.2 31.5 26.0
265 KWV
18.2
266 Putprop
18.2 13.0 17.3
267 RGT SMART Market Intelligence
18.2 15.7
268 Southern Electricity Company (SELCo)
18.2 13.0 23.6
269 Compu Clearing Outsourcing
17.8 17.7 18.9
270 Racec Group
17.8 18.5 18.5
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
82
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Customer Privacy (1 Indicator)
Marketing & Communications (2 Indicators)
Product & Service Labelling (3 Indicators)
Customer Health & Safety (2 Indicators)
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Product Responsibility
Anti-Competitive Behaviour (1 Indicator)
Public Policy (2 Indicators)
Corruption (3 Indicators)
Community (1 Indicator)
Indigenous Rights (1 Indicator)
Social
Security Practices (1 Indicator)
Forced Labour (1 Indicator)
Child Labour (1 Indicator)
Freedom of Association (1 Indicator)
Non-discrimination (1 Indicator)
Investment & Procurement Practices (3 Indicators)
Human Rights
Diversity & Equal Opportunity (2 Indicators)
Training & Education (3 Indicators)
Occupational Health & Safety (4 Indicators)
Labour/Management Relations (2 Indicators)
Employment (3 Indicators)
Overall (1 Indicator)
Transport (1 Indicator)
Labour
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Products & Services (2 Indicators)
Emissions, Effluent & Waste (10 Indicators)
Biodiversity (5 Indicators)
Water (3 Indicators)
Energy (5 Indicators)
Materials (2 Indicators)
Environment
Indirect Economic Aspects (2 Indicators)
Market Presence (3 Indicators)
Economic Performance (4 Indicators)
Management Approach Disclosures (6 Indicators)
Stakeholder Engagement (4 Indicators)
Economic
Commitment to External Initiatives (3 Indicators)
Governance, Commitments & Engagement (10 Indicators)
Assurance (1 Indicator)
GRI Content Index (1 Indicator)
Scope & Boundary (7 Indicators)
Report Profile (4 Indicators)
Organisational Profile (10 Indicators)
Strategy & Analysis (2 Indicators)
GRI +11 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +12 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +13 Compliance Score (%)
■ A reasonable response = 2 of 2
■ A partial response = 1 of 2
■ No response = 0 of 2
GRI application level
Profile Disclosures
271 Randgold & Exploration Company
17.8 12.2 16.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
272 Wescoal
17.8 16.1 20.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
273 Alert Steel
17.4 15.0 22.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
274 Gold One International
17.4 16.5 18.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
275 Infrasors
17.4 23.2 24.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
276 Purple Capital
17.4 15.0 16.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
277 Zeder Investments
17.4 14.6 13.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
278 Cafca
17.0 17.3
279 Dipula Income Fund
17.0
280 Huge Group
17.0 18.5 13.8
281 PSG Group
17.0 17.7 19.3
282 Interwaste
16.6 11.8 16.5
283 Metrofile
16.6 22.4 24.8
284 Resilient Property Income Fund
16.6 11.8 18.1
285 Sabvest
16.6 18.1 23.6
286 Simmer & Jack Mines
16.6 22.4 38.2
287 Total Client Services
16.6 24.0 18.1
288 African Dawn Capital
16.2 12.2 15.4
289 Poynting
16.2 11.4 19.7
290 W G Wearne
16.2 16.9 26.8
291 Capital Property Fund
15.8 11.8
292 ELB Group
15.8 13.8 17.3
293 Fairvest Property Holdings
15.8 12.2
294 Shoprite
15.8 50.0 34.6
295 Skinwell
15.8 18.5 19.3
296 Diamondcorp
15.4 12.6
297 Goliath Gold Mining
15.4 10.6
298 Trustco Group
15.4 12.6 19.7
299 Ububele
15.4 16.9 20.5
300 William Tell
15.4 16.5 21.7
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
83
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
| Appendix III: Our Ranking of GRI Compliance continued
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Customer Privacy (1 Indicator)
Marketing & Communications (2 Indicators)
Product & Service Labelling (3 Indicators)
Customer Health & Safety (2 Indicators)
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Product Responsibility
Anti-Competitive Behaviour (1 Indicator)
Public Policy (2 Indicators)
Corruption (3 Indicators)
Community (1 Indicator)
Indigenous Rights (1 Indicator)
Social
Security Practices (1 Indicator)
Forced Labour (1 Indicator)
Child Labour (1 Indicator)
Freedom of Association (1 Indicator)
Non-discrimination (1 Indicator)
Investment & Procurement Practices (3 Indicators)
Human Rights
Diversity & Equal Opportunity (2 Indicators)
Training & Education (3 Indicators)
Occupational Health & Safety (4 Indicators)
Labour/Management Relations (2 Indicators)
Employment (3 Indicators)
Overall (1 Indicator)
Transport (1 Indicator)
Labour
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Products & Services (2 Indicators)
Emissions, Effluent & Waste (10 Indicators)
Biodiversity (5 Indicators)
Water (3 Indicators)
Energy (5 Indicators)
Environment
Materials (2 Indicators)
Indirect Economic Aspects (2 Indicators)
Market Presence (3 Indicators)
Economic Performance (4 Indicators)
Management Approach Disclosures (6 Indicators)
Stakeholder Engagement (4 Indicators)
Economic
Commitment to External Initiatives (3 Indicators)
Governance, Commitments & Engagement (10 Indicators)
Assurance (1 Indicator)
GRI Content Index (1 Indicator)
Scope & Boundary (7 Indicators)
Report Profile (4 Indicators)
Organisational Profile (10 Indicators)
Strategy & Analysis (2 Indicators)
GRI +11 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +12 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +13 Compliance Score (%)
■ A reasonable response = 2 of 2
■ A partial response = 1 of 2
■ No response = 0 of 2
GRI application level
Profile Disclosures
301 ConvergeNet
15.0 15.0 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
302 Iquad Group
15.0 21.7 23.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
303 Mvelaphanda Group
15.0 20.9 26.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
304 Quantum Property Group
15.0 20.5 19.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
305 Rare
15.0 17.3 22.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
306 Cashbuild
14.6 18.5 30.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
307 Dorbyl
14.6 12.6 15.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
308 Ellies
14.6 20.5 17.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
309 Gooderson Leisure Corporation
14.6 18.9 20.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
310 ISA
14.6 20.5 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
311 Imuniti
14.6 15.0 16.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
312 Pallinghurst Resources
14.6
313 Reinet Investments
14.6 10.6 22.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
314 Sycom Property Fund
14.6 10.6 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
315 PBT Group
14.2 13.8
316 Thabex
14.2 15.4
9.8
317 Vunani Property Investment Fund
14.2 13.0 16.5
318 Hardware Warehouse
13.8 15.0 15.0
319 Independent Power Southern Africa (IPSA Group)
13.8 12.6
320 Indequity Group
13.8 11.8 16.9
321 Labat Africa
13.8 13.8 18.1
322 Telemasters
13.8 14.2 19.7
323 African Brick Centre
13.4 14.2 18.9
324 African Media Entertainment
13.4 13.8 19.3
325 Excellerate
13.4 18.9 24.4
326 Net 1 UEPS Technologies
13.4 11.0 14.6
327 Tradehold
13.4 14.2 19.7
328 Fortress Income Fund
13.0 11.8
329 John Daniel Holdings
13.0 13.0 12.6
330 Miranda Mineral Holdings
13.0 14.2 21.7
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
84
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Customer Privacy (1 Indicator)
Marketing & Communications (2 Indicators)
Product & Service Labelling (3 Indicators)
Customer Health & Safety (2 Indicators)
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Product Responsibility
Anti-Competitive Behaviour (1 Indicator)
Public Policy (2 Indicators)
Corruption (3 Indicators)
Community (1 Indicator)
Indigenous Rights (1 Indicator)
Social
Security Practices (1 Indicator)
Forced Labour (1 Indicator)
Child Labour (1 Indicator)
Freedom of Association (1 Indicator)
Non-discrimination (1 Indicator)
Investment & Procurement Practices (3 Indicators)
Human Rights
Diversity & Equal Opportunity (2 Indicators)
Training & Education (3 Indicators)
Occupational Health & Safety (4 Indicators)
Labour/Management Relations (2 Indicators)
Employment (3 Indicators)
Overall (1 Indicator)
Transport (1 Indicator)
Labour
Compliance (1 Indicator)
Products & Services (2 Indicators)
Emissions, Effluent & Waste (10 Indicators)
Biodiversity (5 Indicators)
Water (3 Indicators)
Energy (5 Indicators)
Materials (2 Indicators)
Environment
Indirect Economic Aspects (2 Indicators)
Market Presence (3 Indicators)
Economic Performance (4 Indicators)
Management Approach Disclosures (6 Indicators)
Stakeholder Engagement (4 Indicators)
Economic
Commitment to External Initiatives (3 Indicators)
Governance, Commitments & Engagement (10 Indicators)
Assurance (1 Indicator)
GRI Content Index (1 Indicator)
Scope & Boundary (7 Indicators)
Report Profile (4 Indicators)
Organisational Profile (10 Indicators)
Strategy & Analysis (2 Indicators)
GRI +11 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +12 Compliance Score (%)
GRI +13 Compliance Score (%)
■ A reasonable response = 2 of 2
■ A partial response = 1 of 2
■ No response = 0 of 2
GRI application level
Profile Disclosures
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
331 Resource Generation
13.0 13.0
332 Seardel Investment Corporation
13.0 19.7 18.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
333 1Time
12.6 18.9 22.8 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
334 Chrometco
12.6 15.0 17.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
335 Ingenuity Property Investments
12.6 13.8 15.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
336 New Africa Investments
12.6 18.1
337 Orion Real Estate
12.6 12.2 17.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
338 Premium Properties
12.6 15.7 18.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
339 Real Africa Holdings
12.6 12.6 15.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
12.6 13.0 21.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
340 SA French
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
342 Capevin Investments
12.6 12.6 14.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
12.3 11.8 16.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
343 Don Group
12.3 15.0 20.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
344 Intertrading
12.3 14.8 16.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
345 Nictus Beperk
12.3 11.8 18.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
346 Securedata
12.3 20.5 21.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
347 London Finance & Investment Group
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
11.9 10.6
11.9 15.4 16.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
341 Sacoil
348 Money Web
349 Oasis Crescent Property Fund
11.9 10.2 22.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
350 Kibo Mining
11.5
351 Sable
11.5 15.4 18.5 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
352 RECM & Calibre
11.1 13.8
353 Rockwell Diamonds
11.1
354 Trematon Capital Investments
11.1 11.4 15.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
355 Chamber of Mines
10.7 10.2 32.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
9.8 15.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
356 Sea Kay
10.7 16.5 27.2 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
357 New Corpcapital
10.3
358 Stella Vista Technologies
17.7 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
10.3 13.4 14.6 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
359 Awethu Breweries
9.9 11.0 15.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
360 Firestone Energy
9.5 13.0
361 Ideco Group
8.7 11.0 19.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
362 Foord Compass
7.9 11.0 24.0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
363 Mine Waste Solutions
5.9
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
85
Appendix IV: Responses per GRI Indicator
Partial
Responses
Non-responses
GRI+13 Score
(%)
GRI+12 Score
(%)
Full Responses
Partial
Responses
Non-responses
GRI+13 Score
(%)
GRI+12 Score
(%)
Non-GRI Reports
Full Responses
GRI-Based Reports
99
28
1
88,3
91,0
65
134
36
56,2
56,8
104
22
2
89,8
89,5
85
88
62
54,9
49,1
STANDARD DISCLOSURES PART I: Profile Disclosures
1. Strategy and Analysis
1.1
Statement from the most senior decision-maker of the organisation
1.2
Description of key impacts, risks, and opportunities.
2. Organisational Profile
2.1
Name of the organisation.
128
0
0
100,0
100,0
235
0
0
2.2
Primary brands, products, and/or services.
128
0
0
100,0
99,0
227
6
2
100,0 100,0
97,9
95,0
2.3
Operational structure of the organisation, including main divisions, operating companies, subsidiaries, and joint ventures.
122
6
0
97,7
94,0
205
13
17
90,0
75,9
2.4
Location of organisation’s headquarters.
124
4
0
98,4
98,0
210
11
14
91,7
95,5
2.5
Number of countries where the organisation operates, and names of countries with either major operations or that are specifically relevant to
the sustainability issues covered in the report.
115
13
0
94,9
95,0
151
35
49
71,7
68,7
2.6
Nature of ownership and legal form.
124
4
0
98,4
91,0
203
21
11
90,9
82,5
2.7
Markets served (including geographic breakdown, sectors served, and types of customers/beneficiaries).
115
12
1
94,5
92,5
142
44
49
69,8
64,9
2.8
Scale of the reporting organisation.
122
6
0
97,7
95,0
182
43
10
86,6
64,7
2.9
Significant changes during the reporting period regarding size, structure, or ownership.
113
11
4
92,6
87,5
137
3
95
58,9
70,9
2.10
Awards received in the reporting period.
104
9
15
84,8
76,5
39
2
194
17,0
11,8
109
19
0
92,6
86,0
167
67
1
85,3
62,2
74
37
17
72,3
73,0
31
37
167
21,1
38,9
3. Report Parameters
3.1
Reporting period (e.g., fiscal/calendar year) for information provided.
3.2
Date of most recent previous report (if any).
3.3
Reporting cycle (annual, biennial, etc.)
126
0
2
98,4
100,0
231
1
3
98,5
97,6
3.4
Contact point for questions regarding the report or its contents.
108
9
11
87,9
76,5
58
53
124
36,0
51,7
3.5
Process for defining report content.
106
20
2
90,6
93,0
54
54
127
34,5
35,1
3.6
Boundary of the report (e.g., countries, divisions, subsidiaries, leased facilities, joint ventures, suppliers). See GRI Boundary Protocol for further guidance.
115
10
3
93,8
73,5
72
13
150
33,4
18,3
3.7
State any specific limitations on the scope or boundary of the report (see completeness principle for explanation of scope).
101
13
14
84,0
60,0
54
3
178
23,6
2,9
3.8
Basis for reporting on joint ventures, subsidiaries, leased facilities, outsourced operations, and other entities that can significantly affect comparability from period to period and/or between organisations.
102
18
8
86,7
53,0
43
9
183
20,2
7,4
3.9
Data measurement techniques and the bases of calculations, including assumptions and techniques underlying estimations applied to the compilation
of the Indicators and other information in the report. Explain any decisions not to apply, or to substantially diverge from, the GRI Indicator Protocols.
67
26
35
62,5
60,5
15
9
211
8,3
3,8
3.10
Explanation of the effect of any re-statements of information provided in earlier reports, and the reasons for such re-statement (e.g., mergers/acquisitions,
change of base years/periods, nature of business, measurement methods).
84
22
22
74,2
61,0
18
6
211
8,9
5,7
3.11
Significant changes from previous reporting periods in the scope, boundary, or measurement methods applied in the report.
98
14
16
82,0
53,5
59
4
172
26,0
6,5
3.12
Table identifying the location of the Standard Disclosures in the report.
95
26
7
84,4
78,5
0
0
235
0,0
0,7
3.13
Policy and current practice with regard to seeking external assurance for the report.
4. Governance, Commitments, and Engagement
110
3
15
87,1
74,0
29
8
198
14,0
1,7
4.1
Governance structure of the organisation, including committees under the highest governance body responsible for specific tasks, such as setting strategy
or organisational oversight.
128
0
0
100,0
92,0
229
5
1
98,5
66,4
4.2
Indicate whether the Chair of the highest governance body is also an executive officer.
125
2
1
98,4
96,0
227
3
5
97,2
91,8
4.3
For organisations that have a unitary board structure, state the number of members of the highest governance body that are independent and/or non-executive members.
125
3
0
98,8
94,5
223
7
5
96,4
92,8
4.4
Mechanisms for shareholders and employees to provide recommendations or direction to the highest governance body.
97
29
2
87,1
83,5
55
52
128
34,5
48,1
4.5
Linkage between compensation for members of the highest governance body, senior managers, and executives (including departure arrangements), and the organisation’s performance (including social and environmental performance).
41
63
24
56,6
64,5
7
109
119
26,2
37,0
4.6
Processes in place for the highest governance body to ensure conflicts of interest are avoided.
109
8
11
88,3
72,0 147
13
75
65,3
31,2
86
Partial
Responses
Non-responses
GRI+13 Score
(%)
GRI+12 Score
(%)
Full Responses
Partial
Responses
Non-responses
GRI+13 Score
(%)
GRI+12 Score
(%)
Non-GRI Reports
Full Responses
GRI-Based Reports
4.7
Process for determining the qualifications and expertise of the members of the highest governance body for guiding the organisation’s strategy on economic, environmental, and social topics.
34
81
13
58,2
60,5
16
123
96
33,0
40,1
4.8
Internally developed statements of mission or values, codes of conduct, and principles relevant to economic, environmental, and social performance and the status of their implementation.
64
55
9
71,5
76,5
49
104
82
43,0
47,1
4.9
Procedures of the highest governance body for overseeing the organisation’s identification and management of economic, environmental, and social
performance, including relevant risks and opportunities, and adherence or compliance with internationally agreed standards, codes of conduct, and principles.
114
9
5
92,6
76,5
114
67
54
62,8
20,5
4.10
Processes for evaluating the highest governance body’s own performance, particularly with respect to economic, environmental, and social performance.
52
57
19
62,9
61,0
43
66
126
32,3
21,9
4.11
Explanation of whether and how the precautionary approach or principle is addressed by the organisation.
76
14
38
64,8
77,0
51
27
157
27,4
43,2
4.12
Externally developed economic, environmental, and social charters, principles, or other initiatives to which the organisation subscribes or endorses.
85
31
12
78,5
89,0
109
78
48
63,0
34,9
4.13
Memberships in associations (such as industry associations) and/or national/international advocacy organisations in which the organisation: * Has positions
in governance bodies; * Participates in projects or committees; * Provides substantive funding beyond routine membership dues; or * Views membership
as strategic.
4.14
List of stakeholder groups engaged by the organisation.
4.15
STANDARD DISCLOSURES PART I: Profile Disclosures continued
4. Governance, Commitments, and Engagement continued
94
3
31
74,6
76,5
46
13
176
22,3
13,2
117
6
5
93,8
87,5
109
20
106
50,6
17,5
Basis for identification and selection of stakeholders with whom to engage.
71
18
39
62,5
57,5
30
13
192
15,5
4,1
4.16
Approaches to stakeholder engagement, including frequency of engagement by type and by stakeholder group.
69
48
11
72,7
72,5
45
66
124
33,2
23,8
4.17
Key topics and concerns that have been raised through stakeholder engagement, and how the organisation has responded to those key topics
and concerns, including through its reporting.
67
22
39
60,9
58,0
22
22
191
14,0
3,4
STANDARD DISCLOSURES PART II: Disclosures on Management Approach (DMAs)
G3 DMA
Description
DMA EC
Disclosure on Management Approach for Economic Indicators
75
32
21
71,1
50,0
30
60
145
25,5
4,3
DMA EN
Disclosure on Management Approach for Environmental Indicators
54
40
34
57,8
51,0
8
41
186
12,1
4,3
DMA LA
Disclosure on Management Approach for Labour Indicators
61
46
21
65,6
50,5
13
44
178
14,9
3,9
DMA HR
Disclosure on Management Approach for Human Rights Indicators
33
28
67
36,7
30,0
1
7
227
1,9
1,0
DMA SO
Disclosure on Management Approach for Social Indicators
38
52
38
50,0
35,5
4
30
201
8,1
2,2
DMA PR
Disclosure on Management Approach for Product Responsibility Indicators
36
29
63
39,5
35,0
0
11
224
2,3
0,9
106
20
2
90,6
85,5
65
73
97
43,2
56,7
72
9
47
59,8
56,5
9
2
224
4,3
3,1
100
4
24
79,7
80,5
94
13
128
42,8
53,8
1,7
STANDARD DISCLOSURES PART III: Performance Indicators
Economic
EC1
Direct economic value generated and distributed, including revenues, operating costs, employee compensation, donations and other community
investments, retained earnings, and payments to capital providers and governments.
EC2
Financial implications and other risks and opportunities for the organisation’s activities due to climate change.
EC3
Coverage of the organisation’s defined benefit plan obligations.
EC4
Significant financial assistance received from government.
69
9
50
57,4
47,5
1
0
234
0,4
EC5
Range of ratios of standard entry level wage compared to local minimum wage at significant locations of operation.
21
13
94
21,5
26,0
0
1
234
0,2
0,9
EC6
Policy, practices, and proportion of spending on locally-based suppliers at significant locations of operation.
73
35
20
70,7
80,0
38
22
175
20,9
21,6
EC7
Procedures for local hiring and proportion of senior management hired from the local community at significant locations of operation.
56
27
45
54,3
72,5
39
22
174
21,3
25,9
EC8
Development and impact of infrastructure investments and services provided primarily for public benefit through commercial, in-kind, or pro bono engagement.
95
9
24
77,7
93,5
71
26
138
35,7
35,4
EC9
Understanding and describing significant indirect economic impacts, including the extent of impacts.
Environmental
54
30
44
53,9
59,5
22
7
206
10,9
14,2
EN1
Materials used by weight or volume.
35
20
73
35,2
41,5
3
4
228
2,1
2,2
EN2
Percentage of materials used that are recycled input materials.
21
26
81
26,6
34,0
0
6
229
1,3
3,8
EN3
Direct energy consumption by primary energy source.
63
24
41
58,6
58,5
12
7
216
6,6
5,7
EN4
Indirect energy consumption by primary source.
67
27
34
62,9
56,5
12
15
208
8,3
2,2
87
| Appendix IV: Responses per GRI indicator continued
GRI+13 Score
(%)
GRI+12 Score
(%)
Full Responses
Non-responses
GRI+13 Score
(%)
Energy saved due to conservation and efficiency improvements.
31
20
77
32,0
51,5
8
9
218
5,3
6,2
EN6
Initiatives to provide energy-efficient or renewable energy based products and services, and reductions in energy requirements as a result of these initiatives.
30
35
63
37,1
46,5
9
20
206
8,1
9,2
EN7
Initiatives to reduce indirect energy consumption and reductions achieved.
34
39
55
41,8
56,5
8
32
195
10,2
4,3
EN8
Total water withdrawal by source.
49
39
40
53,5
61,0
6
19
210
6,6
3,3
EN9
Water sources significantly affected by withdrawal of water.
36
13
79
33,2
32,0
2
2
231
1,3
0,7
EN10
Percentage and total volume of water recycled and reused.
28
20
80
29,7
32,0
2
11
222
3,2
3,3
EN11
Location and size of land owned, leased, managed in, or adjacent to, protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas.
51
11
66
44,1
48,5
7
5
223
4,0
1,5
EN12
Description of significant impacts of activities, products, and services on biodiversity in protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside
protected areas.
37
14
77
34,4
43,5
4
1
230
1,9
2,4
EN13
Habitats protected or restored.
30
17
81
30,1
33,0
6
5
224
3,6
1,5
EN14
Strategies, current actions, and future plans for managing impacts on biodiversity.
44
6
78
36,7
39,5
6
3
226
3,2
6,2
EN15
Number of IUCN Red List species and national conservation list species with habitats in areas affected by operations, by level of extinction risk.
24
8
96
21,9
27,5
0
1
234
0,2
0,3
EN16
Total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight.
73
12
43
61,7
67,0
22
7
206
10,9
3,3
EN17
Other relevant indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight.
42
5
81
34,8
43,0
7
1
227
3,2
1,5
EN18
Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reductions achieved.
39
28
61
41,4
61,0
7
12
216
5,5
8,9
EN19
Emissions of ozone-depleting substances by weight.
26
4
98
21,9
25,5
2
0
233
0,9
0,7
EN20
NOx, SOx, and other significant air emissions by type and weight.
31
7
90
27,0
32,0
1
2
232
0,9
0,5
EN21
Total water discharge by quality and destination.
20
19
89
23,0
31,0
2
2
231
1,3
0,7
EN22
Total weight of waste by type and disposal method.
39
32
57
43,0
49,0
7
13
215
5,7
5,1
EN23
Total number and volume of significant spills.
52
13
63
45,7
59,0
5
5
225
3,2
5,5
EN24
Weight of transported, imported, exported, or treated waste deemed hazardous under the terms of the Basel Convention Annex I, II, III, and VIII,
and percentage of transported waste shipped internationally.
21
11
96
20,7
30,5
0
2
233
0,4
0,5
EN25
Identity, size, protected status, and biodiversity value of water bodies and related habitats significantly affected by the reporting organisation’s discharges
of water and runoff.
21
12
95
21,1
22,5
0
1
234
0,2
0,5
EN26
Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of products and services, and extent of impact mitigation.
42
29
57
44,1
56,0
13
17
205
9,1
10,1
EN27
Percentage of products sold and their packaging materials that are reclaimed by category.
20
12
96
20,3
25,5
1
0
234
0,4
1,4
EN28
Monetary value of significant fines and total number of non-monetary sanctions for non-compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
88
8
32
71,9
67,0
12
4
219
6,0
5,3
EN29
Significant environmental impacts of transporting products and other goods and materials used for the organisation’s operations, and transporting members
of the workforce.
GRI+12 Score
(%)
Non-responses
EN5
Partial
Responses
Partial
Responses
Non-GRI Reports
Full Responses
GRI-Based Reports
STANDARD DISCLOSURES PART III: Performance Indicators continued
Environmental
28
16
84
28,1
27,0
6
4
225
3,4
1,2
EN30
Total environmental protection expenditures and investments by type.
Social: Labour Practices and Decent Work
25
9
94
23,0
22,0
4
3
228
2,3
1,2
LA1
Total workforce by employment type, employment contract, and region.
50
67
11
65,2
78,0
13
60
162
18,3
23,6
LA2
Total number and rate of employee turnover by age group, gender, and region.
38
49
41
48,8
55,5
2
32
201
7,7
5,5
LA3
Benefits provided to full-time employees that are not provided to temporary or part-time employees, by major operations.
57
8
63
47,7
43,0
8
1
226
3,6
8,2
LA4
Percentage of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements.
88
6
34
71,1
74,5
21
14
200
11,9
10,4
LA5
Minimum notice period’s regarding significant operational changes, including whether it is specified in collective agreements.
37
9
82
32,4
36,5
1
2
232
0,9
0,5
LA6
Percentage of total workforce represented in formal joint management-worker health and safety committees that help monitor and advise on occupational
health and safety programmes.
26
28
74
31,3
44,5
3
20
212
5,5
5,5
LA7
Rates of injury, occupational diseases, lost days, and absenteeism, and number of work-related fatalities by region.
64
43
21
66,8
78,0
15
38
182
14,5
15,8
LA8
Education, training, counselling, prevention, and risk-control programmes in place to assist workforce members, their families, or community members
regarding serious diseases.
95
15
18
80,1
87,5
44
37
154
26,6
30,7
88
Partial
Responses
Non-responses
GRI+13 Score
(%)
GRI+12 Score
(%)
Full Responses
Partial
Responses
Non-responses
GRI+13 Score
(%)
GRI+12 Score
(%)
Non-GRI Reports
Full Responses
GRI-Based Reports
LA9
LA10
LA11
LA12
LA13
Health and safety topics covered in formal agreements with trade unions.
Average hours of training per year per employee by employee category.
Programmes for skills management and lifelong learning that support the continued employability of employees and assist them in managing career endings.
Percentage of employees receiving regular performance and career development reviews.
Composition of governance bodies and breakdown of employees per category according to gender, age group, minority group membership, and other
indicators of diversity.
LA14
Ratio of basic salary of men to women by employee category.
Social: Human Rights
17
30
83
40
13
61
11
23
98
37
34
65
18,4
47,3
69,1
40,2
26,5
59,0
81,5
50,5
0
3
42
10
0
37
21
17
235
195
172
208
0,0
9,1
22,3
7,9
1,7
12,8
36,5
7,5
53
44
52
3
23
81
61,7
35,5
77,5
30,0
12
3
64
3
159
229
18,7
1,9
23,6
1,2
HR1
HR2
HR3
12
16
16
22
100
90
15,6
21,1
18,5
18,0
1
1
2
1
232
233
0,9
0,6
1,4
1,5
14
72
14
7
100
49
16,4
59,0
21,0
49,0
1
9
1
4
233
222
0,6
4,7
1,5
8,4
56
70
7
6
65
52
46,5
57,0
57,0
54,5
3
8
4
4
228
223
2,1
4,3
7,2
3,4
65
29
48
7
5
3
56
94
77
53,5
24,6
38,7
49,0
18,5
30,5
7
0
5
4
0
3
224
235
227
3,8
0,0
2,8
2,9
0,2
2,2
34
36
34
70
51
67
62
82
56
16
20
8
6
5
6
9
38
76
74
50
71
56
60
37
48,4
34,4
34,4
57,8
42,2
54,3
50,8
67,6
55,5
45,5
37,0
53,5
41,5
57,5
46,0
54,0
18
6
2
12
9
18
11
27
44
3
5
0
1
0
1
1
173
226
228
223
225
217
223
207
17,0
3,2
1,9
5,1
4,0
7,7
4,9
11,7
14,2
4,6
3,8
9,6
0,5
4,1
4,5
6,0
41
18
69
39,1
39,0
8
4
223
4,3
3,6
56
42
46
41
48
5
10
9
23
5
67
76
73
64
75
45,7
36,7
39,5
41,0
39,5
37,0
35,5
35,5
50,5
46,0
4
2
3
3
3
1
1
0
8
0
230
232
232
224
232
1,9
1,1
1,3
3,0
1,3
2,4
2,2
1,9
6,0
2,1
54
50
70
3
6
4
71
72
54
43,4
41,4
56,3
34,5
36,0
43,5
2
0
7
0
1
0
233
234
228
0,9
0,2
3,0
2,2
1,4
3,1
STANDARD DISCLOSURES PART III: Performance Indicators continued
Social: Labour Practices and Decent Work continued
Percentage and total number of significant investment agreements that include human rights clauses or that have undergone human rights screening.
Percentage of significant suppliers and contractors that have undergone screening on human rights and actions taken.
Total hours of employee training on policies and procedures concerning aspects of human rights that are relevant to operations, including the percentage of employees trained.
HR4
Total number of incidents of discrimination and actions taken.
HR5
Operations identified in which the right to exercise freedom of association and collective bargaining may be at significant risk, and actions taken to support
these rights.
HR6
Operations identified as having significant risk for incidents of child labour, and measures taken to contribute to the elimination of child labour.
HR7
Operations identified as having significant risk for incidents of forced or compulsory labour, and measures to contribute to the elimination of forced
or compulsory labour.
HR8
Percentage of security personnel trained in the organisation’s policies or procedures concerning aspects of human rights that are relevant to operations.
HR9
Total number of incidents of violations involving rights of indigenous people and actions taken.
Social: Society
SO1
Nature, scope, and effectiveness of any programmes and practices that assess and manage the impacts of operations on communities, including entering,
operating, and exiting.
SO2
Percentage and total number of business units analysed for risks related to corruption.
SO3
Percentage of employees trained in organisation’s anti-corruption policies and procedures.
SO4
Actions taken in response to incidents of corruption.
SO5
Public policy positions and participation in public policy development and lobbying.
SO6
Total value of financial and in-kind contributions to political parties, politicians, and related institutions by country.
SO7
Total number of legal actions for anti-competitive behaviour, anti-trust, and monopoly practices and their outcomes.
SO8
Monetary value of significant fines and total number of non-monetary sanctions for non-compliance with laws and regulations.
Social: Product Responsibility
PR1
PR2
PR3
PR4
PR5
PR6
PR7
PR8
PR9
Life cycle stages in which health and safety impacts of products and services are assessed for improvement, and percentage of significant products
and services categories subject to such procedures.
Total number of incidents of non-compliance with regulations and voluntary codes concerning health and safety impacts of products and services during
their life cycle, by type of outcomes.
Type of product and service information required by procedures, and percentage of significant products and services subject to such information requirements.
Total number of incidents of non-compliance with regulations and voluntary codes concerning product and service information and labelling, by type of outcomes.
Practices related to customer satisfaction, including results of surveys measuring customer satisfaction.
Programmes for adherence to laws, standards, and voluntary codes related to marketing communications, including advertising, promotion, and sponsorship.
Total number of incidents of non-compliance with regulations and voluntary codes concerning marketing communications, including advertising, promotion,
and sponsorship by type of outcomes.
Total number of substantiated complaints regarding breaches of customer privacy and losses of customer data.
Monetary value of significant fines for non-compliance with laws and regulations concerning the provision and use of products and services.
89
www.sake24.com
epos:sake@sake24.com
Johannesburg 011 713 9000
012 424 6000
Pretoria
021 406 2121
Kaapstad
Port Elizabeth 041 503 6111
051 4047600
Bloemfontein AMPS 2011 AB NAVORSING
Steeds die beste manier
om invloedryke beleggers te bereik
Navorsing deur AMPS 2011 AB
toon dat Afrikaanssprekendes
die Suid-Afrikaanse ekonomie
se sleutelspelers is en een van die
belangrikste plaaslike belegging­
segmente verteenwoordig. Hulle
is voorts toekomsgerig en verbind
tot die land se welvaart. Hierdie
faktore is belangrik in die debat
rondom die veranderende vereistes
vir finansiële verslagdoening.
Een van dié veranderinge is die
voorgestelde JSE-regulasie dat
maatskappye vanaf Januarie 2013
nie meer hul resultate in twee
tale in die gedrukte media hoef
aan te kondig nie.
Die navorsing het bevind dat
Afrikaanssprekende Suid-Afri­
kaners, waarvan 72% in die LSM
8-, 9- en 10-kategorie val, sewe
keer meer geneig is om in die
aandelemark te belê as die gemid­
delde Suid-Afrikaner. Trouens, een
uit elke vier beleggers op die JSE
is Afrikaanssprekend. Boonop
verkies 71% van beleggers om in
hul moedertaal te lees. Sake24 in
Beeld bereik die meeste Afrikaans­
sprekende beleggers.
In moeilike ekonomiese omstan­
dig­h ede is dit te verstane dat
maat­skappye hul nakomings­koste
wil verminder. Maar dit moet
nie doeltreffende kommunikasie
met bestaande aandeelhouers,
moont like beleggers en ander
belanghebbers in die wiele ry nie.
Gegewende verske ie plaasli ke
en internasionale gebeure, waarvan
die wêreld se belangrikste maat­
skap­pye betrokke is, is die nasio­
nale en internasionale tendens om
meer inligting beskikbaar te maak
– nie minder nie. Afrikaans­spre­
90
kendes het massiewe koop­krag van
meer as R300 miljard wat jaarliks
bestee word – ’n derde van SuidAfrika se verbrui­kers­besteding.
Hulle maak slegs 14% van die
bevolking uit, maar hulle verteen­
woordig 21% van die waarde.
Uiteindelik gaan effektiewe kom­
munikasie nie oor die nakoming
van minimumvereistes nie. Die
belang rikste is om die mense
wat jou besigheid laat floreer, te
bereik en sodoende die hoogste
opbrengs op jou belegg ing te
verseker.
* 25 snels groeiende ekonomieë
4Argentinië
4Brasilië
4Chili
4China en Hongkong
4Colombia
4Tsjeggiese Republiek
4Egipte
4Ghana
4Indië
4Kazakstan
4Korea
4Maleisië
4Mexiko
4Nigerië
4Pole
4Katar
4Rusland
4Saoedi-Arabië
4Suid-Afrika
4Thailand
4Turkye
4Oekraïne
4Verenigde Arabiese Emirate
4Viëtnam
Appendix V: Useful Contacts and Links
The cost of our launch event, and the printing of the 800 copies of
this report, is borne by our peers who purchase ad space, and we
thank each and every one of them for sharing the journey with us.
Assuredex
Bastion Graphics
X
X
X
BDO South Africa
X
Corporate Leap
Credit360
Earth.inc environment + sustainability
X
X
X
X
X
X
Adele Lotter
adele@bastion.bz
X
Ursula van Eck
uvaneck@bdo.co.za
X
Andrew Bromley
andrew@corporateleap.com
X
CDP
services
kopano@empowerdex.com
Michael H. Rea
X
X
X
Kopano Xaba
X
X
X
X
anneh@ahcomm.co.za
X
X
X
michael@csap.co.za
Anne Heath
Contact person
X
For information about the Global Reporting Initiative, including their
GRI G3 Guidelines, go to their website at www.globalreporting.org.
Email address
Training
X
Design/
layout
X
X
For information about AccountAbility, including their AA1000AS
Assurance Standard, or their AA1000SES Stakeholder Engagement
Standard, go to their website at www.accountability.org.
Gauteng
AH Communications
Advisory
Integrated Reporting & Assurance Services
Assurance
Organisation
Authorship
The following is a list of known sustainability reporting practitioners
operating in the SA market, including 24 companies that have
opted to support IRAS in our dogged attempt to help inform the
discussion around sustainability/integrated reporting and assurance.
Data
systems
Interestingly, this year’s ‘Other SRPs’ database consists of
59 service providers (up from 50 in 2011, and 25 in our 2010
report). Once again, we opted to provide additional service
providers, including data systems developers and Carbon
Disclosure Project (CDP) specialists.
For access to a searchable database of the SRP Network, to search
our database of reports, or to download additional resource
materials, go to our website at www.iras.co.za.
Iain McGhee
iain.mcghee@credit360.com
X
Thomas van Viegen
thomas@earthinc.co.za
X
X
Kimberly van Niekerk
kvanniekerk@enlenergy.com
X
Enlightened Energy
X
X
X
X
Environmental & Sustainability Solutions
X
X
X
X
Seakle Godschalk
envsustsol@mweb.co.za
X
Envisage Investor & Corporate Relations
X
X
X
Michèle Mackey
michele@envisagesa.co.za
X
X
Kevin James
kevinj@globalcarbonexchange.com
X
James Brice
jbrice@gt.co.za
X
Julia Leuner
jleuner@hklmgroup.com
X
Jon Hanks
jon@incite.co.za
Rosalie Pike
rosalie@itbmedia.co.za
X
Berdine Bosman
berdine@maxx.co.za
X
Reana Rossouw
rrossouw@nextgeneration.co.za
X
X
Markus Reichardt
m.reichardt@pe-international.com
X
X
Claire Jennings
claire.jennings@pkf.co.za
X
Patricia Utton
patricia@purplefrog.co.za
X
Charmane Russell
charmane@rair.co.za
X
Mark Becking
mark.becking@sdtoolkit.com
X
Glenn O’Hearne
glenn@studio5.co.za
X
Rob Worthington-Smith
rob@trialogue.co.za
X
Colin Finck
colinf@ultra-litho.co.za
X
Global Carbon Exchange
X
X
X
X
Grant Thornton
X
HKLM
X
X
Incite Sustainability
X
X
ITB Media
X
X
Maxx Corporate Communications
X
X
PE International
X
X
PKF Consulting
X
Purple Frog Communications
X
Russell & Associates
X
X
X
SD Toolkit
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Studio 5
X
X
Trialogue
X
X
X
X
X
Next Generation Consultants
Ultra Litho
X
X
X
X
91
KZN
The cost of producing this report is borne by IRAS, both in
terms of opportunity cost of six months of dedicated
resources working flat-out to analyse over 400 reports,
and in terms of the cash we spend on this publication.
Studio 5, our primary partner in this project, provided
their expertise in report design to help us get this report to
you: our valued clients, colleagues and peers.
Please note that this list represents the knowledge at-hand, as of
30 June 2012. Please contact Thembi (thembi@iras.co.za), if we
have overlooked any other ‘unknown’. Please forward their details
to so that they can be added to the database on our website.
Western
Cape
Anyone seeking guidance and/or support with authorship,
assurance, advisory, report design and/or layout, training, database
and/or CDP services is encouraged to use the ads in this report,
and the following table, to identify service providers who would be
best poised to tender for services.
NOTE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Camco Global
X
Carbon Calculated
X
Clova
Editing Ink
X
Santhuri Naicker
Santhuri.naicker@camcoglobal.com
X
X
X
EY – Climate Change & Sustainability
X
X
X
X
X
HG Strategic Communications
X
X
X
X
X
Ince.Motiv
X
X
X
alex@carboncalculated.co.za
roses@worldonline.co.za
Deirdre du Toit
ddutoit@iafrica.com
X
X
Nina le Riche
nleriche@deloitte.co.za
X
X
X
Simon Clarke
Simon.Clarke@erm.com
X
X
Jeremy Grist
jeremy.grist@za.ey.com
X
Lani Botha
lani.botha@fleishman.co.za
X
Ria Kraftt
Ria@greengrassdesign.co.za
X
Adriana de Roock
adriana@greymatterfinch.com
X
Heidi Geldenhuys
h.geldenhuys@iafrica.com
X
Keyter Rech Investor Solutions
X
X
X
X
Promethium Carbon
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Route 2 Sustainability
X
X
X
X
Solo Graphics
X
X
X
X
X
TWC
X
X
X
Independent SRPs:
X
X
X
X
X
X
Andy.le.may@icologie.com
LindaB@ince.co.za
X
Vanessa Rech
vrech@kris.co.za
X
Shireen Naidoo
shireen.naidoo@kpmg.co.za
X
Clive Lotter
clive.lotter@gmail.com
X
Harmke Immink
harmke@promethium.co.za
X
Alison Ramsden
alison.ramsden@za.pwc.com
X
Tim Barker
timb@route2sustainability.com
X
X
X
X
debbiesn@telkomsa.net
X
Antoinette Thamm
antoinette@twc.co.za
X
Helen Hulett
helen.hulett@wspgroup.co.za
X
X
Brian Keeling
keelingb@mweb.co.za
X
X
Dan Sonnenberg
dansonnenberg@gmail.com
X
Dr. Ven Pillay
venpill@iafrica.com
X
X
Jeremy Wakeford
Jeremy@ideas21.co.za
X
Karien Gerber
gerbek@unisa.ac.za
X
Rob Zipplies
robzipplies@gmail.com
92
KZN
X
dgibson@srk.co.za
X
X
X
Debbie Snoek
X
X
X
Don Gibson
X
X
X
Andy le May
X
X
X
Linda Buchler
X
X
X
Alex Hetherington
X
Greymatter & Finch
X
Mike Rose
X
Green Grass Designs
WSP Environment & Energy
X
X
X
SRK Consulting
CDP
services
X
X
PwC – Sustainability Solutions
Training
X
X
Page Break Communicators
X
X
trevor@chandlerconsulting.co.za
Environmental Resources Management (ERM)
KPMG – Sustainability Services
X
Thomas@agartis.co.za
Julian@aprio.co.za
X
Icologie
Grant.hatch@accenture.com
Thomas McLachlan
Trevor Chandler
X
X
Email address
Dr Grant Hatch
Julian Gwillim
X
X
Contact person
X
Deloitte
Fleishman Hillard
Design/
layout
X
Alternative Prosperity
Aprio Communications
X
Western
Cape
X
X
Gauteng
Agartis Consulting
X
Data
systems
Accenture
Advisory
Assurance
Organisation
Authorship
| Appendix V: Useful Contacts and Links continued
X
X
X
X
X
Moving Forward
Dear Reader,
For the fourth consecutive year, the better part of the past six months has been dedicated to compiling what I believe has become required reading for
anyone producing a sustainability report, or advising companies in that pursuit. The process has been neither cheap nor easy, but it has been an education
for all of us involved, and impossible to complete if not for the support offered by our team and project partners.
No fewer than 2 000 hours were invested into this project by Lauren, Julia, Matt, Tahereh, Thembi and myself. Additional countless hours were invested
by Mandy and her team at Studio 5, our dedicated design partners, Jason and his colleagues at Ultra Litho Printers, and Juanique and Anna at Global
Carbon Exchange (GCX).
It is our collective hope that this report will be a useful resource in your reporting journey, and that you will offer feedback if you have identified any
errors, omissions, or improvement opportunities for future lapses in judgement regarding how best to spend our “free time”. We also hope that this
report will attract project opportunities to our team: IRAS for advisory, authorship and/or assurance services; GCX for carbon footprint and/or CDP services;
Studio 5 for report design services; and Ultra Litho for printing and binding services. Ultimately, our ability to continue to provide this report as a free service
to our clients, colleagues and peers is dependent upon our own ability to attract customers, and we hope that potential clients will understand the value
of what each of us learns through our investment in this project.
It’s important to note that this project serves as training and development for all of us, but particularly the researchers (Lauren, Julia, Matt and Tahereh).
Although the pay sucks, the knowledge gained through the experience is invaluable and sets these researchers streaks ahead of almost anyone else
attempting to support companies in their reporting quest.
As we put final pen to paper on this report, it is my hope that the following will result from this project:
• Companies will know to contact us if they need authorship, assurance and/or advisory services.
• Future sustainability report authors, advisors and/or assurance providers will know to contact us for training and development, particularly our twice-annual
Certified Sustainability Assurance Provider (CSAP) courses.
• Recent university grads – preferably at the Master’s level from English-speaking countries outside South Africa – will know to contact us if they wish to
participate in next year’s research project.
• The folks at the GRI and AccountAbility will use this report to help raise awareness of the benefits of GRI-based reporting and assurance throughout their
global sphere of influence.
Ultimately, our goal is to be the #1 Sustainability Assurance Provider in South Africa, seeking not to be the least expensive assurance provider,
but the most cost effective, efficient and value-adding assurer to more companies than any of our peers. In doing so, we hope to be able to assist
a maximum number of companies improve their integrated sustainability reporting processes and outcomes, while continuing to support our charitable
efforts: particularly the Soweto Marimba Youth League (SMYLe) and the Orlando Children’s Home.
Ours is a company that is still relatively new (in our 4th year), small (a team of four full-timers and a network of associated professionals), and committed
to serving our clients with a value proposition based on our motto:
Them that can’t do, teach. Only them that can… and DO… should consult!
We produce our own sustainability report (albeit very late this time around); we contribute to socioeconomic development in under-privileged communities;
we offer guidance to others seeking to join the sustainability reporting and assurance space; we teach what we can, when we can; and, we offer pro bono
services to worthy clients. In short, we do our best to lead by example, and we hope that you will contact us if there’s any way that we can be of service.
We look forward to interacting with you again next year, if not sooner.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Rea
michael@iras.co.za / www.iras.co.za / www.smyle.co.za
Every enterprise has a story to tell. A story of how they create
and preserve value, and how they intend to keep doing so.
The story of value is the story of our times.
We help blue-chip companies, entrepreneurial businesses
and visionary individuals tell their stories to the people who keep
them in business. We are known for our critical thinking, creativity
and craftsmanship in producing work that is distinctive from
concept to completion.
Credible and compelling communication engages the minds
and opens the hearts of even the most sceptical stakeholders.
For the value of story is timeless.
+27 [ 0 ] 11 268 3900 | INFO@STUDIO5.CO.ZA | STUDIO5.CO.ZA
TELLING VALUE
KING III & GRI +13
The story of value,
the value of story.