Sustainability Services
Contents
Acknowledgments
KPMG, through its Sustainability Services Unit, coordinated this survey.
Sponsorship of the research costs was provided by Frater Asset Management. The analysis of separate environmental, HSE, social and sustainability reports was conducted by Corporate Footprint, a company that has been set up by Frater Asset Management to undertake research and provide information into Corporate Citizenship issues. Special thanks to: William Frater and Amanda Dinan
Executive Summary
1
Introduction
2
Methodology
3
Findings – Annual Financial Reports
4
Findings – Sustainability, Environmental and Social Reports
8
Sustainability Reporting Awards
11
Conclusions
12
Annexure A - Sustainability Disclosure Corporate Rankings
13
Annexure B: Sustainability Reporting Checklist - Annual Financial Reports
16
Annexure C: Survey Findings Summary Data Table – Annual Financial Reports
17
Annexure D: KPMG Sustainability Reporting Scorecard
22
Annexure E: KPMG Sustainability Services
24
Annexure F: Frater Asset Management
26
Annexure G: University of the Witwatersrand – SCIEM
27
FRATER ASSET MANAGEMENT
Investment Services
The analysis of sustainability disclosure in South African annual reports was conducted by the University of the Witwatersrand through the Sasol Centre for Innovative Environmental Management & Sasol Chair in Environmental Engineering. Special thanks to: Professor Prvoslav Marjanovic, James Brice, Leon Herbert, Vladimir Jovic, Marc Moonsammy, Yianni Pavlakis and Jonathan Sevitz.
University of the Witwatersrand
Fourth Edition – Based on 2000 Annual Financial Reports and Sustainability Reports
Executive Summary
The 2001 Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa is the forth in a series of annual surveys conducted by KPMG. The survey reflects KPMG’s continued commitment to support and promote the international trend towards greater transparency, corporate responsibility, stakeholder accountability and credible performance reporting.
These trends are being driven by emerging corporate governance codes, such as the Revised King Code in South Africa, legislative developments, such as the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000, and best practice standards, such as the United Nations’ Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines.
In line with international trends, this year’s survey has been extended to examine a broader range of non-financial ‘sustainability’ issues than previously analysed, covering: corporate governance, ethics, fraud prevention, employment equity, education and training, industrial relations, social and community, environment, safety, health and HIV/AIDS.
The survey is based on the analysis of the nature and extent of sustainability disclosure in annual financial reports and standalone public reports on sustainability or aspects of sustainability, such as environment, health, safety or social responsibility. The sample of annual financial reports that were assessed include the JSE All Share Index 100 companies, the Financial Mail Top 100 Industrials, the JSE top mines and public entities. The sample of corporate sustainability reports that were evaluated against the KPMG Sustainability Reporting Scorecard include 17 companies.
The findings of the survey suggest that disclosure on sustainability issues by South African companies continues to improve, although on average, only 57% of the top companies are reporting on these issues. In annual financial reports, the issues most reported on are corporate governance, codes of conduct / ethics, employment equity and education and training, while black economic empowerment, fraud prevention and HIV/AIDS are the least reported. However, social, environmental, safety and health matters tend to be reported in the most detail in annual reports.
The production of standalone public reports on sustainability issues has also increased in South Africa, but still lags substantially behind international levels. Whereas only around 10% of South Africa’s top 100 companies are issuing environmental and social reports, the comparable proportion for developed countries ranges between 25% and 75%. Those reports that are being produced vary in detail and quality, but show a clear trend towards transparent reporting on the so-called ‘triple bottom line’ of environmental, social and economic performance. An area of continued weakness, however, is the limited extent to which these sustainability issues are related to financial performance.
Congratulations are extended to all those top performing companies who receive KPMG Sustainability Reporting Awards in various categories, namely: ABSA Group Ltd, Anglo American Platinum Corporation Ltd, Anglo American plc, Billiton, Chemical Services Ltd, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd, Eskom, First Rand Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline SA (Pty) Ltd, Gold Fields of South Africa Ltd, Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd, Investec Group Ltd, Iscor Ltd, Liberty Group Ltd, Metropolitan Life Ltd, Mondi Kraft, Palabora Mining Company, Sasol, South African Breweries plc and Umgeni Water.
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001 1
Introduction
The 2001 Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa is the forth in a series of annual surveys conducted by KPMG. The survey reflects KPMG’s continued commitment to support and promote the international trend towards greater transparency, corporate responsibility, stakeholder accountability and credible performance reporting. The survey also underpins KPMG’s service offering in sustainability reporting training, benchmarking and assurance (verification).
The philosophy behind sustainability reporting is that companies are increasingly expected to broaden their accountability beyond simply ensuring financial performance for shareholders, to demonstrating ‘triple bottom line’ performance for stakeholders. The concept of the triple bottom line, or ‘sustainability’, refers to balancing and integrating corporate management and reporting across economic (including financial), social (including all stakeholders) and environmental (including health and safety) dimensions.
Most of the drivers and trends that were applicable a year ago have continued to exert pressure on companies to report on sustainability. These include the increasing support of international sustainability standards, such as ISO 14001 (International Organisation for Standardisation), Accountability 1000 (Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability), the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (Global Reporting Initiative) and the Global Compact (United Nations). In addition, the Bonn agreement on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change points to the increasing importance of greenhouse gas reporting.
The interest in sustainability issues by the financial market has continued to rise, with the launch of the FTSE 4 Good Index in the UK, to supplement others such the Business in Environment Index and the Dow Jones Group Sustainability Index. Reflecting this trend, in the past year a task group coordinated by the Industrial Environmental Forum and including KPMG began working on developing a sustainability index for rating and ranking South African companies on their non-financial performance.
Following on the launch of the EU White Paper on Environmental Liabilities in 2000, there have been two particularly significant policy developments in the European Union in 2001 with implications for sustainability reporting. These include a Green Paper on Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility and a Commission Recommendation on the Recognition, Measurement and Disclosure of Environmental Issues in the Annual Accounts and Annual Reports of Companies.
Closer to home, perhaps the most significant development for South African companies has been the launch of the draft for public comment of the Institute of Director’s revised King Report on Corporate Governance (‘King 2’), which applies to all JSE listed companies, financial service companies and large public entities. Compared with the original 1994 King Report, King 2 has significantly increased the emphasis on directors’ sustainability obligations, with an entire chapter devoted to ‘non-financial matters’, including social accounting, stakeholder engagement, ethics, environment, health, safety, societal transformation and black economic empowerment. In particular, King 2 places special emphasis on the importance of transparent, credible non-financial reporting.
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001
Methodology
Annual Financial Reports
An analysis was made of companies’ annual financial reports with their year-end within the 2000 calendar year, to determine the extent and type of sustainability information that these reports contain. The analysis differed from previous years, in that the reports were evaluated against a wider range of sustainability issues, including: corporate governance, ethics, fraud prevention, employment equity, education and training, industrial relations, social and community, environment, safety, health and HIV/AIDS.
The survey sample of 184 companies was selected and categorised in the following manner, according to total asset value: the Financial Mail Top 100 industrial companies (95), the JSE-listed mining companies (38), the JSE-listed services companies (28, comprised of the non-mining and non-industrial companies in the All Share 100 Index) and public entities (23). The sector profile of the sample is shown graphically in Figure 1 on page 6. The results were also computed for the ALSI 100 companies.
The companies’ annual financial reports were rated using a simple scoring mechanism applied to KPMG’s sustainability disclosure questionnaire, which is summarised in Annexure B. Based on their total scores, the companies were ranked within each category, the results of which are shown in Annexure A. The scores are the basis for the Sustainability Reporting Awards discussed on page 11 of this survey report.
The analysis of the annual financial reports was carried out by the University of Witwatersrand, through the Sasol Centre for Innovative Environmental Management & Sasol Chair in Environmental Engineering. The evaluation and interpretation of the findings was done by KPMG, through their Sustainability Services Unit.
Sustainability, Environmental and Social Reports
Seventeen standalone reports on sustainability issues for 2000 were assessed, including one Sustainability report, twelve Environmental, or Health, Safety and Environmental reports and four Social reports. All of these companies, which are listed and ranked in Annexure A, are to be commended on their commitment and leadership in this field.
Corporate Footprint – an independent research company that has been set up by Frater Asset Management to undertake research into Corporate Citizenship issues – undertook the rating of the reports using the KPMG Sustainability Reporting Scorecard, details of which are contained in Annexure D.
The Scorecard assesses disclosure across eight management dimensions, namely: financial management, eco-efficiency, sustainability management, operational performance, competence management, innovations, stakeholder management and product performance. According to the methodology, reports are also evaluated according to report structure and presentation of information including CEO statements, readability and clarity of feedback mechanisms.
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001 3
The scorecard contains a maximum of 127 questions – and these vary according to applicability against the type of report assessed (e.g. social report versus environmental report). It should be noted that, in addition to all reports being evaluated against a standard set of questions, the element of subjectivity was minimised and consistency ensured through the use of only one evaluator.
The reports have been assessed within four categories: (1) Sustainability reports, (2) International Environmental or Health, Safety and Environmental reports, (3) South African Environmental or Health, Safety and Environmental reports, and (4) Social reports. The distinction between the international and South African categories is based on the coverage of the report (ie, whether the content includes international operations and impacts), not whether the company or its parent is listed overseas.
Findings – Annual Financial Reports
Summary of findings
Detailed tables of the summary findings are contained in Annexure C. This section descriptively summarises and highlights the most significant findings, while the relative disclosure patterns of the on various sustainability issues are further illustrated in graphs contained on pages 6 & 7 of this report (Figures 2 - 14).
Although the 2001 survey is not directly comparable with the 2000 survey (due to changes in the sample and questionnaire coverage), on those categories where rough comparisons can be made, the evidence suggests that levels of disclosure on sustainability issues continue to improve.
- 92% of the companies in the sample mentioned corporate governance and 82%
- mentioned codes of conduct / ethics. This is perhaps attributable to the influence of the
- King Report on Corporate Governance and other similar international codes. The
- prominence of reporting on employment equity (77%) is not surprising given the
- government policy pressure that has been applied on this issue, although black economic
- empowerment does not appear to have enjoyed the same level of attention (46%).
Most reporting still tends to focus on companies’ internal issues, as can be seen from the disclosures on education and training (76%) and social and community issues (64%). Levels of reporting on industrial relations (61%), environmental issues (58%), and economic issues (51% of companies included a Value Added Statement) are more or less on a par with each other, which is an encouraging sign of balance between these three aspects of the ‘triple bottom line’. Issues of health (52%) and safety (47%) are not far behind, although information on HIV/AIDS remains shockingly low (32%).
Given that the World Summit on Sustainable Development is being held in Johannesburg in September 2002, it is cause for concern that sustainable development is not yet being reflected as a widely recognised concern among South Africa’s largest companies (27%). Likewise, given the increasing levels of white-collar crime that business is experiencing in South Africa, disclosure on fraud strategy and fraud prevention is also worryingly low (33%).
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001
The survey suggests that reporting on sustainability issues remains, for most companies, at a fairly superficial level (Figure 15 on page 7). This is evident in the fact that, on average across all sustainability issues, less than a quarter of the sample disclosed information on programs and policies, management systems, standards, quantitative data and audits. The extent to which sustainability issues are enjoying strategic priority is also questionable, given that on average less than 15% of the companies referred to sustainability issues in their corporate mission statement, and less than 20% mention these issues in the Chairman’s Statement and CEO’s Review sections of the annual financial report.
Sector based findings
Disclosure on sustainability issues by the All Share Index (ALSI) 100 companies is summarised in Figure 16 on page 7. Disclosure levels broadly echo those of the larger sample of 184 companies, with the same relative ranking of sustainability issues.
The Top 100 Industrials performed on a par with the average disclosure levels on sustainability issues for the total sample. However, the Industrials tend to report more than the average on internal issues (such governance, ethics, employment equity, education and training, industrial relations) and less on external issues (such as social, community, environment, health, safety, AIDS and sustainable development).
The converse is true for the Mining sector, which have significantly higher levels of disclosure relating to external stakeholders, especially on environment, health and safety issues. In general, the Service sector companies in the ALSI 100 display less detailed sustainability reporting performance than their mining and industrial counterparts.
Public sector companies show significantly better levels of reporting on all sustainability issues compared to the sample average, with the exception of disclosures on corporate governance, code of conduct / ethics and fraud strategy / prevention.
Issue based findings
Corporate governance is the most mentioned issue by South Africa’s top companies (92%), with three quarters specifically mentioning the King Report (80%) and corporate governance audits (75%). Although most companies also mention a Code of Conduct / Ethics (82%), it tends to be without supplying any evidence of how these principles are being implemented. This indication of lack of embeddedness is confirmed by the low priority accorded to fraud prevention (33%).
Only a third of South Africa’s top companies report that they have an employment equity policy (34%), while education and training tops the list for disclosure of quantitative data (30%) and programs (49%), which is an indicator of investment in human capital. Industrial relations and labour issues tend to be simply mentioned (61%) rather than discussed in detail.
Social and environmental issues are the sustainability issues most often included in the companies’ mission statement (25% and 22%), as well as being related to financial expenditure (32% and 23%). Non-financial quantitative data is more often reported for social/ community issues (27%) than environment (15%), health (15%) or safety (17%) impacts. Environmental audits (24%) are more commonly disclosed than health (13%),
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: DISCLOSURE
Figure 2: Corporate governance disclosure (any mention) by sector
Figure 1: Sample Sector Profile (Total 184 companies)
100
Service 14%
%
90
Average (92%)
80
70
Public Entities 17%
Industrial 49%
60
50
40
30
20
10
Mining 20%
97%
96%
93%
92%
al tri
0 10 e vic g nin
0 us
Ind
100
%
90
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
Average (77%)
10
85%
0
84% ial str u Ind
00 ce rvi
I 1
S AL
82%
Se
76%
74% ng ini M
0 es n c E
Average (76%)
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
96%
82%
81%
71%
53% s itie al tri 0 10 e vic g nin
0 c bli t
En
Pu us
Ind
SI
AL r
Se
90
10
c bli rv
Se ng ini M
69%
68%
65%
0 10 e vic al tri t
En
SI
AL r
Se us
Ind
42% ng ini M
Figure 8: Environmental disclosure (any mention) by sector
100
90
%
80
70
Average (61%)
60
70
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
65%
62%
61%
60%
55% es titi ia str l ce rvi
0 10 ng ini M
0
En u
Ind
Se
SI
AL
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001
Average (58%)
60
50
10
1
s itie
Pu
80
Pu
SI
AL
91%
0
i M
% c bli tr us
Ind
55%
Average (64%)
Figure 7: Social disclosure (any mention) by sector
100 ice
80
70
10
79%
00
%
90
80
79% ial
Figure 6: Industrial relations disclosure (any mention) by sector
100
%
90
81% ies bli
Pu
Figure 5: Education disclosure (any mention) by sector
100
91% tit titi n c E bli
Pu es titi
En
Pu
80
70
10
c bli
%
90
Average (82%)
80
i M r
Se
Figure 4: Employment equity disclosure (any mention) by sector
Figure 3: Ethics disclosure (any mention) by sector
100
SI
AL
74%
10
87%
74%
55%
48%
g nin es titi
0 10 al tri
0
i M
Pu
c bli
En
SI
AL us
Ind
36% ce rvi
Se
IN ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS
Figure 9: Health disclosure (any mention) by sector
100
Figure 10: Safety disclosure (any mention) by sector
%
90
100
%
90
80
80
70
70
60
Average (53%)
50
60
Average (47%)
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
66%
52%
43%
43%
10 s itie g nin 0 10 al tri e vic
0
0
78% i M nt c E li ub
SI
AL us
Ind er
S
c bli
P
78%
71%
40%
40%
s itie g nin
0 10 al tri
100
% 90
80
70
60
60
50
Average (46%)
40
50
40
30
Average (33%)
30
20
20
10
70%
0
57% es lic b Pu ce ti nti vi er
E
S
51%
43%
00 ial 1 SI
AL tr us
Ind
29%
10 ng
0 ini M
%
32%
30%
0 10 ia str l es titi
SI
AL u
Ind
c bli
29% ng
En
M ini
Pu
%
90
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
Average (32%)
30
40
Average (27%)
30
20
20
10
43%
43%
37%
32%
25%
10 s itie ice 0 10 ing al tri
0
0 nt c E li ub
Se rv
AL
SI in M us
Ind
P
43%
34%
32%
32% ies
00 ice ing t nti
E lic b
Pu
Figure 15: Superficial disclosure in a separate section of the report
%
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
55 36 36 28 22 18 18 15 14 13 12 11 7 l t t t ics ons uity tion en fety alth aud cia en en IDS nce Eth elati t eq uca onm Sa He Fr So lopm erm A rna r en Ed vir e ve l ow v a go En de mp tri ym le E us plo ate ab or Ind Em n p i r Co sta Su
0
36%
ce rvi
Figure 14: Sustainable development disclosure (any mention) by sector
100
80
46%
Se
Figure 13: HIV/AIDS disclosure (any mention) by sector
90 ce rvi
Se
%
90
70
100 us
Ind
Figure 12: Fraud disclosure (any mention) by sector
100
80
90
AL
Pu
Figure 11: Empowerment disclosure (any mention) by sector
100
SI
i M t
En
11%
1
SI
AL rv
Se
in M
20% al tri us
Ind
Figure 16: Disclosure patterns (any mention) on sustainability issues – Average vs ALSI 100
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
% 96
84
81
Average – all companies Average – ALSI 100
79
69
60
55
52
51
37
40
36
34
20
10
0
- 92 82 77 76 64 61 58 52 47 46 33 32 27
- l t
- ics uity tion ons cia en aud alth fety aud IDS ility
- Eth t eq uca elati So onm Fr He Sa Fr A inab
- n Ed l r
- ir
- e
- v
- sta
- a
- En
- ym
- tri
- Su
- us
- plo
- Ind
- Em
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001 7
safety (15%) or social (2%) audits. Reflecting this relative ranking, the ISO 14001 standard (environment, 14%) is mentioned more than NOSA (7%) or OHSAS 18001 (health & safety, 5%), while AA 1000 and SA 8000 (social, 0%) are unrecognised in South Africa.
HIV/AIDS disclosure remains disappointingly low, with just over a third of the ALSI 100 companies mentioning the issue, and less than 15% of the total sample of 184 top companies reporting on programs (13%), data (9%), policies (7%) or expenditure (5%) for HIV/AIDS. Surprisingly, reporting on HIV/AIDS is better among public entities (43%) and service companies (43%) than the mines (32%) or industrials (25%).
Findings – Sustainability, Environmental and Social Reports
Findings - Overall
The KPMG Sustainability Reporting Scorecard assesses disclosure across eight management dimensions as follows:
Financial management (e.g. disclosure on financial expenditure on operational and sustainability aspects, quantification of environmental liabilities and contingencies);
■
Eco-efficiency (e.g. use of eco-efficiency indicators and quantification of past and present resource use in the context of programmes, goals and targets for reductions);
■
Sustainability management (e.g. disclosure on application and integration of sustainability policies, environmental management systems, risk assessment and audits throughout the business operations);
■
Operational performance (e.g. evaluation of effects and impacts and effectiveness of programmes to address these);
■
Competence management (e.g. disclosure on training and awareness programmes, roles, responsibilities and recognition for performance);
■
Innovations (e.g. disclosure on environmental features of products, environmental technologies and information sharing);
■
Stakeholder management (e.g. disclosure on shareholder and stakeholder engagement, relationship to contractors, employees, customers, society and the environment); and
■ Product performance (e.g. disclosure of life cycle assessments and product stewardship). The Scorecard also assesses the following aspects of the report: CEO Statement; Overview of the reporting entity; Reporting principles; Report design, layout and appearance; Report communication and feedback mechanisms, and Verification.
Average Performance for Environmental, Sustainability and Social Reports Surveyed
Verification
■
Financial Management 50%
40%
Report Communication & Feedback Mechanisms
30%
20%
Sport Design, Layout & Appearance
10%
The average performance of the reports on sustainability issues in each of the areas of the KPMG Sustainability Reporting Scorecard is summarised in the graph to Sustainability Management the left.
Eco-efficiency
Operational Performance
0%
Competence Management
Reporting Principles
Innovations
Overview of the Reporting Entity
Stakeholder Management
CEO Statement
Product Performance
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001
Findings – Sustainability Reports
South African Breweries’ Corporate Citizenship Review was the only report found to have sufficient information on social, environmental and economic aspects to be judged in a category of its own as a Sustainability Report. However, it was also the report that achieved the highest overall Scorecard rating. The report presents a clear, well-balanced and highly readable summary of the company’s sustainability issues, impacts and responses. The value of this comprehensive approach is perhaps also reflected in the fact that SAB was included in the UK’s FTSE 4 Good Index, while the other London-listed companies covered in this survey, which still focus more on health, safety and environment, were not.
Findings – Environmental, or Health, Safety and Environmental Reports
Consistent with the 1999 reports, the strongest aspects of reporting are the report design, the layout and feedback mechanism, and sustainability management. On the economic dimension of the triple bottom line, investment in sustainable job creation was generally well reported on. Most companies also disclosed information on ISO14001 compliance or a management system designed along these lines. In addition there is a high level of reporting on health and safety incidents, auditing and ratings according to NOSA.
With the ever-increasing business risk of HIV/AIDS in South Africa, it is encouraging to see that by far the majority of companies surveyed report having programmes in place. Programmes range from voluntary testing, counselling and treatment of staff to implementation of awareness and health programmes within the wider community.
One of the weakest areas of reporting remains the lack of linkage of environmental and health and safety management with financial costs and benefits. In some instances, companies report on a single investment to improve environmental performance and associated savings attributed to increased efficiency, but figures are not integrated into financial reporting. Mining companies are required by legislation to provide funds for rehabilitation of disturbed land, and these companies report on this aspect of environmental liability. However, companies are generally not showing cognisance of the financial costs associated with environmental degradation.
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001 9
Linked to the lack of full-cost accounting is a deficiency in reporting on the environmental consequences of the company activities. While it is recognized that the annual environmental reports’ role is not that of an environmental impact assessment, information on risks and impacts is not being effectively communicated in annual environmental reports. Mainly, this is due to the lack of interpretation given to reported resource consumption and emission levels. In other words, the figures are disclosed, but the implications for human health, community wellbeing, biodiversity conservation, resource integrity and the like, are not being explained. Reported energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions are a typical example of this, where very few companies made the link between energy consumption and CO 2 emissions (related to South Africa’s coal-based power industry), and related global climate change.
The quality of the four reports scored in the international category is commendable and the difference between the highest and lowest performer is marginal. In the South African category, Eskom’s report sets the benchmark. It is however noted that Eskom’s business operations extend beyond South Africa to include twelve of our neighbouring southern African states, yet reporting in 2000 was restricted to South African operations. Hence, Eskom is likely to be judged in the international category in future years.
Findings – Social Reports
Three separate social reports were evaluated as well as the social aspects of the Palabora Mining Company Ltd Environmental and Social Report. The reports generally had a very limited coverage – focusing on external sponsorships and programmes – confirmed by the low average performance against the Scorecard of around 10%. The key area for improvement is to adopt a wider stakeholder approach and to measure and report on the relationships and performance against each stakeholder group. For example, it is important not only to focus on corporate social investment, but also employee training, customer satisfaction, supplier / contractor issues, labour participation and community development.
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001
Sustainability Reporting Awards
Based on the analysis of annual financial reports by the Sasol Centre for Innovative Environmental Management & Sasol Chair in Environmental Engineering (of the University of the Witwatersrand) against the KPMG sustainability disclosure checklist, congratulations are extended to the following top performers:
■
For the Best Sustainability Disclosure in an Annual Report (ALSI 100 Category): - Gold Award – Anglo American Platinum Corporation Ltd - Silver Award (tied) – Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd and Sasol - Bronze Award – Gold Fields of South Africa Ltd
■
For the Best Sustainability Disclosure in an Annual Report (Industrial Category): - Gold Award – Sasol - Silver Award – Iscor Ltd - Bronze Award – Chemical Services Ltd
■
For the Best Sustainability Disclosure in an Annual Report (Mining Category): - Gold Award – Anglo American Platinum Corporation Ltd - Silver Award – De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd - Bronze Award – Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd
■
For the Best Sustainability Disclosure in an Annual Report (Public Entities Category): - Gold Award – Eskom - Silver Award – Council for Scientific and Industrial Research - Bronze Award – Umgeni Water
■
For the Best Sustainability Disclosure in an Annual Report (Services Category): - Gold Award – ABSA Group Ltd - Silver Award – Metropolitan Life Ltd - Bronze Award (tied) – First Rand Ltd and Investec Group Ltd Based on the analysis of separate sustainability reports, scored by Corporate Footprint against the KPMG Sustainability Reporting Scorecard, we also congratulate the following top performers:
■
For the Best Corporate Sustainability Report - South African Breweries plc (Corporate Citizenship Review report)
■
For the Best Corporate Environmental / HSE Report (International Category): - Gold Award – Billiton (HSE report) - Silver Award (tied) – Anglo American plc and Sasol (HSE reports)
■
For the Best Corporate Environmental / HSE Report (South African Category): - Gold Award – Eskom (Environmental report) - Silver Award – Umgeni Water (Environmental report) - Bronze Award (tied) – Mondi Kraft (Environmental report) and GlaxoSmithKline SA (Pty) Ltd (Environmental report)
■
For the Best Corporate Social Report - Palabora Mining Company Ltd (Social component of Environmental and Social report) - Liberty Group Ltd (Corporate Governance Review report) - Anglo American plc (Corporate Social Investment in South Africa report)
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001 11
Conclusion
Companies operating in South Africa face the dual pressure of an increasingly globalised world with emerging standards on sustainability and growing stakeholder awareness, activism and expectations of the sustainability performance of companies. In this ‘brave new world’, business is being held more accountable for its non-financial performance.
With the emphasis on transparency supported by legislation and the corporate governance trend, sustainability reporting has become one of the critical success factors for modern companies. This survey has shown that, while disclosure on sustainability issues continues to increase, there is still significant room for improvement.
Among the main conclusions arising from this survey are that sustainability disclosure in annual reports still tends to be superficial, while those that produce separate reports still need to find the balance of reporting on economic, social and environmental performance.
We are also conscious of the fact that good sustainability reporting is only one element of good sustainability performance. It is our experience, however, that putting in place the robust internal systems necessary for producing an externally verified sustainability report, can serve as a significant positive catalyst for overall improved management of non-financial issues.
It is hoped that this KPMG Sustainability Reporting Survey and the associated Awards will continue to serve as a benchmark against best practice and a tribute to the top performing companies in the sustainability reporting field in South Africa. In this spirit, it is likely that next year’s survey will also link with KPMG’s International Sustainability Reporting Survey.
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001
Annexure A
Sustainability Disclosure Corporate Rankings (based on 2000 reports)
Below, the Top 25 performing companies per sector catagory analysed in the survey are ranked, based on the analysis of annual financial reports by the Sasol Centre for Innovative Environmental Management & Sasol Chair in Environmental Engineering (of the University of the Witwatersrand) against the KPMG sustainability disclosure checklist. Last year’s top 25 rankings are included in brackets, or NR if they were not ranked previously. However, it should be noted that this edition’s scoring checklist has been slightly expanded to include broader sustainability criteria. Furthermore, less emphasis has been placed on detail within each criterion. Rankings for separate sustainablility reports are also included.
Ranking: Top Industrial Companies – Annual Financial Reports
1 Sasol (3) 2 Iscor Ltd (1) 3 Chemical Services Ltd (12) 4 Dunlop Africa Holdings (Pty) Ltd (25) 5 The Tongaat Hulett Group Ltd (11) 5 Kersaf Investments Ltd (23) 6 Highveld and Vanadium Corporation Ltd (8) 7 Group 5 Holdings Ltd (20) 8 Primedia Ltd (NR)* 8 Seardel Investment Corporation Ltd (NR)* 9 AECI Ltd (7)* 9 Reunert Ltd (NR)* 10 Sappi Ltd (5) 11 Grintek Ltd (NR) 12 Murray & Roberts Holdings Ltd (NR) 13 Distell Group Ltd (17)* 13 Illovo Sugar Ltd (6)* 13 Edgars Consolidated Stores Ltd (NR)* 13 Oceana Group Ltd (NR)* 14 M-Cell Ltd (NR) 15 JD Group Ltd (21) 16 Aveng Ltd (NR)* 16 Metro Cash & Carry Ltd (NR)* 17 The Bidvest Group Ltd (NR) 18 Tiger Brands Ltd (NR)
Ranking: Top Mining Companies – Annual Financial Reports
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Anglo American Platinum Corporation Ltd (1) De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd (15) Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd (4) Gold Fields of South Africa Ltd (9) AngloGold Ltd (8) Harmony Gold Mining Company Ltd (13) Anglovaal Mining Ltd (7)
* Tied scores
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001 13
- 8 Lonmin plc (11)
- 9 Anglo American plc (6)
- 10 Durban Roodepoort Deep Ltd (3)
- 11 Wankie Colliery Company Ltd (NR)
- 12 Trans Hex Group Ltd (19)*
- 12 Palabora Mining Company Ltd (2)*
- 13 Northam Platinum Ltd (18)*
- 13 Zambia Copper Investments (NR)*
- 14 Kelgran Ltd (16)
- 15 Avgold Ltd (17)
- 16 Billiton (5)*
- 16 Randgold & Exploration Company Ltd (NR)*
- 17 Century Carbon Mining Ltd (NR)*
- 17 Msauli Asbestos Bpk (NR)*
- 18 Assore Limited Ltd (NR)
- 19 Scharrig Mining (Pty) Ltd (NR)
- 20 Assmang Ltd (12)
- 21 Kroondal Platinum Mines Ltd (21)
Ranking: Top Services Companies – Annual Financial Reports
- 1 ABSA Group Ltd
- 2 Metropolitan Life Ltd
- 3 First Rand Ltd
- 3 Investec Group Ltd
- 4 Nedcor Bank Ltd
- 5 Standard Bank Investment Corporation Ltd*
- 5 BOE Ltd*
- 6 Old Mutual plc
- 7 Alexander Forbes Ltd*
- 7 Sanlam Ltd*
- 8 Liberty Group Ltd
- 9 Sage Group Ltd
- 10 African Life Assurance Company Ltd
- 11 Capital Alliance Holdings Ltd
- 12 Coronations Holdings Ltd*
- 12 Discovery Holdings Ltd*
- 12 Santam Ltd*
- 13 Nedcor Investment Bank Holdings
- 14 Saambou Holdings Ltd
- 15 Mutual & Federal Insurance Company Ltd
- 16 Real Africa Holdings Ltd
- 17 Namibian Breweries
- 18 African Bank Investment Ltd
- 19 RMB Holdings Ltd
- 20 Liberty International plc
* Tied scores
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001
Ranking: Top Public Entities – Annual Financial Reports
1 Eskom 2 Council for Scientific and Industrial Research 3 Umgeni Water 4 Rand Water 5 South African Broadcasting Corporation 6 Development Bank of South Africa 7 Denel* 7 South African Bureau of Standards* 8 Water Research Commission 9 Armscor 10 Transnet Ltd 11 Airports Company of South Africa 12 Atomic Energy Corporation of South Africa 13 Independent Development Trust 14 South African Reserve Bank 15 South African Tourism 16 Telkom SA Ltd 17 South African Medical Research Council 18 National Productivity Institute 19 National Research Foundation* 19 Mintek* 19 Human Sciences Research Council* 20 Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company Ltd
Ranking: Sustainability Reports
1 South African Breweries plc
Ranking: Environmental or Health, Safety and Environmental Reports – International
1 Billiton 2 Anglo American plc and Sasol
Ranking: Environmental or Health, Safety and Environmental Reports – South African
1 Eskom 2 Umgeni Water 3 GlaxoSmithKline SA (Pty) Ltd* 3 Mondi Kraft* 4 BMW SA (Pty) Ltd 5 Huntsman-Tioxide SA (Pty) Ltd 6 Palabora Mining Company Limited 7 The South African Forestry Company Ltd 8 Lonmin plc 9 Mondi Paper Company
Ranking: Social Reports
1 Palabora Mining Company Ltd 2 Liberty Group Ltd 3 Anglo American plc 4 Gensec Bank Ltd
* Tied scores
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001 15
Annexure B
Sustainability Reporting Checklist - Annual Financial Reports
The following sustainability issues were included in the survey:
■ corporate governance;
■ ethics;
■ fraud;
■ environment;
■ health;
■
AIDS;
■ safety;
■ social;
■ employment equity;
■ education;
■ industrial relations;
■ sustainability; and
■ empowerment.
Disclosure of each of the above-listed sustainability issues was assesed using the following questions:
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001
■
Is any mention made in the report?
■
Are any disclosed in the corporate vision / mission statement?
■
Is mention made of a specific policy?
■
Is there disclosure in the chairman’s review section?
■
Is there disclosure in the CEO’s review section?
■
Is there disclosure in the business / site review section?
■
Is there disclosure in the financial statements section?
■
Is there disclosure in the corporate review or separate section?
■
How detailed is the disclosure contained in the corporate review or separate section?
■
Is quantitative financial data disclosed?
■
Is quantitative non-financial data disclosed?
■
Is there any mention of programmes or management systems?
■
Is there any mention of audits or assessments?
■
Is any mention made of specific codes / guidelines / standards?
■
Is there mention of a separate publicly available report?
Annexure C
Survey Findings Summary Data Table
Top
Top
Public
Service
Industrials
Mines
Entities
Companies
Average
ALSI 100
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Corporate governance
97%
92%
74%
93%
92%
96%
Ethics / Code of Conduct
85%
76%
74%
82%
82%
84%
Employment equity / affirmative action / diversity
81%
55%
91%
79%
77%
79%
Education / training
82%
53%
96%
71%
76%
81%
- Does the annual report disclose anything regarding:
Industrial relations / labour relations / worker participation
65%
42%
91%
68%
64%
69%
Social / community
62%
55%
65%
61%
61%
60%
Environment / rehabilitation
48%
87%
74%
36%
58%
55%
Health
43%
66%
78%
43%
52%
52%
Safety
40%
71%
78%
11%
47%
40%
Empowerment
43%
29%
70%
57%
46%
51%
Fraud strategy / fraud prevention
32%
29%
30%
46%
33%
36%
HIV/AIDS
25%
32%
43%
43%
32%
37%
Sustainability / sustainable development
20%
32%
43%
32%
27%
34%
Average
56%
55%
70%
55%
57%
59%
24%
- Does the report mention disclose a policy / mission statement which mentions anything regarding:
Social / community
27%
44%
15%
11%
25%
Environment / rehabilitation
15%
67%
31%
0%
22%
16%
Education / training
20%
22%
8%
0%
15%
19%
Sustainability / sustainable development
12%
22%
23%
0%
14%
14%
Ethics / Code of Conduct
20%
0%
0%
11%
13%
14%
Health
5%
67%
8%
0%
13%
8%
Safety
5%
67%
0%
0%
11%
8%
Empowerment
7%
0%
15%
0%
7%
3%
Employment equity / affirmative action / diversity
10%
0%
0%
0%
6%
5%
Corporate governance
2%
0%
0%
0%
1%
3%
Average
12%
29%
10%
2%
13%
11%
- Is mention made of a specific policy for:
Employment equity / affirmative action / diversity
34%
29%
39%
36%
34%
40%
Environment / rehabilitation
19%
58%
30%
11%
27%
28%
Corporate governance
16%
24%
4%
29%
18%
25%
Health
11%
32%
17%
4%
15%
15%
Ethics / Code of Conduct
15%
11%
4%
18%
13%
18%
Safety
9%
42%
0%
0%
14%
13%
Social / community
7%
18%
0%
14%
10%
15%
HIV/AIDS
4%
13%
4%
11%
7%
8%
Empowerment
5%
8%
9%
11%
7%
10%
Sustainability / sustainable development
0%
3%
0%
4%
1%
2%
Average
12%
24%
11%
14%
15%
18%
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001 17
Top
Top
Public
Service
Industrials
Mines
Entities
Companies
Average
ALSI 100
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Social / community
26%
24%
61%
36%
32%
31%
Environment / rehabilitation
7%
71%
22%
11%
23%
22%
Education / training
14%
16%
57%
29%
22%
19%
Health
7%
21%
26%
14%
14%
14%
HIV/AIDS
0%
13%
9%
7%
5%
6%
Safety
0%
11%
9%
0%
3%
2%
Sustainability / sustainable development
0%
0%
4%
0%
1%
0%
Average
8%
22%
27%
14%
14%
13%
- Is quantitative (financial) data disclosed for:
- Is quantitative (non-financial) data disclosed for:
Education / training
23%
21%
83%
21%
30%
27%
Socia l / community
20%
18%
57%
39%
27%
31%
Employment equity / affirmative action / diversity
17%
18%
57%
21%
23%
23%
Safety
7%
50%
22%
0%
17%
16%
Environment / rehabilitation
8%
26%
39%
4%
15%
15%
Health
8%
26%
30%
11%
15%
18%
HIV/AIDS
3%
18%
9%
14%
9%
12%
Industrial relations / labour relations / worker participation
5%
13%
13%
7%
8%
6%
Average
12%
24%
39%
15%
18%
19%
Education / Training
46%
37%
83%
46%
49%
41%
Employment equity / affirmative action / diversity
42%
29%
52%
50%
42%
45%
Social / community
37%
24%
57%
46%
38%
44%
Environment / rehabilitation
17%
58%
52%
7%
28%
23%
Health
9%
26%
39%
11%
17%
16%
Safety
9%
29%
30%
0%
15%
15%
Empowerment
11%
16%
22%
14%
14%
14%
HIV/AIDS
8%
18%
22%
14%
13%
16%
- Is mention made of programmes or management systems on:
Ethics / Code of Conduct
4%
8%
0%
14%
6%
9%
Average
20%
27%
40%
23%
25%
25%
Corporate governance
81%
76%
57%
79%
77%
Environment / rehabilitation
18%
50%
39%
0%
24%
21%
Safety
8%
34%
26%
0%
15%
13%
Health
8%
29%
22%
0%
13%
11%
Ethics / Code of Conduct
7%
0%
0%
7%
5%
9%
Education / training
3%
3%
9%
0%
3%
1%
Social / community
2%
0%
9%
0%
2%
0%
- Does the annual report mention any of the following audits?
84%
HIV/AIDS
1%
3%
4%
0%
2%
2%
Average
16%
24%
21%
11%
18%
18%
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001
Top
Top
Public
Service
Industrials
Mines
Entities
Companies
Average
ALSI 100
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
- Do the companies disclose any information regarding any of the following standards?
King Report (corporate governance)
82%
79%
61%
89%
80%
80%
ISO 14 001 (environment)
12%
21%
30%
0%
14%
14%
NOSA (safety)
5%
8%
22%
0%
7%
6%
OHSAS 18 001 (health and safety)
7%
0%
13%
0%
5%
3%
AA 1 000 (social and ethical)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
SA 8 000 (social and ethical / labour)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Average
18%
18%
21%
15%
18%
17%
Environment
2%
5%
13%
0%
4%
Employees
3%
3%
0%
7%
3%
4%
SHE, HSE, EHS
1%
5%
4%
0%
2%
3%
Social / community / corporate citizenship
1%
5%
0%
0%
2%
2%
Health and safety
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
HIV/AIDS
0%
0%
4%
0%
1%
0%
Average
1%
3%
4%
1%
2%
2%
69%
18%
30%
46%
51%
59%
- Is mention made of a separate, publicly available report on:
2%
- Is a value added statement contained in the annual report?
Average
- Does the Chairman's Statement section mention any of the following?
Social / community
26%
17%
36%
50%
28%
33%
Empowerment
25%
11%
14%
45%
24%
33%
Environment / rehabilitation
16%
33%
36%
0%
20%
15%
Corporate governance
20%
6%
36%
23%
18%
20%
Employment equity / affirmative action / diversity
18%
6%
43%
23%
18%
19%
Health
9%
31%
21%
9%
15%
15%
Education / training
15%
3%
21%
27%
15%
17%
Safety
9%
33%
7%
0%
13%
14%
HIV/AIDS
9%
17%
14%
18%
13%
15%
Industrial relations / labour relations / worker participation
5%
17%
7%
9%
8%
10%
Ethics / Code of Conduct
4%
3%
7%
18%
6%
6%
Fraud strategy / f raud prevention
4%
0%
0%
18%
4%
8%
Sustainability / sustainable development
4%
3%
14%
5%
4%
6%
Average
13%
14%
20%
19%
14%
16%
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001 19
Top
Top
Public
Service
Industrials
Mines
Entities
Companies
Average
ALSI 100
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Education / training
39%
29%
58%
38%
41%
41%
Employment equity / affirmative action / diversity
35%
29%
58%
25%
36%
35%
Social / community
35%
29%
50%
19%
33%
32%
Empowerment
23%
14%
50%
25%
27%
22%
Rehabilitation / rehabilitation
26%
43%
33%
0%
23%
22%
Safety
10%
71%
42%
0%
20%
16%
Industrial relations / labour relations / worker participation
13%
0%
42%
13%
17%
16%
HIV/AIDS
3%
29%
58%
0%
15%
8%
Health
10%
29%
33%
0%
14%
14%
Sustainability / sustainable development
6%
14%
42%
0%
12%
8%
Corporate governance
6%
0%
33%
0%
9%
5%
Ethics / Code of Conduct
10%
14%
17%
0%
9%
11%
Fraud strategy / fraud prevention
6%
0%
8%
0%
5%
0%
Average
17%
23%
40%
9%
20%
18%
37%
82%
50%
- Does the CEO's Review section mention any of the following?
- Does the Business / Site Review section mention any of the following?
Education / training
36%
42%
41%
Rehabilitation / rehabilitation
24%
53%
55%
11%
31%
27%
Safety
17%
50%
45%
6%
25%
22%
Empowerment
24%
17%
27%
39%
24%
26%
Social / community
19%
23%
55%
22%
24%
21%
Health
13%
27%
64%
11%
20%
16%
Employment equity / affirmative action / diversity
21%
10%
27%
22%
19%
16%
Industrial relations / labour relations / worker participation
10%
37%
9%
17%
17%
19%
HIV/AIDS
13%
10%
27%
22%
15%
15%
Sustainability / sustainable development
7%
17%
18%
0%
9%
8%
Ethics / Code of Conduct
4%
7%
18%
11%
7%
7%
Corporate governance
3%
7%
0%
0%
3%
1%
Fraud strategy / fraud prevention
3%
0%
9%
6%
3%
4%
Average
18%
27%
41%
12%
21%
19%
- Does the Financial Statements section mention any of the following?
Environment / rehabilitation
5%
71%
22%
4%
21%
16%
Education / training
9%
5%
30%
25%
14%
11%
Health
6%
21%
26%
7%
12%
12%
Empowerment
6%
3%
17%
7%
7%
4%
Social / community
3%
8%
26%
0%
7%
3%
Employment equity / affirmative action / diversity
2%
8%
17%
0%
5%
2%
Safety
2%
5%
17%
0%
4%
3%
HIV/AIDS
0%
0%
0%
25%
4%
7%
Average
15%
25%
36%
11%
19%
17%
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001
Top
Top
Public
Service
Industrials
Mines
Entities
Companies
Average
ALSI 100
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
- Is there disclosure in a separate section for:
Corporate governance
91%
95%
65%
96%
89%
91%
Ethics / Code of Conduct
73%
63%
74%
71%
71%
68%
Fraud strategy / fraud prevention
17%
8%
22%
21%
16%
15%
Environment / rehabilitation
38%
63%
65%
21%
44%
38%
Health
29%
45%
57%
14%
34%
32%
HIV/AIDS
13%
18%
26%
29%
18%
22%
Safety
29%
50%
65%
4%
34%
29%
Social / community
43%
24%
70%
61%
45%
51%
Employment equity / affirmative action / diversity
74%
45%
70%
71%
67%
71%
Education / training
53%
24%
87%
50%
51%
49%
Industrial relations / labour relations / worker participation
52%
45%
52%
32%
47%
42%
Sustainability / sustainable development
9%
18%
30%
14%
15%
16%
Empowerment
20%
5%
39%
21%
20%
18%
Average
42%
39%
56%
39%
42%
42%
Total
21%
27%
35%
20%
24%
24%
48%
- What percentage of companies mention sustainablity issues only superficially in a separate section?
Ethics / Code of Conduct
60%
53%
57%
39%
55%
Industrial relations / labour relations / worker participation
43%
26%
35%
29%
36%
33%
Employment equity / affirmative action / diversity
45%
26%
17%
36%
36%
38%
Education / training
35%
11%
26%
32%
28%
29%
Environment / rehabilitation
22%
18%
30%
18%
22%
19%
Safety
20%
13%
39%
4%
18%
14%
Health
17%
16%
35%
11%
18%
16%
Fraud strategy / fraud prevention
16%
8%
22%
14%
15%
13%
Social / community
15%
3%
30%
14%
14%
14%
Sustainable development / sustainability
9%
18%
13%
14%
13%
15%
Empowerment
13%
0%
26%
14%
12%
11%
13%
HIV/AIDS
9%
3%
13%
25%
11%
Corporate governance
5%
13%
4%
7%
7%
4%
Average
24%
16%
27%
20%
22%
21%
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001 21
Annexure D
KPMG Sustainability Reporting Scorecard
- KPMG’s internationally developed Sustainability Reporting Scorecard synthesizes the
- reporting concepts and criteria of the Balanced Scorecard, the UNEP / SustainAbility 50
- Reporting Ingredients and the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. The scoring
- framework uses a ‘modular structure’, allowing for different requirement combinations and
- maximum scores for environmental, HSE, social, and sustainability reports for both
- manufacturing and non-manufacturing reporting entities.
The Scorecard contains a maximum of 127 questions, which vary depending on the report to be assessed. The questions are organised into 8 groups of criteria. The criteria for each group are briefly described below.
Financial Management
This dimension aims at assessing the financial implication of sustainability factors. It refers to topics like present and future costs, ad-spend, liabilities, government financial instruments (e.g. taxes, fines, subsidies) and their impacts on the reporting entity’s financial position, external costs, financial benefits related to sustainability improvement, charitable contributions, donations and sponsoring activities.
Eco-efficiency
This dimension aims at assessing the eco-efficiency measures put in place by the reporting entity from a qualitative perspective. The questions refer to energy, material and water efficiency programmes, property management, activities aimed at reducing any sort of discharge, dematerialising products or extending their durability, as well as the use of eco-efficiency indicators.
Sustainability Management
This section mainly aims at evaluating the description of the key components of the reporting entity’s management system. Of the questions included in it, some specifically refer to management systems in place, their conformity to national or international standards and external certification, while others check the legal compliance of the reporting entity and its adherence to internal policies.
Operational Performance
This section aims at illustrating how thoroughly the reporting entity describes its operational environmental, health, safety, social and / or sustainability performance. The questions assess the scope, quality and degree of specificity of the information concerning inputs, emissions, waste, transportation, packaging, as well as health and safety data and disclosure activities concerning business ethics, employment practices, community relations and ethical sourcing.
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001
Competence Management
The questions included in this dimension are used to assess the learning and growth dimension within the reporting entity. This section evaluates disclosure practices related to training programmes, internal recognition systems for outstanding performance and key personnel specifically appointed for environmental, health and safety, and social issues.
Innovations
This section aims at evaluating the reporting entity’s disclosure practices concerning innovations of products, processes or services, implementation of environmentally-driven technologies and R&D activities.
Stakeholder Management
This section is designed to assess the extent to which the reporting entity describes its relationship with both internal and external stakeholders, and how the relationship is managed. Sustainable Development issues are also included.
Product Performance
This section is designed to evaluate the quality and the degree of specificity of the information concerning the reporting entity’s Life Cycle management. The questions refer to Eco-Design activities, use of Life Cycle Assessments, product stewardship and Eco-labelled products.
Besides the already cited 8 groups of criteria, another 6 extra criteria are included in the questionnaire. They aim at assessing the structure of the report and relate to the: CEO Statement; Overview of the reporting entity; Reporting principles; Report design, layout and appearance; Report communication and feedback mechanisms, and Verification.
Each of the questions in the questionnaire is worth from 0 to 5 points. The scale refers to the presence or absence and the degree of specificity of each of the information items. A score of 0 indicates that the item is not reported, while a score of 5 is awarded if the required qualitative and quantitative information is provided, comparisons are made, future targets are set and, in addition to this, if the specific information has been benchmarked and independently verified.
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001 23
Annexure E
KPMG Sustainability Services
KPMG is one of the world’s largest global professional services organisations. In 2000, KPMG achieved record revenues of US$13.5 billion, an 11 percent increase driven by all of our major service lines. More than 100,000 KPMG professionals in member firms worldwide collaborate across industry, service and national boundaries to deliver professional services in 155 countries. Hence, we are well placed to assist organisations to respond pragmatically to the sustainability challenge. The heart of our approach is to relate environmental, social, ethical, economic and financial issues to the core strategy, management objectives and operational processes of any organisation.
Specifically, KPMG’s Sustainability Services Unit incorporates cover the Social and Ethical Integrity and the Environmental, Health and Safety spheres. These services are described briefly below.
Environment, health and safety (EHS)
KPMG has environmental practices comprising more than 160 professionals in 26 countries. In South Africa, our EHS Unit has offices in Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg and provides the following core services:
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001
■
Strategy and governance – conducting strategic analyses and corporate governance assessments to position EHS management for the future.
■
Management systems and standards – Certifying management systems for compliance with ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001.
■
Audits and assessments – auditing compliance of EHS management systems and performance with legal and other standards, including due diligence investigations.
■
Finance and accounting – integrating EHS issues into financial and accounting systems to provide essential management information.
■
Reporting and verification – benchmarking, advising on and verifying EHS data systems, disclosures and reports.
■
Ethics Line – providing an independent call-centre facility to manage stakeholder communications more efficiently and effectively.
■
Climate change and the Kyoto Protocol – providing strategic advice and verification services related to flexible instruments for greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
■
Briefings and training – supplying tailored presentations and courses on all aspects of our EHS services.
■
Research and benchmarking – conducting tailored research and benchmarking on all subjects related to our EHS services.
Social and ethical integrity
KPMG has ethics and integrity practices comprising more than 30 professionals in 9 countries. In South Africa, the Business Ethics Consulting Unit has offices in Cape Town and Johannesburg and provides the following core services:
■
Integrity Thermometer – applying an interactive, web-based tool that measures the level of integrity within an organisation.
■
Cards on the Table – introducing and facilitating a game of ethical dilemmas to sensitise staff to their ethical values.
■
Codes of Conduct – developing and implementing social and ethical policies and codes of conduct to guide organizations.
■
Accountability – advising on, developing and conducting social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting.
■
Ethics Helpline – assisting with the design and implementation of an internal helpline, or offering an independent call-centre service.
■
Impact Assessment – conducting ethics impact assessments on the effects of policies, procedures or specific actions.
■
Training – providing a one-day Introduction to Business Ethics course, as well as Ethics Officer training.
■
"Just right" services – supplying tailored services relating to ethics policy, communications and training.
For further information, please contact: Wayne Visser Environmental, Health & Safety Unit Tel: (021) 423 8940 Fax: (021) 423 8937 Email: wayne.visser@kpmg.co.za Daniël Malan Business Ethics Consulting Tel: (021) 408 7000 Fax: (021) 419 7503 Email: daniel.malan@kpmg.co.za
Website: http://www.kpmg.co.za
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001 25
Annexure F
Frater Asset Management
Frater’s believes that research into corporate citizenship is fundamental supplement to financial and operational analysis of the companies that it invests in. Of particular importance is the assessment of company performance in relation to:
■
The environment through sound environmental plans
■
Shareholders through transparent corporate governance
■
Employees through fair labour practices and employment equity
■
Broader communities through participation in social development
■
Customers through the provision of safe, healthy and transparent goods and services; and
■
Suppliers through dialogue of the above issues and through procurement policies that target empowerment companies.
These aspects will form a core part of Frater Asset Management’s investment process into the future:
No day passes without demand for an increase in regulatory levels to prevent businessmen/women from flouting basic social responsibility requirements. Failure by companies to address issues relating to corporate citizenship will inevitably result in increased liabilities, and restrictions on their ability to expand their capital base and markets both internationally and in South Africa.
This research exposes the level of disclosure on these issues in publicly available reports, and offers an indication of which companies are taking corporate citizenship seriously. From the investment perspective, this offers an insight into the quality of management and its ability to limit both tangible and intangible liabilities through constructive engagement with stakeholders. Inability to deal with these issues in a systematic and proactive fashion will eventually affect company performance through superfund responsibilities, labour disputes, failure to attract business, loss of export contracts, negative investor and customer perception and social disputes. Fraters supports KPMG in their endeavours to bring the sustainability debate into company strategy.
- Should you require further information, please contact:
- William Frater
- Frater Asset Management
- Tel: (011) 426 1313
- Fax: (011) 426 0999
- Email: william@fraters.co.za
Website: http://www.fraters.co.za or http://www.earthequity.co.za/
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001
Annexure G
University of the Witwatersrand
SASOL Centre for Innovative Environmental Management & SASOL Chair in Environmental Engineering.
In 1999, SASOL and WITS embarked on a far-reaching effort to create excellence in innovative environmental engineering and management. The purpose of this venture is threefold:
■
To make better use of resources in setting priorities for innovative environmental management in South Africa;
■
To improve the link between long-term, outcome-based, customer-focused, innovative environmental management; and
■
To develop procedures and processes that will lead to effective assessment of our accomplishments and provide useful feedback for making future decisions.
The strategic goals of SCIEM and SCEE are:
■
Mobilize environmental engineering and management resources in providing environmental solutions;
■
Develop innovative environmental solutions;
■
Foster a culture of innovation in environmental engineering and management;
■
Integrate wisdom and insight; and
■
Ensure business services excellence.
The Core Competencies of SCIEM and SCEE are:
■
Industrial Ecology and Industrial Environmental Management;
■
Synthesis of Multidisciplinary knowledge;
■
Innovative solutions for sustainability; and
■
Effective International Network Leverage.
The Chair is currently occupied by Prof. Prvoslav Marjanovic while a full staff complement includes three academics, a research and development officer, administrative assistant and a senior laboratory technician. The Chair and the Centre engage in research, specialized consultancy and teaching and offer the only undergraduate Environmental Engineering Degree Option in Africa and a unique postgraduate study programme. A number of projects for industry have been conducted by SCIEM ranging from Waste Management Planning to Sustainability of Particular Industrial Operations. Currently 15 MSc students and 6 PhD students are working for their higher degrees with SCIEM & SCEE.
Should you require Further Information please contact: Prof. Prvoslav Marjanovic SASOL Professor of Environmental Engineering School of Civil & Environmental Engineering University of the Witwatersrand Tel: (011) 717 7123 Fax: (011) 403 8851 Email: banem@civen.civil.wits.ac.za
Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001 27
Notes
- Survey of Sustainability Reporting in South Africa – 2001
Notes
- Rated the best
- by Professional Management Review (PMR),
- a leading South African management publication
- 1999
- Golden Arrow
- Top management consultants (separate division of
- auditing or accounting firm)
- 2000
- Golden Arrow
- Top auditing and accounting firm
- Golden Arrow
- Top financial consultants to government
- Silver Arrow
- Top accounting/auditing firm in e-business
- Voted as one of The Best Companies To Work For
- by auditing firm, Deloitte & Touche and leading SA
- business publication, Financial Mail
- 2000/2001
- Nominated for Impumelelo South Africa’s Top 300 Black
- Empowerment Companies of the Year Award
- (voted by its peers as a pioneer and an innovative
- enterprise within its business market)