KPMG—IEF Top SA Companies Environmental Survey 1997

Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction

Methodology

Findings

E nvironmental import a n c e

E nvironmental awa r e n e s s

P u blic perception

E nvironmental market forces

E nvironmental initiative s

E nvironmental standards

E nvironmental gove rn a n c e

E nvironmental ex p e n d i t u r e

1 0

E nvironmental advice and support

1 0

Conclusions

Appendices

Survey questionnaire

Industrial Environmental Forum of SA

KPMG’s Environmental Unit

Executive Summary

This report details the findings of an of South

A f r i c a ’s top companies, undertaken jointly by

KPMG and the Industrial Environmental

Forum (IEF) during May 1997.

The findings suggest that env i r o nmental issues are already import a n t for South Africa’s top companies and are anticipated to become i n c r e a s i n g ly so, driven by a number of key forces in the market. With this change will come increasing levels of competence in the top companies’ ability to manage their env i r o n m e n t a l impacts and performance, as we l l rising expectations from stake h o l d e r s for credible demonstrations of continuous improvement in this area. Hence, South Africa’s top companies are going to have to face up to the challenge of integrating env i r o nmental considerations into their core business, and finding an acceptabl e balance between environmental and other priorities.

Sample design and methodology

The sample of around 200 companies
included South Africa’s top 150
companies (ranked by assets), as we l l
as key KPMG clients and IEF
members not within the top 150. The
t wo page questionnaire wa s
completed using a combination of
telephone and fax methods.

Survey response

Almost half (45%) of the sample,
with diverse sector representation,
responded to the survey (an
ex t r e m e ly high percentage by
c o nventional market research
standards). This in itself is an
indication of a high level of interest
in environmental issues by South
A f r i c a ’s top companies. The fi n d i n g s
c o n fi rmed and enlarged on this
p o s i t ive theme.

Environmental importance

The environment is already rega r d e d
as a strategic issue by three quart e r s
(76%) of South Africa’s top
companies. Furt h e rmore, , the
ove r whelming majority (84%) agr e e d
that the significance of env i r o n-
mental issues for their company
would “increase” over the next 5
years, with the rest thinking they
would “stay the same”. Not one
c o m p a ny expected them to
“ d e c r e a s e ” .

Environmental awareness

Respondents showed an ex p e c t e d
p a t t e rn of perceived higher awa r e n e s s
among senior management,
decreasing through middle
management and least among non-
managerial staff. Awareness about
the environmental implications of
various policy-based documents wa s
l ow on the whole, part i c u l a r ly in
relation to the new SA Env i r o n m e n t
Po l i cy and the Env i r o n m e n t a l
Management standard ISO 14001.
This suggests that what progr e s s
there has been, is being driven by
s p e c i fic business related fa c t o r s ,
rather than an overall change in
operating env i r o n m e n t .

Environmental market forces

Most of the top companies seemed p r e s e n t ly unaffected or unconcern e d with nega t ive public perception about their level of environmental responsib i l i t y. The majority (57%) felt that it was “neutral or unaware” and more than a third (36%) believed it to be “ g e n e r a l ly positive”. An indication that this was expected to change, h oweve r, was indicated by almost two thirds (63%) of the top companies stating that “public opinion” wa s l i ke ly to become a signifi c a n t pressure for greater env i r o n m e n t a l responsibility within their orga n isation and industry. Other pressures cited by the majority of respondents were “gove rnment policy / l eg i s l a t i o n ” (83%), “customer demands” (62%) and “international trade” (51%).

Environmental initiatives

The extent to which env i r o n m e n t a l i n i t i a t ives have been implemented within the top companies is encouraging overall. Just over half of the respondents have an env i r o nmental policy (62%), give env i r o nmental donations or sponsorship (55%) and have an env i r o n m e n t a l management system (53%), and less than half implemented other i n i t i a t ives such in the areas of e nvironmental assessments, auditing and reporting.

Environmental standards

More than half of the top companies h ave gone, or are going, the route of adopting various vo l u n t a ry env i r o nmental standards, and among these, the ISO 14001 Env i r o n m e n t a l Management standard is under consideration by quite a few c o m p a n i e s .

Environmental governance

Almost half of the top companies h ave their “most senior person r e s p o n s i ble for environmental issues” on their Board of Directors, with most of the rest having representation at a Senior Management leve l . Respondents were more or less split eve n ly on allocating env i r o n m e n t a l responsibility as a Line or Support function, but ve ry few treat it as Independent.

Three quarters of the top companies had one or more staff with either fulltime or part time env i r o n m e n t a l responsibilities, and on average there were 27 such staff for each of these companies. The number of full-time s t a ff with environmental responsibility tended to be less than their p a rt-time compatriots, while in both cases, more Support than Te c h n i c a l and Management staff were fi l l i n g these positions.

Environmental support and advice

While almost half of the top
companies draw support through
membership with the IEF and/or
other industry associations
addressing environmental issues, two
thirds have employed the ex p e rtise of
ex t e rnal environmental consultants or
specialists in their env i r o n m e n t a l
p e r f o rmance improvement processes.

Environmental expenditure

More than a third of companies are budgeting in excess of R1 million per annum for env i r o n m e n t a l ly - r e l a t e d expenditure, with one company r e p o rting its expenditure to be ove r R100 million.

Introduction

This KPMG-IEF Top SA Companies

Environmental Survey is significant for several reasons:

n R e l evance - the trend towa r d e nvironmental responsibility in business is becoming i n c r e a s i n g ly important for South A f r i c a ’s top companies; hence so is the need to understand curr e n t p e r f o rmance and needs in this a r e a n C o n t r i bution - this introductory s u rvey adds some understanding to an important field of enquiry and practice, and may serve as the basis for more in-depth f o l l ow-up research.

n Timeliness - the research take s place at a time when seve r a l forces are conve rging to push the e nvironmental agenda forwa r d (e.g. a new National E nvironmental Po l i cy, ISO14001, and increasing env i r o n m e n t a l a c t iv i s m ) n Credibility - the co-operation b e t ween the Industrial E nvironmental Fo rum (IEF) and K P M G ’s Environment Unit in u n d e rtaking this research make s for a credible and eff e c t ive p a rt n e r s h i p

n L e a rning - the nature of the
feedback of these results is
intended to make the findings a
resource for learning and
continuing to improve env i r o n-
mental management and
p e r f o rmance among South
A f r i c a ’s top companies

The findings are reported under the same subject areas used in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

Methodology

r e p o rt, took approx i m a t e ly three months to complete.

The primary sample for this survey comprised of South Africa’s top 150 companies (listed and unlisted), including the top 100 industrial, as ranked by asset size in the Financial Mail Top Companies Survey 1996. Approximately another 50 companies,

IEF members and key KPMG clients, outside the primary sample were also added to give a total sample size of around 200 companies.

This approach helped ensure that analysis would be significant and all major economic sectors represented.

Sample companies were contacted by telephone larg e ly via their head o ffices, and asked to refer the appropriate person in the orga n i s a t i o n r e s p o n s i ble for environmental issues and best placed to answer the survey. K n own environmental representative s within certain companies, especially IEF members, were also approached d i r e c t ly where appropriate. Upon e s t a blishing contact with the above - mentioned person, particular care was taken to explain the import a n c e of participation in the survey and to g ive assurance of the confi d e n t i a l i t y of individual responses.

Once agreement to participate in the s u rvey was obtained, blank questionnaires were fa xed through for completion. Respondents had the option to self-complete the survey s and return them by fax or to complete them with a KPMG or IEF r e p r e s e n t a t ive over the telephone (the f o rmer method was almost ex c l u s ive ly preferred by r e s p o n d e n t s ) .

A total of 90 companies, or 45% of the overall sample, responded to the s u rvey. This is ex t r e m e ly high by c o nventional market research standards, which may be attribu t a bl e to a number of factors, including the t i m e ly relevance of the subject, the p r o a c t ive targeting of env i r o n m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t ives, the brevity and clarity of the questionnaire design, the ease and effi c i e n cy of the research medium (i.e. telephone and fax) and the credibility of the survey u n d e rt a kers (i.e. KPMG and IEF).

The respondents represented almost
half of South Africa’s top companies.
S p e c i fi c a l ly, 48% of the top 50
companies, 51% of the top 100 and
44% of the top 150 responded,
including 44% of the top 50
industrial and 41% of the top 100
i n d u s t r i a l .

A good spread of the economic sectors was also achieve d, probably in proportion to their ove r a l l representation. As shown in Fi g u re 1, the Mining, Financial (Banking and Insurance), Industrial Holdings, Fo o d, and Chemicals & oils sectors were most dominant in the responses, but not to the extent that they unduly bias the results. Neve rtheless, less c o m m e n t a ry is given to sectors with less than 5% (i.e. 4 respondents) r e p r e s e n t e d .

Fi gur e 1 : Rel at iv e shar e of economi c sect or s r epr esent ed by t op

Sector Repre s e n t a t i o n

I n d u s h o l d g

B a n k i n g

Util & semi-publ i c

B ev hotel & leisure

P h a rm & med

F u rn & hshld

S t o r e s

Completed surveys where then captured and analysed as the basis for writing this report of the fi n d i n g s . The entire process, including p u blication and distribution of this

Paper & pkg

Tr a n s p o rt

E l e c t r o n i c s

1 0%

1 2%

1 4%

Findings

Environmental Importance

The results of the survey show that e nvironment has already become a s t r a t egic issue for three quart e r s (76%) of South Africa’s top companies. A third (36%) of respondents indicate that env i r o nmental issues are curr e n t ly considered to be “ve ry strateg i c ” , while slightly more (40%) regard it as “fa i r ly strategic”. Only a quart e r (24%) listed environment as “not s t r a t eg i c ” .

The industry results for this key question are ve ry interesting. As s h own in Figure 2, the majority of the top companies in the follow i n g industries (in order of representative size) regarded environmental issues as “ve ry strategic”: Mining, Utilities & semi-public; Engineering; F u rniture & household; Motor; and P h a rmaceutical & medical.

On the other end of the scale, half or
more of the companies in the
f o l l owing industries (again in order
of representative size) considered
e nvironment as “not strategic” to
their business: Insurance; Paper &
packaging; Steel & allied; Stores;
Printing & publishing; and Tr a n s p o rt .
These sector findings must be
i n t e rpreted bearing in mind their
p r o p o rtion of the total sample show n
in Figure 1.

C o n fi rming the gr owing import a n c e of the environment for business, an ove r whelming majority (84%) of the top companies agreed that the significance of environmental issues for their company would “increase” ove r the next 5 years, with the rest thinking they would “stay the same”. Not one company expected them to “ d e c r e a s e ” .

N eve rtheless, these relative strateg i c perceptions by the various industry sectors tended in turn to be reflected throughout the rest of the questionnaire responses. Industries in which environmental issues we r e seen as “ve ry strategic” we r e g e n e r a l ly more aware and proactive than those where it is considered a lesser priority.

Fi gur e 2: Pr opor t i onal r esponse of i ndust r y sect or s t o st r at egic env i r onment al f ocus

S t rategic env i ro n m e n t a l

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Not strateg i c n

Fa i r ly strateg i c n

Ve ry strateg i c

Environmental Awareness

Respondents showed an ex p e c t e d p a t t e rn of perceived higher awa r e n e s s among senior management, decreasing through middle management and least among nonmanagerial staff, although this may include a marginal bias on the part of the individuals filling in the questionnaires who were mainly in management themselves. This is illustrated in Fi g u re 3.

Fi g u re 4 indicates that awa r e n e s s about the environmental implications of various policy-based documents, was low on the whole, part i c u l a r ly r egarding the new SA Env i r o n m e n t Po l i cy and the Env i r o n m e n t a l Management standard ISO 14001.

St af f aw ar ene ss

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

19%

56%

60%

39%

21%

Senior management

Middle management

36%

48%

49%

34%

Non-managerial staff

Fi gur e 3: Env ir onment al aw ar eness at dif f er ent st af f lev els

Public Perception

Most of the top companies seemed u n a ffected or unconcerned with any n ega t ive public perception about their l evel of environmental responsibility, with the majority (57%) answe r i n g that it was “neutral or unaware” and more than a third (36%) answe r i n g that it was “generally positive”. Only 7% admitted to public perception which was “generally nega t ive ” .

Policy-document awa re n e s s

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% n n

45%

38%

29%

15%

18%

26%

31%

N ew SA

ISO 14001

King Report on

C o n s t i t u t i o n

E nv i r o n m e n t

E nv i r o n m e n t a l

C o rp o r a t e

Po l i cy

M a n a g e m e n t

G ove rn a n c e

S t a n d a r d

Fi gur e 4: Env ir onment al aw ar eness of v ar ious pol icy - based document s

n n

Low Medium High

Environmental Market Forces As illustrated in Fi g u re 5, there wa s broad consensus (83%) that “ g ove rnment policy / l eg i s l a t i o n ” would be the most signifi c a n t pressure for greater env i r o n m e n t a l responsibility within the top companies and their industries. Other pressures cited by at least half of the respondents were “public opinion” (64%), “customer demands” (62%) and “international trade” (51%). I n t e r e s t i n g ly, less than a third of companies (27%) viewed “env i r o nmental groups” as a force for change and almost none (6%) anticipated a ny “supplier demands”.

Environmental Initiatives

Fi g u re 6 s h ows that the extent to
which environmental initiatives have
been implemented within the top
companies is encouraging ove r a l l .
Just over half of the respondents have
an environmental policy (62%), give
e nvironmental donations or
sponsorship (55%) and have an
e nvironmental management system
(53%).

And in the area of env i r o n m e n t a l disclosure and reporting, 40% of top companies include an env i r o n m e n t a l r e p o rt in the annual financial report , 13% have produced a separate e nvironmental report and 11% have obtained third party ve r i fication of their reporting. Just 4% have any kind of environmental accounting s y s t e m .

Various types of env i r o n m e n t a l
assessments and audits have been
conducted by some companies,
m o s t ly environmental impact
assessments and env i r o n m e n t a l
audits by internal staff (both 46%).

E nv i ronmental market fo rc e s

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

G ove rn m e n t p o l i cy

P u bl i c o p t i o n s

C u s t o m e r d e m a n d s

I n t e rn a t i o n a l t r a d e

M k t
o p p o rt u n i t i e s

Fi gur e 5: Most signi f i cant pr essur es f or env ir onment al r esponsi bil it y

E nv i ronmental initiative s

7 0 % 6 0 % 5 0 % 4 0 % 3 0 % 2 0 % 1 0 % 0 %

Fi gur e 6 : Implement at ion of env i r onment al i ni t i at i v es

E nv s t a n d a r d s

E nv gr o u p s

C o m p e t i t o r s

S u p p l i e r d e m a n d s

E nv i ronmental standard s

N o n - r e s p o n s e

ISO1 4001 Env i r o n m e n t a l Management standard

IEF Code of Conduct

I n d u s t ry specific or Other S t a n d a r d s ICC Business Charter for S u s t a i n a ble Deve l o p m e n t

0 %

5 %

1 0 % 1 5 % 2 0 % 2 5 % 3 0 % 3 5 % 4 0 % 4 5 %

Figur e 7: Per cent age of t op companies compl y i ng w i t h env ir onment al st andar ds

ISO 14001

C e rt i f y i n g

Not cert i f y i n g

U n awa r e

Not pursuing

N o n - r e s p o n s e

0 %

5 %

1 0 % 1 5 % 2 0 % 2 5 % 3 0 % 3 5 %

Figur e 8: Lev el of inv olv ement by t op compani es in ISO 14 00 1

Environmental Standards

Various international and industry - s p e c i fic environmental standards h ave emerged in recent years, both to codify good practice and to allow s t a keholders to compare levels of commitment to improved env i r o nmental performance among top companies. In our survey, as show n in Fi g u re 7, almost half (42%) of the top companies were neither a s i g n a t o ry nor striving for compliance with any vo l u n t a ry env i r o n m e n t a l standard. The same amount (40%), h oweve r, listed the Intern a t i o n a l Standards Orga n i s a t i o n ’s (ISO) E nvironmental Management standard ISO 14001, while a third (30%) we r e signatories to the Industrial E nvironmental Fo rum (IEF) code of Conduct.

S p e c i fi c a l ly with respect to ISO
14001, a quarter (25%) of
respondents were unaware of its
detail, while at the other end of the
scale, a third (31%) were active ly
pursuing cert i fication, with a similar
number (29%) pursuing the
guidelines but not intending to obtain
c e rt i fication (see Fi g u re 8).

E nv i ronmental gove rnance leve l

Board of directors Senior management Middle management

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

E nv i ronmental gove rnance function

L i n e

S u p p o rt

I n d e p e n d e n t

N o n - r e s p o n s e

0 %

1 0 %

Environmental Governance

Almost half (46%) of the top companies have their “most senior person responsible for env i r o n m e n t a l issues” at Board of Directors, with a similar number (43%) hav i n g representation at the Senior Management level, but ve ry few (11%) as low as Middle M a n a g e m e n t .

Respondents were more or less split eve n ly in half on whether env i r o nmental responsibility was a line (52%) or Support (47%) function, with ve ry f ew (12%) treating it as Independent.

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

Three quarters (73%) of the top
companies had one or more staff
with either full-time or part time
e nvironmental responsibilities, and
on average there were 26.8 such staff
for each of these companies. Full-
time staff with environmental respon-
sibility tended to be less (49% of
companies and 16.05 staff ave r a g e )
than their part-time compatriots (61%
and 19.28). The breakdown of these
into management, technical and
s u p p o rt functions is illustrated in
Ta ble 1:

5 0 %

6 0 %

50%

Staff with environmental responsibility

F u l l - t i m e (% of total)

F u l l - t i m e (average n u m b e r of staff)

P a r t - t i m e (% of total)

Part-time (average number of staff)

To t a l

5 0

1 6 . 0 5

6 0

1 9 . 2 8

M a n a g e m e n t

8 2

4 . 3 6

7 7

9 . 2 6

Te c h n i c a l

6 6

8 . 7 2

7 2

7 . 8 2

S u p p o r t

5 5

1 2 . 3 3

5 3

1 1 . 9 6

Note: These figures are based only on the companies who have environmental staff

Table 1: St af f w i t h env i r onment al r esponsibil it y

These findings emphasise the need for a high level of competence among ex t e rnal environmental consultants in order to add value and wo r k e ff e c t ive ly with these internal env i r o nmental staff representative s .

Environmental Expenditure

E nv i r o n m e n t a l ly-related ex p e n d i t u r e is an indicator of env i r o n m e n t a l commitment by the top companies, and although 18% of them did not k n ow how much they are spending in this area, it is encouraging that a third (35%) are spending in excess of R1 million and 18% are spending b e t ween R100,000 and R1 million. This breakdown, illustrated in Fi g u re 9, places an absolute minimum floor on the environmental marke t size of around R40 million. Clearly, h oweve r, the survey scale used wa s inadequate to capture the real ex t e n t of environmental expenditure, wh e n one considers that one of the top companies has a budgeted figure for 1996/7 of more than R100 million on its ow n .

Environmental Advice and S u p p o r t

Two thirds (69%) of the top
companies have employed the
ex p e rtise of ex t e rnal env i r o n m e n t a l
consultants or specialists in their
e nvironmental perform a n c e
i m p r ovement processes.

In addition, almost half (47%) draw s u p p o rt through membership with the IEF and/or other industry associations addressing environmental issues.

E nv i ronmental ex p e n d i t u re

Non-response 7%

<R10,000 9%

D o n ’t know

R10,000-R10,000 13%

>R1m 35%

R10,000-R1m 18%

Fi gur e 9: Lev el of env i r onment al ex pendi t ur e by t op companies

Conclusions

E nvironmental issues are already i m p o rtant for SA’s top companies and are anticipated to become i n c r e a s i n g ly so, driven by a number of key forces in the m a r ket. With this change will come increasing levels of competence in the top companies’ ability to manage their env i r o nmental impacts and perform a n c e , as well rising expectations from s t a keholders for credibl e demonstrations of continuous i m p r ovement in this area. Hence, South Africa’s top companies are going to have to face up to the challenge of integrating env i r o nmental considerations into their core business, and finding an a c c e p t a ble balance betwe e n e nvironmental and other priorities.

Annexure A

Environmental Survey Questionnaire

K P MG — IE F Top C o mp a ni e s En vi r o nm en t a l Sur v ey

Respondent details (complete each section)

Title and name of person completing this questionnaire: Position and department:

Name of organisation: Industry sector:

Environmental importance ( t ick t he appropriat e box) a.

In your perception to what extent are environmental issues currently considered to be of strategic importance in your organisation?

Very strategic Fairly strategic Not strategic b.

Low

b. What would you say is the level of awareness in your organisation about the environmental implications of the following policy-based documents?

o o o

How do you forsee the significance of environmental issues for your organisation changing over the next 5 years? Do you expect their significance will:

Increase Remain the same Decrease o o o

Environmental awareness a.

What would you say is the level of environmental awareness in your organisation among the various levels of staff?

Senior management:
High
Medium
Low o o o
Middle management:
High
Medium
Low o o o

Non-managerial staff: High Medium o o o 3.

New SA Constitution
High
Medium
Low o o o
New SA Environment Policy
High
Medium
Low o o o

ISO 14001 High Medium Low o o o

King Report on Corporate Governance
High
Medium
Low o o o

Public perception

H ow would you regard the general public perception of your orga n i s a t i o n ’s level of environmental responsibility?

Generally positive Neutral or unaware Generally negative o o o

Environmental market forces

Which of the following factors, if any, would you regard as significant pressures for greater environmental responsibility within your organisation and/or industry?

a. At what level in your organisation is the most senior person responsible for environmental issues ?
Government policy/legislation
Customer demands
Supplier demands
International trade
Competitors
Public opinion
Environmental groups
Market opportunities
Voluntary environmental standards or agreements

o o o o o o o o o

b. Is environmental responsibility a line, support or independent function in your organisation?

6. o

Environmental standards

a. Is your organisation either a signatory or striving for compliance with any of the following voluntary environmental standards?
ICC Business Charter for Sustainable Development
ISO 14001 Environmental Management Voluntary
Standard
IEF
Code of Conduct
Industry-specific or other standards; please state
(e.g. Responsible Care, Chamber of Mines
Environmental Guidelines, UNEP Statements
on Sustainable Development, others) b. c.

Approximately how many staff in management, technical and support positions, if any, are engaged full-time and/or part-time with environmental responsibilities?

Full-time: Management Technical Support

___ ___ ___

Part-time: Management Technical Support

___ ___ ___

Environmental advice

a. As far as you are aware, has your organisation employed the expertise of external environmental consultants or specialists in the past or the present?

Yes o

No o

b. Is your organisation a member of the IEF and/or any other industry association addressing environmental issues (please state)?

Yes o

No o c.

Please list the names of all the external environmental consultants or specialists of which you are aware?

Environmental Expenditure o o o o S p e c i fi c a l ly with respect to ISO14001, is your orga n i s a t i o n :

Unaware of the detail of ISO14001 at this stage
Aware of ISO14001 but have decided not
to pursue it
Pursuing the guidelines of ISO14001 but not
intending to obtain certification
Actively pursuing ISO 14001 certification o o o
Line
Support
Independent

As far as you are aware, which of the following environmentally-related activities or initiatives, if any, has your organisation implemented or is it implementing?

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Board of directors Senior management Middle management

Environmental initiatives (t ick t he appropriat e box)

Environmental donations or sponsorship
Environmental policy
Strategic environmental review
Environmental management system
Environmental due diligence risk assessment
Environmental audit by internal staff
Environmental audit by external party
Environmental accounting system
Environmental report in the annual financial report
Separate public environmental report
Third party verification of environmental reporting
Environmental impact assessment
Signatory or certification with respect to specific
voluntary environmental standards

Environmental governance o o

Please could you give an approximate estimate of your annual budget for environmentally related expenditure o o o o o

<R10,000
R10,000-R100,000
R100,000-R1m
>R1m
Don’t know

Survey feedback o o

a. Would you like to receive a copy of the aggregated findings report from this survey?

Yes o

No

If you have any queries relating to this survey, please contact Wayne Visser from KPMG (021 419-9970) or Karin Ireton from Industrial Environmental Forum (011 800-2687) o

Annexure B

List of Survey Respondents

Banking

Food

ABSA Bank Ltd Boland Bank First National Bank G e n b e l NBS Holdings Saambou Bank Standard Bank The SA Bank of Athens

Blue Ribbon Bake r i e s C a d bu ry Schewe p p e s I l l ovo Suga r Ke l l og Co Nabisco (Delfood) Pick 'n Pay Premier Milling To n gaat-Hulett Group Tr a n s vaal Suga r

Beverages, Hotels & Leisure

Kersaf (Sun Intern a t i o n a l ) K W V SA Breweries (Beer Div i s i o n ) S F W S u n c ru s h

Building,Construction & Allied

Alpha Limited Concor Holdings G r i n a ke r LTA P P C

Chemicals & Oils

A E C I Atomic Enery Corp o r a t i o n C a l t ex Oil (SA) E n g e n P l a s c o n Po l i fi n S a s o l S e n t r a c h e m

Clothing, Footwear & Textiles

S e a r d e l

Electronics

R e u n e rt

Engineering

A B B A f r ox D o r by l

Furniture, Household & allied

A F C O L
A m r e l
Elida Po n d s

Industrial Holding

Cullinan Holding
Grincor (Unicorn Lines)
I m p e r i a l
K l i p t o n
M&R Holdings
P G S I
Rand Merchant Bank
Safren (Rennies Group)
T&N Holdings

Insurance

L i b e rty Life Metropolitan Life Old Mutual Group Sage Group

Mining

A l u s a f A m c o a l Anglo American A n g l ovaal (Av g o l d ) De Beers Gold Fields of SA Impala Platinum I n g we Coal Corp . J C I Marlin Granite

S a m a n c o r Trans Natal Coal Vaal Reefs

Motor

Johnson Matthey Nissan SA Toyota Marke t i n g Vo l k swagen of SA

Paper & Packaging

M o n d i N a m p a k

Pharmaceutical & Medical

Adcock Ingr a m Clinic Holdings SA Dru g g i s t

Printing & Publishing

Pe r s ko r

Steel & Allied

H iveld Steel I s c o r

Stores

M c C a rt hy Retail
S e a rtec Ind. (Sharp )

Transport

U n i t r a n s

Utilities/Public Sector

D evelopment Bank of SA
E nv i r o s e rv Holdings
E s ko m
Te l kom SA
Umgeni Wa t e r

Annexure C

Industrial Environmental Forum of South Africa

The IEF was formed in 1990 by a group of South Africa’s leading business people and industrialists who shared a common vision of the dynamic role that business should p l ay in the protection of the e nvironment. Their overarching goals included the follow i n g : n to show that business was a s i g n i ficant force in this e n d e avour and part of the ove r a l l solution to env i r o n m e n t a l p r o bl e m s . n to be a monitor for maintaining c o s t - e ff e c t ive and realistic targ e t s in environmental progr a m m e s . n to raise general awa r e n e s s amongst organisations in the r egion and to create a network of a ffiliated groups committed to the belief that good bu s i n e s s management equates comfort a bly with good env i r o n m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t .

Members of the IEF are committed to continuous improvement, selfr egulation and openness about p e r f o rmance in the env i r o n m e n t a l arena. To this end env i r o n m e n t a l management concepts need to be i n t egrated into the overall bu s i n e s s process. This philosophy is embodied in a 10-point code which the IEF adopted in 1991.

It is a proactive rather than a reactive approach to environmental issues which stresses that initial inve s t m e n t is inva r i a bly more eff e c t ive than c o s t ly retroactive measures. Members r e c ognise the crucial influence that e nvironmental matters play in d e t e rmining long-term bu s i n e s s s u c c e s s .

The IEF also strives to engender
e nvironmental awareness by
channelling knowledge and ex p e rt i s e
to the business community in its
r egion and encourages an atmosphere
for innova t ive thinking rather than
p r e s c r i p t ive controls.

The IEF is an independent, impart i a l , n o n - p r o fit organisation which is selffinanced through annual membership fees and cost contributions from p a rticipants at specific eve n t s .

Should you require furt h e r i n f o rmation, please contact

Ms Karin Ireton
IEF of SA
Tel: 011-800-2687
( D 2 X 3 5 )
Fax: 011-800-4360
P O Box 1091
JOHANNESBURG 2000

Annexure D

KPMG Environment Unit

E nvironmental concerns have become a strategic issue for bu s i n e s s , d r iven by changes in leg i s l a t ive requirements, stake h o l d e r expectations, financiers’ criteria and the limits of the ecosystem itself.

In response, KPMG has deve l o p e d business advisory and auditing s e rvices in 27 countries which enabl e its clients to deal with these issues p r o a c t ive ly. KPMG’s env i r o n m e n t a l s e rvices in South Africa are described in general terms below, although they are tailored more s p e c i fi c a l ly to client needs in p r a c t i c e . n e nv i ronmental management - aligning corporate strateg y, p o l i cy, operations and communication with env i r o n m e n t a l o b j e c t ives, towards compliance with intern a t i o n a l ly recog n i s e d standards such as ISO14001; n e nv i ronmental accounting and reporting - calculating and c o rr e c t ly reporting past, present and anticipated future env i r o nm e n t a l ly-related costs and b e n e fits incurred or caused by the business, and advising on their financial implications; n e nv i ronmental inv e s t i gations - due diligence or liability inve s t igations related to corp o r a t e transactions such as mergers & acquisitions, property transfer, and stock market listing, as we l l as advising on env i r o n m e n t a l ly - related litiga t i o n .

n e nv i ronmental and social
auditing - s y s t e m a t i c ,
d o c u m e n t e d, periodic and
o b j e c t ive evaluation of env i r o n-
mental management systems,
r e p o rts and any other env i r o n-
mental claims being made by
companies, as well as wider
s t a keholder management if
r e q u i r e d .

n e nv i ronmental training - s h o rt i n t r o d u c t o ry courses (between 2 and 5 days) on env i r o n m e n t a l management and env i r o n m e n t a l auditing, ideal for creating pragmatic env i r o n m e n t a l awareness and understanding within orga n i s a t i o n s .

n e nv i ronmental softwa re - l i f e cycle assessment and process reengineering software to aid in materials, energy and waste flow m a n a g e m e n t .

Should you require furt h e r i n f o rmation, please contact:

Wayne Vi s s e r
KPMG Environmental Unit
Tel: (021) 238940
PO Box 5564
Fax: (021) 238937
Cape Town 8000